Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Nancy Pelosi: Iraq Stakes Too High for Recycled Proposals

By Nancy Pelosi, AlterNet. Posted February 16, 2007.


The Democratic Leader favors a resolution to oppose Bush's escalation of the war on Iraq, saying the stakes are "too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success."
Advertisement

These are the remarks Nancy Pelosi prepared for delivery on the House floor this Friday.

For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.

There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.

We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.

One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.

Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:

  1. Change of mission
  2. Redeployment of troops
  3. Build political consensus
  4. Diplomacy
  5. Reform reconstruction
  6. Refocus on the War on Terror

In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.

Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.

Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."

There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.

Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, democrats, resolutions

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the first woman to be Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pelosi's one term as Speaker
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Feb 16, 2007 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The November elections taught the D's that the war has finally gained 'traction' with the voters. Thus, they won't do anything substantive to stop the war because the golden-egg laying goose is now too valuable to them for the 2008 elections.

Pelosi's main challenge in her home district is from the left, specifically the Green Party, which is stronger in the SF area than anywhere else: Gayle McLaughlin is mayor in Richmond right across the bay, having defeated an incumbent who outspent her four to one; and SF voters approved Measure J, which asks their representatives to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Not only are Pelosi's actions more pro-war and to the right of the majority of the american people, but it's even more so in the Bay Area.

Do the math: on her current path, Pelosi is toast in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You've got to be joking Posted by: lessbread
Lantos?!?
Posted by: opeluboy on Feb 16, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Tom Lantos wants to stop slaughtering Arabs? No way in hell. He probably just wants to preserve some troops for Iran.

Goddamn we have a fucked up country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lantos?!? Posted by: Doubtom
A new direction to where???
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Feb 16, 2007 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq.

A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
......

It should be that simple... actually in concept I agree with many of the points but she misses a big point.. Iraq is in no shape to have the US withdraw and allow the US and still turn over the duties to Iraqi's as Pelosi implies. Further does she really think the insurgents can be disarmed because of a political consensus?? I'm not so sure Iran is up for that!

The "surge" is intended to reduce the violence to a point that Iraq can begin to make progress.. Actually a recent poll I heard actually shows approval for the surge increased about 10 points.. still not a majority but it's in the correct direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A new direction to where??? Posted by: grayghost
» RE: A new direction to where??? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: A new direction to where??? Posted by: Conservasaurus
RETREAD CARNY BARKER
Posted by: Hal on Feb 16, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is pure recycled propaganda cum Kool-Aid damage control that is everything Pelosi claims it is not.

Put another way, Pelosi’s rant is just Orwellian limited hangout babble. The last element (6) in her “strategy for success for Iraq” sets the real criminal and perjured tone for the rest:

6. Refocus on the War on Terror

A bit difficult when “war on terror” hatched out of a transparent 911 cover-up remains an open farce and blood money travesty worldwide.

By the way, the PR slogan “war on terror” (read war OF terror as all wars must be) was cooked days after the WTC towers came down and corporate crime 911 cover-up went into full overdrive.

1. Change of Mission (and the rest)…

The 1st element of Pelosi’s 6 point sham is no “change of mission”. Not with Paul Wolfowitz (chief neo-con artist of the war) at the World Bank ready to ransack Iraq all over again. This is merely a shell game that pretends to alter policy while maintaining U.S. occupation of the Mid East to Eurasia at public expense for private profit.

Elements 2-5 are double-talk slogans that permit the gutting of the national treasury for more private payoffs to corporate oligarchs.

Posturing and rhetoric may be stock in trade for sellout politicians. But Pelosi is no better than a carny barker in the pocket of robber baron oligarchs that run DC thru Tel-Aviv like toy plantations.

In short, where Pelosi claims “our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people”… Pelosi does NOT talk about “our agenda” that has less than nothing in it “to protect Americans” . No indeed. Wherever she playacts “to project our power and values” sellout Pelosi refers to multinational corporate parasites not Americans.

Make no mistake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Nancy deaf, dumb, and blind?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 16, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them."

Such as Abu Graib, murders in Haditha, and raizing Fallujah? Who knows how many other atrocities have been committed?

Nancy you make me sick!

Lt. Watada and Sgt. Benderman have performed excellently. Sadly it seems too few others have. They refuse to be complicit in war crimes by following orders to participate in an illegal war.

The military is a microcosm of society. How many can't wait to kill a raghead? How many have the "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out." mentality? I've been in the military. I know know these ideas are present. And with reduced recruitment standards the problem is probably worse. I'm sure there alot of decent service people there but there are also alot of barbaric service people too. Any many are probably trapped in a situation that know no way out.

If you (Nancy) want to support our troops, how about bringing them home and not sacrificing any more of them for big oil, corporate amerika, and the defense industries' huge profits. All these troops have been nothing more than cannon fodder for the ultra rich to get richer in a conflict based on lies and deceit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever happened to common-sense questions. Like, who is the REAL enemy in Iraq?
Posted by: DougScott on Feb 16, 2007 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For sure, our enemy IS NOT in Baghdad where 95% of the violence is Sunni vs Shiite.

The REAL bad guys are Al Qaeda fighters in Anbar province, Afghanistan and Pakistan. So let's kick their butts in those three places and let the Iraqis finish their insane civil war by themselves. The winner will stilll hate America and Al Qaeda even more.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, author of "George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT" and the creator/editor of www.King-George.biz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see . . . how long will all this take?
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 16, 2007 7:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least well into 2008 . . . Gosh, who would have thunk it?

After stalling and dawdling, Democrats then can use the war as an issue in the '08 elections, just as some of us cynics predicted they would. Mustn't end a good thing too soon, you know.

Of course, all that "changing of mission,""diplomacy" and "refocusing the War on Terror (TO WHERE???) won't accomplish anything except to get more GI's killed, but after getting themselves re-elected and maybe a Democratic president elected, they can revisit the issue then -- maybe.
If they're not too busy soliciting campaign donations for the 2010 elections from the big money guys on Wall Street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could a "surge" help at this point?
Posted by: olderworker on Feb 17, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you've read any news at all from other countries, you'd know that something like 82% of the IRAQIs want the U.S. the hell out of their country!!

I think we have to leave, the sooner the better, and allow the Iraqis the freedom to do whatever they want. The U.S. presence is only making things worse for them, as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

larry125
Posted by: Larry125 on Feb 17, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer,but it seems to me that we should just let the Iraqi people vote on wheather our troops stay or leave.Hasn't Bush said he would like to see a democracy in Iraq? Well,Duh ! There is the answer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moral Outrage
Posted by: robchapman on Feb 17, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moral outrage over the Iraqi invasion is a good thing.

It is even better when it is translated into action.

The people commenting on Speaker Pelosi's proposals all have very good points, but they remain focussed on the past.

It is time to move into the present and to begin thinking about the future.

There are still people in the mideast who are arming, training and plotting to hurt us.

The Bush Administration's policies have NOT ADRESSED this reality.

It is time to re-focus and to be effective in destroying the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to the US and to the rest of the world.

Pelosi's proposals are forward thinking and, if adopted, will finally commit American power to the war on terror.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War Is A Racket (pt. 1)
Posted by: daodeyao on Feb 18, 2007 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CHAPTER FOUR

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

WELL, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Urban War of Iraq
Posted by: herbal on Feb 18, 2007 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, lets debunk the myth of the "...brave and honorable soldiers." that Newspeaker Pelosi perpetuates. All have died in vain. Isn't that why Cindy Sheehan is so angry? There is nothing brave or honorable about the machine gunning of civilians from turrets of humvees (ask any vet who has drawn this duty about their orders from commanding officers). It takes cowards to kill women and children by airstrike, shelling or shooting. Service in Iraq is dishonorable. To pretend otherwise is to dismiss the truly admirable patriots like Lt. Watada and other dissident soldiers. Anything less than calling soldiers and politicians to accountability is an abomination.

Pelosi minces around the neocons because she is not willing to come out about the abortion of diplomacy. She won't reclaim the lost opportunity to define 9/11 as a crime rather than the arrogant and prideful President Bush declaration in 2001 that the towers bombing was "... not an act of terrorism it is an act of war." The only option for reclaiming any redemption for the prestige of the USA is by redefining 9/11 and any other act of terrorism as an international crime, invoking the jurisdiction of Interpol, UN, CIA, FBI, and other civilian police. Then apologize to Moslems and the world. Consider the absurdity of lending prestige by declaring a nationless individual and compatriots as capable of committing an act of war!

Not only do Pelosi, the DNC and the leading candidates lack insight, candor and sincerity; they commit collaboration. Hillary Clinton and Mr. Edward's candidacy is an abomination and a shill for the new American Fascists. Know them by their works, their consistent Bush agenda voting records, and reject the heinously dishonest election rhetoric. remember it is Hillary who refuses to take the "nuclear option off the table".

Next, reject the doggerel of Pelosi's "...protecting America" rhetoric. why appease the discredited neocons and lend them credibility when they have failed so miserably? We majority and average citizens are the only ones who recognize that US hegemony in the world for the last 100 years has nothing to do with our fatherland safety? The whole bag of gas needs to be rejected at this critical and historically ripe time. It is time for real leadership to call BS on the sins of both parties that have alternately been responsible for our devolution into barbarism.

Now an observation that begs investigation: We only hear about urban warfare. What happens in the Iraqi countryside? Specifically, what is happening to Iraq's oil fields? Is oil being delivered as usual business? Is the spectacle of urban war and Army casualties distracting attention to the success of Haliburton and Mobil Exxon in a blooming oil business? If the Israeli war is all about oil, then what is the success in terms of oil pipeline deliveries? Is Iraq invasion monopolizing crude? Is the Speaker of the House, DNC and the Democratic Party anything but contributors to the new fascism and corporatism?

The saddest quality of modern life is that no level of cynicism is excessive or unwarranted. Think the worst, it is already true. Imagine ways to circumvent every aspect of centralized material life. Finally, work to create this alternative new vision as a reality that already exists. Make a joyful and personal reality.
The Urban War of Iraq
[Report this comment]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But not too high for recycled officials
Posted by: chomsky on Feb 18, 2007 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She should know better than to name William Jefferson to the homeland security committee...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah for the troops!!
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 20, 2007 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them."

like raping little girls and then setting them on fire.

Yeah for the troops!!

Glad they are in Iraq instead of here at home. Would not surprise me at all to see crime rates
fall in the US as more "heros" are deployed overseas.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MAKE THE TROOPS HAPPY
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Feb 21, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell them that they are coming home. Then look to see if they smile? The mothers, the fathers, the wives, the sweethearts, the children are all going to smile. How can this possibly be wrong?

I can think of nothing better to improve the espirit de corps of our troops. Ask the troops themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]