John Hinderaker examines the thoughts of ex-Speaker Pelosi:Many people want to have serious and in-depth discussion and debate on key issues with the leaders, such as they are, in the Democrat and MSM camps. I think that that idea is overrated. As Ms. Pelosi illustrates above, our "leaders" often don't have any views beyond what is superficially convenient at the moment.Nancy Pelosi, press conference, September 7, 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.
Nancy Pelosi, earlier today:
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic....
It is unfortunate that many public figures are unable to view events otherwise than through a partisan prism.
RELATED on the subject of superficial thoughts: Do you remember when having US special forces assassinate people was considered a bad thing?
PREVIOUSLY on ex-Speaker Pelosi:
•Pelosi: Pass Obamacare so artists can quit their day jobs
•Speaker Pelosi's deep thoughts on giving Miranda rights to terrorists.
•Pelosi: Sexism in the House
•Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Feinstein: how their husbands benefit from government contracts
•Pelosi: let them eat cake!
•Eco-hypocrite of the day
•San Franciscans rally against Nancy Pelosi (photos)
4 comments:
Pelosi's statements are not contradictory. It is an historic event. It is uncertain whether we are safer.
Dear Anon,
You assert that "[i]t is uncertain whether we are safer" because of something that Pelosi calls "the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida." In that case, what do you think is the purpose of "our fight against al-Qaida" if it is not to make us safer?
John
Your friendly blogger
We'll be safer if we win, right? Is it possible we'd be less safe for some portion of the intervening time prior to the win?
I appreciate your creativity.
While your hypothesis seems to fit with her 2011 statement, I do not see any way to square it with her 2006 statement ("But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer").
Post a Comment