Author Topic: Nancy Pelosi Was Against Unilateral Action in Iraq, Before She Was For It  (Read 177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,455
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
- FrontPage Magazine - -

Nancy Pelosi Was Against Unilateral Action in Iraq, Before She Was For It

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 19, 2014 @ 12:28 pm In The Point | 7 Comments

Same old story. Same old Democratic Party which was concerned about an imperial presidency when a Republican was in the White House, but thinks it’s awesome when a Democrat is squatting in the Oval Office.

I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.

First in line to protest was Nancy Pelosi.

Top Democrats, including Pelosi, have decried the president’s latest plans. Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday, “If the president is proposing an escalation, we want to see a justification for the mission.” She added that any funding for a surge would be “subjected to some pretty harsh scrutiny.”

Sorry, that was Pelosi’s response to Bush’s Iraq Surge.

Nancy Pelosi has claimed in the past that the 2002 AUMF did not even grant Bush the power to increase the troop levels in a military action that was unambiguously authorized by Congress:

But what a difference a Democrat makes.

“All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”

What does Pelosi want? She doesn’t know until Obama decides. It’s pathetic that Congressional Democrats have been reduced to a tail wagged by the White House dog.

Pelosi can’t take a firm position on Iraq until Obama does. So her only position is that whatever Obama does is right.

That’s a position familiar to any Soviet underling who believed that whatever the Great Leader did was good.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

URL to article:

Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo