I believe what Rep Pelosi was talking about was the assertion that Iraq was a center of Al Quaeda activity, which is the reason why we went to war with them. Of course Al Quaeda is there now.
What’s more I believe Frank Warner knows that’s what she meant and is trying to confuse the issue, they way the right did with John Kerry’s "insult to the troops." I’m looking forward now to comments about how Kerry DID insult the toops.

Daniel K., on this point at least, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Pelosi was asked about today’s Iraq, not the Iraq of four years ago. Suddenly and bizarrely, she was replaying the "In Iraq there is no al Qaida" polka.

We invaded Iraq because Iraq was "a center of al Qaida activity"? I don’t recall that being the big argument for ousting Iraq. The fact that al Qaida affiliate Zarqawi was in Iraq was mentioned. The fact that Saddam supported other terrorists also was mentioned.

But the first reason President Bush gave the United Nations for action against Saddam was the end of Saddam’s repression. In his Sept. 12, 2002, address to the U.N., Bush pointed first to U.N. Resolution 688, which required that Saddam end his repression of the Iraqi people.

In other words, the first justification for the liberation of Iraq was liberation itself.

Colin Powell’s address to the UN, on the other hand, was a detailed portrait of the imminent threat posed by the weapons Iraq posessed, and there was little talk of liberation. To US, the American people:

What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. ...There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.GWB, From a Whitehouse.gov press conference, 2003

This is beside your main point, about Nancy Pelosi. Could you provide one of her quotes about the lack of Al-Quaeda in present-day Iraq? I’d like to evaluate it.