Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi hints at denying Bush Iraq funds
Yahoo ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cuttingofffunds; iraq; palomino; pelosi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 last
To: Mo1
The question is .. are we prepared for it?

I believe that conservatives are - I don't believe that our elected representatives are. As for Bush doing what he had to do, I respectfully disagree. As Texas governor, Bush had a group of Democrats in the Texas Leg that he could and would work with. He believed that he would be able to do the same when he went to Washington. Call him naive, but he was not prepared for the hostility he accrued from the Congressional Democrats and tried extending the same outreach to them that had worked for him in Texas.

Congressional Democrats have made it very clear that they intend to remain combative and obstruct the President at every turn.
221 posted on 01/07/2007 3:31:32 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Popman
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"

Although I honestly don't believe that will be Bush's legacy, the Dems and the MSM will certainly try to hang that millstone around his neck. What history actually records about Bush is anyone's guess.

222 posted on 01/07/2007 3:36:33 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #223 Removed by Moderator

Comment #224 Removed by Moderator

Comment #225 Removed by Moderator

To: Vespa crabro

If you're implying bombing a government building is standing up the socialist left, you're not only insane, you're a terrorist sympathizer.


226 posted on 01/07/2007 3:51:54 PM PST by JHBowden (President Giuliani in 2008! Law and Order. Solid Judges. Free Markets. Killing Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

Comment #227 Removed by Moderator

To: Sub-Driver

Hmmmm .... wants to deny funds to Bush for Iraq .... votes to allow federal funding for abortions .... hmmmm .....


228 posted on 01/07/2007 5:05:07 PM PST by Disturbin (Get back to work -- millions of people on welfare are counting on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
This time, when the anti-war 2nd generation smuts take to the streets chanting and singing about thier so called"peace.", they will have their heads busted by counter demonstrating conservatives.

Sure they will. That's what we thought back in '68 and "days of rage" and all that Shiite. Didn't happen, won't happen. (To any great extent, there were a few hardhats that bashed a few hippies, back in the day)

229 posted on 01/07/2007 5:25:08 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Certainly President Reagan was quite creative in seeking alternate funding for the Contra effort. I expect President Bush and the Saudis will continue in that method.

The Saudis fund Al Qaeda, and by some reports the former Baathists in Iraq. I don't think they'll be of much help this time around.

230 posted on 01/07/2007 5:32:54 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
To any great extent, there were a few hardhats that bashed a few hippies, back in the day)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And I was one of them, and curious as it might seem, I was wearing a hard hat, 1968.The SDS freaks were outraged.

And if the Dems call out their Wingnut "Bring the Troops Home" crowd, THIS time they will be challenged in the streets. Even if its done by Freepathon.

231 posted on 01/07/2007 6:57:50 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The Saudis fund Al Qaeda,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not true. Some Saudis fund Al Qaeda.

And some Saudis fund the Baath party in Syria, to compete with the Iranian based Muslim Brotherhood, now outlawed in Syria.

The Saudi government does not want a Shia dominated country right next door. The House of Saud is afraid of losing control of the gateways to Mecca, and of being deposed.

The government of Iraq is the House of Saud. And they will fund US troops to have them stay in Iraq.So will Kuwait and the UAE. And if the Saudis pay, as a matter of an international security agreement with the Bush administration, there is not a thing the Dems could do about it. All three of these nations have the money to do so, and owe their economic largesse to the United States of America

Reagan set that example, and I am sure President Bush will follow that example rather than leave Iraq to the Iranians. Why do you think VP Cheny made that emergency trip to Riyadh about a month ago?

232 posted on 01/07/2007 7:08:40 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
>Reagan set that example,

It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military. You can't designate your taxes to only go to Defense, and the Saudis can't designate "gifts" to the US to only go for troops in Iraq. All US expenditures must be authorized by Congress, not just appropriated by them. It's not even the same situation as with the Contras, who were a third party, whom the Saudis (or whoever) were funding, with a little coordination by Ollie North.

The Saudis could hire a pot full of Mercenaries to do the work, but they can't rent the US Department of Defense, unless Congress authorizes it.

That's not likely to happen since it's not about the money, Dems love to spend money, it's about seeing the US defeated and the Republicans kept out of power, at least Congressional power, for a generation or more.

233 posted on 01/07/2007 7:26:39 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What a mouthpiece for the Marxists!


234 posted on 01/07/2007 7:29:34 PM PST by armymarinemom (My sons freed Iraqi and Afghan Honor Roll students.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armymarinemom
What a mouthpiece for the Marxists!

You mean a Marxist Mouthpiece? She is one of them you know.

235 posted on 01/07/2007 8:39:22 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Yep.....those that stayed home and those that voted AGAINST the GOP to "send" them a message should be VERY happy if this outrageous threat by Nazi Pelosi comes to fruition!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bull shite! The senatorial RINOs from the Gang of 14 made it impossible to have the conservative agenda legislated into action. The RNC and the President acquiesced in the RINO ploy where they were convinced that moderation would win the election for them. THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. Millions of Conservative Republicans were abandoned by their party.

Conservative Republicans don't like broken promises : Remember G.H. Bush's : " Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" and then the Dems convinced him it was kinder and gentler to Raise taxes. The conservatives, smarting from that broken promise stayed home, and we got Bill Clinton.

The Republicans lost in Nov 2006 because they did not fulill their mandate, and more than that, THEY WORKED AGAINST IT. ( Myth: Oh no, the conservatives will still vote for us!) Hell, the Dems played the Republicans for suckers AGAIN, just like they did GH Bush.

And we will stay home again in 2008, if there is no conservative Republican on the presidential ticket, or we will write in the name of a conservative candidate.

Don't you dare hang this on conservative people who stayed home. Blame it on those of the elected of the Republican party who abandoned conservatives and broke their promises to them: The Republicans who were in the Gang of 14, the RINOs, plowing their own road for the presidency, or so they thought.

No RINO will see the inside of the oval office as president in 2008, instead, a Dem. will. There is no difference between a Dem and a RINO. Either will say what they must to simply attain power instead of defending the nation against demographic warfare from Mexico, and maintaining a long term, consistantly lethal and successful military effort in Iraq.We need a president who has principles, like Reagan did.Not a RINO who is trying to appear to be a pseudo liberal socialist whacko, who in disregard of the conservative hinterland, has traduced the conservative base of the party, and allows this country to become more socialist/pluralistic than it already is.

If that is the drift of the Reoublican Party in 2008, the growing ranks of Conservative Republicans will stay home in droves, or will have attempted a 3rd party candidate.

Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she creates another 10,000 conservative Republicans. Keep up the good work Nancy-O!

236 posted on 01/07/2007 10:46:13 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military.>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I believe such an arrangement is in the works, and there will be nothing the Dems can do about it, unless they try to impeach the president or go to the Supreme Court on it. They would have no luck in either case. The Dems cannot dictate national defense policy, they can cut funding, but the President is not prevented from arranging for the continued military effort with support from committed allies, and that support does not have to monetary.

The goods, services and supplies required can be bought and provided to the US military abroad, by presidential arrangement with allies as the commander in chief, who is working under a congresional declaration of war.The dems can't vote for a war and then change their minds according to whatever moonbat kneejerk whacko new ideas they come up with from one month to the next. Not a cent will go through the pentagon. Credit for those goods and services will be paid for by third party allies to those corporations already servicing the US military in Iraq under already established executive contracts. The allies do not even need to be identified.

237 posted on 01/07/2007 11:11:17 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Sorry for the repost, texting problem.

It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But it would be legal for them to transfer funds to corporations like Halliburton,Vinnel Corp, Bechtal Corp., Aramco, to name but a few, and upon whom the US military relies. Goods and services provided to the US military would not offend the law. It happens all the time on joint force tasking when many national defense forces work together. Nato is an example.

And I believe such an arrangement is in the works, and there will be nothing the Dems can do about it, unless they try to impeach the president or go to the Supreme Court on it. They would have no luck in either case. The Dems cannot dictate national defense policy, they can cut funding, but the President is not prevented from arranging for the continued military effort with support from committed allies, and that support does not have to monetary.

The goods, services and supplies required can be bought and provided to the US military abroad, by presidential arrangement with allies as the commander in chief, who is working under a congresional declaration of war.The dems can't vote for a war and then change their minds according to whatever moonbat kneejerk whacko new ideas they come up with from one month to the next. Not a cent will go through the pentagon. Credit for those goods and services will be paid for by third party allies to those corporations already servicing the US military in Iraq under already established executive contracts. The allies do not even need to be identified.

238 posted on 01/07/2007 11:14:08 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Pelosi hints at denying Bush Iraq funds

Typically stupid dems. The money is not for Bush, it's for the troops. I dare Pelosi to try to leave out troops without the equipment they need and even the traitorous MSM won't be able to give her cover.

239 posted on 01/08/2007 1:19:13 AM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
... bringing the goal of World Socialism that much closer to reality ...

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist presidential candidate

Norman Thomas
240 posted on 01/08/2007 1:58:32 AM PST by Beckwith (The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson