|
Friday, April 11, 2003
Pelosi stands by vote against Iraq war. Reader Ephraim sends in this link to Pelosi's statements, including:"I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war," she told reporters at her weekly briefing yesterday, saying the same questions still remain: "The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?" This really is about the worst time to make this kind of statement, and to make it in such a way. Bush, for all his forcefulness, seems to get points for being open to other ideas -- whether or not he actually is open to other ideas is not the issue. The issue is why Bush can pull it off and Pelosi can't.
Eric Alterman is admitting he was wrong, saying:Paul Wolfowitz thought U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. I did not. His prediction in this case, was correct. I was wrong. (And not for the last time, I’m guessing.) Certainly, Pelosi saying this would be a huge failure, as well. But she should have mustered something that carried the same message. If this war is a failure -- and Pelosi, in upholding her vote, has to think it is -- it is not because of $100B, or because of the very few lives lost so far; you need other, better reasons to contest Bush, and Pelosi, apparently, doesn't have them.
Steven I. Weiss 4:32:00 PM
|