Hillary Vows An End to Arrogance, Pelosi Complains About Dissent

February 21, 2007

In what appears to be Washington D.C.’s competing Queen Bee’s vying for attention, both appeared today to be trying to be significant.

Hillary, at a campaign stop pandering for Black votes in “Liberty City,” a predominately Black neighborhood in Miami, Florida called for an End of U.S. ‘ARROGANCE’ in the presidency.

Coming from someone else, this might be a believable call. Coming from Hillary, it is about as ridiculous as it gets. Who has been more arrogant than her and her husband when they were “co-presidents?” She refuses to call her vote for the invasion of Iraq a "mistake” to appease the far leftist drivel in the Democrat party.

Clinton said that the Bush administration squandered worldwide goodwill in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

No, Mrs. Clinton, we aren’t a nation known for any goodwill coming from other nations. What you confuse as “goodwill” is actually “sympathy” from others. Then, as usual, they and many within the country simply “got over it” and went back to sleep.

During World War Two, when we had Troops staging in England for the all important invasion of France to free Europe from the clutches of Nazism, a common saying from the British towards our Troops was, “they are over paid, over sexed and over here!” That was in the 1940’s and England has been our staunchest ally.

A 1958 Best Seller, The Ugly American, chronicled what the author saw as a “slashing exposé of American arrogance,” particularly in Southeast Asia.

And, who could be deemed more arrogant than the Clinton’s? From husband Bills refusal to discuss his draft dodging in the 1992 campaign, to Hillary’s declaration of a “vast right winged conspiracy” to “get her husbands presidency,” to the statement of, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

The Clinton years are amongst the most arrogant we ever saw. From invading Bosnia, Kosovo, without a U.N. mandate, to turning a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda, to cutting our Defense budget while deploying Troops more than any president in recent history, the Clinton’s arrogantly set themselves up as a ‘dynasty.’

To hear Hillary vowing to “End U.S. ‘ARROGANCE’ as President” is not only laughable it is ridiculous.

Not to be outdone in the “Queen Bee” arena, Nancy Pelosi, Speakerette of the House, Called Bush to Complain of Cheney’s Comments on Democrats’ Iraq Strategy

Perhaps the most striking about this is the revelation that the Democrat party even has a “strategy.”

Vice President Cheney had said, "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

Is there something about brutal honesty that Speakerette Pelosi doesn’t care for?

Said Pelosi, “[Cheney’s comment was] beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

Really, Ms. Pelosi? And comments from the old sot Kennedy and comments of the darling of the cut-and-run crowd and un-indicted co-conspirator from the Abscam scandal, Jack Murtha are considered what?

From Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB to his comment about “The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution,” (The Associated Press, 1/27/05), what support for the Troops is there?

And, Murtha’s working with well known anti- war groups to accomplish his Slow Bleed policy, claiming, “This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge. We’re trying to force redeployment [of troops outside Iraq], not by taking money away but by redirecting it,” leaves the Troops feeling what? Overwhelming support? Or betrayal?

At the same time, we have Rep. Tom Andrews stating of the alliance with the anti-war groups, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party,” after admitting "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi fully supports and stands behind this move at undermining and “slow bleeding” the Troops, she claims Democrats “all support.”

Speaker Pelosi, on the February 14, 2007 showing of the The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, was asked, "Ms. Pelosi, what would your position be if in fact the Petraeus plan worked?" What if it actually worked, the Baghdad security plan?

Caught off guard by such a question and after a small amount of stammering, she replied, "I pray that it does. But the fact is we know that it would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq. That's where you go. You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, 'Now we're going to referee.'"

Is it supportive of the troops saying they are engaging in ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods? About as supportive as Dick Durbin’s comparisons of the Troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings,” or Murtha’s saying the Marines “murdered innocent civilians in cold blood.”

And now that Vice President Cheney expresses dissent, after all the talk of ”dissent is patriotic”, by the Democrat party, Speakerette Pelosi gets her panties in a twist?

Welcome to the big leagues, Nancy. As a noted past Democrat President is quoted as saying, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Harry S. Truman also often said, “Don’t take on a job if you are unwilling to face its pressures.”

Lew