Malloy just said tha Pelosi will announce tomorrow the Dems will support the escalation

[Doctor_J]

Yup. Looks like having a Dem conress has amounted to nothing. No impeachment, no reduction in the Iraq slaughterhouse, no budget trimming.

Tell me again what we gained in November?

[JohnLocke]

1. Malloy's full of shit (nt).

[Pirate Smile]

24. I agree.

[derby378]

2. Hang on, hang on - let's wait until she actually DOES what Malloy says

If the Democratic-controlled House supports the surge, then Nancy Pelosi may be finished as far as her credibility is concerned.

But come a little closer, I wanna show you something...

IF.

And yes, it's a very big "If."

[burythehatchet]

3. Ethics legislation

Minimum wage increase
Lower student loan interest rates
Halliburton investigations
Global warming committee
Refund of oil company tax breaks
...and on and on

[Cascadian]

34. All are great but....

let's do something to stop the surge to Iraq, okay? It is just as crucial and critical as all those issues you mentioned.


John

[cadmium]

4. How does he know this? I hope he is wrong. If

he is talking out of his hat----this is a lousy thing to say without evidence. I sure hope they don't and if Mike is saying this without evidence it is disgusting.

[rodeodance]

11. what??????? WHY would Pelosi say this????

[generaldemocrat]

5. Rrrrrriiight.....

And Iran will restore relations with Israel in 24 hours.

[tridim]

6. Mike is being a drama queen tonight.

[Doctor_J]

8. Sounded pretty accurate

He said she'll appear with Diane "I worked for Nixon" Sawyer tomorrow AM to announce "The Dems will never deny funding to troops that are in harms way", and includes the soldiers that are part of the escalation. Sounded like he knows what he speaks of.

[tridim]

12. What was she supposed to say?

"If Bush sends in more troops against their (and our) will, we will cut off their funding. No rations, no armor, no weapons. Nothing."? She'd get destroyed for saying that.

[Doctor_J]

16. So you're in agreement that there is nothing Congress can do to

stop Smirk from sending as many more troops as he wants to Iraq?

[tridim]

19. I honestly don't know, but I sure hope they can stop it.

From what I've read * is already shipping more bodies over there. Should Pelosi cut their funding?

I'm for immediate withdrawal BTW, no waiting. Followed promptly by war crimes trails.

[fuzzyball]

29. US Constitution allows only 1 commander-in-chief at a time

and that is the president. Congress has no authority
whatsoever to micro-manage the military. The only
contitutional function the congress has is to appropriate
funding for the military.

Therefore Mike Malloy is exactly correct. Unless Palosi and
others do not cut funding for the surge, they are in essence
going along with it.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

22. She could say we'll fund our soldiers safe return.

She should say that Bush's actions of sending troops, even though he was warned there'll be no funding, boils down to Bush turning our soilders into hostages, and he's asking a kings ransom.

She should also bring to light that Bush tied funding the troops with rebuilding Iraq. I'm no legal expert, but isn't that extortion? (Pay more money to Cheney's favorite construction firm or our soilders die)

I thought we were going to have the guts to cut the funds!!

Dems should take some of their campaign funds (I hear Hillary has loads) and put it towards a media-blitz. We have to get the word out that Vietnam didn't end until Americans protested and Congress stopped the funding.

We also have to revisit what Kerry touched on during the '04 elections, but didn't follow through on....We have to let it be known that the money doesn't go to the troops.

Americans will believe what we're saying because they all know our soldiers had to armor their own vehicles and buy their own vests.

:mad:

[GenDem]

28. Not to mention the political ramifications

To cut off the troops would be committing political suicide for our side. It seems they have got us backed into a corner.

[Auntie Bush]

37. Not only would Nancy be destroyed...but ALL Democrats would too.

I can just hear the media blame all the killings and deaths on Dems.
We'd be out of office in a flash. Think about the repercussions! Don't say more soldiers will be killed (true) because far MORE will be killed if we don't supply them with the equipment they need. Besides...if the Dems are gone from office...and the Republican killers are back in... there will be even more killing and mayhem.

[ShortnFiery]

31. I wonder how many Democratic Legislators are invested in the war machine

profiting corporations?

Weapons' sales and wars are VERY good for American Businesses. How many of our Democratic Legislators have money tied up in these corporations? THAT would be very interesting to know. :grr:

[Gman]

7. What have we gained?

If you're that clueless, there are other boards.

[Doctor_J]

10. And how does a minimum wage increase stack up against letting

Smirk send another 20,000 troops to the meat grinder in Iraq?

[Gman]

23. How does abolishing the minimum wage

and privatizing social security sound on top of Iraq?

[Cascadian]

32. I am sick of these apologists who have to point out the small victories.

While raising the minimum wage is nice as is fighting crooked companies like Enron and such, why can't we win the crucial battles like stopping Monkey Boy from sending 20,000 people to certain death or maiming? The fact is the Democrats CAN stop Bush from doing this and the Democrats CAN start proceding for impeachment. Pelosi best better not blow her new-found power! I won't really react too much about this but if what Malloy says is true then I will have lost some respect for the Speaker and those Democrats who cave in the this so-called "surge" in Iraq!



John

[PVnRT]

35. "Small victories." Bullshit.

Tell the single mother working two minimum wage jobs that raising it is a "small victory." Tell all those people suffering from diseases that stem cells could one day eradicate that it is a "small victory."

I swear, people like you make me wonder why we bother with democracy, as you people are so completely ignorant as to how it works. What are the Democrats supposed to do? Completely cut off all funding? Yeah, that'd work real well. How many more soldiers would die?

Even if withdrawl is authorized tomorrow, the logistics and how the military works means that it will take 3-4 months to get done. Cut off funding now and what happens during those 3-4 months, hmmmmm? Are soldiers supposed to eat dirt? Push the tanks on to cargo planes? Maybe you can outline YOUR plan instead of just whining about the Democrats not consulting you daily about what legislative priorities should be.

[Cascadian]

39. Okay you got me on the "small victories" bit BUT.....

I will admit it was the wrong choice of words on my part however, I think in giving Bush money to finance the escalation (let's just call it for what it is. It's an ESCALATION not a SURGE!) you will give Bush more of an excuse to stay in Iraq and ultimately create a larger conflict that could involve Iran. I do not think anybody with a conscience should allow our Democratic lawmakers a free ride to cave in on this issue. This is a very very crucial issue and one that will affect mankind in one way or another. Let's save our troops, our country, and our world!


John

[Zodiak]

9. I do not see evidence of this

Clearly a number of Democratic Senators have declared their opposition to an escalation, as we saw on a DU thread today. I went through the Senate side of that, and there was only one supporter for the escalation....Leiberman. Two did not have an declared public position, and 3 others "leaned" towards opposing....the rest, even a great deal of the DLC and southern Dems were against this escalation. If the House looks anything like the Senate, Pelosi would only be a great fool to go against her caucus AND at least 70% of the American people.

Here is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3062833

[tabatha]

13. I read somewhere

that Murtha and Pelosi have thought of a clever way of denying funding without seeming to not support the troops. I think they have something up their sleeves that Malloy does not know about. I think Pelosi is smarter than many people give her credit.

[tridim]

17. I didn't read that, but it sounds right..

People forget that politics is still politics. She can NOT say she wont support the troops, no matter what. If she does, she'll be destroyed in the media and on the house floor.

[DaveinMD]

14. this isn't true

the Pelosi-Murtha plan it stop funding for sending new troops.

[rodeodance]

15. look in LBN----she supports the Resolution in the Senate

[still_one]

21. Absolutely, this is being distorted

What she said was "Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.", NOT that she supports the escalation

[Doctor_J]

18. Here's the link to the LBN thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2694527

[still_one]

20. First of all Malloy is getting that from Raw Story, and he is distorting it

Pelosi cuting off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way is a big difference to supporting the escalation, which has already been made very clear that MOST OF THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING PELOSI are against the escalation

Second, Raw Story is quoting ABC news, and I would NOT trust that source as much as fox

Even the headline from Raw story is a distortion. There is NO WAY to distinguish funding that supports the troops already there as opposed to those coming from Kuwait. It is NOT new funding as far as I know.

The best way for the Democrats to proceed is to investigate, find violations, and then IMPEACH THE BASTARDS

everything else will be a diversion

[johnnydrama]

25. sorry

There's nothing that can be done about funding for the next 6-9 months because it has alrady been funded.

[rhombus]

26. Malloy has a rep for twisting things

Pelosi is against cutting funds for the war. Malloy, as usual, goes off in a right-angle vent mode by twisting things around.

[Imagevision]

27. Malooy also stated the sky will be falling tomorrow at 11:20 est.

[fuzzyball]

30. Malloy is 100% correct................

because the only constitutional duty the congress has
is to fund whatever adventures the commander-in-chief
(POTUS) has ordered the military to undertake.

The US constitution has nothing in it to allow congress
to micro-manage the military operations. Therefore if
Pelosi and others in congress appropriate funding for the
"surge", it amounts to going along with the surge as a
practical matter.

[Cascadian]

33. It better not be true though I tend to believe Mike. n/t

[oasis]

36. So let's cut off funding for out troops in the field. That's a real winner for Dems.

:eyes:

[ClassWarrior]

38. Malloy is PLAIN WRONG this time.

And I don't say that very often.

Pelosi has announced today that the Dems won't attempt to end the escalation by cutting off funding. Why does this rule out ending the escalation (or the occupation, for that matter) through an assortment of other, possibly more fundamental, means?

:eyes:

NGU.