Presiden't Iraq policy is impaired...

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Steve Borgwald, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. Steve Borgwald

    Steve Borgwald Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Location:
    OH
    ... apparently because it is based on conviction instead of testing the political wind.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/27/pelosi.king/index.html

    Pelosi: Bush thinking on Iraq 'impaired'

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she believes President Bush's judgment on the Iraq war "is a little impaired."

    She also said his approach to Iraq is based on personal conviction, rather than political judgment.


    "What I don't think is that it is a political decision on the part of the president. This is what he firmly believes," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live." (Watch more of Pelosi's interview Video)

    "I just would hope that whatever he thinks about the war that he would also value the fact that the American people have lost confidence in him." (Watch how the Iraq war has changed public perception of Bush Video)

    "I think his judgment is a little impaired on this war, with all due respect to the president and his good intentions," she told King.

    Pelosi also blasted a comment made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney that legislative moves by Pelosi and other House Democrats to oppose Bush's war policy would "validate" al Qaeda's strategy.

    "What the vice president said is beneath the dignity of his office and beneath the dignity of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," Pelosi said.

    "The vice president is in a place that is out of touch with the American people, out of touch with what so many generals are saying and out of touch with even a bipartisan majority in the Congress."

    The speaker confirmed she called Bush to complain about Cheney's comments.

    "The president had said to me ... that he would not tolerate any undermining of anybody's patriotism or our intention to protect the national security," she said.

    "He said, 'Could you let me know if this happens?' So I wanted to let him know that it happened."

    Pelosi, a California Democrat, became the first female speaker in American history in January.

    Asked by King what about the job has most surprised her, she replied "the overwhelming show of enthusiasm across the country from women of all ages -- young girls to women my age -- who say they never thought that they'd see the day.
     
  2. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Pathetic. Her comments speak for themselves. Her lack of understanding of conviction mirror that of some on this forum and many in this country. How sad, and dangerous. How dare anyone not act strictly based on political motives? Certainly is a foreign concept to her. I just wish he'd turn 'em loose and take care of this mess.

    This is true.
    And what she's implying here is not. They have no intention to protect our national security, and that's because their intention is to capitulate and tuck tail and run from those intent on our destruction. That's not exactly security. Ignoring the wolf at the door neither makes him go away nor keeps him from coming in. Neither does telling him to play nicely. Some haven't figured that out.
     
  3. flashman

    flashman Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,514
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Location:
    Oasis, Idaho
    My Dad taught me that folks like Pelosi are all sail, no rudder. You always go aground when you act like that.
     
  4. California Flyway

    California Flyway Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,045
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2001
    Location:
    Gualala, California
    The American public is not buying Bush's incredibly bad management of the mess in Iraq.
    Significant members of his own party are acknowledging what has been obvious to the American public for some time.
    How could it possibly be given a passing grade?
    Increasingly the Bush Administration is distancing itself from the American Public.
    No other President since Truman has had such a negative American public approval rating for so long in a Presidency.
     
  5. Steve Borgwald

    Steve Borgwald Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Location:
    OH
    Actually, the post had to do with Pelosi's apparent assertion that policy should be based on political expediency instead of conviction. If you want a Bush-bashing thread, go start your own. Sound familiar?
     
  6. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I mention this merely to point out the folly of the 'majority view is right' mentality that CF would have us believe. Of course this is only because Bush is in office and CF would do a 180 just to be opposite Bush (kind of like some politicians we know) but anyway.

    What were most at the time saying of Reagan walking away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik? What do they say now? Take whether Bush is right or not out for a second and just look at the reasons you're saying he should change. Because of public opinion polls which are manipulated anyway? Because of what the opposition party is saying? That's the kind of leader we want?

    Regardless of party, do we want Presidents that change their position due to polls, politics, and majorities? Why elect one then? CF, do you share this mindset regardless of who's in power? The vast majority of Americans are staunchly against both Democrat front runners for the presidency in regards to their views on guns. Will you state here that they should therefore change their position? The public, the opposition party (oh, and the Constitution) are in direct opposition to their views. So just like you're demanding Bush change position, you'll demand that Clinton and Obama should change in regards to guns as well, correct? Or does this go over to the unanswered thread like all the rest?
     
  7. wingmatt

    wingmatt Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    Washington state, west side, Marysville
    CF said "No other President since Truman has had such a negative American public approval rating for so long in a Presidency."


    And yet Truman is now considered to have been a very good president. He made hard decisions at the time that weren't "popular", yet they were the right decisions for America. Abraham Lincoln, too, had very low "approval" ratings, but was more concerned about doing what was right for the country.
     
  8. slowshooter

    slowshooter Banned

    Messages:
    12,531
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    Truman and Lincoln finished something.

    Bush will be the man forever known as the guy that that was the "presidunce".
     
  9. California Flyway

    California Flyway Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,045
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2001
    Location:
    Gualala, California
    The Bush spin according to Okie,

    Even if the majority of Americans are right about Bush, you should be suspicious because they are
    a majority ....................
    Of Americans.
     
  10. wingmatt

    wingmatt Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    Washington state, west side, Marysville
    sloooowshooter,

    re "Truman and Lincoln finished something. Bush will be the man forever known as the guy that that was the "presidunce"."

    You need to re-read the previous posts. The inference (interference!) that CF wrote was that he is a bad president because the ever-changing polls showed him at a low point. My point is that is not a true indicator, and only history will know the final outcome. He still has time .... although not a lot anymore. I'm surpirsed you didn't get this, as you and CF seem to be arm in arm politically ( well, left wing and left wing that is).

    And "presidunce" - don't get it, were you trying to make a point or are you just name calling in lieu of original thought?
     

Share This Page