Have Americans read Nancy Pelosi's letter to President Bush?

Question

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan07/Iraq.html

Answer 1

It appears that our military leaders are saying the same thing about adding more troops as our conservative friends say about welfare. It costs taxpayers too much money and allows the "lazy" to rest on their (our) laurels.

How come it makes so much sense to them when it is a question of our own American poor, but completely evades their little minds when it comes to the Iraqis?

Why does Bush think he must have an all-out war, with winners and losers, when the whole "point", supposedly, is to "give" Iraqis democracy?

Oh, and one more thing...what if the Iraqis don't WANT it?




edit: I keep hearing that WE need Iraq. Who said we could have it? Who said we could take it? Who said it belongs to the US? Maybe we'd like to count it as "one of ours" because of its strategic positioning, etc.--but we have no right--repeat: NO RIGHT--to take it over! It is a sovereign country. Have you all lost your God-given minds?

And, I noticed that Pelosi's letter quoted American Military Generals!!! How can our Commander in Chief--who went AWOL because he couldn't take it--know more about what is militarily correct in Iraq than they do??

Answer 2

I'm sort of amazed at people's expectations of the newly sworn in Democratic Majority. If Pelosi and Reid set the stage by making outright demands and accusations it paints them as the extremists the far right has been claiming they are all along. Let them enter the scene with dignity intact. They have put the President on notice that they do not agree with his tactics. He will respond, and it will escalate from there. I've heard so many claim that Pelosi will add some badly needed civility to Congress and Washington D.C. It was one of her main points of appeal. But now these same people are screaming one day after the Dems have taken control because they are not threatening Bush with the chopping block already. The Dems are smart to wait on raising the roof until after he announces his new "plan" this next week. They really almost have to do so and then will make their response, which I imagine will be much stronger than this initial contact letter on their position.

Answer 3

One problem they fail to understand what happens if we pull out without securing Iraq. Shows how clueless they are about the middle east and it's folk ways and moral ways.
They do not realize our leaving will be a major propaganda victory for the terrorist and make every America a target with a bull's eye on his or her back.
They do not have a clue we are dealing with religious fanatics and normal rules do not apply.
What has been the problem all alone is they did not listen to their generals at the start of the war. The Combat officers who said it would take 300,000 troops to secure Iraq completely. They fired those generals and got political lackies that agreed with them in the numbers they had come up with which was around 150,000.

Another part of our problem over there is those supposedly 140,000 troops. Well only around 42,000 are actual combat Marine grunts and dog faced army ground pounders. The rest are rear elechon troops not grunts.
Which essentially means we only have around 42,000 combat troops in Iraq actually doing the fighting. With an additional small number of direct support armoured and heavy Tech transport.
And 42,000 is not even enough to secure Bagdad let alone all of Iraq never has been. That is why we are in the mess we are in over there right now.
This way also points out one of the glaring problems with an all volunteer (mercenary) army. Instead of an army composed of a small cadre of professional soldiers and the bulk of the soldiers being citizen soldiers. If the bulk of the army had been citizen soldiers then this war would never have happened in the first place.

Answer 4

While I see a valid point--the Iraqis should be held more responsible for their own country--Iraq's position in the Middle East (topographically and politically) is key for America. With the instability of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, there has to be a base in Iraq to keep the peace.

Unfortunately, you can't help a nation that's so screwed up it won't help itself. None of this would be a problem if it hadn't been for the huge sectarian split after the Moslem Golden Age. If they could just agree that they're all freaking Muslims and worship the same Allah, maybe they could get on track.

You can't fix a problem that can't be solved without removing the religious tension. This is all because of two families that got pissed at each other 400 years ago. LET IT GO! GET OVER IT!

And they should really lay off of the Jews. The only reason half the countries over there still exist is because we pay Israel not to annihilate Lebanon and Syria. I say, let them go for it! Trust me when I say Israel is more than capable of taking care of that pesky Middle East problem.

And, by the way, if the "best and most wonderful president Clinton" hadn't cut the military funding, the death toll over there would be cut in half, easily. So, technically, the democrats can blame, guess who?, the democrats for at least 1,500 soldiers killed.

What nobody gets is that Kevlar, amazingly enough, doesn't stop ANY round over there. Insurgents aren't carrying your grandmother's Colt around in purses. They have automatic AK's, RPG launchers, much more powerful weapons. The soldiers might as well be wearing tank tops and baseball caps--it would be just as effective as the "armor" they're issued due to a lack of funding.

So, go ahead. Blame the "worst president in history" for all those soldiers dying for nothing. You'll be singing a different tune when political correctness lets terrorists roam OUR streets and there's no one to protect us but the army.

Answer 5

While she used powerful words in accepting the Speaker’s gavel that wrapped herself in the flag of God-fearing American patriotism, her deeds of the past speak far louder. Pelosi is pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion, even pro-partial birth abortion. She has voted against tax cuts, against the Patriot Act, against allowing the words “under God” to remain in the pledge of allegiance, and against allowing public displays of the Ten Commandments. She has voted against stopping illegal immigration. And Pelosi has worked to undermine traditional marriage, even by voting against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
Pelosi closed her acceptance speech with a phrase associated with the Communitarian Network when she said, “Let us all stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.” The Communitarian Network is a self-described “coalition of individuals and organizations who have come together to shore up the social, moral and political environment…a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, transnational association."
Communitarian doctrine puts government above individual rights by developing democratic consensus often using moral issues.

Answer 6

you're in Iraq for 2 reasons a million- It has the 0.33 best oil reserves interior the international 2-to put in bases to guard Israel you comprehend Israel do not you. they are the pal of this u . s . who interior the 60s with LBJ did their superb to sink the united statesLiberty the two events are an identical they have been that way for years. the two have offered out to the Cooperate elite in this u . s .. in case you have chose to nicely known the actual clarification for many if not all wars examine Generals Butler e book "warfare Is A Racket" with the aid of how everyday Butler won the medal of honor 2 distinctive cases

Answer 7

I would certainly trust President Bush's war recommendations next week. How can pelosi possibly be an authority on war strategy? She has put in her 2 cents worth. Now she needs to let the Commander in Chief do his job.

Answer 8

no but thanks for the link!
Beccah, if you don't think Israel would be wiped off the map in a second flat if it wasn't for United states unconditional support for them, and buying their military all those goodies, you are sadly mistaken.
If it wasn't for our tax dollars paying all the arab nations who do have normalized relations with Israel to be nice to them, they wouldn't have one friend in the ME.

the closest friend they would have is Britain who only wants to see the Jewish state succeed, so they don't have to put up with them again. as bad as that sounds, that is pretty much reality, if you look at history.

could you give one example of military funding clinton cut. please back it up with a credible link. he didn't cut anything, just haulted the wasteful spending.
<
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=518

do you think we needed to continue the nuclear missle and arms build up, that Reagan was doing during the cold war even though we really had no enemy to fight?

Answer 9

Good plan. The surge idea was stupid - just gives the Iraqis another 50,000 targets.

Answer 10

Very political. Maybe she'll invite him over for tea and crumpets next.