"Pelosi: Bush 'must come to Congress' before attacking Iran"

[Prada]

I don't understand, in the video, why the hell she says that the Iranian revolutionary guards should be dealt with in Iraq. She looks like an imbecile with a statement like that.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi...ress_1014.html

In an interview on ABC's This Week, Speaker Pelosi tells George Stephanopoulos that President Bush must get the approval of Congress before proceeding with an attack on Iran.

Just this week, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution designating Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization in a move many observers fear will give President Bush the authority he needs to attack Iran. Pelosi disagrees, and doesn't plan on bringing up such a measure in the house.

"We don't believe that any of the authority the President has would allow him to go in without an act of Congress," she said, adding that the War Powers Act of the 1970s gives any president the power to retaliate against a country that has attacked the US. "But short of that," Pelosi said, "he must come to the Congress."

When asked about the Senate vote, Pelosi noted that it is unprecendented to declare a piece of another country's military a terrorist organization. She said, "Whatever Iran's impact is on our troops in Iraq should be dealt with in Iraq."

Reuters has the full story.

[Logan13]

I don't understand, in the video, why the hell she says that the Iranian revolutionary guards should be dealt with in Iraq. She looks like an imbecile with a statement like that.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi...ress_1014.html

It is my understanding that some Iranian revolutionary guards are in Iraq, helping to stir shit up.

[Prada]

It is my understanding that some Iranian revolutionary guards are in Iraq, helping to stir shit up.

Correct but what I mean is there is nothing to say that moral, logistics and financial help is not coming from just inside Iran. Hence I wouldn't hesitate to go into Iran if the necessity occurs. Kinda like what I believe is happening on the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan even though everyone seems to deny US operations inside the porous border. Al qaeeda or taliban crosses the border into Pakistan to recharge, refuel, and rearm themselves only to cross back into Afghanistan. Hence lets point out these focal points if the government cant take care of it themselves. Only difference Alqaeeda is not backed by Pakistan while IRG is backed by the Iranian government. Rule of law is that you must attack the root of the problem.

[Logan13]

Correct but what I mean is there is nothing to say that moral, logistics and financial help is not coming from just inside Iran. Hence I wouldn't hesitate to go into Iran if the necessity occurs. Kinda like what I believe is happening on the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan even though everyone seems to deny US operations inside the porous border. Al qaeeda or taliban crosses the border into Pakistan to recharge, refuel, and rearm themselves only to cross back into Afghanistan. Hence lets point out these focal points if the government cant take care of it themselves. Only difference Alqaeeda is not backed by Pakistan while IRG is backed by the Iranian government. Rule of law is that you must attack the root of the problem.

I am just suprised that Pelosi admits that Iran is in Iraq.............

[Tock]

If the US starts a war with Iran, we'll have a draft for sure. Me, I've done my time in the USAF, so they're gonna come after y'all Republican hawks.

I'll send y'all a box of cookies at Xmas time . . .

lol . . .

[Logan13]

If the US starts a war with Iran, we'll have a draft for sure. Me, I've done my time in the USAF, so they're gonna come after y'all Republican hawks.

I'll send y'all a box of cookies at Xmas time . . .

lol . . .

There will not be a draft. Btw the sky is not falling either.............

[mcpeepants]

There will not be a draft. Btw the sky is not falling either.............

If the threat of "islamofacism" was as real and as dangerous to the world as Bush, Cheney, and therepublican presidential candidates (excluding Ron Paul) claim it to be, a draft would be necessary to protect America and the world from the unprecedented danger we face. Since they won't have a draft, it just shows that there is no threat and that they are just playing to people's bigotry to win political support.

[Amorphic]

when is this madness going to end? Every day this administration pulls some new bullshit out of their ass and stirs up more shit. Cannot wait until the democrats take over presidency. (thats if the american public wakes the hell up and gets the republicans out already)

[mcpeepants]

I am just suprised that Pelosi admits that Iran is in Iraq.............

A lot of democratic politicians are surprisingly hawkish about Iran and parrot the administrations claims as though they didn't learn anything from Iraq. Although Pelosi voted against the war, the democrats have the majority and cut funding for the war if they wanted to but they won't and the leadership is hostile to doing it. There more worried about republicans calling them names during the elections, like they wouldn't do it anyways. With there awful presidential candidates and the lackluster performance leading congress, I would not be surprised if they lost both the presidency (too republicans who are trying to portray themselves as Bush clones) and the congress.

[Amorphic]

With there awful presidential candidates and the lackluster performance leading congress, I would not be surprised if they lost both the presidency (too republicans who are trying to portray themselves as Bush clones) and the congress.

hopefully not, hell i dont even live in the states and i'm sick to death of a republican president

[mcpeepants]

when is this madness going to end? Every day this administration pulls some new bullshit out of their ass and stirs up more shit. Cannot wait until the democrats take over presidency. (thats if the american public wakes the hell up and gets the republicans out already)

I wouldn't expect much from it. Democrats have power to stop Bush's agenda if they want to but they won't because they are politically spineless. Even when they were in the minority, they could of filibustered bad bills. Just notice how republicans filibustered those no-binding resolutions calling for a time table for withdrawal and will threaten to filibuster bills they don't like. Bush keeps digging us deeper into shit and all the democrats do is grab shovels and help him dig.

[mcpeepants]

hopefully not, hell i dont even live in the states and i'm sick to death of a republican president

Foreign policy wise, a lot of the candidates whether democrats or republicans hold pretty similar positions with the exceptions being Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul.

[Amorphic]

I wouldn't expect much from it. Democrats have power to stop Bush's agenda if they want to but they won't because they are politically spineless. Even when they were in the minority, they could of filibustered bad bills. Just notice how republicans filibustered those no-binding resolutions calling for a time table for withdrawal and will threaten to filibuster bills they don't like. Bush keeps digging us deeper into shit and all the democrats do is grab shovels and help him dig.

very true.

just pack your backs and head to Canada, its way cooler up here anyways.

[mcpeepants]

very true.

just pack your backs and head to Canada, its way cooler up here anyways.

nah a like living in America.

Niagara falls, Canada is cool and I would like to check out Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. Montreal was alright but i need to explore it more.

[Logan13]

I wouldn't expect much from it. Democrats have power to stop Bush's agenda if they want to but they won't because they are politically spineless. Even when they were in the minority, they could of filibustered bad bills. Just notice how republicans filibustered those no-binding resolutions calling for a time table for withdrawal and will threaten to filibuster bills they don't like. Bush keeps digging us deeper into shit and all the democrats do is grab shovels and help him dig.

Have you ever thought that the Dems will not stop the "agenda" because it is simply the right course of action. It is easy to speak against something in order to gain power. Perhaps they have known that this course was right the whole time that they were campaigning against it.....
Now that they are in power, perhaps they understand that tough choices must be made, or least maintained.

[mcpeepants]

Have you ever thought that the Dems will not stop the "agenda" because it is simply the right course of action. It is easy to speak against something in order to gain power. Perhaps they have known that this course was right the whole time that they were campaigning against it.....
Now that they are in power, perhaps they understand that tough choices must be made, or least maintained.

The wars aren't right. They are both wars of aggression since neither Afghanistan (it was Al Qaieda terrorists that did) or Iraq attacked us or were about to. It's all politics with the democratic leadership in congress. Democrats were in power in the Senate when the afghan and Iraq resolution was passed. If they really want to end the war, they could do it now by cutting the funding. However, since they keep voting to fund the wars, they should just admit they support it.

[Logan13]

If the threat of "islamofacism" was as real and as dangerous to the world as Bush, Cheney, and therepublican presidential candidates (excluding Ron Paul) claim it to be, a draft would be necessary to protect America and the world from the unprecedented danger we face. Since they won't have a draft, it just shows that there is no threat and that they are just playing to people's bigotry to win political support.

Wrong. It is not man power that is needed, just fire power.

[Logan13]

A lot of democratic politicians are surprisingly hawkish about Iran and parrot the administrations claims as though they didn't learn anything from Iraq. Although Pelosi voted against the war, the democrats have the majority and cut funding for the war if they wanted to but they won't and the leadership is hostile to doing it. There more worried about republicans calling them names during the elections, like they wouldn't do it anyways. With there awful presidential candidates and the lackluster performance leading congress, I would not be surprised if they lost both the presidency (too republicans who are trying to portray themselves as Bush clones) and the congress.

No, the Dems just understand responsibility now that they have Congressional power. They are not afraid of being called weak, they are concerned with what the consequences to this country are of being weak.

[Logan13]

The wars aren't right. They are both wars of aggression since neither Afghanistan (it was Al Qaieda terrorists that did) or Iraq attacked us or were about to. It's all politics with the democratic leadership in congress. Democrats were in power in the Senate when the afghan and Iraq resolution was passed. If they really want to end the war, they could do it now by cutting the funding. However, since they keep voting to fund the wars, they should just admit they support it.

If you harbor al qaieda, you have joined forces with them and shall suffer the same consequences.

[BgMc31]

The dems won't cut funding not because they are afraid of looking weak but rather they don't want to leave the soldier without there necessary needs. They know that they cannot pull the troops out of Iraq (Bush will veto any legistature announcing timetables or immediate withdrawl and they don't have enough to votes to override a presidential veto).

All the BS about them knowing that the course was right, is just that BS. And all these claims that they are weak are equally BS. Bush and the republicans hold just enough clout to keep the status quo. As long as we have a republican president to veto any anti war legislation, the dems will never be able to end the BS war in Iraq.

[mcpeepants]

If you harbor al qaieda, you have joined forces with them and shall suffer the same consequences.

The US has been harboring and protecting MEK, a group considered terrorists by both the US and Iran. Should we bomb ourselves then since we are harboring terrorists and in your words "have joined forces with them and shall suffer the same consequences"? The US has been ignoring PKK terrorists that have been attacking Turkey. Should Turkey of bombed us because we did respond to there demands of capturing those terrorists and bringing them to justice. (oh now we're sharing intelligence on PKK with Turkey even though we pretended for years we didn't know what's going on in the region)

[mcpeepants]

The dems won't cut funding not because they are afraid of looking weak but rather they don't want to leave the soldier without there necessary needs. They know that they cannot pull the troops out of Iraq (Bush will veto any legistature announcing timetables or immediate withdrawl and they don't have enough to votes to override a presidential veto).

All the BS about them knowing that the course was right, is just that BS. And all these claims that they are weak are equally BS. Bush and the republicans hold just enough clout to keep the status quo. As long as we have a republican president to veto any anti war legislation, the dems will never be able to end the BS war in Iraq.

That is totally bull. It because they are scared of republicans calling them names during the elections and the fact many of them criticize the war but still support it. Do you think the soldiers are going to swim home if we cut the funding? There is already more than enough money in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely. Giving Bush more money will just keep them there longer. The veto issue is another lie that the democratic leadership keep saying. Let Bush veto the bill if he wants, he would have then just vetoed money he need for further war. But more importantly, when Bush ask for money (the dems already caved in today), don't give it him. NO MONEY, NO WAR. The democrats do not have to send up a bill authorizing more payment. Just let the money dry up and Bush will be forced to bring the troops home.

The democrats are weak. The republicans are the minority in congress but you can see how they still control the agenda and stay unified. They are not scared to use a filibuster (what happened to all there up or down vote talk) while the democrats talk about putting optional withdrawal deadline (but will quickly fold if challenged) and keeping impeachment off the table. I can not think of any major beneficial thing they have accomplished and if they keep this lackluster performance, they deserve to lose miserably in 08.