Nancy Pelosi: More than an Ignorant […]?

I concede that she is that much. But is she more?

OK, yes it’s true I have generally been an advocate of greater civility in political discourse. And this might constitute what some would call “hypocrisy.” And I won’t blame Ronan if he decides to censor this post and put me on blog probation.

But I’ve come to a realization. I’m not as much about more civility as I am about less partisan posturing. In this respect I consider Tom Delay to be an Ignorant Slut on a par with Nancy Pelosi.

But when I see Nancy on the Daily Show answering a question about “why the Bush admin went to war in Iraq” with something utterly ricockulous like “well GWB had a hankering for a war in Iraq and he was going to go no matter what and he needed the WMD story to make Americans buy it” I think (a) “how does anyone take this crap seriously?” and then, after glancing over my shoulder, (b) “holy Shiite, a whole bunch of people ARE taking it seriously.” It’s a source of daily amazement (at least it helps keep my sense of wonder alive!) that anyone could avoid seeing the tangle of implausibilities and absurdities and bed buddies (Jordanian intel and Israeli intel joining hands to tell us the same exact thing about Iraqi weapons, anyone?) that would have strung together to make this “Bush just wanted a war” line believable. But they do. Every day they do.

In another post we’ll look at those implausibilities in detail. Until then, Nancy–good night and give up.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Nancy Pelosi: More than an Ignorant […]?

  1. I watched the Daily Show too. Holy Shiite (LOL!!) Yeah, it was really substantive stuff. BTW, Stu, you really remind me of John Stewart. Weird, eh?

    Like

  2. People like Pelosi and Delay can be so <>out there<> because of the current political situation. Our gerrymandered districts mean that Representatives don’t have to appease moderates. And not having to appease moderates means that people on the far end of the spectrum routinely get elected and <>stay<> elected. (The last two elections have seen the fewest incumbent losses ever!)And that’s why we have the ignorant sluts in Congress that now…

    Like

  3. Out there? No, I think Pelosi is exactly right.A review of Bush’s attitudes toward military and his fetish for only speaking to the American people at staged military bases says something to me. His bellicose langauge, “I’m going to take Saddam OUT!!!” and the fact that tax cuts favoring the rich and war are the only 2 ideas of his 5 years in power make her statement quite reasonable.We were told that our $40 billion intelligence apparatus was shocked, just shocked that there were no WMD. And the best evidence they put forth was scandalously fraudulent, destroying our international credibility. We were told that we had to go to war with talk of mushroom clouds and imminent massive terrorist strikes enabled by Iraq. The difference between chem/bio weapons that are very difficult to deliver on a large scale in US cities versus nuclear bombs was intentionally obscured, leading to the orwellian bizarroworld meme that says we can shower modern cities with tons of explosives (not WMD) but a rumor of future capability of weapons that might kill a hundred people on a subway are justification for the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians and pathetic Iraqi soldiers.The American people are constitutionally guaranteed that only congress can declare war and that their leaders will take them to war only with their informed consent. The former has been violated nonstop since the gulf of tonkin resolution; the latter is null and void because we have liars leading us.If we found no WMD, then tidied up further with the jailing of Hussein and creation of an electoral process, we are now NOT welcome by the Iraqi people who want us OUT. The insurgency, according to the US military, is several dozen groups, including Sunnis enraged that they are giving up their favored position for a Shiite theocracy and an estimated 5% foreign fighters, some al qaeda and some patriotic muslims incited by western occupation. Watch Lawrence of Arabia; it’s not a new story.Chaos when we leave? We have chaos now. Iraqi troops not standing up? They’ll get their shit together a lot sooner when they don’t have us to front them. Civil war? Bush Sr and Colin Powell already told you that will happen. You create an artificial colonial state with 3 separate ethnic groups a century ago, support a dictator with American arms and money, destroy the country’s infrastructure by bombing its cities 3 separate times, create a puppet government dictated by foreign politics enforced by an occupying military and you think there will be no civil war????Then you want to spend my tax dollars on your abortion of a war instead of infrastructure, education and health care? Eat me. Murtha’s plan, now supported by Pelosi, says we will keep forces in the area, but we will tell the Iraqi people, 3 years is enough, you want us out, we are not there for military bases and oil interests (those billion dollar hardened long term air fields we are building were not any indication of our long term strategic intentions) and we will not drain the national treasury and military.Also, kill the ignorant slut language. I interviewed Pelosi twice on C-SPAN 20 years ago. She is a dedicated, very smart, devoted and honorable public servant.

    Like

  4. Mr. Gruber,I’m enjoying the Stu smack-down. Keep it up.But Pelosi was vacuous on TDS. And not funny. Bless her. She’s pretty hot for an older lady though (yikes!)

    Like

  5. Glad to see the distinguished gentleman has made it out to Headlife. I don’t know where to begin with your points so I’ll start with some obvious targets…1. Our intel was “scandolously fraudulent” so “destroying our international credibility”: it is well-documented that “our intel” was little different than Jordanian intel, Russian intel, Israeli intel and British intel. So whoever’s intel was “scandalously fraudulent” if anyone’s “international credibility” were “destroyed” by it, it would have to be everybody’s. I tire of saying it and yet it never seems to take–consult with your Democratic Clinton man (Ken Pollack) if you’d like to know who was making the most dire projections on Iraqi nuclear capability–Germany, not us.2. Your unsupported claims that the Iraqi people want us out are belied by the findings of polls (cited by J Lieberman) conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities saying that nearly 70% of Iraqis say they are better off than they were under Saddam. 3. The “ignorant slut” language was (a) TIC and (B) applied equally to sluts of the other party. But I define a “slut” as someone who knowingly trades their integrity for political gain. It may be that Pelosi’s ignorance spares her this distinction so if you would prefer, in the future, I will limit my characterization to “ignorant” out of deference to your experience with her.4. Civil CONFLICT of some sort may be unavoidable in Iraq. All-out civil war might be prevented. As the Economist wrote this week (the most reliably objective editorial board on the planet, I might add) in trashing the argument for a withdrawal–it would be both unfair to the Iraqis and detrimental to our own interests to make a precipitous withdrawal. If further consolidation of democratic processes and the rule of law can occur with our presence, then we have that responsibility however badly we may have miscalculated in going in the first place.5. Why is it, Mr. Gruber, sir, that you and yours are so determined to write off the Iraqi government and democratic processes–for which nearly an equal percentage of Iraqis have turned out to participate as you would expect in an American election–as some American manipulation? It manifestly is not. Your friend Larry Diamond himself disagrees with you here.

    Like

  6. Notwithstanding the sanctimony of my previous post, it’s ALL TRUE. And you can call Nancy a slut any time, just sick of the AM Radio bile and react to such things sometimes. Now, on to your points. 1. Intel may have suggested Iraq had some weapons programs. And one or two Clintonites may have had certain opinions. But the cardinal testimony presented publicly on aluminum tubes, mobile labs and the forged Niger documents, combined with hysterical claims on an imminent threat combined with our diplomatic strategy of refusing further weapons inspections, combined with the clear intent of BushCo to invade regardless of WMD combined with the colossal arrogance of shreiking self-righteous platitudes while we produce and own– and use– more WMD than the rest of the nationas of the world combined, combined with BushCo virulent attacks on any citizen raising objections to policy or questioning evidence form a qualitative difference. The UN said wait and be sure. Bush said, I’m taking Saddam out. A mistake that will end up costing us a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of wasted lives. For years, my attitude was, I disagree but I trust my government to do the right thing. I do not trust this government. Bush is a moral degenerate, easily manipulated, and bought and sold by defense and energy interests.2. I have seen polls on Iraqis wanting us out. I will find them. 3. See above.4. Civil war can be avoided. But it’s an excuse. The British used it to justify their suppression of the Iraq uprising in 1920 and we created a destabilizing situation by invading. We invaded in violation of international law because of WMD. Mission accomplished. We spent very very little on reconstruction. We have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. We have created chaos, and now we are saying we cannot leave until there is no chaos. Our presence is the primary cause of violence in Iraq. Admittedly, there are 1 or 2 Iraqis who view the present government as collaborators. I am not a violent man, not a gun owner, but if the Chinese invaded because of the corruption in our system, oversaw the rewriting of the constitution based on confucian and marxist principles, managed an election, and armed and paid local officials, I would be keenly interested in blowing the brains out of my local politicians. That bit of untidyness will happen whenever we leave. Too bad. That will happen if we leave in 6 months or 6 years. It’s time to change the debate. From BushCo’s absurb stay the course, we’ll stay till we win, everything is going fine nonsense to an exit strategy. This is NOT losing the war. It is not cutting and running. Who are we winning against? The people of Iraq? First we get invaded by Saudis with boxcutters, then claim Iraq was complicit and kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, then we say we have to fight to protect the Iraqis???? There will be bad stuff happening. I just think there will be less than is happening now. I say we declare victory. WMD swept clean, reserve the right to return if they restart WMD programs, Saddam is about to be hung, left a bit of democratic process behind, show the Iraqis we are not here to stay therefore get your country’s policing and political shit together, and see ya.5. Love all the democracy stuff. Never told that was the reason we invaded, therefore if that was the reason, we were lied to and Bush is a war criminal.Brian of Arabia

    Like

  7. posted April 29, 2004, updated 11:00 a.m.New Iraq poll: US seen as an ‘occupying force’US soldiers are seen as ‘uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect.’by Tom Regan | csmonitor.comTo get a sense of what Iraqis were thinking a year after the overthrow of former dictator Saddam Hussein, researchers for the Gallup Organization, working with funding from CNN and USA Today, sat down with 3444 Iraqis in March and early April (before the latest outbreaks of violence). They conducted interviews that lasted as long as 70 minutes (often at great personal risk). And what they found does not bode well in the short-term for the US and its allies in Iraq, although it may bode well for the future of Iraq as a democracy.The survey finds Iraqis mixed on the results of the invasion of Iraq, reports the Washington Post. Forty-two percent of Iraqis say their country is better off, while 46 percent say the US has “done more harm than good” in the past year. The survey also showed significant differences along ethnic/sectarian lines, with Sunnis being strongly negative towards the US-led coalition, Shiites being more positive but growing more negative, while the Kurds in the north were quite supportive of the US (95 percent of Kurds supported the US-led invasion of Iraq). icon 04/28/04Operation kickback?04/27/04‘Kofigate’ threatens US aims in Iraq04/26/04Watching Pakistan’s antiterror efforts Sign up to be notified daily:Find out more.Other telling findings of the survey were that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the US-led coalition as an occupying force and not as liberators. USA Today reports that a solid majority, almost 60 percent, want the US and its allies to leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate.US troops also took a hit in the survey. They are seen by most Iraqis as “uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country’s people, religion and traditions.” “One specific Iraqi complaint against US troops is the widespread perception – whether correct or incorrect – that they have been indiscriminate in their use of force when civilians are nearby,” said Gallup’s director of international polling, Richard Burkholder.Except for the Kurds in the north, two-thirds of Iraqis say that US troops “make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire,” while 60 percent say the troops conducted themselves “badly or very badly.”The Guardian reports that one reason that British commanders, for instance, have refrained from sending more troops to Iraq, especially following the withdrawal of troops from Spain, is that they are wary of “getting sucked into operations determined by heavy-handed American tactics.” They [British commanders]have also made no secret of their concern that British troops operating with the Americans elsewhere in Iraq could cause serious problems for troops in the British-controlled area centred on Basra in southern Iraq. “If we do it we’ll do it differently,” said a senior defense official, referring to the possible deployment of British soldiers elsewhere in Iraq. “We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must fight as the Americans.”In an other incident that called into question the behavior of US troops in Iraq, Wednesday night CBS News showed pictures of alleged abuse against Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. According to the photos, US military police stacked naked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid, and “attached wires to one detainee to convince him he might be electrocuted.” Last month the US Army announced that six US reservists serving as MPs face a court martial for allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Also, disciplinary actions has been recommended against the seven senior US officials who help run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, the commander of the 800th Brigade.The Baltimore Sun reports that one of the accused reservists, who is pleading not guilty to the charge, said the problem was with the way the prison was run. “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things … like rules and regulations,” said [Staff Sgt. Chip] Frederick, in a phone call with CBS from Baghdad. “And it just wasn’t happening.” Al Jazeera reports that Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, US military spokesman in Baghdad, said he was “appauled by the behavior of the soldiers.” But, he said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes II”, the few suspects were “not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here… Don’t judge your army based on the actions of a few.”More than 50 percent of those surveyed in the Gallup poll said attacks on US troops were “justified” or “sometimes justified,” while only a quarter said they were never justified. In the Sunni triangle north of Baghdad, and in Baghdad itself, the number of respondents who said attacks were justified was much higher than the rest of Iraq.Meanwhile, the BBC reports that the US is sending more heavy tanks and armored vehicles to deal with the upsurge in attacks on its forces. On Thursday, ten more US troops were killed in Iraq, bringing the total to 126 soliders and marines killed in April alone, more than were killed during the actual invasion of Iraq. Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren’t shooting [reports USA Today]. Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, “sarcastic smile. You see it every day. … We’re always the last one to find out when we run over a mine.” “I can see their point of view,” says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. “If anyone rolled up on my street, I’d be p****d, too.”

    Like

  8. Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troopsby Sean Rayment October 24, 2005Daily Telegraph (London)Printer Friendly VersionEMail Article to a FriendMillions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed. The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country. It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation. The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country. The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week. The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for “supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq”. Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy. He said: “This clearly states that the Government’s hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution. “I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, ‘what are we doing there?’ “ The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming “Britain’s own Vietnam”. The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals: • Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified — rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province; • 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops; • less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security; • 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation; • 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened; • 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces. The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq. The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it. Under the heading “Justification for Violent Attacks”, the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province — one of the four provinces under British control — believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified. The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent. The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being “less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs”. Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water. That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed. But Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. “There would be chaos and perhaps civil war,” he said. “We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity. “If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, ‘Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us’.” Published in the (London) Daily Telegraph, Oct. 23, 2005.

    Like

Comments are closed.