So I get this
thing from Bob Parks where he tips me off to
Nancy Pelosi's latest assault on reason, truth, and history:
"They like this war. They want this war to continue." ... "We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq." ... "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
And it doesn't take long googling for news outlets that that indeed is what she said. That Republicans like the war and want it to continue.
I do not for one minute believe that George W. Bush or any other Republican "likes" this war or wants it to continue. They do want to
finish it. But finishing it and ending it are not the same thing.
But then in today's continuing pattern of getting your PR soundbytes out (
Clinton Campaign: The Republicans are going to rake our poor friend Obama over the coals for his former drug use. Ooops, did we say that? Well we aren't saying it, but they will. - snicker- ) she later "takes it back":
Well, when I said like, I used a poor choice of words. The fact is: They support this war. They support the president's execution of it, even though any objective observer of it would say that a war that we've been in much longer -- more than a year longer -- than we were in World War II, going in on a false pretense without a strategy for success, without a reason to stay, against the wishes of the American people does not deserve the support of the Congress of the United States.
It's a war America is in, Nancy, and one you voted for. Adults, once they start something
even if they find out later some of their premises were wrong -- finish what they start. You got your PR soundbyte in, then you try to have it both ways by "apologizing" -- just like Shaheen & Huckabee.
What was the strategy for success in WWII, anyway? Whatever it was, if there was one, it sure wasn't to minimize every success we had and amplify any setback or any wrongdoing by a handful of our troops. Which has been the political strategy of the Democrats ever since we crossed the Kuwaiti border. Which I believe has a lot to do with why this war has gone on for longer than WWII.
Pelosi, et al have given aid and comfort to the enemy practically since the war began. You know what we used to call that? You know what the peanalty used to be?
And what's all this stuff about no change in strategy? Remember the Surge that the Democrats were so against and were so sure it wouldn't work that they declared it failed before it even started? (Probably because they were afraid it might succeed?) After the big "change in direction" (which, incidentally is
not synonymous with "withdrawal", Nancy) was allegedly asked for, America got one in just a few months. And a few months after the change took place, things in Iraq started getting much much better. Which is why you're playing a misdirection by screeching the same tired charges over and over and over and over and over trying to nurture the anti-war
"Availability Cascade".Without a reason to stay? Without a reason to stay? We stormed somebody's house to take out an abusive parent and left it pretty messed up. In the mean time, some of our worst enemies came in to make it as bad as they possibly could for us. If we leave before we should, we do a great disservice to the Iraqi people. If we leave before we should, we hand a PR victory to Al Queda. Don't give me this "no reason to stay" schtick.
I see through you. You're trying to convince us what you say is true by repeating it and having the press repeat it for you.
We did not go to war against the wishes of the American people, and while naturally the American people wish we could leave and have our troops home ASAP, we know that it isn't a good idea.
Apparently you think it is. Or maybe you're just
afraid of Code Pink.
Huh. Two-faced, too. My next bumpersticker might just be:
