- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Hastert Jabs Pelosi for Equating War on Terror with Conflict in Afghanistan
October 24, 2006 10:22 AM
ABC's Tahman Bradley reports: With national polls revealing that Republicans are losing their position as the party most trusted to handle national security, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has joined the fray of Republicans slamming Democrats on security.
Speaker Hastert released a statement this morning calling comments recently made by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "irresponsible." The statement said that Pelosi, who may become Speaker of the House if Democrats win control of Congress this November, does not understand the threats facing the United States.
"One cannot win the Global War on Terror if one does not understand it," Hastert said.
Hastert's complaint about Pelosi refers to a recent "60 Minutes" profile in which Pelosi responded to a question about whether the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror by saying, "No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan."
Calling Pelosi's stance "foolish, naïve, and dangerous," Hastert said "If it were up to a Democratic majority, it would cut and run from the Global War on Terror, continue to coddle terrorists, create a United States Department of Peace and call it a day."
October 24, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (16)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I agree with Pelosi and do not understand the political wisdom of Hassert's statement.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Oct 24, 2006 10:43:34 AM
If the Bush led Republicans were so good at National Security where is Osama Bin Laden, why is the Taliban resurging in Afghanistan and why are terrorists openly parading on the streets of Iraqi Cities. Hey George you and the GOP are all hat and no cattle!
Posted by: Tom Vaitys | Oct 24, 2006 11:19:14 AM
Ben - Afghanistan is part of the war on terror the same as Iraq is: an effort to directly combat terror wherever it is - retaliation OR preemptive - as a way to prevent another act of terrorism aganist the US. Hastert's remark was right on - Pelosi seems to be lost in simply diagreeing with Bush that she has lost perspective totally. Now, whether you agree that this strategy is way to fight terrorism is a separate (and valid) debate, since it in part relies on sound intelligence data as well as patience and commitment from the people of the US.
Posted by: Jay | Oct 24, 2006 11:29:32 AM
Nancy's right, but there's a caviat. Iraq is now part of the war on terror, because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld made it that way. They invaded based on false evidence and the lack of post-war planning has caused sheer mayhem, which has resulted in a "cause celebre" for jihadis.
The Taliban was in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with it... until BushCo messed it up.
Posted by: Heidi L | Oct 24, 2006 12:12:41 PM
I can't wait till November I hope they vote all these republicans out. They are out of control and will lie and do anything to win. They care nothing about the american people or this war. Its all about them nothing else they are a disgrace to america.
Posted by: Mary Miculita | Oct 24, 2006 12:40:34 PM
So Hastert is saying that the war in Iraq is the war on terrorism and the war in Afghanistan is not? What twisted logic. We shouldn't be in Iraq, but we should be in Afghanistan. The republicans are so desparate that they're spewing nonsense.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 24, 2006 1:38:33 PM
Hastert knows as much about the war on terror as he does weight control. These guys are all about talking points and nothing about honest assessments. The only reason Iraq is important in the war on terror is because the Republican policy has made it a terrorist factory...destablizing the region and increasing the threat at home. Great job,Coach Hastert...now hit the showers!
Posted by: Dirik Lolkus | Oct 24, 2006 2:06:07 PM
I agree completely with Dirik. It's the Republicans, represented here by Hastert, that have demonstrated over and over again their total incompetance and cluelessness in regard to the terror situation. By the latest report, over half a million Iraqis, and almost 3,000 Americans have died so that Bush and his cabal can construct a fantasy of terror with which to bash the American people. And they have the gall to turn around and say that Democrats "don't understand the war on terror". No, Denny, the truth is that more and more Americans are coming to understand the Bush war on terror and seeing that it's nothing but hot air.
Posted by: Ann | Oct 24, 2006 2:51:13 PM
Ah, more evidence for my conspiracy theory comes to light.
Congress was busy being educated on global terrorism. This could reasonably explain how they "overlooked" Foley's perversions, among other GOP scandals (Delay, Ney et. al.).
I am a bit cheesed off though since they clearly didn't learn anything about how to fight global terrorism.
These guys are so lazy and greedy they make me look like Mother Theresa.
(Vote Robot)
Posted by: Bender | Oct 24, 2006 5:35:33 PM
Dennis,
You have taken Nancy's words out of context and stretched them beyond anything stated.
You know very well the war in Iraq is primarily a sectarian war between tribes and has very little to do with terrorism. Their conflict dates back hundreds of years. It has been grossly heightened by the Sunni loss of power, revenge by the Shia for past abuses and the presence of our own U.S. troops.
With regards to terrorism our occupation in Iraq has given terrorist organizations throughout the world the ultimate recruiting opportunity. Nineteen of our own government agencies recently stated the same. In the end it appears our attack on a country that had nothing to do with 911 and no WMD’s will result in losses of thousands of American lives, 10 of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, mangled tens of thousands and cost our country much effort better spent and hundreds of billions of dollars and counting.
It's disenchanting when a political party in our democracy continually uses the military as a pawn with the primary purpose of trying to further their political gain. The foundations of our democracy, freedoms and armed services should be sacred from such trampling.
We deserve the truth.
Posted by: Todd | Oct 24, 2006 11:42:40 PM
Is there anyone who would like to reply to my post above? Most of the posts are the same old anti-Bush stuff we have heard again and again. How do you define the war on terror? If we cannot even agree on that then we are not going to get anywhere. I am not aware of anyone in the Bush camp changing the definition by the way. Enlighten me if you have anything other than hate for Bush to offer.
Posted by: Jay | Oct 25, 2006 10:00:28 AM
The "War on Terror" is a political construct used for political advantage. Terrorism is a complicated phenomenon with many elements. It can't be reduced by military means and ever solider sent to Iraq or Afghanistan moves us further from any solution. International intelligence collection, analysis, and coordination is the only way to reduce the problem. The misuse of intelligence by the current administration to support their military-based strategy has been counter-productive in reducing terrrorism (although providing obvious political benefits).
Posted by: Dirik Lolkus | Oct 25, 2006 12:18:37 PM
Jay - Iraq has made the U.S. and the world less safe. This can be seen in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have learned techniques from the Iraqi insurgency. Iraq was I diversion but it needs to be stabilized.
The general's who testified before the Sen. Dem. Policy Committee on 9/25 had great advise on what to do next.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Oct 25, 2006 2:01:49 PM
Using Republican "logic?", we should invade Egypt. If we go there, the terrorists will be too busy fighting us there, to fight us in the US or Iraq. When things get bad there, we should invade Syria, Iran...
OR -
We could try to understand and eliminate the root cause of terrorism (poverty, despair, educational oppurtunities only for terrorist philosophies). Oh forget it! There's not a soundbite there anywhere, it'll never fly. Just easier to PRE-EMTIVELY invade somewhere we're not wanted and pretend that everyone who disagrees is an anti-American, wussy, traitor!!!
Posted by: JO JOe | Oct 25, 2006 2:46:45 PM
to all you GOPs out there, go away.
You simply don't understand the real world and never will. Don't bother trying.
Just go back to your fantasy world and let real people with functioning brains clean up the mess you made.
k?
(Vote Robot)
Posted by: Bender | Oct 26, 2006 4:43:24 PM
Dear Mr Speaker, if I were you I would be more concerned about going to jail for all the crooked things you have done. that was the problem with the House, Senate, and the White House, all Republican you thought you could get away with all the coruption forever, well you were finally caught up with perhaps you can requestt to share a cell with Delay Inc.
Posted by: joseph filutze | Nov 1, 2006 2:05:27 PM
Post a comment



