Pelosi: “Two Plus Two Equals Fish”

When Harry Reid says “jump” in the summer, Nancy Pelosi says “off what?” in the winter:

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

Pelosi is depending on the raw ignorance of her own base, here; the surge was intended to kill terrorists and make it safe, or at least much, much safer, to live in Iraq. Without that, noodling about with politics is superfluous.

But, perhaps sensitive about the mess that her friends in the Bay Area are creating, she hastened to add:

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”

One has to wonder; is Nancy Pelosi that ignorant a slapnuts? Or does she merely know that her base is?
Speaker Pelosi: If the troops have succeeded, what did they succeed at? Their mission? The one you declared a “failure” just a few seconds earlier?

Oh, yeah – and while counterinsurgency is a matter of patience and subtlety, she’s wrong anyway.

16 thoughts on “Pelosi: “Two Plus Two Equals Fish”

  1. I thought the purpose of the surge was so Pelosi’s husband could get more no-bid gov’t defense contracts.

  2. Pelosi si counting on A) the ignorance of journalists when reporting on military strategy; B) the willingness of journalists to support democratic party political strategy.
    The purpose of the surge was not to “to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq”. Although this may be one of its accomplishments. The surge was a shift in military objectives from training Iraqi military forces to reducing sectarian violence in targeted areas — namely Baghdad and Anbar province:

    Any military strategy must of course be accompanied by a range of diplomatic, political, economic and reconciliation initiatives, but those alone will not contain the violence either. Success in Iraq today requires a well-thought-out military operation aimed at bringing security to the people of Baghdad as quickly as possible — a traditional counterinsurgency mission.
    The Right Type of ‘Surge’
    Any Troop Increase Must Be Large and Lasting
    Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan
    Washington Post, December 27, 2006
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773.html

  3. Is anyone surprised? The Democrats keep desperately clinging to their political narrative no matter what. First the surge can never work and we should just pull out. Then when the surge worked, and the Democrats move the goalposts to political progress. Of course, the Democrats keep saying that you can’t create political progress with military means, so their standards are designed to be impossible to meet. Then the Iraqi government starts making progress on key issues like de-Ba’athification, and now the Democrats have to move the goalposts again.

    My guess is that in 6 months the Democrats will insist that the war is a failure unless US troops invent cold fusion, cure cancer, and resolve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. No matter what the military does, the goalposts will keep getting moved.

  4. One has to wonder; is Nancy Pelosi that ignorant a slapnuts? Or does she merely know that her base is?
    Third option: They are all pretty darned stupid.

  5. You could have opposed the invasion (many conservatives did). You can say things could have been handled better after the initial invasion (very fair arguement to make). But the Democrats have way too much invested in the failure of Iraq. Instead of saying “this should have been done differently, but let’s take care of business now that we are there”, they want us to lose. A win by the US and our allies in Iraq, is a defeat for the Democrats (in their eyes).

  6. “They have not done that.”

    Isn’t she referring to the work the Iraqi government has not accomplished?

  7. Fulcrum-
    Pelosi is weaseling. The purpose of the surge was not to bring political reconciliation to Iraq. Only Iraqi’s can do that. The explicit purpose of the surge was to reduce sectarian violence in Baghdad & Anbar province. The surge has accomplished its goals. Pelosi desperately wants to move the goalposts so that this is viewed as a policy failure by Bush.

  8. Silly wingnuts, getting all “mission accomplished” every time you run the ball two yards.

  9. Actually, the Pelosi quote is a lot closer to what the President said A year ago January when he announced the surge than your statement. On January 10, 2007 I posted:

    “”For about 4 years we have ‘shocked and awed’ and declared ‘Mission Accomplished’. Now the President states “the situation in Iraq is unacceptable”

    I agree, it is unacceptable, but I don’t believe we can turn our back at this time. The key passage in the President’s speech involved turning over control of Iraqi security by November. In order to do this, an influx of 20,000 troops are needed to work along side current Iraqi forces to restabilize Baghdad, and focus on the Sunni resurgency.””

    Read the whole speech:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

    Specifically the PResident states:
    “”To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.””

    So you can move the goal posts, but whereas what you say “the surge was intended to kill terrorists and make it safe, or at least much, much safer, to live in Iraq. ” may be true, that does not contradict the more accurate statement of Pelosi, “”“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,””” when you chose to read the presidents Surge Announcement.

    Can anyone tell my how many provinces the Iraqi government has taken responsibility for the security of? Are we significantly closer to transition from a military occupying force to a security force and eventually a peacekeeping force?

    I waited for November and it came and gone. I will admit things are somewhat better, but the President announced some pretty specific goals of which many, if not most, have gone unresolved. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold on, and with my son getting ready for his 6 month stint at Al Asad I’ll be keeping a very watchful eye on these developments.

    Flash

  10. flash

    “Can anyone tell my how many provinces the Iraqi government has taken responsibility for the security of?”

    From the December quarterly report

    “Coalition forces continue to transfer responsibility for security to the GoI. Karbala Province transitioned to PIC on Oct 29, 2007, bringing the total number of provinces … to eight of eighteen provinces. ”

    Basrah transitioned to PIC in December 2007, so total is at least nine of eighteen provinces.

    FYI, you should really read these reports. (I mean that in a very non snarky way)

    http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/

  11. So you can move the goal posts, but whereas what you say “the surge was intended to kill terrorists and make it safe, or at least much, much safer, to live in Iraq. ” may be true, that does not contradict the more accurate statement of Pelosi

    She’s militarily wrong, and to say so would be both a statement against and, yep, that dreaded moving of the goal posts!

  12. MoNl Thanks! I have been struggling where to find this type of information.

    So President Bush says:
    “”the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.””

    The operative word being ALL

    The December reports says “bringing the total number of provinces … to eight of eighteen provinces. ”

    Which is less than half of what the President set goal was.

    Mitch, we can debate it all day and won’t change either of our minds. But given the two statements, Hers, and yours, when compared to what the President actually said in January, Her’s is more accurate.

    Or here, this is the most accurate

    “the surge was intended to kill terrorists and make it safe, or at least much, much safer to then create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq”

    The object wasn’t just to kill people, there was a specific goal in mind, and that was to turn over Iraqi security. We have not succeeded in the time frame presented by the President. War is messy, it will take a little longer than we thought/hoped. That is the tact those of us supporting this war should take, not going nana at Pelosi who for all her faults has a valid point, whether you want to admit it or not.

    I think the surge has been successful, but I wouldn’t go as far as saying it has succeeded . . . yet

    Flash

  13. Hey, what the hell, I agree with the flash, (to some extent)

    But when Pelosi said “They have not done that.” Was she referring to
    “create a secure time for the government of Iraq” or was she referring to “make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,”?

    Because they have clearly achieved the first part, but the Iraqis haven’t finished the second part. Although the ground up grass roots changes have been substantial, the top down changes have been inept and suspect.

  14. Master of None wrote:
    But when Pelosi said “They have not done that.” Was she referring to
    “create a secure time for the government of Iraq” or was she referring to “make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,”?

    She was trying to fashion a statement that would credit the troops with doing their job, but deny Bush any credit for the strategy the troops are working to bring about. A tough act, which results in weird statements such as the one Mitch quotes here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.