Have we been sold out by Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats on the Iraq war?

Great Debates
1

We were told in the months leading up to the 2006 elections that we couldn’t win the war in Iraq and we will bring our soldiers home. However, this is what Ms. Pelosi said today …

— CBS’ “Face the Nation” - January 7, 2007 9:38 AM

She (Pelosi) said Democrats are not interesting in cutting off money for troops already in Iraq _ “We won’t do that” _ and that her party favors increased the overall size of the Army by 30,000 and Marines by 20,000 “to make sure we are able to protect the American people.”

The “surge” wasn’t even an issue in the 2006 elections, it was about bringing the soldiers that are now in Iraq, home. If Ms. Pelosi and the Democrat Congress continue to fund the Iraq war, the soldiers that are there will not be coming home as they promised …

— In Campbell v. Clinton, a case in US District Court in 1999, the Court ruled it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. “Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces.” - The ‘Implied Consent’ Theory of Presidential War Power Is Again Validated. Military Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 202, September 1999 Geoffrey S. Corn. South Texas College.

Have we all been misled by Ms. Pelosi? 7 US soldiers have already been killed in Iraq since Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid took control of a Democrat Congress. How many more US soldiers must die in a useless war?

We are also now being told that the President will do what he wants regardless of Congressional funding (Mr. Biden). This is an outright lie! In 1974, the Democrat Congress cut funding for the Vietnam war by almost half, resulting in the fall of Saigon and an end to that horrible conflict. - Ref: Edward J. Lee, Nixon, Ford, and the Abandonment of South Vietnam (McFarland & Co., 2002), p. 84.

Shouldn’t we be de-funding the war in Iraq based on what we were promised?

2

Increasing the size of the army doesn’t equal increasing the size of the army in Iraq.

3

If they cut off funding to troops already in-country, they would be putting them in even more danger than they already are. I’m fine with her stated intention to require Bush to justify any new troops, and with her wanting an up and down vote on the funding when an attempt at that justification comes through.

And geez…give them a break. They just took their positions on Thursday! If we don’t see ANY action at all before February, then yeah, complain all you want.

4

Which Democrat said he or she would “bring our soliders home”?

We’ve had lots of discussions about this topic, and the truth of the matter is that it’s next to imposssible for the Congress to end the war if the President doesn’t want to. Sure, they could rescind the AUMF, but that’s just not going to happen as long as troops are still on the ground over there.

As for cutting funding… there seems to be a mistaken meme floating around that Congress ended the Vietnam War (or the US invlovement in it) by refusing to fund it. That’s simply not true. All US combat troops were out o fVietnam in early 1973, and what Congress did later was to ensure that we didn’t get back into the war. That’s quite a bit different than the idea of cutting funding for the troops while they are still engaged in the battlefield.

5

The passive voice is a classic method for being evasive. Who told us that we will bring our soldiers home? Many Democrats took that position but some did not. Given the narrow Democratic majorities in both houses, there’s no chance of cutting off funding immediately. Moreover, that’s not what the American people want. It seems they want to withdraw in stages, and that’s what the Democratic leadership probably wants. Right now, the focus must be on killing Dubya’s surge, which would not only prolong the war but also wreck severe damage on our already weakened army.

6

I think Dennis Kucinich, for one, would disagree with you:

— WASHINGTON - Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former presidential peace candidate whose opposition to the Iraq war is now practically mainstream, wants to cut off future funding for the war.

It’s the only way to assure a pullout soon, he says.

The Cleveland Democrat, appearing Wednesday on the Democracy Now independent broadcast network and Thursday on Fox News, says he will push that message in Congress and try to get a majority of his colleagues to agree. He would leave current funding in place but refuse the next Bush administration request for more money for the war, which could come by spring.

Money already in the pipeline would cover the pullout, he told The Plain Dealer.

7

John Murtha. Who Pelosi supported for House Majority Leader, and who took on something of a leadership role on Iraq on behalf of the Democrats for the last couple of years.

8

See, and here I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi.

9

Did Pelosi say that? Do you have a quote?

10

How can they have a 100 hours agenda involving minimum wage, college loan interest rates, etc. and yet not even address Iraq? They seem to be able to this asap.

11

From Nancy Pelosi on Jan 6, a day before her appearance mentioned in the OP:

Pelosi Warns Bush: It’s Time to Cut Troops

12

Does her signature on a letter count?

— Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A01

After months of struggling to forge a unified stance on the Iraq war, top congressional Democrats joined voices yesterday to call on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year and to “transition to a more limited mission” in the war-torn nation.

With the midterm elections three months away, and Democrats seeing public discontent over Iraq as their best chance for retaking the House or Senate, a dozen key lawmakers told Bush in a letter: “In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained. . . . We need to take a new direction.”

The 12 Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), include liberals and centrists who have differed over Iraq in the past. The signers included the top Democrats on the House and Senate committees dealing with armed services, foreign relations, intelligence and military spending. Their action puts party leaders on the same page, and it helps clarify the Nov. 7 election as a choice between a party seeking a timeline for withdrawing troops from an unpopular war and a party resisting any such timetable.

13

I thought Murtha proposed a redeployment to the periphery of Iraq.

Gee, in fact, here is his plan right here:

It was right where one might think it would be, if one were interested in knowing and posting the truth.

14

Yes it does. Thank you.

So the other part of the equation, ala Revenant: Does increasing the overall size of the army constitute reneging on a commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq? I don’t necessarily see that it does.

15

You’re not really proposing that they be held responsible for this, are you? I don’t think they could even cut funding right now without someone proposing a funding bill.

Is it? You have a historical example there, but you don’t know that Bush would do the same.

Among the items you quoted, I’m not seeing any promises to bring the troops home right away. They were always vague on what the “new direction” for Iraq meant. I support ending this thing, but I don’t know if cutting funding right away is the smartest way to do that. The first thing to do is reject the surge plan, because it’s a waste.

16

Ms. Pelosi said today that:

— She said Democrats are not interesting in cutting off money for troops already in Iraq _ “We won’t do that” _

According to the Campbell court decision, if Congress funds a war it has nothing it can do about withdrawing soldiers, Implied Consent. Therefore, as I see it, if she is not going to cut off funding for the Iraq war she and the Congress can not bring our soldiers home as promised.

17

If Congress told the President they will no longer appropriate money for the Iraq war, he would have to start withdrawing our soldiers now.

The President cannot continue the war in Iraq if the Congress doesn’t fund it.

Ms. Pelosi signed a letter August 1, 2006 calling on the President to begin removing US soldiers by the end of 2006. She now has the power to implement what she said. She is doing nothing to bring our soldiers home. In fact, she said she would not cut funding for the soldiers there now.

18

I wish I had your trust in Mr. Bush’s rationality concerning anything to do with Iraq…

19

If they refused to continue funding it, maybe, but he wouldn’t start just because she said so. It’s clearly not something Congress is united on. I’d also like to hear from some other Dopers about what Bush’s options would be here.

I would ask what other options she has. I don’t know why your first recourse is to ask if we’ve been “sold out.”

20

I understand that that’s how you see it, but it sounds to me like she promised to call on the president to withdraw troops, not to cut funding for the troops already there. Those 2 things may be identical in your mind, but I don’t think they are in everyone’s mind.