Pelosi won't cut funding for addtional troops in Iraq

[Roon]

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI TELLS ABC NEWS' DIANE SAWYER SHE WON'T BLOCK FUNDING FOR MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ
Breaking on http://abcnews.go.com/?CMP=EMC-1396

[ThomCat]

1. What the $%#@& Hell!

Why the !@%#$ not? x(

[leftchick]

2. I thought that was obvious

Dems can not look "weak on terra" or "not supporting the troops" or "weak on defense". Take your pick.

:puke:

[RiverStone]

20. What??? We are talking about...MORE. Nancy's not for more!

"MORE" escalation! "MORE" dollars! Say it ain't so Nancy....

I don't think the American public, who by at least a 2 to 1 margin are against escalation, would see the DEMS as not supporting the troops if we simply don't vote for MORE. Yes, we do need to support the existing force already deployed on the field of battle; but thats very different from not supporting MORE of this b.s.

I sure hope the MSM is messing with us or just stirring things up, because Nancy came into power on the MANDATE that we end this madness; there is NO in between and many of us will go ballistic if she starts to wimp out.

[dos pelos]

42. The people voted AGAINST this war.....but the people don't matter

You don't like it?So what?It's going to happen anyway.Big business wants this war.Wants that oil.The Republicans and the Democrats represent the interests of big business.You are just some jerk that has to be manipulated long enough to vote,and as you can see,it doesn't really matter who you vote for,because,neither Democrat or Republican will intervene to stop this war.Your part is to send your blood and your taxes along for the cause.What do you want? Who cares....this system does not respond to the people anymore.It is broken.It represents,in all of its manifestations,the interests of a business/financial/industrial/military elite.Ms Pelosi represents this elite.Ms Clinton,Mr Lieberman represent it as well.Does it feel alienating to hear Ms Pelosi say she won't cut funding?Well it is consciousness-raising.You ARE alienated from these people.This government,this party does NOT represent your interests.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Did any winning candidates campaign on cutting funds to end the war?

:shrug:

[Roon]

4. They are avoiding the "we lost iraq because of the dems"

trap.

[ThomCat]

6. But they're falling into

the "Bankrupt the country so there's no money for any social programs" trap. They need to stop shoveling money into that war.
x(

[Zhade]

11. As well as the "continue to support an illegal war" trap.

I am BEYOND PISSED.

If the Dems don't stop the war, I'm done with them.

[Guaranteed]

14. Not to mention the "Dems didn't do anything for years so they can't complain"

trap.

[bearfan454]

25. They can get rid of Social Security by bankrupting it with this f#cking war. nt

[phantom power]

7. I hope that's not true. Because...

it would be awfully cynical to allow Bush to send more soldiers over there to die for a useless war, just so some Congress members can "avoid a trap."

[Iwasthere]

8. If things completely unravel in the next days or weeks for * all will be okay.

I have a feeling it's all coming down around them VERY SOON!

[Irreverend IX]

52. Exactly.

The right way to do this is to cap the number of troops that can be sent to Iraq, then ratchet the number down, then pull them all out, send Maliki some guns, and wash our hands of the nightmare. Cutting funds is political poison.

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. There's no actual information

I'll wait until I see an actual article or broadcast to find out what this is about.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Here is the text:

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2805714

[Iwasthere]

5. It's okay..

I suspect she just wants to let him cut his own throat. I think * wanted her to work on cutting funding. Now he is left hanging as Iraq unravels. Just a few minutes ago it went out that the Iraqi gov want guns only, THE TROOPS CAN GO!!!!

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. I Agree

If Dems can't learn from history and how they are blamed for losing Vietnam by cutting off funding, then they don't deserve to be in power. Let the cons and those that vote for them choke on the war. We're done holding their hands for them.

[Amonester]

19. Ok! Who's willing to guess how many more troops and innocent

Iraqis will die needlessly because the Dems prefer not to be blamed by the crooks who sent them there so they can continue to loot the treasury endlessly?

[paulk]

21. cutting off the funding is not going to stop the "surge"

Bush already has the money for that, it was appropriated by the last Congress.

You can try, but you can't blame this on the Democrats.

[rodeodance]

38. here are her words--and you can watch the interview here

......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?

Watch the full interview Friday, Jan. 19 on "Good Morning America" from 7 to 9 a.m.

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.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. Guess How Many MORE Troops And Innocent Civilians Will Still Be Killed

because Americans believed that pantywaist liberals cost them an achievable victory, so they back another ill-concieved imperialist adventure in order to prove history wrong?

[Vidar]

9. Thank you, Ms. Lieberman.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. So why

did we vote for the Democrats? They can have all the nonbinding resolutions and hearigns they want...if they are going to keep sleeping with big business we don't need them! i AM SO ANGRY WITH THE dEM PARTY i DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF...I HAVE BEEN DISGUSTED WITH THEM FOR THE LAST 6 YRS. I DIDN'T EVEN RENEW MY MEMBERSHIP LAST YEAR. I no longer consider myself a Democrat. I think the corporations have two parties..the GOP and the DNC. What a democracy.x( :evilfrown: :mad: :puke: :argh: :spank: :grr: :nuke: :banghead: :rant:

[derby378]

28. I'm still a Democrat - and I intend to stay that way

If my fellow Dems start jumping ship, they will have forgotten the lesson learned from 2006. If you want change, you have to be the change rather than wait for someone else to serve it up.

We should all continue to press upon Congress to deliver on what we, the people, demand.

[Vidar]

35. I entirely agree. I'm damned sick of the corporations winning & the peoples losing.

There are a few worthwhile democrats but most are whoring to the same masters as the republicans.

[dos pelos]

40. Both Dems and Republicans are big business parties

Unfortunately this explains Ms Pelosi.The elite,the business elite of this country wants control of Iraqi/Iranian oil.Both Dems and Republicans are committed to this.The Dems have an awkward time pretending to be a party of the people,trying to maintain their pretension/hypocrisy,while the republicans are forthrightly fascistic.Both serve the interests of the same master.Note,both Reps and Dems voted for the Bankruptcy Bill...bought and paid for by MBNA.Both Reps and Dems voted for the Military Tribunals Act,allowing the erosion of the Bill Of Rights.It is increasingly obvious that there is a need for a third party to represent the will of the people as both Dems and Reps pursue the policies and interests of big business and ignore the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Way to go making sexist remarks about the first female Speaker

[against all enemies]

13. How many "Democrats cut funding and made our soldiers less safe

during war" ads do you want to see? Let's face it, the Republicans will say it and the media will report it and there are a number of dumbass voters out there that will believe it. There must be a better way to stop Bush than handing the Republicans a club to use on Democrats.

[Matilda]

16. That's how I see it, from a distance.

They're not going to succeed, but by cutting funding, the Democrats would give Bush a stick to beat
them with.

All they can do is keep saying the US must get out of Iraq - loudly and clearly.

[LostinVA]

18. Bingo

[Amonester]

15. So, the 70 percent (according to polls) who are against sending

(thus, borrowing more billions to pay back later plus interests) should vote for who next time?

:mad:

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Which percentage are in favor of cutting off funding?

:shrug:

[MGD]

22. I still have love for you Nanci. nt

[superconnected]

23. bought that quickly...

[RiverStone]

24. Just saw a bit of Nancy's ABC...

Interview (PST).

She said she would not cut funding for troops that "are in harm's way" - so maybe it's not as bad as the headline?

[dos pelos]

41. Its called "Being betrayed by your Democratic Leadership"...

And thats exactly what is happening.The people voted Democratic because that seemed the only way to express disapproval of the course the country is on.It was the only alternative available.It will do no good because,just like the Republicans,the Dems represent the interests of big business/finance that want this war.These people,these CORPORATE DEMOCRATS,serve the interests of big business.Lieberman,Clinton,Pelosi are of the same ilk.They do not,they will not serve the interests of the people,they do not respond to or respect the will of the people.Maybe Obama...maybe Obama...

[timtom]

44. I don't mean to be rude, but

BS! There is only one solution. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW! That's the best possible solution for those "in harm's way."

Of course, those with deep interests other than the safety of our troops or the general welfare of our nation, will resist bringing them home for whatever pitiful little pretext they can muster.

That's a pretty simple benchmark.

<edited for a stupid typing mistake>

[Bryn]

26. I won't be jumping to conclusions

I am going to wait and see. I believe Nancy knows exactly what she is doing.





edited to correct my crappy grammar. I hope my English teacher isn't reading this. :P

[still_one]

27. THAT ISN'T WHAT SHE SAID

she said "Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way."

That is not the same thing as supporting the escalation

What the Democrats WILL DO is investigate, find wrong doing, and impeach

DO NOT TRUST ABC, the network that brought you the mini-series "9/11 was caused by Bill Clinton", and there promotion of KSFO, the racist, hard right station in San Francisco

[derby378]

29. Nancy Pelosi has already said "Impeachment is off the table"

We cannot get complacent with her. Ever. If she turns her back on her fellow Democrats, we must make her answer for her deeds.

She can start winning us back by putting impeachment back on the table.

[pat_k]

36. Cutting funds WILL NOT stop Bush. Only Impeachment WILL stop him. Put it on the table, NOW.

If she doesn't muster the courage to utter the word impeachment by President's Day (Feb 19th), it will be time to take out the big guns.

A big gun like the threat of a primary challenger with clout and dough.

Someone demanding impeachment NOW.

Someone with MONEY.

Shouldn't be too hard to find in affluent SF.

Sean Penn is in Marin. Perhaps he's ready for a change of scene? Would just need to find a place across the bridge to be in Pelosi's district. Heck, he may already have one.

Ed Asner's got connections (wife's nephew is the Mayor of SF). Or maybe Viggo Mortensen(1) would like to move up from LA.

And then there are the Silicon Valley folks.

So many possibilities.

In a district that passed Proposition J (impeach Bush and Cheney) by 60%, Pelosi's refusal to fight for impeachment is a VERY risky game. We need to make it clear just how risky.

----------------
(1) November 2005 Interview
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv1105

Mortensen: It’s too easy, and it lets a lot of people off the hook. I think impeachment proceedings need to be started immediately but not just against him. God forbid we should have Dick Cheney as President. No. Those two need to go, and many of the others in the inner circle need to go.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. They didn't say that she supports the escalation

They said that she said they would not vote to cut off funding while troops are in harm's way.

[ShortnFiery]

33. She has to be careful since the Corporate M$M can spin any damn

thing a Democratic Representative says into the stratosphere of the absurd.

All that matters in our media is PROFIT for Corporations. Remember, many of those corporations are getting fat off the Military Industrial Complex teat.

If it's not spinning B.S. (remember Kerry's innocent remark) it's distraction with deers and hyper-obsession with a kid's psyche after a four year abduction. :wtf:

It's criminal but reality. Therefore, I don't blame Ms. Pelosi for her measured response. The damn right wing republicans can "go nuts" and literally talk in tongues, but democrats must seemingly act like "abused spouses" when providing statements to the Corporate Noise Machine.

[RiverStone]

39. You're right! See post # 24

I jumped to false conclusions initially too.

- Relax - I say to myself. Trust Nancy will walk her talk.

[unkachuck]

32. haven't the November....

....elections strengthened the Dems backbone yet? How long must we wait?....

....How long will it take to get some real war-opposition going instead of the feel-good, cover-your-ass speeches I've been hearing lately designed only to blow smoke up the lefts' ass?....

....Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, where it really counts, you're beginning to suck....

[ShortnFiery]

34. They're not afraid of the republicans, our illustrious

Democratic Representatives are scared to death of the Big Bad Corporate News Machine!

Of the Corporations
By the Corporations &
For the Corporations.

Yes, they need a spine but they are literally cowering in the corner, lest that "any little ole thing they say" may be TWISTED and bantered ad nauseaum by the Corporate News Conglomerate Echo Chamber.

Sure, our Democratic representatives have a right to be afraid but they don't have a right to lose their nerve. They serve the people, NOT the Corporate M$M. :(

[pat_k]

37. Fear of smear is Unacceptable. They took the same oath members of the Armed Services take. . .

We expect the men and women of the Armed Services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Why should we expect less of Members of Congress? Why should they expect less of themselves?

Cutting funds won't stop Bush. Only Impeachment will stop him.

It's time.

Get on the impeachment bus Pelosi. If you fail the nation, be prepared for the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2694527&mesg_id=2694938">primary fight of your life.

[Skittles]

45. she was between a rock and a hard place

very difficult decision....those troops are going no matter what and Democrats do support the troops....I just hope she goes gangbusters on hearings and accountability

[Javaman]

49. What upsets me is the troops will never see most of that money.

so all this hand wringing that our elected officials do, is all for the TV.

Don't get me wrong, I simply love what Pelosi is doing, but the reality is, the money was already spent and trying to hold it back would have been impossible.

The issue at hand now is; how does one explain to the nation how our cart blanche system of government based on a a fiat economy is going to survive the next round of "funding". There is the rub.

[Towelie]

50. Good

Bush doesn't give a shit about our military. He would send in troops even with no funding if it serves his interests. Bush is going to send the extra troops in regardless, and we are not going to be pulling out of Iraq while Bush is occupying the WH. The worst thing we can do is cut funding to our troops who are caught up in the middle of this god-awful shitty mess.

[bdamomma]

51. KICK, what do you expect from ABC lying propaganda media

WHAT A MINUTE that is not what I heard, Pelosi did not say that. Since when is everyone believing our media.
I'll try to find an article stating she did not say this.