Carol Platt Liebau: What a Baby

Thursday, February 22, 2007

What a Baby

Nancy Pelosi has run to the President to complain about Vice President Cheney's remark that the Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the AL Qaeda strategy."

This is remarkable, from the congressional head of a party that has accused the President of incompetence, malfeasance,warmongering and worse. The Democrats are behaving like the worst kind of schoolyard bullies -- able to hand out the most abusive rhetoric themselves, but then crying and complaining when a little justified criticism is directed their way.

The fact of the matter is that the Vice President is right. If the country does follow the course proposed by the Democrats, they will, indeed, validate the Al Qaeda strategy of depending on leftists in the United States to undermine national resolve and force a defeat that the Islamofascists can't achieve through their own military firepower.

7 Comments:

Blogger The Very Sane Woman Who Points Out the Obvious said...

Carol,

The reason Pelosi complained about Cheny's remark is that it continues the obfuscation that somehow Iraq was behind the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

This admisistration used that confusion to take us to war.

Apparently, they want to continue to tell those lies to keep us there.

Pelosi, the American public, the people of Iraq, and anyone else concerned with peace, or at least truth, have a valid complaint with Cheny.

10:44 AM  
Blogger R Platt said...

Bravo Mr. Vice President . . . give her hell.

1:23 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

It's not abusive rhetoric if it's true.

3:24 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

As the linked piece clearly indicates, by her own admission, Pelosi complained about the remark solely because she alleged that it challenged the Dems' "patriotism," not because it somehow suggests that Iraq was behind 9/11 -- a claim that no one in the administration has ever made. What's more, the only politicians who have challenged their opponents' patriotism is actually the Democrats -- as John Edwards did in 2004 when he called the President unpatriotic.

6:11 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

And any confusion regarding why we went to war in Iraq is completely on the part of those too narrow minded to understand that this war - like many other wars - is a multi-front war.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war with Japan AND Germany. Why did we do that? Germany wasn't the one who attacked us.

Those who desire the defeat of Islamic Fascism realize this evil doctrine has taken hold in many places around the globe and must be utterly defeated.

Once you've made the decision that this war has to be fought, you have to decide how you're going to fight it. As powerful as we are militarily, we can't wage all out war all around the globe all at once. You have to pick where you will fight first. Iraq was an excellent choice.

5:57 AM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

More than half of all Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to an Associated Press poll conducted shortly after the conclusion of the successful invasion of Iraq, 53 percent of the nation pin the 9/11 murders on Saddam, something the CIA and most of the world intelligence gathering organizations have consistently discounted.

The fact that so many Americans believe this reveals the successful drum beating of the Bush administration along with a failure of both Congress and the media to adequately question the President's motives or to challenge the statements coming from the White House and Pentagon. President Bush and his horde of advisors have constantly said they never--ever--said that Saddam was the person behind the attacks. But, if the President could say "subliminal," that's what he, the vice-president, and their administration did to the Americans, with the complicity of the media who abrogated their responsibilities and made it seem that challenging anything the President said would be treason.

In message after message, the President referred to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Then, as in the movies, he jump-cut to the evils of Saddam, letting the people think there was a smooth transition, while implanting those "hidden" meanings.


Playing Spin the Battle by WALT BRASCH April 25th 2003

4:19 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

OSO,

Thanks for the lib projection. You can credit your own for consistently blaming Bush for not saying on a daily basis that Sadam had no part in 9/11. I don't deny Bush's communication attributes leave much to be desired, but if people aren't going to pay attention, it's their own fault, and the fault of the Bush opponents who take advantage of the misinformed, uninformed, and don't care to exert the effort to be informed.

11:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google