I see that SF has taken his politics to the entire forum with his new signature. It conveniently doesn't give any an easy opportunity to challenge it. Nevertheless I will by simply starting a thread. Everything she says here is true. What SabanFan conveniently omittted was the date that she made that statement--December 16, 1998. 1998 . . . Clinton was President . . . UNSCOM inspectors were all over Iraq destroying tons of nerve gas. Saddam had been intermittently interfering with the inspectors, but he was forced to relent. This all happened five years before Bush's 2003 Invasion and had nothing to do with it. Our own inspectors in 2003 told us that Iraq's WMD had all been destroyed and that we would find nothing there. And they were right. That's why Pelosi voted against the war and what she actually said at the time was Again, all true. This was in 2004. Once again everything she says is true. What is not true is what SF tries to suggest . . . that she was speaking out of both sides of her mouth. What she did was pay attention to what was happening in Iraq and listened to the US inspectors. When they said Saddam was interfering with them in 1998 she condemned it. When they said that the WMD's were destroyed, she knew that going to war to destroy them was futile. When the WMD's proved to be imaginary she condemned the policy that mired us in an Iraqi civil war.
Here's my take. Saddam and his sons are worm food: Good. Defending Nancy Pelosi: Bad Red debating my signature: Priceless.
You don't bother to state that it happened at various times, under different administations, and with different circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Its Limbaugh and Hannity like, that's their M.O. take a snippet or a line and not give the full statement or meaning, knowing full well that it's disengenious when they do it. I just find it's a little beneath you. While we disagree politically (I'm right there with you on football) I find you're usually more intellectually honest, IMO.
