"This election is about Iraq,'' said Pelosi, a consistent war opponent who has said her failure to prevent the United States from going to war in 2003 is her greatest disappointment in public life.
"If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on."
Except, in reality, it will be about each district's congressman, not Iraq, although you have to give it to them, the Democrats have done a credible job of trying to make it so. And they've certainly talked like it is. The obvious reason is stated above. If they continue to make the claim and win, they can, they feel, insert themselves in the foreign policy arena as it pertains to Iraq:
If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said. They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.
"A Democratic victory would be in furtherance of reaching that goal. Absent a Democratic victory, we'll be there for the next 10 years,'' Pelosi said.
Acknowledging that Bush has previously rejected suggestions for scaling back U.S. involvement, Pelosi said a victory Tuesday would give "Democrats in Congress a great deal more leverage in the conversation with the president."
Pelosi downplayed expectations that a report by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton — expected to be made public shortly after the election — will call for a significant change of course and provide Bush an opportunity to change directions.
"It's hard to imagine any group headed by Secretary Baker, whom I respect personally but who is so close to the Bush administration, will come up with any proposal that is any different than what the president is proposing," Pelosi said.
A couple of interesting things. The old poison pill is given to James Baker ... "he's a nice guy who I respect, but he's been hanging out with Bush too much, so I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept anything he comes up with." Shorter version: "If we didn't come up with it, it's not any good".
Secondly, and I want to make sure I have this right, they're going to talk about redeploying the troops "outside of Iraq" while simultaneously disarming the militias and amending the constitution? Ok then. And Maliki who runs the place now? See any problems trying to do that without his permission or support? The troops can certainly be withdrawn, obviously. And they can be withdrawn without the permission of the Maliki government. But disarm the militias? And amend the constitution? I'd be interested in hearing the particulars of how Congress will accomplish that. No, strike that. How the House will handle that.
Heh ... but I do love her desire to "reach out" to the president in order to get her way. Where was the reaching out when the president was asking for her support? Yup, on the cusp of power and suddenly "reaching out" for bi-partisan solutions is important. Gotta love it.
If they win, Democrats will immediately reach out to Bush to find a bipartisan way to begin redeploying troops "outside of Iraq," Pelosi said. They will also apply pressure to disarm the militias, amend the Iraqi constitution and engage in diplomacy in the region.
I’m glad you highlighted this. It’s standard arm-waving delusional fantasy, from the woman who the Democrats want to be right after Dick Cheney in the line of succession. If she believes anything close to what she said, she’s an absolute imbecile.
Come on, Democrats, tell me you don’t really think this woman and Howard Dean deserve to be leading your party.
Really, this is quite unfair. Pelosi will simply sprinkle the patented Democratic "smart, tough" dust over the Pentagon and incompetence will magically turn into competence.
This election is about Iraq,’’ said Pelosi, a consistent war opponent who has said her failure to prevent the United States from going to war in 2003 is her greatest disappointment in public life
Yet that doesn’t stop her and assorted Dem liars from mouthing the empty platitudes about how good it is that Saddam was found guilty. If she had succeeded in preventing the war, Saddam would’ve still been in power.
This election is about Iraq,’’ said Pelosi, a consistent war opponent...
MANDATE!!!
Those libertarians who oppose(d) the war might not see the problem here, but I would urge them to note that there is no acknowledgment here of the errors and excesses of the Republicans, no talk of reform, accountability, oversight, or any of the other "messages" that a Democratic victory would allegedly convey. No, instead, the message taken is "The voters are giving us a green light!! Full speed ahead!!"
I strongly disagree. I — and a number of people I know — plan to vote against my Republican congressman, primarily because of the Iraq war, and in a related way, the steady erosion of our constitutional rights that this administration, buffeted by a rubber-stamp congress, has rammed down our throats in the name of fighting terrorism.
My congressman isn’t a bad guy, and I in fact voted for him in the past. But this year we need to send a message, and he, like a lot of Republicans, is going to pay for it with his job.
the steady erosion of our constitutional rights that this administration, buffeted by a rubber-stamp congress, has rammed down our throats in the name of fighting terrorism.
And what jackboots have been marching down your street? Or how many of your friends have had the "Old Standard Kicking Down the Door?" You might have noticed some folks have promised to kill MILLIONS of Americans if they can, you are so typical of the libertarian/Left...the enemy isn’t in a cave in the Hindu Kush, no he’s in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yeah whatever...and I’m sure you voted for your Congress person in the 2004, that’s the critical line in the manual, "I’ve been a Republican ALL my life, but I simply can not tolerate this administration’s (insert depredation here). And your Congressperson’s replacement will do what? Impeach Bush? End the GWoT? End the War on Drugs? Your life will made safer and better, how?
. . . and in a related way, the steady erosion of our constitutional rights that this administration, buffeted by a rubber-stamp congress, has rammed down our throats in the name of fighting terrorism.
I was more worried about my constitutional rights in the 90s. Clinton had his share of anti-terror laws, and his versions took a swipe or two at gun owners. At least the current admistration seems content to go after real terrorists.
