| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Pelosi Carps about the Iraq War | |
| 2003-04-11 | |
| Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are rallying around military successes in Iraq and supporting the troops, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said it was still right to oppose granting the president the authority to use force to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war," she told reporters at her weekly briefing yesterday, saying the same questions still remain: "The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?" Swell, Nancy — denigrate the whole effort by implying that all it accomplished was to bring down a statue. Carp about the cost, and imply that it hurt the war on terrorism. She and a majority of House Democrats last October voted against authorizing the president to use force to disarm Saddam's regime. In the Senate, a majority of Democrats voted for the war resolution. The measure passed both chambers comfortably, with almost every Republican supporting it. But Mrs. Pelosi, Oh Look everyone -- a straw man, a straw boogieman -- EEEEEEK! Meanwhile, House Republicans and Democrats held a rally to support the troops yesterday, and leaders of both parties praised the military's efficiency and professionalism. Mrs. Pelosi also praised the troops at the rally. But she didn't address the war itself at the event. Later, in her news conference, she told reporters she is not convinced the war in Iraq has made Americans safer. "That remains to be seen," she said. "I certainly would hope so, and I think we have to think in a very positive way about it, but we don't know." Don't hesitate to make a coherent point, Nancy, if you can find one. That put her at odds with House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, who said to some U.S. troops present at the rally: "Your cause is noble and just. You are disarming a dangerous despot and ending his ruthless regime." He also said he believed the war was "strengthening the security of our nation, as well as the nations of the Middle East and the nations of the world." As Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed "in large measure" to former President Bill Clinton. "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," she said. Really, any coherent thought will do, Nancy, honest...
| |
| Posted by:John Phares |
| #17 Clinton's military? Isn't that Monica dressed as a sailor? Clinton's role in the past eight years was to stop the develop of every new weapons system; prevent the upgrade of improvement of anti-missile systems; cut the military by 50%; delayed the development of proposed systems. He was bomb happy running down stores of cruise missiles that he didn't replace. He advocated the early retirement of the B-1. Pelosi been tutored by Baghdad Bob. Pelosi is about as knowledgable regarding the military as Barney Frank is in seducing women. |
| Posted by: TJ Jackson 2003-04-12 00:17:44 |
| #16 having Michael jackson as the new Democratic senate leader is exactly what every red blooded american Repuclican should strive for |
| Posted by: wills 2003-04-11 19:21:13 |
| #15 re: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire not much really the fools that support and elect her are not answerable to those of us in Orange County, San Diego County (my own), San Bernardino, etc. that support the military r/d and supply industries - big parts of our local employment as well as supporting our military in toto - they are good neighbors, good people and we like 'em. Northern California liberal bastions can go to hell, although some, like Bill Quick are like-minded with us libertarian-conservatives lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-11 18:16:40 |
| #14 Whoa! Oh...pardon my dyslexia...I could have sworn that link was "Pelosi Craps About Iraq War". Sounds accurate enough. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-04-11 17:56:12 |
| #13 I wonder how much she'd bitch if all of the defense contractors in The Peoples Republic of California left the state? |
| Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-04-11 17:42:46 |
| #12 If this is Clinton's military, then this must also be Clinton's recession. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2003-04-11 15:58:51 |
| #11 In fake news today, conclusive proof that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is a time-travelling idiot: (UPI) The nation's Time Police discovered that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has risked ruining the very world we live in today in order to, as she puts it, "enoble and enable the past" with the leftist views of today's Democratic party. In history textbooks around the world, Mrs. Pelosi's speeches now appear where yesterday they did not. From 1941: ""I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war," she told reporters at her weekly briefing in Roosevelt's Washington, saying the same questions still remain: "The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $10 billion. We could probably bring down Hitler's uber soldiers - which everyone knows exist - for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on Nazism?" And from 1862: ""I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war," she told reporters at her weekly briefing yesterday, saying the same questions still remain: "The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 million. We could probably bring down the South for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to preserving the Union and ending slavery?" Extent documents, not quoted in the textbooks, reveal that even back then, people thought she was absolutely nuts. |
| Posted by: FormerLiberal 2003-04-11 15:16:47 |
| #10 As Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed "in large measure" to former President Bill Clinton. "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," she said. I'm retired Air Force. Colorado Springs, where I live, is a military town: Army (Fort Carson), Air Force (Shriver AFB, Peterson AFB, USAF Academy, Cheyenne Mountain), and even a half-decent contingent of Navy and Marines (US Space Command, NORAD). There are also several tens of thousands of retirees here. There's a lot of names that pop up in discussions of the military, when military readiness is discussed, and when the military budget gets scrutiny. Clinton's name doesn't coincide with the word "support" very often. The Clinton military budgets were forced on him by a Republican-controlled House, and enough support in the Senate to keep the budgets from being completely gutted. The equipment we're now using began showing up in line-item discussions in the early to mid 1980's, some even before. Today's military is hurting, physically, equipment-wise (especially in spare parts and certain emergency equipment), and in many other ways. Pay is still too low, expectations and demands too high for current troop strength, there's a shortage of theater air assets, and our combat reserves are often being used to meet daily operations requirements. A lot of people both in the US and overseas routinely put in a 70-hour work-week. The military Bush inherited is about half the size of the one Clinton inherited from Bush's father. The only reason our forces are so successful today is because the people in uniform are professionals, in spite of the actions of our political "leadership". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-11 15:03:54 |
| #9 Chuck, Chuck, Chuck...why must you dis Michael Jackson so? |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-04-11 15:03:17 |
| #8 Thanks, Chuck. That Wendy's triple I had for lunch almost made it onto my monitor... |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-04-11 14:51:36 |
| #7 "But i very much doubt that Pelosi was among dems supporting any pro-military initiatives during the Clinton administration" Friggin' CLINTON wasn't among those who supported any pro-military initiatives during his administration. Clinton's military INDEED. Notice they want to give Clinton credit for our military, but not for our present economy. It's enough to send one into a Yosemite Sam-esque rant. |
| Posted by: Samma-lamma 2003-04-11 14:51:13 |
| #6 Ewww. That's nasty. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-04-11 14:37:30 |
| #5 I actually have uncovered an amazing fact about Nancy Pelosi: Here |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-04-11 14:35:57 |
| #4 I think the "quagmire" thing would have really worked out better for her speechwriters. Was that clanging sound the statue of Saddam falling or Nancy's hopes for 2004? |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-04-11 14:31:59 |
| #3 Goodness, Nancy, doesn't all that incoherent posturing make your back ache? Shoosh and go back to the Martini bar. The olives will listen. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-04-11 14:27:46 |
| #2 "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years" But i very much doubt that Pelosi was among dems supporting any pro-military initiatives during the Clinton administration. Who does she think she is, Sam Nunn? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-11 14:24:29 |
| #1 Sorry for the duplicate article -- Steve's wasn't posted when I started editing my version... |
| Posted by: John Phares 2003-04-11 14:18:19 |