Pelosi Won't Block Iraq Funding To Stop Troop Surge/But Then Again She Cant
There may be a growing battle between Congress and the president over the Iraq War strategy, but new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she won't block funding for additional troops.
Pelosi's position, revealed in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, came a day after a group of senators announced a bipartisan resolution condemning the Bush administration's plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 20,000 troops.
While the Senate resolution would be non-binding, it would send a message to the president, and at least a dozen Republican senators have already offered their support.
Below is an excerpt from Sawyer's interview, in which Pelosi said Democrats in Congress would not be held responsible for putting the soldiers in the troop surge in additional harm's way by blocking funds.
Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that.
Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.
It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.
Sawyer: But short of that — questions posed, resolutions passed — short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?
Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.
But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then again Pelosi nor the rest of the Democrats can really cut off funding for the Troops at all can they? I mean since IT IS THE FRIGGEN LAW!! You are probably thinking at this point "Marie has lost it" until I was reminded of this yesterday by Amy Proctor over at ~~>I Support Iraqi Freedom<~~!! President Clinton signed into LAW in 1998 the "Iraq Liberation Act". What the hell is that you ask? Here you go:
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this whining and bickering, and mudslinging and "We are coming out against a Troop Surge" NONSENSE is exactly that. 'NONSENSE' and Political posturing and position grabbing for the top job in '08. This was NEVER President Bush's War, it has ALWAY's been AMERICA'S War!! Strange isnt it how this is NEVER mentioned?
Here is President Clinton's Full Statement To The American People October 31, 1998:
HERE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you Amy for reminding us that when it's Clinton, most Democrat's and some Republican's *cough* 'Chuck Hagel' *cough*, forget that Clinton signed this into LAW to begin with!! So in reality, Clinton started the "Bush Doctrine"?
Pelosi's position, revealed in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, came a day after a group of senators announced a bipartisan resolution condemning the Bush administration's plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 20,000 troops.
While the Senate resolution would be non-binding, it would send a message to the president, and at least a dozen Republican senators have already offered their support.
Below is an excerpt from Sawyer's interview, in which Pelosi said Democrats in Congress would not be held responsible for putting the soldiers in the troop surge in additional harm's way by blocking funds.
Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that.
Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.
It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.
Sawyer: But short of that — questions posed, resolutions passed — short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?
Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.
But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then again Pelosi nor the rest of the Democrats can really cut off funding for the Troops at all can they? I mean since IT IS THE FRIGGEN LAW!! You are probably thinking at this point "Marie has lost it" until I was reminded of this yesterday by Amy Proctor over at ~~>I Support Iraqi Freedom<~~!! President Clinton signed into LAW in 1998 the "Iraq Liberation Act". What the hell is that you ask? Here you go:
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this whining and bickering, and mudslinging and "We are coming out against a Troop Surge" NONSENSE is exactly that. 'NONSENSE' and Political posturing and position grabbing for the top job in '08. This was NEVER President Bush's War, it has ALWAY's been AMERICA'S War!! Strange isnt it how this is NEVER mentioned?
Here is President Clinton's Full Statement To The American People October 31, 1998:
HERE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you Amy for reminding us that when it's Clinton, most Democrat's and some Republican's *cough* 'Chuck Hagel' *cough*, forget that Clinton signed this into LAW to begin with!! So in reality, Clinton started the "Bush Doctrine"?
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 10:22 AM
21 Comments:
Hi Marie,
Yes indeed it's strange isn't it how this is NEVER mentioned?
Oh Mrs. Green Oh Mrs. Green where are you now? LOL
Great post, Marie, but wait.
Who says 51% of Americans want Congress to stop surge?
I dpoubt that statement is even close to true. I suppose it depends on who you ask. Who, do you suppose did whoever took that poll ask?
Night,
This is the most bizzare episode I have ever seen (Not saying something else from the Lunatic Left wont top it) but at the moment this beats all!
Pelosi swears "We are going to cut off funding for the Troops"
Then in an interview with Diane Sawyer says they wont cut off funding, when in reality they CANT because President Clinton signed this into law years ago!!
So all this argueing over this crazieness is pretty much moot!
Mark,
Sorry I guess I should have put Sawyer's question and answer session in bold, I will correct that!
It was Diane Sawyer that swears 51% of the people are saying this.
I dont know how they can ever come up with a legitimate poll, I NEVER get polled, do you?
Squeaker of the Mouse Pelosi won't block the surge because, as everyone was warning BEFORE 11/7/06, the Dems have no real plan of their own to counter what's on the table.
The best these lame-ass idiots can do is pass a "non-binding" resolution denouncing the surge??
Give me a break!
Mrs. Green is here.
Nowhere in that resolution does it say that the US must invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. It was the Bush administration that did that, and disasterously--their planning and execution--NOT the soldiers.
And when has the law ever been an impediment to the lawless Bush administration when it wants its way?
It's only been a week or two and the American people are ready to run the dems out of town on a rail. Talk about unpopular with the people Nancy Pelosi is probaly the first speaker of the house that 51% of the people know the speaker's name. The reason is her very high negative ratings. It will be a short two years for the dems, enjoy it while you can Mrs. Green it will be over sooner than you think.
So she says now but time will tell. She's a liberal deception is a norm and political tool for them.
Hang in there with this next round of winter for OK!
I guess it's reassuring to know that the Democrats' position is based on hatred of George Bush and a wish to return to power, as opposed to a desire to see American troops defeated on the battlefield.
Most of the Democrats, anyway.
Mrs Green Said ... Nowhere in that resolution does it say that the US must invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. It was the Bush administration that did that, and disasterously--their planning and execution--NOT the soldiers. And when has the law ever been an impediment to the lawless Bush administration when it wants its way?
President Clinton Said This During Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff On February 17, 1998 In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
Mrs. Green
Oh Mrs Green There was a Link to prove that previous statement so if you don't believe me then click on the link and see it for yourself.
Night Rider,
I wrote a long answer to your post but it disappeared when I hit "publish." Oh well.
Essentially I stated that nowhere in Clinton's speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff does he even suggest invading Iraq for regime change. He absolutely does say that he believed inspections and sanctions were working. And that if that failed some sort of strike to take out any weapons cache would be approprite But only as a last resort.
It is the Bush administration who kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq after Saddam let them back in. Bush was determined to invade Iraq and topple Saddam as a solution to the non-conforming to the UN resolution.
And maybe it could have worked. Maybe. But Bush let Rumsfeld use his failed policy of too few troops and no attention to security. Everything fell apart within three months of the invasion, not because of the soldiers (bless them all) but because of Bush and Rumsfeld's incompetence.
This is a fact that the world (except for 28% of American voters) understand.
And since this is a "Bash Nancy Pelosi" post, I thought you should read this:
Pelosi is held in higher regard than the president or her colleagues in the Congress. An AP-AOL News poll taken Jan. 16-18 put her approval rating at 51 percent — much higher than that of Congress (34 percent) or Bush (36 percent).
Associated Press, 1/22/07
Mrs. Green
You evidently didn't read that very well because what President Clinton did say was.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
President George W. Bush just did what Gutless Wonder Clinton didn't have the gonads to do.
Mrs. Green
I see your poll results come from the Democrat Underground site.
That's recognition Mrs. Green not approval
Pelosi is held in higher regard than the president or her colleagues in the Congress. An AP-AOL News poll taken Jan. 16-18 put her approval rating at 51 percent — much higher than that of Congress (34 percent) or Bush (36 percent).
"That's recognition Mrs. Green not approval."--JG
Definition from online dictionary.com for the noun "regard" as "she is held in high regard"
respect, esteem, or deference
kindly feeling; liking.
Mrs Green
That is what I said, An AP-AOL News poll is the same thing as the Democrat Underground News source.
No wonder why it's fony.
Night Rider,
If it makes you feel better to think that, then by all means, do so.
I've often heard that when one has a grim reality to deal with, the best thing one can do is change one's response to it.
I have no argument with anyone who tries to make his or her life a bit easier by denying reality when it's too painful to face.
Mrs Green,
Mrs. Green is here.
Nowhere in that resolution does it say that the US must invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. It was the Bush administration that did that, and disasterously--their planning and execution--NOT the soldiers.
And when has the law ever been an impediment to the lawless Bush administration when it wants its way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just what is it about "Regime Change" you dont understand? This is the LAW, signed by President Clinton. It doesnt matter now who was elected President whoever it was would have been forced to do the same thing as President Bush.
It's a damn shame Clinton didnt enforce his own policy's. Instead Clinton left it for the next President to handle like everything else he did.
Regardless, it IS the LAW of the land.
And we MUST support our Troops in every way possible and like it or not we MUST throw our support behind the President no matter how unpopular you on the left have made this war become to the American people.
This constant ramming down our throats that we must Retreat-In-Defeat just isnt going to work anymore.
President Bush said long ago: "There will be no signing of a treaty ceremony." There wont be some talks to go on in some foregin country, no agreement to be reached. This is going to be a long war.
There is only one option: We win, they lose!
Mrs Green
Marie is right, This constant ramming down our throats that we must Retreat-In-Defeat just isnt going to work anymore.
Also Marie we oughta hang all Liberals while we are at it.
Mr. Bush has said himself that he is running out of patience with the Iraqis, and that our support for Mr. Maliki's government is not "open-ended." This implies that if Maliki doesn't take responsibility for the security of his own country, he's on his own.
If he's on his own, then we're out of there.
So in essence, Mr. Bush is saying unless certain criteria are met by the Maliki government, we're leaving.
Leaving. Get it? Bush will leave Iraq. Do you ever listen to what your president says?
LEAVING. What would you call that?
Post a Comment
<< Home