Transcript of interview of Rep. Nancy Pelosi
by Joe Feuerherd
Following last Novembers election, Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) was elected Minority Leader of the House of Representatives by her
Democratic colleagues. She is the first woman to lead a party in either the
House or Senate. In a wide-ranging interview with NCR Washington correspondent
Joe Feuerherd, Pelosi explained where she hopes to lead House Democrats, her
position on war with Iraq, and what it means to be a high-profile Catholic in
public office. Excerpts of that 40-minute conversation follow.
Q: The recently released national security policy states
that Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of
mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with
determination
America will act against such emerging threats before they
are fully formed. Does the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of
preemption -- represent a significant policy shift for the U.S.? Do you support
it?
A: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction has been a pillar of our national policy for a long time. It is
essential that we do that. We have looked the other way too many times when
countries have been developing or proliferating technology or weapons of mass
destruction
weve looked the other way for commercial reasons, for
political reasons, for whatever reasons, but weve looked the other way.
So I fully commend the president for placing a value, a high priority, on
stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But weve got to be consistent or we cant be credible.
For example, the Chinese helped build the Pakistani program and we looked the
other way. The Chinese and the Russians are helping the Iranians. We make an
issue of it with the Russians, [but] we dont make much of an issue of it
with the Chinese. We look to the end user of some of this technology, rather
than the source, and we must do both. We must stop this proliferation at the
source.
Q: Is the policy of preemption articulated by the
administration a shift in strategy?
A: There definitely is a shift. I believe there is a shift
when we talk about a preemptive strike or what they call preventative war,
which to me is an oxymoron: If youre having war than you havent
prevented it.
While I think we should never hesitate under certain circumstances
to use force and that countries will have to know that we are prepared to use
force, we have a moral responsibility to exhaust every possible remedy first.
Some of those are diplomatic; some are technological, in terms of deterring and
stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
I think it would be a step backward that we would [engage] in
preventative war; what we want to have is preventative diplomacy so that we
avoid war. Because no matter how you twist and turn, you are now in an era
where the weapons of mass destruction
can be used against our young
people, placing them in harms way
And if we say that if you use weapons of mass destruction,
chemical or biological, then well use nuclear on you, then I dont
think we are advancing the cause of civilization.
Q: Last October when the House was considering the
resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, you stated that you had
seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an
imminent threat to our nation. Have you seen such evidence since then?
A: No, what Ive said in the context of that, is that
when the Director of Central Intelligence [was] asked what threat Iraq posed to
the United States, [he] said that if unprovoked the probability was low that
Iraq would use chemical or biological, would use weapons of mass destruction
against the U.S. However, if we went into Iraq with the intention of regime
change, and backed Hussein up against the wall, the probability was high that
he would use chemical or biological [weapons] against us.
I saw nothing in the intelligence that said what the
administration was positing -- that you had to go into Iraq because they were
developing a weapon of mass destruction to be launched against the U.S. They
dont have that technology, and they certainly dont have the
technology to launch against the U.S., so I didnt see that as a
justification for war. And we knew of no plans or intentions from an
intelligence standpoint that Iraq was thinking about doing this, recognizing
that they didnt have the technology to do it. Maybe if they had the
technology they would
[but] they do not have the indigenous capacity in
Iraq to produce [such] a weapon of mass destruction, they dont have the
fissile material, they have to get it from some place else, and they have to
get the technology for the launch capacity from someplace else. So lets
stop it at the source rather than going to war at the end user.
Having said that, if the president of the United States makes a
decision to place our young people in harms way because it is his
judgment that we have to do that to protect the American people, I know that we
will all be 100 percent behind the president and in support of our young people
in the military.
Q: Is war justified absent an imminent threat?
A: Im not the commander-in-chief. If war is justified
with Iraq on the basis of their development of weapons of mass destruction, the
threat they pose to the United States, and the treatment of their
people
than I think there are several other countries which are candidates
for us to go to war with.
One that immediately comes to mind is Iran, which is a
proliferator, an exporter of terrorism to the Middle East, a threat to its
neighbors, [and] is developing weapons of mass destruction. It is as much or
more of a threat to the stability of that region, which is important to our
national interest, to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region.
Certainly the North Koreans have nuclear weapons and the launch
capacity -- they cant reach the U.S. yet, we dont think -- but we
have tens of thousands of our young people on the border there; they are a
threat to their neighbors, they have the technology and they are major
proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.
Q: Broadly speaking, conservatives say the Democratic
Party is out-of-step with the country on national security and taxes and that
was reflected in the November election results; others contend that the party
has lost its way -- that it failed to take on the Republicans on such issues as
tax cuts, the minimum wage, and health care for the uninsured. What happened in
the last election?
A: Not enough people voted Democratic for one.
We have to diagnose them one district at a time, and we
havent finished making that diagnosis, but I think its pretty clear
we cant go into another election unless we have a clear message of what
the Democrats stand for in a very positive way and make a clear distinction
between Democrats and Republicans on issues of concern to the American people.
I think that distinction will serve as well because I believe the
American people are with us
in terms of investing in the education of our
children and life-long learning for our American workers; theyre with us
in promoting growth in the economy that will create jobs, be fair, and be
fiscally responsible; theyre with us in talking about access to quality
health care; theyre with us on protecting the environment. So I think
that on most of the issues that people are concerned about, or look to
government for some remedy, they will support the Democrats.
We saw the Republicans co-opt some of our issues. To hear them
tell the tale, they were for a prescription drug benefit, a patients bill
of rights, you name it. So while they tried to label us and mischaracterize us
on the one hand, they were taking up our issues, in my view, not legitimately.
Q: What is the Democratic House agenda?
A: If I was to put it in a sentence I would say the
Democratic House agenda is to promote the safety and soundness of the American
people. Safety -- certainly in our national security and our homeland security
- a top priority first mentioned in the preamble of the constitution
to
provide for the common defense.
On the soundness side
the Democratic agenda is to develop a
Democratic plan for economic growth that promotes jobs, that is fair, that is
fiscally sound and that enables all Americans to participate in the economic
success of our country. [The Democrats released their plan January 6.]
Q: What about increasing the minimum wage?
A: Its a priority.
If you ask me what are the three most important things facing the
Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children, and our
children. Their health, their education, the economic security of their family,
which includes the pension security of their grandparents, the environment in
which they live, and the world at peace in which they will thrive.
On the economic piece of that I believe increasing the minimum
wage is very important. To tell children to value work, to have a work ethic
that is important to their self fulfillment and survival economically
.
they get a message from that. So I think that increasing the minimum wage and
trying to strive as fast as we can, as is economically feasible, to a living
wage, would be a very important advance
Q: The version of last years welfare reform bill
that passed the House was considered overly harsh by critics, including the
Catholic Bishops. The bill ultimately stalled in the Senate. Will you be able
to alter the welfare bill this year?
A: You cant have real welfare reform that demands
that single moms go to work unless you have access to quality child care. We
certainly salute and value motherhood in our country -- there have been
Republican initiatives to give tax benefits to moms who stay home to care for
children -- and yet they want poor moms to leave the house and go to work
without the kind of education they should have to get a quality job and
[without] child care that is necessary for their children.
I would hope that we would have welfare reform that would count
education as part of the work requirement so that they are moving into a place
where they are enhancing their earning capacity and that would, again, have a
strong component of child care.
Q: Is being a Catholic in public life a blessing or a
burden?
A: Oh, its a blessing. I have more people praying for
me.
In the family I was raised in, love of country, deep love of the
Catholic Church, and love of family, were all the values I was raised in. I
dont like to have religion and politics come too closely together, but I
will say that I am motivated by the Gospel of Matthew, as many people in
politics are. I find it an inspiration.
What did I see the other day? The divinity in me bows to the
divinity in you. The respect that we have for the individual because of the
spark of divinity that we all carry serves me well in politics - to respect
people and their point of view. I say that, I hope it doesnt sound
patronizing,
in a very respectful way.
My upbringing -- working on the side of the angels with my parents
-- to help people, again according to Gospel of Matthew, and the idea
.
[that we] look upon Gods creation as an act of worship - to ignore the
needs of Gods creation is to dishonor the God that made them. And that we
have that responsibility, all of us.
Its part of me, its immediate in my life, its
immediate in the lives of many of my colleagues.
Q: You were recently quoted as calling yourself a
conservative Catholic. Are you?
A: I think so. I was raised, as I say, in a very strict
upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were
practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a
free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that
accountability, so it wasnt for us to make judgments about how people saw
their responsibility and that it wasnt for politicians to make decisions
about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral
standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than
that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to
politicians.
I have five children, five grandchildren; I try to abide by all
the teachings of the church in relationship to family. I think my family speaks
very clearly to that.
Q: Two litmus tests that help define
conservative and liberal in the church: Married priests
and women priests.
A: What can I say? The record speaks for itself in some
respects. I have always thought that there should have been a stronger role for
women in the church. When I was little my mother always wanted me to be a nun.
I didnt think I wanted to be a nun, but I thought I might want to be a
priest because their seemed to be a little more power there, a little more
discretion over what was going on in the parish. I think the reality of life is
that wherever God sends a vocation that marriage should not bar anyone from
following that vocation. I know that that is in the future, I just dont
how long it will take.
Q: Women as priests?
A: Oh absolutely
Why not? Why not?
Q: Youve work with the church leadership on many
issues over the years -- Central America, China -- and other domestic concerns.
Have the scandals of the past year damaged the churchs credibility?
A: I dont think so. I think the church has high moral
standing on issues of lifting people up and reducing violence in the world. I
dont think theres anybody in the world who is a more credible
messenger for social improvement in the lives of people than his Holiness [Pope
John Paul II]. I say that without any question.
Of course, in different parishes and different dioceses its
different, but
in my diocese years ago
our archbishop got a standing
ovation for standing up on issues related to disarmament. And our churches in
San Francisco and across the country we have worked together on issues relating
to sanctuary for people from El Salvador and to end the violence in Central
America. The Pope is the leader in the world in helping on alleviation of
poverty in terms of the debt
All of these issues are not only important
values that the church has taken the lead on, worked closely with its
parishioners and [its] following on, [but has provided] moral leadership for
the rest of the world.
Having said that, the tragedy for some of us is that as much as we
have worked on alleviation of poverty, and [on] social issues, and reducing
violence in the world, and respecting the other person, and meeting the needs
of other people, and [seeing] Gods creation as an act of worship - those
relationships have been sadly affected by the decision on the part of some in
the church to disassociate themselves from [some political leaders] because of
our position on choice.
Q: Is it more difficult today to be a pro-choice
Catholic then it was, say, ten years ago?
A: Its about the same. Now when I traveled across the
country when I was campaigning for candidates this last time, when I was in
another city on a Sunday, I would try to find a Catholic church nearby. I heard
some of the sermons in some of the churches down south, so I understand what
some of our colleagues undergo in the church -- it was difficult. Weve
had those sermons in California, but a little more subtlety than I was hearing
down south. It gave me a better understanding of what some of my colleagues are
going through.
I have never in my district in California, in my
archdiocese
if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion; I never
knew if this was the day it would be withheld. And thats a hard way to go
to church. Fortunately, Im invited -- I have a big family -- I go to a
lot of weddings, Im in a different church every week. Im a moving
target. I travel, so Im not exactly a target in terms of always being in
the same church, although I go to St. Vincent DePaul, which is my neighborhood
parish.
In addition to that, on many occasions the archdiocese has told
the nuns that I couldnt be the speaker at some event. And thats
hurtful because we have so much in common. But its the decision the
church has made.
Q: On the flip side of the abortion question, how big a
tent is the Democratic Party? Is it big enough to welcome Democrats who oppose
abortion?
A: I think it is a bigger tent than people realize. I come
myself from a family that does not share my views on choice.
Q: That must make for some interesting dinner table
conversations.
A: Interesting in that they get back to the point that I
made earlier - that we are all blessed by the creator with a free will [to]
which we are answerable and I will step back to that. And that seems to be
common ground [among the family].
Having said that, I think there are occasions where they would
like me to be less visible, that they dont like to see any disagreement
between the church and any of us.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted January 22,
2003
|