SF Chronicle: Pelosi's trip: Believes more strongly that withdrawal will help region

[DeepModem Mom]

CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Pelosi's trip: She believes more strongly that withdrawal will help region, says troops deserve better policies than president's
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Monday, January 29, 2007

Washington -- Three days in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even more certain of her view that moving troops out of Iraq is the best way to bring stability to the region, she told The Chronicle on Sunday.

Speaking from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, Pelosi said the nation owes its troops a better policy than the one now being pursued by President Bush, and emphasized the importance of reconstructing the war-torn region.

As Congress prepares to challenge the president's Iraq policy, Pelosi offered no indication that her meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had softened her opposition to Bush's plan to send 21,500 more American troops into the war.

The high-level meetings highlighted Pelosi's determination to place Iraq near the top of the agenda for the new Democratic Congress. It also emphasized on a world stage the enormous differences between Congress and the White House over the way forward.

"We owe them better policy. We owe them better initiatives,'' Pelosi said after meeting the past three days with scores of U.S. troops and military commanders, as well as the top political leader in each of the three countries. "I believe redeployment of our troops is a step toward stability in the region.''...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/29/MNGP0NQQOK1.DTL

[bdrube]

1. Nice that she made the effort...but this isn't exactly breaking news.

Most truly objective observers having been saying the same
thing for years.

[Demit]

6. I don't think that was the point of her trip, to break news to you.

The story clearly lays out what the point was:

"The high-level meetings highlighted Pelosi's determination to place Iraq near the top of the agenda for the new Democratic Congress. It also emphasized on a world stage the enormous differences between Congress and the White House over the way forward."

[Rose Siding]

7. Maybe so, but when the US House Speaker says it, it's news

Or should we wait for an article in which the WH whines its response?

[MGKrebs]

2. I remain convinced that the Army cannot succeed because

they are not being given their true mission. I am confident that if we tasked them with securing the oil they would do it and we would have the oil under our control. There might be deaths and destruction, but the mission would be achieved. Instead, we pretend we are there for some other purpose which our so-called leaders hope will lead to the same result. Of course, "we" can't admit our true goal, because then there could be no doubt that "we" are the imperialistic egomaniacs the rest of the world thinks we are.


I remember a lot of stories when the war started that Russia, France, and Germany had contracts with Iraq for their oil and that's why they didn't join the coalition of the willing; they had a lot to lose. The slant at the time was that they were willing to overlook the terrorist connection and the WMD's just so that they could get the oil. Well, what are we to think now? No WMD's, no terrorist connection... but US presence in the region and cancel all existing contracts?.

[ovidsen]

3. So cynical. So true

A real President fighting a real war that he thought Americans really wanted to win would have instituted a real draft, implimented rationing on everything from gasoline to sugar and had volunteer civil defense guards on every corner. The nation's industrial might would be churning out missles and destroyers, not iPods and football stadiums.

Instead, BushCo parrots lines about the 'healthy' economy, the 'successes' in Iraq and the "relentless spread" of 'democracy in the Persian Gulf Meanwhile, big oil, and the governments that Big Oil protects continues its dirty work, backing some of the most sadistic and corrupt governments in history.

You'll have to excuse me. I'm feeling a bit nauseous.

[lebkuchen]

4. Pelosi also visited Landstuhl. Bush hasn't.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=43156

[lebkuchen]

5. Pelosi also visited Landstuhl. Bush hasn't.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=43156

[LaBanty]

8. where's the beef?

"We owe them better policy. We owe them better initiatives," Pelosi said

Okay, so just what do you propose, Nancy? Obviously, what's going on there isn't working, but saying it needs improvement isn't the same as offering a solution.

Bringing the troops home only solves the problem of sending them off to die in Iraq. As far as solving any problems in Iraq, I have yet to see anything but the most obvious problems re-stated by either side. There is nothing resembling a plan, other than leaving. Unless... it doesn't bother anyone else these people are killing each other by the dozens every day, and more terror supporters are spilling over the borders all the time. I really don't see that us leaving changes any of that. Should we just sit back and watch them kill each other, and say "oh well, what's another few million religious extremists fighting, anyway"?

Thank you, GWB, for bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. You and G*d really hatched a fine plan, for sure. Next time, save your experiments for something a little less volatile - like a goddamned ant farm in your own basement.

And, Nancy, don't state the obvious and pretend it's a solution. You haven't solved jack shit, or even offered a plan.

[Luckyduck]

9. Impeach Bush, cut the funding, end the war

action, not words!