posted by TheDon
The Nation is reporting on a breakfast with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and it’s not pretty.
If she were not in the House--and not Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi says she "would probably advocate" impeaching President Bush. But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.
"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."
And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.
She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. "I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that." She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.
ITMFA! The Dems won't do it because they're up to their elbows in the blood of Iraq. Why else would they continue to support president Frat Boy. After all are their sons and daughters over there doing the grunt work? All the lies we've been fed since 2000' and there is no grounds for impeachment. Remember the, it's time for healing, President that was elected in 2000. It's the same guy that went on one of the biggest pushes of partisan politics. And Pussilosi is worried about dividing the country?
ReplyDeleteWoo-Hoo!
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that Clinton actually committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". Clinton committed perjury, to be exact. Not only was he impeached for it, he lost his license to practice law for it. Bush, on the other hand, has committed no such offense.
ReplyDeleteAnd before you use the left-wing talking point about Bush's "lies" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its programs to produce them, let's hear from President Clinton himself; "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Or how about Secretary of State for Clinton, Madeline Albright; "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
If you assert that Bush and his administration are liars, then you have to agree that Clinton and HIS administration were liars as well.
kirtiray,
ReplyDeleteClinton was impeached, but acquitted. That means that he didn’t commit "high crimes and misdemeanors". I know Sean and Rush don’t explain it that way, but you can look it up. Bush’s trial may end up differently, or it may not.
Also, since you asked, Clinton and his administration were liars. Soooooo….. what?
The facts are pretty simple. Our own intelligence agencies had no solid evidence that Saddam had WMD. We sent in UN inspectors who were able to find no evidence of WMD, and plenty of evidence that they were destroyed long ago. As the evidence mounted, and the case for war crumbled, Bush ordered the inspectors out and started a war.
Also, the lies about aluminum tubes were all on the Bushies. Same for the “meeting” with Muhammed Atta. Same with the lies about mobile labs and unmanned vehicles. Same with the yellowcake from Africa. These manufactured excuses were all known to be false, but were trumpeted by an administration eager to go to war, and had nothing to do with incomplete intelligence during the Clinton administration.
Don
Not to mention the Downing Street crapola.
ReplyDeleteEvidence, Schmevidence! We want to blow Saddam up now!
My favorite theory about why Saddam was acting like he had wmd was that he was hoping it would stop his country from exploding into civil war.
ReplyDelete