Sigh…
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement tonight in response to President Bush's speech on Iraq:
"Tonight the President acknowledged more of the mistakes he has made in Iraq, but he still does not get it. Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the security of the United States before he began his war of choice. The President's speech tonight was further evidence that after almost three years, he still does not understand that crucial fact.
"President Bush persists in pursuing a flawed policy that has not made the American people safer nor made the Middle East more secure. It is time for a new direction in Iraq — not more of the same."
I think its Nancy Pelosi who doesn't get it. Whether or not Iraq presented a threat to U.S. security before our invasion is a moot point. We have invaded. That part is over. What lays in front of us is Iraq's future and the future of the middle east. What is best for that future, Pelosi's "new direction" which is apparently a quick retreat from Iraq before security forces there can be made entirely ready to defend the new democracy we've fought so hard to install there?
I don't think so, and neither do I think most Iraqis would agree with that. In fact, I'd say that Iraqis want us to finish setting up their security forces and then leave. I believe this is in keeping with what the Bush administration wants and it is also in keeping with what I want to happen.
The President has said in the past that once the new Iraqi government is in power they simply have to make a formal request for U.S. forces to leave, and they will leave. If the Iraqis didn't want us to complete our mission their representatives in the government would tell us so, and we would leave. Just as the President has promised.
One month ago Nancy Pelosi voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Nearly a month later she voted against completing our mission in Iraq. Perhaps, if Rep. Pelosi wants us to follow her direction on Iraq, it would be easier if we knew what her position was? Are we retreating or are we completing the mission? Because if we're not completing the mission, why are we staying there?
Something a bit more substantive than "Whatever Bush/Republicans are doing sucks" would be helpful.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
If anybody took her comments out of context it is apparently her own media people.
Here's a point for you to ponder - What do you think Bush will do, if the new Iraqi government's first action is to tell us to get out right now?
The Wahabbis believe in an "outward war against evil" (as they perceive evil) ... much like the majority of Christians believe in "outward war".... to defend themselves against chaos wreaked by terrorists.
So, we have a minority of Muslims and a majority of Christians who have little compunction against waging war against their respective perceived "evils". How can one offer any constructive alternative given such a scenario?
A minority of Christians practice an "inward spiritual warfare" (very similar to the true meaning of the Muslim "jihaad"). But such Christians (Amish, Brethren, Mennonite, Quaker and other denominational mystics) are so few in number that they have very little impact upon "western culture", including but not limited to western socio-economic-military hegemony.
Nevertheless, being of the Quaker persuasion, I continue to believe in Christ's commandment that we love one another. I am convinced that thru loving, caring and sharing with people, who have different cultural and religious perspectives, humankind can be reconciled and live in peace. (Shalom).
If only I could convince the world of the virtue of Shalom: that "Peace is not a Season .. It is a Way of Life"..
The New Testament teachings of Jesus, and especially St. Paul, state that our warfare is (or at least should be) inward; i.e. to eradicate lusts that deprive us of the ability to attain a "divine nature" ... not to be confused with "Deity".
I appeal to all followers of Jesus Christ, St. Paul and the Prophets Moses, Mohammed, etc. to practice Shalom.
At least give up the notion that "preemptive war" is moral.
It isn't legal. It isn't ethical. It isn't moral. It isn't spiritual.
Striking someone before they strike you also isn't rational or logical. It is provocative and leads to violence and death. If nothing else, President Bush has proven that!.
The undeclared and defacto civil war, once it reaches a critical mass, will very likely embroil secular, Sunnie and Shiite partisans from all over the Middle East. We can thank the current Republican administration for not being sufficiently culturally sensitive and for inflaming a region that was already volatile; yet controlled by a "strong-man" named Saddam Hussein.
Americans don't like "strongman" type of government. We didn't appreciate how Tito controlled Yugoslavia until his death. And we didn't understand why Saddam virtually had to use viscious and inhumane means to stop revolutionaries (and their kinfolk) dead in their tracks.
The death and destruction that will be wreaked on Iraq, due to the democratic-coalition's initiative to overthrow Saddam .. and the increased volatility and vacuum WE CREATED .. will most likely be horrendous.
I suspect that Americans (and other coalition members)will eventually rue the day that we "intervened" in Iraq ... not because of the deaths and maiming of so many of our men ... but because of the utter destruction that civil war will bring to that country.
By contrast with today, Iraq was a relatively peaceful country under the rule of Saddam and the Baathist regime.
Iran had less reason to create nuclear weapons to defend itself against a potential western-democratic invader.
Truly, the majority of Americans see things NOT AS THEY ARE ... BUT AS WE (AMERICANS) ARE. We had better wake up to the demerits of our country's egocentricity before its too late. Could it be that we are trying to precipitate another world war BEFORE our "empire of debt" goes bankrupt?