Why Not Nancy? By Cindy Sheehan

[Echo In Light]

Why Not Nancy?
By Cindy Sheehan

14/06/08 "ICH" -- This past week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) historically and courageously introduced 35 articles of impeachment against (p)Resident George W. Bush. Repeated calls to Speaker Pelosi's offices gave many of us the assurance that impeachment was still off her "table." The latest absolutely frivolous reason is that impeachment would be "divisive."

Hello!? The constitution (of our what now has become a rogue nation) DIVIDES our federal government into three distinct branches that were set up to be "checks and balances" on each other. This week, we also witnessed the Supreme Court place a legal check on BushCo by overturning provisions in the Military Commissions Act. Does Ms. Pelosi believe that the nearly eight years of the most criminal administration (and that's saying something) in US history has been divisive to our country? The founders placed tensions in our founding document to uphold the rule of law and oftentimes divisions are productive when the rule of law is followed.

She has also claimed that she trampled all over our constitution because the House is trying to "change course in Iraq." This is the most laughable excuse, unless one considers appropriating over half a trillion dollars and the deaths of 1100 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis (since she has been in "charge") is a new direction.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20098.htm

[ixion]

1. Sheehan and Kucinich: National Treasures. Pelosi and her ilk: war criminals

and a disgrace to this country.

I'm sure I'll catch hell for saying that, but it's how I feel.

[barbtries]

2. i agree with you

there are too few prominent voices saying the right thing and too few people with the power to do something, doing anything. pelosi sinks lower in my estimation day by day. conyers doesn't seem to have the will to act that matches his will to hold hearings and write letters. obama's on the wrong side of the impeachment issue. sad.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Who's Pelosi's "ilk"?

Howard Dean? Barack Obama? Russ Feingold? All the other dems who oppose impeachment?

[PeaceNikki]

5. I'm also interested in the answer to this question.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. None of them control what happens in the House

where impeachment begins.

But I think you know that.

[PeaceNikki]

9. No, but they are Democratic leaders. Others look to them for guidance.

They've all spoken on the topic of impeachment and indicated that it would not be an appropriate course of action.

And there have been a LOT of accusations here that those who hold that opinon are "war-mongers", "lesser Democrats", that there is "no room for them in the Democratic party", they "support atrocities", and on and on and on.

But I think you know that.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. do you think a majority of House Dems

want to vote for impeachment and Pelosi is somehow stopping them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Yes

[pokercat999]

14. Hmmmm.....if the shoe fits. Just because they're good

on most issues doesn't mean the have the right to be completely wrong on THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of our time and still be called good Democrats. Makes me think that I'm not a "good" Democrat and I don't want to be one if kowtowing to His Majesty GW Bush is the requirement.

Question do you believe Bush and his cronies in this administration are truly war criminals? If the answer is yes you have no recourse but support their removal by any legal means.

[Echo In Light]

30. Exactly

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Then Obama is wrong on the most important issue of our time

and doesn't deserve our support.

[pokercat999]

42. There is no doubt, that is a dilemma. What is the alternative?

Bob Barr the Libertarian Candidate is against the war but their platform and ideas as they pertain to Corporations is unacceptable to me. A really ideal solution would be a party that was a Liberal Libertarian Party (in other words truly progressive). But as long as we are controlled by the multi-national corporations we will continue with what we have. So if I vote I'll have no personal choice but to support the Democratic ticket from top to bottom. I will however retain and exercise my right to bitch about it and hope that things get better before getting worse.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Yes. Everyone except for Mother Sheehan and Saint Kucinich. n/t

[roody]

16. All who voted to let Georgie have his war.

[ixion]

23. Pelosi's 'ilk'

in this context I was referring to any other elected official who has been party to, or an enabler of, war crimes.

It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the Geneva Conventions.

[Individualist]

13. No flames from me. Wish I could recommend this post.

:applause:

[midnight]

29. Nicely put.

[Enrique]

4. why not Obama?

he doesn't support impeachment either. :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. He also isn't Speaker of the House

[Enrique]

11. he's the leader of the party, he could say, "Nancy, put impeachment on the table!"

he could challenge her, he'd have a lot of influence over her.

But instead he supports her position not to impeach.

[RC]

6. Missing a comma?

Why not, Nancy?

Indeed, why not?

Blow jobs: bad.
Burglary bad.

Invading and occupying a defenseless country and killing over 600,000 innocent people for their oil: No problem?
Wrong! Cheney & bu$h are world class terrorists and need to be charged with the War Crimes they have committed.

[dailykoff]

28. It kind of reverses the intended meaning

without the comma doesn't it?

[lonestarnot]

10. K & R

[PeaceNikki]

12. Cindy Sheehan and many others are not interested in the answers to "Why not?"

They've heard the answers. Pelosi and many other Democratic leaders have very explicitly explained "Why not?".

She just doesn't like the answers to "Why not?".

Many of the people who've explained "Why not?" have many years of experience and anything BUT a history of "war-mongering".

[roody]

17. Are they new to war-mongering?

They are so dedicated to it.

[PeaceNikki]

20. Feingold, Dean and Obama? Dedicated to war-mongering?

[roody]

31. Pelosi, is she new to it?

[PeaceNikki]

37. We have different opinions of Speaker Pelosi.

I don't believe she or any of the Democratic leaders who are not supporting this course of action are war-mongers. But I guess you do.

BTW, Sheehan is not a Democrat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Have you heard their answers?

Conyers thinks Fox News will crucify him.

So his reputation on Fox News is more important to him than holding a criminal administration accountable.

But since he did answer, we are supposed to shrug and say 'oh well' while we drop our efforts to promote impeachment.

Sure.

[PeaceNikki]

19. Yes.

http://feingold.senate.gov/opinion/07/20070616blog.htm">Feingold

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm">Obama

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/091106deansaysno.htm">Howard Dean

Not one of these fine folks mentions Fox.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Are you denying Conyers said that?

[PeaceNikki]

22. You asked if I'd heard "their answers". I read the words "their answers" to mean more than one.

Otherwise, I think you'd have asked if I'd heard "his answer" (singular).

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Conyers has the unique ability to count to 67

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Because there is no reason why not

These men are criminals. Over a million people are dead because of their impeachable offenses. There is no acceptable reason NOT to impeach them. NONE.

[dana_b]

26. Nancy has "experience" in covering her own ass

torture tapes - she's seen them and knows that makes her complicit because she's done NOTHING about it. Can't stand her - she's not much better than Bush.

[followthemoney]

25. When bipartisan morphs into unipartisan, who puts issues important

to the MAJORITY back on the table?

The responsibility has ALWAYS fallen to those outside of the organized establishment of the bi- uni- parties.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Cindy is running against the Democratic party. Please do not campaign for anti-Democratic pols here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. How is this a campaign?

It is a piece promoting impeachment. That is allowed here.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Why is this allowed here?

An opinion piece from somebody challenging an incumbent Democrat?

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. It isn't against DU rules

And no one is forcing you to click on this thread and read it.

[Prophet 451]

41. In fairness, I was thinking that as well n/t

[Skip Intro]

40. I was going to ask the same question.

[pokercat999]

43. Ah the old

"she's my Democrat, right or wrong" argument makes me want to

:puke: