Oh how the mighty have fallen. Nancy Pelosi, who vowed to voters that she and other prominent Democrats would end the war in Iraq, run the "most open and honest Congress in history", and get rid of the "culture of corruption" has basically thrown in the towel across the board.
But that's not the point of this story. The point is that Nancy Pelosi has the audacity to say that ONLY President Bush can end the war in Iraq.
Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.”
But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”
Wow.....just....wow. I guess she didn't read the job description when she took over as Speaker of the House. Congress has the "power of the purse" when it comes to war. They can cut off funds for the war in Iraq and they can override a Presidential veto. Whether or not she has the votes is another matter, but Nancy has the moral obligation to her constituents to at least TRY to end the war in Iraq.
I've never seen the wind taken out of a politicians sails so quickly before. Usually it happens right after they lose an election or after many years. But to be so "defeatist" after only 10 months in power really says something about her integrity and backbone. I would have respected her a lot more if she said "I disagree with what you are saying/doing and I'm going to fight for it because I promised it to my voters". At least you can respect an opponent a little bit when they stand up for their convictions, even if you disagree with them.
Even her fellow Democrats aren't buying her line of defeatist bullshit:
But Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson challenged Pelosi’s assertion just a little later Sunday.
He told ABC News’s “This Week” that Congress could “de-authorize” the war without Bush’s signature, using a resolution already introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)
He's exactly right. Congress could force Bush's hand in the war in Iraq, but the fact remains that we're making progress in Iraq and leaving now would have dire consequences that we'll see for years to come. Plus, Democrats really have earned their reputation for being the party of defeatist, anti-American, anti-military, spineless cowards. Nancy Pelosi's statements only reinforces that stereotype.
However, the statement is part of Pelosi’s campaign to educate voters on the complex political obstacles Democrats face on the Iraq issue and reduce the expectations that she says have left those voters disappointed with Congress.
So it's just "complex" rather than actually doing what you said you would during the 2006 campaign. Let's not forget that Nancy Pelosi was in the House of Representatives LONG before the 2006 election. I could half way understand if she was a political newbie and really thought all the things that she was promising would be easy to come by if she just worked hard for it.
However, she has been in Congress for over 20 years. She was elected House Minority Whip in 2001, and Speaker of the House in 2006. She knows damned good and well how Congress works. If you were at your job for over 20 years and you were promising things you knew couldn't or wouldn't happen, you'd be seen as incompetent or fired.
In her Fox News Sunday interview, Pelosi also said she prays for Bush “all the time.”
“And I pray especially hard that he would sign the children’s health bill because it’s so important for America’s children.”
But she added that while growing up in politics, she learned not to pray “for a political outcome.”
“We just pray that God’s will will be done. We pray for the children, we pray for poor people, we pray for people who need help,” she said. “And we always, always, always pray for our men and women in uniform who make our freedom to pray possible.”
God helps those who help themselves Nancy, so how about you get off your ass and actually DO something? Just a thought.
Travis
2 comments:
The DLC Democrats as much as many Republicans want to keep the occupation of Iraq going for as long as possible.
$190 BIllion is a lot of money for Congress to bring back to their districts.
We're back into a war time economy. The military industrial complex has greased Congress through and through. That's why the top 3 Democratic Presidential candidates can't even get the troops out of Iraq by 2013...if they made some sort of pledge to get out of Iraq immediately it would piss off their corporate donors to no end.
I certainly think we should be in Iraq until they get back on their feet, but not a minute more. I simply don't understand why Democrats won't commit to withdrawing our troops before the end of their Presidential term if they are elected.
Personally, if Iraq isn't on it's feet by the end of 2013, they've had enough time and we need to go home in my book. I am not for timelines, but I think 4 years is entirely too long for them to "get on their feet"
Post a Comment