FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 10/04/2002 10:46:50 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House's second-ranking Democrat, said Thursday she would oppose a resolution authorizing war with Iraq that President Bush negotiated with her leader, Rep. Dick Gephardt, putting House Democrats in the middle of an uncomfortable leadership split.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
1. The Dems will not be in the House Majority come November, and;
2. Loco Poco Ricardo will not be running for Minority Leader, and;
3. The Wench Pelosi lusts for power, and wants to be Leader, and;
4. Therefore, she needs her Fellow Travelers to vote for her in the coming leadership fight.
Hence Pelosi must oppose the leader's position, no matter what.
Tony
"how he foresees the war being waged"
Totally, quickly, decisively and without reservation. We will blind them, destroy their communications and roads. If you want any more information, we'll have to assume you will merely share it with your buddy, Saddam.
"how much it would cost"
A whole lot less than one nuclear bomb set off in San Francisco.
"what fallout it might cause in the Middle East"
Iran will tumble without effort to pro-democratic forces. Saudi Arabia will moderate. The Palestinians will sue for peace.
"how he envisions handling the aftermath"
We will ask the panty-waist Euro-weenies to do some military policing, while the Iraqis have a constitutional plebiscite of their own crafting.
Does the good Senator have any other questions? NO? GOOD!
LET'S ROLL!
Of course, because it is sense and not nonsense, his party rejects it (and him).
As much as I abhor her politics, I believe Ms. Pelosi would take a similar stance on virtually any war that a Republican President was advocating. The fact that it is saddam insane has no particular bearing on her position. If you deleted "against Saddam" the statement would be without fault.
Say what you will about Barbara Lee or Cynthia McKinney, at least they have the cajones to stand by their convictions, however misguided.
I happen to know Ms. Pelosi on a personal level and can assure you that she is very sincere in her convictions. What makes her strikingly dangerous, in my mind, is that she combines several factors that are very difficult to counter, such as:
1. Unlike McKinney and lee, she has a high level of intelligence.
2. Also she is one of the richest women in Congress (possibly the richest).
3. She is absolutely 100% safe in her district.
4. She has the astute political skills to have risen to being one of the most powerful women in the country and certainly the most powerful woman in Congress
5. She absolutely believes that she and her socialist politics will make the world a better place, if republicans, would just get out of the way of social progress.
If Babs 'boxter' looks beatable (unlikely) or Feinstein steps aside (probable, she will be in line to be a Senator. She also will be on the Dem short list for VP in '04.
Well, I don't think she's as hypocritical (on that point) as you suggest. She wants to "exhaust all other options first" (e.g., surrender, take some hits, let yet another minority group express themselves, however repugnant that might be to WASP males). What she doesn't verbalize in that, is that she and her kind would prefer the national political turmoil that would be set off with something like a nuclear attack, say, at American military installation.
So, yes, she is being hypocritical in that she would wield an analogously mighty political attack on our own country as she's decrying Bush would use on Saddam, but her defense of Saddam is not hypocritical--it's what she and her Fellow Travellers want.
HF
Like we've always known,
Democrats look in the mirror, and accuse us of the worst they see in themselves.
We will never beat Pelosi, in her district, as long as her district remains San Francisco. Therefore, to beat her, we must promote her. As difficult as that may be.
She has two directions to go: The Senate or the VP.
If she runs for the Senate in Calif. her liberalism will become even more apparent. However that may not be enough, alone, to defeat her, since Calif. is so damn liberal.
If she runs for VP, as I suspect she will, then that ticket will lose. Once she has run for VP, her career as an elected official will be virtually over, since rarely does a losing pres or VP candidate, then get back into the trenches. (Lieberman is an exception)
I am thinking of Ferrarro as a prime example.
Scarry thought for the future:
Two of her kids are both considering politics. With their connections, look to hear from them in local politics in the near future (two to four yrs).
The son is as dumb as a stump, so may not go to far, SF City/County Council, would be a coup for him.
Her younger daughter though is very smart, and will be following on mom's skirt tails.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.