Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
06.30.2008 12:45 pm

Pelosi: What war money?

WASHINGTON–Liberals are furious that Congress, despite being in Democratic hands, continues to fund the war in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the war was the primary reason for Congress’ low approval ratings and said she lives in a world of “demonstrators and pickets.”

So it’s no wonder that this morning, when President George W. Bush signed a $162 billion supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pelosi chose to highlight two other elements of the measure. In a statement this morning, Pelosi hailed the bill’s new GI education benefits and an extension of unemployment insurance.

Indeed, she didn’t even mention the war funds. Here’s her statement:

“This morning, President Bush signed the emergency supplemental bill into law and with it a new GI Bill for our troops, veterans and military families and an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of jobless American workers.

“Our troops have served with honor and dignity.  The GI Bill for the 21st Century is our way of thanking them for their service and honoring their sacrifice.  The GI Bill will provide our brave men and women serving in uniform a full, four-year college scholarship and ensure this new ‘Greatest Generation’ is part of our country’s economic recovery.

“This law will also help spur job creation and economic growth by extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks to more than 3 million jobless American workers who otherwise would have seen their benefits expire.  Every $1 in benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand – a welcome stimulus for the slowing U.S. economy.”

“I am pleased that the President signed into law these two major achievements for our economy and for the American people.”

10 comments

Comments are closed.

There is no way conservative Democrats and the GOP will allow any stopping of the war funding in Iraq. Since the bill had two major pieces of legislation attached which Bush had threatened to veto, I’d call that a victory.

If there are greater majorities of Democrats put into office in November, the sonservatives and the GOP may be prevented from blocking or filibustering needed legislation, including a timeline for our withdrawal from Iraq, and for getting back into Afghanistan from where we were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban and al Qaeda have taken back some 10% of Afghanistand and they attacked us on 9/11, and need to be stopped before they execute more attacks on America and kill more Americans.

— Tim Hogan
1:07 pm June 30th, 2008

Tim, there was a terrorist attack in Clinton’s first year in office (WTC), and the 9-11 attack in Bush’s first year. Do you think that the terrorists are waiting for the new president and will most likely attack again in his first year to test his muster too?

— A CENTRIST
2:16 pm June 30th, 2008

Let’s not forget the vaunted Blue Dog democrats who were against help for the unemployed. There could be some neutered Blue Dogs this November.

— Don Jones
2:25 pm June 30th, 2008

Nancy Pelosi is a COLOSSAL FAILURE. She (and the Blue Dogs) will not be able to run for dog catcher. shhhh…come closer….whisper quietly in her ear….SCREW YOU NANCY!

— Liber8tor
4:08 pm June 30th, 2008

The shame about the Democratic leadership is that they can’t even lead their own party for fear of being yelled at. When the time comes to leave Iraq it should be debated and decided as an issue on its own. Cutting off funding is a weak-willed attempt at stoping the war without directly confronting the issue. Pelosi should come out and say that, “yes we’re going to continue funding as long as the actio is going on. We’re also going to continue arguing with those in favor of continuing the war until we officially have it at an end. If you want the war funding to stop, vote out the current leadership that has us in Iraq.” Thats good leadership. It’s declaring a posture thats not pro-war and reminding the crazies what the right thing is. And, it defines a good campaign declaration for the pending election.

Instead she skirts the issue and tries to play spin to avoid and questioning or debate. This is how leadership ion both parties goes more and more these days. Bush does the same on Iraq. He doesn’t defend it all that well, he just continues with “stay the course”. If he were more direct, he’d come out and explain to the 70 percent that don’t support him why they are wrong and what the negatives of leaving are. But he doesn’t. Weak leadership.

— RCJ
4:09 pm June 30th, 2008

Oh and just to pick on Tim Hogan a little, because he can’t be picked on at all without throwing out some yabba dabba do tagline:

You do realize that terrorism is more than just Afghanistan and certainly more than Iraq right? While they trained in Afghanistan, most of the hijackers were from other nations like Saudia Arabia. Al-Queda and other terrorist cells aren’t like Nazi Germany were there is a clearly defined border to attack. They travel around from nation to nation in the middle east training and arming from whatever friendlies they can find. Afghanistan was the start, but it isn’t the end. And all of the nations that harbor these people need to be dealt with in different ways. Afghanistan directly harbored and supported Al Queda which is why we went there. We had a cease fire with Iraq, that faulty intell said they were breaking. That plus Saddams occasional support for groups like Hamas and others are why we returned to Iraq. Had the intell not been faulty, that would have been the right choice. We got screwed. Let me say that again so the idiot Tim Hogan can’t confuse me with a blind Bush supporter: WE GOT SCREWED BY THE INTELL! We made a mistake and now we have to fight the right way to quiet the situation down and extricate ourselves in an orderly fashion, something more sophisticated than run for the hills. Anyway, Iran has a nuclear program they stopped in the wake of us going into Iraq (positive news from the invasion)(not to mention Libya automatically rolling over) but they’ve started again in the wake of the mistaken intell and the political infighting that has ensued. You’ve got Pakistan and Saudia Arabia that are deemed “allies” but shouldn’t be. It’s a complicated situation that calls for a bit more thinking than the old which nation do we hit?

Now I’m going to have a hearty laugh if Tim can’t take a little criticism for his extremely linear thinking. I’m already assured of being called a “Bush mouth piece” or a “yadda dabba do m night shamalama ding dong” or whatever. All of that in the stead of actually taking what I’ve layed out and disagreeing with it point by point with reasoning. But what are you going to do? Tim is the new wave of “attack” political group think that also gives us the “if you don’t support the president than you are un american” concept. Believe me, I’ve been bothered by them, and Hogan is no better.

— RCJ
4:22 pm June 30th, 2008

the Democratic Congress has been pretty bad. When they are able to sneak GREAT pieces of legislation into awful bills they don’t get credit because people are appropriately pissed off at the bigger, more awful bill. It’s a stupid strategy that will help them get even bigger majorities in 2008 in spite of themselves.

— GR
9:05 pm June 30th, 2008

RCJ, you are so mean picking on poor Tim.

TIM HOGAN FOR PRESIDENT!

He could call his campaign workers “Hogan’s Heroes.” Come to think of it, his posts kind of remind of of Colonel Klink.

— Nick Kasoff
10:19 am July 1st, 2008

Hilarious RJC,

You think poor old Bush, Cheney and Rummy were the victims of bad intelligence? I think you might have missed a couple years of news, because actually the Bushies cherry picked intelligence, ignored and punished any dissenting opinions, and had their minds made up to invade Iraq long before any UN resolutions were even proposed. But go ahead and keep on believing that you are enlightened because you recognize that Iraq is a hellhole even while you go on accepting everything else Mr. 27 % approval rating has been spoon-feeding you.

— Adam S
3:35 pm July 1st, 2008

We didn’t “get screwed by the intel.”

Bush wanted war in Iraq, Bush got war in Iraq. We’ve spent some $900 billion in Iraq, from which no one attacked us, and only $200 billion for Afghanistan, from where the 9/11 attacks were launched and where the guys who attacked us are alive, well, and planning the next attacks.

You loopy warbats ansd fearmongers and Bush/McCain apologists need to stop towing the right wing neocon Brown Shirt GOP party line and wake up! Get out of Iraq, and defeat our enemies in Afghanistan!

Vote Democratic in ‘08!

The life you save might be your own!

— Tim Hogan
4:56 pm July 3rd, 2008