Have daschle and pelosi gone into hiding??

[bunnyhop]

The treacherous twosome hasn't had much to say of late. A couple months ago they said removing saddam was a good thing even if bush did lie about the WMDs. What a stupid thing to say and now it's come back to haunt them.

[otohara]

1. Daschle Said It Again Last Week

He voted "yes" - what choice does he have?

[pasadenademocrat]

2. When were they ever not in hiding.

I understand Daschle is in conservative SD, so he thinks he has to be quiet, but if that's the case, the dems should have a different majority leader.

Pelosi I don't understand at all.

[bunnyhop]

6. Absolutely - Daschle should resign as SML

No one is saying he should resign from the senate but he should step down as democrat leader. He won't fight and if you won't fight, you can't lead.

[TrueAmerican]

3. Sorry? Who is Pelosi?

Oh wasn't she the one to lead the Democrats back to power? I almost forgotten about her. Maybe she is a secret weapon waiting for the right opportunity to go on the attack?

[Dob Bole]

4. They should go into hiding

The press is investigating this matter pretty heavily on its own right now. The presence of Pelosi and Daschle would fuel speculation that this is partisan only and not also true.

[diplomats]

7. Excellent point

having somebody like Wes Clark go on TV makes more sense.

[twilight]

9. Wes Clark on now on This Week (ABC)

He has some very well-founded criticisms of this BS!

:dem:

[southernfried]

8. excellent point

if it all blows over then they are not left holding the bag. If it starts raining shit on Bush then they can chime in and ride the tide.

They have life after Bush to consider especially Tommy.

[diplomats]

13. That's right

when this whole thing started the line was only Dems and liberals were pushing this. Now the press is pursuing so it's time for the Dems to lay low lest the scandal be seen as partisan.

[SayitAintSo]

5. Could it be the media is under reporting thier positions / outrage ?

Just a thought :shrug:

[Tinoire]

12. Nancy Pelosi . Here's the extent of her outrage

This week, Pelosi said it is "difficult to understand" why the weapons can't be found. Yet she did not seem concerned about whether any are found. "I am sort of agnostic on it; that is to say, maybe they are there," Pelosi said. "I salute the president for the goal of
removing weapons of mass destruction." Mid-May 2003

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/914286.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

((Good for you Nancy, you just keep smartly saluting that Idiot-in-Chief and telling him attaboy. What a fine way to represent your constituents.))

I don't think the Democrats are going to stand up against an assertive, apparently successful, policy, although I would add a big caveat on this. Even if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were planning to oppose Bush on this, why do it now? Maybe the weapons of mass destruction will be found tomorrow. If they are, better to have saluted him. But if it gets too close to the election and they still haven't been found, and Saddam Hussein hasn't been found, and so on, there is plenty of time for them to change their opinion -- and they may.

I say they may because they will make the same kind of calculation then as they are making now. Their calculation now is, we don't want to get in the way of public opinion. If it gets close to 2004 and things look good on the terror front they will continue to make that calculation. On the other hand you should be very confident that if things look bad on the terror front they will change that position.
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4151


One thing you must understand is that Pelosi is a 100% backer of Sharon, the Israeli Likud, and ANYTHING it takes to protect weak little Israel- even destroying an entire country to smithereens.
---
Published on Sunday, November 10, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Pelosi Win Not A Progressive Victory
by Stephen Zunes

<snip>

A closer look at her record, however, reveals a far different picture. When the human rights abuser happens to be a key strategic ally and a recipient of large amounts of U.S. armaments, Pelosi has defended the Bush Administration’s policies.

The clearest example is her strident support for the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, the former general widely considered by the international community to be a war criminal. While Israel represents only one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population and Israeli Jews enjoy the world’s sixteenth highest per capita income, Pelosi has supported sending a full one-third of all U.S. foreign aid to prop up Sharon’s fragile coalition government and to support his occupation forces in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.


<snip>

During this same period, as peace and human rights activists spoke out in condemnation of the Bush Administration’s support for Sharon’s offensive – including a declaration by President George W. Bush that the rightist prime minister was a “man of peace” – Pelosi rushed to the administration’s defense, supporting a Republican-sponsored resolution praising President Bush’s “leadership” in the crisis. In throwing her support to Bush, she openly defied the growing discontent within the Democratic Party rank-and-file over the party leadership’s insistence on kowtowing to the Republican administration’s militaristic foreign policy agenda.

<snip>

In yet another example of where her priorities lie, Pelosi spoke at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to the Sharon government, during the height of the offensive, praising the Israeli government and condemning the Palestinians. At the same time, she refused a longstanding invitation to appear before a human rights forum in her own district.

<snip>

If Nancy Pelosi is the best the Democrats can do for leadership, there is little hope of stopping George W. Bush.

http://commondreams.org/views02/1110-02.htm

I totally agree with that last sentence! When Pelosi was running, some people at DU warned she would march hand in hand with the Bush cabal over this issue because her record was clear. None of this should be any surprise. Of course, once the house of cards has tumbled down, she'll be all over, wringing her hands, explaining how she was fighting "behind the scenes" and a bunch of other crap people will lazily lap up. What a mess.

[ShaneGR]

10. They are busy raising money for 2004, as they should be

As leaders, their primary responsibility at this point is to help ensure the election (take back of Congress in 2004). That requires money. As the 2nd quarter figures show, Pelosi has SMASHED the previous record for fundraising on the House side and Daschle has nearly doubled the amount of money brought in by the Senate side during the same period four years ago.

[bunnyhop]

14. That is pure cowcrap

I don't know if they really are busy fundraising like you say but even so, that doesn't prevent them from speaking out. In fact i think they'd raise even more money if they attacked bush and showed the public that democrats are willing to fight and are thus worthy of donations.

[AnAmerican]

11. of course they are....

They like their current positions too much, even if it means they give * a free pass. Spineless, both of em.

[Cocoa]

15. intelligence and national security is the issue currently

It's not a partisan issue. The only ones being partisan are the republicans, whose covering up for Bush can only be explained that way.

The most outspoken dems on this have been those on intelligence and armed services committees, appropriately enough.

Plus the dem presidential candidates, who of course have to demonstrate their willingness to challenge Bush.

Daschle and Pelosi should be in the background now, let the strong voices be heard.