ThinkProgress has video from House Speaker Grandma Pelosi's interview on CBS's Face the Nation.
This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.
Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. "But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it," Pelosi said. "This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected."
Those of us old enough to remember the Vietnam War, at least in the most cursory sense, can get a feeling of deja vu from this statement.
Yep, we've been in this defunding situation before and with Democrats. This is what they did in Vietnam. From Wikipedia:
In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon.
I was an 11-year-old kid in 1975 when Saigon fell, but I remember vividly the American helicopters loaded with people escaping the Viet Cong.
I rarely call the Democrats despicable, although I do find them corrupt and blind most of the time. But when Nancy Pelosi has stated repeatedly that Iraq is only a political situation to be solved, then she is obviously overstating what she thinks the American people want.
I would say, "Pass the popcorn, please," as I watch the Democrats make fools of themselves, but I think Iraq is more serious than the polical sniveling we will see from the Democrats.
UPDATE: Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice has a different view.
UPDATE x2: Jules Crittenden says we are at a crossroads.
Option One: Pull out. Achieve short-term gratification for those who believe our absence from Iraq will solve our problems. Watch Iraq descend into further violence. Watch a nuclear-armed Iran come to dominate Iraq and the world's richest oil fields.
No longer a world power, discredited by our own choice, we can watch the pile of bodies mount. Maybe we'll be restored to our national senses, as we were a decade after Vietnam, when we woke up and realized we never really had the luxury of disengaging from the fight.
This time, it will be harder. It won't be so neatly contained as it was then. The only good side to this is the army gets to rest. Don't count on the Democratic Congress to refit or build it up, or to do anything but dither when we need to use it again...
Option Two: Fight now. Fight harder. Expend our precious blood and money now, so we don't have to spend more blood and more money later. Fight now, while we can.
They're simple choices, not easy choices. But we are fortunate. The Democratic Congress, so eager to abandon Iraq, is fortunate. The world that seems to revile us no matter what we do is also fortunate. Because it will not be their decision.
We have a president who understands what is at stake. This week he will tell us what it is going to be. All signs indicate he recognizes the mistakes of the past, errors such as are often made in war, and he intends to do what is right. That would be the harder choice, to fight now, when we are tired and feel spent. But, as another American once said, we have not yet begun to fight.
It is his decision to make, and it will fall to a small number of our fellow Americans to execute.
Apparently, Crittenden hasn't seen the clip from Pelosi. I think she's chosen Option One.
UPDATE x3: Bryan at Hot Air has a different analysis of the situation.
|