Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Pelosi Tells Bush to Justify Any Iraq Escalation

By Bob Geiger, AlterNet. Posted January 7, 2007.


New Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear on Sunday that Democrats will likely withhold any funding for the escalation of the Iraq war that George W. Bush is expected to announce in the coming week.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on CBS's Face The Nation Sunday morning and she has made remarkably clear that Democrats will likely withhold any funding for the escalation of the Iraq war that George W. Bush is expected to announce in the coming week. Speaking forcefully, but carefully, Pelosi laid out a Democratic agenda that defines her parameters as in line with what the vast majority of Americans believe about what she called "a war without end."

"If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it," said Pelosi, speaking to host Bob Schieffer. "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. And we’ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected."

"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. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them."

That last part is a critical distinction for Pelosi to make because, as we all know, most Republicans will use any negative response to a troop surge to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops in Iraq. The House Speaker could not possibly have been more clear that she will never block funding for the troops already on active duty in Iraq, but that Bush, for the first time ever, will have to justify and get consensus from Congress on any escalation to the war.

Pelosi also made the point that she supports expanding the overall size of the U.S. military -- but to address how stretched the military is because of the Iraq war and the extent to which it's made us less safe for any other defense imperatives that may arise.

"Democrats do support increasing the size of the Army by 30,000, the Marines by 10,000 to make sure we’re able to protect the American people," said Pelosi, adding that it is important to protect all of our security interests "...wherever they may occur. That’s different, though, from adding troops to Iraq."

"The president wants to escalate a war where his generals are telling him that the additional troops will not be effective... and then again, ignoring the strong message of the American people."

More than anything, Pelosi's strong words underscore an ugly truth that the White House is now going to have to deal with: The days of Bush's absolute rule under a Republican Congress are over.

"We will always support the troops who are there," said Speaker Pelosi. "If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq escalation, pelosi, bush

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
bobvz@cox.net
Posted by: Robert Veasey on Jan 7, 2007 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has potentially more veto ability with some of the conservative Democrats that were elected - and the reality that the likes of the wussy-wishy-washy poll-sucking Moderate Republicans were turned out of office, like Lincoln Chafee. Good riddance to him and his so-called dynasty of a family.

But if Pelosi does manage to talk enough of a majority of Dem's into a veto proof number to shut off funding for the war - and to be the mechanism for early withdrwal from Iraq - not only will our troops be immediately endangered and put into "greater" harm's way trying to make an exit - there will most certainly be a bloodbath of Iraqi deaths numbering in the millions.

As an immediate result, the Islamic fascists will bring the fight to our shores in much greater numbers, emboldened by our cowardice, and America's word will once again be worth diddly squat all over the globe. Who would believe us ever again?

And the Conservative and Independent voters in this country will give back the Senate into Republican control - and elect another Republican to the White House in 2008.

Americans didn't vote for abandoning the cause of victory in Iraq last November. They voted for a change in tactic to win. America wants something for its sacrifice. And that something is not retreat - but victory. That was the message they sent in November.

So bring on Pelosi and her radical leftist agenda. The seed of Republican victory lies dormant awaiting your special brand of political fertilizer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: tiptopshape
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: tiptopshape
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: kingrat
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: gilliani
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
» Not an argument. Not facts. Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Democritus
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: MAD
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: bobvz@cox.net Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: predictions Posted by: ScottP
» RE: predictions Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: predictions Posted by: ScottP
» Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: Pelosi now see things "right"? Posted by: Conservasaurus
Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss...
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 7, 2007 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So she is 3rd in line for the Presidency? And she carefully says nothing about totally ENDING this war...or sending ALL our boys home.

This would be a way to have the first woman President-she would not have to be elected-AND get rid of Bush AND still have the war. Just a scaled down and 'better managed' war.

Sounds to me like the rich people who REALLY run things...are getting this all figured out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

proper
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 8, 2007 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proper agenda for Iraq is no surge or other escalation of death then the setting of a time table for USA withdrawal of all troups then actual withdrawal and gifting of US bases to Iraqis. If Nancy Pelosi cannot achieve these three goals then she is wasting her time and must focus on impeachment instead to facilitate the creation of decency and rationality in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Send the War Supporters
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 8, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney and any other supporter of our strategy would go over to Iraq, then we would win, whatever winning can be construed to be. So many supporters, so few volunteers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Direction in Iraq? Destination: USA
Posted by: bjerko on Jan 8, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a 180? When the American people "voted for change" they didn't mean to modify the policy, they meant reverse the policy! Forces trained in the use of violence are not going to magically reduce the violence in Iraq no matter how the president tries to justify it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best way to support troops who are there
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 8, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best way to support our troops who are now in Iraq is to get them out of there as quickly and safely as possible. Last October Congress appropriated $70 billion for Iraq. This is enough to do the job. Come on, Nancy, tell the president that if he doesn't listen to reason, there is always room to put impeachment back on the table.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it interesting
Posted by: mysticalrae on Jan 8, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the big show that Pelosi made during her swearing in of having her children and grandchildren around her.. . are any of her children serving in the military in this war? Or how about Mr Bush, he has two able bodied daughters, I don't see either of them in combat. That is a commentary on who is disposable in this war, and should be looked at and exposed by the media. If our policy-setters are remiss in making the appropriate 'sacrifices' that the constituents are forced into making . . . well, pretty self explanitory.
This war has brought a huge amount of death and suffering to those in this country and abroad. What will it take for people to start standing up and objecting to this shameful and disgusting behavior? We each have a responsiblity to make our views heard, instead of crying in our soup and hoping that people like Pelosi has a brain and is willing to use it. Write letters, make phone calls, start petitions, whatever it takes to make your voice heard, and enough with the politically expedient protocol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignore the right-wing trolls
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 8, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Vietnam veteran, I'm amused and appalled to see posts such as the first one above by Robert Veasey. The exact same crappy arguments were used to keep U.S. troops bogged down in Vietnam, taking heavy casualties, for years after it was apparent that we were accomplishing nothing there.

U.S. troops will not be endangered by an announcement of a U.S. pullout from Iraq or by their actual withdrawal. Insurgents would have no incentive to step up attacks after such an announcement; it would make more sense for them to stand down and consolidate their positions. And U.S. troops would beef up security as they withdrew.

The civil war in Iraq will continue after the U.S. withdrawal, but that can't be helped; it will continue in any case. The best way to protect U.S. troops -- and the innocent Iraqis -- is to remove ourselves from that conflict and allow it to resolve itself. When that happens, Al-Qeda and other Sunni terrorists will quickly be marginilized or ousted completely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ignore the right-wing trolls Posted by: Robert Veasey
» RE: Ignore the right-wing trolls Posted by: Conservasaurus
Why justification now?
Posted by: texshelters.com on Jan 8, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it 4 years, $300+ billion dolllars and 3000 lives (not counting the 100,000 Iraqi?) too late to suddenly ask for justification. Where were the Democrats when they gave Bush the go ahead for the war? Where was the call for evidence then?

Joe Tex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as Bush gives an excuse to let Dmas off the hoook he can escalate
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 8, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sounds like the Dems have their plan for the "06 election - here it is - "Don't blame us"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sheeple people
Posted by: jefhadist on Jan 8, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we going to continue to sit on our asses and watch this "permanent war economy," i.e., more troops for the military, more money for "national security," more mickey mouse threats to justify surge=escalation around the planet, ad infinitum.....or what? Is anybody else as sick and tired of these lame excuses to pillage the national and international treasuries as I am. What the hell do these Pelosi's and Lott's and oh-so-concerned politicians really believe? Perpetual wars for perpetual peace is not an option. We are bankrupt morally in the eyes of the world and playing "king of the hill/world cop" doesn't work any more. (It never did) There is a better way and everyone knows it but we are ADDICTED to war and the miltary mentality even has Pelosi and crew by the shorthairs. Come on people. We have a short window of opportunity here to actual push the proverbial envelope and try to build the "beloved" community to it's next phase. Do it for MLK. Do it for the seventh generation. Do it for yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH IS BEING CHALLENGED FOR THE FIRST TIME
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 8, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's peole are running for the hills. He is extremely vulnerable because he now stands alone. A six yr. mess can't be cleaned up in 2 wks. What's left of the administration is being dismantled. First things first. Get as many people out of the way as possible. Bush alone is useless. A scared little boy once again in trouble. His tactics are old and don't work. A strong resistance to a weak administration is not a terrible idea. It could work. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shifting gears
Posted by: Basenjis on Jan 8, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American people have been so used to being bludgeoned into submission by the heavy-handed techniques of the behind the scenes neocons that we don't recognize a new direction when it's being pointed out to us. After the confused and dazed performances of many of our congressional leaders in the past six years, Pelosi may take some getting used to. It should have been easy for all those smart Democrats to outwit the dimwitted Bushm but we have been dealing with, not bush himself, but Bush's brain, those nefarious schemers behind the throne. If Nancy must deal face to face with George bush, keep in mind that she is very experienced in dealing with children and give her some lee way in dealing with the overgrown spoiled child in the White house..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shifting gears----ooops! Posted by: Basenjis
Money Talks
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 8, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm, another equivocating lecture about Iraq. From the woman who voted for every single supplemental appropriation for the war over the past 3 years. It's her war now, since she's writing the checks. Give her a call and tell her staff that answers the phone what you think about her repeatedly pretending to oppose the war while actually supporting it by writing the check. When I called, it sounded like they were starting to get shell shocked. She thought she could play both sides of the game, but if enough of us call her it may finally sink in that we know what she's up to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's your alibi?
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jan 8, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of Americans will never admit, not even to themselves that we allowed the Bush regime to commit genocide. He lied to us, he fooled us, we’re not to blame for his crimes, what could any of us done, he’s the all powerful “decider,” nobody stands up to the Rabid Right.

That’s true, but all those excuses have passed their expiration date now. Now we know, and everything he does from this date forward is our shared responsibility. The whole world is watching us. What new excuses can we invent?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's your alibi? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: What's your alibi? Posted by: shangrilalad
Polesi to "W"
Posted by: pfm on Jan 8, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it is interesting that Speaker Polesi has requested that "W" justify his position on Iraq, the more meaninful test is what she and her Congress will do, when "W" surges ahead unrestrained. One can only hope the "new' congress has the "stones" to stand up to "W" and put him in his place once and for the benefit of the citizens of the USA as well as Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MADAME SPEAKER: RESCIND THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE!!!
Posted by: xbj on Jan 8, 2007 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any constitutional law experts out there? Can't Congress rescind the authorization to use force? Get a team of lawyers to determine that CONGRESS WAS LIED TO in the first place and that THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION WAS OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

Therby making it NULL AND VOID. LEGALLY.

This would effectively KILL not only THE SURGE, but ALSO KILL ANY NUKING OF IRAN WITHOUT CONGRESS GIVING FUTURE APPROVAL.

IF THIS CAN BE DONE, IT MUST BE DONE A.S.A.P.

Bush could NO LONGER sneak attack Iran (in a phony retaliation against a flase flag attack against American or Canadian interests carried out by Israel) IF THIS IS CARRIED OUT.

Not only that, it would stop the surge DEAD IN ITS TRACKS WITHOUT withdrawing funding or support for current troops.

It could also be seen as a first step toward impeachment and forcing the White House War Pigs to BRING HOME THE TROOPS.

FORGET ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time to go on the offensive and fight for hemp, solar, wind, etc ...
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Jan 8, 2007 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can push to elect politicians who will fight for these kinds of alternative renewables, more people will see that the Iraq war/occupation is all about oil. And they'll stand up to the crop of politicians that keep the wars for oil going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cindy Shiite Watch: Update from Camp Castro...
Posted by: cheneybush2008 on Jan 8, 2007 11:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This morning we awoke to fresh guava juice and unused douche bags for breakfast, so as not to break the chain in our nearly two weeks of amazing new odors. Hope we don't spook the farm swine again!

After the ceremonial opening burning of the American flag we sang the French national anthem, then took our first group nap of the day.

Following nap time, Cindy led us and the always sycophant UT press in a rousing game of 20 Questions, which nobody won since no one in the crowd could count past 15.

We resigned ourselves to the sweetest half-hour of Bush bashing so far, theorizing that he's also to blame for AIDS, leprosy, tooth decay, bad cement in The Big Dig, and extra extra flaming Congresswomen from the earthquake zone. Such a delight!

Before lunch we all watched FLESHY 911 for the 87th time, cried a group cry, then took a nap.

Our early afternoon was devoted to ignoring Abbie Hoffman's early suicide when he realized he'd been wrong about almost everything, which of course took it out of us - and so another well deserved nap.

Mid-afternoon was a visit to the Crawdad, Texas Apple Computer Shop, where we purchased dead tree parts (printer paper) and made some more ugly references to the twice legally elected President before hauling our petrol based machines back to the ditch in time for a pre-supper nap.

Dinner was a delicious blend of oats and hay donated by the brother of that guy that almost shot us last week. It was a tad dry, but in sympathy with the very dry elders of France in August, we jammed it down with glee and pretended we were still back home in Sausalito watching Oprah with a wine spritzer and stirrup pants, instead of dealing daily with chigger bites and Ted Kopple.

Early evening was truly a blessing, as someone with actual deodorant drove by about 7. We all inhaled deeply, and laughed the giddy laugh only those with 1 second left on the 15 minutes of fame clock know so well. Then we napped.

Our final session before bed time was another flag burning around the propane lit camp fire, watching our smelly Birkenstocks smoke & stink as we all joined in a rousing chorus of If I Had A Hammer, If I Had A Sickle by Petra, Yawn, and Hairy.

Yes, another complete day at Camp Crazy, the myopic spirit of the Berrigans and Tom Hayden urging us on to yet another day of ditchness, in our never ending quest to lose another war for the sake of Pell Grants, Medicaid, mayhem, and Social Security.

See you after our night nap!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]