Pelosi Politics: Part Five
Posted in Israel, Bush, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, war, Politics, campaign, election, Lieberman, Biden, McCain, GOP, Democrats, Religion, conspiracy, Kennedy, Clinton, syria, ethics, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden, North Korea, Britain, France, China, India, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, hillary, kerry, Dixie Chicks, Freedom, Africa, Cheney, Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, Feingold, Edwards, EU, Foreign Affairs, Congress, Islam, Abbas, Fatah on January 27th, 2007 by Stanford MatthewsEscalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007
There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.
President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.
It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.
Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.
C. Harris
MoreWhat.com
on both sides of the aisle, and small on substance. It will take considerable objective analysis to determine if the items passed in the House or
Senate are worthy of praise. President Bush still has to sign, veto or be overpowered by Congressional votes before anything becomes law. And the problem is that Congress is good at praising themselves before any results are reviewed after bills become law. One more time, you are reminded that there is plenty of immigration law on the books and precious little enforcement. Although enforcement is not the job of Congress, if the executive and judicial makes moot the passage of law, Congress does not deserve praise. Especially if they know that is the predictable outcome.
1. 
The paragraph below is an excerpt Section 404 of House Resolution Six of the 109th Congress titled Congressional Earmark Reform. It is being used here as an example of a legislative component that may be good and useful. It is also being used as an example of what is so difficult when trying to determine what the hell Congress is doing. In previous posts we have submitted our opinions on Congressional Ethics Reform. Most of the ethics reform language appears to leave large gaps for unscrupulous politicians to find loopholes or at least ” I didn’t know” excuses, etc. That is why we find Democratic and Republican comments defining this as tough ethics reform legislation to be something less than accurate. The example below seems to be a reasonable definition of earmark on the first pass. The problem we have with it is that it exists at all. Politicians like to muddy the water. It makes it easier to slither around and find victims whether that would be a political rival, the taxpayer or just a good excuse for the next time they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
`(d) For the purpose of this clause, the term `congressional earmark’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Con
