Matt Naugle at Human Events' Rightometer found part of the excerpt that follows at Rush Limbaugh's web site; I looked for more, since Rush's content will disappear behind his subscriber wall shortly.
Fortunately, I found a Google cache transcript of the entire interview involved. Its original address was:
democraticleader.house.gov/ press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=590
In other words, what follows is from an officially released May 30, 2004 interview of Nancy Pelosi by Tim Russert. At the time, what Pelosi said was blessed by the party, and what she said is that there should be more troops in Iraq (bolds are mine):
MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?
REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General...Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you're going to war; you have to know what you need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO...
MR. RUSSERT: But if they say no, would you put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: The clear and present danger facing the United States is terrorism. We have to solidify; we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq. As Secretary of State [Colin Powell] has said, "You break it, you own it." We have a responsibility now in Iraq And we have to get more troops on the ground. But when General Shinseki said we need 300,000 troops, Secretary Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark," because they knew a commitment of 300,000 troops would not be acceptable to the American people. So they went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix now...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
REP. PELOSI: Yes. And let me just say this, we must internationalize the situation. We cannot take no for an answer. We have to use our diplomacy to the fullest extent to get more international troops on the ground. And we have to truly internationalize and Iraqitize the situation.
"Internationalization" was a dumb argument then and it's dumb now. Why? Well, there has been, and still is, an international coalition against the War on Terror. I think when a Democrat says "internationalize," it means "if we don't have France, it doesn't count." But (oops), France IS in the War on Terror coalition. How "internationalized" do things need to be?
Anyway, I look forward to tonight's Democratic response to President Bush's speech demanding a stronger "surge" than he is advocating. What's different now?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hey, now Pelosi can do a Ker
January 10, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Jack BauerHey, now Pelosi can do a Kerry:
"I voted for more troops in Iraq before I voted for fewer."
Oh it is fun to watch the first female speaker unravel before our eyes.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I'm not too sure of the poi
January 10, 2007 - 20:41 ET by blogonatorI'm not too sure of the point of this article. Are we supposed to be thinking about Iraq the same as we did in 2004? I'd say this situation has changed a bit since then. Pelosi may be hypicrital on many things, but Iraq is a changing issue that many on both sides have had to adapt their thinking on. I believe the administration should have sent more troops in in the beginning. Now it's going to take many more than 20,000 troops (what is that, like 10 troops per square mile?!)
So what?What are your creds?P
January 10, 2007 - 20:55 ET by BlondeSo what?
What are your creds?
Proove your point, or cease and desist.
I gave Bush my vote in 00 a
January 10, 2007 - 21:09 ET by blogonatorI gave Bush my vote in 00 and 04. Since we went into Iraq, I've seen more spin at the expense of our troops thant I have truth. Rumsfeld resigning just weeks after Bush swore by him was the straw that broke it for me. He cost us the election, things in Iraq have escalated. My creds? Common f...ing sense! This administration has been making mistakes throughout according to generals and advisors who know much more than I do. Common sense. Repeated mistakes, so I don't see any reason to believe they won't continue making mistakes.
I just finished reading "
January 10, 2007 - 21:21 ET by Conservative in the ArtsI just finished reading "Jawbraker." It's about the CIA hunt for OBL. Even during the hunt during the Afghan war, the CIA was asking for the army to put Rangers on the Pakastan border to cut off the route of escape for OBL in Tora Bora. CENTCOM refused to and tried to let Pakastan take care of it. Why did CENTCOM refuse? Fear for getting some of our soldiers hurt, fear of blame if it goes wrong totally being a cover my butt. And because of that, he got away. So who's to blame? Not Bush, it was stupid generals in the military. After reading this book, I don't take much stock in generals that are willing to go in front of a camera.
When it comes to war, I pla
January 10, 2007 - 22:06 ET by blogonatorWhen it comes to war, I place more stock in generals than a man who has never been active in the military.
Goody for you.Three minutes.
January 10, 2007 - 22:12 ET by BlondeGoody for you.
Three minutes. Since you are so bloody well informed....
Who is the CJCS? What Branch?
Who is CENTCOM? What Branch?
Who was the previous CJCS? What branch?
Really?You sure like to go on
January 10, 2007 - 23:54 ET by UnsaneReally?
You sure like to go on and on about how horrible everything is in Iraq. Were you in the military once upon a time?
(As for me, the military is doing great, and they would be doing even better if the Leftists would stop cheerleading for the enemy.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Well, blogonater, cute name by the way.
January 10, 2007 - 21:24 ET by acaiguanaWell, blogonater, cute name by the way.
Nice credential. Voted for Bush so you know how many troops per square mile is needed? I gotta hand it to you. In all my life I have never seen a military assessment based on troops per square mile.
Nifty idea though.
I got news for you. Wars are a series of mistakes that end up in the victory or loss of one of the sides.
I would like to simply point out that the purpose of this post might possibly be that if there were less whining here at home by the 'loyal' opposition about every little thing that goes on in this war by the Administration or Bush we might actually win some of the psychological battles.
Of all the battles fought in the War on Terror, why do the Democrats keep sabatoging the battle of the psychology of our enemy. Their whining and pissing and moaning and cut and run anti-war calls only embolden the enemy. No way can you say that it does not have that impact.
So, first, we lose the truth as a casualty here at home. The Democrats see Bush as the enemy rather than the Terrorists.
Pretty clear to me.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
Well blogonator - you're way off
January 11, 2007 - 03:51 ET by SportPoliticsblogonator - this is how much you know...your cred... Iraq has about 169,000 square miles... so 10 troops per square mile there would be over a million and a half troops... which is still too few according to the babbling idiocy you released above.
Good luck at the change counter of your local grocer.