Pelosi better not blow her position on funding for Bush's surge.

[Cascadian]

I was and still am disappointed with the fact that impeachment of Bush is off the table, I hope what Malloy has said on his show tonight in regards to the funding for the surge is not true. That funding for the surge will give Bush a green light to go ahead and send more troops in harm's way. While I can support some of the good things they have done in first 100 hours of being in control of the House, I cannot agree with the position on impeachment and the pending announcement of going ahead with giving Bush money for his surge.

Don't do it, Nancy!



John

[acmavm]

1. The Iraq fiasco is why they're in the majority. They'd better not forget

that.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

2. I wish she'd say, We'll only fund our soldiers safe return...

She should say that Bush's actions of sending troops, even though he was warned there will be no funding boils down to Bush making hostages out of our soldiers, and he's asking a kings ransom.

She should also bring to light that Bush tied funding the troops with rebuilding Iraq. I'm no legal expert, but isn't that extortion?

I thought we were going to have the guts to cut the funds!!

Dems should take some of their campaign funds (I hear Hillary has loads) and put it towards a media-blitz. We have to get the word out that Vietnam didn't end until Americans protested and Congress stopped the funding.

We also have to revisit what Kerry touched on during the '04 elections, but didn't follow through on....We have to let it be known that the money does NOT go to the troops.

Americans will believe what we're saying because they all know our soldiers had to armor their own vehicles and buy their own vests.

[wakeme2008]

3. Let's wait until we see what is up Nancy's shelve....

I would bet there are strings attached... :)

[Cascadian]

4. Yes like getting the troops home in a brief time. n/t

[Eurobabe]

19. She's savvy, give her a chance, she'll ensnare * in

something. LOL. I just really like this woman, she is da'bomb!

[harveyc]

5. Funding the "surge"? How about ...

not funding the current level of troops in Iraq also?

She and Murtha have both said they will fight against funding the "surge" but said they would keep funding for the current level of troops in Iraq. Why not just say "stay the course?"

Surge or no surge, our soldiers are still dying in Iraq.

[bdamomma]

6. geez, there as been much talk about what Nancy Pelosi said

but it only came from ABC, does anyone else notice that? And on AAR Sam Seder said this is not what she said, cannot find another site saying she did say it.

oh oh, I take it back here is article right here. posted on Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FGMA%2Fprint%3Fid%3D2805714

[harveyc]

7. Ms. Pelosi on "Face the Nation" - CBS - 1/7/07

She said Democrats are not interesting in cutting off money for troops already in Iraq — "We won't do that" — and that her party favors increased the overall size of the Army by 30,000 and Marines by 20,000 "to make sure we are able to protect the American people."

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/topstories_story_007104617.html

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

11. IMPEACH PELOSI

Increasing the size of the armed forces was one of John Kerry's platform promises in 2004. However, you should start Pelosi's primary challenge now, before she votes Bush president for life.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Don't let them get us to infighting. The truth is being revealed each day

that this pseudo-surge will prove nothing. Nancy has them where she wants them. ;)

[harveyc]

9. How about our soldiers?

Does she have them where she wants them? Dying everyday in Iraq and doing nothing to get them out of that insane war.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

10. Nancy Pelosi is the greatest criminal in history

She WANTS our troops to die. Her and Bush are Best Friends Foreva!

[harveyc]

13. Maybe they are ...

she now wants to "stay the course" in Iraq.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

17. Sure thing

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Kindly refrain from lecturing me for I'm a veteran & I've had family

members and friend deployed to Iraq. No, she doesn't USE the troops like our Dear Leader does for political gain. However, one quality that Pelosi has is that she tends to play her cards (her true goals) close to the vest.

IMO, Pelosi wants the troops home as soon as possible. However, in this tainted political atmosphere, TIMING is everything.

BTW it's important to remember that we have a wannabe "Unitary Executive" Branch that we (The Democratic Congress) must tangle with ... a very dangerous path for all to tread.

[harveyc]

14. If Shrub's Iraq supplemental in a few weeks is ...

approved by Congress, he will have sufficient funds to continue the Iraq war until the the 2008 elections.

Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have to show some leadership and stop the funding for this war, not just the "surge."

This is BS, how many more of our soldiers have to die in Iraq?

[ShortnFiery]

18. Sorry for sounding so cold,

but I live within the beltway. Like it or not (and I don't approve), Bush has already set this troop surge in motion. Knowing how these issues play out, our reps couldn't completely stop the initial surge if they all walked in lock step. Why? Because it's already underway. To short circuit it may also cost lives, in that, a humongous cluster of awaiting troops and commanders who are basing their plans on a certain number.

No way do I want this to play out and neither does the Democratic Congress. However, we are dealing with realities of the Beltway, i.e., a much different animal (the power elite) than the rest of the USA.

My hope: After the initial surge falls flat on it's face, I believe that even cowering republican representatives will jump on the bandwagon to stop the second wave of troops from deploying over to The Middle East theater.

It truly sucks and it is immoral, BUT the first wave of soldiers is already processing through the combat deployment meat grinder ... thanks to our Executive Branch's secrecy- this initial wave can NOT be stopped without EXTREME haranguing by the republicans. Plus if it is stopped, you'll hear all the bogus b.s. that we could have succeeded.

Sadly, we have to let the initial surge AGAIN teach Military History to the ignorant republicans. History that that we already know to prove true time and time again, i.e., every human loves their country and will be fiercely nationalistic when attacked ... often to the last native.


It's horridly frustrating, especially for those of us who have studied Military History as young adults: However, we MUST allow these twisted republican representatives A FINAL chance to wash out the LIE of the *Glories of WAR* completely out of their pompous, posturing and grossly paternalistic systems once (and hopefully) for ALL. :(

[ClassWarrior]

15. Bush/Cheney** is sending the troops already.

So any withholding of funds will end up stranding them on the battlefield. From what I understand, the Dems in Congress have other, more fundamental ideas for ending this occupation. Like vigorous investigations of cooked intelligence and war profiteering.

By the way, you really didn't call the escalation a "surge," did you? Hmmmm...

NGU.

[harveyc]

16. That is BS ...

There will be sufficient funding to withdraw our troops safely. Rep. Kucinich has said it and how do you think Rep. Murtha was going to redeploy them?

[Eurobabe]

20. no, poster said PSEUDO-SURGE

[pat_k]

21. "opposing the unpopular war had a political cost attached, whereas impeachment did not." - the Natio

As the http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/19/opinion/printable2374996.shtml">editors of the nation point out, "opposing the unpopular war had a political cost attached, whereas impeachment did not."

What was true in 1972 is true today.

There is a FAR greater "downside" for cutting off funding than for impeachment.

Bush and Cheney have declared war on the Constitution. Members of Congress are sworn to defend it. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against attack from within.

Cutting off funding doesn't just have a political downside, it is fruitless. Bush will raid the budget or get whatever funds he needs from the Saudi's.

Impeachment is not just the RIGHT thing to do; It is the WINNING thing to do.