REP. PELOSI: No. I do not. I believe that because of the mess that has been made in Iraq we have to stay to stabilize Iraq. We have to secure the situation, because now, although it wasn’t the case before the war, now it has become a hotbed of terrorist activity.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Why have you changed your view?

REP. PELOSI: Well, that was a year and a half later by the time I said what I said, and it was on the basis of some very expert advice. As you know, Congressman Jack Murtha has 35 years of experience in protecting our men and women in uniform and being a champion for our national security. I believe that we need a better plan. Our troops—let’s—I was just in the Persian Gulf. Every chance I get I want to praise them for their valor, their patriotism and the sacrifice they’re willing to make. They’ve done their job. But the plan—they deserve a better plan getting out of Iraq than the president, than the president gave them going in.

MR. RUSSERT: But Congress...

REP. PELOSI: But my—but what I called for there was not an immediate withdrawal. That’s how they characterized it. What I did was to support what Mr. Murtha was saying, which was a responsible redeployment of troops over the horizon to protect our interests in case we were threatened by terrorism or our interests were threatened in the region. The characterization of it was more of an immediate withdrawal than the actual proposal was.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, are you for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with—by the end of the year?

REP. PELOSI: I—what our Democratic position is, and our real security agenda is, that 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq. It’s time for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their government and for their security. And again, that we must have a plan that is worthy of these troops and their sacrifice and the sacrifice of the American people.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said that, in ‘04, that you were concerned about stabilizing Iraq, securing Iraq, that it has become a hotbed of terrorism activity. Has anything changed?

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it’s secure? Do you think it’s stable?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it’s a hotbed for—of...

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Then why would you withdraw troops?

REP. PELOSI: Because it’s not a—yes, I would withdraw them because, on the strength of expert advice, and now you see the generals speaking out on this, that—so much time went by, there was a year and a half between those two statements, and what we had—still had not seen was a plan on the part of the president. The president continued to dig a hole in Iraq, he refuses to come out of there and see the daylight and know there, there’s change. There are only two courses of action in Iraq: the president’s to stay the course and let some other president sweep up after him, or what the Democrats are saying, 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq with the Iraqis taking responsibility.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, some Democrats, the number two Democrat in the House, in the House, Steny Hoyer, says this, “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility.” That sounds like Nancy Pelosi in May of ‘04.

REP. PELOSI: Well, you’re—you know, it’s about time, it’s about time. Steny said that six, eight months ago. Now all Democrats are united, House and Senate, around the principle of significant transition in 2006.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you be accused of cutting and running?

REP. PELOSI: It’s not a question of cutting and running, it’s a question of having the Iraqis transition into their taking responsibility. We have lost now, what, over 2400 of our young men and women, we’ve lost—many of them--16,000 injured, half of them permanently, it’s over $300 billion dollars now, it’s a trillion-dollar war, all things taken into consideration, if it ended today, in the cost and reputation for us around the world. So when you make these decisions, they’re in a place and time and evaluation of the situation, and you have to weigh different equities.

MR. RUSSERT: So just cut our losses?

REP. PELOSI: You have to weigh different equities. No, you have to have a plan to transition the Iraqis so they can take—they’ve had an election, they now have a prime minister, and it—and he should then now form a government for them to take control of themselves. Listen, Secretary Rumsfeld just said recently that we would be negotiating with the new government as to how long we would stay in Iraq. Well, the president says he’s not going to have politicians in Washington influence that decision, I don’t think politicians in Iraq should influence that decision. I think it should be our decision about how our national interest is best served. And in the course of a year and a half, the circumstances on the ground are not improved, then we have to consider other options. But I say again, the American people, and especially our troops, deserve a better plan to get out than they had getting in.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gasoline prices. This is how Tom Friedman in The New York Times wrote about it. “What would OPEC do if it wanted to keep America addicted to oil? That’s easy. OPEC would urge the U.S. Congress to deal with the current spike in gasoline prices either by adopting the Republican proposal to give American drivers $100 dollars each, so they could continue driving gas-guzzling cars and buy gasoline at the current $3.50 a gallon, or by adopting the Democrats’ proposal for a 60-day lifting of the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents a gallon. Either one would be fine with OPEC. ... We now have a Congress proposing to do exactly what our worst enemies would like us to do - subsidize our addiction to gasoline by breaking into our kids’ piggy banks to make it easier for us to pay the prices demanded by our oil pushers. ... There is something really disturbing about the utterly shameless, utterly over-the-top Republican pandering and Democratic point-scoring that have been masquerading as governing in response to this energy crisis.”

Brazil has converted its entire automobile flight to sugar—fleet to sugar cane.

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Will the Democrats propose a total energy independence, weaning us off of oil?

REP. PELOSI: We do.

MR. RUSSERT: Within a very specific time?

REP. PELOSI: Absolutely and I don’t know...

MR. RUSSERT: When?

REP. PELOSI: I don’t know—Democrats are pro—we have proposed in our real security, we rolled this out in March. We’ll roll it out again in June as part of our domestic—because this is a national security issue and it is a domestic issue. Democrats are proposing that we will be energy—are declaring energy independence for the American people and we intend to achieve it within 10 years.

MR. RUSSERT: How?

REP. PELOSI: We intend to send our energy dollars to the Midwest and rural America, not to the Middle East. We intend to focus on biofuels, we intend—on alternative energy, conservation and efficiency. As you said, Brazil is doing this. These cars are made by GM and Ford.

MR. RUSSERT: But this will be huge subsidies to bring it about. Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cut to pay for it?

REP. PELOSI: This isn’t—we are willing to put all of our, our initiatives on the table. We think they compete very well. One thing we’ll roll back immediately are the Bush subsidies and royalty holidays which are around $20 billion dollars.

MR. RUSSERT: But would you repeal the Bush tax cut?

REP. PELOSI: Well, what I’m—what we’re talking about here on energy independence is something that will save the American people money.

MR. RUSSERT: But it will take—it all takes money, Congressman. The Brazilian government has subsidized their industry.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?

REP. PELOSI: I’ll tell you something, if we could bring the war in Iraq to a conclusion, we would save a lot of money and could declare energy independence and this is the, this is the OPEC countries’ worst nightmare, that we would be energy independent. The technology is there, the commitment is there, Democrats have a goal. We have a plan. We have a timetable to accomplish it and we intend to do so. And you know what? Do you know what we spend? Fifty billion dollars a year just protecting the sea lanes for the oil to come from the Middle East. That money can be spent to invest in this.

MR. RUSSERT: But why are you so reluctant to say you’ll roll back the Bush tax cuts? Most Democrats voted against them.

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print