I'm going to be watching closely to see if the Dems let the Repubs beat up on Pelosi

[democracy1st]

we have some weak ass men in the party but this crap is sad

[Araxen]

1. Why is it the men's fault?

She dug herself into the grave let her dig herself out.

[democracy1st]

25. this is a repub bs story

[MNDemNY]

2. Her "beating" was requested by the Speaker, herself.

[polmaven]

28. Requested HOW, exactly...

By telling the truth? Have you seen or heard the new revelations about the CIA so called "records" of their briefings?

But then, I probably ought to just be AMAZED and thankful that we have a CIA with people who are able to use, in 2002 official records, a term which was not even COINED until 2006. It makes me feel SO safe that they are able to predict the future so far in advance.

[MADem]

3. I agree. They should all be chanting OPEN HEARINGS along with her.

They KNOW her hands are tied with regard to dissemination of classified information. It sucks to say what you know, when you can't say why. And of course, CIA is not going to declassify that briefing to "help" her, so the only recourse is hearings.

The hearings should be open, if they just "have" to go into closed session, turn off the fucking cameras and shut the door. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense, now.

[Thrill]

4. Why do you have to watch closely? They;ve been leaving Obama out there

to sell his own budget, stimulus, and the closing of Gitmo. Good Luck waiting for Dems to back Dems who take strong stances. How many are out there fighting to get Dawn Johnson confirmed??

[OHdem10]

5. There are no profiles in courage and since we have 2 parties in

one, it is each for him/herself. I hate to say it but
the wimps will be on parade.

I will apologize profusely if I am wrong.

[Ganja Ninja]

6. I don't understand why anybody's defending her.

When Republicans feign outrage over this non-issue we should put tongue in cheek and demand answers right along with them. We should be nodding in total agreement and demanding a full investigation of the whole torture affair that includes all participants and leaves no stone unturned.

[democracy1st]

27. its a political attack,and the violators are attacking

[Orsino]

31. Yes...call their bluff.

Demand a full investigation of how torture became US policy. If Pelosi is ousted for complicity along with the masterminds, so much the better.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. are we about to get a new Speaker?

[Beacool]

8. You can watch closely all you want.

I couldn't care less what happens to Pelosi.

:shrug:

[JeffR]

10. Now there's something you and I agree on completely.

I don't give a damn about Pelosi. On this issue, I just want to see the perps brought to justice. Pelosi is completely irrelevant. Pelosi is simply a smokescreen.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Was waterboarding illegal when Nancy Pelosi found out about it?

Did the world think it was illegal? Did the UN classify it as illegal? Did the Geneva Conventions classify it as illegal? Nancy is trying to tap dance with two HUGE left feet. She's been rumblin', bumblin', and stumblin' for two weeks now.

What men in the party would you single out, point to, and call "weak ass men"? Identify them or take back what you posted, yeah?

[democracy1st]

12. quite a few and I don't have time to name them all

[bottomtheweaver]

11. When the Nazis came for Pelosi, I remained silent; I did not like Pelosi.

Moral of the story: letting Pelosi twist in the wind and/or get replaced by Hoyer is about as counterproductive as it comes.

[polichick]

13. Looks like the administration wants nothing to do with it.

[democracy1st]

26. checkout this video poli

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwsMX659eeg

[Uzybone]

14. Congressional Dems are close to worthless

f you've been watching the GOP and the media have had a field day with the Pelosi pinata, I haven't seen any of her colleagues come to her defense. The only one I know who has spoken put is retired.

[Inuca]

15. If you haven't seen any dem come to Pelosi's defense

it is because you did not pay enough attention. Not that you have to follow everything closely, but if you don't you are not entitled to such blanket statements either. I have not been following very closely either, but off the top of my head I can name Jim Webb and the congresswoman from IL whose (complicated) name I cannot think of right now (starts with an S, was one the names mentioned as a possible replacement for Obama before Blago put his foot and Burris into it).

[PassingFair]

17. Schakowsky...

One of our FINEST congresspeople!

[Inuca]

18. Yep, she's the one

And she IS great, but you must agree the name is not easy :-)

[PassingFair]

19. I have to Google it EVERY TIME...

but she's worth it!

[Cha]

44. Schakowsky! What could easier?

I learned how to spell her name a long time ago:)

[Uzybone]

20. If thats what you call defense then you have low standards

Jim Webb basically dodged the question. Anyone can say "its not a big deal". We need to turn the tables on the GOP. Fight fire with fire, not with milquetoast statements.

[PassingFair]

21. Here's Jan Schakowsky on Pelosi:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/18/rep_schakowsky_on_gop_attacking_pelosi.html

She is a member of the PROGRESSIVE Caucus, by the way.
They are NOT known for their milquetoast statements.

[Uzybone]

22. Thanks for that, she did great n/t

[PassingFair]

16. DLC will ENCOURAGE it, if it takes the spotlight off Jane Harman and AIPAC...

BlueDog/DLC alliance will throw
Pelosi under the bus without
hesitation.

[calimary]

23. Well, Pelosi threw our system of justice and our self-respect as a nation under the bus

when she declared that "IMPEACHMENT is off the table."

Sorry, Nancy - I can't forget that one.

[PassingFair]

24. At least she voted against the IWR...

which is more than I can say about some
of our other Congresspeople and Senators...

She was obviously covering for compromised
Dems with the "off the table" stance.

(Perhaps herself included, in a small way.)

[polmaven]

29. No!

"Covering for compromised Dems" was NOT the reason she took it off the table. Have you spoken with your Congressperson about that decision? Have you written to the Speaker to ASK why?

I did have a discussion with my Congressman. He agrees with her decision and so do I. The Speaker knew very well that the Senate trial would end in acquittal. How do you think Bush and Cheney would interpret an acquittal? Do you believe they would have seen the whole thing a stain on their legacy, or as a justification for them to continue and/or even expand their horrific actions? I believe the latter.

It was just too dangerous to do it for the feel-good heck of it!

[PassingFair]

30. You do it to drag their shit into the light.

You do it for the TRUTH of it.

Not for the "feel-good heck of it".

The Bush Administration LIED to Congress.

It should have been brought to task for it.

The PEOPLE had more nerve than their representatives,
and THAT is not good, it was a FAILURE of democracy.

Many of our own Democrats turned a blind eye
to TORTURE, and allowed an ill-conceived and
illegal war to be waged in our name.

Wiretaps of ordinary citizens without warrants,
suspension of habeas corpus, the bankruptcy
of our country...

Half of the democrats thought a good stance
was to "let them hang themselves"....

Which they did.

With all the rope the
DLC/BlueDogs gave them,
they HUNG US ALL.

[polmaven]

32. So you are OK with

letting them feel justified to do even more shit, because, you know, the Senate just said it was not a probelm....and that they were NOT GUILTY.

Well, it would not have been OK with me. Their shit will be brought out into the light, but there will not be more damage to the country because of it.

How, exactly, can that kind of justification be considered being "brought to task"?

[PassingFair]

33. You know, OJ Simpson was found "not guilty", too. Should he NOT have been tried?

I don't see him promoting car rentals any more.....

You ASSUME that the Bushes would
not be liable.


That is YOUR assumption, but even
if it HAD played out that way,
SO many illegal activities and LIES would
have brought to the surface that rank and file
Republicans would have had to distance
themselves from them MUCH earlier.


It only takes ONE reasonable perjury rap to impeach.
After all, they impeached Clinton for a BLOW-JOB.

[polmaven]

34. O.J. was not in a position

to wreak havoc on the entire country. Bush/Cheney were. I really did not want them to feel justified in doing even more than they did. That is a very scary thought.

I never said impeachment would not have been possible. It likely would have been. I said CONVICTION would not have happened. I know you know the difference.

Do you honestly think that the Republicans that were in any position to make a difference would have distanced themselves? The rank and file VOTERS did distance themselves in 2006, and, obviously, in 2008.

[PassingFair]

35. Clinton was "acquitted" too. And we spent 8 years in the wilderness as a result.

An acquittal would NOT have hurt theDemocrats.

Revealing the depravity of the Republicans
would have helped us prevent the egregious
RIP-OFFS that occurred in the chimp's last
term.

Four years of trashing the constitution with
impunity that was conferred upon them by
Congress.

Disgusting.

Our reputation is destroyed.

Our Bill of Rights has been flushed down the toilet.

Our country is in RUINS.

But by all means, don't DO ANYTHING, it MIGHT
mean a shit like Lieberman would lose his seat!

And yes, I think the 'pukes would have run
like RATS from a sinking ship.

That's what they do.

[polmaven]

36. I did not say

an acquittal would hurt DEMOCRATS! I said it would hurt the COUNTRY!

We are talking Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al here! "Revealing the depravity" would not have prevented ANYTHING if they were acquitted. Most of the damage was done LONG before the Democrats had the ability to do anything anyway, And the Bush crime syndicate, with Cheney and Rumsfeld thrown into the mix would not have stopped doing any of that, and would likely have done more when they were told by the Senate that they were not wrong. You or I may have been humbled by a process like that. They would have been encouraged by it.

As far as the electorate goes......That is a pretty savvy bunch! Democrats GAINED seats in 2008...not to mention the presidency, did we not?

Oh...and we did not spend 8 years in the wilderness because of the Clinton impeachment. If he had been able to run again, he would have been re-elected in a heart beat. His approval rating when he left office was very, very high. The majority of the country strongly disapproved of the Republican's railroading of President Clinton.

[PassingFair]

37. The country WAS hurt.

Continues to HURT.

We only gained seats in 06 and 08 because
the people were DESPERATE for someone who
MIGHT challenge the thieves!

There's no need for woulds or coulds, likelys or
what ifs.... they DID destroy our economy
and our reputation, as we gave them the
"rope". You cannot know what "would" have happened.




We do know WHAT DID happen. You speak from
a position of political fear, which is how
the Republicans assert their power.

We needed to go on the offensive if we wanted
to stop them, and we DIDN'T.

We will be paying for it with a depression.

[polmaven]

38. Well, you and I will never agree on this

so why just keep going round and round. You obviously give the Crime family WAY too much credit for actually having human feelings. They don't. It is not political fear from which I am speaking, it is political reality.

They stole an election for chrissake! Do you REALLY believe they would have been humbled by impeachment? Wow!

The final 2 years is not when the majority of the damage was done. It was done LONG before that. But who knows the da mange they could have done with PROOF of invincibility, rather than just the suspicion of it?

[PassingFair]

39. We DO KNOW what they did.

And now it appears as though our OWN
administration wants some of that cover, too.

:puke:

Why not? It's FREE!

Think if Ron Paul had been emboldened
and had a platform TWO YEARS before
the election....

Watch Paulians CHASE Hannity down
the street and tell me things wouldn't
have been better....

MAJOR dissension in their ranks
and libertarians on board, as well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/crowd-of-irate-ron-paul-f_n_80352.html

But you're right on one thing, we won't agree on this.
Big deal.
We probably agree on more issues than we disagree!

:)

[polmaven]

40. Now THAT we can agree on!

"We probably agree on more issues than we disagree!"

:hi:

[spanone]

41. Pelosi Allies Show Support in Interrogation Dispute

In light of the dispute between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Central Intelligence Agency, allies of Ms. Pelosi are trying to poke holes where they can in the C.I.A.’s account of the secret briefings that agency officials gave congressional members on interrogation techniques.

Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday released a letter he sent to Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., taking issue with the agency’s account of a briefing conducted on Sept. 19, 2006.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/pelosi-allies-show-support-in-interrogation-dispute/?scp=1&sq=pelosi%20democrats&st=cse

[Cha]

45. Well, well, well..Obey

comes to the rescue.

Who's to say more isn't going on behind the scenes that DU knows nothing about:think:

[Phx_Dem]

42. If Pelosi gets beat up, it's her own fault. She's the Speaker of the House,

and 3rd in line for the Presidency, if she can't defend herself from herself without relying on "the boys," she should get a new job. She stepped in this pile of shit, so she should clean her own shoes.

[democracy1st]

43. CIA is lying!