I hope your neo is not what it has come to stand for, but if it does it's none of my business.
I see you are replying as if I am offended. Because Pelosi said she is not aware that Bush broke any laws, I asked if anyone knows if she said or implied while campaigning that she would seek oversight and transparancy in her '06 term?
I know many who are not happy with "...her assessment of the bush presidency." Do your comments mean that you are happy with her assessment of 'no laws broken?'
I don't know why you "replied" since you didn't even try to answer my question.
your "question" is not relevant because its implications are not relevant either.
i am not a constituent of pelosi's and i do not care at all what her campaign promises were and what her current stances are.
secondly, even if pelosi had never made any promises whatsoever during her previous campaign w.r.t. impeachment, do you really believe that justifies her current stance---is she not supposed to be intelligent enough or respect the constitution enough, to adapt her position to changing circumstances and new evidence, and do what is right (regardless of what she may or may not have said during campaigns)? so, digging too deep into her pre-election promises are really a waste of time.
her constituents are the ones who need to either throw her out of office for her "failure", or else reelect her for her adequate performance.
all other matters, e.g. my assessment of how great a world leader and humanitarian bush has been (or not), don't really matter to this particular point of discussion.
Not even trying to answer a simple question has made you irrelevant. I was hoping someone knew off-hand what she may have promised, all that other stuff you keep injecting too, themselves have no relevance. I still don't know why you even jumped in, but since you did, a simple "I Don't know," would have done but unnecessary.
Do you have a bunch of philosophy on your mind you wish to get out? The question is rhetorical.
