Pelosi deserves whatever criticism she is getting.

[kentuck]

She is weak. She is indecisive. She is a coward. She had no business in the world saying that "impeachment was off the table". Impeachment must always be on the table because we never know what some Presidents and their VPs might do. She does not have the courage to admit she was wrong. She lets this drag on and on and on. She does not deserve her position, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Whatever criticism she is getting now is well-deserved. I can no longer defend her. She had her chance. She blew it.

[Ravy]

1. "We voted in Democrats to end the war"

Yes, a good number of them said that was their goal. They tried.

Pelosi explicitly said *before the election* that they would not try to impeach.

So people bash for for something Democrats couldn't promise (other than to try) and the same people bash her for not doing something that she campaigned saying they would not do.

[kentuck]

2. Maybe this will be the cold bucket of water in the face...

that she needs to wake her up?

[bemildred]

3. Bullshit. I bash her for not obeying the will of the people.

The people want those weasels removed.

[Ravy]

4. The people want free food and healthcare, no taxes, sunshine every day..

The problem is always in the details.

What can the Democrats do? Vote no for war funding? There is *no* war funding now. They just move it out of another department to pay for the war. The Pentagon will lay off every civillian worker except the one in front of TV cameras saying how Democrats caused massive unemployment and we don't have anyone left to ship ammo to our dying troops.

Pelosi and the other Democrats tried, but you know what? There were a HELL of a lot of people that voted for Bush and Cheney to do things exactly as they are doing. So if people, as a whole, want the fuckers out, they shouldn't have voted them in to begin with.

Sure, I agree that they stole Ohio, and Florida before that, but the fact that it was even close enough for them to do that says a lot about American voters in general. DU is not a reflection of the general population, and I get sick and tired of people throwing more shots at our team than they do at the people who really are to blame for the mess.

[kentuck]

6. "...throwing more shots at our team"

Our team needs to do its job. I will continue to throw shots at them until they wake up. They don't even try. So what if they lose a vote? At least the people will know they are trying.

[Ravy]

8. They won several Iraq "timetable for withdrawal" votes. People bash her

for not ending the war.

So yeah, some will give her credit, but most will just continue to bash.

[bemildred]

9. Right, the people are stupid and can't run their own affairs.

Thanks for letting us know where you stand on democracy.

[Ravy]

11. You think a poll showing people in favor of X means X should happen

is democracy????

People elect representatives. They didn't elect enough representatives that favor impeachment. You don't like it, I don't like it, but that is the fact.

[bemildred]

12. Fuck yeah.

Democracy is when the will of the people determines policy (within the bounds set by the Constitution). What do you think it means?

[Ravy]

17. It is not simple.

How do you judge the will of the people? Polls are not good, they don't give alternatives.

Even here on DU, most are very knowledgeable and left-leaning. I don't know of a *single* person except the freeper imposters that will argue that Bush and Cheney do not deserved to be impeach. Or a *single* person who doesn't think they should be tried for their crimes.

But you will find many reasoned arguments as to why they should not be impeached. Even here.

Personally, I put forth some of those (I consider) reasoned arguments myself. A few months ago, I posted that I was wrong, that the political backlash if any was worth Pelosi and other Democrats to reconsider impeachment. But I am sure as hell not going to blame them for not doing it. If the votes were there, then they would.

One poster, may have been you, was saying that it is better to have tried and failed, but as you can see in other threads the "set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq" doesn't prove the "tried and failed" adage works at all, and makes the Democrats look spineless in the end, and takes attention away from the republican assholes who created and maintain the status quo.

I am firmly with the "they should try it" and make people put their cards on the table. Democrats and republicans. But I can understand why they do not and I don't feel we should devote an inordinate amount of time taking pot shots at them instead of the republicans.

[bemildred]

19. I like elections myself, fair, honest elections, after honest debate.

Where everybody gets to have their say. I never said it was simple.

[Ravy]

26. But only around half of the people vote...

and around half of those are self-serving people or idiots who vote republican. I don't get it. I see the crimes that the administration has done, legislation that republicans have championed, and yet they still get a hell of a lot of supporters. I honestly don't see how ANYONE other than the aforementioned self-serving rich could ever even consider voting for someone with an R after their name, but an awful lot of people will.

We just need to hope that more people will vote the other way, and thread after thread bashing the Democrats is not a good way to get people energized and to the polls, and to actively work and donate, in order to make that happen.

[bemildred]

28. Right, the people are too stupid to run their own affairs, according to you. nt

[Ravy]

30. Yeah, maybe so.

Interesting poll questions...

"Are people too stupid to run their own affairs?"

and

"Considering that large numbers of voters voted for president who started a war of aggression and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, trampled on their civil rights, gave massive tax breaks to only the wealthiest of Americans, and promised to put in anti-abortion supreme court justices, are people too stupid to run their own affairs?"

I bet the poll results would be drastically different.

[bemildred]

33. Thank you for being candid. nt

[Ravy]

35. So what about you?

I suppose the last two presidential elections caused me to lose faith in the American electorate. Yeah, we probably really won, but Bush still got a lot of votes and I shake my head how he got any from anyone except for those his policies are tailored to directly benefit. We blame it on MSM lies. We blame it on vote rigging. But I saw a hell of a lot of wastikas, I know people who had Bush signs in their yards. People voted for republicans. Even in the 2006 elections, some republicans won congressional seats, including in my district. I don't see why.

I have lost faith, it is as simple as that.

Do you still have yours?

[bemildred]

38. Yeah, pretty much, I do.

I have faith that in a fair and honest political system, with fair and honest debate on the issues of the day, the people can run their own affairs, and do it much better than the decadent elected aristocracy we have now.

[Ravy]

39. Well, you put in some qualifiers there.

"fair and honest debate", "issues of the day". You left out "well-informed" public. With those qualifiers, I would agree with you.

:toast:

[bemildred]

42. "It is not simple", I think you said.

:toast:

[L. Coyote]

48. Not to mention, someone intelligent can represent the electorate.

There is a lot to be said for the wisdom and experience of intelligent representation. One of the benefits of representation is the ability od a single person to become far more informed on both issues and the workings of government than an ordinary person. We place a certain trust in leadership and representation. Some would rather drive from the back seat like know-it-alls or know-betters, and often they are the very ones least able to do such a difficult job because the complexities and nuances completely escapes their notice.

[bemildred]

49. Please see post #9.

After a while it will start to sink in. It is the same eliteist argument the other fellow is making. It is quite an old argument - Plato was of the same opinion - being a Greek aristocrat and slaveowner, and it is very un-democratic. Democracy requires that the people collectively run their own affairs, not that they elect autocratic rulers. History is replete with emperors and kings who were elected to their offices, and that is not democracy, it is elected autocracy. In the US, the situation is worse, since we long ago removed the barriers to unlimited accumulation of private wealth and ensuing corruption of the political system.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. well

about 36% of them do, according to recent polls. That's not quite an overwhelming mandate.

[bemildred]

13. All polls are horseshit. nt

[bemildred]

16. You like polls? Try this one:

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

* 585465 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

-- 89%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

-- 4.1%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
-- 5%

I don't know.

-- 2%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[MonkeyFunk]

46. an online poll?

Seriously?

:rofl:

[bemildred]

47. Great argument. It's more than you posted. nt

[bemildred]

18. Poll: Americans Support Bush Impeachment for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

[bemildred]

20. Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

[bemildred]

23. Investor's Business Daily Lies About Impeachment Polls

---

You claim that Zogby International used a different question (one that offends you more) in its October poll, whereas the question in its June poll had been more acceptable. This is just sloppy research, since the exact same question was asked in both polls.

You claim that "few outside the rabid left" are interested in impeachment (or were in June), yet you cite the responses to the three polls that have been done on that question: 42 percent, then 50 percent, and most recently 53 percent want Congress to consider impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war. Either half the country is only "a few people" or half the country is "the rabid left." In these polls 20 to 29 percent of Republicans favored impeachment; are they the rabid left?

Your article focuses its criticism not on the accuracy of the polls' results but on the impudence of the polling companies' asking the question at all because the subject has not "been in the news." A rather self-serving power-grab for a news outlet, wouldn't you say? Congress members have held hearings and made speeches and released statements addressing impeachment. Several large organizations have been formed to support it. Thousands of websites have been created. Groups are holding meetings and rallies around the country. Half the signs at the big anti-war marches demand impeachment. Should the fact that you refuse to write about it really deny every polling company the right to ask about it?

The one substantive criticism you offer of the question that's been asked is that it includes the hypothetical "If the president did not tell the truth..." You claim this is a "push poll." But push polls make statements. They don't ask questions about hypotheticals. And you cannot seriously be suggesting that you have doubts about whether Bush lied about the reasons for war. Can you?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4651

[bemildred]

27. Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070706195925.rdm9h3ci&show_article=1

[flyarm]

25. i don't want to bash her..but i want to hold her accountable to her oath of office

I believe Nancy has an obligation to her oath ..no matter what b.s. she has stated ..she has an obligation to we the people and to the oath to protect and defend the constitution.

That can not be taken off the table..thay is her oath..period..

Nancy has an obligation to hold hearings now..to defend our constitution since this administration has broken our laws..that is not desputable.
Torture is against our laws..end of story.
Wiretapping americans without a warrant is against our laws, and against our constitution.

Nancy does not have the right to take off the table my constitution..i did not give her that right.

fly

[Ravy]

32. I agree.

If enough votes were there, I am sure she would.

[JFN1]

24. The Oath she took

requires her to consider impeachment at all times, no matter the circumstances of the past. When she says she won't impeach, she's not keeping her Oath. And if she was saying this before the election, then the people who elected her should NOT do that again.

[Ravy]

29. The oath the President takes requires him/her to consider a nuclear attack

on Iran.

Are you supporting someone who refuses to take that option off the table???

[rateyes]

44. No, it doesn't. nt

[wiggs]

5. It's like a sheriff being elected then saying prosecution of crime is off the table. nt

[Ravy]

7. Actually it is more like a sheriff saying (s)he won't enforce a law, THEN getting elected. nt

If the voters had voted in enough people to make it happen, then she could maybe reconsider. But they did not, so it is stupid for her to go back on that pledge.

[Disturbed]

14. "sunshine every day."

Some people pray for a bit of rain.

Many people rejoiced wehn she got that job & said that she was tough. Some even wanted her to become Pres. Pelosi has always been a weak politician. I said this way before she was elected Speaker. She should have reigned long ago. She is not qualified for the Speaker job.

[Ravy]

22. But she *was* elected.

And that is the way the process works. And she said *before* she was elected that impeachment was off the table. I wish she hadn't, and she can always change her mind if the votes are there.

[EFerrari]

31. Let me be the first to say, I was an idiot. n/t

[Cha]

15. nancy is all glitz

and no guts.

[KoKo]

41. Sad...but what you say seems to be playing out as truth....

Nice Clothes and "Bringing Dignity back to the House" seems to be her cause. But, leaving the Dem Economic Press Conference because her daughter Alexandra was in labor with her second child in DC hospital seemed to be a bit OTT. Alexandra's child was Nancy's 7th Grandchild and Alexandra's second.

There didn't seem to be a crisis in the birth...and it wasn't like she had to make time to fly back to CA for the birth since it was a DC Hospital...and it's not like our Economy for the "American People," {Nancy says she loves and is working hard for), shouldn't maybe take a few more minutes of time...when it's the 7th Grandchild and second for one daughter.

But...maybe I'm just a selfish Bitch who is harping on Nancy for being a Good MOM and GrandMom...over "the people." What do I know...I'm nobody.

[Cha]

45. It's not nancy's

running off for grandbabies being born that makes me wish she would just step down and get a Dem House Speaker who knows how to stand up for Democratic Principles instead of cowering to bushites and worrying how Democrats make her look bad.

[EFerrari]

21. I still don't think this is really about Nancy even though

I agree with you. She didn't make this decision alone or at all, the party leadership did.

[bemildred]

36. That is very true. nt

[L. Coyote]

34. Well, that is just one opinion. I very much disagree.

The level of criticism is simply unwarranted. This last chapter, the WA Post, and all the idiots who jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, is huge Republican bonanza to cover up serious crimes. And many on the left are today helping out, to cover up Bush's crimes by ranting about Pelosi.

Stupid damn stooges, in my humble opinion. They have no clue about the reality of the situation!

=================
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, It is a Crime to Lie to Congress, and the Torture Cover Up Conundrum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2435841

"How to get out of this mess, now that we have been caught lying to Congress, a crime," someone in the Political Wingnut Office no doubt thought. Well, you already know the rest of the story. Or, do you? Maybe we all need to step back and do a little analysis. Some on ourselves for being fools, but mostly to see past the smoke and mirrors of daily deception and official lies, the daily bread that blinds like ergot on rye.

On further reflection, it seems a Political Wingnut went on the offensive before the cover up of torture becomes the crime de jour. Or is it crime of the hour now. It sure seemed like it last week. Brace yourself for this week, I'm guessing, because the real implications will soon surface. The Intelligence Community is bound by law to report to key members of Congress. So, guess who has the goods on the liars who did not report honestly to Congress? The ones being targeted by the recent propaganda assault, esp. the Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

NUMBER ONE: It is a crime to lie to Congress. Therein lies the inception of the real story.

NUMBER TWO: The Intelligence Community (read Bush Administration) is required by law to inform Congress of its war crimes, like torture!

There is your conundrum in raw formulation. Screwed if you tell on yourself, screwed if you did not. So now, we are seeing the after effects.

... more ......

[KingFlorez]

37. Not this time she doesn't

The article all this criticism stems from doesn't seem all that credible. Anonymous sources could be GOP operative trying to stir up criticism for Pelosi to deflect from Bush. You can't always believe everything that is printed in the news.

[bonito]

40. Agreed, K&R n/t

[defendandprotect]

43. Neither Pelosi NOR Hoyer, nor the DLC deserve their positions ---!!!!