Nancy Pelosi needs to resign

Bloggers, progressive activists and others who gave their hard-earned money to the Democrats in 2006 were utterly shocked by what their House Speaker said on Sunday.  Each of us bought into the notion that Nancy Pelosi would have the courage to force the President to change direction in Iraq. 

Today there are at least 30,000 more US troops in Iraq than when Pelosi first took the gavel.  It is true that Democrats need 67 votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto.  But according to Pelosi, even if Bush's veto gets overridden, Democrats don't have the constitutional authority to end the war.

Unacceptable!

Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.” 

But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”

Wrong!  If you override Bush's veto, he does not have to sign anything, and the war will be defunded.  Pelosi should know that.  One of two things are going on in Pelosi's head:

1. Either she does not understand the legislative process; or
2. She is giving up on her efforts to lead Congressional action to end the war.

In either case, Nancy Pelosi is not fit to be Speaker of the House.  We need a Speaker with courage, and who gives voters exactly what they asked for last November.  On the issue of Iraq, her tenure as Speaker has been a miserable failure.

Comments

[Robt]

As much as I would like us out of Iraq's civil war. And force Bush to let Iraqi's pull on their boot straps that he apparently doesn't think is possible for the, yet does for Katrina victims.

I have to disagree with you somewhat. Speaker Pelosi can play games and hold back funding. She can send a bill to that effect to the Senate. If the Senate doesn't have the majority for veto over ride then all Pelosi could do id hold back the funding legislation.

Yes, if the Senate even over rode the veto.
The President does not have to sign.

Do you realy believe that this President cares about our military people?

I have wrestled with this question. Question of if funds were cut off for Bush to continue the war(occupation). Bush could leave those troops in the battle arena with no support. You know, money for bullets, fuel for appache war birds, medical supplies.

Bush could in fact leave the troops in harms way instead of doing the only thing rational people would do. But Bush and Cheney are not rational.

If you want to be angry at lack of redirection of our Middle Eastern Military meddling, try directing that anger at those that still support this mistake. Because they have obstructed the Dems who have in fact been attempting to end it.

Face it, the Dems have sumitted legislation several times, only to be shot down. I don't recommend under funding troops, nor cutting funds off because there are military that Bush will leave behind like his school initiative when he underfunded it. Past President's had some sort of self honor and respect. This President does not have it for himself nor others.
**************************
What would you have Pelosi's replacement do that she is nt doing?

*************************

[LaPopessa]

To give up on efforts to lead Congress to end the war would indicate that she even took one step forward in that fight. I am still stunned at how scared the 2006 Congress (voted in to end the war, btw) is of mr. 27% approval rating. What on earth do they think is going to happen if they grow a spine?

[crshedd]

well, let the 'decider' veto a withdrawl bill everyday of the year until he gets it or leaves office.

i voted a straight democratic ticket (voting since 1972) for the first time in my life. what a waste.

[Joe Westin]

YESSS! How can we make this happen?