Am I alone in thinking that Pelosi should be investigated along with...

[Just-plain-Kathy]

...Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the Bush family crime syndicate?

How many times did she bring up "Subpoena Power" during the '06 elections? She spoke about accountability and then took impeachment off the table.

I want to know if she's like the rest of them and profited from the lies of the Bush administration.

I'm I alone in thinking that if President Elect Obama only "looks forward" and doesn't investigate EVERYTHING, he would be no better than the rest of them?

[az chela]

1. You are so right on about this.pelosi had her head up bush's

ASS the last few years.She is one of his enablers

[Just-plain-Kathy]

2. Over thirty views and only one comment and one rec...

I guess we're alone az chela.

[monmouth]

3. HA! Post it again later, I learned that great posts sometimes come at

dinner and commute time. Great post and I'm very wary and weary of Pelosi..

[4 t 4]

4. Me too

whats her story was her family threatened ? Get the foil out.

[Kolesar]

89. You're not alone

At least 60 out of 300,000,000 Americans agree with you! :sarcasm:

[blues90]

5. The fact that they ran on ending the occupation >

Then fully funded it and the talk about putting all new bills on a website which never happened and their 5 day work week and then 6 for 06 rendering a tiny min wage hike tell me all I need to know. Yet she is still there in control.

I have reached the point where i know it is all talk to get re-elected.

I really don't see much difference in a repug taking down this country or a dem enabling it and allowing it.

The crimes are endless from stolen elections and voter fraud to enabling and wars on terror and here we are now broken and hated and no real way to get out of this while the people in the house and senate have nothing to lose and are set forever. What do they really care about the lowely citizen.

[RC]

28. That's Election Fraud, not voter fraud.

It was Election fraud that got bu$h in office both times. Voter fraud can only be a local problem.

[blues90]

34. you're right it was and is election fraud.

Which is the proper definiton but the end result was the same.

[leftstreet]

50. Sometimes I think they must be laughing at us

:(

Good post!

[Enrique]

6. she was clear before the '06 elections that she would not impeach

suggested many times that she somehow promised or implied she'd impeach, but she said explicitly that she would not.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

23. Yeah, because she said, "no crimes were committed".

If she truly believes no crimes were committed, she should be declared incompetent.

[1776Forever]

7. How would you ever know if she did with assests and money like this - From USA article......

Congress Disclosures List-3
Posted 6/14/2007

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-14-1851683440_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Here are summaries of 2006 financial disclosure statements for congressional leaders, chairman and ranking members of major House and Senate committees, presidential candidates and lawmakers facing investigations. This is part 3.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, speaker of the House.

Earned income: $183,500.

Honoraria, all donated to charity: None.

Major assets: Vineyard in St. Helena, Calif., $5 million-$25 million; townhouse in Norden, Calif., $1 million-$5 million; option on San Francisco property, $1 million-$5 million; rental property in Napa, $500,000-$1 million.

Major sources of unearned income: Rent from Napa property, $15,001-$50,000; rental income from vineyard, $50,001-$100,000.

Major liabilities: Mortgage on vineyard, $1 million-$5 million; mortgage on Norden house, $500,001-$1 million; mortgage on rental property in Napa, $250,001-$500,000.

Gifts: None.

Narrative: Pelosi's assets are owned jointly with her husband, Paul. He is an investor who has a long list of his own real estate and stock holdings, many in high-tech firms. Rental income he reported for the year included $100,001-$1 million each for three commercial properties in San Francisco.

Paul Pelosi reported 30 stock sales and purchases last year, often involving sums up to $500,000 or $1 million. They included buying $500,001-$1 million of Apple Computer stock, $500,001-$1 million worth of Ebay stock and $15,001-$50,000 worth of Traffic.com stock.

Nancy Pelosi serves as an advisory board member or trustee of a half-dozen organizations including the Women & Politics Institute at American University, the International Women's Democracy Center, the United States Botanic Garden, the Kennedy Center, Lead America and the National Student Leadership Foundation.

For the first time this year, Pelosi also listed her position as chief financial officer and secretary of the Paul & Nancy Pelosi Charitable Foundation, which the couple established to donate their wealth to museums, universities and other organizations. That follows a report in USA Today earlier this year criticizing Pelosi for failing to report that position in the past, as required, which aides said was an oversight.

[Hannah Bell]

35. where are hubbie's war contracts?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

51. Paul Pelosi was on the Bohemian Grove 2008 guest list...

My guess is that hubby Pelosi was brought into the fold sometime after Nancy voted against the IWR and her taking impeachment off the table.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Are you thinking Feinstein?

[certainot]

104. yeah, was this post partly enabled by that mistake? is it pelosi or feinstein?

xxx

[John Q. Citizen]

112. I'm replying to post #35, because i know that Feinstein's husband has extensive defense contracts.

Pelosi failed in the house to hold bush accountable for numerous instances of lawlessness and mayhem.

But i don't know what her husband does.

[Solly Mack]

8. An actual (factual/honest/truthful) investigation into the Bush admin. would have

to include the actions (or inactions) of Congress as well.

[Dragonfli]

13. Banana Truth Bomb...

[Solly Mack]

14. LOL! Thank you!!

[Dragonfli]

9. No You Are Not!

She is an accessory after the fact having decided to consciously break her oath to the constitution when she declared she had the power to ignore crimes past, present and future with the proclamation, "impeachment is off the table". Impeaching crimes is not "optional" under the constitution and she had neither the power nor the right to effectively write it out of the constitution!

[Lebam in LA]

10. Add DIFI to that list

[havocmom]

32. Second that!

[cascadiance]

60. I think it was no coincidence that her campaign cochair also worked on Arny's reelection campaign!

Having Arnold as governor in California is added insurance for her to avoid Democrats "outing" her with investigations, since they'd have been more aggressive doing so if they thought they could replace her with a Dem instead of a Rethug.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/141629/994

That is why I think she was the first one to speak up about the prosecutor scandal with Carol Lam getting fired here in SoCal, shortly after that election... I think she knew that the Rethugs had her on their target list to go after to replace with a Rethug too. And probably also why she quickly probably "cut a deal" to approve Mukasey when they probably told her behind the scenes that they'd back off going after her if she approved him to replace Gonzo.

[Political_Junkie]

11. You are not alone! n/t

[Raster]

12. No. You are not alone. At the least, she's a warmongering cretin.

At the worst, a collaborator and accomplice to war criminals.

[cali]

27. So why did the war mongering cretin vote against the Iraq War?

I mean there it was, a war for the taking, with a vote that was risk free, why didn't she go for it?

Dog, I'm sick of teh stupid.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

29. That was in 2002. What has she done for us lately?

[Enrique]

30. two important pieces of legislation in the House

fair pay for women and children's health coverage.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

46. I don't know if it was the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, but recently the topic of...

...equal pay for women was addressed. A new law has been put into place that makes it almost impossible for a woman to hold a corporation liable for paying her less than a male coworker doing the same job.

Now, if a woman doesn't make a complaint about her unfair salary on the very first day of her employment, she doesn't have a chance on winning a law suit. (How many people know what all their coworkers make on day one?)

So fair pay for women is all well and good, but now corporations can't be held accountable.

And as far as children's health care coverage...she just reauthorized a program which was in place already, the only problem is that the new program isn't as good as the old one was.

[caraher]

90. I think that was a court ruling and not a new law

The ruling affirmed an insane interpretation of a statute of limitations that disallowed redress unless the complaint was filed within 90 days not of learning that a woman had been unfairly paid less, but within 180 days of the actual unfair compensation! You only just found out today that you'd been getting ripped off for 20 years? Too bad!

I suspect you're thinking of the Lily Ledbetter case:

Last year, the Supreme Court tossed aside longstanding legal precedents and government practice to make it much harder for an employee to sue over unlawful pay discrimination.

The 5-to-4 ruling came in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Alabama, who over several years received smaller raises than men in comparable positions. A jury found that Goodyear violated Ms. Ledbetter’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But a majority of the Supreme Court decided she was entitled to nothing based on a cramped view of the 180-day deadline for filing such claims. They decided that Ms. Ledbetter had to sue within 180 days of the company’s discriminatory raises and that the persistence of unfairness from check to check was not relevant.

[Kermitt Gribble]

83. Don't forget FISA!

That one was really important!

[cali]

52. I'm not a Pelosi supporter. I think she's done a truly terrible job

as SotH. My point was simply one of basic logic. Whatever else Pelosi is, she's not a war monger.

[Raster]

44. Yes, I'll just bet you are.

[Joe the Liberal]

15. I don't see why not............

"accountability" my ass, they just said it to get elected, typical politician.

[depakid]

16. Accountability for ALL of the people involved

is the only way to keep matter like these from coming up again- and again.

If she or any other Democrats are culpable, they need to face up to the consequences.

It's the only way the nation will return to the rule of law.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. I stand proudly at your side....

Investigations should not only include Pelosi, but Reid & Conyers as well. The leaders we elected in 2006 have been a HUGE disappointment, to say the very least...


Peace,

Ghost

[wildbilln864]

18. I'm with you Kathy. nt

:hi:

[4 t 4]

20. They have been a Huge

disappointment IMHO

[wildbilln864]

43. yes. But you're being too kind IMO...

I want to see every shrub enabler in the unemployment line at least and in prison if warranted.
ETA: I know that will never happen though. :banghead:

[The Doctor.]

19. It was the closed door sessions where they revealed they were using torture...

Everyone involved who did not act to stop it (that would be everyone), are therefore complicit.

[ecstatic]

21. that's most likely why it's been "off the table" nt

[tbyg52]

22. Hear, hear!

And the rest of them, as well.

[Usrename]

24. Of course she should be part of the investigation.

She had obligations, both morally and under international and domestic law, which she has ignored. She is culpable.

[Deja Q]

25. Where's Pelosi or her fans to defend Pelosi?

[NNN0LHI]

56. You attempting to call someone out here?

I didn't click on this thread until just now because I wanted to see what all the goofballs had to say first.

Mission accomplished!

Don

[Deja Q]

57. Not at all.

Are you?

[Malikshah]

26. Add Feinstein and Reid to that list.

[cascadiance]

59. And Jane Harman and Jay Rockefeller too...

A lot of those folks that served on intelligence committees and didn't question what was going on and now complain about folks like Panetta deserve scrutiny.

And though I think Henry Waxman was more forced to do things like keeping Sibel Edmonds from testifying to the Government Oversight Committee, I believe he knows things that he should testify about in this regard. We need a truth commission badly!

And Charles Grassley, who once supported Sibel Edmonds, might know things going on in the inside that he might be persuaded to talk about, moreso than other Republicans, since he has in the past voiced opposition to internal corruption problems in the FBI and skepticism towards the Patriot Act, etc. too.

[natrat]

31. add dodd to the long list of sleazy democratic crooks

"I just received confirmation from a congressional aide that Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd will not introduce legislation in the Senate to mirror House Finance Chair Barney Frank's bill, HR 384, to provide increased conditions, transparency and oversight on the second $350 billion of the Wall Street bailout money (otherwise known as TARP).

As such, the funds will be released without any further conditions attached to them. Given that incoming Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been closely involved with the disbursement TARP funds so far, virtually nothing will change about the program whatsoever. We still won't know which firms are receiving the money. We still won't know how that money is being spent.

All that was necessary to secure a seamless transition from the Bush bailout to the Obama bailout were two letters sent from Larry Summers to members of Congress. This is the same Larry Summers who, just last week, drafted a massive business tax cut for the stimulus package, which even moderate Democratic Senators found abhorrent. That tax cut was removed from the stimulus because, unlike anything that happens with TARP, one chamber of Congress can shoot it down with a simple majority vote. By comparison, for TARP to be stopped, a two-thirds majority was required from both branches of Congress.

Dodd's willingness to just trust the administration is, as Elena Schor noted earlier in the week, similar to the trust many Senate Democrats placed in the Bush administration when granting them authority to use military force in Iraq. Keep in mind that Dodd was one of the Democratic Senators who gave that authority to the Bush administration. While it can be safely said that there are good reasons to trust the Obama administration more than the Bush administration, HOPE and trust were abandoned as systems of government a long time ago. A far greater level of assurance than a letter to Congress would have been President Obama signing a Senate-approved version of HR 384 into law. It is a willingness to sign such laws, beyond HOPE, that was the reason so many Americans voted for Obama back in November. Letters of assurance are no substitute for actual laws.

TARP money will be released, without any new conditions, oversight or transparency attached to it. At this point HOPE has moved from a campaign slogan to a system of governance."


http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B8CFFA58F7E2E083F3E49C570D2A6990?diaryId=10960

[lonestarnot]

37. Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Finestien yeppers vestigate!

[Festivito]

47. Sounds good to me.

Report that directly to the people of the United States.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

49. Wow :( ...Dodd's a POS as well.

...Makes you want to cry.

[OnyxCollie]

67. Dodd also contributed to HAVA.

Get hackable voting machines in place, then try running for President. Who would have guessed?

[slipslidingaway]

33. No party should be exempt and you are not alone. n/t

[earth mom]

36. Most of Congress is complicit in * & Co crimes. But we're not allowed to say that here on DU.

:argh:

[Enrique]

38. people say it all the time

the thoughts in the OP have been posted many many times. Usually nearly unanimous agreement with it here and lots of recs. What's this "not allowed" stuff?

[earth mom]

39. Well, sometimes it's allowed, and sometimes not. nt

[Enrique]

41. not allowed?

what do you mean, the thread locked? Deleted? I find that hard to believe. There's usually not even any dissent any of the innumerable times this same thing has been posted.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

48. Months ago I posted pretty much the same thread about Pelosi, and it was locked.

I once posted a topic questioning the DLC, the topic even made it to the Home Page. After about twenty minutes the thread disappeared.

I think the moderators are learning that the DU would fold if it became a place for democratic cheerleaders to just post rah-rah stories.

If the DU wants to remain relevant, we have to be free to have honest discussions here.

[ihavenobias]

82. K & R, great thread Kathy.

:)

[Runcible Spoon]

40. Nope, most certainly not.

:puke:

[dbt]

42. You are SO not alone!

What a magnificent WASTE of time, skin and taxpayers' money she has proved to be. She could show every jellyfish in the oceans a thing or two about having no spine.

She is as much to blame as bu$h for the mess we are in.

[garybeck]

45. why do they keep electing her? n/t

[natrat]

53. most people are political morons,and the local press not exposing the politicians doesnt help

[pleah]

54. K&R If Democrats were guilty along with the rethugs,

then they should be prosecuted as well.

No you are not alone.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

58. Out where?

[uberllama42]

61. Of course he's better than the rest of them

Obama is absolutely responsible for investigating and if possible prosecuting the Bush administration and the Democrats who enabled them. He will be in dereliction of his Constitutional duty if he doesn't.

But that doesn't make him morally equivalent to the criminals themselves. There's plenty of daylight between committing all those crimes (lying, graft, torture, etc.) and being the guy who should prosecute them but doesn't.

[dana_b]

62. I'm with you n/t

[PinkyisBlue]

63. I am with you, too.

In fact, she is almost worse than the rest. She held herself up to be with the people, and then she dropped the ball. She puts more effort into applying her makeup every morning than she does fighting for what is right.

[snappyturtle]

64. K&R I foresee Pelosi as an impediment to any investigation.

Yes, she should be investigated too along with the other suggestions up thread. PE Obama must encourage thorough investigations into all wrong doings.

[BlooInBloo]

65. Obama's a war criminal too! Oh yah! Impeach him!!!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. I'll agree with that...

... We have to press the Obama administration. Jonathan Turley was right on Olberman the other night when making the point to show no one is above the law. It will no longer be their crime (including those who looked the other way), but OUR crime. So, let the chips fall, I say and impeach Pelosi. She and others knew and did nothing. Did she profit? Let's find out.

[davidswanson]

68. BUSH JUST PARDONED HER

http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/39062

[G_j]

69. collusion with the Republican administration’s illegal programs of torture and mass surveillance

well, that part is true.

[Zodiak]

86. that is a fake article

it even says it at the bottom

[bertman]

70. IF, big IF, there is an investigation, it should be allowed to wind its way into every crack

and crevice until the instigators, enablers, and collaborators have been identified, indicted, and prosecuted, whether Republican or Democrat.

Unfortunately, the odds of this happening are miniscule at best.

Washington's power structure is not going to let ANY President or AG bring down its movers and shakers. They've spent way too much time and money getting these folks where they want them. They will take EXTREME measures to prevent any serious investigation or prosecution.

[Individualist]

72. You're not alone

[Greyhound]

75. In 2005 I posted that if this happened they would become "our" crimes

and allow the republiks to remain a political force to preserve the illusion of choice.

I hate being right.

[acmavm]

76. Oh yeah. Both her and harry.

[JackRiddler]

77. No, actually, she should be given immunity in exchange for testimony...

Even if her testimony sucks for getting charges.

Cos the odds are low of getting even one of the Bush criminals, let alone the whole two-party establishment, deserving as they all are of punishment for their complicity.

[bobd0]

78. K&R Pelosi's refusal to investigate makes her complicit, and her incompetence alone is criminal. nt

[Clear Blue Sky]

79. Agree.

[PatrynXX]

81. Not a fan.

Harry Reid can be a bit off putting, but Nancy is downright cold. And certainly as much as I'd like to see a woman in charge make change. She hasn't got much to show for it.

[paulk]

84. no, you're not alone - at least not on DU

which has increasingly become the homebase for a whole slew of irrational zealots and/or complete idiots.

[Zodiak]

88. And people who like to call members of their own community those names

...in the absence of any point at all.

[paulk]

99. well, I guess I can't be in the club, then

I thought my point was pretty clear -

and, quite frankly, I have no desire to be part of a "community" that feels Nancy Pelosi should be prosecuted for the crimes of the Bush administration.

I seem to remember something in the rules about being generally supportive of Democrats and the Democratic Party. Perhaps you, as a moderator, could explain how calling for the prosecution of the Speaker under such a ridiculous premise fits in with those rules...

[Zodiak]

103. If you selectively read the rules, yes

...and leave all of the stuff out about how criticism is tolerated and that our ideals are generally progressive. And about how calling people idiots is against the rules.

But I am not speaking as a moderator (I quit long ago, but the admin didn't take away my status)...but rather as someone who gets tired of the snark for snark's sake. If you do not like the idea of holding Pelosi accountable for her actions during the Bush years, then you can say so without calling a sizeable proportion of this community idiots.

The fact that you chose the "idiot" part and left out any argument at all says a lot about your intentions and your respect for DU and it's rules.

[paulk]

107. maybe you define it as snark for snark's sake.

I think it can be a very effective way to express contempt for an idea - by completely rejecting it as something to be taken seriously.

There's really no point in trying to make a logical argument against the irrational. Why give it even that credibility?

I just don't understand how anyone could "argue" with an OP so patently absurd as this one and I'm hard pressed to come up with a descriptor for the fifty plus DUers that have recommended it, rules or no.

I also think that one would be hard pressed to call the OP "criticism", and if it is "progressive", then I can completely understand why so many elected Democrats shy away from the term. And why so few "progressives" have risen to any position of power in the Democratic Party.

And I also do understand that the rules around here can be pretty "selectively" interpreted and enforced.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

114. Paul, you don't mind that Pelosi is allowing Bush and Cheney to freely walk away from their crimes?

[Kermitt Gribble]

85. Not alone!

Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockafeller, Feinstein - off the top of my head.

[trashcanistanista]

91. No, you are not alone. K&R n/t

[anonymous171]

92. They should investigate anyone who may have broken the law.

But seriously Reid first, then Pelosi.

[LWolf]

93. No. You are not alone. nt

[Baby Snooks]

94. What Obama thinks...

"I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country and I think he made the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.

"It does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices."

Substitute "she" and "her" for "he" and "his" and you pretty much know what Obama thinks about Nancy Pelosi. And her table. Which was George W Bush's table. Which appears to be Barack Obama's table. Which has never been "our" table. And isn't going to be "our" table.

I don't know where he presumes to use the "we" to excuse it all - most of us did not make the choices. Most of us did not like the choices. Certainly "we" were not at the table. Certainly "we" are not at the table.

There is nothing good about George W Bush, Mr. Obama, and nothing good about anyone who thinks there is.

Nancy Pelosi is the Empress serving the Emperor. The Emperor is changing. Perhaps that is the change we were promised.

[ProgressIn2008]

106. Let me to add, Obama didn't support impeachment - it's reserved for "grave, intentional" breaches

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm?csp=34

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority."

He doesn't think Bush committed any of these.

[Baby Snooks]

110. Neither does Pelosi...

And neither does the majority of Congress. Only the American people do. But the American people, sadly, simply do not matter.

[vanboggie]

95. I'm with you Kathy

it still amazes me that she managed to get John Conyers to back off. She's definitely part of the syndicate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. But, who's to do the investigating? The same people who collaborated with her?

Hopefully, the press will open the door to all the skeletons.

[Norrin Radd]

97. kr

[certainot]

98. investigate yes, but its impossible to really evaluate dem performance when

no one got their backs from the constant attacks from limbaugh and hannity and crew from 1000 stations, heard by 60MIL people. talk radio does the groundwork swiftboating of progressives politicians and causes and progressives consistently turn the dial like chickenshits. while limbaugh and hannity have not had these same complaints about dems i usually am suspicious of attacks on dem politicians who have been savaged by limbaugh and hannity for years.

how many who read this called and complained to their local limbaugh station when he said "obama's head needs to roll" sept 10?

evaluating dems without awareness of the ability of the GOP to use talk radio to decide what molehills were turned into mountains and visa versa is a problem. the last 20 years, since reagan killed the FAirness Doctrine the GOP has been dominating the debate.

the most powerful constituency and loudest single voice in politics in decades has been the talk radio monopoly and progressives have been acting as if it is non existent. in the red states talk radio completely dominates large areas of the country with a disproportionate number of senators. dems biggest failing was ignoring or being ignorant of the power of the talk radio monopoly and its ability to mobilize on a moments notice tens of thousands of phone and email and fax attacks on dems who would dare attack bush or threaten legal action against his people. dan rather wasn't forced out because of fox TV. fox tv depends on talk radio to do their groundwork.

most pols have to at least pay some attention to their constituents but the talk radio monopoly was/is like an invisible 2x4 the GOP uses to push both dems and republicans around, completely dominating the framing and tone of the rest of the media, enabling the GOP flat earthers and many blue (limbaugh) dog democrats.

dem pols, analysts, strategists, media analysts have been so unaware of it that they often react to the result they thought was real public sentiment instead off a bunch of well coordinated mobilizations of dittoheads and a lazy celebrity press that was all too happy to feed off limbaugh and sons daily GOP-catered smorgasbord of prechewed talking points.

there are many dems/progressives/liberals who are complicit in the disaster of the last 20 years but for many their worst failing was in allowing themselves to be pushed around by a bunch of chickenhawks and liars who have given the biggest soapbox in the country.

the bush crime family needs thorough investigation to make sure it doesn't return but calls to include dems at this point sound like limbaugh and hannity.

[Occam Bandage]

100. LMAO. Yeah. That'll happen. Obama will go after his own Congress.

:rofl:

[Alcibiades]

101. Pelosi has been horrible

Here's some excerpts from a CNN article from 2006, along with my comments:

"So what will be on the agenda come January? Pelosi has said that in the first 100 hours of her speakership she will push for action implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to $7.25, eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans and supporting embryonic stem-cell research."

Democratic MC's often cited the accomplishment of this agenda as the reason why they could not impeach. so, how did they do?

Minimum wage? Will go up to a measly $7.25 come this July 24, 2009. Everything else? EPIC FAIL!


"Maybe it takes a woman to clean house," said Pelosi, a mother of five. Asked if her remark was deliberately sexist, she replied, "It is. Because the fact is a woman represents what's new, because it's never happened before."

Has her being a woman made a difference? Not particularly. It turns out, she's just like a lot of other Speakers--especially Republicans.

"But she is not without her detractors, including moderates in her own party who worry privately that handing the San Francisco firebrand the gavel may paint all Democrats with a liberal brush."

Fascinating that it was the moderates who had problems with her. In retrospect, they should be very, very pleased, because she's acted like a loyal Bush foot soldier.

"Also, Republicans, who generally oppose her political ideals, openly warn that a Democratic majority will mean endless and frivolous investigations into the Bush administration."

I wish!

"Pelosi dismisses the notion that Democratic subpoena power would lead to anything frivolous.

"We all have the constitutional responsibility to have checks and balances and oversight. That's what the Congress does," she said."

Here, "Speaker" Pelosi WAS dead on: not only did Democratic subpoena power not lead to anything frivolous, IT DIDN'T LEAD TO ANYTHING AT ALL!

[santamargarita]

102. Everyone complicit in these crimes should go!

Everyone!!!

[ProgressIn2008]

105. This is spot on and why there will be no investigations: Dems would be implicated too

I'm of the school that believes no one is above the law. I live in a country where the rich and powerful, of both parties, collude to be above the law.

This won't be a case of, let justice be done though the heavens fall. It should be. You are certainly not alone.

[proud progressive]

108. anybody that thinks that pelosi, reid, OBAMA, etc., etc., is any less a pol than gop'ers is naive!

watch this weeks 'bill moyers'. they are the kings and we are the pawns

[Grinchie]

109. I Pray that Obama is Giveing them plenty of rope to Hang Themselves.

I recently came to the conclusion, that my disappoinment and feelings of betrayel when reviewing the incredibly toxic bunch Obama has selected for his administration is in error. After reviewing my anger at the apparent slap in the face on many front by Obamas selection, most notably Vilsack, the Monsanto fanboy, I reflected on what point this would accomplish. I found that I am utterly powerless to stop this Corporate steamroller from continuing to crush our Democracy. I think now that Obama knows this as well, since they are most certainly putting massive amounts of pressure on him to conform to Business friendly government, while performing limited performances when it comes to change. The Corporates in their magnaminity will all some of their own to be sacraficed, but the real power base will remain and continue business as usual.

I can only hope that Obama is giving them enough freedom so they expose themselves for the Fascists and traitors that they are, and we will get a true purge of these festering diseases from the Government. It is plain to see that we do not have a 2 party system, especially when they are both virtually identical in their policies. It is a facade that silly people buy, and they need to see it for what it is -- A method to control the citizens and prolong the pillage of their wealth for as long as possible.

If every single person said Fuck it!, I'm not going to pay for war, or for goods manufactured with slave labor in a foreign country, or by poisoned food, or watch TV, or shop for things they don't need, the system would utterly collapse. Their System. Then, they would cause our lives to collapse through shortages and then blame it on a public that demands accountability.

The current economic situation is engineered to put people into fear mode yet again, and reduce their incentive to demand real change. They will starve the citizenry by deflating the money supply, the corporatists will throw millions of people out of their Pseudo-Jobs, which really have no need to exist anyway, that were put there the redistribute wealth to the wealthy.

Look around you. The food we eat is full of GMO ingrediants, but you'll not hear one word about it. You have insurance companies that amazingly can't afford to pay off on your policy, and change the rules as they go to avoid any outlay of cash, despite decades of on time payments. You have banks that leverge themsleves 40 dollars to 1 dollar in reserve, and it's OK. You have a Govermnet that values a War machine while it's citizens go without adequate healthcare. You have Corporate entities that don't pay for the destruction they cause. You have Government regulators that assist in suppressing new technologies that would hurt the bottom line on existing outdated technology. You have Universities that are funded by Corporations, which churn out drones that only know the "Correct" Corporate way" of profit motivated solutions. You have a health care system where a clerk can deny a claim because doing so would benefit him alone. You have a Fiat Money system that is living in a dream world. You have people so desperate for ever more money, that ethics and honesty are counterproductive to the basic goal of success, which is acquiring more money. Worst of all, we have an economy based on perpetual growth. Perpetual growth in a Cancer usually kills the patient, why is the Earth any different from a Cancer patient?

This is a sick society, and it is not Republican controlled nor is it Democrat Controlled. The sooner people realize this, they will be more inclined to take the enablers out and clean house. The house is dirty, it needs a cleaning badly.

Of course Pelosi is a criminal, she is part of the Establishment that resists change.

[AllyCat]

111. You are not alone n/t

[Pastiche423]

113. I found this post too late to recommend ;-(

But I also wanted to join in the chorus of...You are definately not alone.