January 14, 2004

By Norman Solomon

Pelosi's bridge too far

LAST YEAR REP . Nancy Pelosi helped San Francisco make peace with war.

For a while, of course, city streets echoed with large numbers of antiwar voices. Momentum grew with a series of marches. On Feb. 16 the official estimate for a downtown protest was 150,000 demonstrators.

And for a time Pelosi – the highest-ranking female legislator in U.S. history – made antiwar noises. As the member of Congress representing most of San Francisco, she and her constituents seemed to be in step while challenging the push for war.

But in fact Pelosi had begun to make nice with Washington's war planners several months before the invasion of Iraq began. Like most other Bay Area representatives, she voted against the war resolution in mid October 2002. But a few weeks later, immediately following her much-ballyhooed elevation to the post of House Democratic leader, Pelosi appeared Nov. 17 on NBC's Meet the Press and sent unmistakable signals that opportunism would trump peacemaking in her political playbook.

Pelosi told the national TV audience, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." And she deferred to the White House when host Tim Russert asked a key question, "Do you think that the situation with Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism?"

"I don't think it's a distr–" Pelosi responded, then interrupted herself and started again. "I mean, any decision – I don't question a decision of the president of the United States on his timing or the priority he gives a threat. I do say that I'm pleased that the president and the secretary of state are following the course of action that many of us supported at that same time, which was to exhaust every diplomatic remedy, to go to the U.N., to have a multilateral approach ..."

A minute later in the interview, the new House minority leader proclaimed that if Bush ordered an assault on Iraq while bypassing the United Nations, "certainly we'll support the action of the president."

Russert pressed her: "But if the president decides to go unilaterally or with the British and the Turks without U.N. approval, you would support the president?"

"Yes," Pelosi replied, "I would support the president."

Four months later the spring equinox coincided with the onset of all-out war. In San Francisco, streets erupted with civil disobedience.

Meanwhile, Pelosi greeted the invasion with her political blessing. "We are one team in one fight, and we stand together," she declared.

When the bloodshed began, she joined with several colleagues from the Bay Area to back a resolution that claimed "the president's use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations."

Pelosi has easily pulled off her betrayal of her antiwar constituents because too few of them are willing to confront her or the mildly dovish accommodation to militarism she embodies. Her caveats aside, she's clearly on the war train. Last fall, when Pelosi cast a no vote on the president's $87 billion appropriation tied to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, she was at pains to express support for "accomplishing our mission" in Iraq. On the House floor, Pelosi stressed that her objections were "not about cutting and running."

In a recent interview, Pelosi spokesperson Jennifer Crider told the Bay Guardian that Pelosi "has very clearly stated that she supports the troops" while she has opposed the war in Iraq – "but now that we're there we have to complete the mission." The question remains, though, how Pelosi could be substantively against the war at the same time that she supports completing the war's mission.

For the centrist core of the punditocracy in the nation's capital, Pelosi is succeeding as the House minority leader. But Washington pundits do not reelect members of Congress. The distance between the Potomac River and the San Francisco Bay is far from negligible, and someday Pelosi may discover she has crossed a bridge too far.

Norman Solomon is coauthor, with Reese Erlich, of Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You.