Pelosi ‘Prays’ Troop Surge Works Before Voting Against It
Bottom Line Up Front: In an insincere display of support, Nancy Pelosi said she prays the troop surge works in Baghdad and the next day voted against it. She then went on to suggest a diplomatic strategy in Iraq.
One day before the Congress voted on a non-binding resolution “disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq”, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat down with PBS’ Jim Lehrer to discuss the troop surge. (video)
During the interview, Lehrer asked Pelosi what her position would be if reinforcements to Baghdad actually worked:
JIM LEHRER: What would your position be, if, in fact, the Petraeus plan, as commanded by Gen. Petraeus, actually worked, the Baghdad security plan?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: I pray that it does. Our young people are in harm’s way there. We hope that it does work. But the fact is, we know we would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq.
That’s where you go. You don’t go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, “Now we’re going to referee.” But, again, we always wish for success in any maneuver or plan that our troops are involved in.
“I pray that the security plan for Baghdad does work… now excuse me while I go vote against it”, said Pelosi. She then suggested diplomacy as the means to stabilize Iraq. What did Pelosi think “the region” was doing between 1992 and 2003 about Iraq?
Madam Speaker might want to read the Iraq Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion and is intolerant against ethnic cleansing and racism before announcing a need to amend it:
-
Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, sect, belief or opinion, or economic and social status.
-
This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.
-
Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty.
-
Equal opportunities are guaranteed for all Iraqis.
-
No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. A law shall regulate this.
Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front
February 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
[...] Original post by Amy Proctor and software by Elliott Back [...]
February 17th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
House Rebukes Bush On Iraq…
In a stinging rebuke to President Bush, the House has approved a nonbinding resolution criticizing M…
February 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
[...] No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. A law shall regulate this. Finally, Madam Speaker insulted the President and military commanders, suggesting they are ordering U.S. soldiers to referee ethnic cleansing; she insulted troops involved in the surge, inferring that they would be complicit in such an act; and, as Democrats love to do, she insulted Iraqis, suggesting they are chomping at the bit to do so. Perhaps some Senators watched the PBS interview with Pelosi and her asinine comments led to the defeat in the Senate of a non-binding resolution condemning reinforcements to Iraq. The resolution failed 56-34, six votes shy of a rebuke for the President. Considering that there are 49 Republicans in the Senate, several Democrats and an Independent voted against it. Perhaps the mandate Pelosi thinks she has from voters on Iraq exists only in her head. Other Blogging About This: California Conservative [...]
February 18th, 2007 at 2:18 am
You should revise your rosy view of the Iraqi constitution. Note this clause: “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established”. It’s true that Christians can have freedom of religion, but only as dhimmis in accordance with Islamic law. Every individual enjoys “life, security, and liberty”, except in accordance with the law (Sharia, see above) and based on a decision by a competent judicial authority (which, I’d bet, is an Islamic judge).
February 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Pelosi has a mandate against the war … from the voters of her San Francisco district. Out here in the real world, we realize the terrible toll, both on Iraqi human rights and world energy prices, that Pelosi’s policies would take.
As regards her knowledge of the Iraqi constitution … with the consistent lack of regard that our Congress shows toward the US constitution, what makes you think they’d care about anyone else’s?
February 18th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Bob, Iraq is an Islamic country. There are certainly problems unique to an Islamic constitution that we will not have to deal with, but freedom for all individuals and religions is a constitutional guarantee in Iraq. Period. It has nothing to do with a rosy outlook. Pelosi is out of touch on Iraq. She has no acquaintance with the Constitution and her anti-war views have alienated her from the troops and Iraqi leadership, so she’s not getting her information from them. Then who? Other anti-war nuts. Not exactly reliable sources.
My husband helped the Iraqi Provisional Authority back in 2003-04 in Baghdad and gave instruction to Iraqi officials regarding democratic principles, human rights, etc., concepts these people are fully unacquainted with. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, etc., have successfully embrace their Islamic roots and gone on to promote religious and personal rights. It can be done.
Iraqis honor their constitution and are leaving several centuries of brutality and inequality. How about maybe giving them a couple years to work out the principles of their constitution? Democracy is about freedom; if Iraq chooses an Islamic Iraq allowing for freedom and protection for all citizens, why is that bad? Isn’t that their freedom of choice?
One thing no one can say is that Iraq is a puppet government for the United States.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Nick, excellent comments.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Bobby, Bobby,Bobby, Smith your history is kinda shoty. The Iraqis would not accept a constitution unless the sharia was left in, so what is your plan? You try to paint a picture that the western nations didn’t try to get them to adopt a full western constitution. Your post is like a blame thing, a rationalization to stop fighting Al Qaeda around the world and retreat into the confines of the dark ages as the nuke bomb becomes Al Qaeda and Iranian madmen’s arsenal of preference in the next 25 years.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Oh Amy, you are so… misinformed. But what do you expect, you quoted Fox Noise. The vote for cloture (which is the process by which the Senate votes to close discussion and proceed to a debate, a parlimentary trick and one that is sure to make Newt Gingrich happy) was, at 56-to34:
So, proving that you have trouble understanding how our government works, your calculations were wrong, and more importantly, as a result were misleading. There were 56 senators that voted to bring the non-binding resolution before the Senate, but due to this parlimentary maneuver, the minority of the Senate, the Republicans, were able to prevent going on the record as to their committment to the President. That means that, aside from Joe Lieberman, every Democrat voted to debate the issue, and 7 Republicans crossed the party line.
So, in fact, the majority of the Senate wanted to debate the issue; it was 34 disgracefully petulant and unpatriotic Republicans that prevented what the American people want: an open and honest discussion about Iraq, and a movement to bring it to a conclusion.
By your logic (not to mention reality), perhaps the mandate Speaker Pelosi has is from the majority of the country. Maybe the Congress should wake up a realize this fact.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
“…four short of the 60 needed”
Another failure for dirty despicable democrats. The traitorcrats should be stripped of their citizenship , tar and feathered and kicked the ^&$% out this Country they have betrayed and disgraced