Speaker Pelosi Shows She's the Boss

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/AP: New House Speaker Shows She's Boss
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 22, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sworn in just over two weeks ago as the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi wasted no time showing who's boss.

The California Democrat rammed six major bills through the House at breakneck speed, stomped out smoking privileges near the House floor, partially sidelined a powerful Democratic committee chairman and decided she liked traditionally Republican office space so much she claimed it for herself.

By Democrats' timekeeping, she did it all in far under the 100 legislative hours she had allotted....

***

She also is getting a honeymoon from the public. Pelosi is held in higher regard than the president or her colleagues in the Congress. An AP-AOL News poll taken Jan. 16-18 put her approval rating at 51 percent -- much higher than that of Congress (34 percent) or Bush (36 percent).

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., a close ally, called Pelosi's performance ''spectacular.''

''What the Democrats in the caucus are telling me is that this is the best three weeks of their life,'' he crowed....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Pelosi-In-Charge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[JNelson6563]

1. You go girl!!

Show 'em how it's done! :toast:

[Tellurian]

2. Good on Nancy..

Repukes must be gearing up behind the scenes to pounce on Democrats.
Slam another barrage of bills through Congress before they catch their breath.

[Frustratedlady]

3. That woman will show them how to clean house....

Go, Nancy!

See why they were so scared for her to become Speaker? I'm lovin' it!

[burythehatchet]

4. Kick for San Francisco values

[pat_k]

24. 60% of her constituents voted for Proposition J -- Call for Bush/Cheney Impeachment

Not only is she betraying her oath with her "impeachment is off the table" pledge, she is slapping the 60% who voted for Proposition J (Call for Bush/Cheney Impeachment) in the face.

Of all the "San Franciso values" she fails to stand up for the only one that can rescue the Constitution, on which all else is founded.

http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2006/11/07/CA/c/i_measure_sf/i_j_call_for_bush_cheney_impeachment/g_general/c/san_francisco.shtml

[lyonn]

37. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

We all know she hates the war. Let's give her a bit of time. I see impeachement on the horizon.

[pat_k]

43. Time is NOT on our side. . .

Impeachment could certainly be on the "on the horizon." Reality has a way of asserting itself. Hard as they try, they may not be able to escape it.

Reality is powerful, but the dysfunctional assumptions and rationalizations behind their refusal to impeach are deeply ingrained ("can't win, don't fight" "the backlash beast will get us" "we'll do the right thing, just not right now". . .).

If we want to make impeachment a reality, we must do whatever we can to challenge their self-defeating beliefs.

Time is not on our side.

We just need one impeachable offense. We have clear, simple, and complete cases for several. Delay actually undermines the case. Saying "we must investigate first" gives ammo to the impeachment opponents; it's just another way of saying "we don't have a case." Don't be surprised if you hear opponents say:

"They are just fishing with all these investigations. They don't have anything."

Or, when the House finally impeaches

"There's something wrong with the case. If it's so simple, why didn't they impeach sooner?"

Each day that Members of Congress fail to formally accuse/impeach and make the case, they also give the Bush and Cheney cover.

"We're doing nothing wrong. Bush has unlimited unitary power. If we were subverting the Constitution, more Members of Congress would be demanding impeachment. Not only aren't they demanding it, the opposition Party has taken it "off the table."

From Post #27

. . .
The price of delay could be unimaginable.⁽¹⁾ Any day we could see another terrorist attack; Bush could declare war on Iran or Syria or North Korea or Venezuela or even Haiti; or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.
___________________________________________________

(1) Even when we move full steam ahead, we can be thwarted by events.

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition led by Democrats.com that included the National Lawyers Guild and Vincent Bugliosi had scheduled a Sept. 11 press conference http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for Bush v. Gore.

Bush's claims to any semblance of legitimacy were crumbling fast.

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is..
_______________________________________________________

[pat_k]

5. Great "triumph" -- enforcing her "impeachment is off the table" edict.

Bush and Cheney terrorized the nation into a criminal war of aggression. They turned Americans into torturers, blatantly violating International Law and our own Federal Code.

People are being tortured in our name NOW.

The Constitution is in breach NOW.

Bush and Cheney have declared war on the Constitution. They have proven, again and again, that NOTHING short of immpeach and removal (or resignation in response to the threat of impeachment) will stop their lawless abuses.

Elected bodies, good government groups, and countless ordinary citizens are demanding impeachment and backing up their demands with clear, irrefutable, and complete cases for impeachment.

On November 7th, the electorate cried out for help. With our votes, we expressed our outrage at Bush, and called on the Democratic leadership to Do Something.

"Nancy Pelosi wasted no time "showing who's boss" when slapped us in the face with her "off the table" edict.

Without reason or justification, she "pledged" her intent to betray her oath to defend the Constitution against bushcheney's unprecedented attack.

Without reason or justification -- without saying a word about whether the public's accusations have merit -- she arbitrarily dismissed all charges against Bush and Cheney with her pledge.

At a time when our Constitution desperately needs a champion, Pelosi has declares herself an "anti-champion."

By all reports she is enforcing her "off the table" edict with an "iron hand" and has successfully kept any member who threatens to become a champion "in their place."

Instead of unlocking the nation's outrage by impeaching Bush and Cheney, she's "showing who's boss" by doing everything in her power to to suppress it with her drivel about bipartisanship and "pledge" not to impeach.

We need a champion.

Nancy Peloso stands in our way.

We need a new "boss" -- one who understands the meaning of an oath.

[Apollo11]

8. Very unfair

If something is "off the table" - that means it is not "on the table" right now.

It's not the same saying that something will never be "on the table".

Pelosi is not preventing the House and Senate from undertaking investigations into all aspects of the Iraq War. On the contrary - she is a strong advocate of Congress' right and responsibility to monitor and oversee the executive (in this case the Bu$h-Cheney Administration).

But realistically - the situation right now is that the Dems don't have the votes in the Senate to win a vote to impeach Bu$h (or Cheney). So what you are saying is that Pelosi and the House Dems should be heading down a road that will almost certainly end in failure.

Fortunately for the Democratic Party, Pelosi does not share your perspective on this.

[pat_k]

10. They are sworn to defend. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them.

With increasing frequency, we are hearing our so-called "leaders" speak bits of the truth and accuse the Bush administration of ignoring and violating the constitution.

When a Member of Congress believes the principles and institutions we established in our Constitution are being subverted, their first duty -- the one they are derelict in -- is to notify the public that the Constitution is under attack and that defensive action is required to rescue it.

Their oath is an individual oath. Even if it means thwarting "the boss" they have a Personal Duty to act.

Reality is what it is. Bush and Cheney are grabbing more and more Un-American and Unconstitutional power and using it to nullify our laws through abuse of signing statements and refusal to execute or enforce them, to steal our treasure to empower their tiny faction, and to blatantly violate national and international law to bully other nations -- nations that have given up on looking to the good will of the American people for help because we have clearly surrendered our sovereignty to Bush by tolerating his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to be "unitary authoritarian executive."

Every day that passes with impeachment "not on the table" (to use your words, but how this differs from "off the table" beats me) Bush and Cheney gain ground in their war on the constituion.

What's so tragic is that there is no upside to following the "impeachment is off (not on) the table" edict.

For years before Pelosi's "pledge", the beltway establishment (both Democratic and Republican) have been dong everything in their power to make sure all talk of impeachment is "off the table." The Democratic assumption that "something bad" would happen is so firmly entrenched in their insular world that it never gets challenged. A very big problem since the assumption has no basis in reality.

It is impossible for Democratic leaders to speak in inspiring terms about who we are as a nation if they refuse to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are, and Americans must prove it by removing the threat they pose to the Constitution; our common contract; the soul of the nation. Bush have put the contract into breach. The ONLY way to reassert the terms is through Impeachment, the sole mechanism we established to defend against such attacks from within."

With the ONE weapon that We the People gave them to defend our government from abuses of power "off the table," Dems are incapable of speaking coherently about anything. They are trapped in a world of doubletalk and euphemism because they are desperately trying to avoid uttering the word impeachment.

There is nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

I have noticed that people, like yourself, who are defending Nancy's pledge usually don't feel good about it -- they are making apologies and excuses. If the inaction of our leaders make us feel a bit "dirty" how can we expect them to inspire our fellow citizens?

[Wizard777]

12. Then she should have kept her mouth shut.

Personally, I think this is as close to having enough votes as they will ever get. In case you haven't noticed Bush has beefed up the FBI political corruption unit. He's looking to free up a few seats and Take Back His Government. It's his, all his, and don't you even look at it. The only thing worse than failing is not trying. If they fail to impeach. That doesn't mean that Bush skates on his crimes. Once he's out of office they can merely issue a warrant for his arrest.

[pat_k]

15. Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution; Justice and retribution is for the Courts.

Revised to clean up typos and shorten.

It is not the duty of Congress to prosecute or punish.

Impeachment is a defensive act.

Congress has a duty to defend the Constitution. That is the duty they are derelict in. Our leaders talk alot about accountability, but holding Bush and Co. "accountable" is not actually their first duty.

As in law enforcement, we have separated the duty to protect the public from the duty to seek justice. For example, a drunk driver is a menace to the public. The police fulfill their oath to protect the public by pulling over the drunk and taking the keys. That is the FIRST and most urgent duty.

The Congressional duty to remove civil officials who pose a threat to the Constitution or abuse the power of office for personal gain is akin to the duty of the police to remove a threat to the public by apprehending, disarming, otherwise acting to take away a person's power to harm. In both cases, urgency necessitates a lower threshhold of proof. All that is required is "probable cause" of threat.

In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have FAR more than probable cause. Everything required to prove the charges is public record.

Like many analogies, Police-Congress analogy is imperfect. Unlike the police, where the letter of the law defines crime, Congress is the "decider" when it comes to defining what constitutes intolerable actions of a civil official. All that is required is political will. Even if Bush and Cheney hadn't committed so many violations of the letter of the law, we could impeach them for intolerable incompetence. Another difference is that once the police apprehend, disarm, otherwise act to protect the public from harm, they are responsible for gathering evidence that can be used to prosecute the offender in Court. Congress has no such obligation.

It is not just urgency that necessitates a lower threshhold. The outcome of a successful prosecution is to deprive a citizen of rights dictated by our Constitution (e.g., freedom of moment). The threshold for taking such action is necessarily high. The outcome of a successful impeachment is to remove a civil official from office. Since holding office is not a right, it only makes sense that the threshhold would be lower.

[durtee librul]

52. Well, all I can say is this.....

Can you say Fawn hall and shredder in the same sentence without thinking of Cheney and Bush?

[pat_k]

55. The evidence is irrevocably in the public record. No minion can obstruct by shredding.

Every time they assert their fascist fantasy of Bush as unitary authoritarian executive they declare themselves to be an intolerable threat to the most basic tenets of our Constitution.

They willfully violate FISA in plain sight, another intolerable attack on the Constitution.

The Geneva conventions are written into both U.S. and international law. Despite their success in stacking the deck, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applied to Gitmo -- a finding that leads to one conclusion: 3 years of War Crimes had already been committed at Gitmo.

None of their minions has the power to shred this evidence. It is all irrevocably in the public record.

There is a reason that violators of Geneva are subject to the death penalty -- to give each Party to the conflict, acting through its Commanders-in-Chief, a compelling motive to steer clear of conduct that could be considered contrary to the conventions; a motive to immediately put a stop to any "debatable" conduct.

Bush and Cheney made the case against themselves when they knowingly and willfully ordered detainees to be subjected to conditions and treatment that a vast majority of authorities denounced as contrary to the Geneva Conventions. Authorities such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the official guardian of the Geneva conventions; http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060227fa_fact">Albert Mora, general counsel of the United States Navy; international legal scholars such as DePaul University Law Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni; and human rights authorities such as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson.

[Jim Sagle]

13. Blithering idiocy.

[pat_k]

17. Like Pelosi's "pledge", no justification or reason given for your assertion (nt)

[Nederland]

14. Nancy doesn't care what you think

Lucky for us, she recognizes that people like you from the far left fringe don't really matter. You simply don't have enough electoral cloat for her to care about you.

[pat_k]

19. Per Newsweek, a majority of Americans want impeachment to be a priority in the 110th Congress.

Newsweek Poll
http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Priorities for a Democratic Congress
Princeton Survey Research Associates International

[Nederland]

41. Not the relevant question

The relevant question for Nancy would be this:

"Would you vote against a candidate or party that refuses to pursue impeachment."

I suspect the numbers for this question would be extremely low.

[pat_k]

51. You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can Democratic candidates expect . . .

. . .Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

I'm a bit unclear about how your proposed question relates to this context. The actions of the leadership affects EVERY candidate.

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak. When the Party leadership fails to stand and fight for principle, they confirm that perception. Unfortunately, the entire Party is tarred by that brush.

For more http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html

[Nederland]

60. Response

I'm a bit unclear about how your proposed question relates to this context.

My proposed question fixes a fundamental problem with the poll question in your link. That question asks if impeachment is one of their top priorities. That type of wording is used specifically when a pollster wants an issue to appear more important than it really is. People will answer "yes" if asked if an issue is one of their top priorities much much more frequently than if they are asked if the issue is their top priority. If asked in that way, I am sure that health care, education, minimum wage, the War in Iraq and a whole host of other issues would appear much higher than impeachment.

[pat_k]

62. If a word in a poll triggers support, rallying cries from leaders will open floodgates.

You actually support the case that public support for impeachment is poised to skyrocket. If people are inspried to support impeachment with the use of a single word in a poll, just imagine how many will jump on board when our so-called "leaders" sound a rallying cry.

All pressure coming from the echo chamber -- Republican and Democratic -- has been focused on pushing the notion that impeachment "should not be done." Opponents have been out there drumming up opposition, but they are running short of ammo. The cowardly Dems have been doing their damnedest to get the people who want to see Bush and Cheney impeached to believe it is outside the realm of possibility (i.e., not simply "not a priority," but an impossibility).

Despite their relentless efforts they haven't managed to get the "should not be done" number above 44%

That is nothing short of amazing. It demonstrates the insanity of their fears of "backlash."

Support for impeachment has ONLY one way to go: UP.

When our so called "leadership" finally accuses Bush and Cheney and demands impeachment they'll release the outrage at Bush that they've been trying to suppress. They'll demonstrate strength and principle that Americans respect. "Impeach the bastards" numbers will go up at least 10 points overnight (and that number will include a surprisingly high number of reactionary Republicans who revel in accusation and punishment).

The bottom line is that even if current public support was against impeachment, it is their duty to sound the "call to arms."

We expect Members of our Armed services to risk life and limb to defend the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against precisely the type of attack that Bush and Cheney have mounted. Whatever their fears -- being called names; losing their seat, whatever -- are irrelevant. They have a duty. They have been derelict, but they can redeem themselves if they act NOW.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. 51% is pretty lukewarm support for impeachment

Especially since we need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. A simple majority of Americans only get to remove a President during an election year (and that is assuming their will is reflected in the electoral college).

[pat_k]

45. In the face of the establishments 100% anti-impeachment propaganda

. . .51% is amazing. (And definitely not Nederland's "far left fringe" that "don't really matter")

A lot more than the 36% approval for Pelosi that Newsweek found in their Jan. 17-18, 2007 poll.

With a leader/champion, support for impeachment would go up at least 10 points overnight. See Discussion section of http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">referenced page.

[KingFlorez]

22. Investigations come first

The evidence has to be gathered first. What was she supposed to do? Just gavel in the impeachment hearings on the first day of Congress?

[pat_k]

27. All the evidence needed for an irrefutable case is public record. Staffers are more than capable. .

. . of pulling it together and drafting articles. Of course she could have gaveled in the Congress and introduced a resolution to convene Impeachment Hearings on Day 1.

Doing so was not just possible, it was her duty.

Elected bodies, good government groups, and countless citizens have powerful -- and in the case of torture and spying irrefutable -- cases for impeachment.

The charges against Bush and Cheney are hanging out there. They are not going to magically "disappear."

Every day that they do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens, public figures, and organizations who are calling on them to act.

Every day that they do nothing effectively exonerates Bush and Cheney.

If exoneration is their intent, then they should do it honestly by telling the nation why the abuses that a majority of Americans can see are not abuses in their eyes.

Dereliction through inaction is bad enough, but Pelosi has mindlessly balked with her "pledge" that impeachment of Bush and Cheney is "it's off the table" (no reason or justification, it's just off, period). Throwingaway the only weapon we have to defend against presidential abuse of power is "pre-emptive" surrender.

The price of delay could be unimaginable

Time Is NOT on our side.

The price of delay could be unimaginable.⁽¹⁾ Any day we could see another terrorist attack; Bush could declare war on Iran or Syria or North Korea or Venezuela or even Haiti; or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.

_______________________________________________________

(1) Even when we move full steam ahead, we can be thwarted by events.

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition led by Democrats.com that included the National Lawyers Guild and Vincent Bugliosi had scheduled a Sept. 11 press conference http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for Bush v. Gore.

Bush's claims to any semblance of legitimacy were crumbling fast.

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is..
_______________________________________________________

[KingFlorez]

34. Investigations could uncover more than is already known

Everything should be revealed so Bush and Cheney can be tried for everything they've done. And besides that, we don't have the votes for conviction and removal, if things are uncovered through investigation we may stand a chance of actually getting enough votes.

[pat_k]

46. We have more than enough to impeach.

We know all we need to know.

We don't need to know all there is to know.

As any good prosecutor knows, "Keep It Simple" is a guiding principle.

Determining the full extent of the abuses and damage done should not be mixed up with making the case that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution. We just need one impeachable offense.

Other Congressional committees can pursue investigations in parallel with or following Impeachment Hearings. If other committees uncover more evidence they think should be piled on, fine, they should toss it into the impeachment, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily complicate things.

For more on the nature of their duty, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3069280&mesg_id=3069612

[KingFlorez]

48. All the facts have to be known

There is not enough solid evidence to build a strong enough case to compel enough members of Congress to vote for removal. An airtight case is the only way impeachment would succeed.

[pat_k]

50. the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated

. . .the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.

The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">More. . .

[Seldona]

36. Don't let a little thing like lack of votes stop you.

We need 2/3, and we do NOT have it. It would be a waste of time, and this is coming from someone with a little brother in Iraq. Believe me if it were possible I would be all for it. The reason investigations are necessary is to FORCE the repugs to vote once the time comes.

Besides just because a majority of Americans support impeachment, that doesn't mean they ALL support bringing it to a vote and losing.

[pat_k]

40. By that logic, a prosecutor wouldn't charge a lynch mob if he believed a white jury would acquit.

A prosecutor in the 40's who refused to prosecute a lynch mob, despite having irrefutable proof and confessions, would rightly be seen as beneath contempt.

Bush and Cheney confess to their crimes when they publicly assert their fascist fantasy of Bush and unitary authoritarian executive. The proof that they dictated/condoned torture and criminal domestic spying is public record. Failure to accuse (impeach) is beneath contempt.

Whether we speak alone or in a chorus, we must speak out against wrongs, or be complicit with those wrongs.

Of all the rationalizations for inaction, some form of "it won't happen, so shut up" is perhaps the most insidious. Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight. Fortunately for the nation, the question for Members of Congress is not "will we win?" The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

[SemperEadem]

47. "because I think so" isn't evidence

trials are decided on facts brought in evidence through investigation. Trials are not decided on feelings and " I think..."

There is not a thug in congress or the senate who will side with a Dem and vote for impeachment. And you can count on Liberman to side with the thugs. The Dems have only one shot at this and their only shot needs to be their best shot. I'm for impeachment with irrefutable evidence brought in to establish the fact that the administration has acted in a manner which screams for impeachment. I'm not for impeachment with no evidence at hand or evidence that can be shredded by doubt. If they go after the administration and they get blown out of the water, they lose their credibility and their 'critical mass' will be gone.

The fight needs to be taken up with investigative committees collecting irrefutable evidence.

Saying that it's off the table means that until the evidence is in place that can irradicate the cockroaches in charge, it does no good to run after them, stomping and missing and looking inept. They're upholding their oaths--them not executing it on your timetable doesn't mean they're not.

[pat_k]

53. We have irrefutable evidence for at least two charges.

The future cannot be known until it is behind us. Despite establishment declarations to the contrary, a number of Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long.

Until they formally accuse/impeach, we cannot know whether this or that Republican will be willing to defend and "stand by" the War Criminals in the White House. More on this in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3069280&mesg_id=3069874">Post 31

As far as irrefutable evidence, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3069280#3070665">the charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated.

[SemperEadem]

58. when they've got it on all charges, then holla back

til then, it's a moot point.

[pat_k]

61. All charges? Only one article of impeachment is necessary.

Their sworn duty to defend the constitution demanded action as soon as they had probable cause that Bush and Cheney threatened it.

Members of a police force would be derilect in their duty to protect the public if they saw a driver weaving all over the road, but sat back until they witnessed the driver run someone down.

Members of the House have been derelict to wait as long they have to vote out articles. Bush and Cheney's actions went beyond threatening harm years ago. They are drunk with power, intentionally running down the dictates of our Constitution one after another.

We should remember the words of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/17">Barbara Jordan's 25 July 1974 address to the House Judiciary Committee, particularly now, with the passage of the 11th anniversary of her death on January 17th.

If Pelosi had heeded those words, she would have stood up, accused Bush and Cheney, and introduced articles of impeachment years ago. Their oath is not an oath to defend the Constitution -- it is an oath to fight; to support and defend. Whatever she believed the outcome would be, she (and every other Member of Congress) has duty to speak out.

We will never know how events would have unfolded if the Democratic leaderhip had acted. Even if the resolution had died in committee, perhaps the fight itself would have resulted in a landslide for a Democratic presidential candidate who joined the fight, demonstrating the strength and principle that Americans respect.

[harveyc]

49. She can stop the funding ...

for the Iraq war as Rep. Kucinich and Sen. Feingold have said. No investigations required.

[pat_k]

56. and Bush will simply raid the budget or get the Saudi's to dip into their pockets.

It is the bushcheney war on the Constitution that Members of Congress are sworn to defend against. Impeachment is the weapon We the People gave them when we established the Constitution for the United States.

Every day that Bush and Cheney remain in power, their idiological minions, co-conspirators, and incompetent cronies do more damage. Impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney is the only way to stop the gravest abuses. Rooting out co-conspirators and mopping up will only be possible when we have a legitimate president.

With regard tot Iraq, cutting funding would not just be ineffective (Bush will just circumvent it), it does nothing to change the destructive dynamics -- the torture at Gitmo, the cronies, the profiteering. The only way we can hope to do anything constructive in Iraq is to take the massive power of the American presidency out of the hands of these lawless men.

[bdamomma]

6. we are depending on you Nancy, that is why we voted you

all in.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Held in higher regard than the President

Kudos to her, but honestly, it's not like that is much of an accomplishment. I dare say that garden slugs, rotting vegetables and dead cod are held in higher regard than the President.

[Ishoutandscream2]

9. PFFTTT!!! LOL!!!

Nice point. I'm still laughing.

[Wizard777]

11. Honeymoon is over!

She better get rid of her boyfriend George Bush or we want a Divorce. Because they don't do Impeachments anymore.

[KansDem]

23. I found the CorpMedia's reference to "honeymoon" to be childish...

...also disingenuous.

So Ms Pelosi is doing so well now because of a "honeymoon" with the public? Bullshit! Maybe it has to do with her rejecting the "Bush mandate" and "GOP Juggernaut" stories fed to us by the CorpMedia for the past six years... Maybe she realizes what the rest of us know and CorpMedia refuses to acknowledge: that BushCo is history and no amount of propaganda will revive it.

The CorpMedia can kiss my ass on their way to Hell...

[pat_k]

30. Until impeached and removed, BushCo is not "history."

If Pelosi thinks "BushCo is history," she'd better think again.

BushCo will keep making history -- turning Americans into torturers and spies, making the United States an international pariah, attacking Iran, sending more men and women into the Iraq quagmire, or whatever whim them him on a given day -- until he and Cheney are impeached and removed.

[harveyc]

16. It is a shame "the boss" ...

didn't spend this time and effort getting our soldiers out of Iraq. 52 dead US soldiers since she became the boss.

[Bunny]

18. Because she alone could have recalled every last troop home from Iraq

in two short weeks. :eyes:

[harveyc]

20. She is "the boss", the leader ...

and hasn't even initiated anything to end the war in Iraq. Trying to stop the "surge" doesn't stop the war for the other 130,000 US combat soldiers in Iraq. 3 weeks wasted and our soldiers are still dying.

[KingFlorez]

21. The new Congress hasn't even been in a month

It's not like she can just order the troops out, she doesn't have that authority. These things take time.

[harveyc]

25. Some disagree ...

Sen. Feingold and Rep. Kucinich have called on Congress and its leadership to end the Iraq war now ...

"It is time for congress to step up with constitutional responsibility to bring an end to the war. Unfortunately, every other member of congress who is running for president, who now says he or she opposes the war, have actually voted to fund it 100% of the time. It is simply not credible for anyone to say that he or she opposes the war, yet votes to fund it. Join me on the 27th of January at the peace march in Washington DC." -- Dennis Kucinich

[KingFlorez]

26. There isn't going to be a solution this quick

Congress hasn't even been in a month, they don't know how to stop this war yet.

[harveyc]

28. Interesting ...

I thought they did, based on the campaign they ran in 2006. Plus, they had over 2 months to come up with one since the November elections.

[KingFlorez]

33. There is only so much that can be done

Bush is still President, with him holding that authority it is going to be difficult to get the troops out of Iraq. Under that circumstance, a quick solution isn't possible.

[pat_k]

39. Absolutely. Can't being to "solve" with bushcheney in power -- which is why they must impeach. (nt)

[pat_k]

38. They do know how to stop Bush's war -- impeach. They just irrationally refuse to utter the word.

Of course they know how to stop the war on the Constitution.

And if they have the political will to end the war in Iraq, they know how to do that too.

There is only one answer and it is staring them in the face: Impeach Bush and Cheney.

They are sworn to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fulfill that oath when confronted with precisely this kind of attack.

They know how. They are just irrationally refusing to do their duty.

We expect men and women in the military to risk life and limb to support and defend. Members of Congress take the same oath. We take oaths to do the really tough stuff for a reason. So that when the time comes, we "Just Do It."

It is long past time for Members of Congress to "Just Do It."

[harveyc]

44. Nicely said -- Just Do It! ... n/t

[pat_k]

31. Impeachment and removal can happen with speed unimaginable to the "strategerist" . .

She would have the power if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney want to nominate their own successors, they would have to take the resignation "exit strategy" (Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP who must be confirmed by the House and Senate. Bush resigns, VP becomes P and nominates new VP). If they take this path, we might not end up with a Repub Pres who supports redeployment, but it's not likely that both Houses of Congress would give the nod to an advocate of escalation

In any case, removal from office could happen so fast it would make the "strategerists" heads spin.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12

. . .
Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements to nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) . . .

. . .Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.

[Marie26]

29. Go Nancy! nt

[Wizard777]

32. She's not the boss. Hillary is.

The only reason I can think of for Pelosi not to impeach Bush & Cheney is that Pelosi would become americas first woman president. Hillary has already put her name on that.

[lyonn]

35. Pelosi: Hard work, smarts and class

She is impressive. How many Leaders can gather that kind of respect?

[harveyc]

54. Does fibbing count?

--- Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

[Jennicut]

57. I wish Nancy was running for Prez instead of Hillary

At least she shows she can get some actual meaningful things done and seems to genuinely be a nice person. She would be a better candidate as the first woman running for president. Not that I think a man wouldn't be just fine as prez, we just need a good candidate. As far as impeachment goes, 2/3rds of the Senate needs to approve it and that is tall order considering we only have a tiny majority. Won't even count my lovely Senator Blow Lieberman. Investigations need to happen first. But if Bush were to get us "escalated" in Iraq I bet even Rethugs would go to him and demand him to stop or threaten Impeachment. Having an a--hole as for your top leader in not good for their party image. Unfortunately, cynic that I am, I bet Bush will never pay for anything he has done. He will flee to Paraguay in 2009 or wherever it is in South America he bought that land. I think he will be a lame duck for the rest of his two years. Dems won't give him the time of day and Rethugs will be tripping over themselves to get as far away from him as possible (except McCain, which pretty much seals his fate in 2008). Investigations will take a long time, formal impeachment processes take a long time. I doubt it will ever happen.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

59. K&R