PELOSI GETS IT

From Face the Nation, 1/7/07:


Rep. PELOSI: We have to see what the president has to say. It's not an
open-ended commitment anymore. But we will always be there to protect our troops and to support our troops. The present burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission. In our letter, we say to the president, as we have over and over again, we must change the mission to training, to fighting terrorism, to logistics, and force protection instead of combat. Our troops have done an excellent job. Every chance we get we praise them for what they have done. But unless there's a political and diplomatic solution to match their efforts, their hands are tied behind their back--their backs in order to end this. So the president is going to have to engage with Congress in the justification for any additional troops he may wish. But escalation of the war is opposed by the Democrats.

And let's keep in mind that it's not only Democrats who have doubts about an escalation:

Bipartisan Opposition To Bush Troop Surge
Key Republicans Join Top Democrats
In Arguing Against Proposal
To Increase U.S. Troop Levels In Iraq
WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 6, 2007

"My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."

"I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that's the greatest weakness that we have right now," Wilson said. "We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests. American troops should only go in harm's way to protect America's vital interests."