Article

2006-06-09 Home Front: WoT

Nancy Pelosi: Zarqawi Death Changes Nothing

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-06-09 09:56|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "June 8, 2006

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on al Zarkawi

"As a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarkawi was responsible for despicable attacks that claimed the lives of too many Iraqis and Americans. I saw firsthand the terrible consequences of Zarqawi's terrorist network when Bill, Chelsea and I visited the hotel ballroom in Amman, Jordan last November where Zarqawi's followers had detonated a bomb at a wedding party, killing and wounding innocent people. We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today's success.

I hope that this will be a blow to the insurgency in Iraq and affords an opportunity for the new Iraqi government to build on this success and provide greater security and stability for the Iraqi people"

Let the contrast between Pelosi and Clinton be duely noted.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-09 11:19|| 2006-06-09 11:19|| Front Page Top

#2 Pelosi's a partisan hack, and Hill's a Presidential candidate. I think the differences in rhetoric here have nothing to do with core beliefs, but in political positioning.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-06-09 11:28|| 2006-06-09 11:28|| Front Page Top

#3 John Kerry is also a presidential candidate, and his response was substantively closer to Pelosi, if his language was more measured.

Clinton has been consistent in her approach to foreign policy and the middle east since she emerged on the national scene. Now maybe that was always calculated - you can say that about any politician.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-09 11:48|| 2006-06-09 11:48|| Front Page Top

#4 True enough. But Kerry laid his liberal cards on the table a long time ago. If he crept to center now, everyone would see it for what it is. Hillary's got a lot more wiggle room.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-06-09 11:56|| 2006-06-09 11:56|| Front Page Top

#5 May not have changed anything for the Dems in their war against Bushitler McChimplerburton, but I dare say it has affected Zarky's outlook considerably.

Zarqawi was a monster and the world is a better place for his passing. Civilized people everywhere should be passing out candy and having gun sex.

Posted by SteveS 2006-06-09 12:00|| 2006-06-09 12:00|| Front Page Top

#6 I agree with liberalhawk about Clinton's consistency on this issue. But I just can't bring myself to trust her. Unfair? Perhaps, but it's not like I have nothing to base my mistrust on.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-06-09 12:03|| 2006-06-09 12:03|| Front Page Top

#7 I trust her. I just think she's a flaming liberal on domestic issues (e. g. single payer health insurance) and she's never hidden that; but on FP, she would be good. She's much more of a patriot than slick willie.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-09 12:09|| 2006-06-09 12:09|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, I doubt that she is more patriotic than Slick Willie, just more bloodthirsty and willing to kill if need be. The women in positions of power in the Clintoon Admin tended towards violence as a solution to embarassing problems, if you have any doubts about that, remember Janet Reno and Waco.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-06-09 13:13|| 2006-06-09 13:13|| Front Page Top

#9 HEY WHIP LADY,WHY DON'T YOU SU*& MY------ Never mind I can't say it.

Posted by ARMYGUY 2006-06-09 13:26|| 2006-06-09 13:26|| Front Page Top

#10 LH is right I don't like hillary at all, but she blow shit up overseas if it got her better poll numbers.

Posted by djohn66 2006-06-09 14:03|| 2006-06-09 14:03|| Front Page Top

#11 LiberalHawk
It's that contrast that has divided the Democratic Party and made it impossible for them to nominate a "ringer" for 2008. They are split right down the middle on the Iraq issue.

***snicker***

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-06-09 15:22|| 2006-06-09 15:22|| Front Page Top

#12 I actually think the Hildebeast is serious about the WoT -- she still sees it mostly as a law enforcement issue, but she understands better than most of the Doinks that there are limits. Her statement yesterday is absolutely in keeping with her previous statements.

I still won't vote for her.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-06-09 15:57|| 2006-06-09 15:57|| Front Page Top

#13 All democrats support and embrace organized crime. That is their defining factor. Any political position they may have is strictly for votes. They only believe in gaining money for favors and scams where they can skim and launder funds. Any democrats who do not fit that description are fools who got on the wrong train.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-09 17:49|| 2006-06-09 17:49|| Front Page Top

#14 "Let the contrast between Pelosi and Clinton be duely noted."

True.

The latter has no problem with getting rid of people who are... troublesome.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-06-09 20:38|| 2006-06-09 20:38|| Front Page Top

#15 "Fighting a war of CHOICE" - maybe its just me, but is Nancy saying that "CHOICE" = NO CHOICE, OR NOT A CHOICE AT ALL??? GLOBAL SECULAR SOCIALISM = GLOBAL ISLAMIC STATE/CALIPHATE = EITHER WAY, SOLEY OR JOINTLY AS ATTYS SAY, AMERICA IS TO BE DEFEATED AND SUBORNED, VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY, IFF NOT DESTROYED, UNDER SOME FORM OF DEDICATED ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIALISM AND OWG!?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-06-09 22:15|| 2006-06-09 22:15|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:54 Pappy
23:51 trailing wife
23:42 Glavitch Angineter5765
23:38 3dc
23:37 trailing wife
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:29 Chuck
23:26 3dc
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:17 Dar
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:03 Captain America
23:03 3dc
23:00 Captain America
22:59 Glavitch Angineter5765
22:56 bigjim-ky
22:54 Uloter Unavique8739
22:50 DMFD
22:48 Uloter Unavique8739
22:44 Steve White
22:38 DanNY
22:35 SteveS
22:32 3dc