Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Even For Nancy Pelosi This is Lame

This is Pelosi's "response" to President Bush's address last night. I put "response" in quotation marks because much of Pelosi's drivel gives one the impression that she didn't actually listen to the President's speech.
"The President missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people. He would have done more to honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the 'All-American' Division before whom he spoke had he given all Americans specifics about a strategy for success in Iraq.
What a wonderful idea! But why not cut out the middlewoman and just email our strategies directly to Zarqawi and bin Laden? On the other hand, the President did say that training sufficient Iraqi security forces to handle the duties our soldiers are performing now would allow us to withdraw our troops. Hmmm...a freely elected government with a new constitution able to maintain its own internal security...the first is accomplished and the second and third are under way. I was able to pick up on that. Guess the President was talking a little over Nancy's head, though.
"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
The President is forced to remind certain deliberately obtuse Americans with extremely short memories why we chose to fight the terrorists on their own ground. You know, Nancy, the ones on your mailing list at campaign time. Do you have any doubts that the animals rushing to Iraq to meet Allah wouldn't be delighted to do the same thing in, oh, I don't know, Manhattan? Of course you don't, but what's a few more thousand dead American civilians if it can help your party back into power?
"As the President noted, it is only one year after the return of sovereignty, but it has been 27 months since the President launched his pre-emptive strike. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began - a magnet for terrorism - because the President invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell. The insurgency took root in the unstable conditions that have now existed in substantial parts of Iraq for far too long.
It was our pre-emptive strike Nancy, and it has had more positive effects on the Middle East in two years than the last fifty years of diplomacy. I realize that you hate seeing Afghans and Iraqis voting in free elections, and Lebanese finally being encouraged to throw off the yoke of Syrian oppression, because your party did virtually nothing to bring these things about, but try to think like a loyal American for once in your life. Most Americans with two brain cells to rub together prefer that Iraq act as the magnet for terrorists. Of course we all know Nancy, that you and certain other amoral pricks in the party of the Ku Klux Klan would prefer that a major terrorist attack succeed in the US. Just the thing to help out going into the mid-term elections, no?
"The American people understand what is at stake in Iraq and in the Middle East. That is why it is so disappointing that the President failed tonight, as he has failed consistently since the war began, to lay out specifics for success, including performance benchmarks.
That's your real worry, isn't it, Nancy? That the American people actually do understand what's at stake, despite the best efforts of you and your gang to obfuscate what's at stake. Were you sleeping on January 31? That was a pretty clear benchmark.
"Regrettably, the President did not address key questions that must be answered: What will it take to train the Iraqi security forces to a level that will allow them to conduct combat operations without the assistance of our troops? How will reconstruction be done a priority so that electricity flows regularly, people are put to work, and Iraqis see a future in which they have a stake? When will diplomacy be employed effectively so that leaders in the region know that we recognize that their assistance is crucial to taking pressure off our troops and to fashioning an inclusive political process in Iraq?
Regrettably, Nancy Pelosi holds her membership in the Democratic Party above her American citizenship. Why else this empty demand for a hgihly detailed speech which would do little more than supply information to our enemies?
"Our commitment in Iraq does not have to be measured by timetables, but neither can it be open-ended. The President must still do what he did not do tonight: lay out clearly the task that remains for the United States in Iraq and how it is to be accomplished."
Really? Then why are members of your own party demanding timetables? Did someone finally explain to you that it would play directly into the hands of the terrorist insurgency? And just how clearly do you need things explained to you? When the Iraqi security forces are able to perform the same duties as our troops, our troops will leave. Duh. Next time maybe you should actually listen to the speech rather than writing your "response" ahead of time.