Thursday, January 11, 2007

Pelosi bin Laden

If these two can agree, it must be the the right thing to do! "Cut funding to US troops in Iraq!" The great powers have spoken! Oh, and they say Bush is an infidel, too.


Derbecker said...

Canadian observer again, and not wanting to start a fight. Just curiuous - the story you've linked to doesn't seem as cut and dried as the Pelosi/Bin Laden scenario you've put together. This caught me in particular:

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday.

Asked about Pelosi's remarks, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Bush welcomed any ideas on Iraq that "lead to success."

Does asking for oversight necessarily put Pelosi/Dems into the same camp as Bin Laden? Pres. Bush has mentioned respect for Harry Truman's character lately, and if memory serves, Truman had a pre-presidential reputation for ferreting out waste and war profiteering. Suggests a respect for oversight.

Conservative Dad said...

Funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Dan said...

Interesting. That is not the article I thought I had linked. Oh well. Perhaps I should change it to say, "Al-Democratiqaeda" instead of singling out Pelosi, who seems to have backpedaled in the past few days.

But for the record, I am 100% supportive of Congressional oversight. But I also support our President in time of war. Can you imagine if Congress questioned FDR the way Bush is being questioned? We would have pulled out of Normandy in the first hour if we used the logic being used today.

I am opposed to war profiteering, if you define profiteering as exploitation. There will always be a party that profits from war - and that is usually the victor. Pelosi's profiteering argument sounds familiar to the oft-cited, yet never supported "war for oil" argument. A fallacy that brings shame to those who stand by it despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.