On Friday, I asked for your recommendations on what I should ask Nancy Pelosi during my interview with her. The response was overwhelming. And the overriding theme of the reaction was, "Ask Speaker Pelosi to please, please, stop funding the war."
And over the course of preparing for the interview, the question of why Congress has been reluctant to use its constitutionally mandated power of the purse to cut off funding for the war kept rising to the surface. Specifically the question of why the Democrats are allowing the president to continue to fund the war through so-called emergency appropriations instead of forcing him to make his latest request for an additional $190 billion in war funds part of the budget -- and part of a budget debate that would allow the American people to hear how much of the money being requested is actually going to the troops and how much is going to build the largest embassy in the world, to build military bases, and to pay the salaries of Blackwater thugs.
Pelosi has scored a number of legislative accomplishments during her first nine months as Speaker, including an increase in the minimum wage, ethics reform, an overhaul of student-aid programs, implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and a bill upping the criminal punishment of war profiteers -- yet the approval ratings for Congress hover around 20 percent, below even President Bush's. And the dissatisfaction stems primarily from the failure of Democrats to bring an end to the war. This is a telling indication of the priorities of the American people.
So I made this the focus of the interview, although we also talked about FISA, Blackwater, why only military families have been asked to sacrifice for this war, and whether she's getting enough sleep.
Below are four highlights from our conversation, followed by the full interview.
"Are You Too Well-Behaved to Get Us Out of Iraq?":
On Ending the War in Iraq:
Quick Hits on President Bush, Hillary Clinton, and The American Dream:
On the Coming Fight over FISA:
Arianna Interviews Nancy Pelosi:
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Nancy's flaw is not her manners, or her gender, or her politics. It is her cowardice.
Nancy is a coward. She cowers in front of the bottom 27% backwash of this country. And her real crime, that has everyone outraged at her, is that she took the rest of us with her.
If Nancy worked hard all of her life to reach the pinnacle of being a coward, she needs to do it on her own time. She needs to not take the entire Democratic Party with her. She needs to leave her position and then cower all sh wants.
For a person that preaches the importance of being a moral guiding light for the next generation, she decided for no earthly reason to role model cowardice. Shame on her.
I have read all the posts regarding her cowardly and traitorous behavior and have found that nearly everyone agrees with me.
This better be a wake up call for every other elected democrat...we will no longer as a Party tolerate your weak-kneed, cowardly and embarrassing behavior.
We are out here with the heart of lions. We expect the same of you.
We sincerely need to hear messages from those who will fire up the base, not keep them at arm's length.
This is a misconception. I commented on this but I have more to add. If the Iraq situation (occupation not war) was the reason for the low approval ratings then Bush, the originator and nearly sole remaining promoter, would have the lower poll ratings.
I mentioned that the reason for the discontent is the lack of ability to provide accountability for our actions. The most salient aspect of that is Iraq, but that's just the flavor not the source of discontent. It's congress' job. That's what they are not doing. That's the reason for the discontent.
Something like the Bush administration tests our government. That's to be expected. Our government is supposed to survive, to correct itself. That's the strength of our democracy and it's enabled by the constitution and the system of checks and balances. When congress fails to provide those checks and balances, it puts the democracy and our government at risk. There's no self-correction. The fault of that doesn't lie with Bush, it lies with Congress. They are allowing, in fact, enabling our government to fail this significant test. That's the source of our discontent.
There are some hearings and investigations but people sense the urgency and want to see meaningful correction and results. Impeachment proceedings address accountability issues at the core. Knowing and sensing what's at risk (our government and its self-correcting mechanism and more) people are livid at the lack of meaningful action and results and they fault our legislators who are now the slim majority. And they are correct.
1> impeachment proceedings would take time from other legislative agendas
That's just bizarre. As many have mentioned, those proceedings are a requirement and a requisite for many agendas and an aid to others. And it's a first and required step to restoring our credibility, one for which we are quickly losing the opportunity.
2> Arianna makes the statement:
"yet the approval ratings for Congress hover around 20 percent, below even President Bush's. And the dissatisfaction stems primarily from the failure of Democrats to bring an end to the war. This is a telling indication of the priorities of the American people."
That's not true. Sure there is discontent and it arises from the Iraq imbroglio. (it's not a war, it's a horrid and meaningless occupation). But, our involvement in Iraq and its meaningless direction is indicative of the lack of leadership in both the administration and congress. That's the source of the discontent, the lack of ability to establish accountability for our actions. Iraq is just the most salient example of that and easily pointed to. Chasing the Iraq question and ratings is like chasing something blowing in the wind. Impeachment addresses accountability which is the core issue.
It's an easy concept, really. It's a slam dunk, really. Of course we can ignore criminality and corruption in the highest levels of government... if we want. That's always an option. And we can sit on our hands with our fingers crossed hoping nothing worse will happen in the final year and we can just silently swallow the results including a fragmented constitution without recourse... Sort of see no, hear no, say no evil or stick your head in the sand sort of attitude...
Yeah, that's an option.
It is realistically too late. This statement is true in certain perspectives but is really a crass and stupid thought. It's not too late up to the last day.
Think of impeachment proceedings as a self-correcting of the government. A democracy demands a somewhat vigilant citizenry. If we don't correct it, we risk the principles of our democracy teetering off into meaninglessness.
Realistically I think we've already done that, but I'm not an absolute expert, so self-correction is still an obvious initiative.
In 2008 I won't be voting for any incumbents -- Dems or otherwise.
Hey, Patty Murray, Maria CantVoteWell, and Rick Larsen, many of us in Washington will now vote only for the Green Party.
You disgust me Ms Pelosi.