Nancy Pelosi Not Wild About Lincoln Chafee's Presidential Candidacy

[Purveyor]

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today poked fun at the possibility that former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, a Republican turned independent, might be a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Pelosi engaged in the political raillery when a reporter asked her about Chafee's contention that any candidate who voted to authorize the Iraq war should be politically disqualified from being elected president prefaced his question with the phrase "speaking of candidates running for president.''

"Lincoln, of course,'' Pelosi said after the reporter mentioned Chafee, the former governor and ex-senator announced he is exploring the possibility of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Why did I not think that was going to be the first name out of your mouth?'' she said playfully, once the reporter had finished his question.

Pelosi publicly opposed the war when Congress was debating the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Still, Pelosi said that she doesn't think Clinton's vote disqualifies her to be president. "That was then, this is now,'' Pelosi said. Despite that vote, Clinton "will be among the best prepared to serve as president."


more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-16/nancy-pelosi-not-wild-about-lincoln-chafee-s-presidential-candidacy

[SamKnause]

1. "That was then, this is now."

Similar to looking forward, not backwards.

There is zero accountability for past deeds or actions.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

2. I thought the same thing. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I didn't agree with Clinton's vote

And I wouldn't have voted for it had I been in Congress, but it wasn't an explicit vote to declare war against Iraq and it should also be noted that our 2004 nominee, John Kerry, also voted for the IWR for reasons other than actively supporting a war against Iraq. To him (and probably most Democrats), it was about, in good faith, giving Bush the authorization to do what he felt that he should do in order to eliminate Saddam's (non-existent) WMD arsenal. Whether it was a good idea to trust Bush to act responsibly (which it wasn't) on it or not is another discussion altogether. Had Bush simply used the authorization to get the UN inspectors back in (which occurred) and allowed them to fully do their jobs and, more importantly, listened to them when they told him they couldn't find anything, we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place and having gotten the UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq and being able to certify that there were no WMDs actually would have been considered a "victory" and probably would've earned Bush a bit of respect, maybe even from me- plus it would've saved a lot of lives-both American and Iraqi and we probably wouldn't be dealing with ISIS in Iraq (if anywhere) right now. However, Bush and his (mis-)Administration wanted war no matter what and used the IWR vote as a "fig leaf" of legality for the invasion/occupation but war with Iraq was, in no way, inevitable except in the minds of Bush and Cheney.

[cali]

4. damn it. It absolutely was. As Senator Leahy said, it was a "blank check"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Maybe

but Bush still didn't HAVE TO "cash" it. I didn't get why Bush became obsessed with Iraq back in 2002-2003. Iraq was the least of our worries compared to the kind of damage OBL was able to wreak in our country with NON-WEAPONS (i.e. planes) and the fact that NK had nukes and its leader was way more likely to use them than Saddam was likely to even have them. But Saddam did kick out the UN Inspectors in 1998, so we didn't have any particular way of knowing what he had/didn't have (for the record I doubted he had a nuke but thought it possible he had some leftover chemical weapons- which wouldn't have been reason enough for me to invade). I didn't have any problems per se with using some pressure with getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq and if it had stopped there, I would've been fine with it and Bush could've rightfully claimed a "victory" right there without all of the loss of life but it became quite apparent that having the UN Inspectors in place and not finding anything was not enough for Bush and Cheney, and that they wanted their invasion regardless of what the UN Inspectors found. I actually once harbored the fantasy that Powell, being one of the perceived "realists" in the Bush (mis-)Administration, would eventually pull Bush back from the brink but, of course, he eventually decided to "play ball" with Bush and Cheney and helped contribute to the charade they pulled at the UN. After he signed on to the looming debacle, I knew that war was inevitable at that point, which of course, it was. I don't recall hearing a lot of Democratic Senators (can't remember any statements from HRC around the time of the invasion), some of whom obviously voted for the IWR, actually agree much with Bush's push for war.

[Carolina]

7. That vote reflects HRC's poor judgment

- She knew about PNAC since its signers had encouraged Bill to attack Iraq in the late 1990s

- She knew the Bush cabal stole the White House (to advance their plans) and that the incoming administration ignored the Clinton teams' admonitions about bin Laden and terrorism

- We knew, she knew -- or should have known -- that Iraq was no threat. After all, GHW Bush had bombed Iraq to smithereens in 1991 and thereafter the UN (pushed by the US) had kept Iraq under horrific sanctions. So how could that nation (or former Reagan-Bush
buddy Saddam) have morphed into a potential nuclear threat to the US in 2002?!

- We knew, she knew -- or should have known -- that 15 out the 19 hijackers were Saudis (as was bin Laden), while the others were
from Yemen, Egypt and the UAE. Not an Iraqi among them!!

No, it was a callous, finger-in-the-political-wind vote cast because of her POTUS aspirations. That vote makes her ultimately culpable for the death, debt, destruction and destabilization that war of choice has caused. Sure Bush would have gone to war anyway, but without the votes of Democrats like such would be presidents as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd, it would truly have been BUSH’S war. Instead, HRC and the others were profiles in political cowardice displaying politically ambitious calculation, horrid judgment, and a stunning lack of morality while providing the liars and thieves in the Bush White House bipartisan cover.

Here at DU, we knew better than to believe the Bush cabal. Democrats like Edward Kennedy (a genuine liberal), Bob Graham (of FL who even now points correctly to the Saudis), Robert Byrd and others not only cautioned their peers about such haste (casting votes just before the 2002 midterm elections) but warned, like canaries in the mine, about the long term consequences.

Never forget Byrd’s poignant speech about the rush to war, the cost of war, the waste of war... It didn't take a classified report to see the facts. And those who think that vote is outdated, past history, something to be forgotten because HRC apologized for it, called it a mistake… should remember that it reflects judgment and that there are no do-overs for votes that cost so much in terms of death and destruction.

edited to fix (or try to fix) formatting

[davidpdx]

6. I'm not wild about Chafee running as a D

Nor am I wild about Webb either. Between those two, O'Malley, and Sanders it is going to be a very weak primary. I also am not surprised to see Pelosi joining Wasserman-Schultz as a Clinton cheerleader.