Pelosi Claims Republicans Want Impeachment

[davidswanson]

Almost every time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explains why she won't impeach Bush or Cheney she says that the Republicans want impeachment and that therefore she must oppose it.

She originally took impeachment "off the table" in response to a May 2006 Republican National Committee announcement that (contrary to all existing evidence) talk of impeachment would benefit Republicans in the November 2006 elections. (In fact polls showed a majority believing that electing Democrats would mean impeachment, and we elected 30 new Democrats and not a single new Republican.)

Pelosi made the same claim in this week's Time Magazine:

"I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda."

She also made the same claim in this week's Nation Magazine:

"You know who wanted us to impeach the President...it was the Republicans."

Over and over again she argues that the Republicans want impeachment.

Turns out the speaker hasn't checked her facts. I just phoned the RNC to ask whether they support impeachment, and they told me they definitely do not. Here's the audio. Do you suppose that if Pelosi finds out about this she'll put impeachment back in our Constitution?

[global1]

1. Come On - Even Though I Don't Agree With Pelosi's Stance On Impeachment.....

I know what she meant that the Repugs were for impeachment. Not because they want * out of office - but because they can use it against the Dems saying that the Dems are looking for revenge for the Clinton impeachment and they are not focusing on those issues that are important to the American people - like the economy, jobs, health care, education, etc.

I think you know that that's what she meant. Don't you?

[texastoast]

2. I'd have to see the entire context of her comments

and I wish she would impeach little chimpy and cheney for lying and killing.

[LynneSin]

3. I have to say she has a point about the Republicans

Seriously, the squawk boxes like Faux News would spin the impeachment so out of context and so in the favor of republicans that it could really shoot us in the foot.

For the average voter (aka one that isn't a internet policital junkie like I know I am) they are more concerned about the rising costs of everything. MSM would spin the impeachment to the point that these average voters will start believing that congress cares very little about dealing with the ecomony and this could really shoot us in the foot when it comes to getting Obama in the White House.

Our hope is that we can do something retroactive after Bush is out of the White House. I don't believe that investigations should cease simply because one is no longer in office.

[JDPriestly]

4. If you listen to Lungren's questioning at the hearing on Friday

July 25, 2008 about the abuses of power by the president, you will understand why, in spite of the wisdom of your analysis, this president must be impeached. That is because in the future, when Republican or other tyrannical individuals who take over our government (remember Bush was appointed in 2000, not elected) abuse the power of the president, they will be able to point to Bush's tenure in office and say: "See, the Congress decided it was OK for him to do this. Why is it suddenly not OK?"

By not impeaching, Pelosi is ratifying, approving of the president's crimes and violations of the Constitution (FISA, refusal to respond to Congressional subpoenas, Guantanamo) and setting a precedent for future presidents. Democrats are now complicit in the unlawful expansion of the powers of the president. By not acting, Democrats are also violating the Constitution. They are frittering away our democratic form of government to deal with transitory economic issues. In so doing, they are cursing future Americans.

[mmonk]

7. Thanks for your rational post.

[EFerrari]

9. Maybe that case could have been made in 2005, even in 2006.

But we're having an epic meltdown and people are even more furious with government. Bush has the lowest ratings since there have been ratings, right? If we can't impeach HIM, we should just go home. imho.

And nothing will be done about Bush when he's out of office. Nada or at least, not by our government. We know that already.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. "don't throw me in the briar patch" sometimes means they don't want to be thrown in the briar patch.

[EFerrari]

12. But when they say it FROM the briar patch, they look callow.

Did you know that they are establishing a "fusion center" in Denver to deal with possible protests? So it won't just be local law enforcement. It will be them and the intelligence apparatus of our government. And no one is saying "boo" about it.

People are still being tortured at Gitmo and God only knows where else. In off shore black sites. Torture corrupts societies. It's never contained the way people believe it will be. There is a thread around here about the TX high school that wants to punish students by putting them in prison jump suits, did you see that?

And how many people will die in Iraq between now and January? Or be maimed in body or soul?

How many more giveaways will Bush pull off before he sails into obscurity? What else can he destroy that President Obama will have to put back together -- and likely, blamed for it into the bargain?

Iran. Iran. Iran.

This sure looks like a big fat briar patch to me.

When Pelosi says we need evidence of a crime, she sounds like she's covering her own complicity to me any more. When she says the Republicans want us to impeach (so they can exploit it), she sounds like a party hack who is out of touch with the lives of most Americans and with the damage visited on them by the Bush mafia. When she says we can impeach at the polls, even she must know she is lying.

The damage that has been done to our nation and to our way of life is very real. It will not be fixed by one or even two federal elections. It will only be repaired by grown ups who set about doing difficult work and who do it because they have an ounce of honesty and because they care about their children or about our children, not because they play grandmothers on teevee.

We make fun of Bush for being impaired but the leadership in both houses and the members of those intelligence committees, who over and over and over just went along with criminality, are just as culpable and just as oblivious in their own way to the consequences of their dereliction. Maybe because it's not their kids being blown to bits all over Iraq or, it's not their brothers being tortured for years, or it's not their home being foreclosed or their parents that can't afford health care.

When Pelosi or even most of them talk about "most Americans", they sound ridiculous to me. Maybe they really aren't in the briar patch. Maybe only we are and maybe that's why someone like Nancy Pelosi can be so cavalier with our welfare that even her excuses sound hollow and even, disconnected from reality.

[spanone]

6. she's dumber than i gave her credit for

[Javaman]

8. if pelosi could define for me the progressive agenda other than capitulating to the repukes

I would be simply amazed.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Clever, very clever

Pelosi smart like streetcar.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

11. The Repubichairs don't want impeachment!

They know that it would totally weaken their party, so they're trying to bluff the Dems into feeling that way.