I posted my reasoning on why it's NOT "just a scarf"...You are smarter than that major. In addition, I can't think of too many acts from her that are more valid criticisms than neglecting her duties involved with the ESA bill....
I sense fear and desparation. The funny thing is that I still remember what is was like to be in TJ et al's position. I have bad news for you guys. Unless the Democrats are on TV eating babies, they're going to be allowed to do anything while the people have no cares. But you can keep getting angry at everything. Especially things that are precedents from your ideology's time of power. Politics is a cycle, and you guys will be back in power by 2017. Keep me entertained with your whining!
"This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. As a result, our troops have been put at risk." The above references what I would characterize as neglecting her duties...
And I submit to you it has only been 60 or so days since the spending request (of which a bill has passed both houses). Compare that to the 109th republican congress that took over 100 days to pass the last two supplementals. So again, your feigned outrage is misplaced. I'll see if I can find the link.
Thanks yet it still does not excuse the neglection by Pelosi. The Republican congress was ineffective. That is why they got the boot. It was a call for all politicians to be effective. In my view, Pelosi isn't doing right.
All your going to get is a lot of hot air. 1st Pelosi is "appeasing" a terrorist state by going there, wearing a head scarf and not staring these terrorists down. Maybe that was the job of the 3 republican congressman who were there just days before she was. But see that doesn't matter. Only what Pelosi does matters. The onus has apparently shifted from the president to her. This is just more of the conservative bashing to deflect as much critcism now from the president. They forget that there is just too much **** that this administration has been up to, that a head scarf is going to erase overnight. But they will still throw it against the wall until it sticks, because that is ALL they have. The Baker-Hamilton report said talking to Iran/Syria to help end the fighting was an option. But we all know what a pinko loving, terrorist appeaser James Baker III is. And did shrub really mean what he said after it came out: I told the members that this report, called "The Way Forward," will be taken very seriously by this administration. This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion. The commission is headed up to Congress, and I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal _ and we probably won't agree with every proposal _ it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec06/0,4670,BushText,00.html All roxran can do is shout out these code words like appease and neglect of duty and hope that you can forget about the mess we're still in because of shrub. He has no proof of appeasement or neglect. And unless she signed a deal with Syria to allow them to go back into Lebanon all he will have is his hollow rhetoric. Keep dreaming, there is no amount of criticism of Pelosi that will ever, EVER, drown out the criticism shrub has created on himself.
And I think that reasoning is silly. It IS just a scarf. Terrorists aren't going to say "oooh, she wore a scarf! It's a sign of weakness from the US!" Well, for starters, the troops aren't actually anywhere close to running out of money, so the need for the money immediately is a simple scare tactic. Second, if they WERE running out of money, Bush should have made this a priority during the last Congress. You don't wait until 3 months before you run out of money to ask for more if it's that dire a situation. Finally, Bush has already stated the bill is dead on arrival, so unless you're accusing Bush of lying, it doesn't really matter when this bill is finalized.
It is more than just a scarf when it is an appeasement dress up for an intolerant religion...It serves in my view as an endorsement. You think it's silly when I don't and I explained why... Syria has made the decision to sponser terrorism, as a result it is the state of Syria which as enabled the diabolical nature of the religion...As a matter of this course, Pelosi would have done the right thing by politely declining the invitation into this tainted religion in Syria... Trust me, I salute Pelosi for going there (and she could have done very well), but when you couple the misrepresentaion of Israel to this,...I have a problem with that....
if she just wore the scarf and not misrepresent israel, will you still be as passionate as this against scarves?
See, I'm just the opposite. I think she was an idiot for going there in the first place, but I don't think the scarf makes a difference one way or the other.
Getting back towards the work Pelosi has done with ESA bill(s)...or proving it's more than just "money" Terrorists Thank Pelosi, Dems by Nancy Stop the Surrender Bill! House Democrats are pushing a bill through Congress today which, if it becomes law, will force a needless, pointless American defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda is thrilled: so are the aging hippies. We have to stop them. This bill is called the Murtha Proviso – a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for 2007 (H.R. 1591). We call it the Pelosi-Murtha Preemptive Surrender Bill. What it means is simple: they win, we lose. It would cut funds to U.S. troops, block reinforcements, and retreat all U.S. forces from Iraq next year, no matter what the situation. And if that weren't bad enough, the bill would unconstitutionally force the President to give Congress 15 days notice before he moves troops anywhere: if an emergency comes up, tough. Can you imagine al Qaeda giving us 15 days notice before they move? The Pelosi-Murtha bill will kill American troops and crush morale. It will tell the terrorists we have lost all will to win. It will tell our allies they can't trust us, driving them into our enemy's arms. It will tell our enemies if they just hold out one more year and kill more Americans, we will cower in fear and give the Middle East to them. They will win the war. http://www.network54.com/Forum/33620/message/1174678297/Terrorists+Thank+Pelosi,+Dems The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !
ROXRAN, don't forget the President loves signing statements and he will certainly have huge ones waiting for any Democratic bill heading to his desk for signing.
I third that. The fuss over the scarf diminishes from other issues that Pelosi might be more rightly criticized for. Her wearing head scarf to a mosque is no different than any female representating the US would do when visiting a mosque. Whether in Syria, Iraq or the US.
One would think the timeframes would have been similar. If during Repub control of Congress, the WH made the request earlier and gave Congress enough time to work through the issues, that was good. If, under Dems, they shortened the timeframe so that Congress did not have the time, then the WH deserves the blame for the delay. In other words, you can't argue that if the deadline is sooner now, Congress must act sooner. If the deadline is sooner now, it was the intent of the WH to deliberately put pressure on the Congress when none needed to be put on. Of course, I think the first line stands... the timeframes are similar.
Pelosi's Office Calls GOP Demand for Action on Iraq Bill 'Political Stunt' Monday , April 09, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,264964,00.html WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office charged Monday that Republicans had engaged in a "cheap political stunt" when they sent her a letter accusing Democrats of stalling on passage of the critical war funding bill. The spat is over the current bill Congress is considering to pay for ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also includes money for Gulf Coast recovery and farming initiatives. Both the House and Senate have passed versions of the bill — the House version is $124 billion and the Senate version is $122 billion — but House and Senate negotiators need to agree on the final version before it can be sent to the president. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that sets timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq — and both versions include dates that set timeframes for just that. "Congress has an obligation to our troops in the field to move this emergency security funding measure to the president as quickly as possible," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement Monday. McConnell, R-Ky., blamed House leadership for the delays. "Senate Republicans are prepared to send a clean bill to the president for his signature, yet inaction by the House is preventing Congress from moving forward to fund our men and women on the ground," McConnell said. McConnell also joined other Republicans in sending a letter to the California House leader, calling on her to order the House back into session before its scheduled back-to-work date next week. The letter criticized Pelosi over not yet naming House negotiators, even though the Senate named its negotiators the day it passed its version of the bill. "Our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. The Senate is in session and ready to work. We respectfully request that you cancel the remainder of your break, call the House back into session, appoint conferees promptly, and work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the president can sign as soon as possible. Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened," the letter concluded. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly chafed at the message. "Coming from the Republicans, who ran the 'do-nothing' Congress, this letter is a cheap political stunt," Daly said in a statement given to FOX News. "The American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic plan for change in Iraq, yet the president has threatened to veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq, ensures our troops have the training they need, and supports our veterans," he added. Daly said Bush should have requested money in the regular budget process, and noted a recent Congressional Research Service report that said the Army could maintain wartime operations into July with money that already has been allocated. Bush administration officials have said that it would have to seriously reduce vehicle maintenance and troop training, and increase the length of combat troops' tours, if the bill isn't passed by mid-May. Daly added that work is continuing on the bill and indicated that negotiators would be named soon. "The House and Senate will soon pass a conference report giving the President every penny he requested for our troops, but it will also require accountability, for the first time since the Iraq war began," he said.
