Pelosi & The People of the Lie

We read about your performance. You stood up and screeched about impeaching a president that will be out of office in months. You disrupted Miss Nancy, and got screamed at by the other people who were actually there to hear what she said.

But of course, none of that matters. YOU had to interrupt everthing because YOU believed YOU had something to say that was more important to YOU than what people had come to hear.

It's always about YOU. Sadly, for YOU, the rest of the country, including liberal Democrats, are sick to death of YOU.

Maybe I should have spoken up. People don't like to be reminded of the dead children of war, the victims of torture, troops that will be maimed for life. Maybe they should all just shut up like you want them to, Mr. Deke Slayton. I guess for you it's better to be quiet. To let things continue on just like Vietnam when over 50,000 US troops and millions of Vietnamese were killed. Maybe Eartha Kit h should have been respectful and kept her mouth shut when she went to the White House. There are a lot of people tired of the endless wars, lies and stupidity that we and the rest of the world have to pay for with our lives and our money. We're tired of politicians. If they can't that the heat, why, hey, maybe they should quit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15web-hulse.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1218823564-jVSF8VDEUi01HIJiXZDVAw

ON THE HILL
The Why-Haven’t-You-Impeached-the-President Tour


By CARL HULSE
Published: August 15, 2008
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.



Post a Comment

Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation.Join the discussion.
Election Guide
More Politics News
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.

In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.

Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.

Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”

That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.

“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!

Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.

While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.

At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.

And they do not.

Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.

And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”

Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.

Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.

The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.

The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.

While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.

These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.

Pelosi's logical flaw is that somehow Obama will make change, he won't. He'll have to cater to the special interests lobbying him and like Pelosi, it'll be business as usual. At least with the republicans, you know your being screwed. With the dems, it takes a while longing, but your still being screwed.

Vote for McKinney or Nader.

ntuit - please. The far left has been babbling about impeachment for years and outside their own echo chamber, no one cares. Being unpopular is not an impeachable offense. (don't bother listing the "crimes" of the "Bush regime"...I can read the internet, too).

There have been countless antiwar stomp-arounds, none of which accomplished a thing. The war is won, Iraq is stabilizing, and everyone in the Middle East is glad Saddam is gone. Babbling about "the war" is another massive waste of time. Troops are leaving, and we're spending most of our time building civilian infrastructure rather than fighting.

The point is that the far left spends endless hours trying to "disrupt", "confront", shout down, and throw food at people it disagrees with. We have all noticed this. Do you think the average voter out there hasn't noticed as well?

Middle class people will elect the next president. Middle class people do not like the tactics of the far left, and indeed shrink away from anything to do with the left when they see out-of-control idiots running amok.

Wait for Denver and Mpls. If the protest-of-the-day crowd goes bonkers and stages a riot, McCain will win this election with 40 states.

Miss Nancy was so nice. Kind of reminds of the the politicians we had back in the south in the old days. Why were all those black people always causing trouble and stirring things up? Didn’t they know how to act respectable and all like us good middle class white folk. We like to talk about Jesus or good southern recipes – you know things like that. We little folk don’t need to worry ourselves about big old issues they deal with up in Washington, DC. You know – things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All those things do is cause us a lot of trouble and make the black folk think they have rights. Don’t they know we keep electin the same folks over and over again and we know they never gonna let any real change happen. That’s why we keep electin em over and over again. Wish those Yankees and other rabble rousers would shut up and let us good middle class folk from the south run things. We still love to talk about our confederate war heros – they were honorable, good folk standing up for something they believed in. Yes, sir – Miss Nancy sure did have a good story to tell – if not for all the bad, bad rabble rousers.

I hope Cindy beats her in the election!
By the way, vote against the corrupt two-party system. Vote for Nadar!