Why Pelosi is WRONG

[Opusnone]

http://www.counterpunch.org/pelosi10272006.html

"House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in an interview with Lesley Stahl of CBS News, said impeachment would be "off the table" if Democrats take over the House of Representatives in November, calling it a "waste of time."

She couldn't be more wrong, and most Americans know it.

While Pelosi was responding to a loaded question from Stahl, who couched impeachment in terms of Democrats' supposed desire to seek revenge if they retake Congress, Pelosi, who would become majority leader in a Democratic House, bought into Stahl's argument, saying that she'd be "satisfied" to see the president and vice president spending the remaining two years of their second term as "lame ducks."

What Stahl should have asked Pelosi was whether she thought that President Bush had violated the law and the Constitution, and whether she believed he has committed impeachable offenses.

The answer to that is clearly yes."

Investigate, impeach, incarcerate...
Anything less and I'm gonna wonder about you.

[AlCzervik]

1. she says it's off the table, that doesn't mean that it is imo.

[Zensea]

4. Right, so she might be right in some sense

By saying it is off the table, it might cause some people who are in that dreaded swing vote category to vote Democratic.
People in favor of impeachment are not going to vote Republican because of her saying this, so I don't see any particular downside to such a statement unless it keeps people away from the polls, which my instinct tells me it will not.
Then if the House goes Democratic all bets are off.

[wurzel]

2. Impeachment is not Pelosi's call!

When there are hearings held on the the activities of the Bush Administration the call for impeachment will emerge from that. Pelosi would be stupid to fall into the trap of prejudging Bush today.

[BuyingThyme]

5. If only she understood that.

Imagine if some moron followed up every Bush answer with, "Is that a pledge?"

[Opusnone]

12. So whose call is it?

The Honorable John Conyers, maybe?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ccpup]

6. I almost dare you to call Pelosi

a "fluff chick" to her face. LOL Sexist much?

[babylonsister]

7. Oooh, them's fighting words.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Was that a joke?

[Zensea]

I always do what misogynists say to do

Whether you are one or not I don't know, but your statement is.

[AlCzervik]

13. i remember your post about Jane Harman so this one comes as no surprise.

[Mr_Spock]

14. Huh?

If that's not misogynistic, I don't know what is.

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. So maybe Hastert is better? Give me a break.

[Mr_Spock]

9. This is one case of elect us first, then we'll see if circumstances change

Remember, all it will take is ONE revelation that was previously unknown to bring the impeachment question to the fore. Also, with DINO's in the Democratic party, there may not be enough support for impeachment. This is a pragmatic call on her part and I tend to agree with her stance at this time!

[kestrel91316]

10. Your "concern" has been duly noted.......................

[Monkeyman]

11. She is right it gives no ammo to Replugs for ads

And it keeps their dam base at home. Take the House then see what happens no more mistakes or we lose

[Mr_Spock]

16. Exactly!

Win first!!

[Opusnone]

18. I don't care if their "base" stays at home...

I care that the Democrats win in a landslide.

Making impeachment with full investigations into 9-11, the Iraq war, the energy policy, war profiteering and lobbying scams the base of the Democratic party platform will energize the non voting masses to get off their non voting asses and take part in democracy for a change.

I don't believe in playing nice anymore.

[Mr_Spock]

39. They could easily lose with that strategy

The Dems are not all activists who want impeachment - trust me - I can't even convince my liberal family members who do not keep up with the blogs that impeachment is necessary. Just because a narrow majority favor impeachment doesn't mean it's a good platform to run on - just the opposite IMHO.

[Monkeyman]

40. You better care about their base if their 72 hour push

is on target we lose . Our base needs to be out in force that my fucus after we take the House then the cards are on the table

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Lets hear what she has to say after Rep Conyers

gets down to business, with subpoena power.

[Akoto]

17. That's exactly what she should be saying.

Tell them we're not doing it now, so that we can do it later. We don't need to give our opponents any unnecessary ammo.

[ccpup]

19. She's a very pragmatic woman.

Those who are on the fence and may have voted R in the past would be completely turned off by her saying "yes, we'll impeach". She'd make the Republican scare tactics true and make it appear as if the Repugs are right.

But to say it's off the table or whatever allows her the luxury of sitting back, watching the various investigations dig up irrefutable evidence of criminality and wrong-doing and then, with this evidence to back her up and the repugs in the impossible position of having to defend obvious criminal acts if they fight back against her, step up and say "unfortunately, with everything we've discovered, it's imperative that we put into motion now the machinery our Founding Fathers gave us to hold those in Power accountable for their misdeeds." With the American People now painfully aware of -- and angry about -- the evidence found, she'd be in a position of strength because it's OBVIOUS impeachment is the only answer. And she appears reluctant to do it.

Promising Impeachment now might wet the appetites of those rabid dog Dems who are frothing at the mouth for Justice, but it plays right into the Repugs hands and scares away those moderate republican fence-sitters who are worried about what's happening with "their Party" and are seriously flirting with the idea of voting for the D this time around.

After 20-something years on the Hill, she's a smart woman who knows how the Washington Machine works. Don't underestimate her.

[PoiBoy]

20. more discussion here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

some very good points, IMO..

[MADem]

21. She was completely correct. You can't impeach before you investigate

Of COURSE it's off the table. As it SHOULD be.

If you're serving dinner, you don't bring the dessert out with the soup course, and leave the ice cream next to the centerpiece to melt, do you? NO--you leave it OFF THE TABLE, in the freezer, ready to serve after everyone's finished their meat and taters, and commented on the quality of the meal.

I can never understand why some people fail to see the obvious. These things go in stages--you don't shoot first and ask questions later. You investigate, you find fault or not, and if you do find fault, you impeach.

And, not to belabor the PAINFULLY inflamed and obvious, if she'd said anything else, all she would have done is riled the GOP base and ensured a massive turnout for the cretinous R incumbents.

But who would want that? Who, in their right mind, would see Pelosi pounding the table and demanding the Monkey's head as a plus, a desired action, at this stage of the game??? Who would naively assume that this meant that she was "sufficiently left" as opposed to suicidal?

Certainly no one here who supports the Democratic agenda and understands how the game is played.

[AntiFascist]

42. Then I certainly hope she changes her mind after "the investigation" n/t

[MADem]

44. If the evidence stands up to media reports, it likely will

The challenge is getting the Senate in the D column; because what starts in the House ends in the Senate. I wouldn't be surprised if the House did nothing at all if they couldn't get the Senate onboard, so without a D Senate or a coalition of D's and a few GOP with a conscience (rare bird, that) there's nothing to be gained by initiating an investigation unless the Dems own the entire Hill. All it does is further divide, with no removal of criminals--a hollow result.

[NavyDavy]

22. I think its a smart move, because if the repugs and the indy's

think all we want is revenge they may not vote for our side.....so wait until we get into office b 4 we talk about impeaching anyone

[Opusnone]

24. I disagree

If we don't talk tough and guarantee justice to the people and uphold the US Constitution, we will be seen as "spineless" or "deafeatocrats", etc.

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. We don't want to become a one-note song in the process.

That will turn voters off, just as BushCo has done to their base.

[Opusnone]

31. Do Rovian tactics turn off RWers?

No, they don't. They get them out to vote.
"Fight fire with fire" is a cliche because it is true...

[TheCowsCameHome]

37. They seem to be. Bush is like a lepper in his own party.

Otherwise they'd be on cruise control right now, instead of in a train wreck.

Rove's name will be s**t if they lose next monthk.

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. You bet. First things first.

[INdemo]

23. Well now lets look at this issue realistically..

Articles of impeachment are introduced in the House..Republicans put up a hell of a fight..this dominates the news..In the meantime the new congress get nothing done and the REpukes play this up in the MSM..
Pelosi is correct..There just isn't time and there are so many other issues to address that impeachment would get in the way.
The voters are sending Democrats to congress to get some legislation passed and not to be stuck in the mud on the impeachment issue.

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. If we want to win in '08 we must show that Dems can govern this country

As much as I'd like to see Bush in prison for life, it's more important that Americans feel that they can trust Democrats to run the country without being hung up on any one thing.

Bush's day will come - first we must get that trust back.

[Opusnone]

30. Americans know!

Everyone knows the country has been hijacked by a neoconservative cabal. How many more professors, journalists, diplomats, thinkers, and ex-military/politicos have to tell you this? The truth is smacking us in the face every day and, believe me, the people know.
What we need, nay demand, is ACCOUNTABILITY! If the Democrats don't demand it, and shout it from the highest summits of this great nation, the people will see them as nothing more than the lesser (weaker) of two evils.

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. No, not everyone knows. These races Nov. 7th are squeakers.

If we win we must show America they made the right choice first and foremost.

Plenty of time to get Bush after we get control back.

First things first.

[Opusnone]

34. I'm just getting in a lather today.

Not trying to be testy, just enjoying the truthy smell of DU!

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. *Sniff* Ahhh, nice healthy dialogue. Smell so fine, my friend.

[Parisle]

29. Much as impeachment is justified,.. it's got a downside, too.

---- A wild-ass partisan crusade for impeachment could mess things up for 2008, eh? OF COURSE Bush should face legal accountability over several Constitutional offenses,...but it has to be done right. And just for the record, exactly how many democrats are currently calling for Bush to face charges? A democratic House could spend its entire first year simply seating QUIET investigations of administration transgressions,..and never mention impeachment. Patrick Fitzgerald has just given us a great lesson in how to handle these sorts of things, vis a vis "the press." Get all the evidence without holding a goddamned press conference everyday. I want to see it happen,... but I also like having a plan, instead of letting a host of competing egoes, AND the media control the process and sequence. Besides,.. there's a lot of other stuff that'll be going on, too. Stay calm.

[kimmerspixelated]

33. Perhaps it is better to keep quiet

about impeachment,cuz if the rethugs think we're tossing aside the idea altogether, then they will get sloppy with their coverups, thus making it all so easy to catch them at something easier,perhaps.

[benny05]

35. Doesn't mean there will not be investigations

To be honest, I think Conyers will go after the others before Bush, if need be.

[Webster Green]

36. Why you are wrong about Pelosi...

I posted this on the other current thread as well. Guess I better save it for all the future threads:

Pelosi doesn't want it to be an election issue.

When the time comes, (ie: after the election), it will be on the table.

Right now it's in John Conyer's top left desk drawer.

[many a good man]

41. "There are no war plans on my desk"

Yeah, I almost believed that, too, when bush said it about Iraq.

Truth be told, there's so goddam much to investigate its hard to know where to start.

Halliburton? Misuse of intelligence? Unitary executive? There's a six year backlog.

[applegrove]

43. I don't see how impeachment would help. A lame duck who faces

questions from the house for two years is the only way to get to the bottom of this whole cluster of snakes. Plus dems need to be seen as governing well (because they do) rather than tearing down opponents.

But then I'm not american.