This woman is out of control, she needs an intervention:
Democrats now running Congress will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday, suggesting they could deny him the money should he call for additional troops.At least her colleagues understand the limitations of Congress:
[...]
Pelosi made clear that her party supported boosting the overall size of the military "to protect the American people against any threats to our interests, wherever they may occur. That's different, though, from adding troops to Iraq." She also said Democrats would not cut off money for those troops already in Iraq.
But dollars for a further buildup in Iraq — Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops — will get the strictest of scrutiny, she said.
"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."
"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday.
Asked about Pelosi's remarks, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Bush welcomed any ideas on Iraq that "lead to success."
"We're glad the speaker wants us to succeed in Iraq," he said.
Yet Pelosi's second-in-command and a Senate leader on foreign affairs questioned the wisdom and legality of using the power of the purse to thwart the White House as Bush prepared to announce his revised war strategy this week — perhaps on Wednesday.Except for Boxer:
[...]
While leading Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to a troop buildup, several did not join Pelosi in suggesting it was possible Congress could deny Bush the money for the additional forces.
"I don't want to anticipate that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.
"As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'" Biden said, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong. "You can't go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, 'You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece.'"
Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said she would like to see a congressional vote on whether Bush can send in additional troops.
"My belief is, the president's coming to us," she said. "He's going to ask for billions and billions of dollars. He's going to send more of our people into harm's way. I think it would be best for the country if we got to vote on that surge or escalation."
Sheesh, women! Get a clue.
I don't know when it happened but these people seemed to think they are in some kind of partnership with the president in this war but they are not. Congress declares war but the president runs it and he can do so without the will of the people (contrary to what people like Olbermann seem to think). They can pass a bill to defund it but he can also veto it and there is no way Pelosi has enough votes to override a veto and that goes for the Senate as well
It is evident that she is filled with her own self-importance and power. I can't wait to reality sinks in after her bills stall in the Senate or hopefully (you never know with this president) get vetoed by the president. The reality of the situation is that she is not president, she is Speaker of the House, which is a very powerful position but it's not the most powerful position, that's held by the president.
Tags:
