Pelosi Claims She Has No Power to End Occupation, Promises CNN She'll Never Impeach

[alkemical]

Pelosi Claims She Has No Power to End Occupation, Promises CNN She'll Never Impeach

[Crushaholic]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

If only everyone would realize this.

[BroncoBuff]

Coward ... so many Republicans have publicly flirted with jumping ship on this war, including even John Warner. but Pelosi and that milquetoast Harry Reid don't get out there aggresively enough to push them and give them cover if they do switch.

Kinda like that scene on "Rising Sun" where Sean Connery goes ballistic in front of the Japanese executives - his loud acting gave the junior Japanese guy cover to act.

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What she said is exaclty true! Congress cannot end the Bush cartel invasion and occupation because they don't have enough of a majority to overcome the warhawk Republicans. Very easy to understand if you have any inkling on how basic math works.

[Denver Crush]

Impeachment should be on the table.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

Spot on.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Coward ... so many Republicans have publicly flirted with jumping ship on this war, including even John Warner. but Pelosi and that milquetoast Harry Reid don't get out there aggresively enough to push them and give them cover if they do switch.

Kinda like that scene on "Rising Sun" where Sean Connery goes ballistic in front of the Japanese executives - his loud acting gave the junior Japanese guy cover to act.

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine?

Wish there was a way to temporarily do away with the seniority system. I'd $hitcan both Reid and Pelosi.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

What a croc of crap! People voted for Democrats because they were tired of being lied to, having Republicans spending completely unchecked and as a general **** you to Bush. They've have been in office barely 6 months and you have disgruntled Republicans like Crushaholic looking for any excuse to criticize them because they haven't over come Bush and his cronies to stop the cluster**** in Iraq yet.

[Garcia Bronco]

People voted for other candidates for a variety of reasons which may include troop withdrawl.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

What a croc of crap! People voted for Democrats because they were tired of being lied to, having Republicans spending completely unchecked and as a general **** you to Bush. They've have been in office barely 6 months and you have disgruntled Republicans like Crushaholic looking for any excuse to criticize them because they haven't over come Bush and his cronies to stop the cluster**** in Iraq yet.

There were some people on this site (You might have been one of them) who wanted the Democrats to start the impeachment process the day they took over in January. It's clear that nothing's happening at the moment. Are you still holding out hope that Bush is impeached?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

There were some people on this site (You might have been one of them) who wanted the Democrats to start the impeachment process the day they took over in January. It's clear that nothing's happening at the moment. Are you still holding out hope that Bush is impeached?

Getting Bush out of there one day early would be worth the effort but I responded to this comment by you...

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen.

Apparently, it sucks to be "one of those people" who voted for a losing Republican Congressman and Bush.

[Rohirrim]

It's clear to me that Pelosi just wants to play a petty political blame game rather than to take the heroic actions she could take to end this war. It sounds to me like it is more important to her that she have somebody to blame than it is to really put her ass on the line.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It's clear to me that Pelosi just wants to play a petty political blame game rather than to take the heroic actions she could take to end this war. It sounds to me like it is more important to her that she have somebody to blame than it is to really put her ass on the line.

Maybe she was just selling you something that she wouldnt buy?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine?

Traveler beat me to it.

This thread is definitely the right place for it.

[W*GS]

Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are cowards. They're putting petty party politics before country - which is something some folks think only the GOP does...

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

What she said is exaclty true! Congress cannot end the Bush cartel invasion and occupation because they don't have enough of a majority to overcome the warhawk Republicans. Very easy to understand if you have any inkling on how basic math works.

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

[Spider]

Impeaching is a joke , all it does is take up time and money ....... and for what ? we all already know Bush is full of **** , ****ing lied to us , got us into a war we didnt ****ing need , history will show that bush is dip**** ......

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

there is already alot of money in the pentagon , cutting the Iraqi funds will only lead to Bush taking Money from somewhere else in the military .......
the reason Bush and the reps scoff at the cutting the money crap ......
the Pentagon has the money to see the war through Bush's term if they are forced to ...... Meanwhile we would hear on TV how the troops are in danger and not equipped cause the lack of money

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

That's correct.

The Democrats even interviewed a panel of constitutional law scholars before the '06 elections to ascertain whether or not this recourse was open to them, and the answer was affirmative.

Pelosi and the rest of these chicken sh*ts are full of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Impeaching is a joke , all it does is take up time and money ....... and for what ? we all already know Bush is full of **** , ****ing lied to us , got us into a war we didnt ****ing need , history will show that bush is dip**** ......

I disagree.

There's still enough time left on the clock for Smirk & Sneer to do some serious damage, e.g., attack Iran, cause a major economic meltdown, etc.

I'd rather spend the time and money impeaching these vermin than spend it on another one of their bullsh*t wars of choice or reverse Robin Hood swindles.

Further, it's our DUTY to hold these crooks accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors - it's not a question of convenience.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When Will the Innocent Bystander Fable Stop?

By David Sirota

I just finished up an appearance on Warren Olney's national radio show (you will be able to find the archived recording here probably in a few hours). On it, I debated (among others) former DLC strategist Ed Kilgore, who quite literally regurgitated the Innocent Bystander Fable, word for nauseating word. He claimed that Democrats in Congress need to find total unity to do anything to stop the war, that they don't have 60 votes, and oh the Congress is so closely divided, yadda yadda. It is a false and misleading meme, and I called him on it, telling him that the Innocent Bystander Fable is deliberately dishonest (and by the way, this subject is going to be the major topic of my next nationally syndicated newspaper column, out Friday).

Kilgore first feigned outrage that someone would call a factual lie "deliberately misleading" (and again folks, claiming Democrats have no power to stop the war or that they need any more than 41 Senate votes to stop the war is a lie - and a deliberate one coming from people who are "experts" and who thus know precisely how the Congress works). He then was forced to admit that yes, in fact, it is correct that if Democrats put together 41 Senate votes for a filibuster or - perhaps even easier - if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to bring a blank check war funding bill to the floors of their respective chambers, Democrats would be able to ultimately stop the war. But while the Democrats' rhetoric is certainly different than Republicans, their actions really are not. The only thing they have consistently done when it comes to Iraq is try to pass the buck, and worse, successfully pass blank checks (like today's new one).

Now, Ed and all the other brilliant Democratic "strategists" in Washington who have gotten us to this disastrous point would counter that polls aren't clear on whether the public really supports Congress using its power of the purse to stop the war. I agree, the polls aren't - but those polls are a snapshot in a vacuum.

To date, there has been absolutely no concerted campaign by Democrats or even by the major media-focused antiwar organizations in Washington to educate the public on why Congress using its power of the purse is the responsible way to end the war. No, everyone inside the 50-square mile radius of Washington, D.C. - politicians, activists, reporters, pundits, everyone - wants us to believe that Democrats are just Innocent Bystanders, that they have no power to do anything, and that, in fact, the Constitution does not include Article 1, Section 9 specifically stating "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It is a lie being perpetrated on the American public - and if folks in Washington are confused about why the public is so disgusted with Congress and with Democrats, it is because the public has figured out when it is being lied to. We got burned once by the WMD claims - we aren't getting fooled again. The public understands the message in this YouTube video:



What this all shows is the mindset of the Democratic apparatus in Washington, D.C. They react to polls. They don't believe in actually spending political capital to move polls on issues - they really only believe in spending political capital on moving polls on individual candidate and party approval ratings - but again, not on issues. They react to snapshots in a vacuum, veering one way and then veering another way, and then they have the nerve to somehow wonder why the public thinks they stand for nothing.

How many more Americans have to die before Democrats stop pushing the Innocent Bystander Fable and pretending they can't do anything? How hated does the Democratic Party have to be by the public before Democrats stop listening to their Washington "strategists," muster the tiniest shred of courage and use the constitutional power they were given on Election Day 2006?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10149

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

No, actually it would suck to be one of the blind, deaf and dumb who cast a vote (and then a second vote) for Dubya knowing how utterly incompetent he was and is. Knowing how he lies at every oportunity. Knowing how he has damaged our country. Knowing how he disregards the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That sucks! Thats un-patriotic! Thats un-American!

[Rohirrim]

The ultimate irony; The Dems have become Nixon! They are stretching out this war for political benefit. It's more important to them that they be able to blame this war on the Republicans in the next election cycle than it is to stop it.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I disagree.

There's still enough time left on the clock for Smirk & Sneer to do some serious damage, e.g., attack Iran, cause a major economic meltdown, etc.

I'd rather spend the time and money impeaching these vermin than spend it on another one of their bullsh*t wars of choice or reverse Robin Hood swindles.

Further, it's our DUTY to hold these crooks accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors - it's not a question of convenience.

I think attacking Iran will come no matter what party is in charge........... yes it is our duty , but nail him when he leaves office ........ dont attack while he has all the protection of the office