Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zeta1961 who wrote (98581)	2/4/2005 3:09:06 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793698

Here's another example of Dem madness: Congresswoman Attempts to Redefine the Phrase 'Occupying Force' By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer February 03, 2005 cnsnews.com Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's use of the term "occupying force" to describe the U.S. military presence in Iraq was not a "harsh term," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), who attempted to redefine the terminology. "I believe that we can, if you will, change "occupying's" definition to being collaborators -- collaborators with the Iraqi people and moving them toward their own self-government," Jackson Lee told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday night at the U.S. Capitol following President Bush's State of the Union address. "So I think it is not a harsh term. We were there occupying, if you will, and we needed to do so for a certain degree, if you believe that the war created the havoc that occurred," Jackson Lee said. "I think you can look at the U.S. presence in [Iraq] many different ways; and for large numbers of Iraqi people, despite the democratic elections [on Sunday], we are occupying," she added. Pelosi, in her State of the Union rebuttal, said on Wednesday, "The United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force." Pelosi also criticized President Bush for not presenting a "clear plan" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Pelosi made her remarks despite the Iraqi elections on Sunday that were widely viewed as unprecedented and successful by most observers. Republican Senate Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania dismissed any attempt to soften or redefine Pelosi's description of the role of U.S. forces in Iraq. "The bottom line is [Pelosi] said what she said. Words have meanings and everybody knows what 'occupying' means and what the connotations are and it's just very unfortunate that she would continue to use these kinds of bitter terms at a time when we have seen great foreign policy successes in the last two weeks," Santorum told Cybercast News Service Wednesday night. "To say things that aid and abet those that would like to kill our soldiers in Iraq is not partisanship, it's just foolishness; and I think what [Pelosi] has done and what they (Democrats) continue to do is continue to replay this (U.S. presidential) election. The election is over, it's February, it's time to move on," Santorum added. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) also rebuffed Pelosi's terminology. "I don't think [the use of the term 'occupier'] is correct in any stretch of the imagination," McCain told Cybercast News Service. "I know the Iraqi people don't view it that way, and they are glad that we are there and they will be glad when we leave because that will mean that they can control their own situation," McCain said. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) also refuted Pelosi's Iraqi critique. "We are not an occupying force. An occupying force would be there and want to stay. We want to leave, we don't want to be in Iraq any longer than we need to be," Brownback said. "To call it an 'occupying force' I think is harmful to the troops. They don't believe they are occupiers, they don't want to be occupiers. They are liberators," Brownback said. 'Surprised at the turnout' But Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, defended Pelosi's comments. "I think she is right. As a matter of fact, Iraq is just as dangerous today as it has been throughout this war, and we are occupying Iraq with no real plan for getting out of there. It may not sound nice, but that is the truth. That is the way it is," Waters said. Waters did concede that Sunday's election turnout in Iraq was not what she expected. "I was a bit surprised at the turnout. I think it spoke volumes about the people wanting to be able to vote and to have a democracy. I think that is good. But they also want the United States out of there," Waters said. 'Harmful words' Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina whose son (Captain Alan Wilson) has just completed a year of service in the Army National Guard in Iraq, said Pelosi's and Water's description of the U.S. military as an "occupying force" had personal significance. "My view of the Democratic position is pathetic. Those are harmful words," Wilson said. "Nancy Pelosi is very negative. But I am very grateful for the [past U.S.] occupying forces that have liberated Germany, liberated Japan, liberated Korea," Wilson said referring to the U.S. rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War 2 and the U.S.'s defense of South Korea in 1950 following North Korea's invasion of the nation. "Now we are liberating Iraq and Afghanistan and so I am very positive about our role in the world," Wilson added.