Pelosi's muddled views on the Iraq War
It was interesting to see the typically muddled and evasive answers that Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic Party in the House, gave in her most recent press conference, when she was asked about Murtha's statement in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Uh, Nancy, was that a yes or a no?
Uh, Nancy, does that mean you favor a timetable or not?
Nancy Pelosi has, in fact, continually talked out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. She criticizes the war, but has thus far been unable or unwilling to support an immediate withdrawal from the Iraq, and she has continually voted to fund the war.
It is possible that she may reverse herself on the Iraq war, as Murtha did. Like Murtha, who had supported the war, she may succumb to the rising public tide against this war. It will, of course, be a case of the Democrats coming to the party way too late. The Democrats have thus far not offered a truly principled opposition to the war in Iraq, they refused to offer the kind of leadership that would have framed the debate in a way that would have pushed the debate into the morality of the war. It is only because of growing public sentiment, and antiwar leaders like Cindy Sheehan, that some Democrats, like Murtha, are finally starting to respond. The question is--why haven't the Democrats been calling for immediate withdrawal all along?
Answer that question, and you will understand why the Democrats are hopeless as an opposition party--that, in fact, they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Q Do you agree with what he said?
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Murtha, this is his day. He will be talking about his statement, and as I said, it will be very provocative for us as we discuss among ourselves our policy in Iraq. But I think it speaks very strongly to the point that the President's policy is not working; two and a half years after the President said, "mission accomplished," we still don't know what the mission is. So the focus really shouldn't be on Mr. Murtha, it should be on the President of the United States and his failed policy in Iraq.
Uh, Nancy, was that a yes or a no?
Uh, Nancy, was that a yes or a no?
Q Do you agree with the call for immediate withdrawal?
Ms. Pelosi. As I said, that was Mr. Murtha's statement, and I will take it under consideration.
Q What about your own thoughts about some type of timetable for withdrawal?
Ms. Pelosi. As I said, my two criteria are: does our presence there make America safer, and does it strengthen our military? I do not believe that it does. So Mr. Murtha, again, not to characterize his remarks because they are his remarks, but what he put forth is a way for us to address the situation in Iraq that makes us safer and strengthens our military.
Uh, Nancy, does that mean you favor a timetable or not?
Nancy Pelosi has, in fact, continually talked out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. She criticizes the war, but has thus far been unable or unwilling to support an immediate withdrawal from the Iraq, and she has continually voted to fund the war.
It is possible that she may reverse herself on the Iraq war, as Murtha did. Like Murtha, who had supported the war, she may succumb to the rising public tide against this war. It will, of course, be a case of the Democrats coming to the party way too late. The Democrats have thus far not offered a truly principled opposition to the war in Iraq, they refused to offer the kind of leadership that would have framed the debate in a way that would have pushed the debate into the morality of the war. It is only because of growing public sentiment, and antiwar leaders like Cindy Sheehan, that some Democrats, like Murtha, are finally starting to respond. The question is--why haven't the Democrats been calling for immediate withdrawal all along?
Answer that question, and you will understand why the Democrats are hopeless as an opposition party--that, in fact, they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Post a Comment