Reply With Quote
no
1) Nancy Pelosi gets smacked down on her attempted Murtha appointment;
2) Pelosi is severely hindered in her proclomation that the incoming Congress will be the most ethical in history by the fact that many of her Democratic colleagues are crooks and she's having to go three deep on the bench to find committee chairs.
3) Pelosi gets privately smacked down for even considering Alcee Hastings for a chair.
4) Freshman Senator Webb accepts an invitation to the White House and proceeds to be a boorish prick.
And, the coup de grace;
5) They haven't even taken office and they're going back on promises made to get elected...
Who Remembers this?
Democrat Press Conference - September 5, 2006:
Remember how they claimed this failure was causing America to be less safe?
Remember their promise that if they got into power, they’d fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations?
Nancy Pelosi - June 13, 2006:
Harry Reid - October 9, 2006:
Guess what? They were lying. Shocker, I know. But look what they’re doing in the post-election world:
Ok, so Democrats promised to fully implement the recommendations pre-election and have decided to not fully implement post-election… it’s not that big of a deal, right?
Or is it? Look at what the 9/11 Commission members think about the part the Democrats have decided to ignore:
Come on, these are Democrats… did you actually believe them in the first place?
no
No. Too bad the Republicans were so inept and out of touch that these doofuses beat the out of them.
And the biggest dummie of them all, in your estimation, beat you twice.
Mr. Bush!
Maybe Pelosi is someone that recognizes a mistake and steps away before making it.
That kind of calculation would have been useful in the oval office.
Yes, turd sandwich indeed beat giant two years ago. And then he lost congress for all the other Republicans even though giant tried to help.
Yeah, she is a real smart gal. She makes such great decisions. Why I'll just bet
she makes all the decisions on which s to hire at her winery and hotels.
I'm sure she has managers for that.
You been hittin the sauce Ray?
Why you need a drink?
No matter what losing "score" picayune PussyEater comes up with for the Dems, it will never be as bad the the "score" the Repug losers have run up in the last 6 years.
In all fairness, this statement can't be validated for another six years.
Flipping 26 Congressional Districts and 6 Senate seats isn't exactly beating the " " out of anyone.
Now, for today's stupidity:
In an effort to show just how obtuse she is, Pelosi announced that "the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion [al Qaeda was involved in the Iraqi insurgency] a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again."
Now Pelosi made that statement on November 28th; a mere 18 days after the November 10th claim, by al Qaeda, that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq.
That's two and one-half weeks. Eighteen days is enough time for even the idiot Pelosi to absorb the fact that Al Qaeda released a video tape claiming that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq. Al Qaeda brags of the number of fighters it has mobilized to battle American troops in Iraq, and Pelosi says she is sad that the president is saying that Al Qaeda has fighters in Iraq.
We should all feel sad that this stupid woman is going to be the new Speaker of the House.
Had a Republican leader been this confused, the media would have pounced. But since it was Pelosi, they didn't.
Oh no, to the contrary, NBC's David Gregory, who takes obnoxious exception to Bush administration comments at the drop of a hat, passed along Pelosi's claim as if it were true, and went on to suggest that Bush's rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House. It seems implausible that even the Dems would decline to work with the White House on the grounds that it mentions terrorism by al Qaeda -- imagine if the Republicans had refused to work with Pres. Roosevelt because he mentioned fascism -- but perhaps just this once Gregory knows something we don't.
There's more to this story than Pelosi's ignorance and Gregory's bias. Whatever was the case in Saddam Hussein's time, no serious and informed person denies that al Qaeda is present in Iraq now, and prominent in certain areas. And the Dems have said repeatedly that a primary task in the war on terror, from which we should not be diverted by "the wrong war," is fighting al Qaeda. Under these cir stances, shouldn't we fight al Qaeda in the portions of Iraq where it is prominent, rather than leaving these areas and handing the terrorists a victory?
That's a question that Nancy Pelosi would rather not be asked, and that's probably why she felt "sad" that the president brought up the subject of al Qaeda.
Damn Yoni, you might want to get some sutures for that wound.
Why do I have the feeling that I if wanted to bother researching from 1994 to 2006 what the GOP promised to do and did not I bet I could find a few. But of course Yoni seems to think it's only democrats who say things to get eleceted and then never do anything about all of those 'promises'.. sort of like reforming Social Security, Securing the borders... etc..being a uniter, bringing civility back to Washington...
no ray it the 'dummies' who voted him into office (look in the mirror)
Yoni it amazing that you only scour consevrtaive sites looking for Dem 'lies' when there are jsut as many who do ent the GOP's 'lies' and you completely ignore them... Yes your right I am accusing you of being a hypocrite..
Yoni now believes the terrorists? They also have been saying they are winning and you in complete and predictablke fashion tell all of us that we are winning.. how do you decide which terrorist soundbites to believe? Let me guess the only one's that you can use aganst the dems.. why do you hate America and side/believe the terrorists?
Give me some links to Republican lie webpages. I'll give 'em a look.
Okay, so you agree with Pelosi? There are no al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq?
Do I think there are elements of Al Qaida in Iraq? I don't know but you don't know for sure either. The proper question shoulde be if they are in fact in Iraq fighting..were they there before we invaded Iraq?
Pelosi (or previously Hastert) are trivial side-shows (like Sheehan and MMoore), but YV keeps trying to detract from the main event, which is the WH losing Iraq.
Well, the answer to both is yes, there are elements of al Qaeda in Iraq right now, and yes, they were there before we invaded. Zarqawi fled to Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan...which, by the way, was before we invaded Iraq.
Bone up on your history buddy.
I have no doubt that you could easily obtain that information. The Dems are simply doing now what the Reps did back then. It still amazes me how voters waffle between parties based on empty promises that they will not do what the previous group did, then turn around and do it. This cyclical behavior by politicians will live in perpetuity.
IMO though, I think this time around the Dems took advantage of the personal issues of Reps and the struggles in the WH to proclaim the dawning of a new day. All elections tweak this angle, but to me it seems like they hit it fairly harder than normal this year.
And, as for the specific items mentioned by GGA;
Social Security reform: Obstructed by Democrats.
Securing the borders: Obstructed by Democrats.
The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.
The president's attempts to bring civility to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.
By breaking the promise of fully implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations before they've even taken office they certainly can't claim Republican obstructionism, can they?
The Dems are simply doing now what the Reps did back then. It still amazes me how voters waffle between parties based on empty promises that they will not do what the previous group did, then turn around and do it. This cyclical behavior by politicians will live in perpetuity.
IMO though, I think this time around the Dems took advantage of the personal issues of Reps and the struggles in the WH to proclaim the dawning of a new day. All elections tweak this angle, but to me it seems like they hit it fairly harder than normal this year.[/QUOTE]
So you squandered away the last 6 years?
Bush says "bring'em on"........ It's on baby.
Bush calls Syria and Iran the axis of evil............... now he wants to sleep with them.
Bush fires Rummy and runs to daddy for help.
You do support this action, right Yoni?
Social Security reform: Obstructed by Democrats.
Securing the borders: Obstructed by Democrats.
The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.
So I guess you wanted the democrats to rumber stamp Bush's agenda. Is it possible that they had some plausible disagreements with what was proposed? If you accept that then couldn't the President have negotiated or met them in the middle? No of course not he would rather have played the 'Rovian' brand of politics and govern as though the country wasn't a 50/50 spilt.. Bush tried to force his hard right agenda to the rest of the country..a country that is split right down the middle..Of course this would demolish your "Bush tried to bring untiy' crap argument. Predictably if the dems had given in you would be right back here talking about how dems lack principles for rubber stamping Bush's agenda... So when the Dem controlled Congress tries to pass it's agenda and Bush vetos prtions of it would that make him an obstructionist? What about of the GOP stuck together and blocked the dem agenda would they be obstructionist? My guess would be your argument would consist of " The GOP is standing on 'principle' for doing the SAME thing the Dems did for the past 4 yrs..
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 12-01-2006 at 01:51 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
