CRAP! Nancy Pelosi on MTP: Impeachment is Not Where We're Going-->

[Dr. Jones]

Pelosi said this several times on Meet the Press this morning. "We're not about impeachment." She basically discounted impeachment of Bush altogether!

Why just the other day, a report came out that said Bush broke some 750 laws! And Pelosi implied Bush broke the law in the NSA wiretapping scandal. She says there's a culture of corruption, and yet she's not willing to DO ANYTHING about it? She KNOWS Bush is a criminal, and yet she distances herself from John Conyers who (apart from Feingold) is the practically the ONLY patriotic Dem who cares about the rule of law and holding Bush accountable for his crimes?

I like Pelosi, but I disagree with her on this one. We KNOW Bush is a criminal, and yet the Dems are willing to give him a free pass, even if they get back Congress?

Somebody tell me WHY these Dems HAVE NO DAMN SPINE??

[boston bean]

1. Chill out. If we get in, we will take care of the incompetent.

[linazelle]

43. Right. She there'll be investigations. That's a start. Let facts lead..

I know that's a foreign concept for most Republicans, but it's a great platform.

[bertha katzenengel]

2. Perhaps the Dems are concentrating on the 2006 Election.

Like they should be. That is priority. It would be idiocy to attempt to impeach during a Republican-controlled Congress.

[onehandle]

42. Exactly right. nt

[acmavm]

3. Where we're going is investigation, and then if there's enough

evidence...

[Malikshah]

59. Bingo-- the key is to get the public to demand impeachment

As the investigations bring to light all manner of crimes...the media may be forced to cover them.

As of now--the media is slowly realizing that they'll be trucked off to the gulags w/ the regime...

It's by no means a done deal, but it is a step in the right direction.

It's not chess it's war.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. You got to have the investigations first.

Then when all the evidence is gathered, THEN Democrats can go for impeachment.

Let's concentrate on getting the House back first.

On edit: Democrats are not going to win back the House by saying, "Vote for us and we'll impeach the president!"

Think people.

[Burma Jones]

5. You would need 68 Senators to boot the Chimp

I don't think we're anywhere near that. I think you could find 33 Republican Senators that would not vote to remove the Chimp even if we had photos of him being sodomized by Osama......

[boston bean]

9. senators don't impeach, the house does. the senate is the decider of the

facts and will either "convict or not"

You can be impeached by the house and not be convicted by the Senate which is what happened to Clinton.

[Burma Jones]

52. That's why I said remove

and not impeach. Now, don't ever correct me again.

[boston bean]

55. I thought we were talking about impeachment not conviction.

Since impeachment has to come first.

Sorry if I offended you.

[Burma Jones]

63. I was just suggesting a reason Pelosi et al aren't talking about

impeachment.

Jeez, I guess I was offended, I must be spending too much time in the Lounge and have become thin skinned....

[boston bean]

64. My apologies. I didn't mean to come off

as schooling.

:pals:

[Burma Jones]

67. Cool

:pals:

[marmar]

21. "sodomized by Osama"

You win the "really warped imagery" award this morning. :rofl:

[drm604]

33. I bet we could get them to vote

if we had pictures of them being sodomized by Osama! :evilgrin:

[IndyOp]

6. Principled Leadership, Ms. Pelosi.

They break the laws. We want the laws to be enforced. You don't have to answer the question about impeachment directly, just emphasize that Dems want the laws to be enforced.

THAT IS NOT SO BLEEPING HARD IS IT!?!?!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Autonomy]

20. She must have read your post

she just said exactly that, "under the law", re: NSA wiretaps.

[babylonsister]

7. Trust me, it's in the back of everyone's minds. Please stop

bashing Dems and let this play out.

[IndyOp]

22. The chances of getting droves of people working & voting for Dems

increases if they keep on point: "We want the laws of this nation to be enforced."

If she is going to give an affirmative 'enforce the laws' answer, then she needs not to take it back by saying 'impeachment - we aren't going there'.

It isn't about 'bashing Dems' -- it is about smacking them upside the head until they DO THE RIGHT THING. Think tough love, good mothering. I don't care what the other kids do, I care about YOUR behavior.

At least that is what I feel and think.

:kick:

[babylonsister]

27. I was responding to the OP's last sentence.

I've been disappointed just like everyone else, but think Dem bashing is pointless and counterproductive, especially here.

[earthside]

38. In Your Dreams-Bash Away!

Bash the Democrats on this point until they get the message: Bush needs to be impeached!

This is exactly why taking back the House is still a long shot ... Dems like Pelosi still want to be seen as the party that will "govern", that will do the "responsible" things, that will not be "political" -- in other words, they talk like LOSERS.

The way impeachment can be turned against Democrats is when they act all squeamish and embarressed when it is brought up. Her answer should have been something like, "If House investigations show that there is evidence that Bush broke the law, then an impeachment inquiry will be necessary. Impeachment is always an option to protect the Constitution and the country."

Impeachment is about what Bush has done -- Dems play into Rove's hands when they act afraid to talk about it. The burden should be on Bush and the radical Republicans.

Yes, bash these Democrat candidates until they get the message -- Bush is now at less than one-third approval, he has damaged our nation in terrible ways, he lied about the Iraq war, he is illegally spying on American citizens, he permitted torture. Of course, impeachment should be on the table.

Finally, if you don't get these Dems to commit to impeachment before they are elected, don't be surprised when they start saying after they take the House ... "Well, we can wait two more years and Bush will be out ... "Well, we'd rather show that we can govern" ... "Well, the country doesn't want another impeachment" ... "Well, we have to show we are united to the enemy" ...

My, god ... Democrats afraid of impeachment talk ... AFRAID!

If Democrat candidates cannot display the guts and courage to go after Bush now, then Rove (or his replecement) will once again portray the Dems as too weak and too hesitant to protect the country from terrorists. In other words, if they won't fight for themselves, how can you trust them to defend the nation?

That is why Dems must talk about impeachment with courage if they want to take back the House in 2006.

So bash away at the timid, "governing class" Democrats -- they are the biggest threat to throwing the radical Republcians out of office in 2006.

[acmejack]

8. In this case, I think she is correct.

I hate to say it, because I want to see them held to account in the worst possible way, but it will be perceived as tit for tat at this time. We can wait until the time is right, I don't think there is a statute of limitations on those crimes against humanity, in fact the World Court will probably charge them and relieve us of that burden.

[Autonomy]

10. She's just projecting a non-vengeful demeanor

what happens when the Dems take Congress next year is something completly different.

[corbett]

54. Exactly Right!

Besides, by the time she moves into the Speaker's office, enough state legislatures will demand impeachment that the trial before the whole House will be fast tracked!

[skipos]

11. You think we can impeach him with minorities in the house and senate?

I don't. If we want impeachment we need to do everything we can to get majorities in Nov. 06.

[leesa]

12. Her Korporation Keepers say this is not Kost Effektive.

[valerief]

17. Kool n/t

[Oversea Visitor]

13. And while they all playing their political games America burns

Wonder what NERO was thinking which he was busy fiddling away on his voilin.

[WhiteTara]

14. however, when we were at the state dem convention

she had a different story. The delegates were all about impeachment and she was right there. I think they are afraid that chimpeachment will galvanize the repuke base. That was the letter I got from my rep. I of course, told him to get his spine going and know that when the people lead the leaders must follow.

[seabeyond]

15. they will be into investigations. which may lead to.... but must start

with investigation before even mentioning impeachment. i have felt it odd people are going to impeachment with change of party in whitehouse, before investigations.

[Olney Blue]

16. What Pelosi and Dean are doing is smart.

The GOP is circulating mail to their base saying that Dems will impeach the chimp
if put back into power. This is the best Dem defensive strategy- diffuse that fear.
If the Dems were screaming the I word, it would energize the GOP base. In addition,
you can't impeach until you have investigations with evidence.

[Dr. Jones]

26. Well I have to say that makes sense.

I didn't know that was going on. :)

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. Running on an "impeach the prez" is NOT a great strategy

That doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

[B Calm]

25. With a monkey at the steering wheel and us as passengers,

I'm not so sure about that!

[unblock]

19. it's MUCH better to appear not to WANT impeachment

much better to say you don't believe the president needs to be impeached, then have an investigation, then be shocked and horrified at what the investigation turns up, and RELUCTANTLY concluded the the president must be impeached.

[Pirate Smile]

23. We will do investigations and who knows where the facts will lead.

I thought that was what she said and I think that is the right message.

Dems promise investigations and will go where the facts lead.

If the facts call for impeachment, so be it.

Focus on the need for investigations, which the Republicans refuse to do, not impeachment.

[mmonk]

24. What's the matter? Don't you trust the party leadership?

[still_one]

28. Did she mention anything about Iraq?

[Connie_Corleone]

35. Yes. She supports the Murtha plan of redeployment.

[still_one]

53. glad to hear that. They should NOT run away from that issue

[Bob3]

29. So they say now - Let's see what happens in a couple of months

Hell they weren't even willing to say the bloody word a couple of months ago.

The push for impeachment is not coming from these people. It is coming from the rank and file and we're going to have to drag these people kicking and screaming along with us to do the right thing. They won't do this unless they have no real choice. However it's one advantage of dealing with cowards, they will go along if they see the way the wind is blowing. None of the squishy democratic leaders of the house and Senate, except maybe Lieberman, who seems suicidal these days, will be willing to stand up for * if a bill of impeachment comes through and goes to trial.

You think they would, with * ratings in the toilet, the discontent everywhere at least you think they would think about doing something - but they dither and fret about upsetting the GOP and say Steve Colbert was out of line and then they get lunch.

Worthless.

[ThomWV]

30. John Conyers May Think Differently In January nt

[pdxmom]

31. I think the Democrats game plan on investigations first is right on

the mark. The investigations will make their case. Put it out there, under oath, in front of everyone, in a coherent and complete way. Let people see what is really under all those rocks. Set it out like a court case.

Then, let the chips fall where they may. I'm not against holding off on impeachment and looking at criminal charges instead.

[me b zola]

32. Maybe this is due to a puke talking point that is gathering momentum

"If Dem's take the House in Nov, then we'll have a Speaker Pelosi." I've heard this said several times by pukes and their lap dogs in the press as if it were a slur. One of the tactics that they are going to use to get their base to the polls for the upcoming elections is to suggest that if Dems take Congress then there would be endless hearings and chimpeachment.

IMHO, I think that Pelosi wants to tread lightly on this subject so as not to galvanize the puke base and send them to the polls when it looks right now as though so many of them will opt to sit this one out. :)

[Cocoa]

44. I agree that's what she's doing

and I agree with it.

I don't think impeachment will be a certainty when the dems take over, but real investigations are a certainty, and Bush will crumble under a real investigation.

[peacetalksforall]

34. This is smart. 'We' means the entire Dem Congress. It doesn't rule

out the right Committee members investigating the possibility.

In the meantime, if the citizens in the States work at it State by State, the Congress can take care of reversing the Executive decisions to reverse years and decades of valuable treaties, laws, agreements while they attempt to reverse the deficit.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. She is trying to quiet down one of the wrongwingers talking points to

keep the Congress in GOP control. I have already heard a few talking heads talking about if the Dems take control, they will immediately work on impeachment and clog up the house with just that and not get any serious work done.

[originalpckelly]

37. No more bullshit...

I have had enough of shrinking every time we are asked questions. It stops now.

The Democratic Party's new strategy will be honesty and a good explanation of the facts.

We are not going to market test everything we do any longer.

Under Republican rule this nation has seen the destruction of our principles. Republicans tell people to do the right thing, Democrats actually do the right thing. Republicans say we need to uphold our values, Democrats just uphold them. No, not all of us are perfect, but we will not create an environment in D.C. where corruption breeds freely. When people make mistakes and commit crimes under Democratic rule, they will be investigated. If crimes have been committed and there is sufficient evidence to prove they have, Democrats will ensure the corrupt are prosecuted.

We are not going to back down from impeachment. The President has set aside 750 laws, there is a paper trail (the Jay Bybee memo) that proves AG Alberto Gonzales approved of what normal people call torture, furthermore he has specifically set aside a law to keep torture from happening. He has the power to turn down laws, its called a veto. He has not vetoed anything in five years, and has instead used the unconstitutional method of signing statements to get what he wants.

Screw censure, it is merely a slap on the wrist. It is a political punishment and this is so very serious, it should not be political. Censure is an awful idea because of that fact.

No longer will this nation betray its most sacred principles. Our principles are the reason we stand and live in such bounty today. Had our ancestors compromised in the ways we have, our nation would have died long ago.

No nation can go on without a soul, America's soul is hope and morality. I mean real morality by the way.

[Dr. Jones]

48. Now THAT was an excellent post.

:)

[Hubert Flottz]

39. "We're not about impeachment"

Jail?

[deminks]

40. As Smirky is so fond of saying, everything is still on the table.

We will investigate. We will go where the investigation takes us. The American people will know the truth.

[onehandle]

41. Pelosi is Doing the Right Thing.

After we retake the House and the investigations start... THEN we talk impeachment.

Broadcasting the impeachment issue will not get us any more votes.

We have to talk about what we will do for the country.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Good

We don't want the midterm elections to be about a potential impeachment, because everyone who lived through the last one will say "Oh no, not again!" and all our good issues will be brushed aside.

Let's win first. That round will be in the chamber come January.

[Kahuna]

46. That's what she is supposed to say. We can't say that we should

impeach bushco without even having investigations. Also, I don't believe that they will impeach bushco even if they do take control because they wouldn't want McCain or Allen to become president, thereby having a leg up in 2008.

[beyurslf]

47. She there will be investigations and they can lead to lots of places.

She can't come out and say that we are going to impeach the President in Jan 2007 if we take over. We need centrists to vote for us and pissed off Republicans to stay home.

[helderheid]

49. Impeachment would mean President Pelosi in 2007 - do you really think

she'd want to talk about that? Don't worry.

[librechik]

50. I wish she had said "Tim, if the American People demand impeachment

then I think even Republicans would call hearings. But we have to win the election first. And that will take hard work."

[wtmusic]

61. Exactly

librechik for Congress! :thumbsup:

[flaminbats]

51. lets be nice to Republicans!

who cares if they control every branch of government?

who cares if our President doesn't obey the law?

who cares if nobody holds them accountable?


at least Pelosi is being conservative!..:puke:

[Dr. Jones]

56. Okay, you guys make some great points.

I think I have a better grasp of why Pelosi and Dean are reluctant to admit the possibility of impeachment. This morning I also heard that the RNC put out a flyer warning that if the Dems get Congress back, their precious Fuhrer will be impeached. So yes, I can see why they are mum for now.

But let me warn the Dem leadership when we get Congress back- YOU'D BETTER DAMN WELL GET A SPINE AND INVESTIGATE & IMPEACH in '07!

Pelosi would make a good President IMO. As I said before I really do like her - poised, intelligent, trustworthy, and a high level of morality and decency.

[KingFlorez]

57. Shouldn't be a promise

There have to be investigations first before impeachment can be done.

[Emit]

58. I think they're afraid to talk impeachment

because they're afraid that if they do, it will mobilize those on the right to vote Republican just to prevent impeachment. Rove, et al know this. That's why on all the fundie news sites and GOP.com they're saying that the Democrat agenda = Impeach Bush, just to scare folks.

[timtom]

60. I am ignorant of her position on anything.

Why do you like her?

[Jack Rabbit]

62. I'd like to think she's taking things one at a time

Impeachment only becomes an option if the Democrats win control of the House and, to a lesser degree, the Senate. Let's make sure that happens first.

In any case, it would be unseemly of Ms. Pelosi, who would become president in the the event that the Democrats take control of the House (making her Speaker) and both Bush and Cheney were impeached and removed (as they should be).

This puts her in an awkward postion with many of us (including me), who do not think of Bush as just another conservative president with whom Democrats have the same policy differences that they had with Ford or Eisenhower. Bush and Cheney are inept, crooked and tend dangerously to authoritarianism. This regime is not tolerable.

[ryan_cats]

65. Sounds like Strategery.

Sounds like Strategery.

Some of the wingnuts I know are mighty unhappy with the Bush cabal but if they knew that a Democratic house would lead to impeachment, I think it would make them stick by the thugs. Once we have the House and Senate, we can then say we have new information that the thugs were covering up and now we're going forward towards impeachment.

Does anyone think that Conyers is going to stand idly by?

[MrBenchley]

66. Most Americans care more about solutions to this mess

than they do about impeaching the drunk.

Pelosi's on the ball here.

[4freethinking]

68. I don't think

she will be talking about impeachment after the elections. She's going to talk about attacking Iran with the president before and after elections. She does not want to change presidents when this one is firmly committed to attacking Iran when the situation arises. She does not go to the AIPAC conventions for nothing.