Break this incoherent statement down sentence by sentence:
NANCY PELOSI: "Let me just say that any missile that comes from some place has a return address."
"And if Israel is responding to that address, uh, then ...
"That's a shame that the Palestinians are using, der uh, are rumored to be using children and families as shields for their missiles."
"Uh, should we all, uh, first of all, avoid conflict?"
"The Hamas initiated this."
"Again this has to be something where we try to have a two-state solution."
"We have to support, we have to support Abbas and his role there."
"That we have to ..."
"We have to support Iron Dome to protect the Israelis from the missiles."
"We have to support the Palestinians in what they need."
"And we have to confer again with the Qataris who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a Humanitarian Organization."
"Maybe they could use their influence to, um, calm nerves."
CANDY CROWLEY (interjecting): "The US thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization, though. Correct? Do you?"
NANCY PELOSI: "Hmmhmm."
Ok, so to me it sounds like Nancy Pelosi is like a Cotton Candy maker at a carnival, desperately trying to spin, out of a mush of sticky goop, the fluffy idea that there is an opportunity for justice and peace to prevail.
All the while, however - woven into each sentence of this incoherent statement that snakes out of her mouth - is the admission and/or outright assertion that there is no hope that justice or peace can prevail, with the facts on the ground being what they are.
She tells us Israel has the right to respond when missiles are fired at them. Yes, they do. That is justice.
She tells us that Palestinians are "rumored to be" using children and families are Human Shields. Yes that is the truth.
She tells us that Hamas started this. Yes, that's the truth.
She asserts the "two-state solution" prefacing it with the word "again", tacitly admitting that it is the same old solution to the same old problem, and that it hasn't worked before, and it won't work again.
She tells us we have to support Abbas and his role there. Whatever that role is, she is not clear.
She says, "that we have to ..." and then leaves off in the middle of the sentence. I agree completely.
She tells us we have to support Israel's defense of itself using the Iron Dome, which obviously hurts no one. Yes, that it justice.
She tells us we have to support the Palestinians "in what they need". She does not tell us what that is. We are left to assume she is just as baffled by that question as the rest of us are.
And then she reaches to pull a rabbit from a hat, saying the Qataris might have the answer. And why would the Qataris have the answer? Because the Qataris tell her Hamas is a "Humanitarian Organization."
Here I would swear Nancy Pelosi is being sarcastic. Like, "Hey, the Qataris say Hamas is a Humanitarian Organization. We know they're using children as Human Shields. We know they're firing missiles indiscriminately at the Israelis. We know they started this, but if the Qataris say they are Humanitarians, let's see if the Qataris can fix this."
How fucking absurd is that? It's like Pelosi is saying, "Hey look, I don't see a fucking solution. But the Qataris say it's cool. So, let the Qataris fix it. That ought to a fuckin' hoot."
Then Candy Crowley asks Pelosi, wait, don't you agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
And Pelosi responds, "umm hmm," in a meek voice suggesting, "Yeah, I know I'm making no sense. But what do you expect me to say? The Palestinians deserve to be destroyed? I mean, we all know it's true. But we have to persist in this illusion. Come on, Candy. Give me a break."
Does anyone else have any other takes on this?
I mean that's all I can come up with.