Now Look What Pelosi Has Done According To Ron Paul & Kucinich

[EV_Ares]

Ron Paul Claims Pelosi Spiked Iran Bill


Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

Paul, a former Republican presidential contender who formally removed himself from the party’s nomination race last week, makes the allegation on C-SPAN during a recently held foreign policy conference in Virginia.


NOTE: Paul says Pelosi’s first act as House Speaker in 2006 was to “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”



According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

Paul implies Pelosi, desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation, bargained away the proposal that would have been the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

According to John Nichols, who covered the story about Pelosi’s capitulation at the time for “The Nation,” Pelosi was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying decision was due to AIPAC.

Link: From The Nation For Those That Get Excited About Ron Paul: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

Link: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/paul_pelosi_AIPAC/2008/06/18/105652.html

[liberal N proud]

1. AIPAC

I will say nothing more

[defendandprotect]

28. How did this organization come to be running our Congress . . ..

something to do with weapons production . . . ???

Warprofiteering -- ???

[razors edge]

49. Blackmail. n/t

[bjobotts]

53. Pelosi has acted like a GOP speaker despite her rhetoric. On big issues...nothing

From www.driftglass.com -- "...in her 1.5 years as Speaker of the People's House, Pelosi has not moved us one millimeter closer to ending Bush’s Iraqi fiasco, has “taken impeachment off the table”, and today has once again show herself to be completely captive to moneyed, anti-American interests and utterly unwilling to uphold her oath to protect us from a criminal and malevolent Administration..."

[KnaveRupe]

62. Correction:

Address should be

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/">driftglass.blogspot.com

If it's not on anyone's must read list, it should be. Driftglass is one of the finest and, when necessary, most brutal writers out there.

</blogpimp>

[defendandprotect]

103. Pelosi, as far as I can see, is part of the elite and working for their interests . . .

if not warprofiteer interests --- ???

[whistle]

84. They have made every Congressman and Congresswoman an offer they can't refuse!

:yoiks:

[indepat]

85. Letting someone else dictate our national security, defense, way of life, economy, standard of

living and maybe even survival is absolute insanity, not to mention high treason. :mad:

[defendandprotect]

104. Again . . . I think ISRAEL is simply a doubling-back of our own MIIC/Pentagon agenda ---

As I've said before . . .

Nixon armed right-wing Fundamentally religious Israel --
leaving liberal peace-loving Israel in the dust ---
What was still left of liberal/progressive Israel was taken care of by the
Fundamentalists in "Murder In The Name of God" in taking out Rabin and
all hopes for peace ---

MEANWHILE, Israel more than suited our needs for entre into the Middle East ---
Currently, you can't tell Israeli and US weapons production apart --
"they are almost indistinguishable."

So we have Nixon knocking out the Israeli left by arming the right --
We have the US using Israel for a foothold into the Middle East ---
We have the Israel religious nuts holding onto power by MURDER of Rabin --

And overall we have American and Israel weapons production combined ---

You can begin to see how important the issue of Israel as a propaganda tool for
their "safety" in the ME is to the US ---

Eventually, I would guess that somewhere after USING Israel,
the US will simply take over Israel-- ??

and begin to run the next scam . . .

[Sherman A1]

54. Agreed & Well Said

There is nothing more to say.

[oldskool]

70. AIPAC = Adcom

They even outsource wiretapping of US citizens.

[oldskool]

87. RE: AMDOCS not ADCOM

[Star80]

92. AMDOCS

was formed to do the data mining and wiretapping, and Comverse-Infosys were the ones who put the system in place.

Both of those companies are treasonous, in that they helped set up and support the wiretapping of American citizens.

And it was done years before 9/11.

[Phred42]

80. yep - You can't say anything more in here or you'll be flamed as anti-semitic

for the mere thought. Regardless of whether it's true or not.

[oldskool]

89. I'm not racist I am reporting a fact

[leftchick]

118. "Hard right neocons (and most of congress) and AIPAC"

Hard right neocons and AIPAC

Jim Lobe: The origin of the Zionist, Neocon, Christian Right alliance (1 of 2)

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1699


Pepe Escobar talks with Jim Lobe about this history of the Israel lobby in the United States. From Christian Zionists to Neoconservatives. (Jointly produced by IPS and The Real News)
Bio

Jim Lobe is the The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS). Lobe has also written for Foreign Policy In Focus, Alternet, Tompaine.com, and was featured in BBC and ABC television documentaries about motivations for the US invasion of Iraq.
Transcript

PEPE ESCOBAR, ANALYST, THE REAL NEWS NETWORK: Jim Lobe is the bureau chief of Inter Press Service in Washington. He's one of the nation's top specialists on the neoconservative movement. We spoke on the sidelines of the AIPAC meeting in Washington on neocons, Christian Zionists, and the Israeli lobby. The drive towards the extreme right in AIPAC and the Israeli lobby started way before the Clinton administration. Do you agree, Jim?

JIM LOBE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, INTER PRESS SERVICE: Yeah. I mean, I think the evolution has been quite steady, particularly since the end of the Carter administration, when you had the Likud government in Israel, which was strongly backed by what became increasingly known as neoconservatives in the United States, reached out to Christian Zionists in the hope that they would be a lobby that would favor the settlement movement in Israel or in the West Bank and Gaza as a way of defeating Carter, who had brought many, many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals to the polls because he was a born-again Christian, but whose ideas about the rights of Palestinians to a homeland deeply threatened both Likud and traditional Christian Zionists within the larger evangelical and fundamentalist movement. In 1982, there was still a major debate within the Jewish community as to whether the organized Jewish community should be united strategically with Christian Zionists like Jerry Falwell, or whether that should be regarded as too dangerous, in a sense. And this debate was carried out in the pages of the commentary magazine, which was published by the American Jewish Committee and edited by Norman Podhoretz, the really founding figures of modern neoconservatism. Irving Kristol, also one of the major figures in neoconservatism, and father of Bill Kristol, now editor of The Weekly Standard, wrote a letter to the editor which kind of settled the debate, in which he argued that as objectionable as Jews might find Christian Zionist theology, in fact it was, quote, "It was their theology, but it is our Israel." And thus the strategic tie between Christian Zionists and neoconservatives was essentially forged.

ESCOBAR: Would you say that AIPAC nowadays truly represents the majority of the Jewish-American community in the US?

LOBE: The American Jewish Committee American Jews every year, and it often asks the same questions. And I would say, for example, on the question of Iran, on which AIPAC is very hawkish, it's very clear that they do not represent the larger American community.

ESCOBAR: Well, John Hagee was at AIPAC in 2007, and he got multiple standing ovations when he said, "Today's 1938, and it's Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler." Would you say that AIPAC is keen on an attack on Iran, maybe before the end of the Bush administration?


Who funds AIPAC?

Jim Lobe of IPS on the role of AIPAC (2 of 2)


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1700


Transcript

PEPE ESCOBAR, ANALYST, THE REAL NEWS NETWORK: We continue our interview with Jim Lobe, bureau chief of Inter Press Services in Washington, about the neoconservative movement, the Israeli lobby, its backers, and its . AIPAC, apart from being the most well-organized lobby in the US, is extremely well financed as well. Where did their financial power come from?

JIM LOBE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, INTER PRESS SERVICE: I know that one donor who has emerged in the past decade as a key donor is Sheldon Adelson, who owns the Las Vegas Sands in Las Vegas and has in the last ten years opened casinos in Macao, and he's now the third-wealthiest American, according to Forbes or Fortune—I can't remember which. I think his value's worth anywhere between, like, $12 and, like, $30 billion. So he has a lot of money to spend. And he offered, essentially, to be the major donor for AIPAC for its new building. He's very, very close to former prime minister, Benjamin Netenyahu, and to Natan Sharansky, who's part of the Shalem Center in Israel, which is a Netanyahu-Likud kind of front think tank. And he founded his own institute there, the Adelson Institute, which is headed by Sharansky. He's, I think, the biggest contributor to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is a very neoconservative, pro-Likudist group. And he was a founder and by far the biggest contributor of a new kind of lobby group called Freedoms Watch, which will try to influence races, congressional races in particular, in November. There are other quite wealthy individuals who are major backers of AIPAC, give a lot of money to AIPAC. I think the person who may be most helpful on this, actually, is Michael Massing. Michael Massing has written quite a bit on the Israel lobby and has been a kind of good corrective to the basic Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, as it was first published in The London Review of Books.

ESCOBAR: What was your take on the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis?

LOBE: I think they're putting the issue of the influence of Israel lobby, and by that I mean the Conference of American Presidents, AIPAC, the really big organizations, putting their influence on US foreign policy into the debate is absolutely critical, because particularly under this Bush administration what we've seen is things go seriously, seriously bad in the Middle East, and I think a lot of that has been due to that influence, that neoconservative influence on US foreign policy that these large American or influential American Jewish organizations have in one way or another endorsed and then pushed. I mean, their idea of Israel is something along the two-state solution and getting it done, and they see Israel without such a solution, still holding onto Arab lands, and so on, as a serious drag on US foreign policy successes in the region, as a detriment. They took a realist position, but not one that I think in any way compromises or would compromise Israel's security, so long as it defines its borders somewhat more modestly than it does at the present time. In other words, I think they were saying that support for Israel should not be unconditional; that there should be clear conditions put on that support that then Israel can accept or reject. But their main point, of course, was that the influence of the Israel lobby, particularly organizations such as this, especially on Congress, was distorting American interests, because the support for Israel in Congress is essentially unconditional, and that's not getting the United States anywhere. And their argument is it's also undermining Israel's security in the long run. And as far as that assessment is concerned, I don't think there's much to disagree with, or at least I don't disagree with much.

[liberal N proud]

120. That deserves a thread of it's own

One that I am sure would get locked.

[leftchick]

121. actually

I believe reprehensor posted it in the video forum last week.

[wtmusic]

2. Well now there's a nice little pajama party.

Ron Paul and Dennis. Whatever works. :crazy:

[JackRiddler]

3. Shoot, shoot, shoot the messenger! Who cares what they said, if it was true! Yay!!!

[LeftishBrit]

14. But would you believe a messenger who was a known liar?

Ron Paul is just as much a RW Republican (and therefore a monster of pure evil) as Bush or Cheney; just in a somewhat different way.

Kucinich is much more credible, but most of the references here are to Paul.

I'm not specially defending Pelosi; I just think that progressives should NEVER give any credibility to Paul - or to any right-winger.

[JackRiddler]

16. Okay, so a formalistic understanding of ideology trumps the truth-value of any given statement.

To answer your question, no I do not believe Pelosi, the only known liar you mention.

Ron Paul is a man of obvious integrity and deep belief in a set of principles with which I mostly disagree. His supporters are often infuriating to me because of their lack of logic and narrow view of the world. To say that he is just another version of the Bush mob is a complete distortion. He obviously believes what he says, and much of it is highly superior to the Bush mob. We have been better off with his form of whack in charge: certainly millions of Iraqis and others around the world would have been far better off, as he is genuinely anti-imperialist. He is not a gangster, like the Bush mob.

All of which is irrelevant here: Is he telling truth about Pelosi or not? Is it cowardly to deny what she did or not?

[TheWatcher]

18. But don't you understand?

It's only the Truth and based in reality if they like the source it comes from.

You need to get with the Magical Paradigm. I simply don't understand you, Citizen. ;)

[LeftishBrit]

23. The most evil people mostly *do* believe deeply in their set of principles.

They lie to themselves, and therefore to others.

While Bush himself probably has very few real principles, he is influenced by fanatics who do.

And as for Paul: he is absolutely opposed to any government safety-net for poor people; has labelled gay rights as 'heterophobia'; opposes women's right to choose; opposes the Voting Rights Act; is against the war for isolationist, not humanitarian reasons; and e.g. has implied that it would have been better for America not to ally itself with the Soviet Union in WW2 (which would essentially have meant allowing Hitler to win).

'We have been better off with his form of whack in charge: certainly millions of Iraqis and others around the world would have been far better off'

Well, yes, the Iraqis probably would have been. On the other hand, his absolute hostility to foreign aid would have caused even more death and suffering to poor people in developing countries than is the case now. Ultimately, would his policies have caused more or fewer deaths than Bush's? I am not sure, but why find out? Is it a choice between Bush and Paul? All far right-wingers are evil: or at least, promoters of policies that will result in evil. It's not 'formalistic' ideology; I am not judging people by whether they *call* themselves conservative, or their nominal party membership, but their stated policies.

'Is he telling truth about Pelosi or not?'

I don't know; but the point is, if it's the truth, then one shouldn't need Paul's word to demonstrate it. A right-winger can occasionally say something that happens to be true. However, a right-winger's opinion can never IMO be used as reliable evidence. If the only evidence for something is the argument of a right-winger, then it is probably false. If the statement about Pelosi is true, then there should be evidence for it OTHER than what Ron Paul says, and therefore Ron Paul doesn't need to be quoted. Thus, a right-winger's argument never needs to be used as evidence, because if it's the only evidence, it is unreliable; and if there is other evidence, then it is unnecessary. (BTW, the last time I used this argument was with regard to someone quoting Dan Pipes' views as a source of evidence - so I really am consistent in my distrust for *all* RW-ers - not just Paul.)

Look: I have been let down in my own country very badly by members of the supposed 'left'; so I'm quite prepared to believe in similar betrayal by Pelosi or other Democrats. You don't have 10 years of Tony Blair and still retain a trust in people to do the right thing just because they're in the right party. This isn't about defending Pelosi, or any sort of blind support for the Democrats or any other politicians. It's about my very strong belief that all progressives everywhere need to be united against all right-wingers; and that progressives must never be tempted to make common cause with the likes of Paul. That way lies the danger of permitting the emergence of fascist or similar movements, just because they oppose the current evil status quo.

[JackRiddler]

36. Lot of talk about Paul, none about Pelosi.

Kucinich and Paul both said it.

Paul is not evil. You may not like his politics, and I certainly don't. But right wing does not automatically mean evil does not automatically mean lying, and your logic here is deficient. Whatever else Paul is, he is not a gangster and criminal like the Bush Regime members.

Did Pelosi take the Iran provision off the table? Yes. Was AIPAC of the same view? Yes. Did AIPAC sway Pelosi? This is the very believable story that Kucinich and Paul both tell. That's what you should be asking.

Israel is preparing to bomb Iran, exercises were conducted last week over Greece. That's in today's NYT, by the way. Israel is making open threats to hit Iran, saying it's a matter of time.

[FogerRox]

42. Ron and Dennis are not alone

The AIPAC/neo-con/neo-lib Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby/Bob Wolfawitz connection is well known. Correct ? The Pelosi/AIPAC connection is via google,

Addressing the recent AIPAC conference, Scooter Libby's boss, (Dick Cheney) AKA the Father of Lies, spoke the unvarnished truth:

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq .....

Antiwar.com

Last week, Pelosi attended a conference hosted by the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is a small, but influential, Pro-Israel lobby that, in its own words, "works to secure vital aid for Israel to help ensure Israel remains strong and secure."

......... Pelosi came to the conference on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney.........


.......Around the same time, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), were telling reporters they were fearful that requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before invading Iran might jeopardize the safety of Israel. Hence, Pelosi ditched the Iranian provision and Congress, once again, surrendered its institutional authority to check Bush's power to pull America into additional wars that are not her own......

....... Pelosi's capitulation was her great betrayal of Main Street America.........

The Bulletin.

[LeftishBrit]

56. Because Paul is infinitely more evil than Pelosi.

Pelosi may be ineffective in combatting evil; but Paul actively promotes evil.


'Israel is making open threats to hit Iran, saying it's a matter of time.'

That was one politician Mofaz, who is pursuing his own political ambitions; and the government distanced itself from his threats. In any case, even if Israel does attack Iran (which would be an utter disaster - I have friends from both countries, and the thought of war there horrifies me!), this doesn't mean America will. In fact, the American government would be more likely to feel that Israel has 'let it off the hook' and done it for them. In any case, I hope that NO ONE bombs anyone.

'But right wing does not automatically mean evil'


Yes it does. Right wing = PURE EVIL! (I do not mean that membership of or support for a right-of-centre party necessarily means evil; but *far* right is always evil, and Paul is far right.)

'does not automatically mean lying'

OK, it doesn't. Right-wingers often believe what they say, and may even tell the truth by accident. But they are not reliable sources, and should never be encouraged in any way. Would you take the word of a neo-Nazi (and many neo-Nazi groups do oppose the war)? Would you have taken the word of Reagan or Thatcher - and I think Reagan did believe most of what he said; certainly Thatcher did?

[JackRiddler]

76. I'll take this more seriously when you can drop the medieval eschatology.

Evil this, infinite that. Who does this remind me of? You work with labels ("Paul is *far* right") rather than facts or argument. Paul just doesn't have the rap sheet you want to attribute to him. That would be Cheney.

At any rate, your beef is I suppose with the OP for mentioning Paul, since there is little doubt that the facts alleged in the OP are widely known, coming from many sources, and not in dispute in Washington.

As for an Israeli attack on Iran, maybe you'd better read the Times from yesterday, in which it's very clear what's being planned or not-so covertly threatened, or else this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=215962&mesg_id=215962

Oh, I see, you're already in that thread and pretty much in the same state of denial there.

[LeftishBrit]

111. Here is a link to an earlier post...

where I list items of evidence, from Paul's own speeches. And the word 'evil' doesn't appear in that post!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2270605#2270762

[LiberalFighter]

93. Israel needs to know that if they bomb Iran without real provocation.

And somehow AIPAC needs to be reined in.

[Jackpine Radical]

47. Might I recommend John Dean's book

Conservatives Without Conscience to you? It might cure you of the idea that at least our current administration is founded on any principles other than greed and opportunism.

Blair was like our DLC types. Steny Hoyer, Diane Feinstein, people like that.

[LeftishBrit]

57. I am not defending the current administration!

And I don't think that Bush, Cheney et al ARE influenced much by anything except greed, opportunism, oil, Halliburton, etc. etc.

However, they could not have gotten where they are without people who genuinely believe in hawkish policies and neo-conservativism. Without such influences, they would have lost too badly for even electoral fraud to carry them into office.

I agree that Blair is like a RW Dem; and I think that for the most part *he* genuinely believed in his own policies. Unusually for a British politician, he was and is a bit of a religious nut, and seems to think that God has ordered or endorsed his policies! In any case, he is disgusting, and had seriously damaged our country, as well as having a bad influence on the rest of the world through his neo-imperialism. He would have liked, I'm sure, to be PM at the time when we had an Empire and took up the White Man's Burden to rule the Natives for their Own Good. As he was born at least 50 years too late for that, he latched on to Bush's imperialism.

My point is not any defence of Bush, or even of the Democrats: it's that liberals have to be VERY careful not to assume that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and to avoid the risk of giving any support to far-right people and movements, just because they oppose the status quo. We may welcome divisions in the Right because it weakens their power; but all factions of the right are bad. (I am not here referring to moderate Conservatives, or liberal Republicans, or traditionalists generally - as a leftist I disagree with such people, but don't consider them as evil - but to those who actively seek change in a right-wing direction. The 'populist right' is as bad as the 'elitist right' - and of course will become the elite, if it ever gets into power! We should beware of the likes of Paul, even if he's opposed to Bush. Incidentally, the British do have an approximate -though actually less virulently right-wing- current equivalent of Paul, called David Davis, and there are a number of threads about him on the UK forum at the moment, in which most of us have been making similar points.

[Jackpine Radical]

88. Certainly the FOLLOWERS of the demagogues are "True Believers."

I am honestly unsure what camp the neocon leaders (Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.) are in, whether they are crazed ideologues or mere high-functioning psychopaths. This problem is confounded because they adhere to Leo Strauss' form of Realpolitik, which is ultimately derived from Plato's Republic. This doctrine holds that it is not only permissible, but a preferred strategy, for the philosopher-kings (i.e. the ineffably enlightened Neocons) to control the masses by deceiving them. It is, after all, for their own good, you know. Thus when I hear these guys talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East or wherever, I understand that they are really talking about advancing the interests of the US-Israeli Empire. "Democracy" is a code word for colonial government.

[LeftishBrit]

96. I generally agree with you...

except that 'the US-Israeli empire' makes it sound as though the US and Israel are equal partners, which they aren't. Israel is in certain respects a colony of the US - as is Britain. (I would actually say that Britain is a closer partner of the US than Israel is; at any rate as regards nuclear weapons; wartime alliances; etc.) None of this is an excuse for British or Israeli or any other leaders who CHOOSE to collaborate with American right-wingers; but it's important to remember that America is the bigger and more powerful country. And therefore the nature of the American government is very important to the entire world.

I would say that most true neo-con leaders ARE true believers, going back to Thatcher, Reagan et al. And further back, to the aristocrats who ruled in many countries with the view that they were the ones with a sort of 'divine right' to rule. Blair was a sort of throwback to that time; very ironic that he was nominally Labour.

Often, the most dangerous leaders are those who think that they are somehow divinely ordained to rule others. Perhaps wanting to be a leader should be a disqualification for office!

[Jackpine Radical]

106. I find it fascinating to compare my perspective with yours here.

I must admit I added "Israeli" to that phrase as a sort of afterthought, but it does reflect the reality that the Neocons ("Leocons" :evilgrin: ) are very much aligned with rightist politics in Israel. Many of them hold dual American-Israeli citizenship, incidentally. Also, there is a very strong "Jewish" (i.e. militant Israeli) lobby in America, with the result that American politicians tread on Israeli expansionist interests only at their own peril, and in the state and city of New York, not at all. It is that Israeli connection in particular that makes me think that the Neocons are more ideologues than simple political thugs. They lie, cheat & steal, but do it for a higher purpose.

Hell, I didn't even know I thought that until I wrote this.

[ThePowerofWill]

19. Ron Paul is no liar,

He's a whack job for sure, but he believes in the things he says. I have more respect for him than Pelosi as far as the truth is concerned. Pelosi is one to say what she thinks is best for her at the time, not what she believes.

[EV_Ares]

20. Agree with you on that a 100%. He may be a little wacky but he is not evil

by any means like what we have in the WH now. And if it is "wacky" anyone wants, just take a look at what our speaker has done since she has been in that chair, now to me, that is totally way out there to understand.

Even this what she said after the house passed the telecom bill:

It's downright pathetic to see them try to depict their behavior as some sort of bipartisan "compromise" whereby they won meaningful concessions:

Pelosi Says: "When they saw that we were unified in sending that bill rather than falling for their scare tactics, I think it sent them a message," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "So our leverage was increased because of our Democratic unity in both cases."

Link To Greenwald's Salon Article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/20/bipar... /

[Jackpine Radical]

74. Nancy is like the Peace of the Lord.

She surpasseth understanding.

[newmajority]

25. Ron Paul has been absolutely right where it concerns AIPAC and this fucked up foreign policy

The fact that he's dead wrong on domestic policy doesn't change that.

[lovuian]

40. Nancy Pelosi is a traitor just like Lieberman is and should be

removed Harry Reid is not much better

the Democratic Leadership is not doing the bidding of their constituents

[wildbilln864]

64. Exactly correct! Thank you. nt

[defendandprotect]

31. Number of sources report AIPAC, Blue Dogs, Jewish caucus in Congress ---

There seem to be a lot of details on the meetings pressuring Pelosi ---

Democrats Retreat on War Funds - March 14, 2007 - The New York Sun
... pressure from Aipac," calling the decision to remove the Iran language "sickening. ... Warns of Impeachment of President. Absolutely Worth It. Iran Goes ...
www.nysun.com/foreign/democrats-retreat-on-war-funds/50391


But in the past week, Ms. Pelosi removed the clause after a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats threatened to vote against the appropriations package if it included the provision tying the president's hands.

One of those members, Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York, said yesterday he counted between 20 and 27 members who would have voted against the funding measure if it included the Iran language. Rep. Gary Ackerman, another Democrat of New York, said he thinks the dissenters had even more votes.

Mr. Ackerman yesterday said after Mr. Engel and Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, bluntly said they would not vote for the supplemental funding bill if it included the language barring use of force against Iran, the caucus of pro-Israel Democrats and blue dog Democrats began an impromptu discussion with Ms. Pelosi in between votes in the well of the House floor.

Mr. Ackerman said he made a political and policy argument in favor of withdrawing the Iran language. "Most people think it would be a bad idea to attack Iran. Those of us who have thought it out, also think it is a bad idea to take it off the table," he said.

[debunkthelies]

39. The Point is...

Speaker Pelosi is a member of the Jewish Community, and whatever AIPAC wants Pelosi gets.

[LeftishBrit]

58. Wow just wow.

Are you actually saying that there's something wrong with having Jewish politicians in office?

In any case, Pelosi isn't Jewish; she's of Italian descent.

[defendandprotect]

100. Yes ... Pelosi is a Catholic . . . I'm quite sure . . .

(I'm kinda butting into your question of a different poster . . .)

However, while there is nothing wrong with a Jewish caucus --

I think the problem is that most people don't know this exists ---

and they are simply more "conservatives" who aline themselves with the Blue Dogs ---

so we need to have more discussions about this ---

This Israel subject is another with high emotions which often keep us from seeing

what is actually going on ---

[defendandprotect]

99. Pelosi is "a member of the Jewish community" . . . ?????

[FogerRox]

41. Yes, I believe. Because Ron Pauls voice is only one of many

Pelosi did this at least twice and has been previously reported on.

Last week, Pelosi attended a conference hosted by the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is a small, but influential, Pro-Israel lobby that, in its own words, "works to secure vital aid for Israel to help ensure Israel remains strong and secure."

......... Pelosi came to the conference on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney.........


.......Around the same time, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), were telling reporters they were fearful that requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before invading Iran might jeopardize the safety of Israel. Hence, Pelosi ditched the Iranian provision and Congress, once again, surrendered its institutional authority to check Bush's power to pull America into additional wars that are not her own......

....... Pelosi's capitulation was her great betrayal of Main Street America.........
The Bulletin.

[razors edge]

50. "monster of pure evil".

Give me a right wing republican over a neocon any day, I don't really care for either, but the former knows his first, second, and third loyalties are to the United States of America.

[LeftishBrit]

95. The neo-cons ARE RW Republicans (except when they're RW Democrats)

(or RW-ers of allied countries).

Please do not give me ANY right-wingers of any sort. They are all monsters.

And RW-ers all CLAIM to be super-patriots who are more loyal to their country than anyone else is; but when examined, that generally means just that they hate other countries. Oh, they love their country all right - meaning that section of their country which is rich, healthy, male, straight, conventional, white and Christian. The 'white and Christian' parts may vary between cultures; the rest seem to be pretty well universal to right-wingers anywhere.

I once came across a very old issue of 'Mad' Magazine, which defined a 'super-patriot' as 'someone who loves his country - while hating 93% of the people in it.' Sounds like a good definition of a right-wing 'super-patriot'.

Real patriotism includes the willingness to make financial and other sacrifices so that ALL citizens of one's country can survive well. Right-wing 'patriots' are willing to fight for their country, or more usually to get someone else to fight for their country - but not to pay taxes to support their country. However much they hate other countries, and even genuinely love their own country, right-wingers are always ultimately a danger to their country - and, in our interconnected world, to the world at large.

[razors edge]

110. Neocons are the nut fucks

that evolved from the Trotsky idiots "educated" in Chicago. They were too radical for the Democrats and had to infest the Republican party to get power.

With all the problems the Democrats have they were at least smart enough to suppress these scum and keep them from any real power, with the exception of Joe Lieberman of course.

[orleans]

51. where -- in the article in the nation --- does it say kucinich?

i did a word search and only find his name in the comment section.

on edit: i did a google on kucinich pelosi aipac iran for nytimes & washington post--can't find a thing there either.

[TheWatcher]

17. Classic. Hate to bust the paradigm of your magical thinking

Shooting the messenger does not change the message, it's facts, or it's implications and consequences.

[Lasher]

24. How about the part where Pelosi was Speaker of the House in 2006?

Typical Ron Paul 'fact'.

Not only is he nutty, but he's a hypocrite too. He's a mighty frugal guy until it comes to earmarks like the $8 million Wild America Shrimp Marketing 'favor' for the shrimp industry in his home district.

[TheWatcher]

65. Look, we can sit her and wax philospohical about Ron Paul's many flaws all day

The only thing we will accomplish is that we will find that we agree on most everything concerning Ron Paul.

This isn't about Ron Paul.

This is about Pelosi.

And don't forget Kucinich is also a messenger here. Do you not like that source either?

Ron Paul, Pelosi. It's time to come to grips with it. Neither one of them are on our side.

[earth mom]

26. At least Paul & Kucinich would rather do the right thing here than play politics like Pelosi.

Pelosi is disgusting! :puke:

[defendandprotect]

29. To what degree are Israel neo-cons and AIPAC running our Speaker -- ?

“And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

What part of this has to do with weapons production and warprofiteering?

We keep meeting the right-wing . . . in Israel and in our own Congress!!!

[FogerRox]

43. Pelosi/AIPAC/Cheney/Wolfawitz

The AIPAC/neo-con/neo-lib Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby/Bob Wolfawitz connection is well known. Correct ? The Pelosi/AIPAC connection is via google,

Addressing the recent AIPAC conference, Scooter Libby's boss, (Dick Cheney) AKA the Father of Lies, spoke the unvarnished truth:

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq .....

Antiwar.com

Last week, Pelosi attended a conference hosted by the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is a small, but influential, Pro-Israel lobby that, in its own words, "works to secure vital aid for Israel to help ensure Israel remains strong and secure."

......... Pelosi came to the conference on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney.........


.......Around the same time, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), were telling reporters they were fearful that requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before invading Iran might jeopardize the safety of Israel. Hence, Pelosi ditched the Iranian provision and Congress, once again, surrendered its institutional authority to check Bush's power to pull America into additional wars that are not her own......

....... Pelosi's capitulation was her great betrayal of Main Street America.........

The Bulletin.

[defendandprotect]

102. I think we need to be discussing this influence much more loudly . . .

We also have Chertoff ---

the problem NOT being how many Jewish people are involved at top levels of our government

and influencing it --- but how many CONSERVATIVE/FUNDY Jewish people are involved in

influencing our government in warmongering for weapons production for warprofiteering ---

[frylock]

91. nice little democratic leadership you have going for you..

but whatever works. At least you have scoreboard despite fuckall getting accomplished.

[onehandle]

4. Newsmax article featuring Ron Paul?

Thanks for nothing.

[EV_Ares]

5. So Here I can put the same article from The Nation, here you go. Better Now.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

By stripping the Iran provision from the legislation that is now under consideration by Congress, Pelosi has handed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- no believer he is the separation of powers -- exactly what they want. They can and will say that, when the question of whether Congress should require the administration to seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran, Pelosi chose not to pursue the matter.

Anyone who thinks that Bush and Cheney will fail to exploit this profound misstep by Pelosi has not been paying attention for the past six years. The speaker has erred, dramatically and dangerously.

Pelosi should reverse her decision and restore the Iran provision to the legislation. It is the only way to check and balance an administration that stands ready to exploit every opening it is given by a naive and inept Congress.

[onehandle]

6. Yeah. I would have led with that link instead. nt

[EV_Ares]

7. Well, I personally read articles & feel I can sort out what is and what is not

rather than stick my head in the sand and I trust Kucinich's judgment as well. Also, appears to me they are just as credible as Pelosi has been. Anyway, thanks, glad that one was better and you were probably right, shoud have put it in first.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Thanks! (nt)

[defendandprotect]

33. Cheney/Bush didn't send BLUE DOGS after Pelosi by any chance . . .

just coincidence . . . ???

[Phred42]

78. "Misstep" my ass - The treason never stops

Folks, This IS the "Permanent Republican Majority" that Newt put in to place.

It's here now and Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller and Reid - the Blue Dogs and DLC are all involved.

Sorry

"If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable has to be the truth."- Sherlock Holmes "

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. For all of those who contend that AIPAC has no clout because they

don't donate directly, WAKE THE HECK UP!!!!!! They Own Us By Owning Our Leadership!!!!

[earth mom]

27. Wanna bet they own Obama too? nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

71. And if not yet,

they will.

[Rudyabdul]

105. I seriously doubt it.

Senator Obama comes across to me as a man who is not going to be anyone's B!tch, especially Israel.

Senator Obama doesn't owe AIPAC anything and this little stunt just might cause them to lose whatever support that he was going to give them.

[keepCAblue]

86. By owning our leadership AND by putting spies in the pentagon

AIPAC Spy Nest Exposed
New indictments implicate unnamed government officials and reporters
by Justin Raimondo

The other shoe has finally dropped in the case of the spy scandal involving the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In addition to five espionage-related charges filed against former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, two counts of conspiracy to communicate classified information to a foreign power have been lodged against former AIPAC foreign policy director Steve Rosen, and a single count of conspiracy against Rosen's assistant, former AIPAC Iran specialist Keith Weissman. The latest indictment <.pdf> reads like a spy thriller, and, while some of the elements were already known, there is much that is surprising, including the information that Rosen has apparently been under surveillance since at least 1999.

... MORE -->> http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6890

[bvar22]

9. That was Pelosi's 1st act a Speaker 2006?

I thought her 1sr act was to negotiate a secret Free Trade Deal directly with Bush behind the backs of the Democratic Caucus. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

12. I had forgotten, thanks n/t

[slipslidingaway]

10. As Pelosi said at the time, this bill has everything the President

wants including his benchmarks, one of which was pressure to pass the draft Iraq Oil Law. This was after they removed the Iran language and any time table for bringing troops home, but left the benchmarks Bush wanted. So, he had no reason to veto the second supplemental bill in the spring of 2007.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2856487

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will invoke a rarely used House procedure today to discuss the privatization of Iraqi oil on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Kucinich plans to invoke a point of personal privilege under House Rule IX to respond to published remarks regarding efforts he has made to inform the House Democratic Caucus of the details of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act.

Kucinich will have one hour of time on the House floor in which he plans to explain why Congress’ insistence on benchmarks in the supplemental, which includes passage of the Iraqi hydrocarbon act, demands that Iraqis privatize their oil.

To watch Congressman Kucinich's speech live, visit C-SPAN's website


Excerpts from the speech are below:

"The Administration set several benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including passage of the “Hydrocarbon Law” by the Iraqi Parliament."

"The fact is that except for three scant lines, the entire 33 page “Hydrocarbon Law,” is about creating a complex legal structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraqi oil."

"And many inside the beltway are contemplating linking funding for the war in Iraq to the completion of these benchmarks, including passage of the “Hydrocarbon Law” by the Iraqi Parliament."

"The war in Iraq is a stain on American history. Let us not further besmirch our nation by participating in the outrageous exploitation of a nation which is in shambles due to U.S. intervention."

[slipslidingaway]

11. Here's the prior thread on this issue with some other info...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3470769

[Kaleko]

13. K & R

[KoKo]

21. sigh....it figures and now DU poster G_J says 70 Dems want to Blockade Iran

by backing a Resolution in the House. Meaning Iran would retaliate....

And, the day after Obama cinches the Primaries he and Hillary go bow down to AIPAC with speeches that were chilling to those of us who want out of Iraq and are worried about Bush's Surprise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3492813&mesg_id=3492813

[defendandprotect]

34. Come on, folks, we're simply looking at the MIIC at work; these are their people in Congress ---

ensuring that the weapons manufacturing and warmongering goes on and one ---

Evidently, Israeli and US weapons production are so intertwined that it is almost impossible
to tell them apart---!!!

This saga also begins when Nixon arms right-wing fundamentalist Israelis and the liberal left
in Israel is subdued to the MIIC . . .

[Faryn Balyncd]

22. On SOME issues SOME Republicans are better than our own LEADERSHIP.

[salguine]

30. And her ass hasn't been yanked out of the Speaker's chair why, exactly?

Good God, she's fucking worse than Joe Lieberman.

[Disturbed]

32. Speaker Pelosi needs to be replaced ASAP.

She has turned into a Rethug.

[FogerRox]

44. The AIPAC/neo-con/neo-lib Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby/Bob Wolfawitz connection

is well known. Correct ? The Pelosi/AIPAC connection is via google,

Addressing the recent AIPAC conference, Scooter Libby's boss, (Dick Cheney) AKA the Father of Lies, spoke the unvarnished truth:

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq .....

Antiwar.com

Last week, Pelosi attended a conference hosted by the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is a small, but influential, Pro-Israel lobby that, in its own words, "works to secure vital aid for Israel to help ensure Israel remains strong and secure."

......... Pelosi came to the conference on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney.........


.......Around the same time, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), were telling reporters they were fearful that requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before invading Iran might jeopardize the safety of Israel. Hence, Pelosi ditched the Iranian provision and Congress, once again, surrendered its institutional authority to check Bush's power to pull America into additional wars that are not her own......

....... Pelosi's capitulation was her great betrayal of Main Street America.........

The Bulletin.

If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.

For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.

Post Chronicle

[LeftishBrit]

60. You do realize that the second artticle you quote is by Pat Buchanan?

I'm sure I'll be accused of 'shooting the messenger' again. But progressives should never give aid and comfort to right-wing monsters! If Pelosi is enabling Bush, and there is someone else who could do a better job, then she should be replaced!!! But Bush is not the only right-winger whom we have to fear. ALL far right-wingers are evil, and we should not enable any of them!

[Truth2Tell]

112. So all you have to do is find that a conservative

has said something, and then you will therefore never believe it?

[LeftishBrit]

116. Not exactly, but close.

I might certainly believe something that a right-winger has said; but I would NEVER take the right-winger's words as evidence for it. I would need other information as evidence.

Therefore, as I said in another thread, it is never appropriate to quote a right-winger's words as evidence for something being true. If it's true, then there should be evidence for it OTHER than the fact that the right-winger said it; and therefore it's unnecessary to quote the right-winger. If the *only* evidence comes from the right-winger's statements, then it probably *isn't* true.

In any case, Buchanan isn't just a conservative; he's a near-fascist.

[defendandprotect]

35. RECCO ---

[Imagevision]

37. Why would anyone want Pelosi to keep her job? She should work for Bush

[FogerRox]

46. Yeah, Shes a Bush enabler.

[Baby Snooks]

52. Boycott San Franciso!

Maybe that would get the message to her constituents that the rest of America does not want her in Washington.

[MasonJar]

38. What is wrong with her? I am so disappointed that she has been such

a miserable failure.

[tom_paine]

45. Ron Paul for Democratic Speaker of the House!

That's a joke people, for anyone who might be confused. Unfortunately, it isn't much of one. Much as I might disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, there is no doubt that he is FIVE HUNDRED TIMES the American Patriot and lover of the Constitution than the horrid Nancy Pelosi.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on much, but I trust him to do what he thinks is right. The same for Kucinich, though I agree with him on much more than I agree with Paul.

I don't trust Nancy Pelosi AT ALL and I trust her to do what's best for herself, NEVER what is right and I am not sure a chronically sold-out disgusting party hack like her can even distinguish right from wrong.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

48. Obama/Paul '08

Ass-kickin' you can believe in.

[LeftishBrit]

59. What a horrible idea...

I could predict that within a year, some nut from a far-RW group would take a pot-shot at Obama, and then it's RW nuts rule OK!

Anyway, even apart from the risk to his own life, why on EARTH would Obama want a running-mate who opposes the Voting Rights Act?

[sellitman]

66. Are you nuts?

Paul is a Right Wing nutcase on everything else but the war.

He also has a bad history of being predudiced and anti-Semetic.

If you would just google this turd you would know.

[Behind the Aegis]

107. Seems as long as you don't say "kike", anti-Semitism is OK.

:puke:

[sellitman]

113. You got that right.

I will stifle the rest of my comment because it ain't allowed here.

:hi:

[orleans]

55. i should be posting this to the op:

for the nation article i did a word search and only find kucinich's name in the comment section.

on edit: i did a google on kucinich pelosi aipac iran for nytimes & washington post--can't find a thing there either.

[EV_Ares]

61. Didn't do a very good search did you; Here, if you need anything else, let me know.

From The Nation: Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep On Iran

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted that spending legislation designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy should also include a provision barring the president from attacking Iran without congressional approval, they opened up a monumental discussion about presidential war powers.

As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.

It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

Again and again, the Bush administration has seized any and every opening to claim powers that were never accorded the executive branch by the Constitution or the Congress. Remember that this administration has sought to justify a massive, unregulated domestic spying program by claiming authority under narrow legislation that was passed permitting the president to respond to the September 11, 2OO1, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Never mind that no mention of such spying was included in the 2OO1 legislation; the fact that it was not explicitly barred gave the administration all the room it required to claim the power to disregard the Constitution and the rule of law.

By stripping the Iran provision from the legislation that is now under consideration by Congress, Pelosi has handed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- no believer he is the separation of powers -- exactly what they want. They can and will say that, when the question of whether Congress should require the administration to seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran, Pelosi chose not to pursue the matter.

Anyone who thinks that Bush and Cheney will fail to exploit this profound misstep by Pelosi has not been paying attention for the past six years. The speaker has erred, dramatically and dangerously.

Pelosi should reverse her decision and restore the Iran provision to the legislation. It is the only way to check and balance an administration that stands ready to exploit every opening it is given by a naive and inept Congress.

Another link for a Nation article on AIPAC's influence and Kucinich's attempt to dissent: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold

[orleans]

108. i posted what i searched. and regardless of your smug

"you didn't do a very good search did you?" i would say NEITHER DID YOU.

where in that first link of the nation YOU post is the name "kucinich?" it is not there. your op says: "The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying decision was due to AIPAC. "
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? it doesn't say that. you're quoting newsmax, but you don't show the article.

show me that and i'll shut the fuck up about it.

[EV_Ares]

109. I gave you two links and there are other links in the post from others

and with your attitude, I don't give a dam if you don't like the post and what is said or not and I am also not going to do your work for you.

Now take your language and take a hike. Hell, hike over to the Kos, there is plenty you can find about this there as well.

[orleans]

119. read the link you give. there is no mention of kucinich saying shit.

[wildbilln864]

63. That woman has got to go. nt

:grr:

[BREMPRO]

67. I'm done with Pelosi. HOW COULD SHE BARGAIN AWAY CONGRESS'S CHECK ON A WAR MONGERING PRESIDENT??!!

and then claim she did it because Israel told her to?! WTF!!! And capitulation on FISA too in the same week! I'd like to hear her explain what she is doing. She needs an emergency backbone transplant. I'm F/N FURIOUS!!

[mdmc]

68. We need to make sure Israel is safe from Iran.

Democrats keeping the world safe from the bad guys!

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don't get the support or the votes that the hawks get.

[Blarch]

69. She is a total hack.

She needs to be charged, tried, convicted and jailed.

What kind of idiot would ever vote for her ?

[mikehiggins]

82. She is clearly in it over her head

Despite 2006 it is becoming clear that NP had no idea what would be demanded of her, and is simply trying to follow Beltway Business As Usual guidelines as Speaker, the same way Reid is doing.

They BOTH have to go and one can only hope Big O will have the courage and political capital to make it so after he gets sworn in.

Conversely, if McLame gets in, the Dems will do absolutely NOTHING to rock the boat except make stirring speeches they will then ignore in their voting.

So it goes...

[BearSquirrel2]

72. Pelosi has to go ...

Wow, what an amazing disappointment Pelosi has turned out to be. Isn't it a sad state of affairs when you can't even get a liberal elected out of San Francisco?!?!?!??!

[happygoluckytoyou]

73. tried to like you nancy.... but it just ain't working out...from a cal-jew who once did

[viat0r]

75. This is treasonous

Why is it politicians can do what is NOT in americas best interest but instead do another nations bidding.
This is illegal and its treason we need to run pelosi out of office. We need a contender to take her seat a real progressive who cares more for america and americans than that of a foreign nation!

[Phred42]

77. Consider the source here - Reich-wing NEWSMAX - I'll wait

to see what this really turns into.

:popcorn:

[G_j]

79. did you check this link?

from the OP:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

[Phred42]

81. Yea - TX - after the post.

Oh well.

The treason never stops.

[EV_Ares]

98. Here, The Nation gives you the same info also, certainly not a right-wing

site:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

Is that good enough for you?

[thesquanderer]

83. Washington Post? Anyone have the link?

Does anyone have a link to the original Washington Post article referenced in this post?

[Star80]

90. It's Easy to see

Don't y'all understand that Comverse-Infosys put the entire system in place, so it would have a backdoor they could use to blackmail our politicians, and anyone else they felt like?

[lonestarnot]

94. This is really fucking crazy. Do they actually know something that we don't?

WTF! :wtf:

[libodem]

97. I'm starting to feel so

resentful of one of our own. I don't like it much. Bet, those Republikings have had a belly full of it, too.

[defendandprotect]

101. In trying to understand this ISRAEL thing . . . we have to understand that weapons production . . .

is one of the major issues --- i.e., it's the MIIC --

military industrial intelligence complextx ---

Nixon armed right-wing religious fanatics in Israel --

thereby subduing the liberal left peace-loving Israel ---

Evidently, this has now resulted in ISRAEL and UNITED STATES weapons production

being so closely intertwined that you almost can't tell them apart!!!



So -- same issues that are in play in America --- MIIC -- Pentagon -

warmongering = warprofiteering ---

are at play in Israel ---

Common interests --

Deadly for peace ---

[Metta]

114. New lows for her and the party? Or, just codifying how low they've been?

Not that it matters. They're both reckless and criminal, if you ask me.

[vinylsolution]

115. Pelosi is an Israeli mole.....

She MUST be removed from our political system - once and for all.

Let's all get behind Cindy Sheehan's run to replace her in November.

[PeaceNikki]

117. Let's not. Sheehan is not a Dem and advocating for her here is fundamentally inappropriate

[Beacool]

122. And some of you wanted her as Obama's VP..........

:rofl:

[dogday]

123. The first woman Speaker of the House is a massive disappointment to me... eom