"Are You Too Well-Behaved to Get Us Out of Iraq?": My Interview with Nancy Pelosi

On Friday, I asked for your recommendations on what I should ask Nancy Pelosi during my interview with her. The response was overwhelming. And the overriding theme of the reaction was, "Ask Speaker Pelosi to please, please, stop funding the war."

And over the course of preparing for the interview, the question of why Congress has been reluctant to use its constitutionally mandated power of the purse to cut off funding for the war kept rising to the surface. Specifically the question of why the Democrats are allowing the president to continue to fund the war through so-called emergency appropriations instead of forcing him to make his latest request for an additional $190 billion in war funds part of the budget -- and part of a budget debate that would allow the American people to hear how much of the money being requested is actually going to the troops and how much is going to build the largest embassy in the world, to build military bases, and to pay the salaries of Blackwater thugs.

Pelosi has scored a number of legislative accomplishments during her first nine months as Speaker, including an increase in the minimum wage, ethics reform, an overhaul of student-aid programs, implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and a bill upping the criminal punishment of war profiteers -- yet the approval ratings for Congress hover around 20 percent, below even President Bush's. And the dissatisfaction stems primarily from the failure of Democrats to bring an end to the war. This is a telling indication of the priorities of the American people.

So I made this the focus of the interview, although we also talked about FISA, Blackwater, why only military families have been asked to sacrifice for this war, and whether she's getting enough sleep.

Below are four highlights from our conversation, followed by the full interview.

"Are You Too Well-Behaved to Get Us Out of Iraq?":

On Ending the War in Iraq:

Quick Hits on President Bush, Hillary Clinton, and The American Dream:

On the Coming Fight over FISA:

Arianna Interviews Nancy Pelosi:

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[oneyedsnake]

When will all of you realize that the "American Dream" is dead unless you are a war profiteer or a politician­...DOH!(Ho­mer moment). Sorry for the misnomer, they are one in the same. Poor Nancy waltzes into the room as innocent and kind as she can be and promptly stumbles on her own tongue. The America I grew up has BALLS and would have blown that shithole called OSAMALAND into oblivion instead of investing our reputation in dirty politicians and second rate contractors. I think Blackwater has it right!!! The only way to deal with those who fuck with this country's ideals is to monetarily cut them off. If they come after us again, rid ourselves of the scourge via all resources available to us. This way, we don't have to FEAR them following us home again. It is within her authority that accountability for this administrations atrocities can come to light. If Ms. Pelosi takes the lightfooted approach she seems to be politically posturing for, then we will need to rid ourselves of her as well. When we approach our voting booths the next time, God willin' and the creek don't rise, we need to remember what we really lost on that fateful day in 2001. It wasn't our SECURITY as americans that went away, it was our AUTHORITY to answer back. Just ask Nancy, sounds like a bad series, who keeps promoting NON-BINDING legislation knowing full well that she is spending my money on something that that GWSCHMUCK ignores. She needs to put on her walkin' boots and assert that kick-ass attitude that got her where she is currently at in order to stay there.

[KeysDan]

Like so many, I had high hopes for a modicum of corrective action with the election of a Democratic Congress--a good majority in the House (more than during the "Gingrich Revolution") and, at least enough Democratic senators to control the committees and agenda in that body. Moreover, Mrs. Pelosi offered not only an historic change in the character of leadership, but also, a critical voice for ending the war. Afterall, she was wise and demonstrated good judgment by voting against the Iraq war resolution. We know that the Democratic House is comprised of many views and her job as Speaker is like herding cats. But something curious is happening. We find that we no longer have a representative government. Congressional terms were set at two-years so that Represenatives would stay close to the people. The senate has six-year terms to reflect on and cool down any rash thinking by the House, sort of like putting hot coffee in the saucer to cool. Mrs. Pelosi seems to have lost sight of the House's role, especially by declaring impeachment off the table. This thread is overwhelming in favor of, at least an impeachment investigation, and, probably, a majority of Americans, at large. Impeachment (by the House) and conviction (by the Senate) means that these politicians lose their jobs. Not the end of the world for them, but, in this case, maybe the saving of the world for us. In Mrs. Pelosi's state, the governor was recalled after several months in office after no official investigation of wrongdoing and for no criminal reason, and California is still alive and well. The people of the state just wanted a change before the next election. Do not be so afraid of the constitution, others a long time ago and much smarter than you have figured all this out.

[mellene]

House Speaker Pelosi considers herself dignified and well-mannered, but when you're fighting bullies in the schoolyard without any morals, you must fight them on their terms or loose.

[mirza]

Pelosi should go--shown to be totally ineffective

[Jacee]

Well behaved people do not rebuke brave and honorable members of their own party. Cowards do.

Nancy's flaw is not her manners, or her gender, or her politics. It is her cowardice.

Nancy is a coward. She cowers in front of the bottom 27% backwash of this country. And her real crime, that has everyone outraged at her, is that she took the rest of us with her.

If Nancy worked hard all of her life to reach the pinnacle of being a coward, she needs to do it on her own time. She needs to not take the entire Democratic Party with her. She needs to leave her position and then cower all sh wants.

For a person that preaches the importance of being a moral guiding light for the next generation, she decided for no earthly reason to role model cowardice. Shame on her.

I have read all the posts regarding her cowardly and traitorous behavior and have found that nearly everyone agrees with me.

This better be a wake up call for every other elected democrat...we will no longer as a Party tolerate your weak-kneed, cowardly and embarrassing behavior.

We are out here with the heart of lions. We expect the same of you.

[yako]

I have heard that Pelosi' s father is a Zionist. If true that explains why Pelosi is Hillary-LIte. How tragic.

[buxxee]

It is time to recognize that class is a major factor in American politics. From the Iraq War, to health care, to international trade policy, those who control the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party)have little to offer the average American. Case in point--Nancy Pelosi. Your interview with her might pass for a serious political discussion in the dining room at your country club, but to American proles whose sons and daughter are killing and dying in Iraq, it sounds more like coffee klatch twaddle. Pelosi's unmanly (make that unwomanly) lack of pugnacity in confronting the Republicans is infuriating to in-your-face, union-card­-carrying, blue collar Democrats. (May I suggest a shorter needle for her next botox injection, the last one seems to have punctured her spine.) No wonder working class (and unemployed) Americans have been walking away from the Democratic Party. Don't expect them to come back for what Nancy Pelosi is selling. If the county club Democrats aren't careful, after the '08 elections they might once again be asking themselves, "How could this have happened?"

[soundoff]

buxxee, I used to bleed the same red as you over the lack of "pugnacity", (perfect word btw), of the Dems and their trepedacious leader. Until I had an epiphany recently, which gave me an understanding of why the Dems appear to be backing down from Bush. In effect, I've developed a theory: they are really laying a trap for Bush and his Republicans, to assure that the Dems win big in '08. Click on my handle to read the complete article: 'WHY THE DEMS WON’T VOTE TO REMOVE FUNDING FOR BUSH’S WAR...'. I especially liked your comment about 'class'. It seems as if the Dems & Repubs are ushering in a new Bolshevik Revolution, when the low and low middle class awaken. Good post buxxee!

[Tiberon]

Yes, Pelosi seems to be constrained by the middle-class ethic that one must always be polite, non-threatening, and just plain NICE. Unfortunately, we as a nation are facing multiple situations that will not be soothed into submission by niceness. The Republicans have shown a willingness to fight, even to the point of damaging themselves (for which we should be grateful, as the GOP is currently doing more harm to itself than is the Democrat majority). Pugnacity is needed, and in truck loads. Sadly, Pelosi appears incapable of delivering the kind of leadership we need.

[milo9]

With all due respect to Miss Huffington, this is an accurate critique.
The issue of class war is gaining recognition. Some may wrongly infer that the declaration of the existence of class war is an endorsement of Communism. It is not, it is the result of observable phenomena. Simply put, through economic and political machinations, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, to a degree unseen in many, many decades.
Where this class division will lead in America is uncertain. Historically, if it is left to metastacise, it leads to violent upheaval. The "intelligentsia" should acknowledge this.

[humblediplomat]

Next time, please interview a Democrat with a spine, like Dennis Kucinich.

We sincerely need to hear messages from those who will fire up the base, not keep them at arm's length.

[kjg25171]

If Democrats are so disappointed in Congress for not getting us out of Iraq, then why is H. Clinton the front runner? She who said if Bush won't get us out by 2009 then she will when she takes office. Then recently she would not commit to getting us out by 2013. You see, Congress is listening. The most hawkish of the candidates is ahead. Think of the message being sent.

[kristin]

Excellent point. I believe she is the frontrunner because the Establishment believe that she will continue policy as established by Cheney/Bush. This is backed up by multimillion dollars in her war chest. Do our anti-war desires and our votes count?

[villastrangiato]

News media by the corporations and for the corporations - you could have Donald Duck running for office and if the major news networks wanted you to believe Donald was quacking his way to a primary victory - they would make it happen with their "polling results". If you doubt this - just look back at what happened in the presidential election of 2000. Hillary has been purchased many times over by a vast, not so covert, corporate conspiracy. In exchange for this, she will be guaranteed a primary victory.

[anditico]

Arianna- "yet the approval ratings for Congress hover around 20 percent, below even President Bush's. And the dissatisfaction stems primarily from the failure of Democrats to bring an end to the war. This is a telling indication of the priorities of the American people."

This is a misconception. I commented on this but I have more to add. If the Iraq situation (occupation not war) was the reason for the low approval ratings then Bush, the originator and nearly sole remaining promoter, would have the lower poll ratings.

I mentioned that the reason for the discontent is the lack of ability to provide accountability for our actions. The most salient aspect of that is Iraq, but that's just the flavor not the source of discontent. It's congress' job. That's what they are not doing. That's the reason for the discontent.

Something like the Bush administration tests our government. That's to be expected. Our government is supposed to survive, to correct itself. That's the strength of our democracy and it's enabled by the constitution and the system of checks and balances. When congress fails to provide those checks and balances, it puts the democracy and our government at risk. There's no self-correction. The fault of that doesn't lie with Bush, it lies with Congress. They are allowing, in fact, enabling our government to fail this significant test. That's the source of our discontent.

There are some hearings and investigations but people sense the urgency and want to see meaningful correction and results. Impeachment proceedings address accountability issues at the core. Knowing and sensing what's at risk (our government and its self-correcting mechanism and more) people are livid at the lack of meaningful action and results and they fault our legislators who are now the slim majority. And they are correct.

[anditico]

There are some misconceptions out there...
1> impeachment proceedings would take time from other legislative agendas

That's just bizarre. As many have mentioned, those proceedings are a requirement and a requisite for many agendas and an aid to others. And it's a first and required step to restoring our credibility, one for which we are quickly losing the opportunity.

2> Arianna makes the statement:
"yet the approval ratings for Congress hover around 20 percent, below even President Bush's. And the dissatisfaction stems primarily from the failure of Democrats to bring an end to the war. This is a telling indication of the priorities of the American people."

That's not true. Sure there is discontent and it arises from the Iraq imbroglio. (it's not a war, it's a horrid and meaningless occupation). But, our involvement in Iraq and its meaningless direction is indicative of the lack of leadership in both the administration and congress. That's the source of the discontent, the lack of ability to establish accountability for our actions. Iraq is just the most salient example of that and easily pointed to. Chasing the Iraq question and ratings is like chasing something blowing in the wind. Impeachment addresses accountability which is the core issue.

[changehorses08]

Impeachment would take time from our legislative agenda. Just before the last election when it looked like the Dems were going to take Congress. Bush made a statement to one of the major magazines. He said he was just going to ignore Congress and if they didn't like it they could try to impeach him. If we don't have the votes to get children's healthcare expanded, how are we going to find the votes to impeach him? But if we did -- he said he would go to the Supreme Court which he has successfully packed with cronies. We have seen what can happen when a Republican refuses to leave office -- just look at Larry Craig. Stop dreaming about impeachment and count the days till we have a new president.

[anditico]

It really isn't about a successful resolution of impeachment, though that can hardly be difficult to achieve. There are many reasons, already stated by others. It amounts to restoring balance and accountability using the checks and balances in the government.
It's an easy concept, really. It's a slam dunk, really. Of course we can ignore criminality and corruption in the highest levels of government... if we want. That's always an option. And we can sit on our hands with our fingers crossed hoping nothing worse will happen in the final year and we can just silently swallow the results including a fragmented constitution without recourse... Sort of see no, hear no, say no evil or stick your head in the sand sort of attitude...
Yeah, that's an option.

It is realistically too late. This statement is true in certain perspectives but is really a crass and stupid thought. It's not too late up to the last day.

Think of impeachment proceedings as a self-correcting of the government. A democracy demands a somewhat vigilant citizenry. If we don't correct it, we risk the principles of our democracy teetering off into meaninglessness.

Realistically I think we've already done that, but I'm not an absolute expert, so self-correction is still an obvious initiative.

[rboylern]

It's time for people to really lean on Madame Speaker. She's been getting away with murder. She promised change. Well, where the hell is it? Nobody seems to have the cojones to call Ms. Pelosi's bluff.

[fedupwiththis]

You people are nuts. Al you seem to care about is winning. If Democrats act like Republicans there is no difference other than your team wins. It's not about winning or losing. It's about trying to straighten out an incredible mess in a civilized manner. Of course she was polite and demure. I expect that from statesmen/women. If you like cowboy rhetoric get thee to the Republican party.

[bassclef]

Pathetic! Disappointing! Nancy Pelosi has totally sold out to the "Iraq Forever Because of the Oil" contingent. I'm sending my $$ to Cindy Sheehan.

In 2008 I won't be voting for any incumbents -- Dems or otherwise.

Hey, Patty Murray, Maria CantVoteWell, and Rick Larsen, many of us in Washington will now vote only for the Green Party.

[TTigerX2]

After seeing this footage I will change my affiliation and vote for Ron Paul.

[Abo]

Pelosi's genteel sidestepping is nauseating no matter how many times Huffington framed the question. And how about those platitudes about the poor and the working class when she scoffed at the activists protesting near her home, regrtting that they weren't some poor nobodies that she could demand the authorities sweep away out of her sight.
You disgust me Ms Pelosi.