# Have we been sold out by Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats on the Iraq war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2007, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079 "2007-01-07T20:35:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/101 "2007-01-08T22:16:11Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] You call it politics, we call it the fucking Constitution of the United States. See, under the fucking Constitution of the United States, the president is commander-in-chief of the military. That means he gives his orders to the generals, and they obey the orders. The Speaker of the House cannot give orders to the generals. She is not in the chain of command. It’s a simple concept, really. [/quote] I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. But shouldn’t that be “_fucking_ commander-in-chief of the _fucking_ military,” the “Speaker of the _fucking_ House” who “is not in the _fucking_ chain of command”? 😉 > [@](#): > > She could call for impeachment of the President, but that would just replace Bush with Cheney…so she’d have to impeach both of them. As coiner of the term ‘simulpeachment,’ I’m cool with that. But I agree there’s no fucking consensus for it yet. > [@](#): > > Because cutting funding for the military would be a pretty radical step and it would have unforseeen consequences, especially since it is very unlikely that it would _actually work_. And remember, the President can VETO any legislation, and it requires a supermajority to override a Presidential veto…a supermajority the Democrats don’t have. True. But remember this war’s being funded through a series of special appropriations bills outside the usual budget framework. Presidential veto = NO money for the war. So a Presidential veto of an Iraq war appropriations bill is a whole lot worse in terms of “stabbing the troops in the back” than merely trying to limit the approprations to certain areas in order to rein in the war. ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/102 "2007-01-09T00:30:37Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] You call it politics, we call it the fucking Constitution of the United States. See, under the fucking Constitution of the United States, the president is commander-in-chief of the military. That means he gives his orders to the generals, and they obey the orders. The Speaker of the House cannot give orders to the generals. She is not in the chain of command. It’s a simple concept, really. She could call for impeachment of the President, but that would just replace Bush with Cheney…so she’d have to impeach both of them. And there’s no consensus for impeachment…yet. So impeachment as a “first 100 hours” measure fails. The fucking Constitution of the United States gives the House of Representatives control over appropriations. That means that Speaker Pelosi could cut funding for the Iraq war. Ah, then Bush would have to withdraw! Except there’s so much money in the Department of Defense, that it would be possible to fund the Iraq war by taking money from other things. And it would take months for the money to begin to run out. And besides that, she wouldn’t neccesarily have the support of all the Democrats. Because cutting funding for the military would be a pretty radical step and it would have unforseeen consequences, especially since it is very unlikely that it would _actually work_. And remember, the President can VETO any legislation, and it requires a supermajority to override a Presidential veto…a supermajority the Democrats don’t have. Do you want to hear for the next 20 years how we could have won in Iraq, but the Democrats stabbed our brave soldiers in the back? The Democrats DO have lots of things that they CAN do about the Iraq war, but none of those things are the type that can be done in the first 100 hours of power. They can hold hearings, force generals and appointees to either tell the truth about how the Iraq war was screwed up or perjure themselves. The Senate can refuse to confirm appointees that don’t acknowlege reality in Iraq. They can pass resolutions telling the President that he’s screwing up. They can go on the national media and explain to the American people how the Iraq war isn’t working. But what they can’t do is get on the phone to the Pentagon and order them to bring the troops back. They don’t have that authority, any more than I do. And cutting funding for our brave men and women in uniform would be political suicide. The things you can do in your first 100 hours are things that there is already a solid consensus for, things where you don’t have to compromise on because only a small fringe disagrees. Kneecapping the military with a disasterous funding cut is not one of those things. And to compare it to the defunding of the Vietnam war is disingenous, because by the time the war was defunded we no longer had any brave men and women in uniform over there…we had pulled out. If we had no servicepeople in Iraq, and Maliki’s government was tottering, cutting funds meant to prop him up a bit longer would be analgous. But we still have American soldiers over there, so it isn’t. [/QUOTE] There you go again, “political suicide” versus our soldiers being killed. Defunding the war in Iraq would have no more effect than us pulling out when the President decides to, except alot sooner. Obviously, a pull out by defunding or by the Executive will always involve soldiers on the ground by definition, no difference. The Senate won’t do crap. Lieberman is behind this war all the way. The f’g Constitution also gives the Congress the power of the purse. Like Rep. Rangel said, you can’t fight a war if nobody funds it (para). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/103 "2007-01-09T00:30:57Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] But I agree there’s no fucking consensus for it yet. [/QUOTE] The long-overdue investigations have not even really started yet. Recall the poll from a couple of years ago that had a solid majority in favor of impeaching Bush if it were shown he’d lied about the intelligence? Congress may have to scramble to catch up with the people on that. That includes the Goppers, ya know. Brownback stalled those hearings just as long as he could, bless his little heart, but it ain’t gonna be easy for him to explain why on the campaign trail, is it? Oh, btw, “surge” is a way to avoid saying “escalation”, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/104 "2007-01-09T00:35:56Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] Ridiculous comparison. Items like stem cell research and a minimum wage increase enjoy something like 80 percent support, or better. Most people agree that the Iraq war was a mistake, but that doesn’t mean there’s agreement about how to end it or even what to do next. The other items have, I think, also been debated _in Congress_, which these other ideas haven’t been. [/QUOTE] People also support us getting out of Iraq to the same level as the items on the 100 hours agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/105 "2007-01-09T00:37:34Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] There you go again, “political suicide” versus our soldiers being killed. [/quote] Did you read the post at all, or just quote the entire thing? It is not political suicide to pull the troops out of Iraq right now, it is _physically and Constitutionally impossible for Congress to do it that fast._ Why won’t you listen to what anybody says? ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/106 "2007-01-09T00:52:35Z")
[QUOTE=Pochacco] I actually question whether the OP \*\*is \*\* a member of the loony left. His position seems to be more along the lines of “The Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites! They got elected after saying they’d do something about the war, but instead they’re spending their first 100 hours focusing on other liberal crap instead of immediately ending the war. They never really cared about the soldiers. They’re just using them to advance their liberal agenda.” As evidence of his conservative leanings I cite the fact that he seems to believe the “stab in the back” version of the Vietnam War, i.e. that we would have won in Vietnam if Congress hadn’t cut the funding. That’s usually a far-right belief, not a far-left one. How about it, **harveyc**? Where do you actually sit on the political spectrum? What’s your opinion of the other things that the Democrats are doing during the first 100 hours? [/QUOTE] I don’t believe we should lose even one more soldier for a war that most Americans and over half of the Congress doesn’t want. There is no way to win a war under those circumstances. I don’t give two craps about the 100 hours agenda. Most Americans agree with me. The latest polls show that the Iraq war is a more important issue by factor of 6, or more, to 1 versus any other issue. I wasn’t around in 1974. ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/107 "2007-01-09T01:12:51Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Did you read the post at all, or just quote the entire thing? It is not political suicide to pull the troops out of Iraq right now, it is _physically and Constitutionally impossible for Congress to do it that fast._ Why won’t you listen to what anybody says? [/QUOTE] I have read all posts here, but I also listen to other people like Rep. Kucinich, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. It was Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, et al, in 2006 who called for the President to begin redeployment in a few months. So it is physically possible, one. The argument that we can’t redeploy the most mobile military ever in a few months is silly. This has been said over and over here and I am suppose to buy it. Second, if the President was told to start redeployment because there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war, he would have do it. This notion that he could find the required billions of dollars somewhere else to continue the war is absurd. The only argument presented here is that it would be political suicide. Who cares when US soldiers are getting killed? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/108 "2007-01-09T01:24:37Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] I don’t believe we should lose even one more soldier for a war that most Americans and over half of the Congress doesn’t want. There is no way to win a war under those circumstances. [/QUOTE] So you believe the current problem is merely that the American people have lost the will to fight? Does that mean that you think that the war WOULD be winnable if it had more support here at home? Personally I think the war was a doomed idea from the start. And as more people have come to realize this, support has evaporated. It’s not that we’re losing because the war is unpopular. The war is unpopular because we’re losing. (I should qualify my “doomed from the start” remark by saying that I do think we could have won Iraq if we’d sent in 350k to 400k troops at the very beginning. But that would have meant reinstating the draft and delaying the war for a year at least while we trained the new soldiers. Since there’s no way THAT was going to happen, it was doomed.) > [@](#): > > I don’t give two craps about the 100 hours agenda. Well, you’re definitely not a lefty, then. I’m curious why you’re so defensive about your overall political position. It seems to me that perhaps you’re just looking for a convenient club to bash the Democrats with, instead of actually being concerned about the best way to bring this unfortunate war to a speedy conclusion. If that’s the case, you might take some time to ponder who in this scenario is REALLY cynically using the troops for political ends … . ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/109 "2007-01-09T01:25:12Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] So it is physically possible, one. The argument that we can’t redeploy the most mobile military ever in a few months is silly. [/quote] Sigh. I meant it is physically impossible for the people in charge not in the White House to redeploy troops that quickly, not that the soldiers themselves can’t move quickly. I thought that would be kind of obvious. > [@harveyc](#): > > Second, if the President was told to start redeployment because there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war, he would have do it. Have you even witnessed this man’s obstinacy over the last six years? > [@harveyc](#): > > This notion that he could find the required billions of dollars somewhere else to continue the war is absurd. The Department of Defense’s annual budget is ~425 billion, which does not include appropriations bills for the war. Finding billions of dollars in that would be perhaps not trivial, but certainly not difficult either. > [@harveyc](#): > > The only argument presented here is that it would be political suicide. Who cares when US soldiers are getting killed? Actually, you’re the only one saying that. Everybody else is trying to tell you why we can’t pull our soldiers out of Iraq right this second, and you’re ignoring them. ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/110 "2007-01-09T01:58:20Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Sigh. I meant it is physically impossible for the people in charge not in the White House to redeploy troops that quickly, not that the soldiers themselves can’t move quickly. I thought that would be kind of obvious. Have you even witnessed this man’s obstinacy over the last six years? The Department of Defense’s annual budget is ~425 billion, which does not include appropriations bills for the war. Finding billions of dollars in that would be perhaps not trivial, but certainly not difficult either. Actually, you’re the only one saying that. Everybody else is trying to tell you why we can’t pull our soldiers out of Iraq right this second, and you’re ignoring them. [/QUOTE] I have said our soldiers could be moved to secure bases and redeployed based on a schedule. Nothing about them being moved out this second. Secondly, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid could tell the President today that there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war. He would have no choice but to start redeployment. The notion he could find $60 to $80 billion is fantasy, even in a DoD budget of $400+ billion. The only serious argument I have heard, so far, is that it can’t be done for politically reasons and that is no reason when our soldiers lives are on the line. This sort of makes sense since their priority is the 100 hours agenda without a mention on how we get out of Iraq. Redeployment was great when they were campaigning in 2006. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/111 "2007-01-09T02:02:08Z")
You bring new meaning to the word “obtuse”. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/112 "2007-01-09T02:39:23Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] I have said our soldiers could be moved to secure bases and redeployed based on a schedule. Nothing about them being moved out this second. [/QUOTE] Only the president can order this. The Congress has no say in it, and even if cutting funding would do anything at all, it would not achieve this. Which part of this statement are you having difficulty understanding? Because its clear that you are not understanding something. [QUOTE=harveyc] Secondly, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid could tell the President today that there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war. [/QUOTE] Assuming this is true (its not), how would this force the President to put our troops in a more defensive posture and achieve your first statement? What would prevent the President from simply using existing funds from the DoD budget to continue the war in the short term? Why do you seem incapable of doing more than continuing to spout this same arguement even though others have challenged you on it. Feel free to do some research and back up your assertion with a cite that in fact Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid et al CAN cut funding and that this would force the President to bring the troops home. While you are at it, try and figure out exactly how the Dems would get such a thing through, when they have such a slim majority…feel free to back up any further assertions that they CAN do this with some real numbers on HOW it would be done. [QUOTE=harveyc] He would have no choice but to start redeployment. [/QUOTE] He wouldn’t need to redeploy…the troops are THERE already, in case this has slipped your mind. Its possible (even probable) that cutting funding would have the effect of preventing the President from deploying any ADDITIONAL large bodies of troops to Iraq…but this would do absolutely nothing for the troops already there. [QUOTE=harveyc] The notion he could find $60 to $80 billion is fantasy, even in a DoD budget of $400+ billion. [/QUOTE] Cite? Feel free to back this up by showing that there is no way the President can juggle the DoD budget (or any other funding) in order to maintain those troops in Iraq in the highly unlikely even YOUR fantasy of cutting off funds happens. [QUOTE=harveyc] The only serious argument I have heard, so far, is that it can’t be done for politically reasons and that is no reason when our soldiers lives are on the line. [/QUOTE] Ignorance is bliss…and its hard to hear others why you have your fingers in your ears and are going ‘lalalalalla!’ at the top of your lungs. Tell you what…when you can back up some of the assertions you’ve made above with some cites, then we can go from there…hows that sound? [QUOTE=harveyc] This sort of makes sense since their priority is the 100 hours agenda without a mention on how we get out of Iraq. [/QUOTE] The first 100 hour agenda was NEVER about Iraq…because people who live in the real world realize that there are no solutions to Iraq that can be magically whipped out in 100 hours. People who live in fantasy worlds often think there are easy solutions to difficult problems, or that all it takes is for some politician to wave the magic fiat wand at it to make it go away. Would that it were so… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/113 "2007-01-09T02:46:29Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] People also support us getting out of Iraq to the same level as the items on the 100 hours agenda. [/QUOTE] Cite please. Show me polls that say 80 percent of people want the troops out immediately, like you say you do. ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/114 "2007-01-09T04:05:19Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Only the president can order this. The Congress has no say in it, and even if cutting funding would do anything at all, it would not achieve this. Which part of this statement are you having difficulty understanding? Because its clear that you are not understanding something. Assuming this is true (its not), how would this force the President to put our troops in a more defensive posture and achieve your first statement? What would prevent the President from simply using existing funds from the DoD budget to continue the war in the short term? Why do you seem incapable of doing more than continuing to spout this same arguement even though others have challenged you on it. Feel free to do some research and back up your assertion with a cite that in fact Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid et al CAN cut funding and that this would force the President to bring the troops home. While you are at it, try and figure out exactly how the Dems would get such a thing through, when they have such a slim majority…feel free to back up any further assertions that they CAN do this with some real numbers on HOW it would be done. He wouldn’t need to redeploy…the troops are THERE already, in case this has slipped your mind. Its possible (even probable) that cutting funding would have the effect of preventing the President from deploying any ADDITIONAL large bodies of troops to Iraq…but this would do absolutely nothing for the troops already there. Cite? Feel free to back this up by showing that there is no way the President can juggle the DoD budget (or any other funding) in order to maintain those troops in Iraq in the highly unlikely even YOUR fantasy of cutting off funds happens. Ignorance is bliss…and its hard to hear others why you have your fingers in your ears and are going ‘lalalalalla!’ at the top of your lungs. Tell you what…when you can back up some of the assertions you’ve made above with some cites, then we can go from there…hows that sound? The first 100 hour agenda was NEVER about Iraq…because people who live in the real world realize that there are no solutions to Iraq that can be magically whipped out in 100 hours. People who live in fantasy worlds often think there are easy solutions to difficult problems, or that all it takes is for some politician to wave the magic fiat wand at it to make it go away. Would that it were so… -XT [/QUOTE] Sure, the President is going to leave the soldiers in harms way when he has no funding. Silly. ( the argument he can find the funds is silly too, next) The idea that DoD funds could be used as he wishes wasn’t brought up by me. So why don’t you cite? I have seen several appropriation bills where, for example, the funds cannot be used to build permanant bases in Iraq. Listening to you this can’t be true because the C-C is in complete charge of the military and the war in Iraq. I don’t know what the vote would be for cutting future appropriations for funding the Iraq war. You don’t either. You must think I made up the concept of defunding. It has been brought out on several news broadcasts and members of Congress. Are you saying if the next appropriation for the war were cut, it would have nothing to do with the troops there now, but not funding the “surge” would stop additional troops being deployed there? And, if the President wants a surge he can do it anyway by using funds from other sources. Can you see how absurd this argument is? If there is no solution, why did Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid call for the start of a redeployment by the end of 2006? Was there a solution back when they called for it? ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/115 "2007-01-09T04:10:10Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] Cite please. Show me polls that say 80 percent of people want the troops out immediately, like you say you do. [/QUOTE] I didn’t call cite when you stated 80% approval of the items in the 100 hours agenda. Plus, I said people want us out of Iraq just as much. So you go first … cite! ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/116 "2007-01-09T04:19:06Z")
I think this thread is in the wrong forum. I suggest…I dunno…the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![harveyc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@harveyc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harveyc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/117 "2007-01-09T04:39:39Z")
I was wrong, people support getting out of Iraq way more than the issues in the 100 hours agenda. All other issues are off the bottom of the chart when compared to Iraq in importance: Re: “People also support us getting out of Iraq to the same level as the items on the 100 hours agenda.” Saturday, December 09, 2006 – Americans today are much more supportive of getting out of Iraq ASAP. A new AP-Ipsos poll has 71 percent of Americans favoring getting out of Iraq in the next two years and 60 percent in favor of getting out in the next six months. January 8, 2007 – A CBS News poll released Thursday found that 45 percent of voters want the Democratic Congress to focus on Iraq, a figure that far outstripped the percentages for the economy and jobs, at 7 percent; health care, at 7 percent; and immigration, at 6 percent. “Americans couldn’t be clearer,” the poll report concluded. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/118 "2007-01-09T04:51:36Z")
So tell us, **harveyc** , WHY do you think the Democrats are focusing on other issues instead of Iraq? What’s their hidden agenda, in your opinion? Why are they selling us out? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/119 "2007-01-09T07:04:03Z")
[QUOTE=harveyc] So are you saying, when Murtha, Pelosi, etc. wrote the President on 8/1/06 and said to start pulling our soldiers out of Iraq by the end of 2006, that wasn’t thought out" either? They just made it up and it wasn’t plausible. [/QUOTE] I’m saying that an out-of-power party on the campaign hustings has freedom to make bolder calls for the president to take a specific action than a newly inaugurated party that should not rashly take action that could be harmful without due consideration. If the president (with access (whether or not he reads it) to information regarding the logistics of a successful and safe pullback) were to announce such a pullback Tuesday night, Ms. Pelosi would probably cheer, but for the Democrats to attempt legislation (that would not be veto-proof in either House) to radically alter U.S. involvement in Iraq without having the opportunity to study the actually military and intelligence descriptions of the situation would be foolish. In contrast, decisions to change minimum wages (still subject to veto, but good for appearances) and change ethics rules in the House (not subject to veto and based on information already in the public view), would not be a rash act, _per se_. Comparing the relative speed with which each could be addressed is like comparing apples and kiwifruit. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2007, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079/120 "2007-01-09T10:30:01Z")
> [@](#): > > **harveyc** : I wasn’t around in 1974. That’s okay. We weren’t in Vietnam then anyway. > [@](#): > > Gerald Ford was C-C in 1974 and still conducting a war in Vietnam, with our troops or not, and the Democrat Congress defunded the war. Gerald Ford was president for a little less than five months in 1974, but he wasn’t the POTUS during the war in Vietnam. Eisenhower sent the first American advisors in in the mid 1950’s and Nixon brought the last American military out in 1973. Don’t let that discourage you from posting. Anyone can make mistakes. Welcome to the SDMB. An open mind helps. So does reading other posts carefully. By the way, I think that Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to the President about Iraq on Friday. When you think of the “hearings,” think of them as “searches for the truth” or “hearings of the truth.” Sometimes they can be _really_ interesting. At other times they will drive you stark raving mad! (Some people use them for self-promotion. Imagine that!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-we-been-sold-out-by-ms-pelosi-and-the-democrats-on-the-iraq-war/387079.md?page=7)