Pelosi Criticizes Bush on Iraq While Visiting Portland
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was in Portland Wednesday for a round table discussion on global warming, but she also had harsh words for the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
From the Oregonian:
Pelosi said she was "very disappointed in what we heard" from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, when they testified before Congress this week."What they presented was at least a 10-year plan for a strong U.S. presence in Iraq, almost a permanent presence and occupation," she said, adding, "I don't know what is worse, the no plan to go in or the no plan to get out.
"The question the American people have is, why should our troops be risking their lives when the government of Iraq is not willing to make the political change necessary to bring peace to that country," Pelosi said.
Pelosi discussed some legislation, but generally offered few specifics as to how congressional Democrats would oppose the war:
Pelosi said Democrats "are in the process of talking about what forms our legislation will take," but she added, "Know this, every chance we get, we will hold this administration accountable."The speaker did promote one bill passed by the House that would require the regular military to give troops at least as much time at home as they are deployed in Iraq. National Guard and reserve troops would get at least three times as long at home as their period of deployment. That measure is now in the Senate.
"If it becomes law, we would have to bring our troops home," Pelosi said. They have been overextended in Iraq, and that is why the administration cannot even live up to the Defense Department's own principles" for troop deployments.
Read the rest. What, if anything, should we take away from these comments?
Discuss.
|
Sept. 13, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 13, '07
John 11:35
Sep 13, '07
Pelosi is not being straight. She and the Democrats are complicit in prolonging the war. They have the constitutional power to end it right now if they wanted: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/13/3806/
Also, the Democrats, led by Rahm Emmanuel, are doing everything they can to stiff the anti-war grassroots: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml
This is why I only give money to individual candidates, NEVER to the Democratic Party. You simply can't trust the Democratic Party.
Sep 13, '07
What John H said! These dithering fools could end this war NOW. They could have Cheney and Bush behind bars NOW, but THEY HAVE AND DO NOT.
Sep 13, '07
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Pelosi makes herself irrelevant if she continues to hand maiden bills by the President and the Neo-Cons. I think the idea that one party in Congress using rules and strategies that the Republicans used for the better part of 35 years as a minority has become some how Un-American, or under-handed when used by a Democrat is an issue that died in the last election!
Get over it! The kind of legislating in opposition to this administration will endear Americans with the Democrats inspite of the corporate medias drumbeat to the contrary. When a message is delivered in direct contradiction to the reality by a media that failed us for the past decade, the emerging internet sources of news will be emboldened, and elevated in the publics eyes. A win win strategy!!
We need to re-focus on the strategy to end the war that will have a lasting effect, impeachment of Bush & Cheney!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
9:44 a.m.
Sep 13, '07
I'm not too happy with Pelosi either given the fact that the Democrats in Congress have done nothing to end the war. My guess is that they are happy sitting on their hands until the 2008 election and blaming the Republicans. I don't feel like that's what we should be doing. Furthermore, I think it hurts Democrats creditablity to take such inaction.
9:51 a.m.
Sep 13, '07
Oh boy! The withhold spending idea! Again!!
Because, of course, if Pelosi arranged not to fund money for the troops, Bush would be utterly reasonable. Why.. he wouldn't order them to stay in the desert with supplies and bullets running out!! He wouldn't play chicken with their lives. No! He's far, far, too rational! Intelligent! Moral! Honorable! to do anything like that.
Therefore, this war conceived entirely by George Bush, congressional Republicans, and their media sycophants, is all the Democrats fault!
And we should vote green!! To let another Republican win, just like what happened in 2000, because Al Gore wasn't sufficiently Democratic.
That's the point you're trying to make, John? Dan?
10:19 a.m.
Sep 13, '07
How to end the war and get our troops out (a simplistic suggestion filled with motivation to succeed): 1) Announce US forces will be completely gone in 18 months. 2) Announce we will leave immediately if the elected Iraqi Gov't does not show up to work 5 days a week, every week. No more monthlong breaks. 3) Announce all private US contractors leaving in six months, begin immediate transition to all-Iraqi workforce fixing roads, buildings, water & power plants, schools, etc. Pay Iraqis at 50% of what we pay Halliburton and other current contractors. After 24 months we pull the plug on those salaries, Iraq takes over. Any foreign worker who wants to stay in Iraq must apply with Iraqi immigration for a work permit. 4) Very nicely ask all neighboring nations to send in police and technical help to aid the locals. No religious or political influence allowed. Just help these people pull up their boots and get the country running. 5) Every single dollar is to be included the budget. Pay for everything with money raised by taxes. No more supplemental spending or borrowing from China or anywhere. Comes out of our salary, not the grandkids salary. OK, what's next on the agenda, I got answers for everything!
Sep 13, '07
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
That's the point you're trying to make, John? Dan? // Posted by: Steven Maurer | Sep 13, 2007 9:51:09 AM
Read the title. I find the idea that Bush would extend troop deployment without extended funding as possible, but not happening with the Republicans stil trying to hide from the policy, and a Democratic Majority that would embrace the opportunity to join Republicans to impeach with the '08 elections looming.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Sep 13, '07
Steve, as long as the Republicans ruled, it was their war. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they've become partners in crime. Got it?
Does it matter which party wins, when Democrats are more than happy to do Bush's bidding? As long as the war continues, nothing substantial will be accomplished on the domestic programs the Democrats are fond of touting. And their vote on wireless wiretapping shows that Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to protecting civil rights.
1:53 p.m.
Sep 13, '07
The question is what Pelosi's criticism about a 10-year possible commitment mean for her actions?
Best hope is that she & Reid see this as setting the situation up for them to push through bills with definite timelines, and to keep sending them back if Bush vetoes them.
If Bush won't concede to a timeline, it will be he who seems unreasonable. Whatever else we may disagree about, the 60-70% of the populace who want the war to end soon will see a timeline as reasonable.
We need to keep the heat on Pelosi & Reid to fight harder in actions as well as words.
Steve Maurer, assuming that you're right that just saying Dems are being complicit doesn't get us anywhere, what approach would you suggest to those of us who are disappointed about how to bring effective persuasion and pressure on the leadership?
2:26 p.m.
Sep 13, '07
I think that our Democratic representatives are trying as hard as they can to find a way to preserve the lives of as many American servicepeople as they can. But so long as the Republicans stick by their man - which, judging by the actual votes of slick liars like Gordon Smith, they are - there really is only a limited about of control that they have over the situation. Period.
I honestly don't believe that any "pressure" you put on Democrats makes a whit of a difference because they're already on our side. The only pressure that could conceivably work is applying leverage against Republicans. They're the ones filibustering every other bill in the Senate these days.
But even that isn't savory, because those GOP Senators won't change their position unless they think it will actually save their jobs. You can't get something from them for nothing.
Imagine this Faustian bargain - some group of anti-war voters telling Smith that if he changes his vote (not just his rhetoric every other Tuesday) they'll campaign for him. More "Democrats for Smith", to reward him for finally seeing basic logic, and voting to bring the troops home.
Interested? If you're not - if you think this is rewarding a Class A a--hole for all the damage he's done to the country - then you're just as "responsible" for being a "partner in crime" with Bush as Pelosi is.
So my fellow, more "moral than thou in a bad situation" Democrats, which side of that bargain would you be on?
Sep 13, '07
I'm completely unimpressed by Pelosi's harsh words. The Dems had harsh words about domestic spying, too, just before passing a new surveillance bill that gives President Bush even more power over our lives. Then Pelosi was out the next day saying how unsatisfied she was with the bill and how she would work to reverse it. At some point harsh words are just a cover for not taking a stand.
Sep 13, '07
Sorry Steve, Democrats don't need Republican votes. Pelosi controls what gets introduced in the House and if it's debated or not. Apparently you didn't read the Rall article I linked to, so I'll take the space here to provide the crux of it for you: "In June Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Extra! Magazine wrote: 'If the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn’t have to pass the bill over Bush’s veto–it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming.' [my note: Pelosi could even refuse to allow a vote on any bill that did not contain such a time line.]
Democratic leaders know that. And here’s how I know they know: days after taking control of Congress, on January 30, they invited five constitutional law experts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask them how they could end the war. Four out of five of the experts swore that the Democrats could stop the Iraq War just…like…that.
Today we’ve heard convincing testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop the war if it wants to,” said Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). Yet eight months later, there’s still no end in sight."
Fact is, Congressional Democrats can't protect their constitutional prerogatives or even protect themselves from being wiretapped by Bush. How can they possibly convince Americans that they can protect us against Al Qaeda? Who in his right mind would vote for such a bunch of hapless weaklings?
3:12 p.m.
Sep 13, '07
Sorry, John. That doesn't get the troops out. That only gets them killed more quickly, as Bush refuses to pull them out, and they run out of supplies.
Try again.
Sep 13, '07
Steven Maurer's approach strips Congress of all its constitutional power: since Shrub is a pychopath, there is no choice but to give him complete power over foreign policy and use of the military. That is no way to protect the troops. It rewards the president for acting irresponsible and appearing insane.
The way to protect the troops is to prevent this nation from becoming a predatory dictatorship. Afghanistan - Iraq - Iran - ?
10:35 a.m.
Sep 14, '07
No Tom, my approach "strips" Congress of the Commander in Chief power, which according to the Constitution they never have had.
And please don't attempt stupid slippery slope arguments here. If this was Bush and Bush alone, he'd be impeached by this point. But it's not. The President still enjoys 95% support among his own party in Congress, including Gordon Smith - who is trying to play a clever rhetorical double game while he supports him with his votes.
And Republicans in Congress still hold on to substantial power. When talking about votes on war, the Connecticut For Lieberman party puts the Senate Democratic caucus in the minority. With that lack of a working majority, we're not going to be doing anything to stop this war until Bush is out of office.
The only thing we can do is make these supporters of torture and American fascism pay at the ballot box. Which means, among other things, supporting their strongest opponents, not weakening and dividing the opposition.
Sep 14, '07
On one topic, and I'm not sure which one, I think someone said there are probably 15 Republican Senators who might be willing to back some sort of bipartisan Iraq plan if one could be found.
Of course, that would involve working together rather than each side playing partisan games.
I went to the US Senate site and found the names of 15 such Senators who either have been outspoken on the Iraq War, or are up for re-election, or both. Including Gordon, they are:
Alexander, Lamar- Coleman, Norm- Warner, John- Voinovich, George V.- Sununu, John E.- Specter, Arlen- Snowe, Olympia J.- Smith, Gordon H.- Sessions, Jeff- Roberts, Pat- McConnell, Mitch- Lugar, Richard G.- Enzi, Michael B.- Domenici, Pete V.- Collins, Susan M.-
Sep 14, '07
Oh good, Steve Maurer's approach removes any check on Bush. So the President can deploy Northcomm, the military's North American command based in Colorado, anytime Bush has a bad dream and decides it's time to declare martial law. Now exactly when will that next election be?
It's time for the Congressional Democrats to fight to defend their constitutional prerogatives. Failure to fight makes the Democrats totally irrelevant and risks neutering Congress permanently. The last thing we need is a "Show Congress," which is pretty much what we have now.
Sep 14, '07
"The question the American people have is, why should our troops be risking their lives when the government of Iraq is not willing to make the political change necessary to bring peace to that country," Pelosi said.
I think one guy that was willing just got blown up yesterday, right? Gee Nancy, walk a mile in their shoes. They speak up, they still can get wacked. Takes a little time to overcome that short 30 years of tyranny. But hey, JohnH is correct, the dems CAMPAIGNED and won seats on their anti war, defund stance. Now they the power and have totally wussed out. Too bad the dem constituents wont hold them accountable, I guess accountability only for repubs? Another 55,000 lost and we will have another Vietnam on our hands.....