Loading ...
SC SENIOR SENATOR TARGETS NANCY PELOSI’S ABSURD LIBERALISM
I will admit, it takes some real gusto to go after the United States Speaker of the House. But when someone is wrong — regardless of their powerful position — they are wrong. And in that instance, they need to be called out.
Enter Sen. Lindsey Graham. When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Extreme Liberal – Hippy Utopia) decided to recklessly criticize Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday for “putting a shine on recent events” in Iraq, Graham was quick to defend them and point out that Pelosi is a moron (my word, not his).
“Speaker Pelosi’s warning to Gen. Petraeus about his testimony being ‘too shiny’ says more about her than it does about him,” said Graham in a statement released Thursday afternoon.
“Gen. Petraeus … is one of the most talented, respected military commanders in our nation’s history. I’m confident he will tell us about the gains that have been achieved and the challenges which lie ahead,” Graham said.
“I have no confidence Speaker Pelosi will ever accept anything coming out of Iraq other than a loss.”
But Graham didn’t stop there.
“Speaker Pelosi seems to be more concerned about the outcome of the next election than receiving accurate information from a distinguished military leader like Gen. Petraeus.” [The Politico]
BOOM! That’s ballgame folks. I haven’t heard such a solid rebuke since the Old Testament.
If you’re keeping score, Graham’s in the hundreds and Pelosi’s in the negatives somewhere.
We also have the awesome Mr. Graham to thank for legislating the end of free public WiFi services.
ww_w.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2280397,00.as_p (remove underscores)
(hmm I wonder if embedding links is now turned off?)
Bill A, pretty sure that is an April’s Fool joke. Click on the links below the story you pasted.
Action you can take.
The details about the new law.
How to stop the law.
What you need to know.
All of them lead to a link showing it was an April Fools joke.
I don’t think you’ve got the score right. Maybe Pelosi shouldn’t have issued the “please don’t bend the truth” statement to someone who appears to have a lot of integrity, but she’s not crazy to think that the Bush administration could influence things they shouldn’t (attorney firings, EPA regulations, etc.). Her main point was that she didn’t want to hear that the Basra offensive was a success. It wasn’t- al Maliki started an offensive without telling our commanders, made a huge deal of the deadline for laying down weapons, then backed down a few days later and announced a cease-fire, restoring the status quo. Nothing happened except that everyone got to see that al Sadr still has control over his militias and that al Maliki can’t back up his strong words.
I also reject that Democrats all want failure in Iraq no matter what. Most definitely want to get out of Iraq, and it’s true that the worse Iraq does the worse (pro-war) Republicans do. Democrats don’t want to be demonized for leaving a mess behind in Iraq, so a stable (and independent) Iraq is really in the best interest of both parties.
Oh dear. I have indeed been fooled. Sorry about that.
OK, this post isn’t a joke? You really think that Huckleberry “Five rugs for five bucks” Graham has any credibility on anything to do with Iraq? What Huckleberry did was to accuse of Pelosi of heresy – of putting forth opinions Huckleberry doesn’t like. But so what if Huckleberry doesn’t like what Pelosi is saying?
It’ll be easy to see who’s right, Pelosi or Huckleberry. If Petraeus says that:
al-Sadr has control of Basra;
that the conflict between al-Sadr and the government was a fight between two rival militias, one of which has control of the army;
that the al-Sadr militia kicked the Maliki militia back;
that the U.S. was caught completely unawares;
that the present cease-fire is a result of the intervention of Iran;
then Petraeus is telling the truth.
If he says anything else, then he’s lying.