Translate

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Nancy Pelosi can't add

There's an interesting exchange taking place between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over funding for the Iraq war.

The House passed a resolution last week by a 218-212 margin setting a date for pulling troops out of Iraq. Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn't persuade all 233 Democrats in the House to support the withdrawal plan, but that hasn't stopped her from ratchetting up the rhetoric.

When President Bush stated emphatically Wednesday that Congress must replenishment $90 billion in war funding with no strings attached, Pelosi urged him to "Calm down with the threats. There's a new Congress in town."

Sounds like Speaker Pelosi has been watching too many movies abourd her taxpayer-funded jumbo jet.

Pretty bold talk from somebody who doesn't have the votes to override a presidential veto.

Senate Democrats appear to have the same problem. The Senate's surrender resolution was approved by a 51-47 vote, mostly along party lines.

Forty-eight Democrats and "independent" Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman. Two senators, Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., missed the vote.

Democrats don't have the two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto in either chamber. So what's the point of all this?

Democrats are politicking, playing to their far left base, and providing fodder for their allies in the liberal media.

While Democrats control the purse strings, Bush has the upper hand in the Iraq war debate.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," the president said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid is also spinning the "cut-and-run" measure he wants Democrats to support.

"Why doesn't (Bush) get real with what's going on with the world?" Reid said. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"

Someone should remind Reid that Democrats hold a tenuous 51-49 majority and one of those Democrats is Sen. Joe Leiberman, who has shown a willingness to put partisan bickering aside and vote for what’s best for his country.

Too bad the same can't be said of Pelosi and Reid.

2 comments:

Mark said...

1) Nancy Pelosi is NOT Commander-in-Chief
2) Nancy Pelosi does not have a diplomatic title
3) Nancy Pelosi (as far as I can tell) has not received permission from the taxpayers to spend that kind of money for an unapproved trip.
4)Nancy Pelosi is the one who needs to calm down.

I do not support the [apparent] personal agenda she is pursuing. Nancy doesn't have the right to do what she is doing. I didn't vote for her. Additionally, neither did anyone else vote for her who is not from CA. Nancy - FOCUS! You do not represent ME or the other 49 states of voters.

Mark said...

1) Nancy Pelosi is NOT Commander-in-Chief
2) Nancy Pelosi does not have a diplomatic title
3) Nancy Pelosi (as far as I can tell) has not received permission from the taxpayers to spend that kind of money for an unapproved trip.
4)Nancy Pelosi is the one who needs to calm down.

I do not support the [apparent] personal agenda she is pursuing. Nancy doesn't have the right to do what she is doing. I didn't vote for her. Additionally, neither did anyone else vote for her who is not from CA. Nancy - FOCUS! You do not represent ME or the other 49 states of voters.