"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]

03:48 PM on 10/21/2007

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]

02:59 PM on 10/21/2007

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]

02:28 PM on 10/21/2007

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]

01:02 AM on 10/21/2007

Pelosi should go--shown to be totally ineffectiv­e

[Jacee]

03:10 PM on 10/21/2007

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]

09:18 PM on 10/20/2007

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

[buxxee]

06:12 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

08:24 AM on 10/21/2007

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]

12:37 PM on 10/21/2007

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.

[humblediplomat]

02:22 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

01:17 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

08:30 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

09:25 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

10:46 AM on 10/19/2007

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]

10:47 AM on 10/18/2007

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]

02:51 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

10:40 PM on 10/20/2007

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]

02:21 AM on 10/18/2007

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]

05:22 PM on 10/17/2007

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]

05:12 PM on 10/17/2007

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]

02:07 PM on 10/17/2007

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

[Abo]

01:27 PM on 10/17/2007

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.