Having failed in their efforts to lose the War in Iraq democrats are not focusing on Afghanistan.
Speaker Pelosi lashed out at the brave Afghan leader, who has survived several assassination attempts, as an “unworthy partner” today. Karzai was inaugurated yesterday.
Having failed in Iraq, democrats hope to have better luck surrendering in Afghanistan.
Reuters reported:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an “unworthy partner” who does not deserve a big boost either in U.S. troops or civilian aid, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
Pelosi, a skeptic on sending more troops to Afghanistan, also said in an interview with National Public Radio aired on Friday that there was not strong support among her fellow Democrats in Congress for “any big ramp-up of troops” to oppose resurgent Taliban forces.
She told NPR she had asked fellow Democrats to give President Barack Obama room to decide his Afghan strategy, which is expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Once Obama, also a Democrat, announces his decision, lawmakers would “not be shy” about responding, she said.
“The president of Afghanistan has proven to be an unworthy partner. We cannot fund a mission where we don’t have a reliable partner and where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose,” Pelosi told NPR News’ Morning Edition.
November 20th, 2009 | 2:49 pm | #1
The real unworthy partner here is Pelousy herself.
November 20th, 2009 | 2:54 pm | #2
Stephana – agree.
How can Pelosi complain that Karzai is unworthy because he’s corrupt when Pelosi and her Democrats are more corrupt than Karza??
November 20th, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #3
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Charles Chapdelaine, Paul Alyunov. Paul Alyunov said: Democrats Begin Afghan Surrender– Pelosi Calls Karzai “Unworthy”: Having failed in their effo.. http://bit.ly/07PbgtW [...]
November 20th, 2009 | 3:11 pm | #4
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Servius and Jennifer, USS New York. USS New York said: Gateway Pundit-Democrats Begin Afghan Surrender– Pelosi Calls Karzai “Unworthy”-http://tinyurl.com/y9a7xhw [...]
November 20th, 2009 | 3:41 pm | #5
“…where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose,”
Exactly how I feel when I pay my taxes.
November 20th, 2009 | 3:46 pm | #6
Unworthy? Pot calling the kettle black.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #7
and we’re to understand that the obama adm is worthy and reliable. from the way she’s speaking, you would think that the dems are
projecting an image of strength and determination. the message the obama adm
is sending would make one consider how much
faith you would have in them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,608170,00.html
November 20th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #8
Wait, so the Democrats are corrupt and surrendering the Afghan war? Are you guys seriously this ignorant? I understand being partisan, but in all honesty, you folks just hurt America with these un-constructive comments. You can dislike the Democrats all you want, but at least be intelligent about it. Both parties have their share of corrupt leaders. Secondly, we were barely in Afghanistan until Obama decided there was no point in being in Iraq.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #9
…and yet they are willing to consider all the thugs in the UN, the Castro Brothers, the Chinese, the Russians, the Communist ex-dictator of Honduras, the South American dictators, Hamas, you name it, as “worthy partners”? Breathtaking.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #10
It must be Friday.
Surrender day.
Bad news day.
If it is lost, it is lost because of Barack Obama. History will not forget.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:18 pm | #11
How about lets not LOSE the war, let’s just drop this god damned war already and pull our troops out! How many more American lives need to be lost for corrupt Afghan politicians?
War is not conservative, as Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr(REPUBLICAN from Tennessee) put it a couple days ago:
“There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan. One Republican Member from California told me recently that we could buy off every warlord in Afghanistan for $1 billion.
Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department.
We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have–that we had to borrow–in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let’s bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.”
November 20th, 2009 | 4:28 pm | #12
There are only 2 choices once a war is engaged, win or lose. Leaving the field of battle and allowing Afghanistan to be overrun by the taliban will be chalked up as a loss by the US.
Also, we will not make the Karzai administration less corrupt by leaving the country unstable where every official has reason to look out only for numero uno. We will decrease corruption in Afghanistan only by increasing security and coaching the people there into a respect for the rule of law.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:33 pm | #13
Welcome ‘Jim’ and ‘LibertyReigns’. What’s your real moniker when you’re not being trollish?
I love Jim’s leap to moral equivelence. “They all do it,” is such a wonderful argument… NOT.
Then we have the ever ready isolationist argument from LibertyReigns. How well did that work for us in 1941? Or any other time for that matter?
Better luck next time. Feel free to play again.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:36 pm | #14
Gee Jim,
I bet you were all over the place criticzing the democrats for their surrender in the war in Iraq.
Right?
Maybe not?
In any case, wake me when Obama decides to actually do what he promised in his campaign and SEND MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:39 pm | #15
If Obama was a man, he would tell her to shut the hell up. Her job is not foreign policy.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:42 pm | #16
We need to leave Afghanistan so the money being spent there can be transferred to the public option of the so-called health care bill.
November 20th, 2009 | 4:57 pm | #17
“Welcome ‘Jim’ and ‘LibertyReigns’. What’s your real moniker when you’re not being trollish?”
Well gee whiz chuck I guess me, Ron Paul, John Duncan Jr, George Will, and any other person on the right who isn’t a neo con(aren’t these the people we want out of congress?) are all just trolls.
November 20th, 2009 | 5:07 pm | #18
I’VE BEEN BLOGGING THIS ABOUT THE DEMS SINCE 2004:
LIKE THE DEM DOVES DID TO SOUTH VIETNAM IN 1975, THEY’RE GONNA DO TO AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND ISRAEL – GIVEN THE CHANCE.
REMINDER:
THE LAST US TROOPS LEFT VIETNAM ON 3/30/73.
SAIGON FELL IN APRIL 1975.
TWO YEARS LATER.
SOUTH VIETNAM FELL BECAUSE THE DEM CONTROLLED CONGRESS PULLED THE PLUG ON SUPPORT FOR OUR SV ALLIES.
AND BECAUSE THE NORTH VIETNAMESE COMMIES VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THE PARIS PEACE TREATY.
A MILLION VIETNAMESE WERE PUT INTO RE-EDUCATION CAMPS.
3 MILLION FLED – THE BOAT PEOPLE; HALF DIED ESCAPING.
CAMBODIA FELL AND ANOTHER 4 MILLION WERE SLAUGHTERED THERE.
ALL AS A RESULT OF THE DEM DOVES.
THE DEMS WILL DO IT AGAIN – GIVEN THE CHANCE.
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT IS TO VOTE THEM OUT IN 2010.
THE FUTURE OF THE FREE WORLD DEPENDS ON IT!
THE FALL OF VIETNAM LED DIRECTLY TO CARTER, AND THE FALL OF IRAN AND THE FALL OF AFGHANISTAN.
REAGAN FIXED THINGS.
BUT OBAMA AND PELOSI AND REID ARE TRYING TO UNDO ALL THE GOOD REAGAN ACCOMPLISHED: IN FOREIGN POLICY AND DOMESTICALLY, TOO.
WE MUST STOP THEM.
November 20th, 2009 | 6:43 pm | #19
reliapundit
November 20th, 2009 | 5:07 pm | #18
I’VE BEEN BLOGGING THIS ABOUT THE DEMS SINCE 2004:
LIKE THE DEM DOVES DID TO SOUTH VIETNAM IN 1975, THEY’RE GONNA DO TO AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND ISRAEL – GIVEN THE CHANCE.
REMINDER:
THE LAST US TROOPS LEFT VIETNAM ON 3/30/73.
SAIGON FELL IN APRIL 1975.
TWO YEARS LATER.
—————————————————–
And the reason it took two years for the NVA to get to Saigon was because the USA had beaten them down to the point that they couldn’t even mount an operation for that long.
Had our traitorous congress honored their agreements with South Vietnam, the fall of Saigon would have never occurred, and there would still be a free Vietnam. (There would still be two VNs, but that’s OK, too.)
Our current congress wants to cut and run from Afghanistan in the most humiliating manner possible – and lil barry wants to do it in the most politically expedient manner possible. He wants to look as though he’s doing the “right thing” – which he’s never done in his life.
I do believe, however, that if we aren’t going to put the needed people into A-stan, and fight a real war to defeat the taliban and al queda decisively – that we should just pack up and get the hell out. There is no sense in sacrificing men to a meat-grinder when the objective is not VICTORY. And we know how obama feels about that.
November 20th, 2009 | 7:30 pm | #20
So Demonicrats, how many people has Obama liberated/forsaken thus far?
November 20th, 2009 | 8:50 pm | #21
There’s waything braze about Karzai. The only way the Taliban can be beat in his country is with SEVERE, BRUTAL force. That’s all muslims know.
Read your history.
November 20th, 2009 | 8:54 pm | #22
My mouse pad wasn’t working.
There is nothing brave about Karzai. The only way the Taliban can be beat in his country is with SEVERE, BRUTAL force. That’s all muslims know.
History sucks.
November 20th, 2009 | 8:54 pm | #23
Yes, Karzai is corrupt – his brother is the biggest opium trafficker in AFG. But none of this is news. Karzai is nothing but the “Mayor of Kabul” – he has no control over the rest of the country. None of this is news. The question is whether it is in the interests of our national security to keep AFG, basket case that it is, out of the hands of the jihadists. In my view the answer is yes because holding the line in AFG is the only thing that’s keeping nuclear Pakistan from folding. The Pak Army is finally cleaning house in Waziristan and the border areas, we should be deploying the resources to capitalize on that.
November 20th, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #24
“LibertyReigns”, we CAN’T return to a pre-9/11 world. If Afghanistan falls, the Jihadis will have an unchallenged base of operations to continue their war on the civilized world. They will have not only all the resources and infrastructure to build more training camps and armies of killers, they will have millions of civilians to place in the way of any future attacks on them. We’ve already been through this before, and the Girlymen running the government now don’t have the stomach to launch a new war against them in the future. What other countries should be abandoned to the enemy? What would such a “victory” for the enemy do for recruiting and propaganda? As far as the cost goes, how much have the LEFTISTS wasted on UN-constitutional Social programs? How much is your liberty worth?
November 20th, 2009 | 10:45 pm | #25
opaobie,
You mention 9/11…..we can still have strong national security(which means we protect our OWN country) even when we are not fighting another country. The middle east is a messed up region and forever will be, no amount of international pressure,aid, or intervention can change that. Leave the Afghans be and they won’t have the resources/reasons to recruit enough members to attack the US.
“As far as the cost goes, how much have the LEFTISTS wasted on UN-constitutional Social programs?”
True, they have wasted tons of money on unconstitutional social programs, which we need to get rid of, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that the right(particularly the neocons) have wasted tons of money on unconstitutional wars and on the war on marijuana and other righteous self serving social prohibition.
Being anti-war doesn’t mean you are a troll, or a leftist, liberal, and it shouldn’t have to be.
November 20th, 2009 | 11:42 pm | #26
“LibertyReigns”, can you imagine what the world would look like if the “Leave the [Nazis and Japanese Imperialists] be and they won’t have the resources/reasons to recruit enough members to attack the US” attitude had prevailed…oooooops, it did until Pearl Harbor was attacked. We have already had another “Pearl Harbor” — ours was on 9/11 — yet you and others like you still haven’t gotten the message. WE didn’t blow up TALIBAN towers in Afghanistan; THEY blew up towers in New York, so obviously they don’t NEED any incentive to attack us again and again and again as long as they have the resources to do so. How many more attacks on our soil will it take to convince you and others with their heads in the sand that THEY are on a world Jihad offensive? I prefer to fight the battles on THEIR land instead of on OURS.
Lots of money and manpower were mismanaged by the Bush Administration prosecuting the war on both the Iraq front and the Afghanistan front. The fact that it was not managed right doesn’t negate the legitimacy of fighting to defend America, even on foreign soil. NOTHING legitimizes the UN-constitutional Social spending over the past 3/4 of a century. Bush abandoned Conservatism, and it propelled us into the mess we are in now. Obama lit the afterburners when he should have hit the brakes.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact