Pelosi Says She Wasn't Consulted On Iraq

[bigtree]

Jan. 25, 2007

New House Speaker Wants Bush To Reach Out To Democrats

{snipped}

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

"He brought us in to tell us what he was going to say in a matter of hours," she said. "It wasn't a consultation — it was a notification. And a late-minute one at that."

But she added, "I don't see any signal that the president is ready to listen. Nonetheless I pray — and I use the word very, very specifically — pray that he will go to another place on Iraq."

Describing the president's plan as "add Americans," the speaker said: "Whatever it is, if he's going to go ahead with it, I hope it succeeds, of course. This is the third time."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/politics/main2397489.shtml



The Non-Binding Iraq Resolution Is Not The End Of Our Opposition
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=36781&mesg_id=36781

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[fooj]

1. Okay. Pray. But DO something!

[bigtree]

13. why won't her critics acknowledge the political hurdles?

she isn't in any position to dictate anything. Her ultimate authority lies in her ability to forge coalitions with republicans to overcome a certain presidential veto.

If she got all of her House Democrats together and passed the toughest resolution imaginable, it would still be made moot by Bush's veto. It's effect would be of no consequence to Bush.

I think that even if we are contemplating impeachment, we still need some scorned republicans on board. That's why an early effort to craft a bipartisan rebuke to Bush on Iraq and other issues is important. I just don't see the value in confrontation for confrontation sake. Any compromise which leads Bush to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq has value.

Watch the progress of Feingold's well-intentioned, confrontational approach. Where wil it lead? How will he forge a successful legislative path for his initiative?

I don't think we sent these folks there just to craft protest legislation. That will be the effect of bills which are crafted in a way that they face a certain veto; No effect at all. I can't see throwing out the prospect of bipartisan movement on Iraq without first trying to build some bridges and see where they lead. The alternative promises a long, possibly indefinite period of WH obstinacy and digging in.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Congress has to approve next year's military budget

They money is already there for the troop surge and to continue operations in Iraq for the time being. However, Congress still has to appropriate the money for 2008. She doesn't need a single Republican vote to discontinue funding for Iraq starting in 2008. She simply need the Democrats to refuse to put the funding for it in the committees. The Republicans have zero legislative writing power since the Democrats control all of the committees.

This could be used as a bargaining chip for the troop surge. Tell Bush that if he escalates, we'll cut off all funding, forcing him to bring the troops home.

[bigtree]

19. Unfortunately, that reasoning doen't account for the essentials necessary to maintain the forces

even in a withdrawal -which will have to be staged. Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said that they are looking for a way to separate those essential functions from the ones which would continue and escalate the Iraq occupation. I won't accept that that is an easy task which doesn't require great care and caution.

Outside of the political impossibility of our 51 (50) votes overcoming a certain presidential veto or a republican filibuster, there's the political minefield that neither liberals or moderates, or anyone else figured out how to overcome in the last presidential election. By simply repeating over and over that Kerry somehow denied our military some outdated, unpopular weapons that even Cheney voted to kill, Kerry was still hung out there with the charge. Imagine the dual mantra coming from the republican opposition that the Democrats not only took resources away from troops in the field, but in doing so, they also cause Iraq to "fail." We, of course, know the truth, but it's not a frivolous consideration for our Democratic leaders to take care when fiddling with money that's intended for troops on the battlefield and in harm's way.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. But that's based on the assumption that elections are more imporant than human lives

And not only do I believe that assumption is arrogant, I think it is destroying the party.

You can justify it by listing all of the things that another four years of Republican rule will do to the country and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I don't believe it. I think that if the Democrats are going to ever bring real change to this country, we need to change the public perception that we will do anything to win an election. It's not cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's doing the right thing even when the right thing isn't easy.

Not only that, but I firmly believe that the Republican Party is in complete shambles right now and isn't capable of portraying us as not supporting the troops if we cut off the funding. In 2004, the GOP was much better off and still riding on the 9/11 high. Bush's approval ratings are in the 20's now and if the 2004 election were held today, Kerry would probably be President even with his botched joke and certainly before his botched joke.

It's not Nancy Pelosi's job to make sure we win the next election. It's her job to use her power as Speaker to do the right thing. It's the DNC's job to justify that decision to the American people so that we do win the next election.

[bigtree]

29. I don't see how someone could have lived through the last terms of Bush

and not view the elections as a critical element in achieving these ideals that we care so much about. These lives lost are a direct result of our failure in the last election. We can't separate politics from government. It is a political system governed by our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the law.

That said, I don't think the next election is Pelosi's main concern. She won't get far right NOW with a broad troop de-funding scheme. The numbers won't allow her to overcome a unified republican opposition by filibuster or by presidential veto.

The naked politics of withholding funds from troops in the field could backfire NOW and stifle our party's influence in the public debate which we need to force Bush's hand. I don't think we can afford to be strident too far beyond what is politically possible. That's just prudent. Protest votes don't amount to diddly.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Part of it is I believe that the worst has already come, part that we overdramatize elections

Don't get me wrong, I think that elections are huge and if I didn't I wouldn't vote. But in 2004 everyone was saying that if Bush was re-elected he'd bring back the draft and launch a full-scale war with Iran and Syria. None of that actually happened.

I'm convinced that America doesn't have a short enough attention span that the next President could convince us to invade Iran. I don't see any scenario in which we will be in a war during the next administration unless we haven't pulled out of Iraq. And I think that we can survive another Republican president as long as we're not at war.

[bigtree]

47. I don't think the lives lost and maimed, and the lives disrupted are worth it

A republican president "not at war?" I don't put anything past republicans. Which candidate that's announced do you think would not pursue the neocon agenda abroad behind the sacrifices of our soldiers?

Nancy Pelosi is smart to remain mindful of the political considerations of her actions. Did you see the AP article just out which claims that the Warner alternative could get more support than the Democratic resolution which passed committee? I think that's bullshit, but it underscores the pivotal role republican obstructionists and Bush enablers can still play to effect the legislative process and gain advantage for thei president because of a failure to forge effective coalitions.

Too much of this process is simplified in our debates into unworkable reasoning. And there's too much rhetoric and venom thrown at our own warriors; some folks find them easy targets when the opposition seems out of reach.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Okay, I'm going to try and explain this again

The military isn't automatically funded. Congress has to pass a bill every year that funds the military. The Democrats get to write the bill that funds the military next year because they control the committees. The Democrats can write a military funding bill that includes no funding for Iraq except perhaps specifically for getting our troops out.

Yes, the GOP can filibuster the military budget bill and yes Bush can veto it. While they are filibustering and or vetoing, there is no provision that automatically funds the military. If Bush vetoes or the GOP filibusters then the military will have no money to operate. Do you really think that the GOP will sit there and let the military go without funding until we agree to pass a bipartisan bill that funds Iraq?

The only thing that is preventing us from doing this is political.

[bigtree]

49. I think the political realities of that happening are slim, but maybe . . .

I heard Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Murtha, and others say they are looking at ways to separate the continuing and escalating ambitions of Bush from the essential ones. I'm looking forward to them resolving that, but it's a minefield. It remains to be seen if there will be an effective counter to the certain attack on our party for 'abandoning the troops' and 'losing Iraq'. I hope so, but they are taking prudent care not to step too deeply in it and destroy whatever political leverage they now enjoy.

[fooj]

20. I wasn't criticizing Pelosi.

[bigtree]

22. good. she's working hard and deserves our support.

[fooj]

24. And she gets it...

Perhaps you should read more of my posts re: Pelosi. I'm HARDLY a critic. Jeez.......

:eyes:

[bigtree]

27. well, why so cryptic? What did you mean by, "Pray. But DO something?"

She IS doing something. That's what I was responding to. Where did I misunderstand you?

[speedoo]

2. Praying for The Coward to change his mind is useless.

Nancy should know that.

Removal from office is the only way.

[derby378]

4. BINGO!

There are people that make things happen, people that let things happen, and people who just say, "What happened?"

[ClassWarrior]

8. Of course. But her choice of words is masterful.

NGU.

[bdamomma]

3. this man must be stopped, he is not listening to anyone

REPEAT TO ANYONE, he is very defiant, and just does not care.

this line is the defining moment of his insanity.

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

[Wizard777]

5. Why didn't the Moron tell them that the FIRST TIME!

What the hell did he tell them the other times? Just go over there and daudle around. We need to keep that money rolling into Halliburton Accounts by the billions.

[gratuitous]

6. I don't t'ink that word means what you t'ink it means

I'm more than a bit puzzled myself. The Republicans are in full yammer, whining about how totally not bipartisan the Democrats are, with their holding hearings, taking the big offices, setting the agendas, chairing the meetings and writing rules and stuff in Congress. And yet not a peep out of them when Bush declares unilaterally that he's going to send more troops into Iraq, and Cheney snarls that "they" won't stop "us" from sending more troops, despite what the polls say, what the generals say, what Congress says or what the people said loud and clear on November 7 last.

"Bipartisan" in Republican-think apparently means that the Democrats are free to sit down and shut up and nod passively while Bush does whatever he wants to do. Any dissent or contradictory opinions are not met with "Well, let's talk about that," but instead are met with hysterical accusations of treason from Joe Lieberman and corrosive little squirts of bile from Dick Cheney.

And now Bush is retreating into his own little world of magical thinking, where simply by saying something makes it so. The escalation, which is far too little and far too late hasn't even got lottery odds of being successful; yet Bush seems to think it will work because he says it has to. Sorry to tell you this, Little Lord Pissypants, but the world isn't ordered that way, and just because you really, really want something to happen, it doesn't necessarily follow.

[AndyA]

7. Nancy, pray all you want to. But remember: while you are praying, our troops are

dying. Another child without a parent. Another Mother without a child. Another Grandmother without a grandchild.

Praying is great, but after all the times Bush his lied to us, deceived us, not told us the whole story, taken action solely for political gain regardless of the consequences, how can you do nothing more than pray?

You and your peers are in power now because America is tired of Bush and the war in Iraq. If you want to have any hope of remaining in power in the future, you'll have to do more than pray.

And we all know it is within your power to take action. So take action.

INVESTIGATE BUSH.

INVESTIGATE CHENEY.

INVESTIGATE THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE WAR IN IRAQ.

SET A FIRM TIMELINE FOR BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME, AND PUT IRAQ ON NOTICE THIS IS THEIR LAST CHANCE.

TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT MORE TROOPS FROM BEING SENT TO IRAQ, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

Put a stop to this madness. You do have the power to make that happen. Just do it.

[bigtree]

14. well, they ARE doing these things

I wish folks would amplify those efforts here. There is much too much of a tendency to strike out at one phrase or the other and isolate it as if it represented the entire strategy, ignoring all of the other efforts undertaken and underway.

There is much more going on than prayer. I take her comments along with the totality of her actions and they compliment her efforts to hold this administration accountable with all of the levers that come with the political realities of her office.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

9. She needs to do

her Constitutional duty. Let us worry about praying.

[Rosemary2205]

11. What exactly is that?

I'm not aware of any legal choices she has that can forcibly stop Bush IMMEDIATELY. What am I missing?

edit - to fix a really stupid typo.

[DURHAM D]

12. Nothing - you are just not bull-headed enough. n/t

[Luckyduck]

16. Impeach Bush!

The whole world is waiting!

And Cut the funding to his wars.

[Rosemary2205]

32. How does she do that IMMEDIATELY

at best impeachment will take MONTHS and is still not a guarantee the Senate will remove Bush from office. By then Bush has already done what he wants to do in spite of Congress. Even if the House voted YES on impeachment this very day there are not RIGHT THIS MINUTE enough votes in the Senate to remove Bush from office. So again, how exactly do you expect Pelosi to stop Bush IMMEDIATELY.

Funding - sure then can deny or limit new requests for funding but on what legal authority are you expecting Pelosi to stop payment on funding that has already been approved by the previous Congress?

[Luckyduck]

37. It doesn't have to take months

She can introduce articles of impeachment based on illegal wiretapping, which Bush has already admitted to.

Bush will resign faster than you can say Nixon!

[Rosemary2205]

39. Bush will never resign.

IMHO that is pure fantasy.

[Luckyduck]

44. Then he will be impeached

and all of him crimes brought to light, which is fine by me.

If he isn't impeached, the congressional members standing in the way will be exposed as well.

[Rosemary2205]

50. Impeachment will not get him out of office.

Conviction will get him out of office. Which is done in the SENATE. Posters in this thread are mad because Pelosi hasn't gotten Bush out of Iraq yet and I'm asking how she is legally able to do that. Your choice for doing so is impeachment, but Pelosi has no power to actually remove Bush from office. That's the job of the Senate. -- and as long as Bush is in the White House we will be in Iraq.

So again, how legally do people expect Pelosi to get Bush out of office IMMEDIATELY.

[Luckyduck]

51. I don't agree with your assumptions-Introduce Articles of Impeachment

and Bush will resign.

otherwise all the crimes will come to light and our congressmen will have to stand up for our democracy and Impeach Bush or go down with the ship.

[Rosemary2205]

52. You said that already

and I said I don't think that is a realistic viewpoint. Bush isn't the type to resign, IMHO. He's too much of a "fuck you" type of guy.

[Luckyduck]

54. and you already said that

and I think you are wrong. Shall we continue?

[Amonester]

10. Time is running out and away.

Nancy Pelosi is a very kind person.

I really do like her.

The world likes her.

But the criminals who run the "show" (and who run away with the Treasury) R laughing at her in her back.

They're evil. And for them, their evilness is faster than any prayers could ever be... :scared:

[Disturbed]

18. She asked. He answered. She bit her lip and didn't follow up.

That reminds me of so called reporters'interviews with Busholini. Same thing happens. No real follow up. She has done this many times before. People say that she is tough. Is that tough? Not in my view! Would it have been impossible for her to have said, "Excuse me, Goerge but I would like to have a real answer to my question." "Please, tell me exactly why you think that this escalation will bring about positive results."

[bigtree]

21. of course, it's just not true that she's not 'following up'

She has said similar things as you suggest, and much more. Instead of just isolating these comments to criticize, she should be given credit for her continuing efforts to use every realistic lever at her disposal.

It's just a crock to take this statement and try to make it the totality of her responses to Bush's nonsense.

[dogday]

17. The King Has Spoken

Ney, anyone say anything to him regarding matters already settled by the Great One.... :sarcasm:

[Luckyduck]

23. They are playing into the Bush is the Dictator meme

by acting as if there is nothing they can do beyond asking nicely.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

[bigtree]

25. Actually, Pelosi and others have been quite direct and harsh.

I think these comments, in isolation, are just fine. Coupled with Speaker Pelosi's earlier comments and continuing efforts to hold Bush accountable, the statements are appropriate.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that they're "acting as if there is nothing they can do beyond asking nicely." There has been a flurry of activity which is just the beginning of our Democratic majority confronting the administration on everything in their view. They deserve more credit in this beginning than a backhanded, patronizing slap. I don't think it's our leadership who's forgotten how to manage the nuances of our political system. Many critics assume they have the numbers to do what they please. The "checks and balances" of our system of government are not exclusive to our majority. While we work this side of the debate, the administration and their republican enablers are working the other.

And our party, without a veto-proof majority . . .

[Luckyduck]

28. What is she doing to hold Bush accountable?

What is she doing to stop the war?

[bigtree]

31. I think that's an incredibly cynical statement. I don't really have the energy to spell it out

for you here in detail.

I will say that she is doing what is politically possible right now (outside of the little snipes who report whatever is sensational and self-serving) in working to build coalitions which will present an initial, unified resolution of disapproval to Bush, much like the Senate bill, to get as many republicans on record against the occupation. After that, she will make the House agenda more than flexible to allow other more binding efforts to make their way through the legislative process.

Further, there will be committees which will be bringing the product of their investigations and hearings to the floor with her blessing and assistance in an effort to hold Bush accountable on his occupation and escalation.

There is also an effort underway by Murtha and others, sanctioned by Rep. Pelosi, which aim to separate ush's efforts to continue and escalate his occupation from the essential funding which supports the troops in the field.

It's just a beginning. They want to end this as much as we do.

[Luckyduck]

34. We voted for the Dems to stop the war

not just stop the escalation. She has already told Bush she will continue to fund Iraq, giving him enough money to attack Iran.

I am looking for action, not words.

I want them to end the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush has a chance to attack Iran.

And then there is impeachment. It is their constitutional duty to Impeach Bush. He has already admitted to impeachable offenses. Right now it is looking like the Democratic party is covering for Bush,not holding him accountable.

How will she hold Bush accountable if she will not impeach? Is there another way?
How will she stop the war in Iraq if she will not cut the funding?

Words, non-binding resolutions are not enough! Maybe I am being impatient, but there are people dying every day and Bush is threatening to attack Iran. We don't have time to shit around.

[bigtree]

35. yet, she isn't in the position to dictate any of those things right now

and, our party's slim majority isn't strong enough to insist on anything and have it prevail.

If it's true that "we don't have time to shit around," then we don't have time to shit around with protest votes that we know will be vetoed and spend our time elevating legislation which is certain to elicit an insurmountable filibuster.

If there is to be any success in holding Bush accountable on Iraq and forcing his hand, it must be done politically - without the benefit of a veto-proof steamroller. These things take time in our system. With the narrow gap in numbers, there will be many successful aggravations from the republicans. Our majority is in no position to end Bush's occupation unilaterally by just using the 51 (50) Democratic votes in the Senate and relying on the narrow margin in the House.

We need to have patience and give our party members our support as they wade through their dubious reign in their fragile majority.

[Luckyduck]

36. WE are the majority- she can introduce articles of impeachment

The House of Representatives could then be presented with information regarding Bush's illegal wiretapping which he admitted to on National TV.

Any representative that would not vote for Impeachment after this obvious evidence would then be exposed as collaborators.

Bush would resign before any more evidence could be presented.

The Democratic party needs to stop playing the victim,and start taking charge.

[bigtree]

38. that's just not politically supportable right now

it may well happen, but there haven't been enough hearings to generate tese charges which are so evident to those of us in the opposition.

It's just not the case that these things are easy, and that our leadership is unnecessarily restrained from taking these actions immediately.

The slap about victimhood is out of the blue and unrelated to anything Pelosi or our other leaders have said or done.

[Luckyduck]

40. We don't need any more hearings- Bush did all the work for us

April 2004:
"A wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed....
Constitutional guarantees are in place."
This was a lie: Bush had already approved
unconstitutional wiretaps.

Dec 2005:
"Do I have the legal authority to do this? ... the answer is absolutely."
No it is not legal and Bush knows it.
As per his 2004 speech,
Bush knew wiretaps without warrants were illegal.

see it on video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc3Ujivxd_0

[bigtree]

42. that may well come to pass

The fact that it hasn't yet, or that Pelosi didn't lead with it doesn't preclude the possibility. But, I still think you may be overestimating her chances of success. What's possible may not necessarily be politically sustainable.

[Luckyduck]

43. She needs to do what is right

and then we will see who puts Bush above their jobs because when everyone sees what should be done...they will be forced to uphold the constitution or be thrown out 2008.

I don't advocate waiting until 2008 though, I think the push for impeachment will force the results we are seeking.

Right now, Bush feels he can do whatever he pleases, and Nancy is going to 'pray' he changes his mind?

(God works through people, Nancy, you are in charge DO SOMETHING!)

[bigtree]

45. again. she IS doing more than praying . . .

. . . despite the unfortunate tendency of some of her critics to isolate her words and twist them to fit their own bias.

She IS doing what's right. She just can't do it ALL with the slim majority she leads in the House. Folks who argue otherwise and urge her to charge ahead into areas where there is an obvious political roadblock are advocating nothing more than gridlock and inaction to go with their self-gratifying political immolation.

BTW: I think we'd do more good impeaching Cheney first. No way I want him to serve even one day as president.

[Luckyduck]

53. Before it was 'we don't have a majority' now 'we only have a sliim majority'

these are excuses for ignoring their constitutional duty.

If many members in congress are so corrupt they would protect Bush from his crimes against this country, Nancy Pelosi should take the lead at exposing them by pursuing what is right and seeing who is getting in the way. Right now, she is looking like one of the enablers.

[bigtree]

55. It's not an excuse that round pegs won't fit into square holes

just insisting that they do something doesn't make it politically possible. The rules are that they need a 2/3 majority to overcome vetoes and filibusters. They either invite them with protest legislation or they work for compromise legislation. Either way, the republican opposition isn't sitting idly by. Our majority isn't bullet-proof, no matter how may times folks insist they should just bull through with something or the other. There are obvious political obstacles to their doing what they please on Iraq. That's the reality in the numbers. Wishing it or supposing it away won't change that.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Why don't you find out if Henry Waxman's committee met today...

...and report back to us? Put any nervous energy you may have to constructive use.

NGU.

[ieoeja]

30. I had a boss like that.

"When can you have this done?"

"Two weeks."

"Well, you have one week."

"Your saying it has to be done in one week does not change reality. It will take two weeks."

I had it done 13 days later. So my estimate was a day long. Of course, this was the same boss whose response to "they don't have a UNIX computer in our Hong Kong office" was "that won't be a problem" and then proceeded to fly me out to Hong Kong to work on the UNIX computer that did not exist.

[WI_DEM]

41. And the American people spoke in Nov '06 with a loud "No" and that is discarded too