Pelosi vows to join The Jihad to Defend Iran.

[The Original Tree]

I wonder how the 650 American families of soldiers who died at the explosion of Soleimani's dervishly developed killer advanced IEDS think about Nancy Pelosi's devfense of those people who hate America in Iran. And I wonder about how the 1600 American soldiers who came home minus a foot, leg, arm, manhood and blind eyes feel about Nancy'

Nancy voted against sending our soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq. Don't blame her for our kids being made targets over there.

Nancy voted to produce a "Resolution of Nothing" that the president will wipe his ass with.

 

[The Original Tree]

Iran is a peace loving country, and is not an Existential Threat to America like President Trump is, she said.

Trump is an Imminent Threat to our Republic, and a Danger to our Constitution.

Islam "the religion of peace" is not a threat to our National Security, but The President is.

So today, in that same vein, Nancy Pelosi will again attempt to Abuse the Power of Congress and try to appropriate Power The Constitution has given The Executive Branch for herself in her effort to defend Iran, and attack America.

Pelosi effort to rein in Trump on Iran renews war powers debate

Pelosi said that a classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress last week "raises more questions than it answers" and prompted "serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the Administration's decision to engage in hostilities against Iran – complaining that Congress and the American people "are being left in the dark about our national security."

"The Trump Administration's provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger," Pelosi, D-Calif., stated. "This initiation of hostilities was taken without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran, without the consultation of the Congress and without the articulation of a clear and legitimate strategy to either the Congress or the public."

"Death to America!"

The only place more likely than Iran's government to hear that - is the democratic party.

The Democrat Party is owned by Russia, China & Iran and that is a proven fact.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nancy voted against sending our soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq. Don't blame her for our kids being made targets over there.

Hey, snowflake...you seem to be confusing President Trump with the Nobel Peace Prize Winner who started his own war by invading Syria then left troops in Syria to fight HIS war as he left the WH.

You also seem to be confused by the proper response to an Embassy attack / a situation where American lives are in danger. Doing NOTHING / abandoning Americans while publicly claiming 'I don't leave any Americans behind' was Barry's 'thing', not President Trump's.

No one is confused by your obvious obfuscation. It was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. It was he who decided on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and that has led to all the things we see in the ME today.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Iran is a peace loving country, and is not an Existential Threat to America like President Trump is, she said.

Trump is an Imminent Threat to our Republic, and a Danger to our Constitution.

Islam "the religion of peace" is not a threat to our National Security, but The President is.

So today, in that same vein, Nancy Pelosi will again attempt to Abuse the Power of Congress and try to appropriate Power The Constitution has given The Executive Branch for herself in her effort to defend Iran, and attack America.

Pelosi effort to rein in Trump on Iran renews war powers debate

Pelosi said that a classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress last week "raises more questions than it answers" and prompted "serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the Administration's decision to engage in hostilities against Iran – complaining that Congress and the American people "are being left in the dark about our national security."

"The Trump Administration's provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger," Pelosi, D-Calif., stated. "This initiation of hostilities was taken without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran, without the consultation of the Congress and without the articulation of a clear and legitimate strategy to either the Congress or the public."

Hmmmmm......I guess she better get those articles of impeachment to the senate pronto!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Best line in this article:

We've Upped the Ante.' Why Nancy Pelosi Is Going All in Against Trump

Pelosi has told colleagues she’s had to wear a night guard because the White House makes her grind her teeth in her sleep. But her frustration is born of determination, not unease. In our interview, I asked her if the President’s nickname for her, Nervous Nancy, is accurate. “Pfft,” she says, waving a hand. “He’s nervous. Everything he says, he’s always projecting. He knows the case that can be made against him. That’s why he’s falling apart.”

LOL, whatever you say Nancy. Dem Senators are now turning against you. Three of your Reps voted against you. One of them left your party because of you, and what do you do? Defend Antisemites in your ranks, defend Iran, and attack America.

Uhhhhh....why doesnt she just take out her dentures at night,problem solved.

 

[irosie91]

Speaker Pelosi owns Lil’ Don. She has consistently outsmarted him. Donny has conniptions because he can’t control or bully her. The Speaker continues to stand up for the Constitution while Trump runs roughshod over it. Godspeed Madam Pelosi.

There is Trump's side, and there is Iran's side. You are on Iran's side.

I always suspected Trumpers were nothing but Bushies at heart. You’re a little Bushie for sure. Thanks for proving that. You just quoted W. that you are either with us or against us in the lead up to the 2003 Iraqi invasion. We all know how that turned out. Not only is that pure W.,it is also anti-American. Beyond that whenever someone says something like that, it screams “lemming”. My advice to you: stop being a lemming and get some independence of thought.

You are not denying being on Iran's side.

I am on America's side. You on the other hand are acting strictly anti-American. Just no debate and follow the leader. Are ye an American or a lemming?

johnshariah, you got that one from last week's khutbah jumaat feces fling?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Speaker Pelosi owns Lil’ Don. She has consistently outsmarted him. Donny has conniptions because he can’t control or bully her. The Speaker continues to stand up for the Constitution while Trump runs roughshod over it. Godspeed Madam Pelosi.

Iran Nan is doing all she can to help Trump reduce the Stalinist democrats to a national political rounding error over the next few elections

I find that the same people who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, now support war with Iran. That is fine if that is what you believe, but at least have the honesty to say, Congress must approve the declaration of war as per the constitution of the USA..

There's no war with Iran and there's no impeachment

Of course there is no war with Iran not but that is not the point. The point is does POTUS have the right to get us into a war or engage in reckless conduct that could get us into a war with Iran (or any other nation for that matter) without Congressional approval. That is the issue. What is your opinion.

How many times does it have to be said....
The President does not need congressional approval for limited strikes.

 

[easyt65]

No one is confused by your obvious obfuscation. It was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq.

Only Barry, his followers, and Democrats could somehow stretch authorization for the use of military force in IRAQ into approval for Barry to pimp out our military to Al Qaeda, help them kill the leader of a sovereign nation who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in northern Africa, take his country for their own, and as authorization to commit what the UN considers an International War crime - invading a sovereign nation (Syria) without the specific request or consent of either the leader of that nation or government.

I wonder if Obama's Agency Directors referenced the authorization to use the military in Iraq on their criminal FISA warrants, too...

 

[BlindBoo]

No one is confused by your obvious obfuscation. It was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq.

Only Barry, his followers, and Democrats could somehow stretch authorization for the use of military force in IRAQ into approval for Barry to pimp out our military to Al Qaeda, help them kill the leader of a sovereign nation who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in northern Africa, take his country for their own, and as authorization to commit what the UN considers an International War crime - invading a sovereign nation (Syria) without the specific request or consent of either the leader of that nation or government.

I wonder if Obama's Agency Directors referenced the authorization to use the military in Iraq on their criminal FISA warrants, too...

Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.

Critics erroneously compare Libya today to any number of false ideals, but this is not the correct way to evaluate the success or failure of the intervention. To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.

Critics further assert that the intervention caused, created, or somehow led to civil war. In fact, the civil war had already started before the intervention began. As for today’s chaos, violence, and general instability, these are more plausibly tied not to the original intervention but to the international community’s failures after intervention.

The very fact that the Libya intervention and its legacy have been either distorted or misunderstood is itself evidence of a warped foreign policy discourse in the U.S., where anything short of success—in this case, Libya quickly becoming a stable, relatively democratic country—is viewed as a failure.

NATO INTERVENED TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, NOT TO SET UP A DEMOCRACY

 

[easyt65]

Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/mark...ibya-intervention-was-a-failure-theyre-wrong/

Agreed...if the plan was to...

Pimp out the US military to the terrorists who slaughtered 3,000 Americans in one day...

Help assassinate the LEADER (not the top govt military general) of a sovereign nation

Stop Libya from helping the coalition defeat terrorists in northern Africa

Give Al Qaeda its own country / base of operations / safe haven

Use Libya as the base of operations from which to run weapons to ISIS / terrorists in Syria

 

[The Original Tree]

No one is confused by your obvious obfuscation. It was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq.

Only Barry, his followers, and Democrats could somehow stretch authorization for the use of military force in IRAQ into approval for Barry to pimp out our military to Al Qaeda, help them kill the leader of a sovereign nation who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in northern Africa, take his country for their own, and as authorization to commit what the UN considers an International War crime - invading a sovereign nation (Syria) without the specific request or consent of either the leader of that nation or government.

I wonder if Obama's Agency Directors referenced the authorization to use the military in Iraq on their criminal FISA warrants, too...

Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.

Critics erroneously compare Libya today to any number of false ideals, but this is not the correct way to evaluate the success or failure of the intervention. To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.

Critics further assert that the intervention caused, created, or somehow led to civil war. In fact, the civil war had already started before the intervention began. As for today’s chaos, violence, and general instability, these are more plausibly tied not to the original intervention but to the international community’s failures after intervention.

The very fact that the Libya intervention and its legacy have been either distorted or misunderstood is itself evidence of a warped foreign policy discourse in the U.S., where anything short of success—in this case, Libya quickly becoming a stable, relatively democratic country—is viewed as a failure.

NATO INTERVENED TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, NOT TO SET UP A DEMOCRACY

Russia Runs Half of Libya now and Obama's Geigh Lovers Al Queda runs the other half, so YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[jc456]

Speaker Pelosi owns Lil’ Don. She has consistently outsmarted him. Donny has conniptions because he can’t control or bully her. The Speaker continues to stand up for the Constitution while Trump runs roughshod over it. Godspeed Madam Pelosi.

Iran Nan is doing all she can to help Trump reduce the Stalinist democrats to a national political rounding error over the next few elections

I find that the same people who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, now support war with Iran. That is fine if that is what you believe, but at least have the honesty to say, Congress must approve the declaration of war as per the constitution of the USA..

There's no war with Iran and there's no impeachment

Of course there is no war with Iran not but that is not the point. The point is does POTUS have the right to get us into a war or engage in reckless conduct that could get us into a war with Iran (or any other nation for that matter) without Congressional approval. That is the issue. What is your opinion.

who is trying to get us into a war. our military took out a terrorist. why do you think that is a war? When obammy took out Bin Laden, was that a war?