Why not?
Because she doesn't want to hear about or care about anything positive happening in Iraq. Reid and the Dem's want us to lose, they talk about our military efforts in a negative light (for years) and I am convinced they have aided and comforted the enemy with their negativity attacks on the President for years.
The US losing in Iraq means seats and the White House for Dem's...that is all that matters...
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Pelosi Won't Attend Petraeus Briefing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
"Reid and the Dem's want us to lose."
That's basically it in a nutshell, and the Dems know it. They think the United States is a bully, that the war is for corporate greed, and, like the Democrats of the 1860s-- that liberty is something not worth fighting for.
In short, the Dems have cynical, rotten hearts.
Once again, Game, you apparently fail to read the article to which you have linked.
The article specifically says that she had a 30-minute telephone conversation with Petraes. Blows your entire meme to bits. More gratuitous liberal bashing.
Jim--
I find it unbelievable that Pelosi will meet face to face with a brutal dictator like Bashar Assad who supports groups like the Army of God (the Hezb'Allah), but can't fit it in her schedule to attend one briefing with General Petraeus.
Bend over backward for our enemies, and snub our own-- that is the liberal creed. But don't you say they hate America!
Jim, You're absolutely right, I suspect the conversation went something like this:
Pelosi: So how are you going to help me?
General: well it seems the latest push is effective.
Pelosi: What??!! how can that be? We all know this is a civil war and...(to an aide).which side is supposed to be winning?
General: but madam speaker, we think the latest push is showing real promise.
Pelosi: Do you know who the f@$k you're talking to? Shut the F*%^ up, I know you're just a puppet for that Bush guy. (To an aide) "Can you believe the balls of this guy? Who the hell does he think he is? Does he know whom he's talking to?
Sure, blamin'. Sure.
Jason, you think a 30 minute 1 on 1 with Petraeus would be less effective than a committee hearing? I think not.
jim
Let's rephrase this.
Bush won't attend Petraeus briefing.
I can just heer the screeching.
Whats that? Bush had a 30min direct phone call? Hmmm, there must have been some machinations a going on.
Look, the most important thing to understand is that the Bulls are 2-0 against Miami and nothing else matters. Go Bulls!
Why would they want us to lose? What benefit would that be to them or their political futures? Will we gain more liberty by more war in Iraq?
Rockets are 2-0 and on the way to crankin one on the Bulls!
Your wrong AGAIN Jim. Its all apart of the strategy. I read the article...
America's defeat is a win for Dem's...
When your mind is made up, damn the facts and full agenda and propaganda ahead. That is the Democrat way.
Jim, did it ever occur to you that if the game wanted a direct conduit to DNC talking points and ThinkProgress Soros funded propaganda, that he's install the links?
Ron,
Defeat for the US is defeat for Bush and the Democrats do not care what the consequences are. They just want power now and are doing anything to get it.
I don't believe that any Dem "wants" us to lose per se. I do believe that they would view such an event as a fortuitous opportunity to regain power, thus the prospect of losing does not provoke the same feelings of dread that it does for the right. I feel it is important for us to win in any war we fight, no matter how we got there. Assuming that we'll never have a despotic leader, and by that I mean a real despot on the level of a Hussein or Hitler and not the hyperbolic nonsense that paints Bush as despotic, it's imperative for the United States to remain the big dog in perpetuity. Our underlying philosophy of government and the overall character of our people indeed make us the best hope for the future. We must be perceived by the world as a nation with whom no one should trifle. We can't concern ourselves with the inability of foreign nations to see us for who we really are, particularly in the face of the current global threats emanating from the Middle East and N Korea. In this sense, any negativity regarding the overall objectives of this WOT and the public pronouncements of failure of our efforts can only be the result of self-promotion by the left and as such are a desire for defeat in order to more easily paint the GOP as unworthy of support. Keeping such sentiments, sincerely held or not, should be kept in house, not broadcast for the world, including the enemy, to hear. It will affect the world opinion with which the left is so concerned and not for the better.
Sheesh, and Pelosi doesn't even have a good excuse like campaigning in New Hampshire. Jeepers!
He is wrong as well...but then again, he is not in charge like Pelosi
Pelosi had a personal, 1 on 1 telephone call with the man. That's it. Period. You've got nothing but liberal bashing hate. You've got nothing here. You just making up stuff and pulling it out of your asses.
A personal 1 on 1 conversation. Damn, I feel better allready, but seems how we weren't privy to that conversation (unlike a taped briefing) I guess we'll just have to take your word that she handled it with the utmost of respect, with no thoughts of political reprecussions.
Why wouldn't she? You have absolutely no idea what she said to him. She might not have said anything but she might have listened to him. More than you could say about Bush. Bush probably traded old "war stories" with him.
By the way, did John McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee attend the Senate briefing with Patraeus? Nope.
What's up with that?
John rino Mccain was too busy with his run at the white house.
RINO McCain? Surely you jest! He supports the war, he supports the surge, he is anti-choice, he is anti gay. What is it that makes him not a Republic?
He supports what he feels is convenient to support, when it’s convenient to do so.
What is this "anti-choice, anti-gay" crap? Did you mean anti-death and anti-perversion?
Study your history, McCain, as many pundits put it, is probably the Democrats biggest collaborator in congress.
I know, history is one of the biggest bugaboos to socialist - after all who wants to be constantly reminded of their failures. But it is convenient as a record.
Study your history, McCain, as many pundits put it, is probably the Democrats biggest collaborator in congress.
Are you on crack? The National Journal ranks nine Republicans more liberal than McCain. This guy rates McCain--after 544 roll call votes in the 109th Senate--as the second-most conservative Senator (i.e., he voted with the Dems less often than all but one other Republican).
That "history" took just seconds to google up. You couldn't do that for yourself?
Jay I don't give a crap what this guy has to say about this subject. When it comes to taxes, unions, etc. John is not the guy. On the other hand, if it comes down to a choice between Hillary and John, then he's definetly the man.
So, blamin, your gut feeling that McCain's a collaborator outweighs reality--outweighs the friggin' National Journal, the grandpappy of partisan rankings?
Look, I'm not asking you to love him or embrace him or even defend him for skipping the same required meeting Pelosi did.
But you can't just make stuff up. You can't just outright lie. That's bad form.
Jay, why not lie? You Democrats do all the time. Every time you get caught in a lie, you and Jim disappear until a different topic appears.
Now, when are you going to admit you lied about the Democrat agenda to tax and Tsx some more?
jay
All I can tell you is to look at his voting record for yourself. You’ll notice, as-soon-as his name started to be thrown around as a presidential contender, he made a definite shift left. It wasn't just for kicks that many on the left, before the 2004 election, were trying to persuade McCain to switch parties and run for Prez as a Democrat.
Then recently he shifted right again, hmmm, I wonder why that would be? It wouldn’t have anything to do with him having approx zero chance for the Repub nomination in 2004, and a decent chance in 2008, would it?
Ya, that’s just the kind of man, conservatives want as the leader of this country.
jay,
Nice example of selective sampling. If you took the time to look at the record, you'd see McCain has constently rated in the bottom 4 to 17 percentile of conservative voting Republicans.
This is according to your sacred National Journal, most all other "ratings" orgs rate him constently worse than the bottom 7 percent.
BTW even if I accept your "one time frame rating out of many" argument, to say "The NJ ranks 9 Repubs more liberal than McCain", well, by my count, that leaves about 43 being more conservative.
So if calling me a liar because I do recall history past the short term, and because I do like reviewing the hard facts, and instead of spending just a few minutes googling and cherry picking that which seems to support my argument - then by all means you do whatevery you have to in order to maintain your fantastical world.
Post a Comment