[GatorPentax]

The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi Commentary Magazine

Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on 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.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday:

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. . . .

This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hideraker of Power Line. It underscores the degree to which partisanship can ravage people’s fair-mindedness and, in the process, make them look like fools and hacks. Such things aren’t uncommon in politics—but what is rare is to see such intellectual dishonesty proven so conclusively.

The sad thing is, it's not just limited to her. Many politicians are finding themselves suddenly "proud" of the intelligence community and military. And no I'm not saying onlyDemocrats do this, Republicans do this sort of flip-flopping also but on different topics. Just another example of why I don't trust the government.

[cardinal43]

Maybe she changed her mind. Maybe she has "mellowed" a bit. Maybe she simply sees things differently 5 years later. Do you see everything today exactly as you did 5 years ago? I seriously doubt it. I know I don't see everything the same. for me, some changes (family, work, financials) have been drastic, and not all for the worse.

[GeneV]

I'm not a huge Pelosi fan, but those two statements are not totally inconsistent. She did not say that the death of Bin Laden made us much safer, as it is not readily apparent that it did. It may nevertheless be an "achievement" for our military which any politician would ignore at her peril.

[ihasa]

Her second statement is political opportunism, although it's not completely incompatible with the first statement - she doesn't say we will be safer now, for example. You can't fault the first statement - Bin Laden should have and could have been caught before 911. The Dems weren't responsible for that. But you can't say capturing him now doesn't constitute a victory

[GeneV]

Her second statement is political opportunism, although it's not completely incompatible with the first statement - she doesn't say we will be safer now, for example. You can't fault the first statement - Bin Laden should have and could have been caught before 911. The Dems weren't responsible for that. But you can't say capturing him now doesn't constitute a victory

The first half of your post is similar to my take, posted above. However, in fairness, the failure to get UBL before 9/11 is shared by both parties. Clinton tried and missed. Bush was not making much effort in that direction, but he had only been president for 9 months.

[GatorPentax]

Maybe she changed her mind. Maybe she has "mellowed" a bit. Maybe she simply sees things differently 5 years later. Do you see everything today exactly as you did 5 years ago? I seriously doubt it. I know I don't see everything the same. for me, some changes (family, work, financials) have been drastic, and not all for the worse.

Pelosi and "mellow" should never be in the same sentence. So, no, I don't think she changed her mind or mellowed out. It's just opportunism plain and simple. I'm not a big Obama fan but I applaud him for his presidential decision making in going after OBL and taking him out. I just wish our politicians (on both sides) had better integrity.

It's sad that our government has turned into this type of circus show.

[Nesster]

And what people miss entirely is the context: in the earlier speech she was saying that had OBL been captured/killed BEFORE 9/11, 9/11 may not have happened. Check the date of the speech to see the obvious context.

There's absolutely NO contradiction between wishing OBL had been killed or captured before he could make 9/11 happen, and gladness that he is now eliminated. Nor do I see opportunism here.

Is it really partisan to have wished - especially in connection with a remembrance of 9/11 - that the chief agent of the act hadn't been around to make the act happen?

And is it really partisan to congratulate all involved on OBL's elimination.

Jeez.

[GeneV]

Wow, it is amazing how these right wing talking points go viral. Almost every right wing site and every right wing blogger is posting those two sentences verbatim. Ten pages in Google. The machine is impressive.

Cheney at about the same time:

If you killed him tomorrow, you’d still have a problem with al-Qaeda, with Zawahiri and the others

[deadwolfbones]

derp derp, all the way

[jeffkrol]

The first half of your post is similar to my take, posted above. However, in fairness, the failure to get UBL before 9/11 is shared by both parties. Clinton tried and missed. Bush was not making much effort in that direction, but he had only been president for 9 months.

I still find this disturbing..............

Obey said his satisfaction with the mission that resulted in bin Laden’s death still is marred by what he considers a missed opportunity in 2003.

“I couldn’t help but think last night that we were about eight years too late,” Obey said. “There was a very good chance to get him when he was tied up in the mountains of Pakistan (in 2003) if the White House hadn’t diverted half the resources to preparing for the war in Iraq.”

Obey said he was at the Central Intelligence Agency’s headquarters in 2003 as predator drones in Pakistan transmitted photos and remembers “angry” CIA officials unable to act on their belief bin Laden was camped out in the region.

[normhead]

I think perhaps that whole thing about rihgt wing logic skills is coming into play once again. It reminds me of a person caught in a bald faced lie saying "what you think you heard is not what I meant to say." In this case, some airhead Republican misrepresents what someone else said and then uses it to make a point, that to anyone who can read, isn't even a point. Instead of showing Pelosi is two faced.. in fact Pelosi's statements are consistent given their contexts.. the real question is, why are these Republican idiots ( I call them idiots because they can't read and understand context.. they see the words but they aren't able to discern the meanings) feel the need to drag this stuff out in the public view.

It reminds me of a joke.

A politician in South America who couldn't read compensated by memorizing his speeches and holding them in front of him when he was speeking, like he was reading.. One day at a debate his opponent who could read noticed this and pointed out to the crowd that he was illiterate. The man replied "nonsense , if you can read it doesn't matter which way you hold the page." The crowd, all of whom couldn't read, immediately agreed with him and hooted down his opponent.

Right now the the republicans, who don't understand context, are attempting to hoot down their opponents, but, it in no way means they have a point. It just means in their limited capacity to understand the written word, they think they have a point.

[jolepp]

Making a big deal out of those quotes is intellectually dishonest IMO.