Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

When I read Friday night that you condemned the House Republicans for pulling a political “stunt” by calling for a floor vote on a resolution to call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, I was beyond furious. How dare you? I suppose as political stunts go, it ranks right down there with Rep. Rangel’s bill to reinstate the military draft or the Senate Democrats’ recent crass stunt of demanding a secret Senate session to discuss the possible manipulation of pre-war intelligence. It is certainly not as bad as the shameless mendacity of Democratic leaders who recite the “Bush lied, kids died” mantra to appease their left-wing base when they themselves reached the same conclusions about Iraq’s WMD programs. I don’t have the space or patience right now to refute this lie once again—I just suggest that everyone read Norman Podhoretz’s recent piece on the topic at The Wall Street Journal web site.

Public unease with the war effort in Iraq has been fueled at every turn by prominent members of your party and its media allies. Your presidential standard bearer said last year that the war was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time—but he would wage it smarter. This former infantryman and the tens of millions of other voters found that rallying cry a bit silly (or maybe too nuanced). I digress. The point here is that major elements of the Democratic Party have done everything possible politically to undermine the President’s moral authority and credibility in the midst of a global struggle that threatens our very way of life. Criticizing the President’s conduct of the war is fine—I have a few criticisms myself. But it is a patent lie to state that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was only about WMD or to state that the President misled the nation. Maybe your colleagues should go back and actually read the text of what they voted for or against in late 2002. Heck, have them re-read the text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998—or President Clinton’s speeches when he was President. Madam, read your own speeches for crying out loud.

The question of WMD’s has been moot for some time in any event. Had our forces found what was expected, this would not have impressed the Iraqi insurgents or their foreign terrorist allies. They would still be killing their fellow Iraqis and our troops. The question now is about American resolve to stay the course. And this goes way beyond Iraq. As “anti-war” politicians undermine the President by calling for troop withdrawal timetables, what do you suppose is going through the minds of the following leaders—Mohammed al-Zarqawi, President Karzai of Afghanistan, or President Chen of Taiwan?

If I were Zarqawi, I would be greatly encouraged: “Just kill a couple of hundred more Americans and Bush’s domestic enemies will undo him. And then the American troops will go home, and we can then deal with their lackeys.” If I were Mr. Karzai, I might be thinking: “If 2,000 dead made the Americans abandon their Iraqi allies, how many dead will it take before they cut and run on me?” Were I Mr. Chen, I might be thinking: “We are toast if the Boys in Beijing decide to invade us. If the Americans can’t face up to a few thousand terrorists thugs, they are probably not up to facing a nuclear armed China.”

And what about our allies who have contributed troops to help us--how willing are they going to be to sign on to a military intervention when the next President, possibly a Democrat, calls upon their help?

I fail to see the essential difference between calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a set timetable next year independent of actual progress. Both signal our friends and enemies alike that we have been mentally defeated already. And in the latter case, we end up sacrificing more lives for a cause that many Democrats opine to be already lost. In fact, if you no longer believe in the worthiness or achievability of a stable, friendly Iraq—then you should have voted for immediate withdrawal. America has lost over 2,000 dead in Iraq. I expect that we may lose over 1,000 more before we are done. If any Congressman or Senator is unwilling to ask the nation to make this further sacrifice, then they are morally obligated to call for an immediate withdrawal. The voters and the historians will hopefully hold them accountable later.

I suspect that the vote count for the resolution was a sham. I believe that dozens of members of your caucus desperately wanted to vote for it, but they were trying to cover their political keesters instead of standing upon principle. They don’t want to be labeled as members of the “cut and run brigade,” so these base moral cowards hide behind weasel words about “timetables” and “exit strategies.” I have always loathed the phrase “exit strategy” as immoral and defeatist—anyone who is not ready to fight to win should not be committing troops to battle.

But I believe that removing the mass-murdering kleptomaniac Saddam Hussein from power was incontrovertibly a worthy achievement. We now know for certain that he will not be launching nuclear weapons against Tehran, Riyadh, or Tel Aviv. I believe that helping the Iraqis and Afghans to create stable and hopefully democratic societies offers the chance to transform the Middle East and break the cycle of violence and oppression there. And I believe that anyone who did not stand up and cheer at the sight of Iraqis going to the polls by the millions to settle their differences with ballots instead of bullets is a heartless cur. How can Liberals tell me with a straight face that they stand for the world’s poor and oppressed when they won’t acknowledge successes in Iraq or Afghanistan lest President Bush might get credit for them? It’s frankly sick, twisted and pathetic.

I implore you to search your soul and ask yourself if the course that you and your party are following is truly right and moral. And may God forgive you if you continue in your present course because it will take me a long time to do so.

Nancy had it all figured out.
A war hero announcing to get out on a Friday.
All these Sunday bubble heads with a full range of reasons to undercut the president along with troops facing real war.
Then comes the clincher:
A same evening vote, and Nancy out of political expediency informed her followers to vote against pulling out, in order to maintain a record of appearing to be pro country, troops, Iraqi democracy.
A block pull out, capitulate vote would have destroyed these Democrats and they knew that all along.
The difference: once on record all these Dem nuanced arguments become wothless.
The record of getting out and deserting would have been self explanatory namely:
White flag and run away are party traits.

"I implore you to search your soul"

A well written piece, but here is where you went wrong.

Pelosi no longer has a soul; sold it to the Devil in exchange for power a long time ago.

23 posted on 11/20/2005 5:09:53 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)

They can't debate and come up with a solution so they attack the President and everything else. (whiny babies)

Read where Harold Ford had to be RESTRAINED when the idea of a vote as to whether or not we should pull out of Iraq. Imagine...having to be RESTRAINED (the party of peace)???

Then pilloseees office hangs up on you. (Rude)

They are the biggest group of clowns I have ever seen.

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.