Who should Nancy Pelosi be looking out for in light of her recent remarks on the Iraq "surge?"

[derby378]

Okay, here's what we know for sure Nancy Pelosi said to Diane Sawyer:

Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.

It is, I think, very difficult for the President to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the President's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.

Here's my real concern, and it's apparently shared by many here on DU. If you say you oppose the escalation, yet you approve the funds to enable the "surge" to take place anyway, then what good have you really done? If you're not saying "No" to the surge, you're saying "Yes."

So who does Nancy Pelosi need to keep near and dear to her heart right now?

It's not her fellow Democrats. It's not the troops in Iraq. It's not even the troops who are being sent to Iraq as part of the surge.

No, I think the ones that Pelosi needs to meditate on and watch out for are the children who stood at the Speaker's podium with her when she was sworn as the first female Speaker of the House.

Children grow up so fast. Within a few years, some of those kids are going to have military recruiters breathing down their necks. And if immediate action isn't taken here and now, it's very likely that some of the kids who stood at the podium with Pelosi may find themselves being shipped off to the never-ending conflict in Iraq. Or Iran. Whichever.

The Iroquois Confederacy had a great idea for how to consider the impact of its own laws and customs: "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions upon the next seven generations." We have just been through six years of dealing with a Chief Executive who has repeatedly proven himself incapable - or perhaps uninterested - in considering the impact of his own policies upon even this generation, let alone seven.

And this is where Nancy Pelosi really needs to watch her step. In 2006, Democratic voters across America voted for a fundamental change in how we deal with the occupation of Iraq. Many of those voters are parents, themselves. And some of those parents, including Cindy Sheehan, have already lost children in Iraq. And for what? Nonexistent weapons of mass destruction? A "nuclear program" that existed only on paper? Or for the ability of Halliburton to bleed Iraq dry without giving anything back to either the Iraqis or the Americans?

Of course, there is no draft as there was in the Vietnam era. But that won't stop those children who stood with Pelosi at the podium from being targeted by slick ad campaigns by a military that is starving for more troops to be sacrificed in Iraq in order to fulfill Bush's selfish desires. And the Vietnam conflict dragged on for so, so many years...

Methinks it's time for Nancy Pelosi to stop playing politics and decide, once and for all, for better or for worse, what side her bread is buttered on. The time for obfuscation is over. And the American people are becoming impatient. Iraq was one war we were never supposed to fight in the first place. How many more troops have to die before our elected representatives in Congress finally get serious about putting an end to this, regardless of what George W. Bush wants?

[jwirr]

1. That is not how I read this. They will never cut money for the troops

already there to force a withdrawal because the troops do not deserve that kind of treatment BUT congress will not give *ss extra money for his escalation. That is also what Ted Kennedy is saying. We will not desert the men and women in grave danger already there.

[aquart]

2. That's what I saw. She gave a careful political answer, but.......

it really wasn't what Sawyer was looking for. People, however, simply assumed it was. Nuh uh. Nancy is way too cagy to tip her hand like that.

I was fine with that answer.

But then, my name ain't Chicken Little.

[derby378]

5. Oh, please...

Your namecalling is getting tiresome. Then again, so is Pelosi's caginess.

What we really need from Pelosi is for her to just come clean and talk straight with the American people, regardless of where she stands on this. She may catch hell from some of us, but at least she will have been straight with us all.

[Wiley50]

3. I Said My Piece on This And Was Called An Idiot And A Child

And I'm Probably gonna have to engage in Ignore List Retaliation

But I'm Kicking This Thread Because I Wholeheartedly Agree With it

[derby378]

4. And I appreciate it greatly

One of the most important lessons of the 2006 election is that we must never take our elected officials for granted. Our Republican representatives have already demonstrated that they would rather take orders from Bush rather than their own constituents; God help us all if the Democrats in Congress forget to listen to the people who put them in power.