Pelosi: Republicans 'Like' the War in Iraq

Greatings,
Amazing! Not clear for me, how offen you updating your blogs.abcnews.com.

Thanks
Tania

GWB is not "Their President" he is OUR President. Just because someone doesn't vote for someone, if they win they ar President. It stuck in my craw when some GOP'ers said that about Clinton and it does now with the anti Bush whiners. Democracy means sometimes the other candidate wins. Just because Al Gore had advantages going in and still couldn't win, don't hate on GBW and say he isn't President or something.

Nancy Pelosi "likes" defeat. The basis and function of war is to win. It is not a political "pariah" as Senator Kerry would put it. War is not for political gain and it is not to patronize the sensitive social errors of society. War is hellish and brutal. Ms. Pelosi has made it her crusade to diminish morale in our country and shirk her responsibilities as a "non-partisan" Speaker. Let us not forget the pain of defeat in Vietnam when our country was fooled into surrendering when in several instances we were within days of victory. (Just ask the North Vietnam General that published his memoirs). The Democrats that wanted left wing ideology (communism)to flourish in South Vietnam and at home got their victory with the help of the media when the public let politicians defund the war and rendering the lives of 58,000 U.S. troops useless. Ms. Pelosi and the media have invested so much time trying to do the same thing in Iraq. But this time, their plan did not work. We are winning this war, and Ms. Pelosi and her fringe "grass-roots" anti-American supporters can't stand it. Why isn't the war in Iraq covered in the papers or on the news? Because we are winning.

Was GWB right or wrong? Either way what is the responsible thing to do? Pulling out would be irresponsible. Damage to the country was done and needs to be fixed. Liberal attitude seems to be "So I ran into your car, tough, I'm moving on." I don't know how much simpler this could be related, but I know even this comment will be attacked by the left. "We should not have gone in there, etc." Fact is that we are, fact is that if you were driving with more care you would not have hit the other car. Unfortunately we are not able to look into the future to see what could happen and make adjustments, so good and bad decisions are made. Many trusted Hitler, we know what happen there. Throughout history lessons have been learned, trusting individuals in positions of absolute power has not been positive. America needs to finish this in Iraq and leave with a positive result, no matter how long it takes. Political actions against finishing only promotes a longer time and encourages the opposition. This is all very simple logic that seems to not be grasped by the left.

JL, you wrote: "...but not ONE RED CENT for our childrens' health." The reason President Bush vetoed the S-CHIP bill, again, is that this bill shifts children AND ADULTS who are ALREADY COVERED under private insurance onto the government rolls, it raises the eligibility to above the $62,000 level and it raises taxes." It is NOT okay to tax the poor in order to subsidize middle class families. The tax on cigarettes IS a tax that the poor pay. This bill would increased the tax on cigarettes to pay for the expansion of the program.

Of course the Republicans have thwarted every attempt by the Democrats to secure DEFEAT in Iraq.

DK, you wrote: "Just because they voted for it after being misled doesn't give you a legit argument." Saddam Hussein used WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War and later on his own people. THAT IS A FACT. So Saddam Hussein DID HAVE WMDs at one time. Saddam Hussein was NEVER going to allow the weapons inspectors to prove that there were no WMDs. That's because he wanted the whole world -- but especially his neighbors -- to believe that he still had WMDs.

Now then, Congress gave President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq in 1998 -- based on the 1998 intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. THAT IS THREE YEARS BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE. So these Democrats had ALREADY determined that Saddam Hussein had WMDs years before any intelligence that the Bush Administration may have produced for them in 2002. If you want to now admit that President Clinton, his administration and the Democrats ALL LIED back in 1998 FINE! But don't dismiss what they all said for years before Bush took office.

DK, you also wrote: "Saddam was giving money to Palestinians? So what!!!" Following 9/11 President Bush warned, "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." We already knew that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists. President Bush did not want to take any chances that Saddam Hussein would intentionally or inadvertently allow WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists.

To all of you who think world peace can be achieved by bringing our troops home. Remember Pearl Harbor! The death toll is always higher when you fight the enemy in your own back yard. Let's keep the filthy swine Al Qaeda busy over there.

Saddam was giving money to Palestinians? So what!!! Isreal can't do their own bidding? I think they are more than capable of taking care of themselves so don't use Israel as your excuse.

Saddam refused to comply, last I knew there were inspectors in that country that Bush removed before they could finish their jobs. Many of them came out saying there was no sign of WMD. Who cares what Clinton said in 1990 whatever. The bodies were on the ground and they were searching. What did they find? NOTHING!!!!! Bush didn't let them finish their job.

As far as the evidence shown to Congress and the world regarding WMD, they did cherry pick it and they weren't honest. It's been proven time and again. If I would have looked at what they released I would have voted for the war too. Just because they voted for it after being misled doesn't give you a legit argument.

AL Zarqawi wasn't a member of Al Queda until he stepped up and started killing Americans. That was well after the war had begun. Then he released tapes swearing his allegiance etc etc etc etc.

Repubs DO like the Iraq war. They have OBSTRUCTED EVERY ATTEMPT to stop it or not fund it. They have lock-stepped with the "president" on every vote in Congress...Yes, they DO love the war. They hate the American people but they do love this war. Like Patton they sway 'God help me, I love it so."

Trillions for windfall-greedhead oil, trillions for the war in Iraq, trillions for windfall tax-cuts to the trickle-less super-rich, but not ONE RED CEMT for our childrens' health, not one cent of tax fairness on price-gouger oil companies, not one cent to repair the infrastructure of our country.

Yes, even though Pelosi has betrayed the country time and again and knuckled under to Bush, she has spoken the truth this once...Repubs DO love this war. Rally they do (a la Katherine Hepburn).

DK, here are the facts!

(1) President Bush and Vice President Cheney DID NOT cherry pick the intelligence. The proof is the fact that President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, to name a few, ALL SAID SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT DUE TO HIS WMDS -- BACK IN 1998 -- based on the intelligence reports. Congress even gave President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq BASED on his having WMDs. And just in case you don't remember, President Bush did not take office until Jan 20, 2001.

(2) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. HOWEVER, he was supporting terrorism -- specifically giving up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed innocent Israelis. The UN gave Saddam Hussein 12 years of chances to prove that he no longer had WMDs. He failed to do so. In 2003 the UN gave him a final ultimatum. BUT the UN made it clear that their ultimatum was an empty threat. SO based on the intelligence reports from the Clinton Administration, and Congress already acknowledging Saddam Hussein's threat to our national security from 1998-2000, following 9/11 we could not take the chance that Saddam Hussein would pass some of his WMDs to terrorists. So President Bush gave Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum. Saddam Hussein refused to comply. So President Bush followed through on his threat.

(3) Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was running a training camp for al Qaeda in northern Iraq. One clause in Congress' Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October 2002 states: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" The House voted 296-133 and the Senate 77-23 in favor of the resolution. The AYE votes included 81 Democrats in the House; and 29 Democrats in the Senate -- all agreeing that al Qaeda was in Iraq. The resolution passed FIVE MONTHS BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ!

So Paul, exactly what set of facts is it people look at an conclude the Iraq war is good for America? Would it be the WMD that Saddam had? It's already been widely reported that Bush/Cheney cherry picked the intelligence but that's a fact most righties seem to ignore. Or would it be the fact that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Another fact proven wrong by the 9/11 commission. Would it be the fact that Al Qaeda was in Iraq? Another fact that wasn't true until we decided we wanted to use it for our own private little stomping ground.

I really wish someone would enlighten me to these so-called facts because I don't think I'm alone when I say most of us who try to stay informed have somehow missed them.

There are no huge profits to be made.
That is what is wrong with peace.
There is no money in it.

I see a lot of name-calling, but spittle-laden epithets aren't an argument - they're an admission that you can't dispute the facts. Here's another: Abandoning Iraq would be, long-term, a disaster for the West.

I always love the 'chickenhawk' bleat; it betrays how little you know about American history. The Founding Fathers insisted on civilian control of the military for a good reason. But if you Bush haters think you would prefer living in a military-controlled government, try Cuba. Let us know how that works, comrade.

If you support this murderous regime and their war, then enlist, or have your kids enlist. I don't see anyone named Bush or Cheney enlisted to fight this rich mens' folly. Put up or shut up. And give the troops that are out there a break and bring them home. How many rotations to war zones does the voluntary military have to go through to appease your blood lust?

Pelosi, in my opinion is derelict in her duty to uphold the Constitution and impeach the war criminals in the executive branch.

Nanci Pelosi is a liar. She voted yes to every single war appropriations bill to the tune of 2.4 trillion. She's worse than bush. I'm with you Joe. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!

I guess I don't understand, I just watched a documentary showing all the reasons we are losing in Iraq, and I don't see where leaving will do one thing to de-stabilize America. Conservative Republicans that blindly follow without thinking, are traitors to the rest of us.

Im sure Pelosi is right, that Republicans must like the War in Iraq.If they didnt they would be getting us out of there and not watching the death tolls rise of our Soldiers.I think the house shouldnt give into the demands of handing over more money unless there a time table to start a withdrawl, attached to it!

She's right. It's the right war.

What she fails to mention is that the democrats love the war too hence why they continue to fund it, plain and simple. I will be glad when Cindy Sheehan takes this lady's spot in office.

Pelosi has gone off the deep end, and you bunch are leaping right after her.

First fact: The Repubs have paid a big price politically for this war; to claim they 'like' it is just bizarre.

Second fact: The whole war-for-oil thing is old; if we wanted Iraq's oil, we would have just bought it from Saddam for less than the trillions the war has cost. Just try to THINK instead of spouting the MoveOn diatribe, willya?

Third fact: "Republicans are evil" - yeah, right. Satan incarnate. It's just not possible that anyone could possibly look at a set of facts and come to a different conclusion than Saint Nancy, is it? You're either with us, or you're "evil!"

Grow up, kiddies; the world is a dangerous place.

Last inconvenient fact: most Americans do not want us to abandon Iraq. How's that for listening to the people?