Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Stance on war splits two top Democrats
Claims both from anti war Bay area, but inexplicably Lantos totally out of step about agression against Iraq . Sandalow writes over 1,138 words including some of Lantos’ phony biographic fantasies. But Sandalow, a Zionist himself, is still puzzed. Perhaps this is because Sandalow doesn’t want to mention that Lantos is a Zionist Jew.
Stance on war splits two top Democrats
Liberals Pelosi, Lantos face off on Iraq
Sunday March 16, 2003
Washington -- San Francisco's two congressional representatives are both liberal Democrats with districts divided in many places by a single street. Yet their views on going to war with Iraq couldn't be further apart.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, is arguably the party's most prominent figure against an attack. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, is among the most influential in favor.
Both regard themselves as peace-loving internationalists, boasting strong records supporting human rights and opposing totalitarian regimes. Each describes Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a menacing dictator who threatens the safety of the free world.
Their disagreement -- mirroring the diplomatic crisis at the United Nations -- is focused only on the proper strategy to address the danger.
"I do not believe that going to war now is the best way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction," said Pelosi, who represents neighborhoods north and east of Twin Peaks.
Lantos, whose district extends south through the Sunset and down the Peninsula into San Mateo, has reached the opposite conclusion: "The only rational question to ask is whether you prefer to confront (Hussein) before he obtains nuclear weapons, or after?"
The story of how two Democrats with nearly identical voting records, representing adjoining communities in one of the most liberal regions in the nation, can be so far apart on a matter of such consequence sheds light on why a national, let alone worldwide, consensus has been so hard to build.
The Pelosi-Lantos split underscores a dispute among liberals, some of whom argue that President Bush's foreign policy is in shambles and reckless, and others who argue that regime change in Iraq -- in spite of Bush's support -- is a noble endeavor.
BAY AREA DIFFERENT
The divide is less apparent in the Bay Area, one of the most anti-war regions in the country and where most political leaders are on record opposing war. Last fall, when Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Lantos and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, were alone among the Bay Area's dozen House members to support the president.
But across the nation, liberal stalwarts like Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, as well as liberal institutions such as the New Republic magazine and the editorial pages of the Washington Post, lined up behind the White House.
Lantos is a case study of the pro-war left, shattering the stereotype of Iraq hawks as either conservative oil barons or military imperialists.
The 75-year-old San Mateo resident, serving his 12th term in Congress, is a reliable liberal and a member of the House Progressive Caucus. On the 26 most critical votes cast in 2001 and 2002, as ranked by Congressional Quarterly, Lantos and Pelosi voted differently only on the Iraq resolution, which passed 296 to 133. Lantos, who has long warned of the dangers of Hussein's regime, was a floor manager in support of the White House position.
Lantos believes the United States stands at a crossroads: It must either exercise its military options or pull back its Persian Gulf presence. Down the road, he believes there is a far greater risk of carnage if the United States does not force Hussein to disarm.
"Only an idiot would prefer war to peace," Lantos said at a recent congressional hearing. "The question is, are we in favor of a meaningful peace,
or just a propaganda peace?"
HARKS BACK TO WWII HUNGARY
Lantos understands that some hear an Orwellian ring to the argument that peace is best achieved through force. Yet he draws from his heritage as a teenage member of the Hungarian resistance during World War II to argue that some forces are so evil, they must be forcibly contained.
"Fifty-one million people died in World War II," said Lantos, who survived with the help of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. "Had Hitler been stopped in 1937, these men, women and children would have lived a lifetime in peace."
Lantos' hawkish posture has made him the subject of regular protests outside his downtown San Mateo office, although he believes that re-election with more than two-thirds of the vote last fall demonstrates that his position is not unpopular.
"There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the majority of my constituents share my view," Lantos said of his district, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about a 3-to-1 ratio.
Ironically, Lantos believes the protests and opposition by nations like France, Russia and Germany have increased the chances of war by giving Hussein the mistaken impression that the world supports him.
"I am convinced that the peace position is a position of strength -- that vacillation and weakness . . . only encourages totalitarian regimes to be more aggressive," Lantos said.
Pelosi spent more than a decade on the House Intelligence Committee, receiving classified reports on Hussein's arsenal and his links to terrorists. The 63-year-old Democratic leader, serving her ninth term, flat out disagrees with Lantos' conclusion.
She argues that Hussein, while evil, does not pose an imminent threat, and that the United States -- and much of the world -- will be in greater jeopardy if Bush orders an attack.
OTHER THREATS
The notion of attacking Iraq, when other nations such as Iran and North Korea appear to pose just as much a threat, seems counterproductive to Pelosi, who also worries about the consequences of acting without U.N. support.
"I am not in the category of people who say, 'No war under any circumstances,' " Pelosi told reporters, calling it inappropriate to act before "we have exhausted all diplomatic and technological and inspection remedies that are available to us."
Pelosi declined to be interviewed for this article, but she has repeatedly said that last year's vote on a war resolution -- which she opposed -- was a "vote of conscience," and one in which she did not try to influence the outcome. Nevertheless, Pelosi was widely credited as emerging victorious when 126 Democrats voted no, compared with just 81 who voted in favor.
Pelosi and Lantos have 37 years of congressional tenure between them and have assumed influential roles advancing their Iraq positions.
Lantos speaks regularly with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and is often included on meetings between Bush and congressional leaders. Pelosi, in her capacity as House minority leader, visited American troops in Kuwait and Qatar two weeks ago, and has pledged to rally behind the troops even if she disagrees with the policy.
There is no sign of friction between the two lawmakers even as they stand on opposite sides of Washington's No. 1 issue.
"This comes down to a question of judgment," Lantos said reflectively. "None of us has a monopoly on judgment or wisdom.
"We are all patriots."
E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow [at] sfchronicle.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/16/MN257768.DTL
Liberals Pelosi, Lantos face off on Iraq
Sunday March 16, 2003
Washington -- San Francisco's two congressional representatives are both liberal Democrats with districts divided in many places by a single street. Yet their views on going to war with Iraq couldn't be further apart.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, is arguably the party's most prominent figure against an attack. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, is among the most influential in favor.
Both regard themselves as peace-loving internationalists, boasting strong records supporting human rights and opposing totalitarian regimes. Each describes Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a menacing dictator who threatens the safety of the free world.
Their disagreement -- mirroring the diplomatic crisis at the United Nations -- is focused only on the proper strategy to address the danger.
"I do not believe that going to war now is the best way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction," said Pelosi, who represents neighborhoods north and east of Twin Peaks.
Lantos, whose district extends south through the Sunset and down the Peninsula into San Mateo, has reached the opposite conclusion: "The only rational question to ask is whether you prefer to confront (Hussein) before he obtains nuclear weapons, or after?"
The story of how two Democrats with nearly identical voting records, representing adjoining communities in one of the most liberal regions in the nation, can be so far apart on a matter of such consequence sheds light on why a national, let alone worldwide, consensus has been so hard to build.
The Pelosi-Lantos split underscores a dispute among liberals, some of whom argue that President Bush's foreign policy is in shambles and reckless, and others who argue that regime change in Iraq -- in spite of Bush's support -- is a noble endeavor.
BAY AREA DIFFERENT
The divide is less apparent in the Bay Area, one of the most anti-war regions in the country and where most political leaders are on record opposing war. Last fall, when Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Lantos and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, were alone among the Bay Area's dozen House members to support the president.
But across the nation, liberal stalwarts like Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, as well as liberal institutions such as the New Republic magazine and the editorial pages of the Washington Post, lined up behind the White House.
Lantos is a case study of the pro-war left, shattering the stereotype of Iraq hawks as either conservative oil barons or military imperialists.
The 75-year-old San Mateo resident, serving his 12th term in Congress, is a reliable liberal and a member of the House Progressive Caucus. On the 26 most critical votes cast in 2001 and 2002, as ranked by Congressional Quarterly, Lantos and Pelosi voted differently only on the Iraq resolution, which passed 296 to 133. Lantos, who has long warned of the dangers of Hussein's regime, was a floor manager in support of the White House position.
Lantos believes the United States stands at a crossroads: It must either exercise its military options or pull back its Persian Gulf presence. Down the road, he believes there is a far greater risk of carnage if the United States does not force Hussein to disarm.
"Only an idiot would prefer war to peace," Lantos said at a recent congressional hearing. "The question is, are we in favor of a meaningful peace,
or just a propaganda peace?"
HARKS BACK TO WWII HUNGARY
Lantos understands that some hear an Orwellian ring to the argument that peace is best achieved through force. Yet he draws from his heritage as a teenage member of the Hungarian resistance during World War II to argue that some forces are so evil, they must be forcibly contained.
"Fifty-one million people died in World War II," said Lantos, who survived with the help of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. "Had Hitler been stopped in 1937, these men, women and children would have lived a lifetime in peace."
Lantos' hawkish posture has made him the subject of regular protests outside his downtown San Mateo office, although he believes that re-election with more than two-thirds of the vote last fall demonstrates that his position is not unpopular.
"There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the majority of my constituents share my view," Lantos said of his district, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about a 3-to-1 ratio.
Ironically, Lantos believes the protests and opposition by nations like France, Russia and Germany have increased the chances of war by giving Hussein the mistaken impression that the world supports him.
"I am convinced that the peace position is a position of strength -- that vacillation and weakness . . . only encourages totalitarian regimes to be more aggressive," Lantos said.
Pelosi spent more than a decade on the House Intelligence Committee, receiving classified reports on Hussein's arsenal and his links to terrorists. The 63-year-old Democratic leader, serving her ninth term, flat out disagrees with Lantos' conclusion.
She argues that Hussein, while evil, does not pose an imminent threat, and that the United States -- and much of the world -- will be in greater jeopardy if Bush orders an attack.
OTHER THREATS
The notion of attacking Iraq, when other nations such as Iran and North Korea appear to pose just as much a threat, seems counterproductive to Pelosi, who also worries about the consequences of acting without U.N. support.
"I am not in the category of people who say, 'No war under any circumstances,' " Pelosi told reporters, calling it inappropriate to act before "we have exhausted all diplomatic and technological and inspection remedies that are available to us."
Pelosi declined to be interviewed for this article, but she has repeatedly said that last year's vote on a war resolution -- which she opposed -- was a "vote of conscience," and one in which she did not try to influence the outcome. Nevertheless, Pelosi was widely credited as emerging victorious when 126 Democrats voted no, compared with just 81 who voted in favor.
Pelosi and Lantos have 37 years of congressional tenure between them and have assumed influential roles advancing their Iraq positions.
Lantos speaks regularly with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and is often included on meetings between Bush and congressional leaders. Pelosi, in her capacity as House minority leader, visited American troops in Kuwait and Qatar two weeks ago, and has pledged to rally behind the troops even if she disagrees with the policy.
There is no sign of friction between the two lawmakers even as they stand on opposite sides of Washington's No. 1 issue.
"This comes down to a question of judgment," Lantos said reflectively. "None of us has a monopoly on judgment or wisdom.
"We are all patriots."
E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow [at] sfchronicle.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/16/MN257768.DTL
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
As to Zionist Jews, all religions stink as they are all superstition. To single out Tom Lantos because he supports the US puppet state called Israel, on the basis of his belief in a superstition called Judiasm, is plain old-fashioned ANTI-SEMITISM. The NAZI GEORGE WAR BUSH does not support Israel because he likes Jews; George Bush and his Nazi gang DESPISE JEWS. They support Israel because it is a reliable cop in the Middle East, to protect US oil profits.
Nancy Pelosi is playing the Democratic Party's game of giving lip-sevice to some progressive cause, in this case peace, to win votes for her bankrupt party so as to keep the Reds out of office, and meanwhile the Democrats, like the Republicans, will carry out the same capitalist, anti-labor agenda. Pelosi faced opposition from the Green Party in this last election which opposes this war. She also knows how to count the marching feet in San Francisco peace marches and she, like the rest of the ruling class of which she is a member, assumes the ORGANIZER'S COUNTS ARE CORRECT, and are the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
PRAISING NANCY PELOSI IS JUST AS DEPISCABLE AS PRAISING TOM LANTOS.
STOP VOTING FOR ANY DEMOCRAT OR ANY REPUBLICAN at ANY LEVEL of office. They all plan the same opportunist con game to get your vote. They have only one agenda: Promoting capitalism.