RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Pelosi: Republicans 'Like' the War in Iraq
December 13, 2007 3:06 PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is drawing heat for suggesting her political opponents are fond of the war in Iraq.
"The grassroots are justifiably disappointed and I am too that we could not do something to end this war," Pelosi said at a press conference today. "The assumption that I made that the Republicans would soon see the light and listen to their constituents was not an accurate one."
She continued: "They like this war. They want this war to continue. We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we need a new direction in Iraq. To affect that we need redeployment of our troops with a goal of a year to do that. But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is just not George Bush's war, this is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
Asked to clarify her use of the word "like," Pelosi backed off her statement of moments before.
"When I say 'like,' I shouldn't say they 'like' the war. They support the war, the course of action that the president is on and they are not questioning in terms of his implementation of the war, the execution of the war."
In a statement, House Minority Leader, R-Ohio, refrained from attacking Pelosi personally (as the National Republican Congressional Committee is doing) and said, "Republicans and a few brave Democrats have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not. The success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one."
- jpt
December 13, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (107)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
And the House Speaker is correct. Republicans must like seeing the death toll go up in Iraq. They must like knowing that thousands of families of our brave men and women struggle while their loved ones are illegally held beyond limits. And they must enjoy seeing the horribly disfigured and maimed soldiers returning from this pointless war, only to find medically aid declined or insufficient.
Posted by: DaveM | Dec 14, 2007 2:07:27 PM
What the House Minority Leader failed to note is the the war on Iraq has been unjustified and unnecessary from the first second the Idiot in Chief ordered it. Any prinicples this country had evaporated in our war of naked aggression, the destruction of human rights, and the economic assault on its citizens. It will take decades to recover from this epic disaster. Of course, the blatant war profiteering goes on. God deliver us from evil
Posted by: DaveM | Dec 14, 2007 2:00:44 PM
Well, She's basically right! With the exception of Ron Pual.
Posted by: Tony H | Dec 14, 2007 1:09:55 PM
Republicans don't like it when someone tells them the truth ... especially, a woman.
Posted by: Jackson | Dec 14, 2007 12:48:31 PM
The point is this, and this only, nothing more needs to be said. Ending the war would mean admitting that we should have never gone there. The one thing I do agree with regrettably is that now that we are there we have to see it through. I couldn't stand to see what would happen if we ended it before it is done. You think it's tough to be an American now, think about how much MORE repect we'd lose as a nation if we pull out.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 14, 2007 12:38:44 PM
There are a lot of reasons to get into a war, and financial profit is one of them. The Republicans may not have started the war for profit, but the net result is that a lot of them are making a ton of money (through investments in reconstruction contract companies, etc.) from this war. Maybe that's one reason they want to keep it going, and for everything to remain status quo. This is an opportunity for them to make some money on the side, even if peace and democracy fail in this region. And all of this is coming at the expense of our soldiers' lives. If money and profit are their motives, then shame on them.
Posted by: tom | Dec 14, 2007 12:18:55 PM
Nancy is reaping what has been sown. The San Francisco left is ready to throw Nancy out on her duff and elect Cindy Sheehan to replace her. Nancy is stuck. She has to fight the Republicans in a way that Cindy Sheehan can't. Otherwise, Nancy is completely expendable. This time Nancy mis-spoke. Now she has to explain herself without alienating her left-leaning base. Nancy is in her own private hell. Congressional approval ratings don't help. That is Nancy's legacy right now.
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Dec 14, 2007 12:03:16 PM
Ron, excellent point! For years we who support our troops have been saying you can't "say" you support the troops without supporting the mission. YES I support the mission. I don't like war! But I support the long term vision that President Bush has of democracy spreading throughout the Middle East. Peace in the Middle East will ultimately make us safer here at home.
Posted by: James Danley | Dec 14, 2007 11:45:48 AM
Luke, mistakes were made. President Bush's biggest mistake was simultaneously fighting the war, building a nation and dealing with reconstruction. Most wars are fought to their conclusion before nation building and certainly before reconstruction begins. BUT I certainly understand President Bush's decision. He was trying to limit the criticism from Iraq's neighbors. THAT along with the meddling by Syria (allowing the free flow or foreign fighters) and Iran (supplying arms) have made a difficult war even more difficult. But there is also one important fact that receives little or no attention. When Turkey denied our use of their airspace just prior to the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, THAT took away the northern flank. Without this northern flank, Saddam Hussein and his army were able to escape. So instead of having the forecast bloody hand-to-hand street fight confined to Baghdad, the fight was scattered throughout.
You are correct that the current successes are due to the Sunni warlords cooperating with our military. Had we had that northern flank, and confined the battle to Baghdad, and eliminated Saddam Husseins army, the Sunni warlords would have cooperated much sooner. AND we might have actually had our troops home a couple of years ago. BUT wars are rarely fought as they are drawn out. You don't pullout just because things don't go the way you planned. You deal with what you encounter on the battlefield and make adjustments.
Posted by: James Danley | Dec 14, 2007 11:38:08 AM
"Like" "support", don't play on words, what's the difference? With the repubs siding with GWB, we are still in Iraq in a useless, costly, and humanly devasting war because the repubs refuse to side with the dems against their almighty GWB. So don't mince words - if one supports something, i.e., baseball, they need to like it correct? Or they woould not support it. So why the big hallabula? Call 'em like you see 'em - the repubs must like what's going on in Iraq or they would stop the madman GWB and get us out of there. If you neocons didn't have the dems to blame now, what in the world would you do - go sit in a corner and cry?
Posted by: Ron | Dec 14, 2007 11:37:17 AM
If bush and the Republicans did not like war it wopuld not have taken over 4 years to show minimal military progress when we started an invasion of a backward country of a meer 25 million people, a vast majority of whom are not acrtively fighting our troops,with the mightiest military in recorded history. Bush`s progress, BTW, rests on the current alliance with the Sunni`s that a year ago were killing our troopers! Anyone supporting Bush`s tragic war policy should put their life on the line in Iraq and let those that wish, return home!
Posted by: Luke | Dec 14, 2007 11:07:10 AM
givemeabreak, from the bottom of my heart: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND COURAGE. AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO YOUR FAMILY FOR WHAT THEY HAD TO ENDURE DURING YOUR ABSENCE. GOD BLESS YOU and GOD BLESS YOUR FAMILY!
GOD BLESS ALL OF OUR ARMED FORCES AND THEIR FAMILIES AND LOVED ONES. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Posted by: James Danley | Dec 14, 2007 11:03:12 AM
Cheney told our distinguished Judiciary CAPTAIN Leahy to go F>>> himself. Apparently, Cheney made it stick. Pelosi must have heard about this because she took IMPEACHMENT off the table and has failed to explain why on a radio attempt I heard her try. So Pelosi trumped our Constitution but perhaps we should be asking STENY HOYER why IMPEACHMENT was grounded...
Posted by: daddy | Dec 14, 2007 11:02:10 AM
DK, you wrote: "Pick up a gun, hit the streets in Iraq, and send someone home who doesn't want to be there fighting." EVERYONE of our men and women fighting in Iraq VOLUNTEERED their service. NOT ONE of them was drafted. Unlike during WWII and most other wars, where our men (women weren't on the frontlines then) spent years in battle without having a furlough, today our men and women do rotations. War is ugly, war is sacrificial. Unfortunately there are times that evil must be thwarted. Suddam Hussein WAS SUPPORTING terrorism. He failed to comply with the conditions that precipated the cease fire in 1991. He failed to show proof that he no longer had WMDs. He failed to respond to the United Nation's final ultimatum. When the United Nations made it abundantly clear that their ultimatum was an empty threat, President Bush gave his own ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein still refused to comply. President Bush, unlike the United Nations, meant what he said and followed through on his threat.
Now as for me, I am 58 years old. If I had been in my 20s on 9/11, I would have immediately volunteered my service. When my niece and her husband were both deployed to Iraq, I relocated and cared for their 4 children. I pray for all of our men and women in uniform. I pray for their families and loved ones. Every life lost, every individual maimed, every individual wounded, is profoundly sad. I mourn each loss. But I also honor their courage and sacrifice!
Scoff all you want. Deny all you want. BUT the threat is REAL. Fighting terrorist groups like al Qaeda abroad will not guarantee that the battle won't return to the Homeland. In fact, the War on Terror cannot be won solely on the battlefield. The Israeli-Palestinian conflicted is the root of the problem. It has been allowed to fester for decades. The previous superficial peace accords that maintained the status quo have failed. So dealing with the Middle East crisis head on by spreading democracy in the region, creating an independent state of Palestine to co-exist with Israel, and ending the teaching of hatred towards Western Civilization, IS THE ONLY ROAD to peace in the Middle East. And establishing peace in the Middle East is the only way to win the War on Terror.
Posted by: James Danley | Dec 14, 2007 10:59:29 AM
This is a STUPID ARGUEMENT, if they didn't like it....We wouldn't be there.
Posted by: able | Dec 14, 2007 10:36:57 AM
To Chris and James Danley - finally, someone on this board who seems to understand... Keep making the point, even though I believe that most will never get it...
Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 14, 2007 8:50:31 AM
Sharon White - "This appalling incompetence allowed "Osama Bin Forgotten" to escape Tora Bora,when they had him pinned down. I believe with my whole heart,that it was deliberate." -- Let me assert something here - I was serving in the persian gulf when "Tora Bora" happened.. It is a LIE. He was not there, we did not "have him". that statement was made not once, but twice by John Kerry. Here is the interesting thing.. Kerry waas head of the Intelligence counsel. Which means that he had access to the intel surrounding Tora Bora and knew that what he was saying was a LIE ... but he said it anyway to score political points in an election... He captured multiple insurgents at TORA BORA with the help of the Afgan rebels who actually first pinned down the enemy then called for our help. Bin Laden was first thought to be there, but it turned out that he was not. Sorry to rain on your parade... but speaking as someone who was there at the time... you are just regurgitating another liberal LIE about this conflict...
Posted by: givemeabreak | Dec 14, 2007 8:45:43 AM
Well Mr. Danley, then put your money where your mouth is and put your life on the line for these people. Pick up a gun, hit the streets in Iraq, and send someone home who doesn't want to be there fighting. That goes for all of you supporters. Step up or shut up!!!
Posted by: dk | Dec 14, 2007 5:37:00 AM
"Ron Paul is the only major candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is really against more wars."
EXCEPT Dennis Kucinich!! The difference is, Kucinich actually believes that the US Government has a purpose and realizes how to make it work for the people. Ron Paul is a well intentioned Libertarian who has much less appreciation for how the US government can function if it was actually put in to the right person's hands.
Posted by: Allen1120 | Dec 14, 2007 3:32:28 AM
DK, I thank God that our founding fathers weren't as impatient as you. If they had quit 4 years and 9 months into our Revolutionary War, we would still be under the British Monarchy. Our Revolutionary War took EIGHT YEARS and SEVEN MONTHS. It took almost FOUR MORE YEARS before the U. S. Constitution was adopted; another 9 months for it to be ratified; and 8 more months before the 1st Congress convened. That's just shy of FOURTEEN years from the first shot of our Revolutionary War on April 19, 1775 to Congress convening on March 4, 1879. YET, Iraq's National Assembly met just 2 years after the beginning of the War, and they adopted their constitution 7 months later.
Posted by: James Danley | Dec 14, 2007 2:13:53 AM
Post a comment


