Nancy Pelosi's Anti-Terrorism Policy

Such As It Is

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I am massively late to this but it really is worth examining the thoughts of the would-be Speaker of the House regarding anti-terrorism issues:

One issue that she is fighting about here is Iraq. She opposed the war from the start and now, like her, most Democrats support a phased withdrawal of troops beginning later this year.
"Does that not open you up then to that charge of cutting and running? This is just what they're saying," Stahl asks.
"The issue is them. The issue is the war they got us into," Pelosi replies. "If the president wants to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, he's not right."
"Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?" Stahl asks.
"No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan," Pelosi says.
"But you don't think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?" Stahl continues.
"They have," Pelosi agrees. "The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

The mind genuinely does boggle. It cannot be disputed that there are terrorists in Iraq and we are fighting them and that means that Iraq has indeed become a front in the general war on terror. Offering to leave Iraq won't engender reciprocity from the terrorists there. They will not respond to our absence by leaving. Rather, they will respond by rushing in to fill the power vacuum that we will be leaving. Additionally, the following question cries out to be asked: If Pelosi believes that the terrorists in Iraq will "stay as long as we're there," then surely she must feel the same way about the terrorists in Afghanistan, no? Why doesn't she demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan in addition to demanding a withdrawal from Iraq? There should be no difference in the two situations, should there? If the terrorists in Iraq will stay as long as we are there, then the terrorists in Afghanistan will do the same. Should we just quit both countries then?

I put forward all of this to point out anew that elections have consequences. An obvious fact but one that too often gets forgotten for reasons unbeknownst to me. In any event, if Nancy Pelosi's ideas strike you as good ones, you know how to cast your vote.

If not . . .

Minority Leader Pelosi, "You truly have a dizzying intellect." by Money

"Just wait til I get going!"

(Dialogue from Princess Bride, for those not teenagers in the early to mid nineties.)

Reply To This — User Info — #1

Narrow Minded Liberals by KingR

Typical typical typical. If the War on Terror was only in Afghanistan, then why isn't it called the War on Afghanistan, huh? She probably believes that World War 2 was only in Japan.
She's just your Typical Narrow Minded Liberal

Reply To This — User Info — #2

You Know, There's Something the Fools Never Consider by Raven

About this argument:

Let's suppose they're right. The Terrorists only make attacks where we are. Suppose then that we vacate the rest of the world entirely and they have no more Americans to attack Anywhere outside the US.
Where does that leave us? And where will the terrorists be?

Keep in mind, that the entire basis of this argument is that WE have done something SO terrible that the terrorists want Us dead above all else. That killing Americans is their sole goal in life. What will they do when the only Americans that exist do so in the USA ONLY?

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Reply To This — User Info — #3

Pelosi as Speaker by wolfgang

Welcome to September in Munich,1938 again.
The Democrats scurried around faster than ants in a freshly disturbed anthill after the Enron debacle, looking for a Republican with blood on his hands from it. When they realized that the only bloody hands from Enron were their own, Treasury Secretary Rubin going to a vice presidency at Citicorp as reward for looking the other way at the loan kiting booked falsely as profits, and Janet Reno for assiduously making sure that little Elian Gonzalez went back to Communist dictator Fidel Castro's Cuba after his mother lost her life bringing him to these shores, instead of tending to the really illegal hanky-panky going on in Houston, they dropped it like the proverbial hot potato.
They will scurry even harder now than in 2001, looking for someone, anyone to appease. The false peace this time, will not last longer than that false peace sixty eight years ago.

Reply To This — User Info — #4

Redstate