False.
The only way to prevent the troop build up is to present a viable plan for success that would work without adding troops. No one has come up with any such plan although it hasn't stopped them from grandstanding and getting their faces on the evening news.
2007-01-20 05:40:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Of course it won't. But why just ask about Pelosi? The "nagging" is coming from all quarters, Democrats and Republicans. They are aware that their declarations are not binding to the President. But it is a first step in formally informing the President that the majority of both Houses and the American people do not approve of his "plan" or his continued stubborness over a failed war that is accomplishing nothing but causing more American deaths and injuries. I agree that stopping funding, as in the Vietnam War, may be the only way to stop him. But he knows this too, and so ships out the soldiers before any move can be made to stop it. Once they are there, the Congress can not pull funding for them. If they were to do that it would be viewed as putting those troops in harm's way. It's a game right now, and Bush is winning because of his autonomy in being able to act quickly to surge troops without Congressional approval. Their hands are effectively tied, so now it becomes a chess game. A chess game with our soldier's lives at stake, it's shameful.
2007-01-20 14:15:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
False. It is political suicide to stop funding for the troops. Congress already authorized this war, it is too late to turn back the clock.
They can and should look over reconstruction funding very carefully - Too many of Cheney's friends have gotten richer off that.
In short, we are going to be riding this tiger another 2 years anyway no matter what Pelosi thinks or does.
-Dio
2007-01-20 14:05:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by diogenese19348 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Pelosi's nagging only makes her look like a fool. And nothing is going to stop Bush's course of action, except the next elections.
2007-01-20 13:44:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by CassandraM 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
False
2007-01-20 14:06:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Just because she is a woman is no need to word that question by saying she "nags". If you mean will her outspoken position against the troop "surge" (is that the correct phrase this week?) actually work? I doubt it, Congress needs to take back some of its powers. I remember when the older Bush was in office, at that time it was against the law to just go in an kill another human being without a trial and in fact this because the son's actual mission. Now that Saddam is gone (after a trial, too bad Dubya), how can he justify staying in Iraq. First it was weapons of mass destruction, then it was find and kill Saddam and now I guess, oh ya, now we have to force democracy on a country that doesn't want it enought to fight for it for themselves.
2007-01-27 20:08:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lori M 1
·
1⤊
3⤋
False. Pelosi is a big bag of wind who already has a leak. I don't envy the position she finds herself in but her "colleagues" will not have any mercy on her. She probably will become a whipping girl.
2007-01-28 12:07:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by ob_ms_man 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope it won't BUT it WILL keep it in the news constantly and that may make a difference. Bush's advisors are very savvy about what gets a sound bite.
2007-01-28 02:16:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by MissWong 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
False.
Bush only listens to the Skulls and Bones and other Elites.
2007-01-26 21:09:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Marcus 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
If Bush won't listen to James Baker, he'll wear earplugs around Pelosi.
2007-01-20 13:45:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Evita Rodham Clinton 5
·
2⤊
0⤋