Thanks to the many commenters who have posted regarding my interview with Nancy Pelosi. I want to respond with three quick points.
First, as I wrote in my post yesterday, I believe the most important issue facing Pelosi and Congressional Democrats right now is their reluctance to use their congressionally mandated power of the purse to stop funding the war in Iraq. So that's what I focused on. Over the course of the interview I asked Pelosi about this four different times in four different ways: 1) a direct ask from our commenters to "please, please, please stop funding this war" 2) asking why she doesn't force the president to present his new "emergency" war funding request as part of the budget 3) pointing out that the Constitution gives her the power to tell President Bush, "We will fund the troops to come home safely and responsibly, but not a penny more." 4) asking, "Can you guarantee that there will be no appropriations bill without a fixed date for bringing the troops home?"
In addition, I also asked her if the "American people have to take to the streets to end this war?" and about why she seems to have lost her "fierce urgency" about ending the war and entered into a "cooling off period on Iraq."
Second, I did not raise the question of why Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table because, as I've said on many occasions, while I believe that Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached (ten times over!), I also believe that focusing on impeachment would force Congress to take its eye off the ball on the most important issue of our time -- ending the war in Iraq. Putting impeachment on the table would inevitably drain resources of time, energy, and outrage better spent on bringing our troops home. And, on top of it, impeachment, even if pursued, would not lead to George Bush leaving office an hour earlier than he already will. Of course, there are many times it is worth doing something on principle, even if it is destined to fail. But not if the effort comes at the expense of taking a much more important stand on principle that actually has a chance to succeed. Many of you clearly disagree with me on this point, but it's what I believe.
Third, over the course of the interview, Pelosi made three specific promises on the question of funding the war and on the Congressional battle over FISA: 1) that the House will not take up a war appropriations bill this year 2) that there will be no war appropriations bill next year that doesn't include a fixed date for bringing the troops home 3) that House Democrats will put up a major fight over the Bush administration's desire to make permanent the FISA law passed in August, particularly over the issue of retroactive immunity that the Senate has already given in on. (See the video of these promises below.)
So she's on the record with these promises, and therefore can -- and I'm sure will -- be held accountable for keeping them.
Watch more of the interview here.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Impeachment isnt enough, nor is it fast enough.
We need to invoke the 25th Amendment, Bush is mad and possibly under the influence (IMHO), Cheney- needs to go first, and we ALL understand why. There must be an argument for power mad being a mental disorder, and thus 25th-able.
go to www.democrats.com to sign petitions for this and other relevant things, like paper ballots, just in case someone does something and we DO get to vote.
IF THEY IMPEACHED, AND ALSO DAMNED IF THE DONT
By Hermie Rotea
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is indeed in a difficult position on whether or not to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney now.
During the last November midterm election campaign she pledged to work for the speedy end of the Iraq war and to bring the American troops home. She also told the voters she might consider impeachment if the Democrats recaptured control of Congress.
The Democrats did regain control of Congress, thanks to the MoveOn.Org and antiwar groups who voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats on the strength of their election promise.
So what happened? The Democratic Congress has failed on both counts of ending the Iraq war and impeaching Bush/Cheney. Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. There are even talks that U.S. soldiers may have to stay in Iraq until 2013.
The majority voters felt betrayed and double-crossed. In fact, the MoveOn.Org that came up later with that expensive Petraeus Betray Us ad in the New York Times, warned it would work against wavering Democratic candidates in the 2008 election on the issues of Iraq and impeachment.
Also angry and disgusted is antiwar icon Cindy Sheehan who strongly castigated Speaker Pelosi for reneging from the Democratic election campaign promise. Sheehan decided to run as an independent or protest candidate against Pelosi for the 8th congressional seat of California.
The dilemma that the Democrats in Congress face is that they are damned if they impeach, and they are also damned if they dont. That is because they really dont have the vote (60 in the Senate) required for conviction, even if the House has the vote and passed an impeachment resolution. So what is the point?
As Rep. John Conyers Jr. (who also flip-flopped on impeachment) emphasized, with impeachment everything else stops. Meaning it would consume the time of Congress at the sacrifice of legislation.
Unfortunately, this is a political dilemma that might affect the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election.
I appreciate your site. I appreciate your commitment and dedication to promoting progressive thought in America. I appreciate your courage in speaking your opinion.
But, you offered to speak our concerns.
For many of us, it is not complicated.
It's about RIGHT and WRONG.
These are not abstract, arbitrary concepts that are situational or relative to the circumstance.
Congress has a DUTY. Failure to execute their responsibility to their constituents is not an option, or a choice they can make without consequence. It is not a "smart decision", it is a failure to perform the DUTY that was entrusted to you.
Pelosi's House is getting nothing done. Nothing. What, exactly, do you think impeachment proceedings would interfere with? Rebuking MoveOn and Stark for ungentlemanly conduct under ungentlemanly contitions?
Rubberstamping FISA? Funding the war?
I do not believe that Congress will end the war before Bush leaves office. Investigating charges of impeachment could put the White House on the defense rather than the other way around, it could prevent WWIII or does Pelosi think that the war cry from the White House is just spin?
She seems completely unaware of public perception of the Democratic Party, they are proving once again, after unbelievable criminal behavior by the other side, that they are spineless and they will continue to lose elections because of this fact. There could not be more support from the public on this issue, there is overwhelming support.
I'm glad to see you reposted your interview and your response to all the criticism you've been getting for not bringing up impeachment. This is a thread that deserves to be continued.
What needs to be addressed now, more than ever, is what is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong in America -- not the symptoms, but the root disease.
Iraq is a symptom.
The disease is that we don't have democracy.
The disease is that our elections don't create change, that our politicians work more for the wealthy elite than for the average person, and that no one is securing the vote count.
The disease is that we are now living in an occupied country -- occupied because of two stolen elections.
The disease is that our fundamental rights as American citizens are being dismantled.
All of this allows for the Iraq war -- an illegal war to line the pockets of Cheney and Co -- to continue.
This is why impeachment must be the number one issue on the table.
This is why YOU, Arianna Huffington, as a woman with access to power, had a responsibility to represent your readers -- as you had offered to do -- and the interests of all Americans, by holding Pelosi accountable for her refusal to uphold the Constitution.
You still have a chance to represent us. You can still ask Pelosi -- go ahead and call her up on the phone. I'm sure she'll take your call.
Ask her why.
Ask Pelosi whether or not it is her duty -- not her "decision" -- to uphold the Constitution of the UNited States.
Ask her if she feels there is enough evidence to proceed with impeachment.
If you do this, you will "win the hearts and minds" so to speak, of all the readers who are feeling so let down and abandoned by you right now.
When Impeachment is on the table it serves as a bargaining chip not a 'fait d'accompli.' I think the disgruntlement with Nancy taking that 'chip' off the table is that it is disempowering to her and her party. She doesn't have to threaten to use it every day. She just needs to subtly let the opposition know that it is a tool at her disposal and if the situation warrants it, she wouldn't be afraid to use it. After that she can strategize in any other way she wants. Right now, she looks like an overly permissive Mom, who keeps telling Bush that she would appreciate it if he just behaved himself and would he just please stop being so obstinate. That weak kneed approach is what looks so pathetic to the public.
It is easy for us who never cast one vote for them to admit they are bad and evil, but will those who put them in office be as candid? JUst wondering if the public at large will be willing to admit they were wrong. Most people dislike admitting they are wrong.
Pelosi and Reid need to be more vocal about the wrongs and at least attempt impeachment - even if the total votes are not there.
When a person has to be afraid of voicing their disagreements with an administration for fear of being put on a LIST - hassled at airports and such - it is getting scary and time for action.
I just hope more of the citizens in general are as outraged as those here on this group
If someone who is determined and not concerned about anything beyond doing the right thing would step up and struggle to bring charges against Republican law breakers, or impeachment, or block their completely and utterly evil schemes, we would all be better off.
Even if the person failed. As long as they took the proper steps and put the greatest effort into it, they might make it easier for the next person to carry out.
just my opinion
Bush and Cheney won't listen and they won't obey the law. Impeachment would set the stage for prosecution after they leave office. They need to be tried for crimes against America and crimes against the world.
The Dems are appeasing and enabling Bush and Cheney. Why? Democrats, you have the people's support. We are begging for real leadership and the restoration of our laws. What is the problem?
Arianna, you asked for our questions, and we asked for impeachment, yet you took it off the table. There is NO plausible effort in the House or the Senate to "end the war in Iraq," yet while you and Nancy "responsibly" refuse to look at impeachment, Bush is chuckling and holding press conferences about World War III starting if things aren't seen his way.
Blackwater uses big words and acronyms (lawlessness in Iraq = "Complex Contingency Operation") the way you and Nancy use lipstick. It's a pig! It's a pig! GET REAL. Impeachment is where it's at.
God bless Pete Stark.
In the hours before a House panel approved the resolution Oct. 10, Pelosi was told in a tense meeting with Turkey's ambassador that the vote would endanger his country's alliance with the U.S. She had a warmer session with an Armenian cleric and representatives of Armenian-Americans, who have a large presence in her home state of California. In both, she made clear she intended to bring the resolution to a full House vote.
Since then, Pelosi, 67, has been in retreat. Her vow to bring the measure to a vote outraged Turkey, which recalled its ambassador and threatened to cut off the use of its military bases to resupply U.S. troops in Iraq. On Oct. 17, Pelosi said it ``remains to be seen'' whether the vote would occur after more than a dozen lawmakers pulled their names from the measure and some Democrats asked her to drop it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aD5_dx1DQhrA&refer=politics
Then pay restitution so that they at least have the resources to rebuild. This might bankrupt the US but it's the responsible thing to do (e.g. taking responsibility for a war the American public LET happen. The rest of the world overwhelmingly knew that this was a mistake... how can anyone even consider someone who voted for it like Clinton to be the next 'Leader of the Free World'?).
This whole can of worms is so unfortunate. the only thing holding Iraq together as a country was a cruel dictator: culturally speaking it is three countries. Obviously Cheney knew that in the 90s. Well I guess he knows that now too... since even harsher methods are being used now then when the US was complicit in the gassing of Kurds.