Pelosi says no impeachment, period

[OzarkDem]

Do you agree?

[rooney]

1. no

[bluerum]

2. No.

[rocktivity]

3. SHE ought ought to be investigated, then.

:headbang:
rocknation

[still_one]

20. IF WE WIN, it won't matter what was said if investigations

show impeachmeachable offenses. WE MUST PLAY LIKE THEY DO, IN ORDER TO WIN

Deal with impeachment if we win, not NOW

Unless of course you want to distract at this stage of the game

[stonecoldsober]

4. She lost me on that one.

[onehandle]

5. I don't give a shit what she says now as long as we win Congress.

2007 is another year.

[OzarkDem]

13. And hopefully she won't be leader, either

I'm not busting my ass and donating so much money just to have her weasel around with Bush and the GOP when we gain a majority.

Though I support decorum, diplomacy and the rest, I'm weary of spineless Dems who only want to "keep their powder dry". :hide:

Surely we can come up with better leadership than that.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. You can't have impeachment without investigations

you can't have any investigations without control of the House.

Start turning over rocks -really turning 'em over- with this Administration, who knows what they'll find? At that point, you think the question can't be revisited in the light of information discovered by a Democratic House?

She would be an IDIOT to make impeachment the agenda right before the election- and trust me, no one is more pro-impeachment than me (go figure). I was pro-Chimpeachment before he was Chimpaugurated, ferchrissakes. Before he stole the 2000 election. Just on Principle. So trust me on this. This isn't keeping powder dry.

[OzarkDem]

Again, you're missing the point

A smart person could have answered the question without ruling out impeachment after the election. A smart leader could defuse the issue for the election season without forfeiting any future action.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Well, again, read the quote.

And the one that came before it.

As for a "smart leader" in the house- do you by any chance have someone else in mind? Someone specific?

Just curious.

[onehandle]

79. There is no forfeiting.

She's just playing election year politics.

Anyway, the speaker of the House would never start or lead impeachment proceedings.

Others will investigate. Others will prosecute.

She said the right thing in her position.

We haven't forfeited anything.

[still_one]

26. You are right. This is an issue floated by the right wingers

to divert attention from Iraq, and all the other scandals

They will use it to unify their base if we allow them to

If we win, we can do ANYTHING WE WANT

If we lose, IT DOESN'T matter

Haven't we learned anything in the last six years

[immoderate]

6. Well, I agree that she said it.

She said "off the table." I think the investigations will change the atmosphere.

--IMM

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Answer to your question

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007
(Whether she wants it or not)

[Old and In the Way]

8. So? Republicans have been breaking campaign promises for years.

Perhaps we can expect the same from Ms. Pelosi? I guess I wouldn't expect her to be feeding the RW Wurlitzer on this issue. I really doubt she'll stop all investigations that may well lead to a demand for impeachment.

[longship]

9. No. That's going too far.

The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over those matters. The Speaker should keep his/her hands off of it. If the people demand investigations, and the people think the results of the investigations warrant impeachment, then it is incumbent on the Congress to give the people what they want.

I agreed with Pelosi when she said impeachment is off the table because it certainly would be bad politics to campaign on any such thing. However, to say that you'd stop an impending impeachment is clearly going too damned far.

Who the fuck does she think she is? Tom DeLay?

[VC2]

10. she isnt QUEEN Pelosi

WTH

[Warren DeMontague]

22. No, but soon she's gonna be Speaker of the House.

At Which Point we will all see a higher degree of competence and some long-overdue accountability in our governmental process. One thing at a time.

Welcome to DU.

[mmonk]

11. No, I'm an American.

Also, the MCA needs to be repealed as well. Heck, while they are at it, shut off the spying too. I'm American. That's what I expect. It isn't something unreasonable or these things wouldn't be covered in the constitution and our form of government of checks and balances.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Impeachment Should Be Off the Table…

…and ON THE FLOOR BEING VOTED "HELL YES!"

[mnhtnbb]

14. No. And Pelosi shouldn't be Speaker, either.

[mitchtv]

18. Right , maybe Maxine Waters WOULD be better

ha

[VC2]

21. yup

:0

[Warren DeMontague]

19. She is going to be. Time to get onboard.

She would be a FOOL to say "We plan to try to impeach the President" 2 weeks before the election. Come on.

[OzarkDem]

23. Maybe not for long

She could have answered the question without backing herself into a corner and ruling it out altogether.

It takes a clever, hard working, fearless Dem to be leader of the House if Dems get a majority. If this is any indication, the GOP will run roughshod all over her. We need better.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Why don't you read the exact Wash. Post Article

Sounds to me like she's doing just fine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

[OzarkDem]

38. Nah, same old Nancy

her office is known as the place where good ideas go to die. Pelosi was chosen as leader of the house because of her fundraising skills. Lets not confuse political and fundraising skills with house leadership and policy skills. They're very different things.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I'm wondering who you have in mind for the job.

Seriously. I'm all ears.

[Zhade]

55. I agree - it would be better to say "we'll investigate, as the people demand".

After all, can't say we'll impeach without doing the investigations first - even these fuckers deserve a fair hearing.

Of course, there's enough evidence to hang them, but she doesn't need to SAY that yet.

Yet.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. "Rule of Law"

"We have an obligation to follow the law. No one is above the law. We have an obligation to follow the Constitution."

That's all we need.

[Zhade]

64. Exactly.

That's also a winning message, IMHO.

[still_one]

24. let's cut our nose off to spite our face, huh

perhaps this is a strategy to win

It is only a few weeks until the election, bringing up impeachment NOW WILL ONLY HURT US

We can do that later AFTER WE WIN

[Zambero]

15. Yes

He deserves it, no doubt. However, impeachment in the House by a simple majority would never lead to conviction in the Senate, where a supermajority is required. So Bush would ultimately come out of this claiming "vindication". Even if Bush & Cheney were tossed out it would be depicted as a coup on the part of the Democrats since the third in succession would be the Speaker of The House, who would presumably be Pelosi. She's darn smart for not wanting to go there. The GOP thought they'd score big in the '98 mid-terms, but ended up losing seats because they were seen as going off the deep end with impeachment. That episode is not lost on House Democrats who might want to retain their soon-to-be majority status for more than a couple of years.

[OzarkDem]

27. You're assuming a lot

including assuming that no more serious Bush crimes will come to light. Bush hasn't even been investigated yet, nor has Chene.

[mitchtv]

16. Smart move, however

that's not her job. There just may be reasons to impeach she doesn't know yet.

[still_one]

17. The most important thing is winning

should we really bog ourseleves down with something that won't occur UNLESS WE WIN?

I think not

Win FIRST,

Investigate SECOND,

and if there is evidence, DO YOUR DUTY AND IMPEACH

Right now it SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE, it will only cloud, Iraq, healthcare, illegal wiretapping, and so many other rights that are being taken away by this administration

Do NOT fall into the trap

If we win, and if an investigation shows high crimes and misdeameanors it WILL NOT MATTER what is said now, people will be DEMANDING IT THEN

[OzarkDem]

28. We're discussing impeachment AFTER the election

perhaps you're in the wrong thread.

[Shakespeare]

32. But she's being asked about it BEFORE the election.

Perhaps you should read "Stupid Things Not To Say to Completely Fuck My Party's Chance of Retaking The House."

[still_one]

59. I read that book

not only that I have learned my lessons from 2000 and 2004, and what I learned is that when the stakes are this high, you must say what you have to in order to get in

There will be plenty of time to deal with other issues after winning

[still_one]

58. If we win, and if the investigation that WILL follow

show crimes and misdemeanors, he will be impeached. People will not care what Pelosi said before the election

Incidently, she was asked this before the election, and she answered in that context. After the election, and if we win, anything said is irrelevent, since evidence may come up which will invalidate her remarks

[magellan]

25. No. It's not okay to avoid investigation for political reasons

Just like it's not okay to investigate for political reasons. The misguided idea that lawbreakers are safe if they have the majority on their side is what's got us the rotten government we have.

[Disturbed]

33. Priority #1 win a majority in the Senate and House.

Priority #2 select a strong Speaker of the House. Pelosi is weak.I would select Waxman.

[magellan]

42. Waxman gets a huge thumbs up from me too

So I take it Pelosi isn't necessarily "it" then? How does the process of electing a Speaker happen?

[still_one]

60. first we have to win

and we need to do whatever it takes to win

[magellan]

69. Rob? Assault? Kill?

"Whatever it takes" is pretty broad.

But seriously, you condone lying to the public to win? Because if that's what Pelosi's doing by taking impeachment off the table, only to retable it after the Dems win, she's no better than the Repubs when they lie to manipulate public opinion.

How much better it would have been if long before now she'd taken the time to explain to the public why Bush** deserves to undergo impeachment hearings.

[mmonk]

29. We ought to just quit having these threads about Pelosi, no impeachment,

and off the table stuff. The logic seems to get convoluted and isn't helping me sleep any better.

[doc03]

31. I think that is a good statement, got to win the election

first. Unless a really iron clad case could be made for impeachment I think it would back fire on us in 2008. In 2008 we will probably still be bogged down in Iraq and the economy will probably go to hell by that time and the Congress will pay the price for having government tied up with endless impeachment hearings. It would be really pointless anyway you would never get it by the Senate.

on edit: Now if we could get a good sex case againt him the MSM would eat that up, it would be worth doing then.

[mmonk]

36. Hopefully, no one you know will be disappeared before 08.

Out of sight, out of mind. Now fix that minimum wage.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Bush isn't popular enough to make American citizens disappear

We aren't yet in Nazi Germany or Adam Sutler's England. There was a lot of hysteria before Bush was re-elected that he would re-instate the draft. I was scared of this myself. This hasn't even been mentioned and most likely that's because Bush's approval is in the 30's and not in the 80's like it was after 9/11.

If Bush wanted to make political dissenters disappear by accusing them of being terrorists, he would've done it by now. The problem for him is that the American people aren't at the point anymore where they will buy that bullshit just because it comes out of his mouth.

What I'm far more worried about is a Republican or hell maybe even a Democrat (although much less likely) being elected in '08 who is just as evil as Bush but is actually competent and also a charismatic speaker. I'm worried about that potential president actually having the American people's blessing in using the full powers of the Military Commissions Act against American citizens. This is why we need to win in '06 and in '08. Unless he gets another Supreme Court appointment, Bush's destruction has been neutralized in the short run.

We need to worry about the possibility of the next president being even worse.

[Recursion]

67. Hmmm

If Bush wanted to make political dissenters disappear by accusing them of being terrorists, he would've done it by now.

How, exactly, do you know he hasn't?

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Because he couldn't evacuate a city or stop a terrorist plot...

For which he had all of the warning signs righ before their eyes. This administration can't do anything right and because of that I have no reason to believe that they could run an efficient secret police operation where they can make people disappear without someone finding out. Our president is a moron and the people that surround him may be smarter than he is, but that doesn't mean that they are competent. If Bush started making people disappear it would be leaked to the New York Times within a few months.

There's been mass hysteria about things that Bush would do if re-elected like invade Iran and Syria and re-instate the draft. Neither of those things have happened. What has happened that nobody predicted, however, is that hundreds of people died in New Orleans because of this administration's incompetence.

Incompetent administrations with approval ratings of 37% of a good day can't get away with a Gestapo-like operation. It simply won't work. Bush's ability to do much of anything evil in his remaining two years in office will be shattered once the Democrats take back the House and possibly the Senate. The only further damage that he can do is either through another failure in a Katrina-like situation or through another Supreme Court appointment.

The next administration, however, may be able to pull this off and that's what I'm far more worried about. I would much rather see us trying to use our political capital to revise or repeal the Military Commissions Act as well as the Patriot Act than to make a futile attempt at impeachment.

[mmonk]

73. My reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2459255&mesg_id=2459255

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Nothing in that article I didn't know

I stand by my belief that our greater concern is what a future administration will do with the Military Commissions Act, not this lame duck administration.

[mmonk]

75. My point is they are already acting on it.

We can't accept sacrificial lives for a better time to try and stop them.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. The Recihstag Fire Decree gave Hitler a lot more powers than Bush has

The comparison is valid in a historical sense but it's not the same thing. Bush doesn't have the power to completely get rid of the free press like Hitler did. Sure, the media is stacked against us. But there are still people like Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, and Noam Chomksy who get to say what they want to. Hitler made sure that people like this were silenced before the election.

Hitler also had complete control of the police by the 1933 elections which he used to intimidate people into voting for the Nazis. I will bet everything I own that on November 7th there won't be police holding guns to peoples' heads telling them to vote Republican.

As much as we want to over-react, America in 2006 isn't Germany in 1933. We aren't under fascist rule and we won't be in the next 2 years. Where we will be in 10 or 20 years, though, is far less certain and that is what I am far more concerned about.

[mmonk]

78. Maybe I should approach the conversation differently.

Innocent people are being arrested and held without charge in America. People are being arrested globally by Americans and held without charge, tortured and in some cases, to death. No, not gas chambers yet, just prisons and torture and surrendering of human rights. If that's not enough of an alarm bell to act, then I don't know what else to say.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. I'm aware of this, but thus far it is non citizens

And even though it is non citizens I am still deeply concerned about this, just as you are. However, when you stated "Hopefully nobody you know will disappear before '08", you made it sound as though in the next two years there was a possibility that the storm troopers would come to my best friend's house, put a bag over his head, and haul him off to Gitmo because of political dissent.

I am deeply concerned about people being arrested and held without charges and that's why I'm more concerned about repealing the Military Commisssions Act so that we can stop this from happening in the future rather than engaging in a futile attempt to bring Bush to justice for things that he has already done. Americans won't tolerate impeachment, especially when the president is already a lame duck. They wouldn't tolerate it with Iran Contra and they wouldn't tolerate it with Clinton. As much as we want it to be different this time, it won't be. We need to focus on remedying the situation in the ways that we can.

[OzarkDem]

37. She handled the question poorly

As has been mentioned previously, it wouldn't have taken a great deal of skill to defuse the issue before and during the election without taking future impeachment action off the table.

Pelosi handled it badly and has left Dems in a very difficult position should they win the majority and should more evidence of Bush crimes come to light.

We shouldn't be afraid to admit that she's not a good leader, not a good strategist and maybe not the best person for the job.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Unless Conyers can uncover something to sell to the American people, then yes

The fact is that the American people generally aren't supportive of impeaching the president. It backfired tremendously when the GOP tried to do it to Clinton and Democrats didn't even attempt it after Iran-Contra with Raygun because they knew that he was too popular. The dipshit only has two more years in office and if we take back congress his ability to do much of anything will be neutralized anyway.

Congress represents the American people and if they don't want Bush and company to be brought to justice then unfortunately that's the way it's going to have to be.

[LSK]

41. no and she does not control John Conyers

[truthisfreedom]

43. yes. we suffered horribly during the Clinton impeachment. i believe bush

should end up in irons, but i don't want our time wasted with it while he's in office. let him suffer cruelly afterward.

[yodermon]

44. 1) when the congressional investigations

(not impeachment proceedings) start to expose the full depth of the depravity of this administration, she will change her mind.

2) She didn't say anything about not impeaching Cheney ;)

3) John Conyers, who'll head the Judiciary Committee, is all for impeachment.

[Swamp Rat]

45. Yes

But as soon as the Dems retake the House and Senate they must come out, live on TV and announce they have changed their minds :D and plan to impeach every squatter in our White House. ;)

[oasis]

46. As Speaker, Pelosi will be holding all the cards. Chimpy will lose sleep

knowing that so many in his administration "know where the bodies are buried".

He will be in constant fear of betrayal.

Sweet.:-)

[Ms. Clio]

48. Fuck no

impeach, indict, imprison the criminals.

[Odin2005]

49. Pelosi is doing the right thing.

It's 2 weeks before election day, if she would of said that she would start impeachment hearings Rove would use it to help get out the Puke vote. WIN first, IMPEACH later.

[onehandle]

80. Exactly. nt

[bridgit]

50. no...n/t...

[Initech]

51. No. These motherfuckers must pay for their crimes.

[onenote]

52. is this a new statement or the one she made back in May?

[TygrBright]

53. Indeed. Impeachment is too quick.

I want weeks and weeks and weeks of detailed, in-depth investigations turning up testimony on every sleazy, slimy, disgusting manipulation and corruption that this Administration and its buttboys in Congress have perpetrated on our Constitution, until the evidence is a huge, steaming, stinking pile big enough to choke every pachyderm in office since 1994.

I want them to BEG for impeachment as a way of ending the agony.

And then say "no", and convene yet another investigation.

sadistically,
Bright

[Zhade]

56. It'd be justice.

I like your way of thinking!

[Zhade]

54. FUCK NO! That wouldn't even make sense!

Suppose they're investigated, and found guilty (they will, they are) - they shouldn't be impeached, let alone imprisoned?

And what if this was a way of saying "no investigations"? If THAT were the case - time to fucking RIOT.

[aein]

57. Never ever? I mean, what if does something truly reprehensible, like receiving a BJ

[Keepontruking]

62. impeachment

Sorry nobody speaks for me....I'm all for
impeachment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Circus Girl

[cooolandrew]

63. That is the official story

On official record they are saying no impeachment, but reliable sources say that they will go for impeachement if the public as a whole want it after investigations. Although we are talking time constraints here before we know it the focus will be on 08. Without the senate impeachment fails anyway.

[B Calm]

65. When Nuremburg wants Bush to stand trial for war crimes against humanity

I pray she gets out of the way.

[Hubert Flottz]

66. I don't think she can stop it!

If the evidence is there against BushCo.

[sweetheart]

68. She's free to change her mind.

January is a long way away.

[Bucky]

70. Is it better to punish them or to leave the Republicans saddled w/lame ducks?

I don't have an answer to this question, but I think Pelosi's calculus here is that if she can guide the country back to fiscal sanity against Bush's petulent pouting, then all of our prospects look better for the next few election cycles. In Washington that is the big game. I'm afraid most Dems will see impeachment as mere payback, at least until they can shine a strong light on the mismanagement and abuses of the last six years.

[treestar]

71. No, unless she has some argument impeachment does not

apply. But if the law of impeachment says * should be impeached, then he should be.

Why does these politicians make everything into a personal or popularity contest? If they would just apply the rules. They take bending them to account for personal power too far, and that allows for all the claims to personal power.

[Golden Raisin]

72. Taking the "high road"

has done so well for the Democrats. We are up against fascists. The gloves have to come off at some point.

[Orsino]

81. A Congress that fails to impeach is complicit.

One that can't even muster a censure is a co-conspirator.

I'm sick of hearing what the the Dems should not do once they're in power. They've been not doing their jobs for years now--but at least they've had the excuse of the Republican majority.