Pelosi defends al Qaeda, chastises Bush (Update: Video added)

posted at 4:49 pm on November 28, 2006 by Ian

Pelosi is mad Bush is blaming violence in Iraq on al Qaeda:

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is “sad” that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

“My thoughts on the president’s representations are well-known,” Pelosi said. “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.”

If it’s not al Qaeda’s fault that they are killing soldiers and innocent civilians, then who should be blamed? Bush? U.S. Soldiers? America?


Update (Bryan): What a clueless gasbag. She supported Abscam pal Murtha over Hoyer. She almost put an impeached corruptocrat in charge of House Intel. And now she shows the world that she doesn’t know what the tainted 9-11 Commission did and did not study and report on. I had low expectations for Pelosi, yet I still find her dimwitted lurching from one idiotic scene to another surprising.

And she’s going to be a couple of heartbeats from the presidency.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The American voters will wake up someday and take a look at the woman they went to bed with and (hopefully) realize what a mistake they made.

BigOrangeAxe on November 29, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Perhaps. My money says Bush drops to 25% approval before all is said and done.

honora on November 29, 2006 at 11:19 AM

Constantine, the Democrats DIDN’T win this past election. the Republicans lost, because they didn’t remain loyal to their conservative base. had they remain loyal to the conservative base, then the Republicans would still be in power & not trying to “cut & run” like you liberals want to. btw – E L is right you liberals are cheering for Osama to beat the U.S. & you liberals do want the U.S. to lose the war on terror.

Starblazer on November 29, 2006 at 12:35 AM

Yeah I often try that excuse when my football team loses–the other team didn’t win, we blew it. Oddly enough it still shows up in the W column for the other team……

honora on November 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM

honora and Constantine,

Please don’t tell me you actually believe there is no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq? That it was all made up by Bush and the Republicans? Do you think that all the correspondence we have intercepted or found in raids between AQ and AQ in Iraq discussing the strategy for Iraq was all fabricated by Bush?

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 12:07 PM

honora and Constantine,

Please don’t tell me you actually believe there is no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq? That it was all made up by Bush and the Republicans? Do you think that all the correspondence we have intercepted or found in raids between AQ and AQ in Iraq discussing the strategy for Iraq was all fabricated by Bush?

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 12:07 PM

I am sure (well, actually none of us is sure, are we?)that Al Q is in Iraq. As are Iranian/Syrian trained fighters. Proportionally, at least according to Abizaid’s (sp?) latest testimony, they are less significant than the Iraqi Shiite/Sunni groups. (I would think while their numbers–Al Q–may be modest, their influence is considerable).

I do think that the notion that if only we could root out and kill the Al Q guys, all would be rosy, is foolish.

honora on November 29, 2006 at 12:19 PM

honora,

That’s not the argument here. Pelosi’s stated the following:

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is “sad” that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.
“My thoughts on the president’s representations are well-known,” Pelosi said. “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.”

She is going back to what the 9/11 Commission found regarding AQ’s presence in Iraq – in other words, there was no presence, and reading the rest of her comments, there is none today. I don’t see how you could read that any other way.

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 12:29 PM

honora,

That’s not the argument here. Pelosi’s stated the following:

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is “sad” that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.
“My thoughts on the president’s representations are well-known,” Pelosi said. “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.”
She is going back to what the 9/11 Commission found regarding AQ’s presence in Iraq – in other words, there was no presence, and reading the rest of her comments, there is none today. I don’t see how you could read that any other way.

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 12:29 PM

Well I don’t agree there is none and if Pelosi is saying that, she is making a mistake. I also think that Bush is making a mistake by blaming the whole mess on Al Q. Again, not what the generals are saying.

honora on November 29, 2006 at 12:47 PM

When I look at Pelosi, all I can see is Angela Lansbury from the Manchurian Candidate. For you youngsters who think the Denzel was the original, no, afraid not. I also remember the movie plug…”once unbelievable, now unthinkable”. Pelosi probably thought being Speaker was unbelievable, now she’s “unthinkable”. Some of you on the post need to awaken to the new reality…AQ is Hezbo is Hamas is Al Aqsa is Fatah…they’re all the same. They may not be pledging to the same frat, but their mission is the same; destruction of all that is not radical Islam. So when Bush says he blames AQ, he is right. Remember this forgotten tid-bit of Saddam’s wonderful Iraq; He gave families of Palestinian suicide-bombers 25 grand after attacks against Israel. Now, according to Pelosi and her ilk, Iraq is not part of the war on terror. The nexus is large, it encompasses all radical Islam, not just some groups or nations, but all who participate and support terror. Until our so-called leaders educate the American public on this, we are just waiting for the next 9/11, of a nuke or gas kind. Of course the left will be looking for the enemy by then, the closest repub they can find…..

If you want to fight the Islamo-fascists support Bush, if you want to fight Bush support Pelosi and the dems..it really is that simple……

ritethinker on November 29, 2006 at 1:26 PM

If you want to fight the Islamo-fascists support Bush, if you want to fight Bush support Pelosi and the dems..it really is that simple……

ritethinker on November 29, 2006 at 1:26 PM

What’s that word, umm, oh yeah: eureka.

honora on November 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM

E L is right you liberals are cheering for Osama to beat the U.S. & you liberals do want the U.S. to lose the war on terror.

And what would the goal of that be? Because we all own stock in Al Qaeda (NYSE: AQDA) and we’re getting rich? We want to destroy America because… we hate freedom?

This is a pattern I see over and over, particularly with conservatives: you have trouble debating your opponent’s actual position, so you invent a new one for them that’s easier to grasp. If you really believe this crap, you’re an idiot.

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 1:51 PM

And what would the goal of that be? Because we all own stock in Al Qaeda (NYSE: AQDA) and we’re getting rich? We want to destroy America because… we hate freedom?

This is a pattern I see over and over, particularly with conservatives: you have trouble debating your opponent’s actual position, so you invent a new one for them that’s easier to grasp. If you really believe this crap, you’re an idiot.

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 1:51 PM

Once you crack the code, it’s easy to understand: the point is not whether Pelosi makes an intelligent or a stupid comment. It’s simply not relevant. If Pelosi makes a comment, it is stupid. Prima facie. The mental acrobatics can be pretty amusing.

Oh and then there’s the black and white thing–there is never any middle ground–regardless of what it is, a person, a religion, an idea, a media outlet, it is either entirely wicked and stupid and should be spat upon, or it’s beyond reproach.

Then there is the all purpose thing: mention anything negative about Republicans and you will get a mention of Ted Kennedy and MaryJo–it’s automatic, very Pavlovian. Clinton’s sexual escapades are another all purpose retort.

Well you get the gist. Cheers!!!

honora on November 29, 2006 at 2:28 PM

That’s interesting, given that you all suffer from serious BDS. This last election, the Dems entire campaign was based on Bush-bashing and “we can do it better”. I still haven’t heard what the Dems plans are, and they are about to take office as the majority in both houses (that’s because they don’t know). It’s always easy to criticize.

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM

And what would the goal of that be? Because we all own stock in Al Qaeda (NYSE: AQDA) and we’re getting rich? We want to destroy America because… we hate freedom?

This is a pattern I see over and over, particularly with conservatives: you have trouble debating your opponent’s actual position, so you invent a new one for them that’s easier to grasp. If you really believe this crap, you’re an idiot.

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 1:51

PM

Nobody’s inventing your position – you all have made it very clear for all to see. You always argue against your government – in other words, it’s always our fault (no matter what – unless, of course, one of your own is in office).

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 2:52 PM

That’s interesting, given that you all suffer from serious BDS. This last election, the Dems entire campaign was based on Bush-bashing and “we can do it better”. I still haven’t heard what the Dems plans are, and they are about to take office as the majority in both houses (that’s because they don’t know). It’s always easy to criticize.

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM

Thanks Rick. Case in point: it’s not that “some Dems suffer from BDS” No,no,no–it’s “all”. And it’s not that the Dems campaigned somewhat on Bush-bashing, it’s the “entire campaign”.

Blah, blah, blah.

honora on November 29, 2006 at 2:55 PM

Was it not you that lumped all of us conservatives in your comment about how we respond and react: Ted Kennedy and MaryJo…blah, blah, blah…Clinton, interns, sex and cigars…blah, blah, blah.

Cheers to you!!

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 2:59 PM

Oh yeah, still don’t know what the Dems really stand for right now – maybe you can explain, because they sure can’t (or have they??).

Rick on November 29, 2006 at 3:01 PM

tisk, tisk, tisk, you say I am:

Medicated on narcotics
Schizophrenic
Hubristic

Is that the best you got, amateurs. I’ll take the high road.

Sorry, I know its hard to pigeon hole me since I actually think for my self and live in the real world. My post was a little bombastic, must admit but got your attention. It’s our prosecution of the war that’s schitzophrinic. Today, Colin Powell: “It’s a civil war”. Doha! Bush = Denial or needs to buy a clue. I hope the Dems do something with their power, take the high road and don’t self destruct. We shall see. I can dream can’t I.

gmcjetpilot on November 29, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Oh yeah, still don’t know what the Dems really stand for right now – maybe you can explain, because they sure can’t (or have they??).
Here you go. No wonder you couldn’t find it: it was on the internet.

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 9:38 PM

Here you go. No wonder you couldn’t find it: it was on the internet.

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 9:38 PM

As I was saying (and to once again quote one of your lefty commenters, honora) “blah, blah, blah”…we can do the same thing, but better, and without being corrupt – San Fran-Nan is sure off to a great start, isn’t she?

Rick on November 30, 2006 at 12:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2