Micromanaging the war: Act I
From the Chicago Tribune:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.
“If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now,” she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
…..and then in the same puzzling article, Joe Biden had this to say:
Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush’s efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.
“It’s unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we’re going to micromanage,” Biden said.
That’s the modern democrats for you – doing exactly what they know they have no authority to do.
Posted by Kathy
January 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Whores
All of them
Democrat=prostitute
All they care about is tacking to the wind as a political calculation
They need to see the next poll to see what to do
Never what’s good for America, it’s forever and always about their political future
January 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
MFG.
Ditto
January 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Let us assume that Biden is right and micromanaging the war would be unconstitutional in this instance. Let us also assume that the Dems do in fact cut off funding or whatever, in order to stop Bush from surging troops (a bad idea, btw). By the time the issue is finally litigated by the Supreme Court, our guys will be home and Iraq will be in full chaos with the entire Islamic jihad claiming victory over the great Satan and dancing in the streets, and the whole point will be moot.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Except that Roberts decides what goes before the court. He may bump it up.
I don’t see dems yanking the rug out – this is to appease the moonbats so they don’t disrupt any more press conferences by Rahm Emanuel.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:15 am
The Democrats’ First 100 Hours, Part I: Surrender
Gateway Pundit offers a translation of Nancy Pelosi’s demands that the United States surrender in Iraq…
January 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I’m not happy about what I’m hearing about the surge of troops. What is President Bush doing? He wants to send more troops, but not as many as the field commanders say is needed. I understand he’s going to suggest only 10,000 and the generals are either suggesting no more or 50,000 to 60,000. This is puzzling. This is not the time for the president to look for a compromise of this type. If we need more troops, which I also think is a bad idea, why not the number the generals say will make a difference?