Ending the War vs Impeachment: Following Up on the Pelosi Interview

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

Comments

[chrisrushlau]

I only checked one page of the fourteen (as of Wednesday night) pages of comments, so I apologize if my question has been answered. My question: did Pelosi promise to include a fixed date for bringing the troops home in a "war appropriations bill next year" that Arianna already conceded probably would not be put forward? We've had defense appropriations bills that funded everything at the Pentagon except the war (so they weren't the place to put a bring-home date) and we've had emergency appropriations bills to fund the war (and if you impede one of these, such as by insisting that it contain a bring-home date, you're not supporting the troops, heh, heh). What does it mean that Pelosi said "there would not be action on a war appropriations bill this year"? Arianna, please clarify: what is a "war appropriations bill"; and thank you for opening this forum: democracy is very sloppy.

[ALHayes]

Impeachment might slow down the march into Iran.

As I see it:

If I see a crime being committed, I call the police. Even if I think they won't get to the scene in time. Even if I think the person won't be convicted. I do my part as a citizen. Even if this is a message only to be heard by future presidents, America rejects facism.

By failing to begin the impeachment process, Congress is confirming what Americans already feel: the process doesn't work. They know that "good" won't win because "evil" is the judge and jury.

[mcnary]

All this hot air is going to do nothing, the war is not going to end, we will be in the middle east as long as the oil lasts. Isn't it obvious... Stop the kidding around with impeachment bull, its never going to happen....­. It is and aways will be about the oil, congress knows ....Both sides know, we want the oil plain and simple.

[hawkseye]

Oil interests want to keep the Mid East in turmoil so the price of oil stays up. Low flow means high prices at the pump. Constant chaos leading to deadlocks and more chaos and deadlocks . . .

[pahpah25]

read'confessions of an economic 'hit-man'.­...and yu will get a good perspective on the BUSH admin. foriegn policy....­.any country that has resources, oil , minerals etc. the US wants will be kept in contant turmoil as the ;vultures; pick these countries clean.the US is not biulding a FORTRESS EMABSSEY in iraq to 'help' the iraqi people..th­e purpose of this FORTRESS is to provide cover for western oil companies as they plunder the country of its oil....

[Lelu]

This is why I wish some of the rich people who are so passionate about the environment would stick their heads out of their....s­heltered environments long enough to see that they need to make "going green" and getting off gas as accessible to us average folk as possible. Start buying hybrids or Vestas or whatever and give them away rather than big prizes to environmental scientists who are already working on the problems (and already have the financial incentive). Build really AFFORDABLE green housing, etc. For some of us in the "middle class" who really care about fixing this mess it's just not that easy...we have to wait however many years to buy a used hybrid or just do the little things we can rather than installing new insulation or windows. Sorry, a little off-topic but I very rarely hear this side of it. Being green is practically a luxury.

[cam]

Yes, it was about the oil, but invading Iraq was a massive blunder. The logic that keeps us engaged in Iraq is the kind of rearguard reasoning that justifies consequences by invoking motives.

Perhaps there was a time when America enjoyed enough credibility to pull it off. Only opportunistic leadership would have attempted the coup, but this leadership was too inept and naive to succeed.

Our leaders have bee desperately afraid of the political consequences of their failure since late 2004. They have pretty much given up on the oil. They are now just trying to stabilize Iraq.

In short, it is no longer about the oil, it is now all about avoiding the consequences.

(BTW The best path to oil is not by attempting to seize it but by making yourself the preferred customer by virtue of perceived economic and social advantage ... another squandered opportunity?)

[hawkseye]

I don't see that there are serious attempts to stabilize Iraq or recognition that it was a mistake. There are lots of political statements about how to fix the problem. It's a problem BushCo wants, however.
The price of oil has been going up since Bush took office, so, from Big Oil's standpoint, Bush is a big success.
They didn't want to seize the oil, they wanted to have an impact on its price.

[therealredstateblues]

There were also a fair number of comments on economic fairness, fair trade, and social justice as well as health care, yet none of these issues were brought up either or if they were were at all - just passing mentions.

But of course we already know that Nancy stands with the DLC on these issues.

I contend that economic issues are just as big if not bigger than the war or impeachment

[Baystateboy]

It's sad America is in diseray the Democrats are pussies the Republicans are liars, hipocrits there will be no resolve in nothing everything the dems push Bush vetos America wants the war to end and yet we are still there and will continue to be there because this country is filled with retarted Religous right who will vote for anyone who is against gays and abortion even though the right keeps comming out the closet well on accident but we know a bunch of them are gay and they run on family values its appalling all these poor southerners vote for rich idiots like bush who isn't even well spoken never mind intelligent
I'm sure Gulliani will be the next president because the south wont vote for a woman the republicans have had more scandals in the last 7 years than any administration previous this county is so divided most of the country likes the title conservative better than liberal and thats what America has created we have to live with it

[flatus]

A cleansing douche of dual impeachment is required if we are to show the world who we really are.

[Lelu]

We are really two completely different countries.

[rixhex56]

Arianna,

It seems that YOUR constituency is fairly upset with you --- rightfully so, I think. Had you not asked for input, then there would be no issue. But since you asked for input, got plenty of it, and then ignored the single overwhelmingly most important question your constituency wanted asked and answered, the ire of your readers is justified.

You have "justified" your action by saying, "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." Interestingly, as long as Bush remains in office, ending this war will not occur. That should be abundantly clear to anyone with at least half a brain.

We currently have a congress that focuses instead on passing "non-binding" resolutions (what's the point?), resolutions denouncing MoveOn ads in the paper (what's the point?), and proclaiming genocides that took place almost 100 years ago. Does that sound like this congress has a problem finding additional "resources of time, energy, and outrage [...]"?

Let's see, now, what's more important? Defending our constitution, by voting on articles of impeachment, against the criminals that are currently destroying it or doing what they have done up to this point???

[abluevoice]

I couldn't agree more. The quickest way to end the war is to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors, before and during the war. If we get them out of office, only then will the country move forward. This is a lame excuse from Arianna. It's just like all the Demos that say "the people don't want impeachment, they want us to move forward". That's like saying we are not going to prosecute a murderer because what's done is done!

[DHeil]

Well said, and well framed rixhex56. Desperate times, as they say, call for desperate measures. Not illegal measures, but tough, no nonsense measures from those who supposedly serve us.

Pelosi and Reid either need to stand as patriots against these criminals in office, or themselves leave office.

A government of rich, white people does not = government of, by and for the people. Time to get busy people.

[Dejack]

Arianna owes the bloggers of this site an explanation of why she baited and used us -- then refused to place our #1 question about impeachment before Pelosi.

Now let's see if this comment gets posted.

[DoctorNews]

Arianna, I'm a huge fan of yours, but for the first time in years I couldn't disagree with you more.

As others have, I would urge you to watch the Bill Moyers/Bruce Fein/John Nichols clips on YouTube.

Iraq is but a symptom. I take hope that more and more people are seeing this, and that they agree that impeachment is the only remedy for restoring faith in our democracy and the idea of America, here and around the world. It's also the only way to end the war on any sane timetable. Taking impeachment off the table is a renunciation of our responsibilities and tantamount to being, I'll say it, the Good Germans Frank Rich and others are challenging us not to be.

What's cool about this kerfuffle is that you have started a thread that may ultimately have more impact than if you had popped the question to Pelosi.

[demsrnuts]

Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on two major issues this week, repeating a pattern of alternating agreement and disagreement between the two influential Democrats.

Murtha renewed his call for a surtax to fund the Iraq War, an idea Pelosi has shot down, and he cautioned against bringing up legislation to condemn the Armenian genocide, a measure Pelosi supports.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appeared to acquiesce to one of Murtha's demands, indicating that the vote on the Armenian bill was now in doubt. Many others besides Murtha lobbied her to abandon or postpone the vote. The Turkish government, a key Muslim ally of the United States, was vehemently opposed, as was the Bush administration, which feared losing Turkey's support in military operations in the region.

Despite being rebuffed by Pelosi on the war surtax earlier, Murtha and Reps. Dave Obey (Wis.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) wrote their colleagues Tuesday to gather support for the idea.

[deminmo]

There is no doubt that impeachment will take a
lot of time away from ending the Iraq war. And
if there is a chance that will happen, then it
might be worth it. However, I do not trust the
Presidents judgement when it comes to when
there is enough of a threat to use military
action. He seems to be focused on Iran and nothing is likely to stop it, even a warning
by Putin. I still want to know if he does go
into Iran will impeachment be on the table if
he does so without Congressional approval. And
even if he does come to Congress to make a case
is it in the best interest of America to go
into another war, and one that is very likely
to escalate rapidly?

[syllepsis]

The answer to that last question is self-evident.
So, how do you like the idea of a draft, so W can play Tamburlaine?

[cam]

Impeachment isn't a zero-sum game (what you gain on one front isn't lost on another). In fact, impeachment is probably the most expeditious way out of Iraq and towards reclaiming the Democracy that once held the world's respect.

[unique]

DICK CHENY NEEDS TO TAKE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ON A HUNTING TRIP.

[WorkingClass]

The constitution REQUIRES Nancy to impeach. She does not have the power to not impeach. And so it becomes Nancy who must be impeached. Saying she has better things to do will not suffice.

[kristin]

"The Constitution is the country. Without it being followed by our elected representatives, it is meaningless. Both the Congress and the President have sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is the duty of Congress to impeach the President and the Vice President when their actions threaten the legitimacy of the Constitution. All else, including the war in Iraq, is secondary. For without our Constitution, we are just a bunch of lawless corporatists. Congress must impeach to save the Constitution. Congress must impeach to save the country.

"When Constitutional law has been restored, and when Congress no longer yields its ability to declare war to the President, then we can begin to address getting out of Iraq. This Congress is too weak to even stop the funding for the war. This Congress is ineffective in any progress for getting out of the war. Starting impeachment means that the investigations will begin. Congress needs to focus all of its energy on impeachment, followed by the investigations that will lead to the trial in the Senate of the President and Vice President. The alternative is a further weakening of the Constitution, and ultimately, the demise of our rule of law." (quoted from a comment earlier)

This is the whole truth in a nutshell. This is also the truth that House Speaker Pelosi, almost all of both Houses of Congress, and, I'm disappointed to say, our own Arianna refuse to admit--apparently for reasons only they know concerning why they fear to act on impeachment-- which means they fear to hold a trial. It is disinformation that the impeachment process would take too long. Who is promoting widespread dissemination of that disinformation? And why?

[heteromeles]

Thank you, WorkingClass! My sentiments exactly!

Ms Huffington,

The problem with "getting the troops out" is if the President saw the light and immediately started pulling the troops out tomorrow, they wouldn't all be gone by the time he leaves office. This is a pure logistics problem that no amount of Congressional politicking can fix.

That said, we have an executive branch that has claimed imperial power, and it has shown immediately why checks and balances work better than an unfettered executive branch. Power doesn't make you smarter, just less ethical more greedy. The cure for royalism is impeachment. It says so, in the Constitution, repeatedly. In the same document, it makes no mention whatsoever of party loyalty, or even of political parties.

We are currently a country where the leaders think they are above the law, and they need to be reined in, hard and fast. Personally, I don't particularly care whether Dick n' Bush are forced out of office, so long as they are forced, every day, to follow the law in all regards. For those two, that might be a worse punishment.

The other, chilling problem is that no US President has ever voluntarily relinquished a power that his (or her) predecessors grabbed. Right now, the President is an elected king, and I suspect that's why the candidates are fighting so hard for the spot. And I have no desire to live under King Rudy, Queen Hillary, or King Fred. This is a democracy, and the president needs to follow the constitution, period.

WorkingClass is right. Speaker Pelosi is not doing her constitutionally mandated job, and while I have supported her in the past, if she will not do it, someone else should be elected in her place.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

I love California and its people....­I hope that enough of them (reading this blog) will send Madame Speaker back to her humble hillside hacienda as soon as they can....she is a textbook example of the "Peter Principle.­"
BMA/Texas

[Tinuviel]

I think the Constitution is a pretty dam important principle and if Congress can't do more than one thing at a time they need to get out of the way and let someone else do the job they are supposed to be doing.

[Oriana]

it appears that I have been censored three times. If this is true and you are not going to post my comments, you are more than pathetic guarding
Ms. Huffington's ego, you are dangerous.
How long do you think that you can keep pretending to be defenders of free speech when you censor
your own readers?
The emperess has no clothes!!

[Lemeritus]

Oriana, calm down, sweetie! As I write, there are fifteen comments pending... be patient. I'm still mourning the loss of my best thoughts on conspiracy theories -- who knows where they went? Was it a conspiracy?

The empress has clothes (damn fine clothes, I might add) and your thoughts will show up sooner or later.

[dobberdoss]

Gutless arent they!, so much for free speech, yet they will have a go at AT & T for censoring Pearl Jam!

Go figure?