| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
27 Mar 2007 09:06:19 AM |
| Object: |
In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_war_pelosi_wins
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON—
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush’s war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long
line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by
the day.
Last week’s narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for the
withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if the bill
stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse
membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what
would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a
consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party’s
most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls
potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of
war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats would
splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the Iraq issue.
Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups such as
MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate
colleagues.
Oddly, the president’s harsh rhetoric against the House version of the
supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may have been
decisive in sealing Pelosi’s victory.
“The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a
lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was
significant,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
“Bush is our worst enemy,” Matzzie said, “and our best ally.”
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush’s “take-it-or-leave-it” approach to the
bill is also “hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues” in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a
different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio
address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a “political
statement” and urging Congress “to put our troops first, not politics”
by sending him “a clean bill, without conditions, without
restrictions, and without pork.”
Bush’s threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or
empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House and
Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi’s majority.
But the president’s uncompromising language and his effective
imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding bill—after that
date, he said, “our men and women in uniform will face significant
disruptions”—may solidify Democratic ranks without rallying new
Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush’s policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but now
favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
“We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our
Army. We’re destroying our Marine Corps,” he told ABC’s George
Stephanopoulos.
“We can’t sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo.”
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote
to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who
is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for
his war policy.
But the president’s refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him
to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that will
happen some day—with or without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 09:19:24 AM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long
line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by
the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for the
withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if the bill
stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse
membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what
would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a
consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's
most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls
potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of
war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats would
splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the Iraq issue.
Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups such as
MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate
colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of the
supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may have been
decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a
lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was
significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the
bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a
different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio
address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a "political
statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops first, not politics"
by sending him "a clean bill, without conditions, without
restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or
empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House and
Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's majority.
But the president's uncompromising language and his effective
imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding bill-after that
date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will face significant
disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without rallying new
Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but now
favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our
Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote
to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who
is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for
his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him
to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that will
happen some day-with or without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos the
bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 10:21:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long
line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by
the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse
membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what
would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a
consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's
most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls
potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of
war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups
such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate
colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a
lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was
significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the
bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a
different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio
address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a "political
statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops first, not
politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without conditions, without
restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or
empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House and
Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without
rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our
Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote
to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for
his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him
to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that
will happen some day-with or without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos the
bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 01:47:00 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long
line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by
the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse
membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what
would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a
consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's
most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls
potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of
war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups
such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate
colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a
lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was
significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the
bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a
different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio
address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a "political
statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops first, not
politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without conditions, without
restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or
empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House and
Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without
rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our
Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote
to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for
his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him
to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that
will happen some day-with or without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos the
bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 02:10:57 PM |
|
|
<toastmilque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175021220.112338.164890@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long
line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by
the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse
membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what
would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a
consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's
most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls
potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of
war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups
such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate
colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a
lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was
significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the
bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a
different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio
address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a "political
statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops first, not
politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without conditions, without
restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or
empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House and
Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without
rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our
Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote
to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for
his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him
to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that
will happen some day-with or without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos the
bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
Pork? Katrina? Pork? rotfl
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 02:59:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a
long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider
what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating
a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her
party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the
conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based groups
such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their
moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear
to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it
was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect
rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to
the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding
a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe
or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House
and Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without
rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of his
strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying
our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more
vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve
for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for
him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal
that will happen some day-with or without a constitutional
showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos the
bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revots the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 03:47:59 PM |
|
|
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmilque@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a
long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider
what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating
a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her
party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the
conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based
groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their
moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear
to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it
was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush
effect rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to
the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding
a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe
or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House
and Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks
without rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of
his strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying
our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more
vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve
for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for
him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal
that will happen some day-with or without a constitutional
showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos
the bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess. Then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revote the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 04:12:09 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 4:47 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional
crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a
long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for
the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if
the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this week in its
current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider
what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating
a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her
party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the
conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based
groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their
moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of
the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War may
have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear
to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it
was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush
effect rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to
the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican
colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended
commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding
a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe
or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the House
and Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's
majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his
effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding
bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks
without rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past but
now favors Senate language that includes calls for withdrawal and
benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of
his strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying
our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more
vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, anti-war
pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H., Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,
who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve
for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for
him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal
that will happen some day-with or without a constitutional
showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos
the bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Lot's of things are phony issues, Sid. Bothering to hold a vote on a
bill that you know will not withstand a presidential veto for the sole
purpose of rally your true believers is a phony issue. You were had
Sid, deal with it.
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess. Then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revote the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
The version already circulating in the senate does not contain the
troop withdrawal provision. There's even less of a chance that what
comes out of committee will be closer to the version from the house
than the senate.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
Yea, war's a *****, Sid...we already knew that. Here's a clue for ya,
the only thing worse is losing one.
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
If you really believe that then you'll be all over this NG posting
articles critical of your gal nancy.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
If she's so tough, why hasn't she sought impeachment?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 04:21:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:47 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a
constitutional crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a
long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline
for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant,
even if the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this
week in its current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider
what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by
creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some
of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the
conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based
groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with
their moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version
of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War
may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear
to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that
it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.,
chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush
effect rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to
the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his
Republican colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an
open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents
are demanding a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either
safe or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the
House and Senate will be different from the measure passed by
Pelosi's majority. But the president's uncompromising language
and his effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the
funding bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in
uniform will face significant disruptions"-may solidify
Democratic ranks without rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past
but now favors Senate language that includes calls for
withdrawal and benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of
his strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are
destroying our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he
told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more
vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year,
anti-war pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H.,
Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Ore., who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal
plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve
for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible
for him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a
withdrawal that will happen some day-with or without a
constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos
the bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Lot's of things are phony issues, Sid. Bothering to hold a vote on a
bill that you know will not withstand a presidential veto for the sole
purpose of rally your true believers is a phony issue. You were had
Sid, deal with it.
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess. Then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revote the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
The version already circulating in the senate does not contain the
troop withdrawal provision. There's even less of a chance that what
comes out of committee will be closer to the version from the house
than the senate.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
Yea, war's a *****, Sid...we already knew that. Here's a clue for ya,
the only thing worse is losing one.
*We can't lose this war again*
*We lost it the very first day bush,jr dreamed it up*!
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
If you really believe that then you'll be all over this NG posting
articles critical of your gal nancy.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
If she's so tough, why hasn't she sought impeachment?
No move to impeachment unless one condition is met.
*Republicans have to indicate they*
*will not support bush,jr in the Senate*.
(It would also help if Cheney was gone)
Speaker pelosi is smarter than
the dummies that impeached
Clinton without haveing the
votes in the Senate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 04:47:05 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 5:21 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:47 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a
constitutional crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a
long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline
for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant,
even if the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this
week in its current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider
what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by
creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some
of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the
conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats
would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the
Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats, including Web-based
groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with
their moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version
of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War
may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear
to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that
it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.,
chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush
effect rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to
the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his
Republican colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an
open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents
are demanding a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either
safe or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from the
House and Senate will be different from the measure passed by
Pelosi's majority. But the president's uncompromising language
and his effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the
funding bill-after that date, he said, "our men and women in
uniform will face significant disruptions"-may solidify
Democratic ranks without rallying new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past
but now favors Senate language that includes calls for
withdrawal and benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one of
his strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are
destroying our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he
told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more
vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year,
anti-war pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H.,
Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Ore., who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal
plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve
for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has
fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible
for him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a
withdrawal that will happen some day-with or without a
constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush vetos
the bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****. She'll
fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims in
the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a charade
intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the plantation.
I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her when she puts
forth a budget that does not include artificial timelines for troop
withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Lot's of things are phony issues, Sid. Bothering to hold a vote on a
bill that you know will not withstand a presidential veto for the sole
purpose of rally your true believers is a phony issue. You were had
Sid, deal with it.
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess. Then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revote the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
The version already circulating in the senate does not contain the
troop withdrawal provision. There's even less of a chance that what
comes out of committee will be closer to the version from the house
than the senate.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
Yea, war's a *****, Sid...we already knew that. Here's a clue for ya,
the only thing worse is losing one.
*We can't lose this war again*
*We lost it the very first day bush,jr dreamed it up*!
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
If you really believe that then you'll be all over this NG posting
articles critical of your gal nancy.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
If she's so tough, why hasn't she sought impeachment?
No move to impeachment unless one condition is met.
I see. So you only come here to vent. Even you know there's no chance
he'll be impeached.
*Republicans have to indicate they*
*will not support bush,jr in the Senate*.
(It would also help if Cheney was gone)
Speaker pelosi is smarter than
the dummies that impeached
Clinton without haveing the
votes in the Senate.
Speaker "Run away bride eyes" is far from smart but she does know that
she'll never get the votes in the senate. The dims willingness to
cover for Clinton in the senate has forever made the notion of
impeachment moot. Congratulations, you made history.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 06:05:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:21 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:47 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Speaker "Run away bride eyes" is far from smart but she does know that
she'll never get the votes in the senate. The dims willingness to
cover for Clinton in the senate has forever made the notion of
impeachment moot. Congratulations, you made history.
The threat of impeachment is from the Repugnant side of the aisle tard.
Bush knows it.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Of Tucson" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 05:15:59 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 4:05 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
Speaker "Run away bride eyes" is far from smart but she does know that
she'll never get the votes in the senate. The dims willingness to
cover for Clinton in the senate has forever made the notion of
impeachment moot. Congratulations, you made history.
The threat of impeachment is from the Repugnant side of the aisle tard.
Bush knows it.
He is about to veto the bill that would have represented the final
coins in his war chest, and that would have
given him one last chance to leave office with some measure of dignity
and respect.
Now he will take the action that even turns the majority of the
chickenhawks against him.
Wait, what was that about "never getting the votes in the Senate?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 06:21:16 PM |
|
|
James Of Tucson wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:05 pm, "J. Carroll" <n...@haha.cam> wrote:
Speaker "Run away bride eyes" is far from smart but she does know
that she'll never get the votes in the senate. The dims willingness
to cover for Clinton in the senate has forever made the notion of
impeachment moot. Congratulations, you made history.
The threat of impeachment is from the Repugnant side of the aisle
tard. Bush knows it.
He is about to veto the bill that would have represented the final
coins in his war chest, and that would have
given him one last chance to leave office with some measure of dignity
and respect.
Now he will take the action that even turns the majority of the
chickenhawks against him.
Wait, what was that about "never getting the votes in the Senate?"
I don't think there is much to do when both versions are conferenced.
He's screwed. He has a choice between failing to support the troops or
caving.
He will veto the bill and his veto will be over ridden when 12 or so
Republicans vote with the Dems.
I count 18 Republicans that Bush has had to strong arm pretty viciously to
keep "in Line" and they are going to be given a clean shot - one that is in
their electoral best interests - at kicking Bush right in the teeth. Pay
back is a real bitcheroonie.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Battle Over the War, Speaker Pelosi Wins |
27 Mar 2007 04:52:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:21 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:47 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Fix typos!
Sid9 wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
toastmil...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:06 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070327_in_the_battle_over_the_w...
Mar 27, 2007
In the Battle Over the War, Pelosi Wins
By E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON-
Within three weeks, the United States could face a
constitutional crisis over President Bush's war policy in
Iraq.
The president and his allies seem to want this fight.
Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in
a long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more
unpopular by the day.
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline
for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant,
even if the bill stands no chance of passing the Senate this
week in its current form.
The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic
leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically
diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of
Iraq.
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only
consider what would have been said had it gone the other way:
A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented
Democratic membership.
In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by
creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some
of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll
calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on
the conduct of war policy.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted.
Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped
Democrats would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush
resolution of the Iraq issue. Instead, anti-war Democrats,
including Web-based groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a
common interest with their moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House
version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance
the Iraq War may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's
victory.
"The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it
clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction
and that it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen,
D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush
effect rallying his own anti-war membership.
"Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach
to the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his
Republican colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an
open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their
constituents are demanding a different approach.
Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly
radio address on Saturday, condemning the House vote as a
"political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops
first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without
conditions, without restrictions, and without pork."
Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either
safe or empty, since the final compromise that emerges from
the House and Senate will be different from the measure
passed by Pelosi's majority. But the president's
uncompromising language and his effective imposition of an
April 15 deadline for the funding bill-after that date, he
said, "our men and women in uniform will face significant
disruptions"-may solidify Democratic ranks without rallying
new Republican support.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the
indications are that support for Bush's policy has slipped.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has often voted with Bush in the past
but now favors Senate language that includes calls for
withdrawal and benchmarks for judging success.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a longtime Bush critic, issued one
of his strongest condemnations of the war over the weekend.
"We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are
destroying our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps," he
told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
"We can't sustain this. ... I will not accept the status quo."
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one
more vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year,
anti-war pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu, R-N.H.,
Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
All face re-election next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Ore., who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal
plan.
Bush, of course, might still win this Senate vote and a
reprieve for his war policy.
But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country
has fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it
impossible for him to work with Congress on a sensible
approach to a withdrawal that will happen some day-with or
without a constitutional showdown.
___________________________________________________
Harry
I wonder how successful Nancy will be after President Bush
vetos the bill now that she has no more pork to win votes with.
bush,jr will veto a bill that
provides funding for his war?
That's right. Bush is the president and Pelosi is his *****.
She'll fold like a house of cards rather than cut-off funding
for the war.
Mitch McConnell (R) has put him in that position.
After bush,jr vetos the troop
funding bill Speaker Nancy
will deliver another similar
funding bill.
Only this time it will only
fund return tickets for the
soldiers and Marines in
Iraq
That's a pipe dream, Sid. She'll sell you out just like the dims
in the senate. Her massive pork sale was little more than a
charade intended to keep the more gullible libs like you on the
plantation. I'm curious, will you post messages critical of her
when she puts forth a budget that does not include artificial
timelines for troop withdrawal from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
For one, pork is a phony issue.......
Lot's of things are phony issues, Sid. Bothering to hold a vote on a
bill that you know will not withstand a presidential veto for the
sole purpose of rally your true believers is a phony issue. You
were had Sid, deal with it.
Second it will take a few weeks
for the bill to wind its way though
the Senate which starts a ten day
Easter recess. Then there's a
conference committee and the both
houses need to revote the bill
before in lands on bush,jr's desk.
The version already circulating in the senate does not contain the
troop withdrawal provision. There's even less of a chance that what
comes out of committee will be closer to the version from the house
than the senate.
Unfortunately, by then, our casualties
will have risen some more, more
bombs and bad news from Iraq and
less patience from the American people.
Yea, war's a *****, Sid...we already knew that. Here's a clue for
ya, the only thing worse is losing one.
*We can't lose this war again*
*We lost it the very first day bush,jr dreamed it up*!
At that point bush,jr will veto the bill
and withhold funding that he was
given by congress for his little war.
He will make his little speech about
the veto and even fewer people than
support him now will respond favorably.
If you really believe that then you'll be all over this NG posting
articles critical of your gal nancy.
bush,jr is in deep *****.
bush,jr has boxed himself in against
a tough Granma Nancy.
If she's so tough, why hasn't she sought impeachment?
No move to impeachment unless one condition is met.
I see. So you only come here to vent. Even you know there's no chance
he'll be impeached.
*Republicans have to indicate they*
*will not support bush,jr in the Senate*.
(It would also help if Cheney was gone)
Speaker pelosi is smarter than
the dummies that impeached
Clinton without haveing the
votes in the Senate.
Speaker "Run away bride eyes" is far from smart but she does know that
she'll never get the votes in the senate. The dims willingness to
cover for Clinton in the senate has forever made the notion of
impeachment moot. Congratulations, you made history.
Nixon thought that, too.
Then he departed before
he became the only president
ever removed from office.
Is bush,jr that smart, even if
he sees the handwriting on
the wall?
I think not.
PS...
You underestimate Pelosi.
I saw her wing a press conference
live and in person.
She's sharp.
Top notch.
A hell of a lot better
on her feet than bush,jr
l
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
