The SF Chronicle is reporting that Nancy Pelosi is meeting with al-Maliki today. Here's what we know:
The AP has quoted Ms. Pelosi in this article:
It's downright infuriating to hear Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra of "We support the troops but not the mission." It isn't just Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra, either. It's the Democrats' mantra, too. Frankly, it's insulting, especially in light of Sen. Feingold's announcement that he's scheduled a hearing on whether Congress "has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq."
Let's not forget what Gen. Petraeus testified to during his confirmation hearing:
I'd add that it's obvious from Gen. Petraeus' history in Iraq that he's an advocate of the President's plan. He used the same policy to clean up Mosul, which is a genuine Iraqi success story. The least Feingold, Pelosi and Murtha should do is give this policy a chance.
One thing that the politicians have lost track of is that the American people demand that the government to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Leaving Iraq in defeat won't prevent future terrorist attacks; it will encourage terrorists to increase the number of attacks. President Bush's role as Commander-In-Chief mandates that he do that. The AUMF that the House and Senate passed in the days immediately after 9/11 mandates President Bush to do that, too.
If Feingold and others cut off funding for the troops, they'll essentially be telling the American people that the Constitution's mandating the protection of the American homeland is limited in scope, something that they'd have a difficult time defending.
If Pelosi, Murtha and Feingold stop funding the war, terrorist attacks will happen. When they do, the blood of Americans will be on their hands because they will have made it easier for terrorists to operate and plan.
Pelosi and Murtha going to Iraq, like much of what Democrats do, is purely show. They went there with their 'verdict' rendered. They're just gathering anecdotal information which they'll use to justify the policies they've been held since Thanksgiving, 2005. They should be ashamed of themselves for calling this a fact-finding trip because they aren't there to gather information. They're there for a couple photo ops and a couple meaningless soundbites. Frankly, they wouldn't know a new fact if it bit them in their sizable backsides.
Technorati: Pelosi, Murtha, Maliki, Petraeus, President Bush, Mosul, Surge, Constitution, Commander-In_Chief, Feingold, CentCom, Terrorists, Homeland Security
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has traveled to Iraq for a quick fact-finding visit that will include a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.After endlessly criticizing the Iraq War, Pelosi and Murtha have finally made a trip to Iraq. This is merely for show. Don't think that this is about gathering information. It's about them getting a photo-op, then adding the words "I just returned from Iraq" to their endless criticism of the President Bush's policies.
The congressional delegation traveling with the Democratic speaker from San Francisco includes Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, (D-MO), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), who more than a year ago urged President Bush to withdraw American forces from Iraq and is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the military budget.
The AP has quoted Ms. Pelosi in this article:
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, (D-CA), said, in brief remarks after the meeting. She said the delegation also came "to convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people for what they're doing, to applaud their patriotism."I'd love to hear Ms. Pelosi explain how she and Murtha can demoralize the troops and embolden the terrorists in one breath then say that they want to "convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people" and "applaud their patriotism" with their next breath. She must know that they're undercutting the troops' mission and that that can't have a positive effect on the troops.
It's downright infuriating to hear Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra of "We support the troops but not the mission." It isn't just Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra, either. It's the Democrats' mantra, too. Frankly, it's insulting, especially in light of Sen. Feingold's announcement that he's scheduled a hearing on whether Congress "has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq."
"I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation’s foreign policy."This hearing is purely show. He knows that Congress has the power of the purse and can stop funding the war at any time. His framing this hearing that way is disingenuous to the max. If Ms. Pelosi is right that the "American people" "appreciate their patriotism and what they're doing" so much, why is Sen. Feingold introducing legislation that will prevent them from doing what they're trained to do?
Let's not forget what Gen. Petraeus testified to during his confirmation hearing:
"If we are to carry out the Multinational Force Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential, as will greatly increased support by our government’s other agencies, additional resources for reconstruction and economic initiatives, and a number of other actions critical to what must be a broad, comprehensive, multifaceted approach to the challenges in Iraq," Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.In other words, pacifists like Feingold, Murtha and Kucinich are either saying that (a) they think that Gen. Petraeus is lying under oath; that (b) he's just the Bush administration's mouthpiece; that (c) they don't care about defeating the terrorists in Iraq or (d) all of the above. That's hardly the way to show appreciation to genuine patriots.
I'd add that it's obvious from Gen. Petraeus' history in Iraq that he's an advocate of the President's plan. He used the same policy to clean up Mosul, which is a genuine Iraqi success story. The least Feingold, Pelosi and Murtha should do is give this policy a chance.
One thing that the politicians have lost track of is that the American people demand that the government to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Leaving Iraq in defeat won't prevent future terrorist attacks; it will encourage terrorists to increase the number of attacks. President Bush's role as Commander-In-Chief mandates that he do that. The AUMF that the House and Senate passed in the days immediately after 9/11 mandates President Bush to do that, too.
If Feingold and others cut off funding for the troops, they'll essentially be telling the American people that the Constitution's mandating the protection of the American homeland is limited in scope, something that they'd have a difficult time defending.
If Pelosi, Murtha and Feingold stop funding the war, terrorist attacks will happen. When they do, the blood of Americans will be on their hands because they will have made it easier for terrorists to operate and plan.
Pelosi and Murtha going to Iraq, like much of what Democrats do, is purely show. They went there with their 'verdict' rendered. They're just gathering anecdotal information which they'll use to justify the policies they've been held since Thanksgiving, 2005. They should be ashamed of themselves for calling this a fact-finding trip because they aren't there to gather information. They're there for a couple photo ops and a couple meaningless soundbites. Frankly, they wouldn't know a new fact if it bit them in their sizable backsides.
Technorati: Pelosi, Murtha, Maliki, Petraeus, President Bush, Mosul, Surge, Constitution, Commander-In_Chief, Feingold, CentCom, Terrorists, Homeland Security
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
