When are these guys going to giving up this "invested in failure" mantra?  If anyone has invested in failure, it's the republicans, sho refuse to admit their mistakes.

If you want any end to the war you are considered invested in failure. It buys them another decade or three to do the whole freedom on the march thing.

You got that right.  Of course, back in the real world, ANY vote cast for George W. Bush was (rather literally) nad investment in failure. :)  (Including those cast at the 2000 RNC...  And those failure dividends are finally starting to pay out.)

Here's a thought for MMFA to consider.  I expect a politician to always hold up  the American Military first.  If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.  I don't hold the News media to the same standard. For a politician to allow to go unsopoken the efforts of our troops while citing the help of the Iranians is to be "invested in defeat".

Besides - didn't she promise a plan to lower the gasoline prices - where is that?

 

Well said Dems.  Pelosi was more interested in political manuevering than crediting our military first, before any foreign country, much less Iran.

Then I guess CNN's Nic Robertson is "invested in defeat" as well, since he doesn't mention the participation of U.S. forces first in his report?

What some reporter said is far less interesting to me than the Speaker of the House, sorry.

Is something going on here today where people are responding to posts without actually reading them first?

What is it exactly that you think I failed to read?

If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.  I don't hold the News media to the same standard

Uh, yeah thanks, but I spotted your carefully disguised double standard and selective outrage already. That was kind of my point.

"carefully disguised double standard". How ridiculous. If you hold the media to same standards as our elected officials, then your priorities are more out of whack than I ever imagined.  Wow.

In what way are my priorities out of whack? I suppose I should prioritize jingoism over facts? What Pelosi said was factually accurate. You would require her to wave the flag a bit before acknowledging the facts, which tells us more about your own priorities than anything else. You often accuse Democrats of political posturing, but now you're complaining that Pelosi failed to to do enough political posturing.

Supporting our military publicly is not political posturing.  If you think that then your priorities are EVEN more out of WHACK than I ever dreamed..

WOW! 

Nice channeling - who should we go gang up on next?

Clams has been away, (probably working on the Hillary campaign?), now that that's kaput, he's back.....

More CAPS! More exclamation points!! Come on, your over-the-top alarm at my out of whack priorities hasn't reached an acceptably patriotic level of outrage yet. Did you check and see if Pelosi was wearing an American flag lapel pin when she made her statement? And you call yourself a patriot? Where are your priorities? You better get on the google, because if she wasn't wearing a pin then you'll need at least three exclamation marks or maybe an entire sentence in all caps to make up for your lack of love for our troops.

The CAPS were the result of the stunning nature of your ridiculous remarks, but you're right, I've seen it all before from you so it's par for the course.

Thanks for the reminder, I overreacted. 

Yeah, I understand that faux-indignation and breathless accusations of not being patriotic enough are always easier than debating actual facts.

Personally, I'm sick of the "I support the troops" or "I honor your service" qualifiers that are repeated ad nauseum.  But Tommy can't get enough of those worthless statements that are meaningless at their core.

Can't we all agree that EVERYONE supports the troops (even the Democrats) and get down to the business of stopping the needless DEATH and THIEVERY!  But no, look over there - (insert Democrat) is not wearing a flag pin.

Why don't you ask members of the military, primarily those actively serving, if they are sick of hearing "I honor your service".  They are the ones to ask, not me.

But you see, its the Republicans who trot out the "I support the troops" line every time they point to their flag pin.  But you see, Tommy, that statement has little meaning because it is the same Republican party that is invested in DEATH and THIEVERY.  So I will speak that line to the troops if and when I meet with them, but I don't need our political leaders out there saying it every time they open their mouth.

So what do you think the average grunt in Iraq would rather have.  A few dozen platitudes or an uparmored vehicle and the end to stop-loss?  Or how about a shower that doesn't electrocute you?  You do see the hypocrisy, don't you?  Those that say they support the troops the most, in actuality, DO NOT support the troops.

I can honestly say I have no idea what your point is except to veer off in a totally off topic discussion.  Pelosi's chosen words are the topic, to remind you.

Pelosi was more interested in political manuevering than crediting our military first, before any foreign country, much less Iran.

So right there, you whined that Pelosi didn't genuflect to the almighty troops.  My point is that she DOESN'T HAVE TO because everyone supports the troops.  It's a known known, to quote Rummy.  And those that say they support the troops the most often (Republicans, usually), in reality, do not support the troops where it counts.

Anything else you don't understand?

Your incredible disrespect for our "almighty troops" aside, for which you should be ashamed by the way, is quite revealing, but nonetheless......I expect our elected leaders to be very cautious and careful when speaking in any official capacity, far more than some dopey media member or any private citizen.  They represent our country and our citizens and should remember that, and the ramifications of what they say, every time they open their mouth.

I have already given my opinion on what Pelosi said.

Now go and pay homage to your "almighty Democrats". 

the ramifications of what they say, every time they open their mouth.

She didn't say she "didn't support the troops".  She just didn't say that she supported them enough for your liking.  I guess that having politicans repeatedly say how much they support the troops makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And by the way, I'm certainly not ashamed of anything that you say I should be ashamed of.  Follow?

 FOG

  He understood your point the first time. WE have some on here that claim   to be soooo patriotic,it reminds me of Hannity

A flag pin made in China at  that. Is it me,or is tommy becoming more obnoxious than ever?

tony and guidedog Lido

Recognizing the efforts of our military before those of a foreign government is not political posturing - it is supporting our troops.  To honor the military should not be a republican vs. democrat issue. 

It's lip service, and therefore, WORTHLESS (especially when spoken by the neo-con warmongering liars.)

In your opinion it's lip service - but the lack of it by the dems gives the "cons" justificaton in labeling the dems as "Invested in defeat"

And that is believed only by the ignorant 29%ers whose mind will never be changed.  So its a non-issue politically.

Don't you know lip service is more important than proper, working, equipment.

Of course the right wingers love the troops somuch, they try and make fun of post traumatic vitims.

I don't hold the News media to the same standard

Carefully disguised double standard? It's a blatent double standard.  Congress is responsible for supporting our military - not the news media.

Wow, how many different levels of irony did you manage to pull off with that one post? 

Back to irony again, a concept you're still hellbent on proving you don't understand.  I think you need more time off.  :)

 

I see you're still projecting like crazy.

irony ?

"I do not think that word means what you think it means"

Dems, you're right - congress is responsible. So let's see some of that manufactured outrage at the fact that McCain sought little input from Veterans when he crafted his partisan alternative to the Webb G.I. bill. He was arrogant enough to think she knew better and had no need to include those most affected, but y'all are outraged that Pelosi didn't include soldiers? It may have been oversight, but you and Tommy are operating under the assumption she did it on purpose. What McCain did was clear, what Pelosi did is subjective, so let's pile on her because taking on factual snubbing is harder than responding to opinion, eh?

This story is dealing with CNN and Pelosi crediting Iran without mentioning US troops?  Why do you bring McCain into this?  You may be right in your assertions but what is the relavance?

I stated the relevance. You are assuming Pelosi did it on purpose, so I offer proof of McCain doing it, and your response is "why is this relevant?". You made it relevant when you said all of congress is responsible, and now you want to retreat from that to keep the discussion about what you alledge Pelosi believes?

As long as you're honest about your selective outrage, I guess.

So what I hear you saying is that an elected official is using the media as her source of information and MMFA is correlating that to CNN and other media outlets as evidence that she's  correct in her statements. My observation is that I hope like hell she does not read check out counter tabloid trash :-) 

Nobody made any claims about where Pelosi got her information. But if you would like to challenge the veracity of her statements, then have at it.

But you used Nic Robertson as backup for her assessments.  Now you're moving goalposts again.  Aren't you tired of getting astroturf embedded in your fingernails so much for that?

So every thread still comes to that inevitable point where somebody has to come and explain the conversation to you? I'm not even debating the factual accuracy of Pelosi's comments, because the facts aren't up for debate, so the citation of Robertson's report wasn't meant to "back up" those facts. Don't look now, but you seem to have missed the entire point of MMFA's article...again. So to recap: Pelosi made an accurate statement that was deemed unpatriotic by Lou Dobbs, despite the fact that her statement echoed reporting made by the network that Dobbs broadcasts from. Get it?

So again, if you wish to question the substance of Pelosi's comments then have at it. Something tells me that your (and Jonwiz2's) oblique suggestion that Pelosi's facts are wrong is just chickensh!t sniping, so I won't hold my breath.

Now I understand the source of your anger today and why you've suddenly returned.  Considering this is third post on this very thread where you have nervously spoken of patriotism and lashed out at me, or others, for questioning yours as some deflection to avoid debate, or some such ridiculous nonsense.  

I never even uttered the word "unpatriotic" when referring to Ms. Pelosi, or implied it in any way shape or form, I questioned her judgement and political motivations, not her patriotism. Nor have I ever on these boards questioned anyone's patriotism, nobody, not a Democrat, or a liberal, or anyone, including yours.

However, it's quite clear now that you are passionately defensive on that charge, for whatever reason I do not know, but your overreaction here, and on an earlier post on this thread, reveals a sting that has you backed into a corner.  Which would explain your return here?, a friendly environment perhaps, or a place to take out your pent up rage?

Whatever it is, stop looking foolish and accusing others of calling out yours, or Ms. Pelosi's patriotism......and don't blame me for why you are so touchy on that subject, hey, it's not my fault. 

What a complete load of b.s. Reread my post and tell me again where I claimed you were questioning my patriotism. I'm "nervous" and "angry"? I see you're still mind-reading too. That was one of the most long-winded attempts to avoid the topic that I've ever seen from you. Ad homenim attacks are easier, I suppose.

Easyto refute wingnuts coined a good acronym for Tommy:

Deflect If Corrected, Knowing He Eagerly Attempts Derailing.

Thanks Mary, I guess you're addressing the ad hominem attacks to avoid the topic, well done.  

I must say it's clever though, nice job Easy.....hat tip. 

What's b.s is the way you shift arguments.  I specifically said I was questioning Pelosi's judgement and her political motives, yet you went on about flag waving and lapel pins and patriotism when that was not the criticism.  You knew it, but to try and compensate for your flimsy argument, you manufactured that baseless line of attack in an attempt to try and invalidate the point, which was not attacking anyone's patriotism at all, but rather their judgement.

You haven't changed. 

Once again, your narcissism has gotten the better of you. Everything I post isn't about you. This thread began because Lou Dobbs was questioning the patriotism of Pelosi. Johnwiz2 echoed those charges. That was the start of this entire conversation. You then chimed in with your own accusations about Foghorn when you said, "Your incredible disrespect for our 'almighty troops' aside, for which you should be ashamed by the way, is quite revealing." You then joined Johnwiz2 in suggesting that Pelosi got her facts wrong. That was the point I was addressing directly to you, and surprise surprise, you haven't even attempted to back it up. As others have pointed out, you clearly don't even understand the basic facts of this story, so don't whine to me about changing the subject when I try to explain it you.

Do you honestly think you can fabricate your way out of the chronology of your own posts? 

First off, nowhere does Lou Dobbs question Ms. Pelosi's patriotism, the word was never uttered in this conversation, and Johnwiz2 never mentioned it either - first lie of yours. 

Secondly, you posted two ranting and unwarranted posts about baseless attacks of unpatriotic accusations before you responded to Johnwiz2, so don't act like he prompted that from you, another lie.

Questioning someone's judgement, lack of respect and political motivations is not questioning their patriotism, yet you manufactured that strawman out of desperation and lack of integrity, a worn out tactic you still cling to on these boards.

I would have hoped that your time away would have afforded you time to reflect on your past dishonesty, so you could return new and improved.

Nope, the kitchen is still serving up the same ole' Clams Casino. 

So what I hear you saying is that an elected official is using the media as her source of information and MMFA is correlating that to CNN and other media outlets as evidence that she's  correct in her statements. My observation is that I hope like hell she does not read check out counter tabloid trash :-) 

Would you please explain, if you can, this idea of yours about "politcal maneuvering?"

Dems/Tommy,

Are you guys saying that this would have occurred without Iran's intervention?

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Where in what Dems or I said led you to ask that question? That was not our focus.

You were both talking about Pelosi giving credit to Iran and not the military.  I think it's dishonest of you to think the Military could do it alone.  They have been there for quite awhile now and have not been able to achieve the success that the Bush admin. thought they would.

Now everyone realizes, the only way to achieve any success is through political means.  We have to involve countries like Iran.  That's what Polesi was saying, but neither of you has the guts to put aside your partisan ways and be honest.

It's always easy to throw up that idiotic "liberals are aginst the military type stuff".  It really means nothing and shows your complete lack of understanding of how things get accomplished.

If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.

I'm guessing you missed this from my original post?

I prefer our elected leaders, particularly the third in line for the presidency, always put our military at the forefront of any positive outcomes with regard to foreign conflict, and always long before any enemy.

But that's just me. 

Except they couldn't do it without Iran's help!

Your attempt to redirect the original point does nothing to mask the fact that you obviously missed it.

Missed what, Iran's intervention was the reason for the ceasefire?

If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.

What does that mean to you?

You seem to have missed my point, the military was not having any success until Iran stepped in.

Neither I nor Tommy is discounting the participaton of the Iraninas in the process.  We were agreeing on Pelosi's misguided focus in crediting only the Iranians while ignoring the efforts of the military.  That's where you drifted off point.

You just can't let go that there was no success until Iran stepped in.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to follow - but you have succeeded in being an example of what it means to be "invested in defeat".

Okay Dems,

Nice projection!

It means you don't understand what's going on!

I think it's dishonest of you to think the Military could do it alone.

What led you to this conclude I was thinking this?

Exactly. But you have to remember Dems, some here view it like this;  Credit Iran means discrediting Bush.  Crediting the military means crediting Bush.  It's all about who gets, and who doesn't, get the credit.  Gotta be careful with that.

It's warped, I know. 

Let's see, who wanted to jump on Pelosi for saying exactly what happened.  The military was not successful.  Iran steps in a negotiates a cease fire.  Pelosi credits Iran.

I just deal in facts, not foolish speculation like you two dolts.

I just deal in facts, not foolish speculation

I noted the participation of the Iranians in my initial post.  For you to jump to the conclusion that I believed their help was unwelcome or unwarranted was indeed foolish speculation on your part and without any factual basis. 

Neither of us said Iran was not a player, we just agreed that Pelosi should have credited our military, publicly, before Iran.  You disagree, fine.

Tommy and Dems,

You guys have no clue.  The US military had nothing to do with this.  Why should she credit them with anything.

You have to be the two most dense people on the planet!

Bingo, give the man a cigar!!!!

Uh, I suggest you try reading MMFA's piece before you comment, Dem_SOL. The point is made, above -- nonsensically, by Lou Dobbs himself -- that the US military was NOT in Basra. So why should the US military get credit there? The CNN reporter in fact said that the backing off by al Sadr was NOT due to the US military-assisted efforts by the Iraqis. This appears, in other words, to be a gratuitous attack, by Dobbs et al, on the patriotism of a Democrat, Speaker Pelosi, who happens to be someone who goes out of her way at every opportunity to give credit and thanks and support to our US troops.

"Here's a thought for MMFA to consider.  I expect a politician to always hold up  the American Military first.  If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that."--dems_sol

So you apparently prefer an acknowledgement of a reassuring fairy-tale as opposed to the unvarnished truth.  I guess that is pretty consistent with conservatism in general, but it is pretty sad to see a presumably grown adult admit that.

Dobbs views are frequently at odds with what CNN reports so this isn't much of a surprise.  What Pelosi said was 100% true and is in no way a disservice to the military.

Pelosi in the same statement says the surge didn't achieve it's goal and Iranians goodwill is the reason for some of the success in the surge. She gives them credit for the cessation of the hostilities.

This is from the the first person behind the VP in line for the Presidency!  Wow. If that isn't invested in defeat then Hillary has conceded. 

AA,

I'll ask you the same question, do you think this would have occurred without ths Iranians intervention?

skeptic,

I think the coalition forces would have taken out the militia.  

But they never did and hadn't until Iran got involved.  What do you base that statement on?

BAGHDAD — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

-April 28, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?hp

What's your point?

AA,

Your article is about a ceasefire that happened at least three, if not four, weeks after the events Pelosi was talking about.  What do you make of CNN's own reporting (links in the article) that showed Iran played a role in the ceasefire.

That is not being invested in defeat, by the way.

I'm not denying the Iranian's influence in the settlement.  It is apparent by Pelosi's statement that she is denying the success of the surge and praising the Iranians.   It looks like investing in defeat to me.

AA,

The military was not having any success until Iran stepped in.  Sorry, but thems the facts.

AA,

Saying that the Iranians played a positive role is not denying American success.  Its merely stating that the Iranians helped.

Would have or did?  We aren't engaging in hypotheticals here.

Both. 

Did - The Al Sadr militia was defeated in Basra.

Would have - The negotiated cessation in Sadr City stopped the coalition forces from hunting down the militia and defeating them there.

The Iranians probably saw that Sadr would be defeated and there would go their influence, so they negotiated the cessation of hostilities. In other words, they ran away to fight another day.  

Wow,

You have a way of re-writing history.  Iran negotiated a cease fire and then the military swept through.

What about that do you not understand?

skeptic,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it was two different situations. One in Basra, the other in Sadr City.

And both situations were a result of the Iranians intervention!

Hmmm... The Iranians, in case you didn't realize it, are fighting a proxy war with the imbicile Moqata Al Sadr. 

Why all the pretense?  The Iranians are already at war with the U.S.  It really doesn't lend much credence to Obama's and Pelosi's cut and run strategy now does it?

Why all the pretence? Nothing a progressive does will ever meet your standards. To pretend to be willing to discuss matters objectively, while you accuse them of every possible negative action or thought, is what I see from you.  

Your definition of war must set the bar low enough that you are essentailly at war with close to three quarters of the population and thats just in this country.

Cut & run, seven little letters. How much effort does it take to type them out? How much effort would it take you to tell us about all the actions you put into those seven letters.

A friend's phrase suits your posts, panglossian tautology. 

The only ones who benefited more than Al Qaeda when the imbecile George Bush invaded Iraq were the Iranian hardliners.

And maybe Halliburton and Blackwater.

I think you just gave yourself away.  You don't want Pelosi mucking up your own little drumbeat for war with Iran (which you seem to think is already happening).  Now I see why your argument makes no sense on its face, but it does in the wider view of your remarks.

Black and White.

Either - Or.

No Nuances here.

If she is giving credit to Iran, then she can't be leaving any for our military. Anyone who denies that Media Matters is 100% spot on with this report is deluding themselves but not fooling the sane, intelligent ones here.

She says "You cannot have just a military solution in Iraq. And some of the success of the surge is at the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end. They negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians."

Goodwin stated, "I mean, you saw earlier -- you reported about Nancy Pelosi basically giving the Iranians the credit," and later asserted: "[W]hen people say the Democrats are invested in failure, Nancy Pelosi is exhibit A. That sort of statement means she will not give credit to the American military, to the American strategy. She's so invested in criticizing it that she can't accept it."

lets face it, pelosi is a commie dedicated to the destruction of the u.s., just like obama

Bush/Cheney set the "destruction of the u.s." bar pretty high.

Pelosi and Obama are commies?  Man Republicans are going to get creamed.  Please keep your mouth shut if you want McCain to even have a chance at winning.