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 ...
"Bush's anticipated plan has focused on troop strength, his strategy also is expected to address political and economic issues."
Sounds like:
CORDS: Civil Operations (and) Revolutionary Development Support.
In Jan of 1970, they changed "Revolutionary" to "Rural." Civil Operations and Rural Development Support was the MACV advisory effort to the government of VietNam's pacification program.
" And I know the American people won't allow this to happen, after the troops that have given their lives for this war....no way will they let this happen...."
I hope this is true, but, I have real doubts.
I'll never understand why the Democrats, the media and many Americans are so eager to give those who have killed our soldiers... a free pass.
Once the first US soldier was killed-every American , regardless of how they felt before the war, should have been behind the effort.
What kind of people let the killers of our troops go unpunished ?
I'll never understand what makes a Democrat tick-never.
BINGO! Well stated!
I agree with what you are saying. Let her talk and then we shove it right at the Dems. 2008 will be different is right!
Nancy would p*ss herself.
Some of the Dims that ran as Conservatives are not conservatives and will be found out IMHO!
The strategy of the insurgents has never been to "win" in any conventional military sense, but instead to cause chaos and drive the Coalition out too soon. Democrats and the MSM have been playing right into their hands. The party of Pelosi might just as well give a surrender speech.</p>
Of course not. But that's not the goal.
The goal is to confirm that they are against the war and they tried to do something about it but those nasty Republicans are in the way. So, vote Democrat in 2008 and they promise they'll try again.
Expect this to repeat itself on a number of issues. The Democrats can't do anything in the next two years except grandstand.
W should just send the forces as CinC and dare the congress to not fund the effort. He should also announce they will not be withdrawn until the mission is accomplished OR they run out of bullets, food and gasoline, whichever comes first.
Nancy would p*ss herself.
I like your idea.....but I don't want my son to run out of bullets.
I watched that interview with care and she neither said nor even hinted or suggested anything even approaching such an outrageous conclusion. Such idiotic hyperboyle is both the epitome of intellectual dishonesty divisive in its intent. Her comment was clear: ''The President no longer has a blank check. If he plans an expansion, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress.'' That is a reasonable function of congressional oversight and something which our party's leadership should have insisted on for the past three years but chose to abdicate.
You didn't, but the enlightened, progressive majority of the country did. They voted to coronate her the President in waiting. Now if Nancy can just find some way to get rid of the Republican riff raff between her and absolute power.
Seriously, you make an excellent point. She's just a congresswoman from SF with slim mandate for a change in our foreign policy, at best. She is NOT the President.
I certainly believe that will not happen because as much as I hate the concept of Presidential legacy building, Bush will not go down as the guy who lost our second "Vietnam"
And if she should introduce the bill, the President should go on national TV and call her for what she is, a hate military, lose in Iraq, against American security, and above all Hate America.
She won't do that- it will be political suicide for her to turn her back on those she 'claims' to be 'so concerned about'- Ah war- always a political maneuvering tool used by those hwo can't stand the other political party- aint congress great? http://sacredscoop.com
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.