Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi: Democrats facing voter 'unrest' over war spending, troop increase

By Paul Kane
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that Democrats face "serious unrest" over President Obama's possible expansion of tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.

Pelosi, in a conference call with economists, said House Democrats were concerned about the "opportunity costs" of steering billions of dollars toward the troop increase as compared to "our ability to invest domestically with an eye to fiscal soundness." The issue of financing new troops in the region has come to a head in advance of Obama's decision, to be announced next week, as a handful of senior Democrats have proposed a "war tax" on the nation's wealthiest wage earners and some corporations to finance the war.

Pelosi deflected questions about her support for such a tax-hike proposal but noted that an expensive new war plan faces very high hurdles in her 258-member Democratic caucus, about two-thirds of whom were largely opposed to the Bush administration's 2007 "surge" of troops into Iraq and have voiced doubts about increased troop levels in Afghanistan.

"Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus about, can we afford this war?" Pelosi said in a Tuesday morning call, just hours before she met Obama in a closed-door meeting at the White House.

Senior Democratic aides said no decision would be made on how and when to fund the expected troop request until Obama spells out his plan. One option would a supplemental spending bill that could be considered early next year. Another would be to add the funding into the must-pass omnibus appropriation bill lawmakers are trying to pass by the end of this year to provide funding for most of the federal government for fiscal year 2010, though that would be contingent on the plan being ready soon and Obama believing he has the votes lined up for it.

Republicans pounced on the proposed tax increases, accusing leading Democrats of spending too freely on domestic issues and running up the current $1.4 trillion annual deficit. They questioned the appropriateness of raising taxes during a recession that has been hampered, in part, by a lack of consumer spending. "Our country needs real fiscal discipline, not tax hike schemes in the midst of a recession," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Politically, raising taxes just months before the 2010 midterm elections would be a very difficult legislative task, particularly with Republicans already criticizing individual Democrats for the mounting national debt. During the health-care debate, one of Pelosi's committee chairmen initially proposed a tax on households earning at least $350,000, but Pelosi faced a rebellion, particularly from freshman and sophomore Democrats representing wealthy suburban districts that had previously been represented by Republicans. She negotiated a compromise in the House-approved legislation to only impose the tax on families earning $1 million.

But the war tax proposals from top Democrats have served as a marker for the difficulty Obama will have in securing support from Democrats for the expected troop expansion.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has suggested a tax on individuals earning more than $200,000. "We've got to find revenues, particularly in the upper brackets that have done so well.... It's important that we pay for [the new troops] if we possibly can," Levin told Albert Hunt, host of Bloomberg News' "Political Capital" TV show.

Reps. David Obey (D-Wisc.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) -- the top lawmakers overseeing the Pentagon's budget -- and other top Democrats have introduced legislation that would issue a tax on almost all income earners, with those in the highest brackets facing the steepest tax hikes.

Pelosi's remarks Tuesday tried to walk the line between dozens of Democrats from moderate-to-conservative districts who would be opposed to such a plan and her closest allies in leadership. "I know that the impact on our investments at home and our fiscal soundness are an important part of his decision," she said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  November 24, 2009; 5:32 PM ET
Categories:  Dem. Leaders  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hoffman concedes a 2nd time in NY House race
Next: McChrystal tells lawmakers Obama engaged in "thoughtful process" on request for more troops

Comments

Pelosi is an idiot. Obama said this was the "real war" and I agree. Afghanistan and Pakistan are stratigicly important when you consider that al Qaeda and the Taliban are there and growing withe the war now spilling over to Pakistan. Pakistan, Ms. Pelosi, has the atomic bomb. If Pakistan becomes an Islamic State the costs are incomprehensible. But then again the fact that you are the Speaker of the House is incomprehensible

Posted by: rcc_2000 | November 24, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

What a disappointment "Uncle Tom" Obama is ! He is doing exactly what the plutocracy tells him to do.It seems the election of 08 was a setup.Repubs and dems,two sides of the same tarnished coin.The "we the "people " stuff is just propaganda for the 90 IQ serfs! Josef Goebbels smiles from the grave !!

Posted by: hyroller56 | November 24, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The war mongers are getting this country so deeply in debt that our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay for it that is if
America is still standing.The congress is the most corrupt place in this country spend billions on war but fight over healthcare for our citizens. Bring the troops home.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | November 24, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi should read the Constitution! A legitimate concern of the Federal Government is to wage war. The congress has spent (not "invested") so much treasure on illegitimate and unconstitional measures that the money for legitimate purposes is gone.

Posted by: jack29 | November 24, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Notice how not ONE ISRAELI soldier has served in Iraq or Afganistan?

Not one,thats right NOT ONE Israeli soldier
has served in Iraq or Afganistan!

Unbelievable !!!!

Iceland,Czech republic,Australia,United kingdom,Albania,Ukraine,Germany,Japan,S.Korea,Tonga,Denmark,N Zealand,Poland,Mongolia,Latvia,Spain,Hungry,Norway,Italy and many,many others have sent troops...BUT NOT ISRAELI !

Thats right,not one Israeli soldier has ever served here!

Israel pretends to be an ally of the United States...but its a lie !


They pretend to be our ally,but in fact hate us !

They laugh while american soldiers die for them !!

Posted by: hyroller56 | November 24, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The Afghan war is like walking behind a horse with diaherra, you will never get it off your shoes unless you stop.

The Iraq and Afghan wars are like a daily reality show illustrating the incompetance of the Bush,Cheney years. We should drop Cheney (take Liz and Coulter with him) in Iraq and not to return until he has the promised "oil" money to pay for the war. Oh by the way and bring those liberator roses back with you for the Rose Bowl parade.

Mr. President the country has been stuck with the 8 year incompetency of Bush and Cheney. Do not join them.

Ghengis Kahn,British Empire and the Soviet Union all have one thing in common-they were all defeated in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was finacially devasted. The rest is history.

Afghanistan is a corrupt, illiterate country composed of war lords, gangs, religiouf fanatics and has yet to advance to the culture of the midle ages ,much less funtion peacefully in today's world.

Mr. President you must tell the American people that Afghanistan will look better in the rear view mirror.

Posted by: COWENS99 | November 24, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Operation: CLEAN SLATE
Objective: 1.To throw out every incumbent (Republican and Democrat) in the 2010 election cycle.
Objective: 2.To continues to toss every incumbent out every election cycle until they realize that they represent "We the people" not the lobbyist throwing out the most cash.
Objective: 3. To repeal Nafta
Objective: 4. To restore sanity to our immigration nightmare
Objective: 5. To impose tariffs on countries that cheat the system by artificially holding down the value of their currency (china)
Objective: 6. bring before the courts any American citizen who knowingly sold out their allegiance to the American people for money from a foreign government.
Objective: 7. Bring before the courts any American politician who sold his allegiance to the American people by accepting money from lobbyist and then going against the wishes of his constituency and voting in favor of his lobbyist companies.
Objective: 9. Term Limits of no longer than 2 terms

Posted by: scon101 | November 24, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is dead right: the Democrats are facing unrest over Afganistan. We have a President who doesn't lead, he merely follows trying to clean up bipartisan messes. The first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review has become the First Janitor. What an abandonment of hope.

Posted by: farhorizons | November 24, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the Democrats are concerned about spending money? Funny how they are pushing a H.C. bill that will destroy our economy but they are concerned about the cost of destroying terrorists? Makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: akwa01 | November 24, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

JOBS! Pelosi will not have to worry about running the House much longer.

Next year, she will be in the minority party because of the JOBS situation, not the war.

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | November 24, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Progressives" are very angry at their president's decision. They looked forward to losing the war to deprive Al-Quada of a safe haven. They are a far cry from their party when it was led by Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy- who would not allow the US to be defeated on the battlefield. Watch the hate and vitriol flow now. Liberals are haters.

Posted by: mhr614 | November 24, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is an idiot and this tax is what you would expect from a bunch of liberals most of whom should be in jail. I remember Pelosi once said her children were not in the military because they were too old and her grandchildren were not in the military because they are too young. My guess is that Pelosi does not even know anyone in the military. She will want to replace the cash for clunkers with a cash for corporals using a tax on Americans. If you did not see what was going on with Pelosi and the House you could not imagine it. Is it possible that there are enough smart people in San Francisco to throw this nitwit out of office?

Posted by: Mindboggle | November 24, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Wapo will not report this; but, this was on FOX today: Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Posted by: Mindboggle | November 24, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Trillions for war, nothing for the American people.

Posted by: ottoparts | November 24, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

lol

how convenient, all of a sudden they have real concerns over the deficit, yet spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors.

Sure, let's spend trillions on health care reform that "we can all believe in" [Sarcasm off/] that adds taxes, that WILL ADD TO THE DEFICIT, and doesn't even address rising health insurance premiums.

These guys are a joke, too bad that Pelosi is insulated in her little world over theree in San Francisco to be held accountable for all this crap she feeds us. BTW Nancy, please try refraining in saying things such as "in the best interest for all Americans".

You don't represent us, and you damn well don't represent me.

Posted by: Magox | November 24, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Wapo will not report this; but, this was on FOX today: Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Mindboggle...you forgot the best part...what did these awful seals do...why this piece of crap had a bloody LIP!!! my god that's enough for this administration to court martial three of our best...you better wake up people AQ is winning because we are letting them...FOUR Americans tortured and hung on a bridge and we court martial over a bloody lip like they say only in America...

Posted by: Immanurse | November 24, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have some nerve complaining about any taxes or spending. They just spent the last 8 years spending and borrowing the USA into a hole we will be lucky to ever get out of off, and all the money is gone, down the black hole of war and death. Not one thin dime spent on anything productive.

Pelosi and Obama should pull all US troops out of the Middle East and close down all our bases there, and tell Israel that since they insist on continuing to expand their settlements in the West Bank and kick Palestinians off land they and their families have inhabited for hundreds if not thousands of years, they are on their own. We are tired of trying to make peace between a bunch of savages and primitives who care more about settling scores than joining the developed world. Tell the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the rest of the countries in that part of the world that we are sorry but they are just going to have to work it out amongst themselves, that we will no longer try to help them figure it out. Let Europe work it out with them, most of their borders were determined by the Europeans anyway. Time the US stood back and let those who screwed it up so badly take responsibility for their failures.

Posted by: Chagasman | November 24, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I guess you moronic "Progressives" want a nuclear Taliban.. is that it?

My God , the stupidity of you fools knows no limit.

Posted by: vincep1974 | November 24, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

All the signals indicate that Obama is going to send fresh cannon fodder to Afghanistan. His own party is outraged. What is their solution? More taxes.

It appears that the Democrats are regrouping into their familiar, circular firing squad. If the Democratic Congress is consistent, they should simply withdraw financial support for this war. No war appropriations = no war.

Posted by: alance | November 24, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Proposed short speech for the President

I have decided to accept the plan to occupy areas of Afghanistan and use nation building to build the will of the Afghans to fight and defeat the Taliban. Areas of Afghanistan will be controlled totally by American forces with the population protected from both the Taliban and the corrupt government.

The exit strategy for the Unites States is simple.

Our troops leave Afghanistan when the Afghans have defeated the Taliban, or our troops leave when with mounting losses of Americans the United States decides it will no longer wait for Afghans to be willing to defeat the Taliban.

I am certain that Afghans will warmly accept our occupation of Afghanistan to protect Afghans.

I am certain that Afghans when they see the death of innocent Afghans, caused by firefights between American troops and the Taliban in crowded marketplaces, will understand that America is there to protect the Afghans, and that this will not ignite a holy crusade to force the foreign invaders out of Afghanistan.

I am sure my fellow Americans in a time of economic need here in America, fully understand the need for American resources and American effort to achieve nation building in Afghanistan.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Chagasman.... you really should research your claims before posting them... Obama has spent more money since Jan.12 of this year than Bush did in his last term. After that you should take your isolationist butt to a library and read about the historical consequences of our trying to stay out of "everyone elses mess".

Posted by: nosuchluck | November 24, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Nancy, with all due respect, you and your caucus suck. Go get another face job you hag.

Posted by: gorams1 | November 24, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Most Democrats in Congress are unhappy with the intention of the President to now turn Afghanistan into a full blown war. The focus on costs is perhaps all that can be done at this point.

Democrats need to openly disassociate themselves from this decision as over 50 percent of the country do not want a new war.

It is time for Democrats to consider cutting off all funding for Afghanistan. It is either that or acceptance of another failed war of winning hearts and minds.

I hope that the Democrats chose this path since there would be over 50 percent of Americans willing to support them.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Has Nancy Pelosi been around Joe Biden lately? She seems to have contracted diarrhea of the mouth somewhere.

You don't suppose she could just have kept her yap shut until she heard the President's (and leader of her party's) case?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

bsallamack wrote, "It is time for Democrats to consider cutting off all funding for Afghanistan."

Note to AP: position photographers on the embassy roof.

Some people just never learn from experience.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is still playing politics with the war. He's boxed himself in and the box is getting smaller with an open end committment. I can see a maximum committment of 5 months being given for ultimate victory, but no more.

A good war tax will bring this adventure to a halt. America can no longer afford the Bush military escapades.

With the murders in Ft Hood America is not safe anyway. So we may as well bring the troops home.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a fan of Pelosi but someone has to shut down BO. I am so glad I did not vote for this man. Didn't vote for McCain either as I thought he was the true warmonger We need to get the troops out of both Afghanistan and Ewrack NOW!!!, TODAY!!!, IMMEDIATELY!!!!! BO aint gonna shut down the terrorists, ever.

Posted by: kentigereyes | November 24, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

What was Nan doing on a conference call with economists? Learning how to balance her checkbook?

It's a pretty muddled party that wouldn't support its President in what he has announced as a "war of necessity."

Just remember what Will Rogers had to say: I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | November 24, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

"Reps. David Obey (D-Wisc.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) -- the top lawmakers overseeing the Pentagon's budget -- and other top Democrats have introduced legislation that would issue a tax on almost all income earners"

Another lie by Obama finally exposed.

It's ironic that Murtha, king of the earmarks, wants to raise everybody's taxes instead of, y'know, stopping the earmarks.

He belongs in Jail.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | November 24, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg wrote "Obama is still playing politics with the war. He's boxed himself in and the box is getting smaller with an open end committment. I can see a maximum committment of 5 months being given for ultimate victory, but no more.A good war tax will bring this adventure to a halt. America can no longer afford the Bush military escapades.With the murders in Ft Hood America is not safe anyway. So we may as well bring the troops home."

1. Define what you mean by "playing politics". A president is not an emperor, he or she must work through congress, which presumably involves "playing politics".

2. With regard to Ft. Hood, you apparently feel that it's time for us to cry "Uncle!" now that Islamists have killed so many of us. Or do you mean to suggest that Major Hasan's mass murder proved that we are morally wrong?

Maybe you mean to say, "Quit bugging me, I'm busy with my WII". Hard to say.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The Jerk Bush left one heck of a mess. Not only at home, but overseas too.

I see al-Qeada over the last few years has been moving into Iraq. Nice. They weren't there before our invasion.

I see Nitwit Cheney blasting Richard Nixon for bowing to Emperor Hirohito. The Jerk Bush held hands with the terrorist Prince of Saudi Arabia also. All photographed.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse


We The People will defeat the republican jihad on America!

Over two terms of the, "republican reign of error", these failed republican war criminals had no problem spending a TRILLION dollars to kill 1,339,771 Iraqis, mostly innocent non-combatant women and children.

Now they're against spending that would save the lives of 45 THOUSAND innocent American infants, toddlers, children, teens, young adults, women, men, and elderly US Citizens!

The republican'ts are now more dangerous to US Citizens than al-Quaeda!

Their war on health care reform is conclusive proof that the republican't party, it's vastly failed leadership, hypocritically moronic media lackeys, demented constituents, and self serving corporatist agenda are not only the sworn enemy of 45 THOUSAND innocent American infants, toddlers, children, teens, young adults, women, men, and elderly US Citizens.

They are the proven enemy of our Nation, our Constitution, and The American People!

If we can afford an illegitimate pre-emptive republican war without end, we can and must afford to save the lives of 45,000 US Citizens who will die without needed health care insurance. Failure by ANY Legislator to do so, will never be forgiven or forgotten! The avoidable DEATHS of 45 THOUSAND US Citizens will be AVENGED at the polls.

The republican't reign of error has ended and their fraudulent reign of terror will not stand!

The NEXT ELECTION is less than 1 year away!


Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,339,771"
www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America's War On Iraq: 4,682
www.icasualties.org/oif/

Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 1,524
http://icasualties.org/oef/


Cost of War in Iraq
$702,389,303,953

Cost of War in Afghanistan
$232,180,507,122

Subscribe to this feed using your newsreader http://ichnews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default


Posted by: MrTruth | November 24, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

put a 1 basis point tax on all financial instruments traded on financial exchanges or sold to individuals

Posted by: patb | November 24, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

We need JOBS! we need jobs! jobs, jobs, jobs! We don't need or want a war in Afghanistan. We can't win the war there. It's a civil war that will never end until the AFGHANS settle it. The same we settled OUR Civil War.

The infrastructure has been neglected since Saint Ronald decided the very very very rich needed a tax break and we should pay for it. Over thirty years of this neo-con recklessness war after war after war has bankrupted us. The merchants of war have made thousands of billions. Enough!

No more war, President Obama! No more war!
Bring all the troops home!

Give up your dream of an empire!
Serve the people! Be the first president in a long long time who cares about the common people.

Give us the change we thought we voted for!

Posted by: flamingliberal | November 24, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

The "war tax" sounds like a good idea. Just spend it on healthcare, and bring the troops home.

Posted by: Jihm | November 24, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn
t you think by now that Pelosi Reid and the GOAT BOY should give up some ELITE PRIVILEGES like jets and Limos and and find their own health care plan ...

Shouldn't they be paying into Social Security and Medicare and finding a 401k ?

If they are so worried about the cost of keeping our troops and our country safe ... maybe it's time to knock them off of their ELITE PEDESTAL and make them understand that they are OUR SERVANT not our MASTER .

Who said the Servant could assume the role of MASTER !
Lets take control of their land and elaborate toys and GET SOME MONEY UP FOR THE TROOPS AND TRY THESE THUGS FOR TREASON !!!!

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | November 24, 2009 8:43 PM | Report abuse

MrTruth, your platform will probably place anyone who adheres to it 4'th, behind Ralph Nader. Maybe 5'th, behind Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader.

My 2012 prediction:
Obama (D) 46.2%
Romney/Huckabee (R) 46%
Dobbs (goofball) 3%
Nader (nutcase) 2%
Other (mostly illiterates who accidentally spoiled ballots) 2.8%

How the electoral college plays out is anyone's guess.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I hope obama policy in Afghanistan fail so that the American people would see that he was a war monger and he would lose Democratic support. Next year we will see much more casualties and I wish he would be so worried that he would have peaceful sleep and he would contemplate his bad decison forever. He knowingly put American men and women at risk. i hope he become a one term President. Let stage a protest in Washington.

Posted by: dsroberts | November 24, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

LETS NUKE THE CONGRESS and RETURN THE GOVERNMENT TO the WHITE MAN!!!!!

NO MORE NIGGAARS or SPICCKS STEALING FROM THE WHITE TAXPAYERS!!!!

Posted by: dumniggar | November 24, 2009 5:59 PM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Finally...a red neck with the balls to display his ignorance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RPLCO | November 24, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I have a wonderful and painless way to pay for the War and the national debt: Lets place a tax on the newspapers who advocated these programs. Say around 50% on the net worth of the Washington Post, New York Times,etc.
Oh! They are not worth anything now are they?
See, I told you it would be painless.

Posted by: BPYLE47998 | November 24, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Comments


LETS NUKE THE CONGRESS and RETURN THE GOVERNMENT TO the WHITE MAN!!!!!

NO MORE NIGGAARS or SPICCKS STEALING FROM THE WHITE TAXPAYERS!!!!
*******************************************

Finally a redneck willing to display his ignorance !!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RPLCO | November 24, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

dsroberts, can you translate this into English?

"I hope obama policy in Afghanistan fail so that the American people would see that he was a war monger and he would lose Democratic support. Next year we will see much more casualties and I wish he would be so worried that he would have peaceful sleep and he would contemplate his bad decison forever. He knowingly put American men and women at risk. i hope he become a one term President. Let stage a protest in Washington."

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

War Tax is necessary if we are to avoid a falling dollar that will turn worthless in a few years.

"War Tax" now!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is getting wobbly as he knows the Chinese do not want anymore American debt.

Let me get out my cellular. Shucks. I don't have a cellular because I'm a pothole.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

bsallamack wrote, "It is time for Democrats to consider cutting off all funding for Afghanistan."

Note to AP: position photographers on the embassy roof.

Some people just never learn from experience.

Posted by: douglaslbarber
...................................
And I suppose it would have been a horrible idea if President Johnson decided in 1965 not to turn a limited mission in Vietnam into a full blown war.

And for all you "on the roof" historians, air power in Vietnam was not enough to stop the Viet cong when we were on the ground in Vietnam. In 1967 we were winning the hearts and minds so well that the main concern of South Vietnamese officers being trained in the United States was to learn how to set up Swiss bank accounts.

Some people just never learn from not being there.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 9:01 PM | Report abuse

So, the Dems said in 2008 that Afghanistan was the "just" war and ridiculed the last administration on ignoring it.....

Now we get this nonsense of Pelosi? Oh, yeah, she is nonsense......

Posted by: donbl | November 24, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Be afraid. Be very afraid. There is an Islamic terrorist in your yard and behind every tree. Be afraid. The Patriot Act will protect us like it protected the folks at Ft. Hood.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

The cost of the additional 34K troops is about $34B per year.

Drop in the bucket to big spender Obama who now has doubled the debt in the first year of his presidency compared to Clinton and Bush both of who had recessions in their first year or so.

Posted by: donbl | November 24, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I see that the unreconstructed McGovern wing of the Democratic party is after President Obama.

1972:
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%

The problem wasn't that Richard Nixon was an electoral behemoth. He was a deeply flawed candidate - more so in '72 than in '60 or '68. The problem was that 37.5% is probably the high water mark in US history for the blame American first and leave me alone to play my Wii McGovernites.

President Obama is something new in the Democratic party. He's smart, he's honest, he loves what the USA stands for while being able to frankly criticize its shortcomings. And he's a student of history.

You underestimate this man at your own peril.

It would also be for the better if his own self-estimation came down a notch or two. Suggesting that you're doing India a favor by giving your first state dinner in their honor has the stink of hubris about it.

Let us see how this plays out.

Given a choice between President Obama, teabaggers, and McGovernites, I'm firmly in the Obama camp.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Draft the Teabaggers so they can strut their stuff in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi finally found a program she does not want to fund but she did vote for the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force in 2001 that authorized the war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Drumfire | November 24, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

My 2012 prediction:
Obama (D) 46.2%

Posted by: douglaslbarber
..........................................................
Here are my predictions for 2012.
The President indicates he will not run for reelection as President Johnson did in 1965.

Role playing in for American troops in Indiana Army Camp before deployment to Afghanistan and after the decision to turn Afghanistan into a full blown war.

Americans are trained to not kill innocent Afghans and start an Afghan crusade against foreign invaders.

American troops are trained to identify burqa-clad women from burqa-clad men.

American troops are trained to response to fire from a burqa-clad man in a crowded market area without killing innocent Afghans.

American troops are trained to response to a rifle shot in a crowded market area without killing innocent Afghans.

American troops are trained to response to a grenade thrown by an Afghan on a motor bike without killing innocent Afghans.

American troops are trained to response to fire from a a rifle shot, firing from burqa-clad men, and a grenade thrown by an Afghan on a motor bike without killing innocent Afghans.

American troops are trained to response to angry Afghans after a fire fight with the death of scores of innocent Afghans.

..............................................................................

Washington Post
Pakistan: Militants attack 2 anti-Taliban figures
"Seeing three burqa-clad women early in the morning, Fahim Khan's security guards challenged them, and the men threw away their disguise and opened fire," Shah said. "But the guards were alert and they retaliated quickly."
.................................................................................
Afghan Bomber on Motorcycle Kills 16. New York Times

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

bsallamack, you do a very good job of describing the despicable tactics Islamists are using against free people everwhere.

You're less convincing when you implicitly suggest that it's all too much, we've just got to quit in the face of it.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

1972:
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%

And Nixon resigned under pressure two years later. Those Pentagon papers got him in the end.

No more Dick!

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg wrote,

1972:
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%

And Nixon resigned under pressure two years later. Those Pentagon papers got him in the end.

No more Dick!
-----------------------

Yeah. You got one term of Jimmy Carter, two terms of Ronald Reagan and one term of George Bush the decent. If that's a Democratic victory, I'm the King of Siam.

McGovernism is not the ticket to put down the Party of Wealth. Carterish "morality in government" ain't the ticket either. You're looking at the best chance the Democratic party's had to make meaningful change since LBJ (who I freely admit blew it by going semi all in in Viet Nam), when you look at the White House today.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg wrote,

1972:
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%

And Nixon resigned under pressure two years later. Those Pentagon papers got him in the end.

No more Dick!
-----------------------

Yeah. You got one term of Jimmy Carter, two terms of Ronald Reagan and one term of George Bush the decent. If that's a Democratic victory, I'm the King of Siam.

McGovernism is not the ticket to put down the Party of Wealth. Carterish "morality in government" ain't the ticket either. You're looking at the best chance the Democratic party's had to make meaningful change since LBJ (who I freely admit blew it by going semi all in in Viet Nam), when you look at the White House today.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ronnie Raygun was a goon that created bin-Laden with an assist from goon2 Bush the First. The later also gave us Saddam. Them's the facts.

American's are dying now and millions of other innocent people are dying as a direct result of the actions of the above two.

Posted by: Maddogg | November 24, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

We may not have health care reform because it will break the backs of taxpayers. That's out. But endless war with victory undefined? That's fine, because Our Troops are Serving Their Country and Protecting Our Freedoms. It need not be paid for now. Just borrow some more from the Red Chinese. Bush and Cheney and a Republican Congress puts our troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to 1) remove Saddam and 2) project power into Afghanistan. Mission accomplished. Unless a U.S. presence in theatre forever was the mission. Then President Obama actually is dithering because the power elites of the U.S. will not be satisfied until the number of troops in theatre exceeds the numbers achieved in the Vietnam conflict. Raise taxes to fight the wars? Heck no. That would be a job killer. Bumper sticker logic is so decisive ... so forceful ... so undeliberative. It must be right, no?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | November 24, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi and the rest of the POS democrats have a nerve talking about costs.
These skunks have been spending us into poverty with their political payoffs.
Then they jet around like some kind of affluent as$ holes,. But , all they are are leeches. #$%^$% leeches. Nothing more.
Now they want to control our health care.
They need to be run out of town on a rail.

Posted by: LarryG62 | November 24, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg you're full of certainties, save in one area: how to actually win elections, which is required in order to actually shape American policies foreign or domestic.

My criticisms of your views are based on a belief that you're essentially an updated McGovern and can't possibly win an election.

I'm interested in changing American policy, not just in saying things that reinforce my sense that I'm morally superior to Dick Cheney.

Changing the policies of a democracy requires winning elections. Winning elections requires more than moral preening, it requires practical calculations based on a study of evidence from the past.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

I must have missed the part where President Obama said, "I favor endless war and wasting as many American lives and as much American treasure as possible, so that we, as a nation, can fail."

I guess I should watch more cartoons.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks the Democrats in Congress are a progressive party is sadly deluded. They are very reluctant to raise taxes on the upper class and will meekly approve Obama's war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | November 24, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

bsallamack, you do a very good job of describing the despicable tactics Islamists are using against free people everwhere.

You're less convincing when you implicitly suggest that it's all too much, we've just got to quit in the face of it.

Posted by: douglaslbarber
.................................
I am talking about Afghanistan where the Taliban have changed since they were chased out of Afghanistan in 2001. Prior to 2001 they outlawed the opium trade, but now embrace it. This accounts for their support by Afghans. Anyone who embraces the opium trade in Afghanistan will be accepted by Afghans.

The Taliban now understand the Afghan people and have changed from their previous policy of outlawing the opium trade to totally embracing the opium trade. During the harvest season the fighters of the Taliban work in the fields to help farmers to harvest poppy. The chaos of the random corruption of the Afghan government is gone with the Taliban simply collecting fees for their full support of the farmers and middlemen in the opium trade.

This is the reality of Afghanistan. A struggle of the Taliban who are willing to organize and bring order to the opium trade, fighting against a corrupt government that simply wants to continue in the old ways of chaos of random corruption of the opium trade.

How does the United States win the hearts and minds of Afghans who are mainly concerned with the continuation of the opium trade which has been an important part of Afghanistan since the early 1800's?

Americans unlike the Taliban have not changed since 2001, and are still afraid of Bin Laden hiding under their bed.

They totally fail to recognize that it no longer matters if the Taliban ultimately win in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not Pakistan, and after 2001 if the Taliban decides to restart the terrorist camps the United States would have nothing to hinder bombing these camps out of existence, or use troops on quick in and out attacks to destroy terrorist camps.

Sending more troops to occupy Afghanistan will simply lead to a holy crusade against foreign invaders.

douglaslbarber you might want to review the plan of the general. I would not exactly call the people of Afghan as free when the general wants to protect them from the Afghan government as much as from the Taliban.

Also you might want to consider that the "despicable tactics" against the UN in Kabul fitted in very well with the government of Afghanistan dislike of the UN for the embarrassment of the UN regarding the election. President Karzai could not care less that the UN has left Afghanistan because of this attack.

If all the United States can do is a policy that is a repeat of the Russians in 1979 yes we should quit. Better to leave without losses than continuation of a policy of military suicide.

This is what President Reagan did in 1983 when he ordered out all American troops from Lebanon.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Aprogressiveindependent, if you think that we don't have free and fair elections in the USA, please offer your evidence. If, on the other hand, you think that free and fair elections have failed to produce a party to your liking, please start one and win some votes.

As for me, I regard American elections as free and fair, and I'm resigned to working within the Democratic party to achieve improvements for people who depend on their labor for a wage.

Do I think fondly of Eugene V. Debs? Sure.

Did Debs fail to win elections in the USA because of oppression of our electoral system by capitalists?

Well, Woodrow Wilson tossed him in the can during WWI, that certainly skewed things, but for the most part, your typical American wants to preserve the option of hitting it rich, which tends to suppress the Socialist vote.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | November 24, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

bsallamack
bsallamack, you do a very good job of describing the despicable tactics Islamists are using against free people everwhere.

You're less convincing when you implicitly suggest that it's all too much, we've just got to quit in the face of it.

Posted by: douglaslbarber

.................................
My plan for dealing with Afghanistan was sent to the Defense Department and the President on October 19, 2009.

This plan was not a plan for military suicide, and I can assure the plan was just as good as my description of the tactics of the enemy.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 24, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Impose a 50% tax on the net worth of every member of congress.

The war will be paid for and they'll still be rich.

Posted by: krankyman | November 24, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

A.) Leave 30-40K soldiers there, bring the rest home.
B.) Establish fast response bases (10-20) across the country most of them outside cities
C.) The response bases should be composed out of afghan military/police component and supervising them US forces.
D.) Stop patrolling towns and villages by ground foreign soldiers.
E.) Identify local afghan authorities/leaders and send them ultimatum requesting the minimum of governance standard in the area
F.) Do not supply them any money or weapons as they have them already
G.) Enforce boldly the compliance with the minimal standard of the governance
H.) Sitting "quietly" in the bases identify rough, rogue element in the area
I.) Sent them warning first and when necessary eliminate them in a precision strike targeting mostly their leadership
J.)Do not fight locals protecting their villages and do not engage itself in local conflicts between them
K.)As a rule during a ground fight use mostly afghan soldiers/police under controll/suppervision of multinational forces
L.)Remove bulk of contractors and private security services
N.)Limit civil reconstruction efforts only to the areas where sufficient minimal governance standard is met.
M.)Make the above policy known to all afghans and apply it briskly

In essence - force afghans to govern themself by themself

Posted by: MichaelTom | November 24, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

We've been spending 3 billion per week for 8 years in Iraq. The cost to date is almost 1.25 trillion, with nary a peep from the right.

Think about what we could have done with that money.

Posted by: RobertaHigginbotham | November 25, 2009 1:09 AM | Report abuse

I support sending more troops to Afghanistan for two years but not for combat. I support sending our soldiers to train the young men living in Afghanistan to fight for control of their own country. America has sacrificed thousands of young men and women in these foreign nation building exercises. Tens of thousands of soldiers that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer at home daily as a result of their horrific wounds. Then there is the cost in dollars;tens of billions of dollars that could be used to feed the poor in America that were once middle class Americans. Then there is the need for major job creation in this country. Eventually use the war funding for these more important endeavors,and bring all the soldiers home just as soon as possible.

Posted by: joe100821 | November 25, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

So we can afford "cap and trade" and trillions in "health care reform," bailouts and handouts, millions in security costs for the KSM trial in NT, millions in payoffs to Louisiana to get a yes vote on the health care bill, but when it comes to Afghanistan, Nancy Pelosi wants a new tax for the war? it is just a sneaky way to get us to cut and run. If we hadn't abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left, we wouldn't be in this mess. If we leave now, we'll have an even bigger disaster.

Posted by: sam38 | November 25, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

You want a government that works FOR the People? Here is what needs to be done. First, get all of the government, Senate and Congress to agree or they need to go, and put this requirement in place. If you want to be a politician in the Senate or Congress you must FIRST be collecting SSI and if so, a pension, because there will no longer be a salary and pension in the Senate or Congress. They want to serve the country? Let them volunteer and work FOR THE PEOPLE instead of AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: skipstover1 | November 25, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TIE DOWN HER HANDS SO SHE CAN'T TALK. SAME WITH REID.

Posted by: HEGARTY111 | November 25, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

In the world, there are many different countries with many different beliefs. To ungovern any one country leave the ruler of that country to do as THEY wish. It should be unanimous decision to control only those that get out of hand towards anyone that needs to protect their borders. Peace and safety is not handed down. It is earned. How it is paid for is another problem. When America or any country needs to finance a WAR, it should not come at public expense unless JOBS are created to specifically fund that WAR.

Posted by: skipstover1 | November 25, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Bottomline - Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Frank, Obama and dwindling Democrats should be asked to take a hike.
President Bush was right on this - we must fight terrorists on their turf, not ours!
Pelosi talks out of both sides of her mouth on one side she spends our money faster than we can make it and on the other side she feigns concern for our budget.
Americans need to insist that we have transparency in our government - in fact we need a team of laypersons to monitor the remaining stimulus package, the uncontrolled spending. Our government needs to be placed on a strict budget until our Nation is healthy again.
THe HAMP monies should be retrieved and used to pay off existing debts.
Democrats should get in the trenches with us - no Christmas parties, sell some jets, cut out earmarks immediately, downsize our government removing czars and redundant programs.
The last thing we need at this time is a bunch of stupid politicians arguing and playing politics - they need a game plan that will revive our economy immediately, create permanent jobs, real help for homeowners, freeze on all politicians salaries until such time they prove to Americans they warrant getting a paycheck from us.
Any group or groups of people who would intentionally place our troops in harms's way should be removed from the White House immediately.
It's no longer our choice to be politically correct - we need to protect our Nation and all Americans.
The Obama movie is over -

Posted by: annie21 | November 25, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

“Proposed 28th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution”

Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the United States that does not apply equally to all U. S. Senators and Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to any U. S. Senator or Representative that does not equally apply to all citizens of the United States.

All existing laws and regulations that do not meet this criteria shall be declared null and void!”

Posted by: bjk89 | November 25, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

dumasswhole pukebiggot:
LETS NUKE THE CONGRESS and RETURN THE GOVERNMENT TO the WHITE MAN!!!!!
NO MORE NI***RS or SP***KS STEALING FROM THE WHITE TAXPAYERS!!!!

Posted by: dumni**ar | November 24, 2009 5:59 PM

We The People will defeat the republican jihad on America!

The miserably FAILED republiskunks who spew anti-American racist republicrap and lies at this site demonstrate why the republican't party, its' corrupt leadership, bleeting constituency, and fraudulent agenda have been proven so vastly unworthy of the American People, Our Constitution, Our Flag, and our National Destiny.

Over two terms of the, "republican reign of error", these failed republican war criminals had no problem spending a TRILLION dollars to kill 1,339,771 Iraqis, mostly innocent non-combatant women and children.

Now they're against spending that would save the lives of 45 THOUSAND innocent American infants, toddlers, children, teens, young adults, women, men, and elderly US Citizens!

The republican'ts are now more dangerous to US Citizens than al-Quaeda!

Their war on health care reform is conclusive proof that the republican't party, it's vastly failed leadership, hypocritically moronic media lackeys, demented constituents, and self serving corporatist agenda are not only the sworn enemy of 45 THOUSAND innocent American infants, toddlers, children, teens, young adults, women, men, and elderly US Citizens.

They are the proven enemy of our Nation, our Constitution, and The American People!

If we can afford an illegitimate pre-emptive republican war without end, we can and must afford to save the lives of 45,000 US Citizens who will die without needed health care insurance. Failure by ANY Legislator to do so, will never be forgiven or forgotten! The avoidable DEATHS of 45 THOUSAND US Citizens will be AVENGED at the polls.

The republican't reign of error has ended and their fraudulent reign of terror will not stand!

The NEXT ELECTION is less than 1 year away!


Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,339,771"
www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America's War On Iraq: 4,682
www.icasualties.org/oif/

Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 1,524
http://icasualties.org/oef/


Cost of War in Iraq
$702,389,303,953

Cost of War in Afghanistan
$232,180,507,122

Subscribe to this feed using your newsreader http://ichnews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default


Posted by: MrTruth | November 25, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

There is a concern among anti-war proponents that we elected Pres. Obama to end the Iraqi war fiasco and signal an end to over 8 years of dying in vain in the worthless war in Afghanistan. If that war is so crucial, should we not see the UN sending in more troops from many nations? Why us when others are pulling their miltary levels back? Or could it be that military action/ war is not the answer? Russia learned this; they had over 500,000 troops in Afghanistan and found it to be their Vietnam. This should be our lesson, also. There is NO chance of winning a civil war in the country where citizens dislike the corrupt central government. Pres. Obama will be very unpopular if the war becomes his in a very short time frame.

Posted by: robjen116 | November 25, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Every night, President Bush can go to sleep with a smile on his face.

I do.

Posted by: gary4books | November 26, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi, as usual, tries to deflect our anger; we are angry at her, not some far-off conflict. Pelosi, along with Reid, Dodd, Frank, Feinstein/Boxer, many others including Obama are all pretty good at winning "inside-the-beltway-battles" but they are losing the was. Certainly they are losing whatever confidence Americans once may have had in them. Obama's (and their own) "popularity" numbers have fallen by half in just 9 months, and they continue to fall. Why? American"s sense of fair play vs. these politicians view that Americans are stupid serfs to be lied to and manipulated, just like Chicagolan thug polotics has been doing for years. These thugs are in the major leagues now, and they aren't cutting it. They will be replaced, and soon.

Posted by: tucanofulano | November 27, 2009 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mrs. Pelosi, for finally taking the time to notice the growing discontent. It saves us the trouble of chartering buses to come to Washington to protest.

Posted by: heatherczerniak | November 27, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi: Democrats facing voter 'unrest' over war spending, troop increase
---------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, you mean the same kind of voter "unrest" over your Stimulie and Healthcare bill, Pelosi

Posted by: tdl62 | November 28, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi is too late asking if we can afford this war. The only question now is "Can we afford to lose"?

Secondly; how can we afford to spend trillions only give the government control over healthcare. This is the same government that screws up everything it touches. Time for the Fed to BUTT OUT!

Posted by: TexRancher | November 29, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone really expect the Wacko Nancy from the left coast to say anything intelligent? The translation would be...She would rather create a New Dependent / Entitlement Group with the War Money.
National Security has no vote in her book. Fir that fact same goes with all the left weenies in the WH.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | November 30, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

good for nancy:i wish we were not being lied to by owr best choice for president and all of the polititions and all of the news press suckers dam this hell day and time of 'con artist people'?

Posted by: philipcgp | November 30, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

voter unrest:that is a soft opinion of a hard problem for people?

Posted by: philipcgp | November 30, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Serious unrest" is a serious understatement!
Time to bring our troops home NOW !!!

Posted by: SeniorVet | November 30, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Fiscal awareness? You just passed legislation costing 900 BILLION, and you want fiscal awareness? I'd rather you didn't spend anything.........

Posted by: rreis2 | November 30, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....conservative claptraps....quitchur complaining! If you need something to do, go enlist for the frontlines. Hmph!

Posted by: dakotahgeo | November 30, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company