Pelosi throws down the gauntlet

January 7, 2007

Just to follow up on the earlier post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), following up Friday’s strongly-worded letter, suggested on Face the Nation that she’s more than open to refusing funding for Bush’s troop escalation — if the president fails to offer a compelling justification for his plan.

Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. “But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Pelosi said. “This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.”

Nico posted the video clip and the transcript of the revelation portion, which is certainly worth watching. Pelosi didn’t appear to be bluffing

SCHIEFFER: Now, let me ask you, and make sure I understand exactly what you are saying because, up until now, Democrats have not been enthusiastic about using the ultimate weapon, and that is to cut off funding.

PELOSI: We won’t do that.

SCHIEFFER: But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there? Is that what you’re telling us?

PELOSI: I’m saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there. If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States…. The president wants to escalate a war where his generals are telling him that the additional troops will not be effective, that they’re easily digestible, to have this number of troops go into Baghdad, and then again, ignoring the strong message of the American people.

Just to clarify, Pelosi was making a distinction between cutting off funding for the war and withholding funds for an escalation.

It gets back to a point from last week. The Center for American Progress released a very interesting report recommending “an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) picked up on a similar approach during an interview with Arianna Huffington.

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.” He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible” look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.” […]

He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”

Stay tuned.

From yesterday’s LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-usiraq6jan06,1,6869055.story

The leading advocates of an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq warned President Bush on Friday that any buildup lasting less than 18 months was doomed to fail, and urged the White House to avoid compromises that would scale back the plan.

Bush faces growing unease about an extended buildup among some congressional Republicans, who are concerned that it could stretch into the 2008 election season and doom their reelection chances. About five to 10 such Republicans are in the Senate, according to GOP aides, and are expected to push for time limits or firm conditions in return for backing the increase.

“For any kind of a surge, they would have to show that the surge itself was limited,” said one senior Republican leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It would have to be six months or a year, tops.”

A strategy advocated by McCain and Keane, who has advised Bush on Iraq policy, calls for about 30,000 additional troops who would remain in Iraq from 18 months to two years. About 140,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq.

The proposal has heavily influenced administration thinking, and it has strong advocates within the Pentagon and White House, setting up tension between those advocating a broad troop buildup and those supporting a more limited increase.

“The worst of all worlds would be a short, small surge of U.S. forces,” McCain said at a forum on the final version of the plan, developed by Keane and Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. “This troop surge [must be] significant and sustained; otherwise, don’t do it.”

Advocates of the plan say a large, sustained increase is needed to hold and rebuild pacified Baghdad neighborhoods, where sectarian violence resurges once overstretched U.S. troops move on to other parts of the capital. A short-term or limited troop increase would allow insurgents and sectarian death squads to wait out the U.S. offensive, advocates argue.

But a more substantial buildup appears to be running into opposition from some within the president’s own party. The senior Republican leadership aide said that GOP skeptics in the Senate either opposed or had significant reservations about a troop increase.

“We have people on all sides of this. We’re all over the map,” the aide said.

Only three of those Republican skeptics have gone public — Sens. Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. All three represent states with a large Democratic electorate and are expected to seek reelection in 2008.

Some Republicans fear the buildup will be seen as an escalation of the current policy.

“Some are calling this ‘staying the course super-sized,’ ” said a senior staffer for a skeptical Republican moderate.

So Bravo! for Pelosi. Please stick to your guns, Madam Speaker.

It’s clear from this that we are NOT talking about a “surge” but an “escalation.” It is absolutely required that Congress cut Bush off at the billfold on this.

  • If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States.

    Ahhh. So nice to have responsible adults in charge. So nice to have people who say what the hell they mean in charge.

    From Tom Cleaver’s post:

    About five to 10 such Republicans are in the Senate, according to GOP aides, and are expected to push for time limits or firm conditions in return for backing the increase.

    And we know this won’t happen unless The Deciderator drops that “But it will encourage the enemy,” bullshit. In other words, we know it won’t happen.

    Not exactly OT: Gas masks are available at most army surplus type stores.

  • PELOSI: “If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States….”,

    …and in so doing, he will be having a conversation with the majority of American’s who are against this escalation.

    Pelosi states that Shruby will be, “ignoring the strong message of the American people”, a little later on but the connection must be made immediately every time.

    The election was a mandate. There is no draft or real sacrifice being demanded of the public that would generate visceral anger, (though it’s appearing anyway). There are no people in the street, yet. There is reluctance and confusion amongst the public about taking that step. And the hope is that such a step won’t be necessary. The congress is the democratically elected voice of the people, and as such, must tell Dear Loose Cannon that he and his escalation and his delusions of grandeur are his dreams and not those of the country.

    The prior Sunday Discussion post today has many acknowledgments that citizens are more aware and more concerned about having their voices heard. Whether Shruby admits to hearing it or not, congress must keep reinforcing that they are speaking for the people and must also keep reminding Shruby that the box of negative public opinion against him and his clenched teeth arrogance is growing higher and higher. He may have the power but he doesn’t have consent. He may not be utterly alone but he’s very isolated and he needs to know that.

    Shruby is a rogue president with a small group of sycophantic pushers and enablers along with an avaricious cabal of corporate pigs jostling for another, bigger suck at the American teat courtesy of ShrubCo. He has no justification for going against the desires of the American public. None.

  • “Some are calling this ’staying the course super-sized,’ ”

    Same old sh*t, only more of it. What a way to describe the McCain Doctrine.

    I hope Pelosi does what others recommended in the Discussion Group; that escalation must be tied to a source of funding, such as not renewing or rescinding tax breaks or future taxes. Don’t let W dismantle or pilfer from domestic programs, since he’s trying to kill them all anyway. There should be no further credit card spending on the war.

    TAIO -To update the 60’s, the revolution will be blogged.

  • What will the additional troops do? Is there another way of achieving the goal? What constitutes success? What is the time frame? How much will it cost? How will it be funded?

    Maybe Pelosi will drive him to drink. And if he is not sober, can he be removed from office?

  • Will Bush be able to tag Democrats as “stay the course” if they only provide for the troops that are there? There must also be a demand to decrease troop levels.

  • More funding for Iraq? The Bush new plan for Iraq is said to include a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in reconstruction projects, including painting schools and cleaning streets.

    Two Questions –
    What happened to the billions allocated earlier for reconstruction?

    When hiring program leaders, will the administration continue to place loyalty to Republicans and the overturning of Roe v. Wade above actual expertise?

    Homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

  • Make no mistake, the Iraq war is a disaster.

    A disaster from day one.

    The only question now, is how much will it cost?

    Those that lost a loved one, or a serviceman who lost a limb, already have their answer – the rest of us are still calculating

    The responsibility to declare war, is given to congress, and congress alone via the constitution from our founding fathers

    yet, this power was transfered to a known drunk driver, G Bush

    Who gave the keys of war, a change of policy to first strike, delegated to an extreme concentration of power to an unworthy ‘decider’ G Bush?

    Well, one of the co-sponsors of the Iraq war resolution, was none other than John Edwards – he of course, voted for it also

    Now, he tells us he admits it was a mistake

    Think about it – if YOU gave your keys to a drunk driver 10 years ago in north carolina, and many people got killed and injured, and you admitted you made a mistake

    would john edwards have advocated you get a big promotion?

    or would he have taken you to the cleaners?

  • AndyF

    Dude! You’ve got to shake this John Edwards thing. Everybody’s got baggage. We’re nowhere near crunch time. I don’t get the impression that John Edwards is on rails headed for the podium to accept the nomination.

    Did he run over your dog or what?

    Chill out. Your obsession lacks gravity.

  • CB – I hope you don’t mind, I’m going to find my stupidest comment ever, copy it, and just post it as a “new” comment to every one of your posts in honor of our friend AndyF.

    AndyF, dude, I’m all in favor of differing POV’s but, please, can you bring something new to the discourse?

  • WTF?

    Andy—did Edwards knock up your baby sister in a past lifetime or something? Did he burn down your house, or kill your dog when you were a little kid?

    Vilifying John, for whatever reason, does not change the problem that is George W. Bush. It does nothing to alter the horror that is George W. Bush. Your tunnel-vision-esque focus on John Edwards makes you look like you’re thirsting for revenge—so what is it that he did to hurt you so much, that you can’t focus on anything without turning the discussion to a Bash Edwards fest?

    Tell ya what. You hate the guy’s guts, and I think he’s good presidential timber. Starting today—right here, and right now—I’m going to “go out of my way” to get as many people as is humanly possible to support Edwards. Every time you decide that you need to turn a non-Edwards discussion towards your need for a spotlight, I’m going to try a little more. In the end, your need to feed is going to make you a very, very angsty individual…okay?

    In “returning to the topic-at-hand,” Bush has too many back doors to move money from point A to point B. I can see him shifting money from this base, that base, and a military program here-and-there, to get the money for his “McSurge.” Funds used to support bases in Japan, Korea, and Europe, for example, could easily be shifted to Iraq.

    Consider that he decides to redeploy a brigade, and its support component, from Italy to Iraq. The Congress may not have the ability to rescind funding for that brigade, on the grounds that it’s going to Iraq. Once THAT move is made, he deploys a reserve component—again, with all of its support infrastructure, to Italy. Will the Congress be able to justify “not funding” a peacetime deployment to a non-warzone?

    The point is—Bush can turn this whole mess into one gigantic shell-game. But I’ll agree that the first step to bringing down the beast, is to take away the money he needs for his next “fix….”

  • excuse me, but where in my post do i praise Bush?

    Edwards also co-sponsored the bill to raise H-1b visa to 195,000 per year – what a jerk!

    Because he sued so many doctors, malproactice premiums soared, and thus so did health care costs

    Then, read this 2 faced jerk’s rant about civil liberties

    EDWARDS: I want to get back, for just a minute, though, to this whole discussion about our liberties and about what we see happening in America today, because I think it is so fundamental.

    First, I want to say that this idea that the FBI is increasing surveillance of anti-war protesters, which Reverend Sharpton just made a reference to, is outrageous. What kind of McCarthyism is that?

    And on top of that — on top of that they have a policy that allows them to arrest an American citizen on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely. They never see a lawyer, never see a judge, never get a hearing. These things violate the very heart and soul of this country.

    These folks will change the fabric of America if we let them, and we have got to stand up and speak out.

    BROKAW: But, Senator Edwards, as I remember, your colleague Russ Feingold was the only senator who said just that when this bill was before your chamber. And you voted for the Patriot Act as a lawyer. You knew what was in it.

  • We are now stuck in a quagmire in Iraq from being led by an idiot with an IQ of 81 and administrators that were in similar offices during the Vietnam War and consequently should have known better. The cost of Bush’s War in Iraq financially already rivals the Vietnam War and that doesn’t even take into consideration the cost of long term care of the wounded and maimed from Bush’s War in Iraq. In lives, we have over 22,000 service members seriously injured and over 3,000 dead. Of course, this is if we were to leave immediately that would be the cost and the Dumbcider gives every indication he will attempt to increase troop levels in Iraq. By all appearances, the new Dem Congress will not be able to stop the Dumbcider from sending more troops in harm’s way and creating more Cindy Sheehans. I would urge the Congress to institute a permanent draft to reinvigorate our military forces and to spread the sacrifice the Dumbcider insists on inflicting on Americans across all levels of society. The guaranteed unpopularity of a draft might penetrate the thick skulls of Shrub’s few remaining supporters .

    Kissinger on the Charlie Rose show a while back related how he played Good Cop Bad Cop with Nixon while trying to negotiate with the North Vietnamese. Kissinger tried to convince the North Vietnamese that Nixon was nuts and would destroy North Vietnam, but that Kissinger by getting concessions from the North Vietnamese could use the concessions to pacify the unpredictable president. The bombing raids in North Vietnam were intended to reinforce the idea that Nixon was liable to do anything if not pacified.

    I would like to point out there are two differences. Though I am no fan of Kissinger, at least we were trying to negotiate with our enemies. Even if nothing came from it, it had to be tried. The other difference is that they were only pretending that the president was bat shit crazy.

    As a side note, we haven’t heard much from our Forgotten War in Afghanistan which we are trying to pass off onto NATO. The Taliban has promised more attacks than ever once Spring warms the mountains. Bush has got to go, we need leadership more than ever!

  • Truth be told, Andy, you’re a spammer. Why else post the same word-for-word comment on two successive threads? Besides, if increased visas and holding physicians accountable for their misactions gives you the willies, them one might credibly call into question your progressive/liberal underpinnings….

  • ‘ Besides, if increased visas and holding physicians accountable for their misactions gives you the willies, them one might credibly call into question your progressive/liberal underpinnings…. ‘

    how in the heck does increasing visas help the American worker?

  • Hey, Andy F, you interminable worthless asshole:

    John Edwards had nothing to do with malpractice insurance premiums going up, and neither did any other malpractice attorney. The insurance companies have raised their rates – using that lie as their excuse – because of the losses they suffered investing in the dot-com boom and the real estate bubble in the mid-90s. This has been thoroughly documented, if you had the brains to actually be able to read and comprehend what you read.

    Go back to spanking the monkey down there in mommy’s basement, you ignoranus (a person simultaneously capable of being a moron and an asshole, which describes you perfectly).

  • Balkinization suggests that Pelosi and Reid can do more than threaten to cut funding for escalation. They can do more than simply plead with Bush. They could also write legislation to prohibit the escalation and redeploy the troops. In fact, isn’t Feingold about to write another redeployment bill?

  • “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.”

    Or, of course, you can bring them back from the dead.

  • What Prlosi chooses not mto remember is that it was also the Democratic Congress that overwhelmingly and unconditionally gave him the money he said he needed to fight the war on terror. When Bush asked Congress for forty billion, Congress gave him 80.

    Paul Krugman talks about Iraq being “the quagmire of the vanities.” A must-read.

    • Comments are closed.