Did I read that right? Did she say one way to judge a war is to see whether or not it strengthens a nation's military?

Anybody else's jaws drop at that one? How often does a war make your military stronger? What kind of new foolishness is this, now?

I guess I am the only person upset that the backers of a nation of 6MM persons is dominating our foreign policy?

I am all for protecting Israel and bringing peace to the Middle East, they have been good allies, but when a small minority of people have a distortional influence on our foreign policy (neocons) that is a problem (see Iraq).

It's amazing to see any of our leaders speaking in front of a lobbyist group for a foreign country. Why should our politicians be seeking to curry favor with foreigners? I thought they were representatives of the American people. This is our country; foreigners shouldn't have a say in how we run it.

At least Pelosi has the courage to tell them like it is.

Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

I'd like to hear Boehner explain just one time how we win somebody else's civil war. This is a fight between the Sunnis and Shiites. We should get out of the way.

Actually war can make the military stronger. Combat experience can greatly increase the effectiveness of the troops and create veterans who are better able to train others for war.

Research and development usually take great leaps due to necessities. The down side is expense in equipment and human lost. Everyone needs to be careful not to use peacetime qualification punch cards to judge military readiness. Deployed Units can't take the time to do the qualification test but are in reality are more prepared in general. The military should and will address a few weak training area but is offset by far with strength in other areas.

In the Iraq and Afghanistan war cases, the military has gotten stronger. Don't fall into the trap when someone says the military is having trouble in finding numbers for rotation as sign that the military is getting weaker. One is an admin issue and one is an operations issue. It is misleading to compare apples and oranges that way.

Everyone should keep in mind that in mid 90's during the Clinton years, the military actually had more military deaths and that was during a time of training and troop cutbacks.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

"The war in Iraq fails on all three counts," Pelosi said.

I'd have to disagree.

1. The U.S. *is* safer. Some of it is perception yet, but we havn't had anything near 9/11 since, well, 9/11. To say our presence in Iraq has made us less safe is being disingenuous.

2. The U.S. Military *is* stronger. Howso? Combat allows for theories to be proven and allows new ideas to be tested and either a) used or b) thrown into the garbage. The peak of U.S. military power has occured after every war we've been in. War is a crucible for our military if you will.

3. This one I'd actually agree with but not for the same reasons. I think that instability in that region is a good thing. Why? Because who is it unstable for? Why, the rulers and despots that run most of the ME countries that's who. Why are we so scared of a small, short term gamble that could possibly create more stability in the region?

Has our current administration handled these three sections to the best of their ability? No. Will the Democrats do better? No.

I can't help but snicker at Pelosi. She gets boo'd, she has hippies on her lawn ...

This is awesome.

The nutroots' "Peace" party is starting to look a lot like the Donner party.

Contrast the words of losers like Pelosi with winners like Lieberman. I linked to an excerpt from his speech to the same group over at Politics: Lieberman dunks on moonbats.

Of course, the Democrats ran Lieberman out of the party for making too much sense.

"..but when a small minority of people have a distortional influence on our foreign policy (neocons) that is a problem (see Iraq)."

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 13, 2007 01:32 PM

Neocons? Hmmm, back to the Cindy Sheehan/MoveOn 'Blame the Jews' explanation.

It's amazing to see any of our leaders speaking in front of a lobbyist group for a foreign country. Why should our politicians be seeking to curry favor with foreigners?

So - I assume you didn't agree with Kerry's visit to Iran?

'd like to hear Boehner explain just one time how we win somebody else's civil war. This is a fight between the Sunnis and Shiites. We should get out of the way.

It isn't just between Sunnis and Shia ... that's the problem. You have Al Qaida, Iranians and criminal gangs (who are just in it for the money) confusing the issue. We can't just 'get outta the way' because doing so would make Dafur look like the Love Parade.

Besides, we have always been successful in counter-insurgency operations so why should we pull out now? Sure we could do a better job setting up the government but what process out there right now is 100% successful?

Larkin, are you serious?

" ...a lobbyist group for a foreign country."

HUH??????

Dan, don't forget about how difficult it is to do anything successfully when you've got nearly half of the government allowing the likes of the Kos Kiddies to whisper in their ears.

"Neocons? Hmmm, back to the Cindy Sheehan/MoveOn 'Blame the Jews' explanation." hermie

I did not blame the Jews. Not all necons are Jewish. Your comment is racist.

AIPAC stands for "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee". From their web site:

For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong.

Got that Wave, Israel, which is a foreign country last time I checked.

Before you tell me they represent American Jews you should look at the 2004 election results showing how American Jews voted.

Kerry - 76%
Bush - 24%

Yes, Neo-Cons do equal Jewish. All the think tanks and op-ed writers that authored the stabilizing the middle east through democracy are jewish. You, Larkin are the racist and anti-semite. ww

Has anyone heard what the Reverend Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson has to say about this?

This is our country; foreigners shouldn't have a say in how we run it.

I actually agree with that statment. I think there are many foreign organizations that have way too much influence over our affairs. AIPAC is one of many and it's hardly more influential than say The House of Saud.

"I did not blame the Jews. Not all necons are Jewish. Your comment is racist."

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 13, 2007 02:50 PM

Notice that Barney avoids admitting it was his 'absolute moral authority' hero Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn crowd that used 'Neocon' as an anti-Semite code word.

Why should our politicians be seeking to curry favor with foreigners?

You probably don't realize that you just described the Democratic Party's entire foreign policy.

This is our country; foreigners shouldn't have a say in how we run it.

Then I take it you heartily agree with Antonin Scalia who vigorously opposes using foreign law as a guide to how American jurisprudence should decide legal issues.

At least Pelosi has the courage to tell them like it is.

(Snort!) Yeah, she's a real Margaret Thatcher, all right...

Larkin, you don't have to tell me how American jews vote -- and it doesn't matter a whit to the argument. It might to you, but that's because all of your positions are indelibly colored by partisanship.

So I guess your point is that, American as you may be, if you belong to an organization that advocates for your ancestral homeland, you're part of a "lobbyist group for a foreign country?"

That's just moronic. Apply that to any one of a hundred other political groups and you might actually have to admit it to yourself (although you wouldn't have the intellectual honesty or moral courage to admit it here).

Yes, Neo-Cons do equal Jewish.

I never said that at all. In fact, most Jews here in America are unalterably opposed to neoconservative ideology. There are some noteable Jewish neocons but by no means is it a predominantly Jewish group. By pointing out that Jews supported Kerry 3-to-1 over Bush I was preempting a response I expected from Wave that AIPAC represents the feelings of American Jews.

Along those lines, Wave said they represent people whose ancestors were from Israel when he said:

So I guess your point is that, American as you may be, if you belong to an organization that advocates for your ancestral homeland, you're part of a "lobbyist group for a foreign country?"

Wave, what makes you think most of the people in AIPAC are from Israel? Israel didn't even exist 60 years ago. I doubt most of them or their ancestors have emigrated from there. I'm sure some in AIPAC are of Jewish ancestry but that's really not relevant to what I'm saying.

What is relevant is the fact that these people are making their paycheck by lobbying the US government to promote the interests of foreigners. I don't care what religion, color, or creed they are. I just know they are putting the interests of foreigners above the interests of Americans.

I think Pelosi and Cheney should have come here to my hometown instead to hear what the people have to say about the war in Iraq. They listen to AIPAC, but they're not listening to us.

Sorry, wavemaker, but I think it's your post that's moronic. You can be an American and still be lobbying for a foreign country. Washington is full of American lobbyists who are registered representatives of a foreign government. Working for a group who's stated purpose is to strengthen Israel certainly seems to qualify. They may not fit the legal requirements for registration, but they are certainly advocating for a foreign country.

And please "ancestral homeland"? I'd be willing to bet that most of the Jews in that group have stronger ancestral ties to Eastern Europe than to the state of Israel.

And that old canard equating the term "neo-con" to anti-Semitism started about the time the neo-cons fell into disgrace for their culpability in the Iraq mess. It's a cheap move on their part to avoid criticism. And I'm sure many of them are the first to condemn someone they think is playing the race card.

And hermie, instead of just stating it as fact, perhaps you could provide examples of Cindy Sheehan and MoveOn using neocon as an anti-Semitic code word. Sheehan I could believe because she's just generally nuts, but I'd like you to back it up anyway.

This is our country; foreigners shouldn't have a say in how we run it.

So...what does this actually mean?

That you don't now or ever have supported Kerry's "Global Test?" on dictating U.S. foreign policy.

That you were then, and still do not support Clinton's intervention in Serbia that only occurred because of the feckless response and begging by the EU for a problem that sat in THEIR own backyard.

That the U.S. should continue to reject any and all entreaties to sign and follow the Kyoto treaty that was written and purposed by foreign and outside influence?

That we should reject all foreign calls to intervene in the Sudan as 10's of thousands are starved, raped and murdered.

It THAT what you mean?

"AIPAC is registered as a domestic lobby and supported financially by private donations. The organization receives no financial assistance from Israel, from any national organization or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not rate, endorse or contribute to candidates."

My criticism is aimed at Larkin's reference to advocates for Israel being "foreigners."

So, do Larkin and ChrisO suggest that it would be inappropriate for the millions of Irish Americans to lobby members of Congress on the foreign policy of America toward Ireland?

Should the members of the south Florida Congressional delegation not listen to the Cuban Americans who put them in office when they advocate against Castro?

Perhaps the southwestern Congresspeople should not meet with Mexican immigrant groups regarding America's foreign policy toward Mexico?

When do you get a pass Larkin?

Wavey. You missed that reading comprehension make-up class, didn't you?

wavemaker: "My criticism is aimed at Larkin's reference to advocates for Israel being "foreigners."

Larkin wrote:

What is relevant is the fact that these people are making their paycheck by lobbying the US government to promote the interests of foreigners. I don't care what religion, color, or creed they are. I just know they are putting the interests of foreigners above the interests of Americans.

Pop quiz. Are people who promote the interests of foreigners also foreigners?

Answer: Only if you missed the reading comprehension make-up class. Larkin didn't suggest that, as far as I can tell - but you routinely misunderstand simple english sentences like this, then start foaming at the mouth. Three more comment down the thread you'll absolutely ballistic - insisting that he said "x' when he actually said "y".

It appears to me you are coming to conclusions about what's being said before you reach the period in the sentence, wavey -- just my $0.02. Peace out.

Lee, as, your two-cent comment ignored the rebuttal questions.

when did Israel become a state ?

"when did israel become a state?"

Israel is considered a state b/c of the vast amount of aid and weaponry it receives. Especially when we gave them $3 billion a year. for long, considered the 51st state. And not a bad state at all, considering the "return" on our investment.

let's look at Pelosi's criteria for assessing the Iraqi war:

"whether it makes the U.S. safer..."

any honest assessment will note that this war did not and will not make the u.s. safer. saddam was the greatest threat to islamic terrorists (aka islamists) for the longest time. he, in fact, hunted down and exterminated one of the greatest islamic terrorists of all time.

"the U.S. military stronger"

contrary to popular opinion, war actually WEAKENS the military on 2 fronts: 1) it gives the public a general distaste for war due to the vast coverage courtesy of the media, thus given us a dim view of the military; and 2) it kills off the strong--the best. both of these points are equally valid the longer the duration of the conflict. sure, we get to test out new weaponry, to a degree. but this only fuels the military-industrial complex, since business is tied in deeply to the military, and vice-versa.

"and the region more stable"

well, anyone can answer this one. saddam had his country tied tightly together, by suppressing dissent. idiot bush and cohorts decided that if they could only promote democracy things would work out ok. iraq would become like kansas. what they miscalculated is the level of hatred many over there have for us. a good point to look at is what happened with Hamas. is the M.E. more or less stable than prior to the war? If one goes back far enough (Versailles), one will note how the Brits screwed everything up by sandwiching disparate nations into 1 entity--and calling them Iraq. These people desire for their own nations--such as the Kurds, and will now become more restless than ever. The M.E. was a good, stable place until the Western European colonial nations got to them, which ushered in Islamic nationalism. In fact, the West crushed secular nationalism--and this ushered in radical islamism.

Conclusion--was Pelosi right? yes. on all 3 counts. we are not safer than prior to the war. And neither is our best ally and friend, Israel--who incidentally, has over 400 nukes. the u.s. military, on all accounts, is more demoralized than before ($3+ billion spent, and for what?)? and stability? gone.

here's my prediction:

the u.s. will withdraw since the dems control both houses, within a year. the shias and sunnis will have a civil war. one group with triumph over another. kurds will demand independence and autonomy under the exegesis of teh UN. the UN will be forced to come in and stabilize, with troops. Suicide bombings galore. Turkey will move in from the north, and try to crush Kurdish national aspiration. Iran will continue to send arms and money to fellow shias. Iraq will eventually devolve into 3 separate nations--shia, sunni, and kurd.

the fun is just beginning. these people were suppressed politically since 1918.

THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. As someone who was at the AIPAC conference, I can tell you that the media is looking for juicy gossip to report.

Pelosi made that comment and most of the audience clapped (we clapped at the end of almost every sentence). There were voices of boos, but it came from no more than one table, it was pretty quiet.

As for Boehner, I reiterate that most people clapped after every sentence, and in addition, most Americans (Rep or Dem) want us to win (in some way).

What this reporter left out was the fact that HALF of the room refused to stand up for Vice President Cheney.

Cindy Sheehan loses faith in Democrats
Cindy Sheehan has lost faith in American democracy, now that Democrats have caved-in to George Bush regarding a timetable for pulling out of Iraq.

Cindy's efforts for the past few years have been a demonstration of faith in the American people and political system. Cindy can claim a large degree of success since the American people have come to agree with her that the US should never have gone into Iraq.

But our political system is all too often controlled by loyalty to individuals rather than to the American people. Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight Republican or Independent US attorneys is a perfect example of loyalty to a man (Bush) supplanting loyalty to America. Gonzales figured he was safe as long as he was loyal to the President; then the Congress changed hands. Listening to Gonzales, one gets the impression that he didn't realize that his first loyalty was supposed to be to the American people. He doesn't understand that personal loyalty has no place in the administration of the justice system. Our government won't function as a true democracy until we take money out of the election process, but I'm sure Gonzales will do well in some other position, perhaps as a private lawyer.

Cindy Sheehan now has two lost dreams to grieve for: a happy life for her son, and a functioning democracy for her country.

AIPAC wants us to war with Iran and mixing the President's words of wipping Israel off the map. Go see who are the founding father's are of Project for New American Century. Are they really doing it for us or Israel. Hamas / Hezbollah is a result of Israel occupying their land. Not the other way around. Lieberman making an army a terrorist organization. If these guys care so much for Israel...then go move there.