What A Difference Being the Majority Makes
by Big Dog on Jan 10, 2007 at 14:21 Political
Nancy Pelosi and her band of thieves in the Congress had very different tones than they do no that they have been elected to the majority. Before I move on, let me correct Pelosi and all the other donks who believe that the past election was a referendum on the war. It was not, make no mistake about it. The number of seats gained by the minority is close to historical averages. In addition, the number gained was quite small in comparison. The same people who are telling you that these small numbers were a referendum or a mandate are the first to dismiss George Bush’s 2004 election and then tell us that there was no mandate because he did not win big enough.
Anyway, the Democrats have been out lying to one group or another to get elected and they accomplished that. They told the Iraqis that we would not leave there and told Americans that they would pull us out quickly. Funny how they never let us know about those secret meetings with the Iraqis. The Democrats are vowing to do a lot of things to keep us from winning the war just as they did during their hippie days during the Vietnam era. The President is set to announce a surge of troops to stabilize the hot spots and the Democrats are set to oppose that. They will have a symbolic vote to show they do not support the idea (Bush came up with it so it must be bad, but Pelosi had the same plan as we shall see) and they have indicated they might not vote for funding for the war.
I am sure there are ways around this. No budget is in place so the President might be able to sign continuing resolutions or be able to get money by executive order. I am unsure and it really does not matter. The President runs the military and the Congress is trying to take that over. They are trying to decide how to use the troops and usurp the President’s authority even though they complain that the President takes away from them. As far as I am concerned it should not matter. Paying the bills is on the Congress. The president can send the troops and incur debt, screw Congress if they do not want to pay it.
They should be careful what they do though. Not paying for our troops sends a clear message, one the troops have known all along and one that they will not be able to hide as a botched joke. Additionally, the Democrats can cut funding for the troops, they have the power of the purse but they do not have a veto proof majority and all the things they hope to accomplish in the first 100 hours can be undone with the stroke of the mighty veto pen. It would be a shame (not to me though) if they worked really hard to get the minimum wage elevated and the President vetoed it because they failed to pay for America’s war. That is right, it is America’s, not George Bush’s though it was given to us by Bill Clinton.
So how is it that Pelosi can say that we do not need a surge in troops? This is what she is saying but here is what she said on 30 May 2004 on NBC News’ Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let’s assume all that is wrong. In order to stabilize the situation, NATO has said they have no troops for Iraq, the French, the Germans and Russians saying no.
REP. PELOSI: We have to send…
MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
REP. PELOSI: Yes. And let me just say this, we have–we must, though, internationalize the situation. We cannot take no for an answer. We have to use our diplomacy to the fullest extent to get more international troops on the ground.
As Brian from Iowa’s Voice says, Pelosi was for more troops before she was against it.
Others:
Right on the Right
Tags: Political