Iraq: Pelosi Implicitly Supporting Escalation

Ref Pelosi has power, but isn't willing to use it.

Pelosi's Jan 8, 2007 statement related to military funding issues can be entered into evidence realted to alleged war crimes: Failing to do what one should to prevent illegal violations of Geneva.

"We support our troops" is not a credible legal defense for having not refused to support the troop’s illegal occupation, and non-compliance with Geneva conventions.

* * *

If the President, as Commander in Chief, send more troops to Iraq, Pelosi, in "supporting the troops" is implicitly arguing she's going to support an escalation.

This is hardly a change.

* * *

Change only is real when you assert power, not make excuses to pretend the situation does not warrant the assertion of power.

Leaders cannot credibly engage in oversight when the Administration is unresponsive to subpoenas; and that information is not used to impose consequences on the President: Shutting off funding or charging him with a crime.

The Pelosi statement implicitly suggests even if the President engages in unlawful warfare, Pelosi will direct Members of Congress to support illegal combat.