Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (25723)	2/23/2007 3:56:32 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi questions own patriotism! Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO Thursday, February 22, 2007 "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would 'validate the Al Qaeda strategy,' " Fox News reports: <<< Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy. "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said. >>> Here is what Cheney said, in an ABC News interview: I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit. I think that's exactly the wrong course to go on. I think that's the course of action that Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha support. I think it would be a huge mistake for the country. It is true that Cheney accuses Pelosi and Murtha of, as she puts it, "acting against the national security of our country." Does Pelosi think it illegitimate to make such accusations? Evidently not, to judge by this Pelosi press release of Sept. 24, 2006: <<< The news report on the National Intelligence Estimate is further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror. Five years after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is still free and not a single terrorist who planned 9/11 has been caught and brought to justice. President Bush should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism. >>> Pelosi claimed that the president's policies have helped al Qaeda--a commonplace among Democratic opponents of the Iraq effort (including many who voted for it). Why is Cheney's statement invidious if Pelosi's was innocuous? It's not because Cheney questioned Pelosi & Co.'s patriotism, as she claims. He didn't. He said they were espousing bad policies, but he offered no opinion or speculation about their motives for doing so. Pelosi thus joins a long line of Democrats to raise questions about their own patriotism. opinionjournal.com foxnews.com i.abcnews.com house.gov opinionjournal.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25723)	2/23/2007 4:12:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi, of course, is reacting so violently because Cheney shone a light upon the dark heart of the Democratic Party: their fervent desire for defeat. They don't care about the troops; they don't care about America, they only care about their own electoral prospects. And, if those prospects can be enhanced by giving al Qaida what they want, it doesn't even make them blink an eye. But - dammit! - Cheney should not have SAID so! Why, he is "questioning their patriotism," the new reflexive defense of the turncoat. By Jim Addison @ Wizbang Politics politics.wizbangblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25723)	2/26/2007 6:09:56 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Cheney Spells It Out Power Line A few days ago, Dick Cheney challenged Nancy Pelosi on Iraq, saying that pulling out, as she advocates, would play into the hands of the terrorists. Pelosi resorted to the old "How dare he question my patriotism" dodge, and complained to President Bush's Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten. Now, Cheney says he isn't backing down: <<< During Friday's interview in Sydney with ABC News, Cheney said, "I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment." "You also have to be accountable for the results. What are the consequences of that? What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?," he said. "And the point I made and I'll make it again is that al-Qaida functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaida. I said it and I meant it." Asked if he was willing to take back his criticism of Pelosi, Cheney replied, "I'm not backing down." >>> This gets to the heart of the Democrats' problem. They can't deny that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster, they just don't want to talk about it. And if you bring it up, they say you're questioning their patriotism. Via Power Line News. plnewsforum.com To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com breitbart.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25723)	2/27/2007 3:18:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

How many times have we heard Democrats say that President Bush's policies in Iraq are the best terrorist recruitment tool we could have possibly given to Osama bin Laden? Ending Democrats' Free Ride on Iraq By David Limbaugh Townhall.com Columnist Tuesday, February 27, 2007 For liberals like Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, it is far worse for Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse congressional Democrats of playing into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq than for Democrats actually to play into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq. It's perfectly fine for liberals to liken Bush and Cheney to Adolf Hitler or falsely accuse them of lying us into war in Iraq to steal its oil. It's perfectly fine for liberals to attribute failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina to alleged Republican racism. But don't you dare question the wisdom of the Democrats' proposals on Iraq in such a way as to cause the hypersensitive to infer you were challenging their patriotism. Apparently to Dionne and other like-minded liberals, the potential dire consequences of the Democrats' policies on Iraq are not appropriate for discussion and debate because they might make Democrats look bad, or even feel bad -- and those are far worse evils than throwing our national security in the toilet. Precisely what did Dick Cheney -- the public servant who Democrats may, with impunity, stoop to any depths to slander -- say to make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so indignant? Well, he issued his assessment of the Democrats' legislative proposals to emasculate our current offensive in Iraq. Cheney said, "Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will … " and cause us to "quit and go home. … That's their fundamental underlying strategy. … If we adopt the Pelosi policy … we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it." What's wrong with that statement? If Cheney believes the Democrats' cut and run policies will benefit Al-Qaeda, doesn't he have an obligation to warn us? Not according to Pelosi, who said Cheney was questioning her patriotism. Not once did Cheney suggest the Democrats were unpatriotic. He said, "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment." Likewise, President Bush recently made clear that he didn't view the Democrats' proposals to withdraw from Iraq unpatriotic. But if accusing your political opponents of playing into the enemy's hands constitutes an attack on their patriotism, the Democrats' hands are hardly clean either. How many times have we heard Democrats say that President Bush's policies in Iraq are the best terrorist recruitment tool we could have possibly given to Osama bin Laden? Have you ever heard President Bush whine that Democrats were questioning his patriotism? No, perhaps because Bush is quite secure about his own patriotism. What is the administration supposed to do in the face of the Democrats' relentless campaign to undermine any possible chance of our victory in Iraq? Should it simply remain silent as congressional Democrats, more concerned with mollifying their militant antiwar base and kicking a beleaguered president in the teeth than with assuming the sober responsibility their office requires, try to engineer America's surrender and defeat? Until very recently the Democrats have had a free ride, slamming President Bush's policy, even parts of it they approved and authorized, without offering any alternative solutions. Now that they control Congress and are presenting actual legislative proposals, they can't stand the scrutiny their plans invite. In the midst of these partisan skirmishes, we best not lose sight of the momentousness of the issues before us. Questions about the Democrats' patriotism pale in comparison to real issues at stake in the war on terror. What is absolutely scandalous is that we are seriously considering unilateral surrender in a war without so much as contemplating the consequences to the Middle East or to our national security. Democrats (and some Republicans) are advocating that we leave Iraq now, refusing even to consider what might happen if we withdraw prematurely. Presidential candidate John Edwards openly admitted as much. Surely, they recognize the strong possibility that a bloodbath will ensue, that the constitutional republic our soldiers died to make possible will implode and that America-hating Islamists could seize control of Iraq and its oil and convert it to a launching pad for international terrorism. It is imperative we begin to have a discussion about Iraq that involves more than dwelling on the problems if we stay, but also weighs those against the even greater problems that will accompany our precipitous departure. We must have a debate whose sobriety matches the gravity of the national security issues involved. The administration and congressional Republicans must not be intimidated by false charges of name-calling from proceeding with a public debate that will force Democrats to emerge from their hiding places to explain and justify the inevitable, devastating consequences of their reckless policies. Haven't they had a free ride long enough? David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party. townhall.com