April 24, 2007

Nancy No-Show

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have insisted that the American military has done nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. Reid has gone so far as to declare the war lost and to malign the character of General David Petraeus, whose report he dismisses as valueless. Pelosi has a simpler way of dealing with Petraeus and his briefing for Capitol Hill -- avoid him:

As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill — which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest — Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.

ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.

"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length."

A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation lasted 30 minutes.

So what was so important that Pelosi could not attend a briefing on the progress of the war? It does not appear to be an emergency, since no one has suggested that she has left Washington in the middle of a work week. Is there another more pressing matter than the war in Iraq? Certainly the Democrats have not thought so to this point; they have made it their most pressing issue in attempting to force Petraeus into a retreat in the face of terrorists and gangsters.

The most pressing policy issues revolve around our efforts in the war on terror, including the war in Iraq. If Pelosi cannot fit that into her schedule, and Reid cannot bring himself to listen to the field commanders, then neither of them should hold leadership positions. The Democrats apparently want to surrender at every opportunity they can find.

UPDATE: And let's not forget that Pelosi had time to meet with Bashar Assad. What does it say about Democratic leadership that they would prefer to break break with a murderous dictator rather than meet with an American general reporting on developments in his command?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nancy No-Show:

» Video - Kennedy Lashes Out At Cheney in Defense of Harry Reid from Webloggin
Today was a ramped up day for Democrat obstructionists opposing the war in Iraq. Senator Kennedy took time out on the Senate floor to defend Harry Reid from the “attacks” of Vice President Dick Cheney and lend support to the latest Democrat cut and... [Read More]

» TUES APR 23 Harry Reid (D-Las Vegas) Is Not Rational from The Pink Flamingo

Doc is being particularly annoying today.  In other words, she is behaving just like a cat.

[Read More]

» Pelosi Won’t Attend Briefing On Iraq from Iowa Voice
Well, why should she? She and other Democrats already have their talking points about the war, so there’s no sense in meeting with the General in charge…because that might complicate things. Th… ... [Read More]

» Nancy No-Show from NoisyRoom.net
Courtesy of Captain’s Quarters: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have insisted that the American military has done nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. Reid has gone so far as to declare the war lost and to malign the character of General David... [Read More]

Comments (39)

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:12 PM

This really...I mean REALLY gets me hoppin' mad.

I agree Cap'n. WHAT is so bloody pressing that she can't make the scheduled briefing? If she had a legitimate important conflict they would put that out there for all to see. But no, "she can't make it." !

It's my opinion that she's such an egomaniac that she can't stand to be in a position where she doesn't know jack squat. If she can't be on top of an issue, if she can't know MORE than the other guy, she won't play.

This is the #1 issue in the country. She's pointed that out ad nauseum. She's pointed out that the War is the reason she got her bloody job and now "she doesn't have time" for the Commanding officer on the ground?

If Pelosi was third in command at my company, she'd be missing her other engagement tomorrow as well - she'd be cleaning out her desk and be in her exit interview.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:21 PM

Once again, it's time to thank all of those non-Democrats who stayed away from the polls in November of 2006 on "principle". See what the result was?

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:22 PM

What? Democrats ... listen to facts? Are you nuts? The bubble that the Democrat Party (not to mention the MSM and the rest of the hard left) resides in would burst if exposed to facts! Think of the environmental damage if all that hot air was released!

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:22 PM

This action on their parts are just proof positive that they lack JUDGMENT to be leaders in our country. I had contempt for Pelosi before as a partisan hack, but now I loathe her with every fibre of my being. There are no polite words to express my absolute disgust for these 2 individuals.

Posted by vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:30 PM

The usual suspects are taking a vacation from heavy trolling on this post.

I can understand that as an illustration of the maxim that discretion is the better part of valor.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:33 PM

I bet they'd both have plenty of time to meet with Hugo Chavez, if he showed up. People seem to find time for their friends and soulmates.

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 9:39 PM

sky is still green and tree blue Captain?

that last paragraph was total horsecrap.

"democrats only want defeat" - bullshit.

how about this one - you like it? it just as accurate Bubba?

"repugs only want to send troops into a swamp to die for no cause in a war without end"

like that one?

oh ya, the "war on Terror" got nothin to do with Iraqnam - that one is OUR PUPPY and your hero King George's screwed pooch.

enjoy your little personal war, the rest of us non-drinkers are just sitting back and wantching you koolaiders implode over your little Nam.

unfortunate that we cannot use that Iraqnman sinkhole money to a more productive use like crinimal investigations into terror groups/plots - you know stuff that works and locks the bad guys up.

nope - you jokers too busy playing GI Joe - see if we care, we all know that the end shall be death by a million cuts.

no biggie - not my war, not the Dems war, not most of Americans war - just the Neocon koolaid drinkers war and the Boy King himself (as usual King George and his dinglebarries remain inseparable in all things).

-oh ya, 10 more American soldiers got blown to pieces yesterday for nuthin. - not that you goons give a shit. 10000 or a trillion more blown apart and a million yrs later you'd still be saying the same shit "stay the course" "defeat is not a ..........blah blah blah".

game OVER - deal with it.

Posted by Gary Gross [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 10:00 PM

Harry Reid celebrated when he thought he'd killed the Patriot Act. Now he wants us to believe that he cares about Gen. Petraeus' opinion. Please.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 10:09 PM

"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length."

What's up? Is Pelosi's dance card already filled for a repeat performance with Bashar al-Assad?

Recall again that Reid trumpeted the song that the SecDef needed to be replaced and that a change in strategy, specifically a "surge" in Iraq, was required a few months ago while saying we were losing the war (peace?). Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Gates and brings in the unanimously approved Petraeus to lead that new strategy. Signs are that it is working, so Reid flips and accelerates his losing rhetoric.

Further, Murtha's authority on affairs military, the military mind and soul fronting for the Democrat "cut-n-run" strategy with the backing of Rep. Obey, is shown to be an utterly contemptible and dishonest charade to hinder the military while they fraudulently declare that their action is something patriotic. Several corruptocrats to the core.

The childishness (and that's my gracious description of their antics) of the Democrat leadership persists. If they don't hear it, it doesn't exist.


It's been said before and should be said again with a constant drumbeat. The President and the administration needs to step out front and report to the American public the machinations of the "loyal opposition." Hoist Reid and Pelosi on their own petard using just the facts. Let's see just how much they "support the troops" when they cannot even manage to publicly meet the man running the strategy they were so hell bent to force upon the President prior to an election. Weren't they whining about oversight and hearings to see that Oberfurer McChimpyhitlerburton didn't irreparably damage the nation? Are they afraid that Petraeus' report might poke some holes in the narrative they've so calculatingly conceived and that the public might be forced to hear positive developments from the Iraqi theater? Why, how awful that would be. Maybe hearings on whether or not the words "war on terror" could be used in legislation would be appropriate now since stuff like that in the Democrat Congress' second 100 hours clearly trump actual reporting by the top general.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 10:14 PM

Re: gaffo at April 24, 2007 09:39 PM


Aside from all the other reasons to stay and win--high-minded reasons you wouldn't understand--there is the learning aspect. Unfortunately, the best training for surviving a war is fighting a war. That's just human history.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 10:20 PM

Up at IRAQ THE MODEL, there's some frustration that Maliki has chosen to STOP the bulding of the WALL, which was a defensive measure; going up. To stop sunni terror from crossing the street.

What caught my eye is that politics is also springing out in Iraq. And, Maliki is worried enough; that he's run to Cairo. Trying to convince sunni governments, that he needs their support!

I kid you not!

Allawi is the man to watch. He's "America's pick." Which means he's the Saudi show in Iraq. Who might turn out to be the "go to" guy.

So, as much as your wring your hands of pelosi and reid. They're people in the opposition party.

Maybe, it's just better to get a clue? The donks have a chance to pick a position. Maybe, they're picking this position with insider dope? Instead of just dopey posturing their their left wing nutters.

The left wing nutters aren't the one's who are gonna cut policy in 2008.

And, yes. I have my suspicions that we got 9/11, not because of the CAVE MAN, but because the Saud's "signalled" GO.

Bush wasn't going into Iraq! (It seems that was something the Saud's wanted.)

And, the funding currently bringing wave after wave of terrot TO Iraq; which has costs exceeding $11-billion-dollars and climbing. Is not something that has checks written in the caves of Afghanistan.

Yeah. I think Osama is dead. I think he became spray paintings on the cave walls up in Tora Bora.

And, I think the Saud's are over their eyeballs, in being able to influence OUTCOMES; that involves American military. And, American tax dollars.

Even if you think pelosi is your problem. She is not!

Why is Maliki reworking his politics? He's been cooperating with Patraeus. And, now he's gone to the Egyptians.

On 9/11, what should have become obvious, but didn't. Is that the egyptians were also up to their eyeballs in promoting TERROR.

The weaker crew? Abner DInnerjack. And, the giraffe in Syria. The french, too. Weaklings.

The Brit's. Weaker than I've expected them to be.

Vietnam was a mistake. Kosovo was a mistake.

And, by mistake, I mean that we supply the military and the lives. And, we don't collect respect. The peple "there" have different views.

While in Iraq? HELLO. Under Saddam they were secular!

It's only now, AFTER we go IN, that you see this craziness. And, parts of it develop with Bush's support.

Right after 9/11 Bush couldn't hug muslems fast enough. We got all the blah, blah, about the "religion of peace." WELL, THAT'S A LIE.

And it masks the real perps who fund the terror. Ain't the CAVE MAN.

And, now that Maliki allowed Patraeus to begin building a 3-mile wall. 12 feet high. Doesn't look like the Eifel Tower. Now, the contrary order comes down the pike?

And, with Amerian backing, Allawi is making the rounds? To become popular?

Bush picks leaders? He's rather STINK-O at picking people. Let me tell ya! From Chalabi. To Paul Bremer. To Condi. He hasn't gotten one thing right.

And, all you want to notice is the silly stuff on a presidential stage; where the race is two years away? What is this? Fantasy baseball? You build it and they will come?

All the dems need is 50/50. They're fully aware that's all they've held in their hands IN THE BEST OF TIMES! Since Eisenhower.

Even at times when republicans gained a few seats advantage, in either the House or Senate; leave it to the donks to operate the scenery.

Scenery takes in all the committee positions. All the things that were once "gentlemen's agreements," and now is just fodder.

Why am I so suspicious?

Why not?

I know what caused 9/11.

I also know Saddam was an enemy of the Saud's.

Seems like when the situations come about that give the Saud's the advantage; there ya have Bush, and his "team" of Baker/Gates, tossing away what could have been real American victories. On HOG WASH.

By the way, pelosi wears Tom DeLay's testicles as earings. She may look lightweight. But don't get caught on her knife.

The more you make fun of her? The less you see how the system operates. For the donks? She, and harry reid, bring home the bacon. But it doesn't get better than 50/50.

And, Bush isn't doing YOU any favors at all.

To watch? What Maliki is being forced to swallow in eygpt, now. Why? Because, he, too, sees the nature of 50/50.

In governments where people vote. You can only get a percentage. And, if you're in charge of the faucet. That 50/50 works out a bit different. Because a slight advantage can give you the whole pie.

Nobody has presented the Saud's with a bill!

You want to believe the CAVE MAN?

Gaffo. You're wrong about the PEOPLE. Mainstream America has a pretty good idea something smells, here. Just as they got the same idea about George Herbert Walker Bush. Talked a good conservative game. But didn't really give a shit. On his watch? In 4 years, because you can read the tallies. He lost to Bill Clinton, when 9-million voters shifted out of his camp.

And, they're playing with the son? What? To have a religious experience?

OH, the neo-cons are gone. And, LIbby got shafted. So please. Don't go blaming the Jews! They live in that neighborhood! They know a lot more than you. And, that's why they put up walls.

That's even why, before his stroke, Arik Sharon pulled 8,000 Jews OUT OF THE LINE OF FIRE!

All Gazoo does is give the Saud's desires for more.

If we're lucky? They'll end up NOT getting what they want.

But keep your eye on the ball.

Posted by Angry Dumbo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 10:22 PM

I used to like the nick name, Minimum Wage Tuna, but I like No Show Nancy even better.

Nice work Captain.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 11:31 PM


sky still green and trees still blue? You need glasss, buddy!

The War on Terror is not winnable -- but it certainly is loseable. We haven't lost it -- regardless of what Reid or other members of the Party of Slavery might say.

You remind me of an America Firster? Remember them? No, I guess not -- you seem a bit young to remember when millions of Americans did not want us fighting the Nazis.

Or a Copperhead. Remember them? They were all good Democrats to a head. Why fight slavery? Why fight our white bretheren?

We didn't start this war. But we're in it.

There is a chasm between you and us that cannot be bridged. You are a newbie come here to poke at the Captain. Nice big target, but you've got the wisdom to take him down. Riiiight. We've seen your type before. You'll come in here, troll a bit, get tired of having your paper arguments torn up, and go away.

Wait and see -- you don't have the fortitude to stay anywhere. Your politics say that. My message here will stay posted longer than you frequent this haunt.


Pelosi already looks weak, and this just made her look weaker.

Pelosi wanted Petraeus to come to her office, but he politely declined; she wanted a personal briefing from a guy whose got little time on his hands. She did get 30 minutes on the phone -- I doubt it did much, because there weren't any cute Powerpoint slides or pictures. It will be amusing to see what she does with her 30 minutes of newfound information. I doubt she convinced the good General of the futility of it all, and I doubt he convinced her that we are doing well.

At least our side still has the veto and the Democrats have no response to that.

Posted by richard mcenroe [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 24, 2007 11:43 PM

Let's see, the Democrats have run...

From Iraq,
From Fox,
From Stephen Colbert,
From General Petraeus...

...but it's okay. They're going to fix the weather.

Posted by flackcatcher [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 12:01 AM

By their actions Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have spit in the face of every American serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places too numerous to mention. Sad, and stupid beyond belief.

Posted by wham1000 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 12:14 AM

CQ unfortunately is back to his daily ranting. Despite occasional signs of intelligence he cannot stop himself from the usual boilerplates as “malign the character” “want to surrender” and crude name calling “ad vomitum”. He and his small court of readers tend to forget that this administration has being continuously wrong in all aspect of this war for the last 4 years. Any right minded person would be highly suspicious in believing anything that comes from this administration, particular in regard to the Iraqi situation. To have a contrarian opinion is probably the right thing. As to Petraeus he is a soldier and obeys orders. He will only loose confidence in extreme hardship, as many past generals already have.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 12:40 AM

Definite drop in the quality of insults lately.

wham1000: ... "his small court of readers" ....

wham, lemee guess -- you just took a moment out from posting on your own megablog to come to this site and set the handful of readers straight? I wonder how you found the time.

Good use of the word boilerplate though.

Posted by JeanneB [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:41 AM

On first reading this I thought "Pelosi's really stepped in it now". But, on reflection, I think she has other motives.

The last thing the Dems want is widespread media coverage of General Patraeus presenting a positive review of the surge.

Pelosi's game is to get the media to report the political hardball and ignore the General's message. There's every reason to believe the MSM will accommodate her.

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:42 AM

Actually, wham, here's the definition of boilerplate:
boil·er·plate /ˈbɔɪlərˌpleɪt/ –noun 1. plating of iron or steel for making the shells of boilers, covering the hulls of ships, etc.
2. Journalism. a. syndicated or ready-to-print copy, used esp. by weekly newspapers.
b. trite, hackneyed writing.
3. the detailed standard wording of a contract, warranty, etc.
4. Informal. phrases or units of text used repeatedly, as in correspondence produced by a word-processing system.
5. frozen, crusty, hard-packed snow, often with icy patches

You'd be interested mostly in numbers 2,3, and 4. However, the two examples you used were "malign the character" and "want to surrender".
I don't find either as being overused, or in this case, "trite, hackneyed, or ready to print".
Those phrases are used considerably, but it's only because they "malign" people's character (there's not really another way to put it...maybe "ASSAULT people's character would be better? How about IMPUGN?)
Of course, how dare the Cap'n used words in his article you don't like. We'll get him a NEW Thesaurus so you don't have to see the same tired, hackneyed phrases coming from your DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVES.
Or, you could just do like us who are also tired of the "boilerplate" (a term that could describe any democrat loooonnngg before it would describe the Cap'n) and just vote against those who haven't any new ideas. For us, that's pretty much ALL DEMOCRATS.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:01 AM

Is anybody really surprised than SanFran Nan can't take time out of her busy schedule to meet with General Petraeus? Why, he might actually tell her - publicly! - that the surge is helping and that things in Baghdad are actually improving a bit! He might even tell her that, contrary to what Field Marshall al-Murtha and Grand Admiral Reid say, we haven't lost. What if he tells her (gasp!) that artificial timetables do nothing but embolden the enemy (the terrorists, that is, not George Bush)? Worst of all, he might tell her that, as important as money for spinach farmers is, the troops need the money that she and Dingy Harry have been tying up.

A few days ago, somebody commented that the fwench like to elect people who will protect them from reality. Many of us said that phrase applies to democrats. Here's the proof.

It's been obvious to me from the beginning of the war that the dems do not want to win. By refusing to even meet with General Petraeus, they make their treason blatantly obvious.

Posted by Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:13 AM

The Pelosiban in 08'!!!! All of you candidates are belong to us! Allahu Wade-Roe & Warming!!!! {sigh}

Posted by BarCodeKing [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:44 AM

Nancy Petain and Harry Quisling. Hooray for our Democrat "leadershiP." I THINK that the last letter in that word is SUPPOSED to be a P rather than a T, but they certainly aren't acting like it.

Posted by BarCodeKing [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:50 AM

And it would certainly take more than one square of TP for Sheryl Crow to wipe Nancy and Harry away!

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 6:14 AM

Oh God, and this woman is third in line for the Presidency.

Aren't enough words to describe my contempt.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 6:19 AM

The Dems have cynically attached a minimum wage provision on their latest supplemental "offering", daring the President Bush to veto that! They think that they have a winnah.

Harry didn't include that tidbit for the microphones when he indulged in his "attack dog" rhetoric to define Cheney. Reid knows that the media like the message of a dogfight better than they do the substance of the differences of philosophy re national security and mission support. Here is what Cheney actually said regarding Reid: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070424-10.html.

Maybe General Patraeus should have presented his assessment directly to the American people because the respresentatives of the people are certainly not interested in facts on the ground. Reid selectively cherry-picks what he hears; Pelosi assumes that she has the brains to assimilate issues of warfare in a thirty-minute crash course of International Relations and Security for Dummies®.

As long as the Reid-Pelosi message is the only one being fed to the masses, they control the message.

When Reid-etal's remarks become grist for the copy-mill of ME media-- as they do for anyone with the curiosity to research those outlets, then Iraqi cooperation with the Coaltion seems like a losing propostion. Abandonment and retreat over the hill to Okinawa and "support" via a pork-filled bill filled with a game-plan of bugging out based on a Democrat strategy of partisan politics wouldn't inspire the Iraqis as partners for stabilization. Those nations licking their chops for the spoils out of the ensuing chaos and power vacuum in Iraq are waiting outside the henhouse, and they are not going to give peace a chance.

No wonder Maliki is attempting to broker cooperation with Egypt or that the Sauds are arming up. The ME will explode into chaos with the Dems' timetable of abandonment. These nations are jockeying for their own security: the Reid-Pelosi message is don't look to help from us.

Saddam secular? My ass! Like all despots, he cultivated his allies wherever and however he could maintain his power. (Didn't you read how Russia was intruding in Iraq under Saddam as described in that February 2001 intelligence assessment? Brokering arms by the Russians was not intended to bring liberty to Iraq; it would have enabled Saddam to increase his hegemony in the ME. Russia wanted to extend its own sphere of influence, collapsed economy or not.)

The idiots who cling to the meme that Iraq is "Bush's war" ain't seen nothing yet when the signal is given to attack from within our own country to the known terrorist cells already in place. Sunni or Shia differences won't matter to the perpetrators against "the Great Satan" because the jihadist warriors have assuredly sniffed our soft underbelly-- the yellowness of which is encapsulated by the Dem "leadership" of Reid and Pelosi.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 6:37 AM

Maybe Reid's stroke short-circuited the hard wiring of his brain. Did you ever observe a person with more lack of affect, of flat facial expression? That is, when he isn't squinting or scowling. Maybe he has stared at the sun too long in the quest of the Dems to divert the message to the imminent terrorism of global warming. Or maybe the Senator from Searchlight hasn't focused his high beams on a picture bigger than his party.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 7:19 AM

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the decision "irresponsible" and said it constituted a "dereliction of duty." But by the end of the day, Pelosi's office changed course and scheduled a briefing for members of the House for Wednesday, April 25.

—- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Today on CNN, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, from the white-flag Democrat party, pretty much called General Petraeus a liar:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress. He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.

I can't recall ever seeing such blatant disregard for the security of our nation; such blatant disregard for American military personnel...

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 7:31 AM

Pelosi has a fitting scheduled her new, $20,000 designer burqa and cannot be disturbed.

The dingbat trophy wife Shrieker of the House would add nothing to the hearing anyway, besides giggles, drools and snores.

The poor dope is so drugged up on valium, she'd have a hard time finding her way to Capitol Hill in any case.

You go girl! And take the rest of your absolutely worthless and traitorous Democrats with you!

Posted by sam pender [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 8:34 AM

Where WILL Nancy-no-show be when Gen Petraeus is giving his briefing?

The man left a combat zone and flew around the world to come inform policy makers, and those with D's after their name blow him off. It's not only impractical, dishonest, stupid, arrogant, and political,

it's dishonor.

Where is their respect for the man they sent to lead the surge that they demanded? (remember, Reid, Pelosi, and even Dean all called for more troops to Iraq until it leaked that the President was going to send more troops. Then they did a complete 180 within a week)

If I were a 4 star general, I'd walk down the hall, have my staff "open" the door to the Speaker's office, then have a little one on one with the defeatist. It's not like he takes orders from her-he takes them from the Commander in Chief.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:46 AM

gaffo sez:

"the rest of us non-drinkers are just sitting back and wantching you koolaiders implode over your little Nam."

LOL! The other night, you told me you were drinking gin and tonics. Pay attention!

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:47 AM

Remember when the dems waxed hysterical because Bush "refused to listen to the generals"???

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:33 PM

Not that I would expect this to change any of the Right Wing Hate but two *facts*:

1> Pelosi spoke at length with Petraeus via Phone the day before.


2> McCain is not/did not attend the conference either but I don't see anyone excoriating him.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:44 PM

"McCain is not/did not attend the conference either but I don't see anyone excoriating him."

Perhaps because it was an all-House briefing, as reported in your link?

I can see NancyGirl with the General on speaker-phone, getting botox injections and doing her nails, as the General speaks.

I'm sure her staff composed some interesting questions, which she dutifully read before going back to applying a second coat on her nails.

So what's so important for NancyGirl to do tomorrow? Big sale on burqas? Assad made a booty call? Pillow fight with Hillary?

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:21 PM

NoDonkey sez:

"McCain is not/did not attend the conference either but I don't see anyone excoriating him."

Perhaps because it was an all-House briefing, as reported in your link?"

Ouch! And people like Ty claim Bush is "dumb"...actually, Senator McCain was out of town anyway, running for something. So even if he WAS a House member, he'd have a legit excuse for not being present.

By the way, our other southpaw friend here, gaffo, claimed the other night that al Qaeda has no "command structure"-but he may find this link of interest:


"A top Taliban commander said al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was behind the February attack outside a U.S. military base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, according to an interview shown Wednesday by Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Bin Laden planned and supervised the attack that killed 23 people outside the Bagram base while Cheney was there, said Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's main military commander in southern Afghanistan who has had close associations with al-Qaida."

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:38 PM

Ah, out come the personal attacks.

They can't attack the message so they attack the messenger. I hope this isn't how people on the Right, think they will win over hearts and minds...

And thus it was written...the 30% became 20%...and the 20% became 10%....

But getting back to the message...

NoDonkey - there was a SENATE meeting as well - something that McCain...the **Senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee**... did NOT attend. His reason? Campaigning.

Did I excoriate him? No, not at all. I only pointed out the hypocrisy. Surely if Nancy should be updated by Petraeus, McCain should be too, right?

And naturally since I pointed out that Pelosi DID indeed have ONE ON ONE contact with Petraeus, you have to resort to childish rants. Egads man, grow up.


Lumping me together with others who claim Bush is dumb only further serves to prove how willfully blinded by anger you've become.

Take a step back, breathe in deeply, then come back when you're able to discuss things like an adult.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 8:08 PM


Oh please, "personal attacks". Boo hoo. Egads, man, grow up.

Here's an idea for you - go to Daily Kos, or some other lefty site, and write something in support of President Bush.

Before your banned from further posts, you'll read more obsenities than you'll hear in a year on an HBO drama series.

And who made you gatekeeper, champ?

It would seem the House and Senate LEADERSHIP (unfortunately) would be there to welcome the General.

But then again, they have absolutely no interest in seeing him succeed, do they? The mission THEY sent him on. The mission THEY sent American troops to fight.

The mission THEY are undermining each and every day, for purely partisan reasons.

You want to defend your absolutely worthless traitor Democrats, that's your business. But don't get all uppity when you don't get a bunch of sunny responses.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:50 PM

TyCaptains said:

"Lumping me together with others who claim Bush is dumb only further serves to prove how willfully blinded by anger you've become."

LOL! You're the one who gave a Senator sh*t for not attending a House of Representatives hearing. Case closed.

"Take a step back, breathe in deeply, then come back when you're able to discuss things like an adult."

LOL! You're in academia, right? As a lifelong Democrat whose party left him in 1998,. all I can do is laugh.

I never personally insulted you in my post, but the best you can do is just that to me? Weak.

I just won the debate.

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:03 AM


It's apparent that you are suffering from BDDS (Bush Defense Derangement Syndrome) since you can't seem to follow even simple points and automatically confuse bringing up facts as "defending your mortal enemy". Yet ever the optimist that I am, I shall endeavor to try again.

1> Point of fact, I wasn't "crying" (your boohoo comments) that you were resorting to childish name calling. I was simply pointing out that, that is indeed all your retort amounted to.

2> I don't visit KOS and I am completely certain that it is filled with utter drivel and lunatic rantings.

3> Comparing your and Del's post to the trash that's likely there at KOS (you started the comparison after all), then you are admitting that your posts are similar in vein. That realization alone should hopefully get you to "grow up".

4> I simply pointed out *THE FACTS*, Pelosi spoke with Petraeus one on one.

Remember, first she is excoriated for NOT getting updated by him (fine) but when this is proven to be false, you quickly turn to silly school yard rants. Wow, that's some integrity!

Furthermore, you brazenly withhold ANY condemnation for McCain missing the Senate Briefing from Petraeus. Hypocrisy thy name is NoDonkey.

I hope your follow up post will not again contain ZERO facts and 100% name calling.


Apparently BDDS is contagious....

Let me spell it out clearer for you.

There was a SENATE briefing by Petraeus today. McCain is a SENATOR. McCain decided to SKIP this briefing.

Academia? Wha? What the heck gave you that idea? Because I choose to discuss with SUBSTANCE vs. rants?

I laid out the facts:

1> Pelosi condemned for skipping out on House Briefing.
2> Turns out that the day before, she actually spoke with him on the phone, thus reducing the ire from #1 to non-existence.
3> McCain choose to skip out on the senate briefing and yet no one seemed to mind. I didn't either.

Care to debate THOSE points instead?