Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich to Pelosi: Change 'Outrageous' SOU Rebuttal
NewsMax ^ | 2/2/05 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 02/02/2005 5:19:38 PM PST by wagglebee

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday afternoon to change her rebuttal to tonight's State of the Union Address, saying the language she intends to use referring to U.S. troops in Iraq as "an occupying force" is "outrageous."

"I hope before she says it tonight that she will withdraw that phrase and does not use it tonight," Gingrich told radio host Sean Hannity. "That's like describing American forces in Germany during the Cold War as an occupying force instead of a force that was protecting the German people from the Soviet Union." In a transcript of her pre-taped remarks released to the press earlier today, the top House Democrat complains: "We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos."

Gingrich predicted that Pelosi's remarks would be used by America's enemies as a propaganda tool.

"You don't give them a chance to play the Democratic leader around the world saying something that even implies" you're critical of the troops.

"This is a big mistake. It is a bad thing for America. How can you be quiet about something that's this outrageous?" Gingrich said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: demresponse; iraq; nancypelosi; newtgingrich; occupyingforce; rats; sotu; stateoftheunion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: wagglebee
"We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos."

Yep, she actually said, I listened to the rebuttal by Reid and Pelosi.

Now excuse me while I go de-louse.

41 posted on 02/02/2005 7:43:39 PM PST by Henchster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henchster

Pelosi even went as far as to tell the terrorists what we have left unguarded since 9/11.


42 posted on 02/02/2005 8:02:49 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
He was "politely" warning all of us to watch for it. He knew NP would never listen to what he said.

she changed it from "Americans are an occupying army" to "we are seen as an occupying force"

43 posted on 02/02/2005 8:56:40 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Here's where she said that American troops have failed:

"Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency, and the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq is now a magnet for international terrorists."


44 posted on 02/02/2005 9:01:42 PM PST by eyespysomething (I'm speechless here, but don't worry, it won't last long. Ask my husband.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Even California will be sick of her ass by the time she's been in office another term.


45 posted on 02/02/2005 10:22:30 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Ted "Kids, I Sunk the Honey" Kennedy is just a drunk who's never held a job (or had to).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
When she came on the screen, I grabbed the remote. Even an old episode of "Law and Order" was preferable to watching the wide-eyed Ms. Pelosi. Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
46 posted on 02/02/2005 10:25:44 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commonguymd
Although I have a theory; I fear this is all a Clinton effort. Let the left fracture the democrats and put Dean in charge of the DNC to continue building a party divide - opens up a slot for a 3rd party candidate (preferable strong on immigration methinks) to siphon enough votes for Hillary to get in. Thus, you get another Clinton in with less than 50%.

One GIANT flaw in this theory is that if the 3rd party candidate is on the left, is robs a ton of votes from Hitlery.

47 posted on 02/03/2005 3:02:10 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

The middle might go either way. You are right, a far left candidate may hurt her. I don't see that as the plan though. Just something to watch. She knows she could never get 50% in a straight up election. Her husband was gifted by a third party candidate.


48 posted on 02/03/2005 3:10:28 AM PST by commonguymd (My impatience is far more advanced than any known technology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson