During the SOTU Address, Nancy should applaud when * talks about sending more troops.

[hiaasenrocks]

Since she is not going to block funding for the troop escalation, she's in favor of the war. There's really no other practical way to look at this. She can do all the speeches she wants, but if she's paying for it, then the talk means nothing.

And what's really sad is that there are (alleged) anti-war people who are making excuses for this. Bullshit.

[boston bean]

1. There are no excuses, only reality. The funding is there

for this surge. There is nothing that congress can do to stop it at this point in time.

Why don't people give just a little more than two weeks, to try to figure a way out of a mess that took 6 years to make.

Jeebus Christ.

[hiaasenrocks]

2. If that were really the case, there would be no need for

Nancy or Harry Reid to announce that they wouldn't block funding for the escalation. (And it's an escalation, not "surge" - that's a Bushspin word.) Senators Leahy and Sanders have announced they are against funding the escalation. I believe Senator Biden has said as much. Maybe they'll have the guts to actually do something.

Don't fall for the crap excuse that "the funding is already there."

[boston bean]

3. The point is, is that's its only been two weeks, and yes you are right

it is an escalation, and the funding is there.

Nimblebrain decides on war strategy, not congress.

The only time they can stop the funding is when a new bill comes up.

There may be other things they can do, like resolutions and such, but I do not believe I am being naive, I am being realistic and not ready to bash someone who has only been speaker for two freakin weeks.

[hiaasenrocks]

4. Only two weeks?

That was enough time to pass other legislation. Why not the legislation in the link below, for example? Why won't Nancy endorse this if she's really against the war?

Excerpt:

The war in Iraq became a war of dueling legislation Wednesday on Capitol Hill, as two Bay Area lawmakers introduced a bill to choke off the war's funding even while Republicans introduced one to ensure that can't happen.

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, were joined by Out Of Iraq Caucus chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, to unveil their Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act, meant as an alternative to President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops.

Their bill — which has 13other original co-sponsors — would repeal the president's authorization to use force in Iraq and fully fund a six-month withdrawal of troops and military contractors, cutting off money after that.

Full story: http://origin.insidebayarea.com/ci_5036573

[boston bean]

5. Listen, you are preaching to the choir.

I want this war to end yesterday.

If that bill was brought up, it wouldn't pass at this time, so why try?

There are better ways to go about it.

[hiaasenrocks]

6. For instance?

[boston bean]

7. They need to hold hearings, subpeona, investigate

show the American people what a corrupt POS * is.

They already got em shakin in their boots in a very shot period of time.

Then the Dems won't be seen as the party weak on defense. Does anyone remember how we got into the place we are in today. Do they remember Viet Nam and the swiftboating. The American people are very forgetful and all the world's troubles will be be blamed on the DEMS, in essence Dems aren't strong enough.

And we can have another republican revolution and won't be able to do one god damned thing for the the next twenty years, except complain about the DEMS, which some are doing right now.

[hiaasenrocks]

8. I would submit that there is reason for

people to complain about the Democratic leadership. Two reasons, actually.

First, there seems to be little urgency on the #1 issue, Iraq.

Second, we're frustrated. Which leads me to another point I'd like to make. I know you and I agree on this essentially, and I do not mean to take out my frustration on you, personally. I apologize if some of my words came across that way.

[boston bean]

9. Absolutely, there is great frustration, but for me it is aimed

at * and his administration and neoconservatives.

They are the ones who got us in this mess and now we demand that dems get us out, which would be nice, but they are not the executive branch.

It is a very tight rope that dems must walk and I am willing at this point to give it a little time. That is not to say that I give them a free leash.

We do agree essentially and I am not offended in the least by any post made. You believe ardently that the war should end, we just have different ways of thinking on how how to get there.

But you never know, I might change my mind and be of your mind 100% in the not too distant future.

[frogcycle]

12. BECAUSE THE DUMB FUCK SUPPOSEDLY

researched it for the past couple of months, consulting with myriad 'experts' and what he came up with is 'more of the same'

I get sick and tired of people telling me I am being unreasonable when they take a unilateral inconsiderate position and i don't just eat their dogfood. For frigging 30 years I put up with smokers saying I was unreasonable for not wanting to breathe their smoke in closed spaces. Finally after much pressure, they came up with a plan - a "new way forward" that provided a couple of rows at the front of the smoke-filled airplane that were "nonsmoking". So then I was supposed to shut up and take it because they had supposedly "compromised". Bull fucking shit.

[frogcycle]

13. that said...

i am not arguing against pelosi's position - just against the "why can't people give it time..." comment

we have every right to rail against this bs unilateralism and ill-advised escalation. but trying to earmark funding within the war funding is not the solution.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. And maybe while she's applauding...

...you can torch a copy of the constitution, which you obviously haven't read.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. LOL. Am I on a certain radio talk show now?

The coincidence is just too much. ;)

But, as you know, there's no Consitutional objection to blocking or cutting funds.

[lonestarnot]

14. Oh so you would starve and cut ammo to troops?

There is a way out of the box other than this, but it is not going to fucking happen overnight!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Yes, but there's this little thing called the Presidency...

...which, in the Constitution, is granted the power to sign or veto legislation passesd by Congress. If it were even possible for Congress to take back money they've already given Bush, such legislation would obviously be vetoed. By Bush. And there won't be enough support in Congress to override the veto, because any such legislation would not have the support of moderate Republicans.

Just as there is no military solution to the war in Iraq itself, there is very few legislative soulutions to it in the United States, all of which come down to playing chicken with a man who has nothing left to lose.