"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Viva Las Vegas Revolution! - Pelosi and the Passion of the Idiocy

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Speaking before a group of Leftist bloggers, the multi-tasking House Speaker said:

“We can take the president to court.” They took the majority without actually stating their true intentions, so why not give it a shot?

Defending what should be considered the indefensible when it comes to usurping the Chief Executive’s powers, Pelosi’s spokesman, Nadeam Elshami said:

‘“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching. Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”’

Democrats in the weekly caucus floated another turd. One of which came from Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.); when he “suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq.” Which is pretty sad when new ideas are old considering Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New Y.); has recently suggested “time travel” as a means of succeeding in defeating the president enemy in Iraq.

Said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), which in effect goes a long, long way in explaining just what is wrong with the Democrats:

‘“There was a ripple around the room,”’ “in support of the idea.”

This whole game is an instance of Democrats not learning the lessons of history of the actions of their predecessors during the Vietnam War; Democrats attempted to sue President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia” but oddly the courts “ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.

Eventually they may learn that the way to ending the battle in Iraq is to cut off funding. Not really that popular an idea considering the consequences (political consequences that is; not say any possible consequences to our nation).

Finally, Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) commented that “the odds would be good,” that the president would include a signing statement on the next supplemental bill; which if I am reading this right, The Hill believes that “Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. Levin did not offer any clues”….as the Democrats are still working on what one of those look like.

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks