Pelosi will become House speaker when the new Congress is seated in January.

WND read Pelosi’s remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.”

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (U.S.).”

“Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.”

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also “reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them.”

Hamas’ Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would “convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance.”

“The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan,” Abdullah said. “We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel’s confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation.”

Going in to Iraq may have been a choice, and may not have had any real link to the War Against Terror…but it most definitely does now.

You can NOT separate them out, and you can not make decisions without being aware of what the impact of those decisions will be on the people in that region.

This isn’t to say that Iraq is so critical that we have to throw more soldiers and more money into it. Just that we have to get real, look at the real consequences if we withdraw – and if the consequences are significant enough (and I think that providing yet more proof that violence, fear and intimidation will get you what you want is a pretty bad consequence. The insurgents in Iraq are murderous thugs who kill more of their own people than they do any Americans.) then we have to look at what realistic things we can do to stop it.

And there IS a chance that Bush’s plan offers that. I’m not for stupidly wasting more lives, but if they put those soldiers in the right places it could make a huge difference.

And if the Democrats are too short-sighted to see past their own assumptions, then I wouldn’t trust their opinion on what to do in Iraq any more than I’d trust Rumsfeld.

Was Cheney in an impeachable position under Nixon?

That’s probably between Dick and Dick, although even with the President I always imagine Cheney would want to be on top.

If Biden can find me the Article and Section in which the Constitutional Convention declared that “A declaration of war shall be deemed a blank check”, I’ll go along with him. Until then, it’s hard to see anything unconstitutional about wielding the power of the purse.

Beautifully said as usual, except I would still have a hard time going along with No-show Joe, a guy who thinks he has to affect an Indian accent to order at Dunkin Donuts.

Are there any Republicans willing to stand in line behind Pelosi? (except for McCain Lieberman, of course, since it is their war.

Gordon Smith from Oregon, and Olypia Snowe from Maine are starting to come around

Trent Lott has been sounding a bit too rational to be a repuglican apologist for bush as well

in a few months the whole country will be marching in the impeachment parade

all repuglican congresscritters are gonna face the choice soon:

george bush, or the Constitution of The United States ???

oregon

I believe that means “initial introduction”- not continued introduction- or additional introduction- or whatever..

I think one could argue that this would be a new introduction, not a continuance. The original AUMF was against a polity that no longer exists, for aims that have been achieved. This new introduction would be to intervene in a civil war in a new Iraq. It’s a different state–different constitution, different government–occupying the same geographical space. FDR couldn’t use Wilson’s AUMF against the Kaiser’s Germany, after all. He had to get a new one for Hitler’s Germany.

For those who haven’t heard it, the quote is from Public Enemy’s “Can’t Do Nothin’ For Ya, Man!”

I Can’t Do Nothin’ For You, Man!
You want six dollars for WHAT?
I can’t do nothin’ for you, man!
You better, man, kiss my butt!