07/31/2008 11:25:36 PM EST

Double-speak or stupid

posted by Lennilenape

On a few shows today, on both TV and radio, the Jocks announced (I paraphrase) that Nancy Pelosi said, she doesn't know if Bush broke any laws.  She said that this morning or last night, BUT she said it!


 

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

I have to feably ask, even though I feel so strongly that Pelosi, while campaigning to keep her seat -- resulting in her becoming "Speaker" -- did she not assure voters that she would make clear to Bush and his troupe that the House of Representatives is an equal among the three branches of the US Government?  AND, that she would do all she could to bring transparency to the White House (perhaps the Judiciary as well)?  I am asking?

While the above paragraph mentions no laws broken, didn't Pelosi's campaign manner proclaim impeachment; and with that didn't she, and her very own PR many times  mention impeachment during that '06 campaign -- enough so, that voters put her back in?  Otherwise, why were voters in such rage and shock, when one of her very first moves as Chair was to, "...take impeachment off the table."  She did so without consulting her constituancy.  If removing impeachment from her agenda was a good idea why didn't she ask the people to whom she spoke while stumping?  Wait!  I know that one -- because, BECAUSE they would have told her clearly and loudly where to jump from? 
< More from Jackie boy. Still sqealing like a pig. | Who would you put in your McCain ad? >
 Display:
Double-speak or stupid | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
the voters are the stupid ones (none / 0)

pelosi is up for re-election in 2008. she will win. ergo, her constituents (the only ones who matter) are perfectly happy (in the majority aggregate) with her performance as representative and as speaker, and with her assessment of the bush presidency.

so what if you are offended or unhappy. that is the cost of living in a democracy. 

by neo on 08/01/2008 02:52:41 AM EST

Neo is what? (none / 0)

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.
 

by Lennilenape on 08/01/2008 11:49:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
think "matrix" not "pnac" (none / 0)

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.

by neo on 08/01/2008 02:21:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Forget it (none / 0)

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. 

by Lennilenape on 08/01/2008 04:46:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
it's possible (none / 0)
that the powers that be in the democratic party decided that impeachment would be counterproductive to winning the general election.  just sayin.

by desertpear on 08/01/2008 04:25:47 AM EST

Put pressure on Dem Congressmen (none / 0)

THE ONLY THING THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CARE ABOUT IS GETTING RE-ELECTED.

ONLY A SERIOUS THREAT BY IMPEACHMENT ADVOCATES
TO UN-ELECT INCUMBENT HOUSE DEMOCRATS
WILL CAUSE FULL IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

ALL SHOULD BE AWARE that the House Democrats did not allow this preliminary Impeachment Hearing Friday
Out Of The Goodness Of Their Hearts
or Because of Any Particular Group's Lobbying.

THERE IS ONLY ONE DYNAMIC THAT RECENTLY CHANGED.

EVEN DEMOCRATIC VOTERS are now THREATENING TO UN-ELECT INCUMBENT HOUSE DEMOCRATS.

The Democrats are afraid of massive voter retribution in the November Election. They are afraid of losing their jobs, their power, and the perks that go with it.

The Voters have recently and loudly told the House Democrats that we are sick and tired of their stonewalling on holding Bush and Cheney accountable. After My Democrats took over, the polls show that Congress's positive rating dropped to the single digits, the lowest in history.

The refusal of the House Democrats to stop the Iraq War and Impeach is unforgiveable. We put you in office and if you do not hold Full Impeachment Hearings prior to the Election we will un-elect you.

In Colorado We Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others are currently doing negative campaigning against all incumbent House/Senate Candidates who have refused to support and even discuss impeachment. If the House Democrats do not immediately announce the date of the first full impeachment hearing scheduled prior to the election, we will greatly increase our negative campaigning.

THE RACE FOR the PROMOTION OF INCUMBENT Colorado Rep. UDALL TO THE US SENATE is a statistical DEAD HEAT.

UDALL REFUSES TO DISCUSS OR SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT. WE can affect the outcome of this race and PUSH UDALL TO BACK IMPEACHMENT. Or STOP HIM FROM WINNING ELECTION TO THE SENATE. We don't need another Bush Lite Dem in the Senate.

Democratic Congressmen have our support only if you hold serious full impeachment hearings before the election. Fail to do that and we will campaign against you, It is time for a change in The Behaviour Of Congress.

Voters who want accountability via impeachment should follow our example.

John H Kennedy Denver CO
43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to Denver County Conv, Colorado Coordinator-National Impeachment Network, organizer of the
IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION
http://ImpeachCO.com

PS: Did the Media note that this 2 hour hearing ran over 6 hours
and that 2 overflow room were packed, and that hundreds were left outside in the halls, and that the testimony was mostly
For impeachment? This is getting serious.

YOU ALL NEED TO CALL CONGRESS EVERY DAY (800-828-0498) AND DEMAND THAT IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS START BEFORE THE ELECTION
..
..


by John H Kennedy on 08/01/2008 09:55:33 AM EST

Love to Un-Elect incumbents who try to fool us (none / 0)

We are not fools; I'm an ex-Marine and, I fought with all I had for the constitution - we take (took) the same oath to uphold the constitution as everybody else takes. 

I love the way you wrote your "reply."  Is there a national movement of any kind to "Un-elect?"  -- so that we can all agree in support of each other.  So we know our numbers and states with which to cite to our politicians who are running.  I can see everybody deciding to un-elect and put in the next democrat and give him/her a mandate to uphold the law.  What other states are you in touch with who agree?  I'm from Michigan.

by Lennilenape on 08/01/2008 11:29:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Double-speak or stupid | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: