« | »

Pelosi Will Not Help Fund Afghan ‘Surge’

From McClatchy:

Pelosi: Obama’s on his own to win money for Afghan buildup

By William Douglas and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

December 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that it’s up to President Barack Obama to persuade reluctant Democrats to fund his Afghanistan troop buildup — his most important foreign policy initiative — because she has no plans to do so herself

"What I’ve told (House) members is give the president room," she said during a meeting with reporters. "Listen to what he has to say. This for members is a vote for conscience and constituents."

Pelosi, however, wouldn’t say how she might vote. "The president is going to have to make his case," she said.

The White House is expected to ask Congress early next year for $30 billion to $40 billion to pay for an additional 30,000 to 35,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the House on Wednesday approved a $636 billion defense appropriations bill that includes $100 billion for the war in Iraq and for the existing levels of troops in Afghanistan. The bill didn’t contain funding for Obama’s surge.

In a May vote on war funding, during which 51 Democrats opposed the measure, Pelosi won over reluctant Democrats by asking them: "Will you change your mind and one more time vote for war funding?"

She reportedly told members, "This is the very last time."

"The president is going to make his case. We never liked supplementals (emergency war funding), and my appeal to members (earlier this year) was that we don’t need more supplementals," she said.

However, she maintained, "From 2001 till now, there was no plan in Afghanistan. The last four to five years there was clear evidence more needed to be done in Afghanistan."

"Understand this president has been dealt a very bad hand," she added. "There was no plan in Afghanistan for years."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif, the chairwoman of the antiwar House Progressive Caucus, applauded Pelosi’s comments.

"I think it’s wise to do it," Woolsey said. "He (Obama) made the decision. I don’t think there is a majority of Democrats who support the decision."

Could this have been the Democrats’ plan all along?

This way Mr. Obama gets to pretend to be a strong defender of America’s national security. But all the time he knows Congress will never fund his ‘surge.’

Let’s hope we are being too cynical.

But it’s getting harder and harder to be too cynical with this bunch.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, December 17th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Pelosi Will Not Help Fund Afghan ‘Surge’”

  1. Perhaps. The Left is famous for “eating their own.”

  2. eaglewingz08 says:

    Aren’t these the same democraps who say that they must pass a bill (health deform) at any cost otherwise the Obama presidency would collapse. Very suspicious. If Obama Presidency could sustain the loss of Afghanistan funding, then it would sustain the loss of its health deform legislation agenda.

    • Right of the People says:

      If it did collapse it would be one of the best things that has ever happened to this country.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    Treasonous, Traitor Beaches!!!

  4. beautyofreason says:

    She’s a loser. Anything begun under President Bush (tax cuts, better national security, war in Afghanistan / Iraq) must fail so her ego can be satiated. Doesn’t matter who dies in the process.

    “”Understand this president has been dealt a very bad hand,” she added. “There was no plan in Afghanistan for years.”

    Yeah, and now that enemy death tolls go unpublished, troops defend civilian centers as opposed to going on the offensive, and soldiers are below recommended levels under the Democratic administration- we can enjoy failure to its full extent. Not that I think Afghanistan is winnable under this president – I just see the stupidity of her ideology at play.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Remember, the democrats biggest tool (other than the obvious “biggest tool”)is the tool of deception and lies. Everything they say is a lie or a deception and this is just the latest. Steve said it correctly. It’s a ploy to let the boy appear strong and get (what they think is) conservative support, while seeming to hamstring his efforts and thus, he can have a scapegoat, (An obama necessity) and an excuse (another obama regular) for his “best of intentions” to fail in Afghanistan.

    A masterful stroke, as far as they’re concerned. Clever, intricate but at the same time, simple. They must be incredibly pleased with themselves.

    Steve saw right through it, as will millions of Americans who no longer want to buy the expired stank they try to sell on the shelves of the “let me be clear” aisle.

    It is doubtful that Lolla-Pe-loser is saying anything on the gut level. When has she ever, except when it comes to her repulsion towards conservative thinkers/doers? 99.999999% of the time, her agenda is liberalism and she’ll do anything to see things to that end. The Afghan war is of no interest to her at all.

  6. wirenut says:

    A good read on this subject is to fall back to the Philippine Insurrection of roughly 1897 to 1905. Politics,elections, guerrilla warfare and democrats. Take a wild guess which side a majority dems were on in that one? If you said, cut and run, leave our troops out to dry. You would be correct! McKinley won the election against Bryan despite the help of northeastern RINOs. Hhummm, it’s deja vu all over again, only this time we have a “Bryan/Barry” in office.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »