Posted on 01/27/2007 6:27:32 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 01/27/2007 7:43:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program."
Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
I remember meeting a guy in Korea in 1966 who claimed to be 'intellegence' ... we were in a bar and he said he couldn't say too much about what he does, so I stopped trying to start a conversation, but I noticed (untill I got stinko drunk on Bangyang whiskey)that he didn't seem to drink, but stayed unassuming and cleverly invisable in plain sight. I made mental note that there are some things in this man's Army that I would never know nor understand.
I would like to see video of this 'interview' before I believe the report.
Why are you asking a 'young army soldier' about something you claimed to know all about?
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ...
Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
I wonder when Cindy Sheehan will visit Iraq again??? I bet that Pelosi will be with her.
The duplicitisness (is that a word?)of these people is staggering. They are dangerous US military hating back stabbers. They think that they can say anything today and no one will look to see what they said yesterday. To think that they would want us to back out and loose this war with terrorist just to harm GWB's reputation is utterly astounding.
Pelosi is a FLIM-FLAM SHIM-SHAM huckster.
So am I.
This is absolutely horrific, bordering on cruel, totally insensitive and so very, very dirty.
She is a pig. I mean it.
Take the minimum wage debacle that was unable to reach the poor who labor under conditions favored by one of her big $$$$ constituent contributors.
There is evil here.
And for a US congress person to go to where our troops are RISKING THEIR VERY LIVES for our nation and ATTEMPT to dishearten them and issue forth questions that could stir DOUBT in their hearts about their COMMANDER IN CHIEF JUST STINKS!
She needs to be SPANKED and forced to take a course in patriotism.
How much could ONE PERSON hate American than to travel on tax payer money to a place of war and attempt to demoralize the troops.
My guess, she and the democrats have gone to far........imagine this sorry piece of socialist tripe serving as our commander in chief........THAT IS A TERRORIST's BEST DREAM!
Works for me !!
My gosh, first Hilary in Iraq, now Nancy?
If that's not enough to scare away the terrorists, I doubt anything is!
Plastic surgery and/or Botox.
"Duplicity" would work in that sentence. And I totally agree. The only ones who will go back and look at what these jerks said, especially BEFORE GW was elected (which they still doubt happened) are US. And then, to them, it is a "vast right wing conspiracy".
Ping
Nancy Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us into the war. That would be interesting to start with."
Well, since she was a member of the House Intelligence Committee, yes it would be interesting to start with.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
_________________________________
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
__________________________________
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
___________________________________
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
____________________________________
America is threatened by an "unholy axis":
"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.
We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
_____________________________________
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
______________________________________
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
On minimum wage, don't know what kindergarten hypocrisy charge you have in mind (and don't much care), but it is a perfectly sensible measure. Economists rather than ideologues will tell you we know tolerably well what the effects are, and they are, to first order, that about $275-300 billion in corporate profits will become $200-225 billion in wages and the balance will be lost. Whether that is foolish or worth it is a call everyone has to make, and it is perfectly legitimate for the political system to get the job of making that call.
As for there being evil there, I deeply distrust the inclination to see moral failing in every disagreement with an ideological position, or to see all error as at bottom sin. Error is not crime. What Pelosi is, at bottom, is a self satisfied fool.
Whenever something in the world isn't as she wishes, she pretends it is, and that only mean opponents prevent this from becoming true or obvious. She wishes the war in Iraq were unnecessary, so she pretends it is. Bush continuing to regard it as necessary despite her wish that it were not, makes her think not that it may be necessary after all, but instead that Bush is mean and not is deliberately not letting the war in Iraq be unnecessary. As though he he would just play "let's pretend" along with her, everything would be hunky dory.
This is a childish delusion, certainly. But it is not morally evil, as say AQI videotaping beheadings for recruitment is morally evil. Pretending it is or that we as conservatives can't tell the difference between them, does us no good politically, and does not begin to address the political problem. Which is that Pelosi is not remotely alone in suffering from the above delusion.
As for the all caps risking their very lives, um, yeah, sorta. It isn't much of a war, objectively speaking. Our losses are incredibly light. Not a lot of photo ops indulged at Verdun, because pols don't consider their own guts hanging from the trees terribly photogenic. They go because they know they will be perfectly safe. They will be perfectly safe because they aren't spending much time there, and because our soldiers have already done a fine job.
As for doubts about commanders in chief, anyone in a republic can indulge them to their heart's content, most of all our soldiers, who have the best cause to, if they want. Presidents are not made infallible by the fact of war (nor by anything else).
As for needing a course in patriotism, I am sure plenty of Americans could use more patriotism but I don't see how a course could help. Sounds more like Stalinist brainwashing, sensitivity training style, or what have you. Patriotism is sincere and from the heart or it simply does not exist. You might as well try to scold someone into love. It is a fool's errand.
And we know perfectly well why she does it. She feels doubts and is guilty about opposing the war in the past, and she feels a strong need to be vindicated by being proved right by future events. She and her party have said the war is unnecessary and everything will be better if the troops just come home, and she needs that to be true, psychologically speaking. So she needs both the troops to come home, and no great disaster to follow. She will probably in the end settle for ignoring the disaster that does follow, and prattling on about it at least not hurting her own or something.
As for her going too far, in case nobody noticed the Democrats won the last election. If the American people think they have gone too far, they have a curious way of showing it. It might be better if they did see things that way, but they don't. Pelosi is smug simply because there is a gigantic mass of smugness that has her back.
She is dumb, and she is a symptom. Wise men will apply their remedies to actual causes.
She should have told her: All we know is what Congress and other traitors leak.
Pelosi had more access to that intel than this gruntet ever would have. Her question showed that she cared less about the soldiers and everything about the photop.
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.