Is this article about Pelosi total BS ?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23622.html

by Patrick J. Buchanan
The AIPAC Girl
March 20, 2007 02:00 PM EST

If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.

For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.

Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.

What went down, and why?

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.

"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
<snip>


Sorry to put this link here but I think Bernie Ward is referring to it right now.

The pro Isreal bunch of dems were against it, between them and the R's they got it got dropped.

Buchanan is almost always against the neocon foreign policy, Though I usually oppose anything that guy says, I agree with him that that provision should have been left in there and a preemptive strike against any country is the last thing we should do.

I read the article. It is troubling to have AIPAC lobbying the United States government for more wars. Nancy shouldn't let this lobbying group to dictate legislation. AIPAC doesn't represent the Jewish people at all! A recent Gallup poll of Jewish voters suggests that they are against the war, but why is AIPAC wanting to continue these stupid wars? Shouldn't they want peace? Peace isn't going to happen with war. War should be only used for last resort purposes only!

bill that gets troops out of iraq no sooner than aug of 2008 or she sez she will strip out that part entirely and just submit the legislation that shrubby wants? If so...wtf???

We need to get rid of the conservative and centrist Dems, and elect more progressive Dems. At least the pukes say they're pukes unlike the blue dogs....

in Buchanan's world. :crazy:

Pelosi doesn't have the votes. She doesn't have the votes because people like Pat Buchanan have ran around the south for the last 25 years spouting the evils of the Democratic Party so now that we need those Democrats to confront true evil - their constituents don't recognize it anymore.

Pelosi did cave to AIPAC and had the "no attack on Iran without Congressional approval" removed from the Iraq appropriations bill. We must let our Democratic Reps and Senators know that doing AIPAC's will is not serving their constituents, let alone America or even Israel for that matter. If you wake up one day over the next month or two and find that 'WIII' has started, Pelosi will at least be partly responsible.

I lobbied hard for HJR 17, which required Congressional approval to attack Iran - only to see it removed by the DEMOCRATS! We must hold them accountable. Yes, Bush is the true fascist who will control whether there is a wider war, but the Democrats so far have only served as his enablers in all things foreign policy.

Pat Buchanan, believe it or not, stands for a rational, non-interventionist foreign policy. I admire him for that, though I vehemently disagree with his social and economic stands.

Here's a BLOG entry on the matter - unfortunately I didn't copy the author's name down when I cut and pasted it into Word:

March 14, 2007 – In my February 16, 2007 article - The Approaching War with Iran: Part III <1>, I explained that President Bush already has the legal cover to launch attack against Iran, without seeking additional congressional approval.

The fact that Bush currently has the legal cover to invade Iran is further validated by the now abandoned effort of Democratic leaders to include in the current military spending bill a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran. <2> Such a provision would not be necessary if Bush did not already have the authorization and legal cover to invade Iran.

According to ABC News (See footnote 2), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel.

It’s possible impact on Israel? You must be kidding me Madam Speaker. What about the possible impact on the United States? What about the impact on our men and women in uniform and their families? What about the impact on our national debt? What about the impact on the people of Iran and the Middle East? These are of no concern to Pelosi apparently. She is only interested in preserving her political career, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of politicians in the U.S. Congress. And these politicians each understand that to protect their political careers – they must serve Israel first via the Israel Lobby in the United States – and not necessarily the interests of the American people.

I’ve known for quite a while now that Congress is comprised of Israel apologists that bow to the Israel Lobby and take orders from one of the most dangerous organizations in this nation – The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that does have the power to destroy the political careers of men and women that don’t tow the Israel first, Israel forever line. However, I guess I held out hope that there was limit to the AIPAC influence – that there was an American line that the U.S. Congress would not cross, such as invading Iran for Israel. Shame on me for having hope, all of which is now completely gone.

Clearly, loyalty to Israel trumps loyalty to the United States on Capitol Hill. How AIPAC has gained this level of control in the U.S. Congress and the political process in the United States demands an independent investigation. If conducted thoroughly, the American people would quickly discover how AIPAC uses tactics against our elected officials, on behalf of a foreign government, Israel, that amount to extortion – if not espionage. The American people need to let their elected officials in the U.S. Congress know that “we know” that they are AIPAC puppets, and advice them to cut the strings and fast, or else.

There is no mention of Iran being a threat to the United States, but that doesn’t really matter does it? Iraq was no threat to the U.S. either, but it was a threat to Israel – one of the many twisted real reasons for the Iraq invasion and occupation. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to Israel, the next target is Iran, then Syria, then Lebanon again, then whichever country emerges as the next military threat to Israel – real or fancied – it is an endless precession of perpetual crisis for the self-chosen, isn’t it? I wonder what they have done to deserve all this hatred, don’t you? Is it possible that they are truly innocent and peaceful victims, as they love to claim, without playing a role in their own chaotic existence? Is it fair to ask why the Zionist State is despised by so many and barely tolerated by others with only the United States as its strong ally? Isn’t it time to be critical of Israel with so many Americans dying on its behalf?

What Pelosi said to the AIPAC traitors that lust for the blood of others as long as they don’t have to bleed themselves was that the Iraq War had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the United States safer, the United States military stronger, and the Middle East more stable. She said, “The war in Iraq fails on all three accounts.” After making this statement, the report is that some of the AIPAC brood of vipers offered polite applause that was then met with catcalls and boos.

The provision the Democrats had in the military spending bill regarding Iran was vital to the national interest. Bush / Cheney are more dangerous now then at any other time during their administration because they now have nothing left to lose. AIPAC operatives clearly pressured Pelosi and her associates into dropping the provision aimed at thwarting the Bush / Cheney plan to bomb Iran on behalf of Israel before they leave office.

She and her fellow Democrats did so at the expense of the American people. Isn’t this treason and if so, why don’t acts of treason matter any longer in America? Oh, I forgot, it’s acceptable to weaken or destroy the United States so long as we’re doing it for Israel.

Characterizing the "All options are on the table" rhetoric as being equivalent to saying that it is Bush's decision whether or not we attack Iran is illogical. One can adopt "All options" as a negotiating position while still believing that Bush must seek approval from Congress (or the U.N., for that matter) for any military action against Iran. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Pelosi got burned, but if I'm gonna blame somebody (and I am) it will be the Dems that rallied against the provision. It was Steny, and Rahm, and others that announced they would get it removed; Pelosi's aides were saying that it would remain in the bill. Obviously, she got beat. Saying that removing it was a mistake ignores that point. Pelosi didn't make a mistake, she was forced to back down.

One other point: if one believes (as I do) that the President is required to seek approval, then putting the provision in the bill in the first place is problematic. It seems equivalent to saying that he has the authority and you are taking it away. It was perhaps a mistake to go for the provision without knowing for certain that it would survive. OTOH, desperate times call for desperate measures.

I don't blame Pelosi. She wanted the provision.

and also any who did not stand in his way bear some responsibilty. That's reality.

the Decider is the Decider here.