Congress Won't Not Fund Troop Surge (Great Double Negative, Huh?)

Pelosi's up to no good. How do I know? She's doing something "good":

There may be a growing battle between Congress and the president over the Iraq War strategy, but new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she won't block funding for additional troops.

Pelosi's position, revealed in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, came a day after a group of senators announced a bipartisan resolution condemning the Bush administration's plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 20,000 troops.

While the Senate resolution would be non-binding, it would send a message to the president, and at least a dozen Republican senators have already offered their support.

Maybe I've forgotten how to read, but she seems to say that they will fund them, but will somehow try to stop it anyway:

Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.

It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.

Sawyer: But short of that — questions posed, resolutions passed — short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?

Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.

But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.