Nancy Pelosi’s agenda as Speaker

Standard

Nancy Pelosi’s assent to power is complete as she assumes the office of House Speaker.   It places her second in the line of succession and places in her hands more legislative power than any woman has wielded in the history of the United States. She has called the Iraq war a “grotesque mistake” and for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.  However, she has also said that she does not intend to cut off funding for the war.   To me, that is inconsistent.  What more clearer signal could the people have sent than to elect a democratic congress that ran on platforms of redeploying U.S. troops.   She has said that we have sent our troops to fight “without a plan to prevail” We know the President’s so-called “Surge plan” will fail.  I thought that was why she so aggressively supprorted Jack Murtha for Majority Leader because he courageously and articulately laid out a common sense plan for redeployment.  She has much to prove and little time for indecisiveness. I wish her well and admire her skills as a politician but I remain, as always, skeptical.

12 thoughts on “Nancy Pelosi’s agenda as Speaker

  1. ksig

    When Nancy Pelosi was the minority leader in the house all she had to do is complain about the war and its poor handling. She did not have to offer any ideas to improve the situation in Iraq (or perhaps even win the war), all she had to do is criticize the administration and push a anti-war agenda untill the anti-war sentiment put her back in power.
    Well, her party now holds the power to end the war and I assure you no change is comming. When you are the minority party all you have to do is criticize the majority party, now her party must actually produce results. The DNC is not willing to see mass murder in Iraq after they pull American troops out. Three hundred thousand Iraqi casualities within a few months will not do anything to help the DNC’s “weak on defense” lable, and the horrors that will be seen in Iraq will not appear very kum-by-ya on the humanitarian or compassionate side.
    Welcome to responsiblelity DNC, your actions now have consequence Nancy Pelosi. Good luck with your idealogs (Cindy Shehan, etc) who will continue to haggle you everyday you do not end the war, and good luck dealing with results that will follow if you do end the war. Good luck with the consequence of the economy after you end “tax cuts for rich” (any family over 80K, seems for middle class by my expierance, but any way) and all the other lib ideas the DNC will try to push.
    If mass slaughter (today’s Iraq is minimal by WWII and Vietnam standards) and a weak economy sounds good for your re-election chances, by all means proceed.
    May I also mention the fact that the NVA and Viet-Cong slaughtered more than 300 thousand civialians after we pulled of that war, lets give “Peace” a chance, eh.

  2. No American legislator wants to have a hand at having historians write that America lost another war they started. I remember in school it was never clear to me what was the Vietnam War or the Korean War for America never was touted the winner.

    So here again is too much subject matter that will have to have history books and encyclopedias written that these legislators where a part of this muck. I don’t want to even be a part of it knowing that I lived while it happened and had no power to stop it before it happened and could not go drive over and pick some of the soldiers up. I could not just be a modern-day Harriet Tubman and steal some soldier from harms way. This is a real mess.

    This way predicates a whole lot of ego and name-calling for generations to come. Who wants their name associated with this mess?

    For Democrats, they are still haunted by the Clinton years for being called Softies along with him as a bleeding heart liberal. Remember when Clinton man’d up and hired Cohen and Gergen. Remember Yemen? Clinton was almost done without having to make these types of decisions and strategies. This war here was started by a cowboy and Democrats are not really those types of people. I just don’t think they really know how to fix this mess without making America leave visually recorded on film, by photo journalists as losers. This will show the evidence. So why not stall a little bit.

    It’s one thing to campaign that your hand was forced to pull the trigger and lay blame to the President, but is now their time ticking away that affects the outcome of a war being lost, history written, and the cause and effects of the 2008 election and their party’s stance. The democrats will have do everything right rather than just act opposite of the last Congress and the President. That just won’t fly. They have got to come up with fail-proof solutions or hope that conditions alter a bit to take a humanitarian approach to save face.

    Nancy is no soldier or cowboy. She is no strategist either. Very few of them has served or knows what sacrifice is. They are politicians and they want to win again in saving America’s face from further humiliation in pulling out. It shows that all money spent was a lost and for whatever money in surreptitiously invested, we may find out. That is not to be exposed and failures only speeds up the discoveries.

    To remedy this problem, they want to wait for something to happen on Iraq’s end that will promote them to look as though they are humanitarians at least. You know how we do in America when we invade people. It is like what Momma said when she spanked you: “You made me do it!” And that is how we will rewrite it. We just need more proper circumstances in place so America can have some substantiated facts that will show us in a better light and have historians not compelled to lie so much as they rewrite and send America the bill for new history books.

    I mean…that is how I would play it as a self-serivng politician., that is.

    Why has she been grinning (all the time) away? I am a feminist and I feel for her. History will take in accord what this American Woman did or did not do. She should show less teeth and more resolve because if the Democrats come up short, it will be in the history books with her name and WOMAN attached to it.

  3. Nancy Pelosi can’t help her constant “surprised smile” look. Look at all the facelifts and eye lifts the 67 year old baroness has had.

  4. Ksig,

    It seems that all of you conservatives are alike. When an Imperial Crusade like Vietraq goes wrong, you blame those who were against it from the start instead of those who instigated it and screwed it up. People like you “swiftboated” John Kerry, a man who swallowed the B.S. his elders told him and fought bravely and with distinction in Vietnam. Despite what others have said, people like you lost the Vietnam War, a war that we had no business fighting in the first place and a crime against humanity and the people of IndoChina.

    Moreover, people like you similarly are responsible for being bogarted into believing the lies about weapons of mass distruction that Iraq no longer possessed as a rationale for this latest quagmire. So be a good sport, won’t you, and leave Pelosi alone and fight fair.

    Her reluctance to cut off funding in Iraq may end up aiding your side and then you might have to either apologize or pick up the pieces of brain stuck on the ceiling after your head explodes.

  5. Andrea,

    More news has come out in recent days saying that the incoming chair of the House Military Appropriations Subcommittee, Jack Murtha, will oppose Bush’s surge plan. He wouldn’t be doing that I’m guessing if he didn’t have the O.K. from Nancy Pelosi. This may be her way of expressing reluctance to cut off funding for the troops and assuring white moderates that she is no radical while allowing Murtha, a thirty year decorated marine the power to act in her stead and kill the war off slowly but surely. I hope its true, otherwise, the Democrats just milked anti-war sentiment for nothin.’

  6. This seems well researched with some help from AirAmerica.

    What do you know about Vietnam? After the Democrat Socialists stopped funding, the U.S. had to leave the South Vietnam army to face the combined forces of North Vietnam, China and Russian jets and AK-47s. So, the communists killed most of the adult men, and turned “rancid” women into sex slaves or workers.

    What was good about it? Do you realize it was your Democrat Party that got us into that war? Do you know that your same Democrat Party attacked George HW Bush for not going into Iraq and finishing off Saddam?

    Why do you want the U.S. to become another low-income/opportunity socialist country like France and Germany?

  7. Mick,

    Thanks for commenting and welcome to Skeptical Brotha. Apparently you are an inhabitant of a universe in which white is black, up is down, and war is peace. People like you, some of them Vietnam Vets who have been left to die of cancer from Agent Orange exposure like my Uncle did, or allowed to languish on a pittance of a service connected benefit, sometimes suffer from stockholm syndrome which causes the victims of unjustified violence and brutality to identify with and apologize for the bastards that abused them.

    The bottom line is that regardless of who led us to Vietnam, nobody in the GOP opposed it, in fact, y’all escalated it and it caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and more than 50,000 American soldiers. Vietnam is still communist and people are still searching for the missing limbs of their babies and children blown off by landmines we left behind. WE HAD NO BUSINESS THERE AND WE HAVE NO BUSINESS IN IRAQ. REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND. 🙂

  8. Sweet Old Bob

    Umm, Skepie, are you writing that Nancy is inconsistent when she backs Murtha’s plan (which was drawn up in counsel with leading military leaders) to redeploy and speaking against the President’s (following John McCain’s and the Iraq Study Group’s) plan to have a temporary surge in the number of troops? It’s funny; I don’t see any inconsistency at all.

    Also, you call this the President’s surge plan. What’s with that? Has he already committed to that? Is it generally understood in the blogosphere that he has already made up his mind on this? I may have missed something; but isn’t he still considering his options?

    One further question, “Have you read any of the ISG’s report?

    But, I give you credit. I always say, “It’s a sin to be cynical; but skepticism is a virtue.”

  9. rikyrah

    Did you know that she pushed through limiting Chairmanship of Committees to SIX YEARS?

    Got this from dailyKos:

    “During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.”

    Any thoughts on this SB?

  10. Your are very good at judging politics. No, the Democrats have already blown it their first 100 hours. They are run by the ACLU, unions and other special interests.

Comments are closed.