With her insistence to send tens-of-thousands of more soldiers to Afghanistan, it’s no wonder people say she has “led the fight to end the suffering of people worldwide.” Oh wait, that’s what her website says, not her constituents.

080310-F-2828D-027.jpg

Actually, 66% of her constituents disapprove of the House Speaker, according to a new poll, as reported by The Hill.

Could this have something to do with the fact that this is hardly a conventional war, due to the tribal nature of Af-Pak combined with the fact that we are fighting a verb (terror) rather than a people? As for nuclear-armed Pakistan, keep in mind that the natives do not recognize the border (similar to inhabitants within other third-world borders; due to the fact that they were established by foreign superpowers).  Not that this matters, considering we send drones over the boarder and 98% of their kills are civilians, according to a recent article, referencing a NY Times piece.  Sending robots to kill people is a dangerous game to play with anyone, let alone Pakistan at this sensitive time.  Such actions seriously threaten our national security.  Besides, experts say police investigation is the only way to reduce terrorist cells, not military intervention by a world superpower!

At least the thousands of innocents killed in South and Central America will be remembered, partly thanks to Nancy Pelosi, with a statue of the president responsible erected in our capitol (i.e. the Reagan statue, approved by the Senate April this year).  Noam Chomsky reminds us:  “They [Reagan administration] declared a war on terror in 1981 with pretty much the same rhetoric that they used when they re-declared it in September 2001. It was a murderous terrorist war. It devastated Central America, had horrendous effects elsewhere in the world.” (Democracy Now)  And still today we “don’t spread liberal democracy” we “spread dependence and subordination.” (BBC interview)

Maybe the offspring of the thousands of innocents dead in Iraq and Afghanistan will see a statue of Bush in our capitol as well within a few decades, a very real possibility if war-enthusiasts like her remain in our Congress.  Of course she glosses over her in-humanitarian stances by overstating her opposition to troops in Iraq today (in favor of an Afghan surge) and even voted against the war in Oct. 2002, but keep in mind that she has voted for nearly every funding bill in the interim.  Reagan’s role was primarily a covert war president, unlike Bush (son of Reagan’s V. P.), but the similarities cannot be denied from a human rights perspective.  Hence, it’s easy to see how Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua can sympathize with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran.

Pelosi also authored a bill supporting Israel’s “defense” in Gaza, a controversial war that would not be able to continue without our support, as most informed citizens realize.  This war we’ve waged against the Arab world (long before 9/11 people, wake up, that was a travesty no doubt but don’t let it blind you!) is probably either going to escalate into WWIII or end with an implication of nonintervention on our part, and Pelosi is only making the latter possibility more difficult and distant.  We need someone who is truly a humanitarian, not just someone who posts absurd claims on their website.  If you justify Pelosi as leading the end of suffering worldwide and are accurately informed of her voting records then this justification is surely a prime example of Orwellian doublethink.