Speaker Pelosi nails it

[omega minimo]

"The 'Plan for Victory' backdrop is no more accurate than the 'Mission Accomplished' backdrop he used
two and a half years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln. The American people expected that the president
would do more today than put a new cover and 35 additional pages of rhetoric on old sound bites."
- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.



Reactions to President Bush's speech on Iraq:

---

"After nearly 1,000 days of war in Iraq, our troops, their families, and the American people deserve more than just a Bush-Cheney public relations campaign. They deserve a clear strategy with military, economic and political measures to be met in order to successfully complete our mission." - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

---

"It did give me a little more resolve than I already had. I'm kind of glad that the rest of the country gets to hear about the good things going on here." - 1st Lt. Dane Kappler of Amarillo, Texas, after listening to Bush's speech while eating dinner in a mess hall in Baqouba, Iraq.

---

"I hope the partisan claims that our military does not have a plan in Iraq will cease. We are making significant progress training Iraqi security forces which will allow American forces to return home. However, we must not prematurely leave Iraq, which would be a disaster for Iraq and for our security." - Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

---

"The president's speech in Annapolis today was a step in the right direction, and it begins to address the Senate's call for a successful exit strategy with measurable benchmarks. I look forward to hearing more, including information about the specific benchmarks we expect to achieve, and when we expect to achieve them." - Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

---

"It's going to take more than one speech to restore the credibility gap that the president is suffering. ... The president has not been candid in the last two and a half years with the American people about the situation in Iraq. - Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

---

"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America. The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America ... and the best way to protect the troops, the best way to stand up for the troops is to provide the best policy for success." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

---

"The president clearly stated that America will not run. The only exit strategy for Iraq is victory and we will not leave the Iraqis defenseless until they have the full capacity to protect themselves." - Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas.

---

with MAJOR props to the brilliant Swamp Rat
:patriot:

[texpatriot2004]

1. She sure did nm

[EFerrari]

2. Go, Nancy! We need you and we are grateful to you.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

'Way to turn the shark tank on ITSELF!

lol!

NANCY PELOSI IN {ANYTIME}!

[omega minimo]

6. Speaking of tank

Jumping the shark is a metaphor used by US television critics and fans since the 1990s. The phrase, popularized by Jon Hein on his website, jumptheshark.com, is used to describe the moment when a pop culture icon, originally a TV show or similar episodic medium, is in retrospect judged to have passed its "peak" and shows a noticeable decline in quality, or when it has undergone too many changes that take away the original charm and interest.

In TV, "jump the shark" moments follow a noticeable change in the show, such as a main cast member leaving or a change in setting, which are subsequently quoted as the marker point signifying when the show's decline started. Frequently "jump the shark" is used to describe a series that has undergone drastic changes as a result of a ratings decline that has already occurred, especially when the changes do little to halt or reverse this decline.

The term is also used to describe other areas of pop culture, such as music and celebrities, for whom a drastic change was the beginning of the end. These changes are often attributed to desperate attempts to keep attention, often by making over-the-top statements, or more overt appeals to sex or violence (see Circling the drain). It is sometimes used as an accusation that a particular statement or action is over-the-top, and that the public will turn against a particular celebrity or commentator as a result.

[EFerrari]

8. Exactamundo.

:P

[Bozita]

3. Pelosi's statement is perfect; no explanation needed

[Spinzonner]

4. The problem is protecting them from themselves

when we can figure out who is who and which is which.

And if they even want the help.

[leftstreet]

5. Way to go Nancy!

:toast:

[Neil Lisst]

7. I'm Loving her the past 6 weeks.

She's been getting better by the week, too. Her appearances this week have been solid. She's let someone make her over, and it shows. She's getting coaching on TV mannerisms, too, and that's good. She's vastly improved her on screen persona the past 6 weeks.

I almost feel bad for making fun of her in a cartoon the first week of October.

[EFerrari]

10. Who knows? Maybe you were her motivation?

She has had a make over, for sure. Softer somehow -- hair, makeup,other areas that are none of my busyness.

Which observation doesn't match with, "Skewer the bastards, Nancy! You can take them!"


That's my Congresswoman. (shining my campaign button)

[Neil Lisst]

25. I really have been pleased with her the past 6-8 weeks.

I felt like she really turned it around, really started to show leadership.

Let me tell you, partner, when she mandated the vote on the pub's surprise faux Murtha resolution, she showed she is in control of her party in the House. That was awesome.

If she manages to get a majority in 06, she deserves the speakership.

[EFerrari]

26. You bet! I worry about the voting machines. Don't see

how we're going to get back Congress with a Republican media and Republican machines.

[Neil Lisst]

27. AGREED. If we don't stop the computer voting fraud, it's all moot.

I want to see the PARTY get behind this.

[omega minimo]

28. That is THE issue-- what is being done? Campaign finance reform too

[EFerrari]

29. I don't see the party taking this up seriously.

Some kind of magical thinking, if you ask me.

"If we try a little harder, raise a little more dough, it will go away."

It won't go away. They're trying to Diebold CA TODAY.

Come over to the Elections forum. We need a few hands.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

30. Is it safe to go in there?

:scared:


:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

31. Lol! Handing you this protective gear.

The water is fine! :)

[omega minimo]

32. So we can excalibrate the machines?

:yoiks: :hide: :patriot:

[EFerrari]

34. LOL!

[Neil Lisst]

33. We have to focus on winning the House in 06, THEN ...

... THEN we insist the party hold hearings and protect our votes in 2008!!

[EFerrari]

35. Can we focus on making pigs fly first?

I'd like to see that. :)

[omega minimo]

37. It's hard to understand why the issue isn't seen as more

URGENT

[EFerrari]

38. Probably because the Dems are a little pregnant, too.

But we have come a LONG way. Right after the election, we were told by the NYT public editor via mass email that there was no story here. The CSPAN hosts cut off people who raised the question.

After Boxer's rebellion, after Mr. Conyer's hearings, after the GAO report and lately, Mark Crispin Miller's book, we got ourselves some badges.

And we need to keep working like hell. It won't be easy.

"Nobody said it was going to be easy." -- Ceremony, Leslie Marmon Silko

[omega minimo]

39. What do you mean?

"Probably because the Dems are a little pregnant, too."

:kick:

Why is the public, including the many who are unconcerned on DU, ignoring this issue? Who do they think is taking care of free and fair elections? Who is RESPONSIBLE for free and fair elections?

[EFerrari]

40. That would be us, wouldn't it? People have their

own timetable, their own lightbulb moment. Like all teachers, we have to keep putting the truth out there in a way that is easily consumable, over and over.

Mark calls it "denial" and I think he's right.

[omega minimo]

42. Call it "denial"

or "insanity"

And the illusion/delusion is that there is time for "People have their own timetable, their own lightbulb moment"? As I recall, people were talking about "next time" immediately after the Nov. 2004 election-- while "that time" still had the stink of criminality on it.


And what does "Dems little bit pregnant" mean?

[EFerrari]

44. It's probable that some Democrats avoid this issue because

they were involved in or knew of some kind of election fraud. King County, WA comes to mind. Andy once told me that if there was fraud there, it was most likely on the Dem's side.

People will do what they can get away with.

But, it's pretty certain that they've never done it on the scale that returned the pResident to our White House.

Denial is actually a low level form of insanity, isn't it?

[omega minimo]

45. Dunno-- are there "low crimes and misdemeanors"?

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

36. Whose side are YOU on?

[Rex]

9. Bush has a plan for victory

At least that is what his little stage show sells. I wonder how many get brainwashed by this spectacle?

[omega minimo]

12. Clearly the plan is scare everyone shitless and perpetuate perpetual war

profiteering

:evilfrown:

[Rex]

15. They say war profiteering is the second oldest business.

When will we ever learn?

[omega minimo]

17. Yeah the first and oldest is

Godfather

[TahitiNut]

11. Why are all Republican 'strategies' based on what other people work to

... accomplish?? :eyes:

[omega minimo]

14. Is that a rat-orical question?

:yoiks:

[yurbud]

13. I just saw her on the Daily Show and Stewart asked her why we are in Iraq

and all she said is the neocons were determined to invade no matter what.

That's almost as bad as the GOP talking points.

Are the Democrats EVER going to discuss the real motives for the war?

Frankly, I'm worried that they might entertain other oil wars if they aren't talking about the real reasons her and still frame it in the BS terms of the "War on Terror" and such.

[omega minimo]

18. What else did the Speaker say?

Which "real reasons" did she neglect to mention?

The Tee Vee just showed "Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation" and the War On Christmas. I'm so confused!!!!!!! :hide: :crazy:

[yurbud]

20. she didn't mention ANY--just said neocons wanted to invade real bad

[understandinglife]

16. Hope this is on the DU homepage by tomorrow morning.

Peace.

[omega minimo]

21. I thought Bush looked like he was standing in an old cigar box

Labeled, branded, cellophane wrapped....

SWAMP RAT nailed it.


:toast:

[LibertyorDeath]

19. Rec

[omega minimo]

22. Speaker Pelosi on TDS thread with link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2284571

lifted comments from WT2-- sharp, as usual:

welshTerrier2 (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-30-05 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. having her behind Murtha's plan is HUGE !!
and she was great with Stewart ... she came across as both knowledgeable and personable ...
she said several times today that the House is way ahead of the Senate on Iraq ... sounds like our timid Dem Senators are going to start feeling some heat ...

Murtha's plan has tapped into the "great energy source" ... calculated, heavily parsed, mechanical formulas from the Senate did not and will not sell ... it's time for the Dems in the Senate to figure out how to "migrate their positions" ...

my script for them: "it's clear the president will not listen to reason on Iraq ... he wants to stubbornly cling to his ill-conceived hope that things would just all work out ... Democrats in the Senate had hoped he would develop a specific plan for success but it's become clear he just will not listen to reason ... this refusal to accept reality leaves us with no other choice ... we are now, as a Party, fully aligned with Congressman's Murtha's call for the immediate redeployment of American troops out of Iraq ... our troops have to come first and subjecting them to more of the president's open-ended war in Iraq is not acceptable ..."

[ngGale]

23. Good to hear Nancy speak out...

I love it when she sharpens her nails.

[omega minimo]

24. Speaker Pelosi had W in a nutshell

She succintly skewered the phoniness of the presidential presentation, pretenses, propaganda and pretend "progress"-- reminding everyone of that other phony photo op years ago when "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." She don't need no codpiece.

With all DU respect, this has more to do with professional and political skill, than it does with "a make over, for sure. Softer somehow -- hair, makeup,other areas that are none of my busyness" or "sharpening her nails."


:kick:

[Armstead]

41. My God, is that a genuine Nazi shield?

If so the similarities are striking.

Karl Rove must be slipping. Usually they are more subtle than that.

[mongo]

43. Damn straight! She rocked on TDS the other night.

Glad to see her and Murtha (and a few others) standing up and being a real opposition party for a change.

[ultraist]

46. Precisely.

The pResident's "plan" is nothing more than a prop for this recent PR campaign to build up some support for his war. When Americans feel there is a purpose for a war and that we will be victorious, they are willing to tolerate high human costs.

snips
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html?hp&ex=1133672400&en=1965451f230185f4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

They found that public tolerance for the human cost of combat depended on two factors: a belief that the war was a worthy cause, and even more important, a belief that the war was likely to be successful.

Dr. Feaver was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented to administration officials their analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believe it would ultimately succeed.

That finding, which is questioned by other political scientists, was clearly reflected in President Bush's speech, in which he used the word victory 15 times and the podium was festooned with signs declaring "Plan for Victory." The strategy document was infused by the same mantra, with victory repeated six times in the table of contents alone and sections labeled "Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest" and "Our Strategy for Victory is Clear."

"This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency," said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. "The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."

****

Pelosi not only called out the pResident's plan for what it is, but supported an alternative plan (Murtha's). ALL DEMS should get on board with Pelosi and Murtha.

The DLC's response was to invalidate Pelosi:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | December 1, 2005
Iraq and the Vital Center

Yesterday, President Bush unveiled a "plan for victory" to shore up sagging public confidence in his Iraq policies. Though it broke little new ground, the president's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did provoke an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We share the widespread frustration with the Bush administration's utterly inept handling of Iraq's post-conflict rebuilding. But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure.

[omega minimo]

48. So at that point, it does not matter if it's

Eurasia or Oceania today:

"They found that public tolerance for the human cost of combat depended on two factors: a belief that the war was a worthy cause, and even more important, a belief that the war was likely to be successful."

:scared:

The DLC's response was to invalidate Pelosi:

"...an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops... What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure."

So what the DLC is saying is they are demanding "victory" which is exactly what the WH is demanding? While they undermine the House Democratic Leader?

Who needs wedge issues when you have wedge "leadership"?

[Jara sang]

47. Tells me that Bushco does have a plan for the Iraq War.

It just involves their buddies getting rich and teenage boys dying. They just don't give a shit.