Ditzkrieg

This is my Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi. She is also House Democratic Whip. Some people might say she is an airhead. Others might think of her as a shallow and ditzy socialite. Comedian Larry Miller saw her on TV recently and concluded that she was a village idiot.

In fact, they are all right. Here is Pelosi's official statement on last week's Congressional resolution authorizing military force against Iraq

"The decision of whether to send our brave men and women in uniform to war is the most solemn and serious choice we face as Members of Congress.

Actually, the decision whether to capitulate to a genocidal maniac and risk the lives of millions of civilians in the US, Iraq and elsewhere is probably equally solemn.

Before putting our young people in harm’s way, we must be certain there is no other recourse.

There is never any certainty in statecraft, only uncertainty and the weighing of imperfect choices amidst incomplete information. If you require certainty before you can get out of bed in the morning you should quit politics and take a job with a funeral parlor.

"Because I do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic remedies,

Saddam Hussein is a butchering, torturing despot, an obsessive acquirer of weapons of mass destruction, a starter of wars, a launcher of missiles, a starver and a gasser of his own people, a subsidizer of suicide terrorism, and a deceiver of UN weapon inspectors. If after all that, you honestly believe that there is any hope that any kind of diplomacy can lead to long-term peaceful co-existence with him, then you would probably also believe that the word gullible is not in the dictionary.

I cannot support the Administration’s resolution regarding the use of force in Iraq. I am also extremely concerned about the impact of such action on our war against terrorism.

Earth to Nancy, hello! There is no such thing as a "war against terrorism". The fact that the Administration uses this idiotic, politically-correct, bubble-minded fluff-ball of a euphemism does not excuse you from using it too. The war we are fighting is a war against Arab and Islamic totalitarianism. And Saddam is to Arab fascism what Woody Allen is to Woody Allen movies. To say that the use of force against Iraq is inadvisable because it would impact our war against terrorism, is like saying that a war against Germany would have distracted us from our war against Nazism.

"A number of my colleagues are working on an alternative that I hope I can support.

Your colleagues like who, David Bonior and Tariq Aziz?

An acceptable alternative would require the United States to seek a multilateral diplomatic initiative before authorizing the use of force.

Oooh. Another multilateral diplomatic initiative. As if we haven't already tried like 20 or 30 billion of these with Saddam before, each one giving him a little extra time to move his botulism factory. And what kind of "force" would you and Barbara Lee be willing to authorize when your diplomatic initiative fails? Would you ask Santa Claus to pretty please give Saddam a smaller serving of cookies and milk?

"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence

I don't know what frightens me more, that George Tenet is still Director of Central Intelligence more than a year after 9/11 or that you're a senior member of an Intelligence Committee.

I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.

I don't think you would be capable of recognizing a piece of intelligence if it wore a purple hat and stuck a finger up your nose. And as far as this "imminent threat" red herring goes, I don't think I heard the President say anything about an "imminent threat". As far as I know Hitler didn't pose an imminent threat to our nation either, but he posed a very real strategic threat as does Saddam. Are you saying that you would prefer to wait until Saddam acquires or even uses weapons of mass destruction before we send in our troops to take them away from him? How many more people does Saddam have to kill before you are satisfied that he is any kind of a threat?

"If we invade Iraq, we will show our military power. If we can eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction without invading, we will show our strength."

Um okay, sure Nance. My dictionary defines the word fatuous to mean "complacently or inanely foolish", kind of like your statement that refusing to confront a genocidal tyrant is a show of strength. And what exactly is your plan for eliminating that threat without invading? If you care to share it with us, I'm all ears. But you don't say what it is, so I conclude you don't really have one, now, do you, hmm?

When we combine Pelosi's ditzy foreign policy with the fact that the Democrats elevated her to their number 2 leadership post, I can only conclude that the Donkey party has finally lost whatever wheels it might have had left.

Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi is on a path to become Speaker of the House. If you vote for your local Democratic House candidate, then you're also voting for Nancy to become Speaker of the House some day. If you think this is a good idea, then vote for the Democrat.
--
UPDATE NancyWatch, An index of all my blog entries related to Pelosi is here

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 09, 2002 06:25 AM