Posted on 01/07/2007 7:51:21 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Pelosi hints at denying Bush Iraq funds
12 minutes ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.
"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Her comments on CBS' "Face the Nation" came as Bush worked to finish his new war plan that could send as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and provide more money for jobs and reconstruction programs.
Bush is expected to announce his plan as early as Wednesday.
When asked about the possibility of cutting off funds, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say whether Democrats might do so, saying only that the current strategy clearly is "not working."
"I don't want to anticipate that," said Hoyer, D-Md., on "Fox News Sunday."
Some military officials, familiar with the discussions, say Bush at first could send 8,000 to 10,000 new troops to Baghdad, and possibly Anbar Province, and leave himself the option of adding more later if security does not improve.
"Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I am with you I do believe in the President and the Troops. But I trust the Democrats or the American People. This country has gone soft.
There is way too much politico-speak in this to have any idea what is really going on. As such it is just right for this kind of newsless weekend.
So, you're a Sheehan fan and admirer.
Let me know when it starts. I'm ready.
Stealing appears to be a way of business for them...
Stealing conviction is really scraping the bottom of the barrel however.
Question - I neo-con a lie invented by the left to split our party?
I ment I don't trust Democrats or the American people. The country has gone soft.
As has been discussed here at FR quite extensively, accidental President Gerald Ford did quite well steering the nation in a time of crisis, and was selected for the job of Speaker of the House with that possibility in mind. Did the Democrats sincerely believe that God forbid anything happen to Bush and Cheney, this woman was in any capacity prepared to be Leader of the Free World? Or were they just thinking of the temporary boost they would get for shoving the first female up to the front of the room? (Put your hands down, it's a rhetorical question.)
I refused to watch the news all day Thursday as the coronation of Queen Nancy was celebrated by the MSM. I did see late on Friday a clip of her at the Speaker's podium, congratulating herself for having ovaries, emitting that Fran Drescher laugh that is just as annoying as President Bush's verbal stumbles, and holding an infant as she was surrounded by moppet props encouraged to touch the Speaker's gavel like it was a relic. It was the most sickening thing I have seen since 9/11.
We are living through the DNC's Harriet Miers moment. This time, it's going to last at least two years.
One word, b!tch. VETO.
Most of us aren't stupid, however many of us have the memory and patience capabilities that can be measured in hours.
I don't agree with that. It's called the veto. The President will have no choice but to use it and the 2/3 majority won't be there.
From the Washington Post: November 11, 2006 Charles Krauthammer
“The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic House member.
The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republicans. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.
Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58 to 42 percent. Seven of eight proposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage were approved. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.
To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats' 51st seat -- and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic colleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well.
Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.”
Second, carefully select new leaders in the House and the Senate. The inability of Republican majorities to deal more effectively with issues like judicial nominations, immigration, social security reform and corruption caused tremendous frustration and anger in the ranks. Republican leaders seemed indecisive and weak, and could never apply the basic rule of politics: ‘reward your friends and punish your enemies’.
We need leaders who can articulate conservative causes and have proven their competence and tough mindedness. We also need leaders who do not succumb to the Washington, DC social scene and try to be ‘good guys’ in the eyes of the media and the party-givers.
Finally, we need leaders who will be able to combat the spate of hearings, investigations and impeachment attempts that will stalemate the government and divert people from doing the jobs that need to be done. Perhaps our new leaders can study and put to use some of the obstructionist tactics used so successfully by the Democrats over the last six years.
LOL, right!
No, I admire you Dusty, and me, for sitting around jawboning to each other, while actually producing nothing.
Whose first priority would be focusing on changing the drapes in the Oval Office to match her tastes.
Come a day if Congress does not sober up it will start. Revolutions are not started by the wealthy and privileged, nor the poor and starving; they are started by a middle class that has lost all regard for its government.
It would do Congress well to remember that while no one knows how many firearms are in private hands, the estimates are 800 million and rising.
That is more than enough to deal with 435 indifferent, elitist, greedy a**holes who presume to run our lives....
Wow, you pack a lot into a few words. I wish I had that gift!
As much as I want to believe that Bush will fight or try to outmaneuver the Dems, we have to go back and look at his first two years, after Jumpin' Jim Jeffords gave the Senate back to the Dems.
Bush would go along to get along. A lot of good it did him. The Dems ran over him from every direction they could and Bush just smiled and took it. It was only on occasion that he actually tried to put up a fight. Look at the success the Dems have already had - they have forced Bush to agree to change his plan for Iraq - a change that means several advisors are losing their jobs.
Bush's last 2 years will end up looking very much like his first 2 years. He is going to continue to try to reach out to the Dems . . . . . and he will keep pulling back a bloody stump. What Bush and too many conservatives fail to realize is that the Dems have declared war on the US and conservatives and will do everything they can to remain in power. After all, they believe that it is their birthright - just as Gore believed that the presidency was his for the asking because his father told him it was.
Elections have consequences, sometimes very dangerous ones.
Al Qaeda with their rhetoric were right perhaps.
They use this as the biggest reason that we can be brought down.
Ah, the good ol' days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.