Pelosi Secures Her “BUT”

[kpete]

Pelosi Secures Her “BUT”
Posted by mike hersh
by Linda Milazzo

Today on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responded to a viewer who asked why she took the impeachment of George W. Bush off the table. Pelosi’s response (below in video and text), is categoric proof of her incompetence, dereliction of duty, disdain for the Constitution and disregard for the people of this nation. It underscores why she should NOT continue as Speaker of the House and why she should NOT be reelected in November. By not going forward with her Constitutionally mandated requirement to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors, Mrs. Pelosi has cemented her legacy and secured her “BUT” forever. Let me be clear - I don’t mean the double “TT” derriere kind of “BUTT.” I mean the single “T” conjunction kind of “BUT.”

The proviso. The disclaimer. The tiny word that will ever be the prefix to her legacy. The “BUT” her grandchildren will hear from those who know history and politics - and who care about humanity - when they mention that Pelosi is their grandmother. The “BUT” like: “BUT” wasn’t your grandmother the one who wouldn’t impeach George W. Bush? “BUT” wasn’t your grandmother the one who let Bush get away with murder? “BUT” why did your grandmother do that?” Grandma Nancy, or Mimi as her grandchildren call her, will live ever in infamy, having failed to take George Bush to task. Former Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the man who put Charles Manson in jail for murder, has prepared the murder case against George W. Bush - despite being ignored by Pelosi. Characteristically, both Pelosi and Harry Reid dismissed Bugliosi’s request for information for his murder case against George Bush. I have before me, courtesy of Mr. Bugliosi, copies of the letters he sent to Reid and Pelosi. Judging by the contents of the letters, had Pelosi and Reid cared in the least about justice, they would have responded to Bugliosi’s request. Below is Speaker Pelosi’s inexplicable rationale for not impeaching George W. Bush. I hope you’re as angered by it as I am. It begins with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer introducing viewer Kris Craig’s question for Pelosi, with the words: “We got a lot of questions like this one” - indicating Americans’ deep concern over impeachment.

............

If San Franciscans reelect Pelosi in 2008, they will forever be doomed to hear: “BUT” how could you vote for Pelosi when she wouldn’t uphold the Constitution? “BUT” how could you vote for Pelosi when she wouldn’t impeach George Bush? “BUT” how could you reelect Pelosi when she ignored the will of the people? … and on… and on… and on… “BUT” really, San Franciscans, after seeing this video and reading Pelosi’s words, in all good conscience, how can you reelect her?

VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJQ7587RLo&eurl=http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1973

Text & more at:
http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1973#more-1973

[bdamomma]

1. oh I can't even watch her. She's had her chance and she

blew it, how much evidence do they need that these are thugs running/ruining this nation. We need to take the reins really.

[peekaloo]

2. "there's a new sheriff in town"

meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

she and Bu$h even like the same Who song.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. What are our chances of convincing San Francisco to boot her out in November?

[n2doc]

4. about zero n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I find that odd.

I guess San Francisco isn't as progressive as I thought it was.

[Richardo]

7. Ha!

jesus.

[bdamomma]

10. hey Californians you don't want to be another Connecticut do you?

Connecticut had a chance to throw their traitor out, and they blew it too.......sigh

[Richardo]

6. So you left out the part about what she said.

You buried the lead.

Incidentally, there is NO "Constitutionally mandated requirement to impeach". The Constitution only requires removal "from Office on* Impeachment for, and Conviction of " high crimes etc etc.

* meaning "after"

[kpete]

9. video and text

at:
http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1973#more-1973

[Richardo]

11. Thank you.

I see the blogger did not respond specifically to Pelosi's comments, she just continued her tirade, branching off to include Waxman.

[rateyes]

14. Tell me, how can Congress protect and defend the Constitution if

they continually allow Bush and Cheney to violate it with impunity?

This guy has committed high crimes against the Constitution. The Congress has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They, therefore, have a constitutional obligation to defend the Constituion against a president who continually violates the Constitution. And, the only recourse the Constitution gives to do that is impeachment.

So, yeah, Congress has a duty to impeach the criminal that occupies the White House, along with a few others in the administration. Not to do so is a blatant violation of their duties under the Constitution.

[Richardo]

15. I merely said there was no Constitutionally *mandated* requirement

Moral requirement? Perhaps.

[rateyes]

16. And, I still argue that it is Constitutionally mandated.

Not to impeach a president who has committed high crimes is a violation of their oath, mandated by the Constitution that they take upon entering the office.

How can they protect and defend the Constitution by allowing its violation with impunity?

[dbt]

8. The 'BUT' Plug that's clogged our system.

She's bu$h's other face.

[barbtries]

12. no you didn't

:0

[LWolf]

13. K & R nt

[dbt]

17. Kicking for sheer

evil hypocrisy

:evilgrin:

[GeorgeGist]

18. Ignorance is bliss ...

according to the foundation of Western culture; the book of genesis.

[burythehatchet]

19. I hate her. I hate her. I fucking hate her.

[dbt]

20. Just another kick so that I can hear about

how hypocritical it is to outright (and sheerly) HATE this traitor to her:

Country
Party
Gender

Tell me again, y'all. Use short words and go slow, so's I can get it.