HuffPo Blasts Pelosi

Yeah, there's a lame plastic surgery joke to be made here. But I'm smiling so hard at reading this, I actually have some empathy for a bad face job just now. That would be sitting beside the Whoopi who spoke of a three-way, if I'm not mistaken.

Weak Has a Face, and It's Pelosi's

If there was any doubt before, which there wasn't, it's gone now. Watching Nancy Pelosi on The View yesterday morning provided the final proof that the backbone of the House is only as strong as its speaker. Her body language said it all. There she sat in the center of the table, sandwiched between Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the "Is the world flat? I don't know" lady, looking anxious and devoid of stately confidence. She could barely look in the eyes of America's Favorite True Believer on her left, who immediately smelled fear and pounced on her prey. "If the violence in Iraq had gone up," she started in (I'm paraphrasing), "you would be insisting that the surge was a failure. Now that the reports say it's gone down drastically, aren't you willing to admit that the surge is a success?" So what does Pelosi do? Does she make like Bill Clinton versus Chris Wallace, lean into her face and retort "young lady, don't try that little conservative hit job on me. You obviously don't know fudged numbers when you see them"? No. Instead she looks somewhere in Hasselbeck's general direction and squeaks meekly, "But that's still a lot of deaths." (I'm not paraphrasing). She then quickly changes the subject as she spends the rest of the interview leaning away from Hasselbeck and focusing on the three women on her right, wishing to God they had sat her down beside Whoopi.

Comments

[Peach]

"young lady, don't try that little conservative hit job on me. You obviously don't know fudged numbers when you see them"?

Man the left is delusional. They are no different then the loony bin truthers. They want failure so bad that lack of deaths in Iraq are "fudged numbers" Just like the truthers who constantly need to revise their debunked conspiracies in order to keep it alive to sell t-shirts and dvds.

[Super-Electro-Magnetic Midget Launcher]

"Weak"? Sounds like Pelosi at least has the balls to face facts, unlike the clown at the HuffPo. Of course, our Nancy doesn't know what to DO with those facts other than surrender, but hey, she's a Democrat, give her a break...

[paul]

read some of the comments...

not a lot of love.

a lot of "told you so's" though.

I do love the 'I could have said it better' posters. a by-product of too many episodes of west wing.

[Observer]

From: Barry Manilow
To: Nancy Pelosi

Nah Nah Na NaH NaH

[MarkJ]

Gee, given Nancy's "But that's still a lot of deaths" reply, let's look at some figures for Baltimore, Maryland:

Population: approx. 638,000
Murders in 2006: 276
Murders since 2003: approx. 1200

And these for Detroit:

Population: approx. 885,000
Murders in 2006: 418
Murders since 2003: approx. 1600

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/

Seems to me like Baltimore and Detroit are now in "civil war" conditions. Therefore, using Nancy's logic, we should pull out all U.S. military and law enforcement personnel from the above two cities and redeploy them to Okinawa. Whoa, sounds like a plan to me (*snicker, snort*)!

[paul]

impressive numbers.

given Iraq's population of 25 million(+/- a million for Lancet war deaths...)

If Detroit were as big as Iraq the figure would be about 11,800 dead for 2006.

Maryland-10,800 dead for 2006.

1% of Iraqi population? 250,000.

[Peach]

--Seems to me like Baltimore and Detroit are now in "civil war" conditions.--

Oh, don't go there.Funding the war in PA and MA will be a new TAX!

I am watching fake war hero Harkin again...the Democrat aides just ain't what they used to be.

[paul]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

Death rate per 1000, in Iraq?
5.26. That's 186 out of 222.

Iran? 5.65, 173 out of 222.

If death and mayhem are the norm for Iraq, I pity the other 185 countries, who suffer worse than Iraq.

Usa-#104 8.26...

We have better health care, no wars to speak of internally...but we die 60% faster than Iraqis.

[seekeronos]

The Lancet study seems to be a bit dubious, IMHO. Is it based upon a real body count, or it "extrapolated" from some statistical formula that needs a slide rule and a few sacrificial chickens to cypher out?

[ET]

Pelosi's problem is that her hypocrisies, and those of all of the anti-war democrats, are as exposed and Marylin's panties on a windy day. Try as she might, she can't hold her skirt down (sorry for the mental image). The dems lied to the voting public when they won the house by promising to end the war when they all knew that withdrawal was not a realistic option. They covet power, and will sabotage America's future to attain it. A few more performances like this, and the Republicans will certainly win the White House (Romney over Clinton), and possibly even the house and senate.

"Stupid is as stupid does" -- Sally Field (when is she on the view?)

[Dadmanly]

The LANCET numbers are imaginary pretending to be scientifically sound, and have been immediately challenged whenever they have issued their "findings."

First. They send interview teams to sample population areas and ask questions like, "has anyone in your family been killed by war (by combat, insurgent, terrorist, IEDs, coalition, assassin, sniper, etc.) Iraqis consider the "family" to include 2nd and third cousins, two and three times removed, etc. No effort is made to cull out duplicates, ie, when multiple interviews identify the same "family members" who have been killed.

Second. They also have developed relationships with Doctors and hospitals in select areas, and they blend in reports of "civilian" casualties. An insurgent or terrorist or Baathist whatever you wnat to call him doesn not wear a uniform. When he gets shot or killed and ends up at the hospital or morgue, he gets counted as a civilian, not a combatant. Again, the LANCET teams make little attempt to screen out obvious combatant numbers.

Three. The architects and sponsors of the LANCET study have admitted that they have an agenda -- to stop the war -- and their willfully sloppy methods and disregard for scientific method betray their sympathies.

Objective estimates conclude that their counts are inflated by as much as 1000% (ten times) or more.