Guess who realized the surge is working?

posted at 7:36 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

My friends at Power Line noticed an interesting part of the Associated Press report on the operations in Mosul to destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq’s last territorial stronghold. Nouri al-Maliki left Mosul and returned to Baghdad when Nancy Pelosi showed up in a surprise visit, and apparently the surprise went both ways. Pelosi sounded like General David Petraeus, although I doubt the suspension of disbelief was all that willing:

The prime minister returned to Baghdad from Mosul — where he has been overseeing the crackdown — to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who made a surprise visit to Iraq on Saturday.

Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote national reconciliation.

She welcomed Iraq’s progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials.

“We’re assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have,” said Pelosi. She also met with Iraq’s parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

Pelosi, who also traveled to Iraq in January 2007 shortly after the Democrats assumed congressional control, has been a sharp critic of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war and has pressed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country this year.

Let’s see. Iraqi Army taking control of national security — check. Maliki building support from Sunnis and Kurds — check. Congressional benchmarks for provincial elections, de-Baathification reform, oil revenue distribution, and general national reconciliation being met — check.

And Nancy Pelosi acknowledging all of these signs of the surge’s success … checkmate.

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home. That would certainly sound better than Harry Reid’s declaration of defeat on the floor of the Senate, which also included a demand to retreat at full speed from a war we have now all but won. In an election year, it might sound quite a bit better, but it would also remind people that Democratic leadership has absolutely no idea what it’s doing in terms of military strategy and tactics, and instead react like frightened sheep to each news flash.

I suspect that Pelosi’s analysis will change significantly when she returns to American soil. For that reason, we’ll just keep this AP report on file here at Hot Air, in case anyone decides to rewrite history.


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

The next area that reality needs to expose the feckless stupidity of the democrat party policies is in energy. Opening offshore areas and ANWR to oil exploration would increase tax revenues, create more jobs, and raise the value of the dollar.
.
Asking people who have been democrat voters why they vote against their personal economic interests would certainly be an effective irony in the election debates for conservatives.
.
McCain can say whatever drivel he wants, conservatives need to be “mavericks” and have a coherent plan exposing the folly of democrat-RINO energy and global warmism policies.

Right_of_Attila on May 18, 2008 at 7:48 AM

Wasn’t the surge Rep. Plastique’s idea?

saved on May 18, 2008 at 7:50 AM

A chameleon changes its color to suit every mood or
situation. Hence the word is also an expression of contempt for a person
who is fickle or changeable in character.

Tin Lizzy on May 18, 2008 at 7:56 AM

That must’ve really, really hurt, eh Nancy?

ZK on May 18, 2008 at 8:07 AM

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home.

That was my gut reaction but I’m wondering how they would then take credit for it? Count on the American public to forget the years of defeatism? Or perhaps they are just counting on the glow of being the party that brings our boys and girls home from war.

Dash on May 18, 2008 at 8:10 AM

I heard this on the radio yesterday. My first reaction was ‘the Malkins (okay, it wasn’t that term in my head) on this woman. She’s been over here, blasting the Iraqi government for not doing all these things.’ She’s JAFP. Will say whatever needs to be said, depending on the audience.

*Just Another Frakkin’ Politician

bikermailman on May 18, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Power Line may be on to something. The Democrat Party senses a dramatic shift in Congressional Part affiliations which would make a veto-proof situation quite likely. Once in place and citing the progress, legislation to either obligate the return of our troops or cut off finances will be the first order of business.

SeniorD on May 18, 2008 at 8:19 AM

NAw, Peloser is a loser all the way. As long as she can blame Bush. It might be a setup for the Democrats to retreat with victory next year.

tarpon on May 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM

Let’s see. Iraqi Army taking control of national security — check. Maliki building support from Sunnis and Kurds — check. Congressional benchmarks for provincial elections, de-Baathification reform, oil revenue distribution, and general national reconciliation being met — check.

And Nancy Pelosi acknowledging all of these signs of the surge’s success … checkmate.

posted at 7:36 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I hate to disappoint you on that Sunday morning where I’m still in my underwear, but we are going to stay in Iraq for a long long long time – check.

I would say until Jesus comes back, if He didn’t already wash His hands of creating us.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM

I don’t think the Dems will allow a massacre (post Vietnam) to take place on their watch again. They will try to formulate a message that will allow for a continuation of the Bush policy in the ME without throwing the anti-war portion of their base under the bus. I look for the Dems to summon up a “tough guy” sort of language regarding terrorism in the lead-up to November.

This will be fun to watch; kinda like watching a miniature poodle attempt to be tough in the face of a saint bernard.

Keemo on May 18, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Holy Shiite! There’s your McCain ad right there.

Now, why am I not seeing this on any of the networks?

Pablo on May 18, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home.

Duh, that’s been their game the whole time.

Seixon on May 18, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Pelosi has no surprise up her sleeve.
She’s only taking credit for her own idea.
Petraeus was just along for the ride.
Never let the truth obstruct Pelosi justice.
Whatever works, good Progressive intentions and all.
At least Nancy is consistent with self adulation,
if not on the record.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM

Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Reid; if their lips are a-moving, the lies are a-flying… Thus the need (popularity) of the new media lead by Limbaugh.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051608/content/01125111.member.html

Sound bites are pretty hard to provide cover for.

Keemo on May 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM

Pelosi for Obama’s VP?
She just won’t quit trying to assume the Presidency.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 8:58 AM

“Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home.”

While that sounds the most logical I still think its the opposite. Pelosi at this late date assumes Obama is going to be president. That said the dems are now moving to take ownership of the war and its successful conclusion(Iraq). They(we) will be staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future and she is laying the ground work for the Dem spin on how their approach/threats actually led to the current and future success. She’s the ultimate mother hen in her own eyes.

If Obama does win the only upside is we will FINALLY get to see all the past and current success stories coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan–hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, women’s rights, hero soldiers, etc etc on the nightly news. You know the drill–Obama’s inspiration has led to a new sense of mission. (Overlooked will be the massive dropout rate in the military.)

It’s going to kill Hillary, all that phony glory going to Obama!

patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM

What right has Pelosi to distract al-Maliki during intense operations in Iraq? There’s no mistaking Pelosi for either Bush or Condi in rank and duty. She put her foot in Maliki’s operation as a distraction that no one is grateful for–he has to make additional travels, none of which are completely safe; she puts herself in Iraq unnecessarily at risk as well. She was HOPING for a “diving for cover” shot.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM

It’s going to kill Hillary, all that phony glory going to Obama!

patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Right on the money.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM

When has she done anything that would provide support for our troops and their mission ? She will use this trip in some weird way, as she always does, to support her warped sense of reality and damage us all somehow. What comes out of her mouth is of no consequence to me. I just watch her for entertainment purposes, like I would a mud wrestling contest or maybe a dog fight, or a rattle snake round-up.

JonRoss on May 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Right_of_Attila at 7:48AM

Apparently, some McCain-haters are so desperate to bash him, they’ll violate the rules about being on topic.
This story points to McCain’s expertise on foreign policy & leading the military. His perspectives on the Iraq War eventually became Bush’s, which brought the success we’re seeing now.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

a mud wrestling contest–JonRoss

Nancy vs. Hillary: Winner Takes All

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM

This story points to McCain’s expertise on foreign policy & leading the military. His perspectives on the Iraq War eventually became Bush’s, which brought the success we’re seeing now.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Good point. Follow it through, because it gives credence to his ability to reach across the aisle on matters of national security. No snark. Nancy would take the ball from McCain here. So let’s have it from McCain in another ad, and let’s give the credit due to McCain.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

It’s going to kill Hillary, all that phony glory going to Obama!

patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM

This story points to McCain’s expertise on foreign policy & leading the military. His perspectives on the Iraq War eventually became Bush’s, which brought the success we’re seeing now.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Talk about phony glory..

DaveC on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

This story points to McCain’s expertise on foreign policy & leading the military. His perspectives on the Iraq War eventually became Bush’s, which brought the success we’re seeing now.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

A very important point, which will well serve rational people to remember and revisit in the future.

(It won’t make any difference to the drooling McCain-haters though – they’ve got their own, highly personal, agendas.)

Gilda on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

This is setting the stage for claiming success for Democrats on Obama after the next election.

drjohn on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

It IS McCain’s success to enjoy.
Hail to the Chief with Bush.

Pelosi pathetique.
Nancy’s done face lifts before and she will try, try again with the make-over. But as fashion goes, Nancy is playing catch-up. Too little too late.

So the DNC wants to set the stage and prepare the parade for McCain? GREAT DAY IN THE MORNING!

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM

This story points to McCain’s expertise on foreign policy & leading the military. His perspectives on the Iraq War eventually became Bush’s, which brought the success we’re seeing now.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

I totally agree (with my sincere apologizes to the dishonarable Senator from Iowa). And I agree with maverick. McCain has to be sure that the Donks don’t try to take credit for the successes. This trip by Pelosi was the obvious first step that process.

JonRoss on May 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM

“’Stay the course’ is not a strategy, it’s a slogan,” answered House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as she called for a new direction in a war she labeled “a grotesque mistake.” “It’s time to face the facts,” Pelosi said.

“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.” John Murtha

History will record (years later) that a stubborn and unyielding President refused to listen to a media-driven call for our military to surrender in face of a conflict that was not only unpopular, but also used as a political tool to advance the democratic party. From the “bogged-down in a sandstorm” story two weeks into the operation right up to the “surge” the democrats had fought tooth and nail to proclaim the “war was lost” while their false declarations of “we support the troops” rang hollow.

Rovin on May 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Have to disagree that the Dems will stay. They’ll leave, just as sure as we did in Vietnam, they will do in Iraq. That is the purpose of her visit. She is telling Maliki to up his life insurance coverage.

They CAN’T let it turn out to be a success. The entire premise of their opposition is that the war was illegal, adverturist, and increased the danger of terrorism. So now they are going to stay to give MORE reasons to their terrorist buddies to attack? I don’t think so. It is defeat-defeat-defeat all the way. America must be humbled before she can take her place in line with the rest of the U.N.

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

…..It is defeat-defeat-defeat all the way. America must be humbled before she can take her place in line with the rest of the U.N.

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

This sounds familiar. If you go back and read Madeline Albright’s lectures about this subject as well as some of the crap she did while at State, you can clearly see this in operation with the Pelosinistas. Albright’s core philosophy was that America had no right to be a super power, should not be one, and was a danger to the world because of it. This thinking has taken firm control of the Donk dictator class.

Someone is always going to be “king of the hill”. In this world I would rather it be the Americans. If not it WILL be someone else, and the only ones I see right now on the horizon are the Chicoms and/or a Caliphate. And these folks have never learned the words to “kum ba ya”.

JonRoss on May 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

This time next year she will ramble on about her corkscrew landing in Baghdad, running under sniper fire and how peace broke out shortly after she had delivered her advice to the concerned parties and had a secret meeting with AQ leaders in which she was very stern.

BL@KBIRD on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

This time next year she will ramble on about her corkscrew landing in Baghdad, running under sniper fire and how peace broke out shortly after she had delivered her advice to the concerned parties and had a secret meeting with AQ leaders in which she was very stern.

BL@KBIRD on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Yeah..and all of this will happen after her morning toddy of a bottle of home made California wine, followed by a couple of tabs of speed to get the rosy glow into her eye balls.

JonRoss on May 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Should be good for McCain bad for BHO.

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I suspect that Pelosi’s analysis will change significantly when she returns to American oil.

Yep!

Wade on May 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Did Pelosi just accept reality in Iraq? It sure seemed that way but given her politics in this matter I can’t help but be suspect of how she and all the rest of the defeatists in the Democratic Party will try to exploit this somehow.

Yakko77 on May 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Nancy was probably just being polite. After all, it would be hard to sit across from the man who risks his life daily to serve his country and tell him that he and his fellow Iraqis aren’t worth it. Easier just to say oh, yes, wonderful job and then come home and pull the plug on war funding.

Bennett on May 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Rovin on May 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Let’s ad a few quotes from Barry Obama:

Floor Statement on President’s Decision to Increase Troops in Iraq
Friday, January 19,2007

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress.

The cap would not affect the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

And how’s this for Utopian foreign policy ideas?:

One final aspect of this plan that I believe is critical is it would call for engagement by the United States in a regional conference with other countries that are involved in the Middle East–particularly our allies, but including Syria and Iran–to find a solution to the war in Iraq. We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see the security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region and within their own countries. So as odious as the behavior of those regimes may be at times, it is important that we include them in a broader conversation about how we can stabilize Iraq.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM

One more quote from Barry the dilettante, 305 days ago in a USA Today interview.

Here’s my view on the situation. There are two indisputable facts, and then there’s a choice. Fact No. 1: the surge is not working. It has not changed the dynamics on the ground. It has put more U.S. troops at risk. It has not strengthened the Iraqi government. It has not quelled the antagonism between the various factions, and it has not lessened the strength of the insurgency.

He then goes on to say that Congress has to “constrain” the President and –

But the bottom line is either we let the president continue to do whatever he wants to do for the next year, year and a half, with untold consequences, or we say enough. And I am on the side of saying enough.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2008 at 10:44 AM

The democraps are just play acting again.

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home.

Even if the battles for Iraq and Afghanistan are won, we need to remain on the field to fight the root cause of these battles, the evil that remains in Iran.

Zorro on May 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM

That was my gut reaction but I’m wondering how they would then take credit for it? Count on the American public to forget the years of defeatism? Or perhaps they are just counting on the glow of being the party that brings our boys and girls home from war.

Dash on May 18, 2008 at 8:10 AM

I don’t see how this could possible help their effete Presidential candidate, he who has run on the position that he alone had the judgment to say that the war
a) was based on a lie,
b) would quickly become a quagmire,
c) was an unwarranted attack on the innocent people of Iraq.

Are they going to concede this issue to McCain?

Jaibones on May 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM

“But the bottom line is either we let the president continue to do whatever he wants to do for the next year, year and a half, with untold consequences, or we say enough. And I am on the side of saying enough.”

Buy Danish on May 18, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Happily, he and his pansy Dem friends couldn’t figure out a way to effect their surrender platform.

Jaibones on May 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM

I suspect that Pelosi’s analysis will change significantly when she returns to American soil.

It’s hard to denigrate the military or their operations, when you’re having to look those people in the face. That’s why people like Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin and John Murtha do it from the safety of Capitol Hill. Far be it from them to travel 5,000 miles to Iraq and say that to the faces of the soldiers and officers after touring operations over there.

Pelosi’s never said anything as hateful as those three, but the same rule applies — It’s easier to spout falsehoods or mis-characterizations to the public when you’re in Washington or San Francisco than when you’re in Baghdad or Mosul, and have to make those claims after having just toured those areas. But at the same time, Nancy’s going to get an earful from the netroots just for these comments, so it’s more than likely she’ll be back to the normal Democratic talking points on our current Iraq policy being a disaster by the time Memorial Day is over.

jon1979 on May 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM

I’m hoping Billary takes Dingy Harry’s job, so we can watch those queen bees fight. They richly deserve each other.

petefrt on May 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Quite correct, Limerick. I was thinking along the same lines, with the addition that Pelosi realizes that Obama has goofed on his appeasement platform, and she is setting him up for an early withdrawal from Iraq – without having to appease anyone. If she can convince the Dem base that the war is all but won, she can play down the appeasement threat.

OldEnglish on May 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM

If she can convince the Dem base that the war is all but won, she can play down the appeasement threat.

OldEnglish on May 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Who knows for sure, but that would seem to be her plan. The dems need to be bludgeoned severely about the head and shoulders for their non-stop defeatism and actual collusion with the enemy during the entire time this important war has gone on. There needs to be a political price paid for that defeatism and sedition.

techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Let’s see. Iraqi Army taking control of national security — check. Maliki building support from Sunnis and Kurds — check. Congressional benchmarks for provincial elections, de-Baathification reform, oil revenue distribution, and general national reconciliation being met — check.

And Nancy Pelosi acknowledging all of these signs of the surge’s success … checkmate.

With all those checks and then the checkmate to boot, why isn’t McCain beating Obama over the head and shoulders for wanting to take 16 long months, and that wouldn’t even be starting until 8 long months from now, to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq?

Why?

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home. — Ed Morrissey

Of course that’s what it is. In light of all these new events it just gets too difficult to keep declaring the war is lost. So it’s a tactic change with the same goal in mind, which is to undermine all of our accomplishments in Iraq.

As long as the Iraqi government will permit it, we should never leave Iraq. Just like we have never left Japan or South Korea. We should build a big, big, big base there and stock if full of all the things needed to make major war.

This makes sense for world peace because that is a very troubled area and within striking distance of every major tyrant on the planet. Such a base would give pause to much aggression. Heaven knows we’ve spent enough treasure and spilled enough blood to earn our spot.

A missile shield system and a tactical nuclear capability that would atomize the little man in Iran before he got his finger off the button would be my first priority for such a base. Of course we would neither confirm or deny such a capability but would just grin when the question was ask.

Maxx on May 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

“… this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home.”

Well, if the war is won and it’s all over, why do they need to come home so quickly? If there’s no more danger, why the rush to bring ‘em back? If it’s now safe, we can breathe a sigh of relief and take our time redeploying, right? Hmmm, there must be some other reason. I wonder what it could be…

Tony737 on May 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Let’s see. Patient’s hematocrit up to normal reference range — check. Patient’s reticulocyte up to normal reference range — check. Patient’s creatinine, BUN and phosphorous levels down to normal reference range and patient’s electrolytes in balance — check.

And the nurses report that the patient has been grabbing their rear ends and chasing them around his hospital room – checkmate.

If the patient is doing so well, why do so many hospital staff have to continue to be at the patient’s side and in the most expensive room in the hospital? I would think that at least most of them could now be scheduled to go elsewhere and the patient could be transfered out of intensive care and to a less expensive room.

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Humorous and well said but a bad analogy.

Maxx on May 18, 2008 at 12:20 PM

And Nancy Pelosi acknowledging all of these signs of the surge’s success

NEOCON!!11!!!!!111!

Heh.

ReubenJCogburn on May 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM

If the patient is doing so well, why do so many hospital staff have to continue to be at the patient’s side and in the most expensive room in the hospital? MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM

You must be referring to our current House and Senate leadership that belong in a longterm asylum.

Hospital Staff = MSM

Rovin on May 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Power Line wonders whether this might be the start of a new tactic by Democrats to declare the war won and demand that the US bring the troops home. — Ed Morrissey

Powerline is years late and several clues short.

On supporting this war – it’s won already. What’s our remaining goal(s)?

WMD – check
Odai/Qusay – check
Saddam Hussein – check
Zarqawi – check
Elections – check

Democracy? They have a new constitution – not based on our values, but theirs – namely shariah. Under this set-up, Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians are fleeing to (of all places) Syria (while the US plans to take in 7000 Iraqi Muslim refugees). Which of them – Shia or Sunni – are pro-US? Shia? They are mainly supporting Iran and Hizbullah. Sunni? They are either supporting Saddam’s Baathists, or Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. Kurds?
sure, they are the most grateful of the lot, but we aren’t supporting a separate Kurdistan. So which of the people who we are trying to support actually deserves it?

And once again – what’s our mission _now_? Resolving whether Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali? If there is a civil war between pro-Hizbullah Shia and pro-Ikhwan Sunni, whose side should we pick? Should we even stop such a fight, were it to break out?

Remember the 80′s war between Iran and Iraq? Did we end up any worse off due to millions of fanatics on both sides getting killed? Remember the 60′s proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Was that agood or bad thing for Infidels?

Bottom line – if there is an internecine war between Infidel hating Muslims and Infidel hating Muslims, why is that a bad thing for Infidels? If two or more of our enemies are busy destroying each other, why should we even bother stopping them?

Want to know my exit strategy for Iraq? Exit is the strategy. What will result is a civil war between Shia and Sunni. Initially, it’ll be in Iraq. Then, inshallah, it’ll spread to Saudi Arabia, where the Shia in al Hasa province can rebel. Let all that Saudi cash that funds madrassahs and CAIR in the US be diverted towards containing their restive Shia, and in the meantime, let Iran’s cash flow to their science project and Hizbullah be diverted towards encouraging Shia rebellions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrein. Once we have these 2 US hating groups at each others throats, we can then keep arming at a low level either side so that neither gains the upper hand.
- Democrats Infidelpride of JihadWatch

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I am from Ca and every time I see her it gets me that much closer to moving.

TroubledMonkey on May 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM

You must be referring to our current House and Senate leadership that belong in a longterm asylum.

Rovin on May 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Well none of those were the patient that I was referring to, but I can’t argue much with your assessment and diagnosis there.

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:08 PM

They CAN’T let it turn out to be a success. The entire premise of their opposition is that the war was illegal, adverturist, and increased the danger of terrorism. So now they are going to stay to give MORE reasons to their terrorist buddies to attack? I don’t think so. It is defeat-defeat-defeat all the way. America must be humbled before she can take her place in line with the rest of the U.N.

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

You give them too much credit by assuming that thier opposition to the war is principled. Yes, some are really anti-war, but you can be certain that many are also simply anti-Bush and anti-Republican, and have used opposition to the war to advance their own careers.

Big S on May 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Humorous and well said but a bad analogy.

Maxx on May 18, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I thought it was spot on myself and I have got plenty more where that came from, so don’t rattle my cage.

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Wow, i guess this means she doesn’t care about “the children” anymore.

surrounded on May 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM

So it’s a tactic change with the same goal in mind, which is to undermine all of our accomplishments in Iraq.

Nope. The goal is political advantage. If the perception of success in Iraq can be made to serve the Democrats, then that’ll be peachy-keen.

CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I wouldn’t be suprised if the Democrats win the president, that they usurp the war and actually try to continue to victory. It would be intelligent to claim that they were the ones who won it after Boosh screwed it up. It would be just as disasterous to allow a sure victory to be lost just when Obama takes the Whitehouse.

Rode Werk on May 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Nope. The goal is political advantage. If the perception of success in Iraq can be made to serve the Democrats, then that’ll be peachy-keen.

CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM

You are too kind to the Democrats, you see them as merely opportunist, I see them as sinister if not demonic. Their goal is not simply a political advantage, they want our nation to fail as evidenced by their continual chipping at our Republic’s foundation for at least the past fifty years.

They want America to fall so their socialist/globalist Utopian fantasies have a path to realization. In their corrupt minds it’s only American that prevents the perfect global order from rising.

Maxx on May 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM

I think Pelosi’s nose is rubber. After facelift 379, the doctors must have told her to go with their new artificial version. She has become a permanent costume.

revolution on May 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Cindy Sheehan just got a 10-point bump in her bid to unseat Mizzz Pelosi.

SouthernGent on May 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM

CK MacLeod: Agreed! Nancy Pelosi does nothing without political calculation. She will contort her findings to suit a Dem narrative.

What bothers me is that Pelosi took off for Iraq when there is a funding bill for Iraq/Afghanistan sitting in limbo. Instead of nurturing that bill along toward resolution, she is off on another ME adventure. (Can we expect her to visit her best buddy Baby Assad as a side trip in order to purchase her spring collection of burkhas?) The fundling bill is lingering under the weight of air-dropped pork and special-interest, unrelated additions.

onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Hey, Pelosi! Why not leave the war in the hands of the officers and troops who are trying to win it, and you and your Democratic playmates start looking at what to do about these lousy gasoline prices!!!!!!!!

pilamaye on May 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM

You are too kind to the Democrats, you see them as merely opportunist, I see them as sinister if not demonic.

I wouldn’t use those terms to describe them, frankly, and can’t imagine a political movement in the America I know and love getting very far with such language and the attitude it implies, but there’s no necessary contradiction between deeply loathing them and seeing them as opportunists. If doing some particular good (such as a victory in Iraq that they can take ownership of) happens to pave the way for greater evils (enabled by full control of the US government and all levers of power and influence), then why should any self-respecting demon resist it?

CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM

CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Well, if my view of the Democrats seems a little harsh it’s only because I continually find them advocating disastrous policies, embracing our enemies and undermining core American ideals. And our worst enemies always seem to be endorsing them, I’m sure you remember Hamas for Obama. Even the rhetoric or Osama Bin Laden seems to echo out of the mouths of Democrats.

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

Osama Bin Laden (or perhaps a Bin Laden impostor)
from video tape transcript released 6 September 2007

Maxx on May 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM

This stupid USEFUL IDIOT, needs another twenty Botox procedures, a few Aspirins, a course on house cleaning, THEN a swift boot in the BUTT!

byteshredder on May 18, 2008 at 7:24 PM

This stupid USEFUL IDIOT, needs another twenty Botox procedures, a few Aspirins, a course on house cleaning, THEN a swift boot in the BUTT!

byteshredder on May 18, 2008 at 7:24 PM

You left out the jalapeno enema. Heard it is quite the rage in her congressional district.

JonRoss on May 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Let’s see. Patient’s hematocrit up to normal reference range — check. Patient’s reticulocyte up to normal reference range — check. Patient’s creatinine, BUN and phosphorous levels down to normal reference range and patient’s electrolytes in balance — check.

And the nurses report that the patient has been grabbing their rear ends and chasing them around his hospital room – checkmate

If the patient is doing so well, why do so many hospital staff have to continue to be at the patient’s side and in the most expensive room in the hospital? I would think that at least most of them could now be scheduled to go elsewhere and the patient could be transfered out of intensive care and to a less expensive room.

Well, let’s see: there’s still an infection, heart rate has only just steadied, blood pressure still requires management, there are wounds just recently sutured which are still liable to open with disastrous consequences, patient’s irrational urges have just subsided … oh, and the patient has relatives and friends who are likely to pass along infections, feed him things he can’t tolerate, punch him and shake him, and trigger irrational outbursts … and due to circumstances beyond our control we cannot deny them access to the patient.

njcommuter on May 18, 2008 at 8:02 PM

njcommuter on May 18, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Ah yes all that now and then of course if it’s not one thing it will be something else and then there is the multiple organ Islamocarcinoma which is untreatable.

MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 8:41 PM

a mud wrestling contest–JonRoss

Nancy vs. Hillary: Winner Takes All

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Uh…only if they are in full burkha’s.

91Veteran on May 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM