Nancy Overreaches, Part 37B
Pity poor Nancy Pelosi. She and Harry Reid promised to make 2007 an annus horribilis for George Bush in many ways. Instead, the two Congressional leaders have stymied themselves through hardline tactics and divisive rhetoric. They have not been able to deliver on their biggest promise -- an end to the war in Iraq, even with Reid declaring defeat on the floor of the Senate.
Yesterday, Pelosi lashed out at Republicans, saying that they "liked" war (via Memeorandum):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public's priorities."They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.
"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
When pressed by stunned reporters, Pelosi realized she'd made a mistake. She retracted the statement, saying that she meant that Republicans supported the current strategy in Iraq and supported George Bush's continuance of the effort. Pelosi then expressed surprise that the Republicans would not accede to public polls on the matter.
In other words, she can't understand why Republicans and George Bush don't sacrifice national security for political gain. That makes sense, coming from the leadership that has attempted to politicize the war for years now. If anyone can be said to "like" the war -- really a repellent notion -- it would be Pelosi and the Democrats. They manipulated it in two elections to attempt to gain political advantage, succeeding in 2006. Pelosi owes her position in part to the Democratic effort to fuel antiwar passion.
Republicans, for the most part, understand what an American defeat in Iraq would produce. Certainly George Bush understood years ago that a withdrawal would have given him short-term domestic political benefit. It might have even saved the Senate in 2006 for the GOP. Unlike Pelosi, Reid, and most of the Democrats (not all of them), Bush and most of the Republicans have focused on the long-term impact that both success and failure will have on the Middle East and American interests there.
That's why, when faced with defeat, Bush chose to change strategies to win rather than do what Harry Reid did and declare defeat. Thus far, Bush has been proven right. Al-Qaeda has lost its foothold in Iraq and have now fallen back to Pakistan. Iraqis have begun ground-up reconciliation. None of this would have been possible had we listened to the hysterics of Reid and the pandering of Pelosi. Instead, we would have consigned Iraq to failed-state status and given AQ a massive footprint -- and lots of oil to fuel their jihad.
None of us like the war. It still needs to be won, regardless of all the polls Pelosi waves.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on December 14, 2007 7:09 AM | Comments () | TrackBacks (0)
Comments