To this, Ms. Pelosi offered sage advice worth repeating here. "People always ask aren't you scared and I say just strike that word from your vocabulary. This is not for the faint of heart. You can't be afraid. You have a vision, knowledge, a plan. You have support. This is what you believe in. If you show one cent of being afraid, your options are destroyed. So you have to believe in what you are doing and you may not win every fight, but you will advance the cause."
She used the phrase "not for the faint of heart" earlier as it related to success and failure. "We have to understand," she said "the challenges of success as well as the lessons of failure. Organize, don't agonize. Politics is not for the faint of heart. Don't let me give you this impression that people are waiting with open arms to pull you into power. Nobody. Nobody ever in the history of the world has given away power."
That Nancy Pelosi would be acutely aware that it is not in human nature to give away power makes her avoidance of accountability over the Bush/Cheney power grab all the more frustrating. That she would expect the current administration or future presidents to willingly and readily relinquish these newfound powers is ludicrous. Only now we know that she already understands that they won't.
In her presentation, she fashioned herself as a DC outsider. "Let me say that Washington DC is a city that is wedded to the status quo. Change is not what they are about and as a leader I say you must be kidding...the city is wedded to the special interests because they all make a living perpetuating the status quo. It's the special interests, not the people's interest and that is why it was so important - if I may have a moment of partisan enjoyment - that we won the last election. I have become the Speaker of the House not because I mastered the inside of things, but because I am an outsider and I want change to happen here."
At this, I was compelled to survey the room for reactions. No one batted an eye. Instead of smirking, there was enthusiastic head nodding. Didn't anyone remember that change was what was promised in that last election and that the Dems didn't deliver? Now it was being repackaged and they were falling for it hook, line and stinker. For a moment my mind drifted and I imagined one of the pod people turning and pointing their finger at me with my smirking face and I would be descended upon and forced out. But that would come later.
I snapped out of it and sat at attention when Nancy invoked the Disrupters. "We need disruption. We need disruption," she insisted. "We'll throw you a crumb and we'll keep the status quo? That is not the American way. Our Founders in this city where it all started - they were disrupters. Sometimes you wonder why you have to go to such lengths to convince people of the obvious about the future." Who you tellin', I thought. Apparently, my inner-voice now had a Philly accent.
At last, Tamala announced that it would be time for 30 minutes of audience questions as she reached for another batch of index cards. The Speaker smoothly declared that she was going to tell one more story - one very long story. She amused the audience with a tale of being one of three congresswomen outnumbered by a loud group of congressmen who spoke over each other, steered the conversation to their own liking and never asked the opinion of anyone else. Nancy had clearly mastered this technique and was evidencing it at that very moment, but that nuance was somehow lost on the audience members who were instead laughing and clapping.
Pelosi, having already cut into the 30 minutes with her just-one-more story, finally fielded her first question. It was from a 14-year-old boy who asked about off-shore drilling. She gave, what I thought, was a satisfactory answer that could have been summed up in less than five minutes. Instead, she rambled for about 15.
The second question from the audience was very direct and right up my alley . Tamala announced, "We have a foreign policy question. The actual question is - do you think we should blockade Iran?"
Rather than leave it at that and allow the question to be answered, Ms. ABC quickly added "I think we should ask a broader question. Do you think there is a desire and a plan on the part of this administration to engage Iran?" Here, this woman who could barely ask her own questions, was now screwing around with the audience questions.
"Engage?" asked Pelosi. Edwards explained, "Engage - as in militarily." Pelosi went on to state that she believed there was a debate going on in the administration as to whether we should - interesting choice of words here - "continue a military strike into Iran." She explained how most of the military opposes it and that it was not a good idea - a military strike, that is. The blockade question vanished down the rabbit hole.
She added for good measure, "Iran keeps insisting that they want to proceed on developing nuclear power, they say, for domestic use. We suspect they have other motives. They cannot be allowed to do this."
She spoke at length about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. That when discussing WMD's you had to think of four things: Do they have the technology, the scientific know-how, the delivery system and the intention. The first - technology - was quickly checked off as she described that Iran has received "a lot of technology from China, from Pakistan, probably from Russia and other places and that should never have happened." As for the three remaining questions, the Speaker said simply, "I hope for the best in terms of Iran. I suspect the worst."
She balked at an attack on Iran not because they are believed not to have nuclear weapons and not because it would be yet another preemptive, illegal and immoral action.
Her reasons were more closely aligned with talking points that have come from Washington think tanks like WINEP who in June released a report entitled " The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action against Iran ." Authors Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt clearly push for such an action, but address the following conditions as obstacles to be dealt with: "Fears that it would prompt a "rally round the flag' effect in Iran," the potential for a "parallel clandestine nuclear program," "world opinion," andwhether the "U.S. is respected for its commitment to multilateral diplomacy."
The House Speaker explained, "But, I don't think anything can be accomplished by going into Iran to stop them from developing weapons of mass destruction because that would only galvanize the country around the leadership - that's A. B. We may not accomplish our goal. They may have parallel program where we think we got it, but we didn't get it or we got part of it and we didn't get the rest. And, what have we accomplished in terms of world opinion at the same time."