Pelosi Pissed Off!

[Norquist Nemesis]

Just heard on the radio (CNN News) she went into a meeting with WH aids over War Funding. Just prior to the meeting, she said they could come to an agreement before the Memorial Day holiday.

She came out of the meeting "upset". Apparently, no agreement and is saying this is proof that Bush's veto over the war funding was to not take responsibility. They played a quote from her saying he wants to be unaccountable.

Hoo boy!

:popcorn:

[AndyA]

1. Good, Nancy. Now take your anger back to your office and get started

on putting IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE.

Does a statue have to fall on your head to knock some sense into you? Bush isn't going to play fair. He isn't going to cooperate.

Quit fucking around with the precious little time we have, and IMPEACH Bushco! Nail their asses to the cross!! JUST DO IT!!!

[BigRed1975]

11. Impeachment is a ridiculous alternative...

If the desire is to end this war before Bush is out of office, the congress has but one alternative. They need to cut the funds by not approving a new spending bill. Impeachment will not get it done. Bush is going nowhere as a result of impeachment. His party will not let that happen.

Big Red

[cooolandrew]

16. That's about the size of it. No funding is the way to go.

[AndyA]

20. Impeachment is not ridiculous.

Crimes have been committed. If you or I did such things, our asses would be in jail right now. No more free passes for Bush.

Do not minimize the process of impeachment. The democracy of our entire country is at risk.

Congress has already submitted a bill to Bush giving him everything he asked for and more. He vetoed it. I don't want Congress wasting any more time on bills to fund the troops so more can die in an illegal war. I want them to spend their time impeaching the SOB (Cheney too) so we don't have any more of our rights taken away from us, and when the money eventually runs out, the troops come home.

Congress didn't kill the funding for the troops, Bush did.

Don't ever say impeachment is ridiculous. It is a legal solution to deal with an out of control President, and we certainly have that.

[GOTV]

26. It is until your have 67 Senators who are swayed by the facts at hand....

... we are nowhere near that and so impeachment is just a masturbatory exercise

[AndyA]

50. As we get closer to election time, fewer and fewer Republicans are going to support Bush.

They have to save their own hides.

I think they will vote for impeachment. It's already beginning to fall apart on Bush now.

Plus, the impeachment process will tie Bush and Cheney's hands, under intense scrutiny they will not be able to get even one more devisive act past Congress.

[BigRed1975]

84. Let me get this straight...

You think that pubs will vote for impeachment even though they won't vote to end a war which has far more public support?

Big Red

[GOTV]

25. You're right. I can't believe the amount of energy put into this ridiculous impeachment nonsense nt

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[GOTV]

69. Can Karl Rove count to 67? Can you? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

72. No, Karl. I'm not a Jeenyus like you.

[BigRed1975]

86. Karl Rove is not a genius....

He's just an expert at baiting and using chumps. Some of you folks make him look like a genius. If I'm Rove, I'd love for you to be my adversary. It's too easy to get you into emotional knee jerk mode. The worse thing that could happen to the Democratic chances to get the Presidency is if we manage to force withdrawal before the next elections. If that should happen in time to allow the resulting chaos to erupt, which it will given the vacuum created by our departure, then the Republicans will have a great talking point..one that I believe they may be able to exploit to hang on to some Congressional seats and perhaps even get the Presidency.

Big Red

[Swamp Rat]

88. LOL!

I never said he was a "genius."

"Some of you folks make him look like a genius. If I'm Rove, I'd love for you to be my adversary." HAHAHAHA! Bring it on! :rofl:

[BigRed1975]

85. Careful now...

Every once and a while the adults have to come in to supervise you children.

Big Red

[Swamp Rat]

89. HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Karl Rove, is that you?

[Horse with no Name]

32. Impeachment IS the way to go

The only issue at stake is NOT the Iraq War.
Do you think that these criminals don't already have the funding squirreled away for their little war? Please.
The issue is National Security, the firing of the USA's, the infiltration of our government with croneys.
The Iraq War is important, no doubt, but it definitely is NOT the only thing that needs to be stopped.

[Major Hogwash]

74. Hear, hear! Get Bush, the dictator, out of office and there won't be any Iraq War!!

Geezus, don't any of these people read newspapers?

Impeach his ass NOW!!

[lonestarnot]

35. Are you buying fertilizer instead of gasoline?

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. He and Cheney are criminals

So is Gonzalez. Impeachment is not merely an alternative, it is a MUST,

[Jack Rabbit]

49. What will stop Bush from spending the money anyway?

The constitutional prohibition against drawing money from the treasury for items not appropriated?

The Constitution hasn't stopped Bush up to now, why should he start heeding the Constitution when Congress cuts funding?

And if he does spend the money, what is the remedy? Com'on, you can say it.

There are already enough grounds to impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gonzales. We are setting the table. It's time for the Speaker to sit down at the place reserved for her.

[Edweird]

53. Hey, let's do both! Cut off funding AND impeach!

[rosesaylavee]

61. So you think they can multi-task too?

I say, let's add to their list of to-dos and throw in 'remove from office' after the impeachment.

A couple more thugs trying to run publicans off the road who don't agree with the status quo will cause them to join our camp. See this earlier post by Sabra: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x916998

[StarryNite]

62. They need to be held accountable.

bush had people executed in Texas for far less than what he has done.

[mmonk]

76. If impeachment is ridiculous, it should be removed.

In fact lets burn the gd constitution. They should be impeached for their crimes against the constitution irregardless of the war and not as a means to stop the war. But for stopping the war, you are correct. Deauthorize and then defund.

[dave_p]

79. Cut the funding AND prepare impeachment

What's with the either/or talk? I assume Congress can fart & chew gum at the same time.

In fact it doesn't have to do anything to cut the funding. And most of an impeachment case can be prepared in Committee. The WH isn't going to change: even without Iraq, this behavior will go on until 2009.

[MyNameGoesHere]

82. Impeachment is not ridculous

it is a constitution process that is guaranteed to dispose of tyrants. Now maybe the timing is a little bad but it is NOT ridiculous.

[bdamomma]

29. and anything we or Dem Senators they call it a "political stunt"

what a$$holes.

[Missy M]

2. Good for her....

telling it like it is. Bush has always wanted to be unaccountable.

[bdamomma]

30. that is why he delegates his duties to someone else.

but again, he proves his defying childish ways, can you just hear him " I want it my way". This guy is so so sick.

[waiting for hope]

3. Just send the same bill back again!

JUST DO IT.

[Mz Pip]

7. And again, and again

Screw this trying to come up with something Bunnypants will find acceptable. He won't find anything but what HE wants as acceptable.

Screw it. Congress has the power. I'd like to see thme use it for once.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Agree 110% (in recognition of the 110th)

Yes, they SHOULD send it right back to him. If they play their cards right, they can probably pull some POd Cons to their side over the just agreed to Immigration Bill. Strike while the iron's hot!

[Deep13]

21. Take it or leave it, asshole.

This already gone on way to long.

[sampsonblk]

41. Amen! Take it or leave it

Why is she meeting with aides, and not Bush, over this? If its so important for Bush to have this money, and if the House has the money, why is Bush sending aides with the authority to tell the Dems to fuck off?

[murray hill farm]

51. Right!

Send it right back...or just let the veto stand...and be done with it.

[earth mom]

4. Cry me a river. Until Nancy puts Impeachment back on the table, everything else is b.s. nt

[GOTV]

27. Until we have 67 Senators ready to go impeachment is b.s. n/t

[lonestarnot]

36. What is the current count? 5?

[GOTV]

43. Yeah, I doubt we would even get a majority let alone 2/3...

... based on the difficulty of getting them to go against the president's widely disliked war.

[lonestarnot]

44. Well I think it is fucking complicit ridiculousness that our elected will tolerate criminality in

the Whitehouse.

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. You keep spouting this bs yourself... 67 votes, blah blah blah..

It needs to be put on the table, out in the open, until it becomes a daily talking point, instead of just being whispers in the hallways and bathrooms of Congress.

I personally think that anyone who is against impeachment is a fucking COWARD who is afraid to stand up against this misadministration and DEMAND RULE OF LAW. It means you CONDONE their criminal actions and want them to continue. You people make me sick, and ashamed to be an American.

Fucking COWARDS!

[GOTV]

58. 67 is the number you need. Don't have it? You lose. That's the facts.

If I condone the Bush admin's actions it takes 67 Senators to make impeachment effective.
If I don't condone it, it still takes 67 Senators.

You see how that works? Whether anyone condones or doesn't condone the actions it takes 67 Senators to remove the president. If you want to remove the president that's what it takes. It you don't care about removing the president you don't have to care about 67 Senators.

You apparently don't care about the requirements to remove the president yet you speculate on MY motives.

Your bullying tactics aside, you need 67 Senators. Until you have that all you've got is a lot of impotent talk.

[Scout1071]

59. You present the evidence the Congress and the public.

How could Congress see so much evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and NOT act with impeachment? Seems they would be jeopardizing their own careers and reputations....more than they already are.

[GOTV]

64. The public gets what the MSM presents

... so Congress can spend all day dredging up facts and scandal but unless the MSM presents it it's like it never happened. That's why, IMO, the public remains largely apathetic about impeachment.

And that is one reason congress can

> see so much evidence of high crimes and
> misdemeanors and NOT act with impeachment?

That is, a poorly informed electorate is not screaming for Bush's removal.

The other related point is that they don't think the Senate has their back. The Dem majority is razor thin there and until there is a huge public outcry, the Senate will not convict.

> Seems they would be jeopardizing their own
> careers and reputations....more than they already are.

Not until the people are moved to consider impeachment a priority in large numbers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. Fear of failure CANNOT be an obstacle to Rule of Law. That's facts also.

How can we EVER GAIN SUPPORT for impeachment if it's NOT ON THE TABLE?? Please explain that to me, as I don't understand. Whether it fails or not, at least there was an ATTEMPT to restore rule of law to our Government. If it fails, then we know who to vote out of office in the NEXT elections. It shows us who is FOR a subversive government that operates in the dark, without fear of reprisal from it's citizens and our checks and balances that are supposed to be in place.

Where would we be if our forefathers feared failure during the revolution? Fear of failure CANNOT be allowed to paralyze our government officials.

[GOTV]

68. It's not *fear* of failure, it's working with what you have....

... in the current environment it is not possible for impeachment to remove the president and so there is no use starting impeachment.

To use an analogy. You may know that the dam is gonna bust and you have to flee but, if you know your car is out of gas it's not fear of failure that keeps your from trying to start the car anyway. Trying to start the car is just stupid and delays you from doing something that might actually help you evacuate.

Since impeachment will not remove the president given the current attitudes in the Senate you must take another path for now. I think that's what the house is wisely doing. They can impeach at almost any moment as soon as conditions bring conviction within reach.

> How can we EVER GAIN SUPPORT for impeachment if it's
> NOT ON THE TABLE?? Please explain that to me, as I
> don't understand.

Congress does not have to put impeachment on the table for people to be convinced that Bush needs to go. If the news about the Bush administration is bad enough the people don't need impeachment to be on the table to demand it. You see? To the public, whether or not impeachment is on the table is not at all relevant.

In fact, were Pelosi to say "Impeachment is now on the table" it would hurt them because it would take the media's focus off the bad things Bush has done and put the focus on the Congress. The news about the Bush scandals would dry up and it would all be about the impeachment horse race. Who's for it and who's against it etc.

So basically the answer to your question is, to gain support for impeachment you continue to make the case that the Bush administration is dangerously out of control.

> Whether it fails or not, at least there was an ATTEMPT
> to restore rule of law to our Government.

Why to you refuse to see that there is, right now, numerous attempts to restore the rule of law. They may seem timid to you, and maybe you're right, but working to get us to a place where impeachment can successfully remove the president IS doing SOMETHING to restore the rule of law.

What's is NOT doing anything to restore the rule of law is all this chest puffery about how duty requires futile impeachment now as the only acceptable response.

> Where would we be if our forefathers feared failure
> during the revolution? Fear of failure CANNOT be allowed
> to paralyze our government officials.

Their reluctance to impeach on your schedule is not the same as paralysis. Every week it seems we learn something new that can be added to possible future articles of impeachment.

What you insist CANNOT be allowed, is in fact not happening. So you can relax a bit.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. Now I can understand what you're saying, although I still don't agree 100% with it.

The first part that throws me off is your analogy that you used:
"To use an analogy. You may know that the dam is gonna bust and you have to flee but, if you know your car is out of gas it's not fear of failure that keeps your from trying to start the car anyway. Trying to start the car is just stupid and delays you from doing something that might actually help you evacuate."

First off, the car is an inanimate object, incapable of reason or rational thought. You can talk to it all day until you are blue in the face, yet you will NEVER convinve it to fill it's self up with gas. However, this can be accomplished with human beings, ie our congress critters. It's not the public that needs to be convinced, as impeachment is not based upon public support. Clinton had a 70% approval rating when the repugs filed articles of impeachment against him. We need impeachment on the table to get CONGRESSIONAL support. It *has* to put out there, open for discussion/debate, to gain support among Congress.

You also stated: "Why to you refuse to see that there is, right now, numerous attempts to restore the rule of law. They may seem timid to you, and maybe you're right, but working to get us to a place where impeachment can successfully remove the president IS doing SOMETHING to restore the rule of law."

Numerous attempts? Show me ONE example of these attempts, please. Has legislation been introduced to restore Habeus Corpus? Possee Commitatus? How about to restore paper ballot voting?

Let's try this one: Alberto Gonzales has appeared before the Senate Judiciaty Committee TWICE, and both times has told bald faced LIES, and Congress KNOWS he lied, yet he is still in office. Even if they couldn't PROVE that he lied, his numerous answers of "I don't recall", "I don't know", "I wasn't aware", etc, ad nauseum show him to be incompetent to hold the job he is assigned to do, yet all we have is talk of a non binding resolution for a vote of NO CONFIDENCE on him.

Have I missed something?

[Usrename]

77. Besides Orrin Hatch, who are the Senators that would support him?

Who do you think would actually cast a vote to keep a criminal president in office?

I think that a lot of the crimes can be easily proven, once a simple charge has been made.

Then the question becomes "who will support a corrupt and criminal gang in the White House?"

The public won't, and you will have a very difficult time convincing me that many Senators would.

I think you are missing the mark wildly. Impeachment is the only solution.

More corruption by this Congress, in order to cover-up or whitewash the past corruption and crimes, even if it's done with different bosses, won't help.

[PADemD]

80. Joe Lieberman would support him.

[tavalon]

78. Don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse?

The House is the one that brings charges of impeachment, then the Senate TRIES the case, then, as with a court case, the Senate votes on the merits of the case. I haven't seen many court cases where the votes on the jury were already tallied before the case was tried.

[mmonk]

5. So what's her position?

I get confused sometimes. Is it to bring about an end to the war or to avoid the democrats being labeled as anti troops though she seeks to continue funding while positioning bush as against funding the troops because of the veto?

[disndat]

22. Why the 2 big Demo compromises?

The Democratic strategy is hard to follow. Unless, Pelosi and Reid knew Bush would not agree then the ball would be in Bush's court, thereby, they cannot be accused of refusing to fund the troops. Who is going to 'chicken' first?

[OzarkDem]

40. Dems need to stand up for their own position

and not be afraid to defend it to the public.

The public is already on their side, yet Dems fail to take advantage of public opinion against the war and use it in their favor.

I don't get it. Not the sharpest tools in the shed up there in DC.

[Individualist]

48. It's no wonder approval ratings for Congress are as low

as ratings for Pissypants. :(

[caligirl]

6. revoke the AUMF.

[mmonk]

18. Yep. They can deauthorize it or declare the war over.

They can also decide to no longer fund the occupation (purse strings). All of this is the purview of the Congress. But deauthorize first, then defund. The deauthorization doesn't have to face a veto (War Powers Act).

[OzarkDem]

42. Why haven't they done it yet?

What are they waiting for?

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. CNN Website Link: No Deal

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/18/us.iraq.ap/index.html

...
The Democrats, in a meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, said they would strip from a war spending bill billions of dollars in domestic spending that the White House had opposed. They also pledged to give Bush authority to waive compliance with a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq.

But no agreement emerged.

"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
...
"It is clear that the difference between the president and Democrats is accountability," said Pelosi, D-California.
...

[Az]

9. Only now?!? What took her so long?

Has she not been paying attention? Has she not noticed that Georgie has never taken responsibility for anything? In his life!

[EV_Ares]

10. So; I don't understand why she & the other Dems have not been

pissed before now.

Being pissed is nice and good showmanship but what will be the next step.

Seems to be that the next step should be some action on the Dems part instead of being pissed, calling an investigation with no follow-up or result.

Is anybody ready for ideas on impeachment of someone.

[Individualist]

12. Wow, she's upset!

That'll show those neocons! :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. ...

:spray:

[wordpix]

13. note to Pelosi: you're only card left is IMPEACH the bastards

[loyalkydem]

15. amen I would drink to that

To quote Captain Sherdian "Absofragginlootely."

[snappyturtle]

14. Off to the greatest!

"Unaccountable"? Gotta turn on CNN!

[glitch]

19. Welcome to our world. nt

[Ganja Ninja]

23. You can not negotiate with these bastards.

You have to treat them like the North Koreans and Iranians do. They only want to dictate everything. Only engage with Senate and Congressional Republicans and only when it's absolutely necessary. Do not go to the White House for any reason. Have as little contact with the squatter in chief as possible. I only makes him look legit.

[bdamomma]

28. then can they hold them for contempt?

[bdamomma]

33. these thugs do not want any sort of oversight, they all should be

rounded up for crimes against humanity.

[OzarkDem]

38. Why haven't Dem leaders learned that lesson?

It became apparent during the Clinton years that the GOP was not interested in compromise under any circumstance. The best they ever offered was the illusion of compromise on some issues, being experts at giving the appearance of flexibility while still doing nothing in the end.

Why haven't Dem leaders learned this lesson years ago and developed their own ways to deal with them?

[partylessinOhio]

24. I've had no faith in Pelosi when she took the gavel and shook it at us.

I have less faith in her now. She's been too enamored of Bush.

Madame Squeaker makes no more than a squeak!

[EnviroBat]

34. She should be organizing to de-authorize this war TODAY!

They have the power to deliver a solid blow to the nuts on this Chimp. WHY AREN"T THEY DOING ANYTHING?

[lonestarnot]

37. She shook it at us? Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Ohio.

:rofl:

[bdamomma]

31. * is totally against that withdrawal, he is for benchmarks, but

even if the Iraqi Government said they want us out, our sick regime won't bend, they are hellbent to achieve their sick goals.

[bridgit]

39. he has been raised/enabled to be unaccountable for the things he perpetrates...

in his life, this illegal war is not any different; but i believe that history will view g.w. bush as a tyrant, a monster, and a destroyer of people & things for profit and nothing more

[BlooInBloo]

45. Fuck it. Send the fucker the same bill over and over. I'm done.

[sheerjoy]

46. So cool!

You mustn't MESS with Mother Nature heheheh I hope she tears them all a new bunghole!

[Jack Sprat]

52. Any more attempts to compromise

would look very weak, imo. Congress has done their part. Now leave the sulking WH with the latest bill and when the funding runs out, it runs out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

54. Ding Ding Ding!

They took care of his objections, announced that's what they were doing, and he still said No Deal.

Send him back the same bill, again and again and again. Every time he vetoes, he says No to both the troops and the American people's officially elected representatives.

[Atman]

55. Why...why...she's so upset she just might MAKE A SPEECH!

Too bad you're so powerless in your position as...oh, wait, you're NOT powerless.

So how about you and Harry actually doing something, Nancy?!

.

[sheerjoy]

60. Now what? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

White House rejects war bill concession - 44 minutes ago

Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered their first major concessions in a fight with President Bush over a spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.

[MzNov]

65. She's still under the impression that Bush will become a human being.

and she still thinks she can "offer her hand in frienship." She has wasted so much time and so many lives. Does she get it after today?????? I doubt it.

[Generator]

66. Her mistake is thinking you can negotiate with thugs

Criminals do not care what you think of them, or the country or anyone. That TRULY is all this admin is. They exist for themselves only. Maybe the Dems will finally realize this one day, walk out and call for mass boycotts. Why can't somebody come on TV, say Gonzalez has violated OUR constitution in numerous ways (what was it that Jon Stewart said last night, it was something about Gonzalez all but taking a literal crap on it) and if you AGREE with us, please start protesting NOW. In the streets. Until he is fired and there is accountability. Same for the war.

I love Nancy to death. Just like I have loved Kerry. But the only way out of this is rebellion. It's not by playing ball.

LOOK, even frigging Howard Fineman of Newsweek is comparing this admin to the Sopranos. It's not hyberbole anymore, if it ever was. It's the truth. Our country has been taken over by criminals. SO now what?

[dogday]

67. Nancy, are you ready to set the table yet?

I say let's put impeachment on it...

[Morgana LaFey]

70. he wants to be unaccountable???? What was your FIRST CLUE?

Jaysus. When will you dopes wake up enough to get tough? Tough is the ONLY thing he respects, the ONLY thing he'll yield to.

I'm so sick of them thinking he's a normal human being who might EVER have the good of the country in mind instead of his own PNAC and oligarchic (oiligarchic?) agenda.

[Major Hogwash]

75. They should give Bush enough money to run the war for another 4 months.

And not a dime more. Then, in September, they should demand a "progress report" for the surge.

And then cut off the funding, period!

[PADemD]

81. Could we just send Nancy a small table with "impeachment" carved in it?

[acmavm]

83. So, does this mean they'll quit cutting 'secret' deals with the criminal

administration? Quit giving him what he wants in the way of money? Put a halt to him sending more into the 'surge'?

I think not.

[merh]

87. That's what I want to know.

Is she pissed that he won't be held accountable for his shit or that he promised to go along with them if they went along with him on that trade crap?

Friggin idiots and egotists, thinking they can change his mind and evoke a more reasonable response from him now that they are in power. Yeah, right. He knows he is stealing all the power and they are too fucking weak and chicken to try to get it back.

[pat_k]

90. Until Nancy "off the table" Pelosi becomes Impeacher Pelosi. . .

. . .she is just whining.