If Pelosi had been a speech writer for Great People throughout History

[truedelphi]

Patrick Henry: Give me liberty, or at least keep it off the table!!

Thomas Jefferson: Although our enemies have found we can reason like men, let us show them we remain cowards.


Winston Churchill: I will not offer any blood, toil, tears, and sweat but instead, I demand that Great Britain immediately surrerender to the valiant Germans. For whom among us can say that Mr Hitler has committed any crimes??

FDR: The only thing we have to fear is that if we take some type of serious action, the Republicans will spill their guts to the media, telling them all the criminal things they know about us Democrats.

John Kennedy: Ask not what your country can do for you, and don't ask the Speaker of the House to do anything for you, either!!

Martin Luther King: I do not have a dream.

Richard Nixon: Truly, I am a crook, but just remember this: anyone attempting to impeach me will have to give back all the hush money they have taken. So Neener, neener, neener!!

Ronald Reagan: Mr Gorbachev, Keep up this wall!!

Barack Obama: No, we can't!

[freesqueeze]

1. I don't get it...

someone please explain this one to me.

Is it just the foot dragger thing?
I wish NP would do more holding people accountable too, but I wish we could focus our angst to those on the dark side.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. He or she is trying to point out what would have happened if Nancy Pelosi

had been in charge during pivotal times in our history.

Frankly, it's a sad day when Paris Hilton is capable of coming up with more poignant observations, than our own Speaker of the House.

[freesqueeze]

14. Paris Hilton is capable of coming up with more poignant observations, than our own Speaker of the Ho

than our own Speaker of the House...

now that, I agree with

Also, I point out your term "our own". She is ours warts and all.

[The Magistrate]

2. This May, Ma'am, Be The Silliest And Most Pointless Item Posted Here Today

It is unlikely the competition will be able to match this, try as they might.

[truedelphi]

4. When your folks get home from work tonight,

Have them explain it to you!!

[The Magistrate]

8. Comedy Is Best Left To Professionals, Ma'am....

"Pre-stressed at the factory. No user-serviceable parts enclosed."

[puebloknot]

24. Sir! I used to have a boss who was just like you. He died on the job ...

... of an impacted colon!

I sincerely hope you will enjoy my attempt at comedy. It may not rise to the level of professionalism you are willing to credit, but it is at least as professional as Madame Speaker Pelosi's conduct while occupying that *very important position* she was not loathe to point to on The View recently.

Comedy, My Dear Sir, is best partaken of at every possible opportunity. That some of us here at DU may be a part of the Great Unwashed does not mean that we can't enjoy a good guffaw now and again.

Come on, Yer Onner, get a life!

[H2O Man]

11. Respectfully disagree.

A significant segment of the progressive and liberal democratic community is very disappointed in some of Speaker Pelosi's behaviors. I have spoken to a top aide of a liberal democratic Congressman at length about issues of impeachment, and have been told that Speaker Pelosi has discouraged efforts to even have the House make serious investigations into possible crimes and abuses of the power of office by administration officials.

Many progressive and liberal democrats share Vincent Bugliosi's view that Bush, Cheney and Rice committed a crime in bringing the nation to war in Iraq. Others may believe different, but I dare say that we are on solid ground when we look to Mr. Bugliosi's new book as a serious source of information. And, both in the book and in numerous public presentations, Mr. Bugliosi has said that the Congress has betrayed the country, by refusing to take any step that could hold the administration responsible.

The OP makes an attempt to express the frustration in a humorous way, by expanding the refusal to take a stance to other historic contexts. Just as one can sincerely hold a variety of views on issues such as impeachment, or Mr. Bugliosi's position, people have different senses of humor. I am far more in favor of humor -- even if it offends some people -- than hopelessness or helplessness. By no coincidence, both hopeless and helpless are how many people view Speaker Pelosi in terms of her refusal to deal with serious Constitutional issues regarding this administration.

I think the OP has a valid point.

[The Magistrate]

12. Mr. Bugliosi Is A Treat To Listen To, Sir

My personal feelings are pretty similar to his on the question. It sounds as if he has rather stretched things for a murder indictment, but it is beyond serious argument that grave breaches of the Geneva Accords, which have been criminalized domestically under Federal law, have been committed by the leading figures of the administration. It was a mistake not to set up and commence impeachment proceedings in the fall of '07.

But the reasons offered for this error having been made in the extraordinarily poor effort above are not worth serious discussion. Speaker Pelosi displayed poor judgement, but this has nothing to do with phantasms of Democratic 'complicity in war crimes' or blackmail or moral turpitude of any sort. The basic calculation was that we Democrats gained great political mileage out of Bush as things stood and stand, and that a generally favorable situation should not be put to the hazards of extreme combat, the outcome of which can never be certain. That is a decision that, even while disagreeing with it myself, seems respectable enough to me as the product of a conventional strategic outlook. It is easier to advocate radical measures when one bears no responsibility for their outcome.

As a practical fact, there is no certainty a Bill of Impeachment would have passed the House, and the spectacle of its failure would have strengthened the administration had that occurred. It is certain that had such a Bill been passed, the Senate would not have convicted, so it is mere nonesense to pretend Speaker Pelosi or any other Democratic leader is 'supporting the continuation in office of Bush' by refraining from pressing for a Bill of Impeachment. The benefit of the course we would both have prefered would have been not removal from office, but press focus on the charges in a circus atmosphere certain to draw the attention of a much wider audience than political spectacle generally gains, and forcing every Republican, Senator, Representative, and spokesperson, into direct defense of, and hence clear identification with, Bush. The danger of the course is that the enemy might have out-played us in the media cut and thrust, and succeeded in rousing sympathy and support for Bush, and a feeling the effort was merely 'partisan games' among the people.

"The utterance of a threat is always more effective than its execution."

[H2O Man]

15. One of my favorite things

in Mr. Bugliosi's book (which he usually includes in his presentations) is when he talks about the level of fear in this country. "Fear" makes many other negative forces, such as hatred, possible if not probable; at the same time, fear handcuffs people. I think that the members of Congress are, in large part, afraid of attempting impeachment.

But back to Mr. Bugliosi: he notes that former Governor Mario Cuomo has said that he respects Rush LimLimbaugh. He attributes this to the level of intimidation in our society. ("if I may be so presumptuous, Mario Cuomo does not respect Rush Limbaugh. How could that even be possible? pages 7-8) I suspect that Speaker Pelosi's feelings about George W. Bush are similar to Mario Cuomo's feelings about Limbaugh.

Mr. Bugliosi's grasp of criminal law is second to none. I say that based upon his winning 105 of 106 felony jury trials, including being 21 for 21 in murder cases. I am not aware of those he has convicted having had successful appeals due to errors by the prosecution. The book details the exact laws that Bush can (and should) be prosecuted under.

[The Magistrate]

17. Fear May Play A Role, Sir

But in conflict, it is wise to, at the very least, have a clear-eyed assessment of the foe's capabilities going in. The enemy in this instance has demonstrated great capability at manipulating and shaping to its favor public opinion at points of political crisis. It would be foolish to disregard this in deciding to pitch a particular fight. As a general rule, a favorable position is not to be put at risk for a potentially more favorable one if simply continuing the present situation can suffice to gain the objective, which for the Party's leadership will be gaining increased majorities, and gaining control of the Executive branch, in the up-coming election.

[H2O Man]

19. There are always

"upcoming elections." Every two years. So, unless that would be reason to never investigate, much less impeach, then it has to be something more. It isn't that there is a history of attempts to impeach harming the party in power in the next election cycle -- for as John Nichols has documented in his book "The Genius of Impeachment," the opposite is true.

In regard to the administration's ability to shape issues for public consumption, I certainly agree. That ability has been enhanced, unfortunately, by the weak Congress. And when someone like Biden attempted to slow the Bush-Cheney march to war, his effort was undercut by the political ambition of Dick Gephardt (see: Hubris; Corn & Isikoff; pages 27-28). I think this is the type of thing that causes many good democrats to have a degree of contempt for many elected democrats in Washington, DC.

[The Magistrate]

22. We Would Seem, Sir

To be getting a bit beyond my own rather limited point, which is that disagreement over the adviseability of pressing for Impeachment hardly licenses the extremities of criticism that are sometimes levied because of it. In my view, Speaker Pelosi has made a poor strategic calculation, but that is all. She is, on that account, hardly turned into some fiend arisen from the depths of Hell, striving mightily against Democracy and the people's rule, in league with the administration, and even more culpable for its crimes than those who actually committed them.

In modern history, we have only one signifigant impeachment to go on, and that one certainly did do harm to the party that pressed it. In my view conditions were quite different: President Clinton was popular, Bush is not; the public correctly perceived the purely partisan nature of the trumped up 'scandal' upon which President Clinton was impeached, and might well show similar wisdom in perceiving that an impeachment of Bush was based on real and serious wrong-doing, not mere partisan ire. But people can be forgiven for simply examining the end result, and expecting things would go the same way a second time.

[Senator]

16. What is not a treat to listen to...

... is this euphemized rationalization of (in)actions far worse than those of the administration/regime.

Yes, worse. Simply put -- while it may be bad to have a few criminals at large in your town, it is far worse to have a corrupt police force.

The fact of the matter is that those same Geneva Accords -- that thousands of Americans fought and died to forge -- require that ALL gov't officials report, act to stop, and then prosecute known torture/war crimes. There are no exceptions for "gain(ing) great political mileage." And it has everything to do with complicity/approval/exoneration of war crimes.

The phantasm here is that impeachment has anything to do with bushcheney themselves or "outcomes." It has to do with satisfying the oath of office and our treaty obligations. It has to do with voicing objection, in the name of the American People, for that which they never gave their proper consent.

I'm sure this "product of a conventional strateg(er)ic outlook" is quite stylish in some quarters. But I'd like to see its advocates try to explain their actions to the families of the detainees. Or the family of the last soldier to die in Iraq.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

--
(And FWIW, it's also the strategery that's keeping the election in a dead heat, in the worst-for-repubs political environment in generations.)

--

[The Magistrate]

20. Hyperbole Helps Nothing And No One, Sir

The actual committing of a crime is worse than any attendant 'inaction', always. The metaphor you attempt carries no weight, as a 'corrupt' police force commits crimes, and so is not engaged in 'inaction' but in fact is actively engaged in criminal behavior of its own. The Geneva Accords do not require the Legislature to impeach, nor make them criminally culpable if they fail to do so. The laws that have been broken have been broken by the Executive, and at several levels within that branch, and by no one else. Attempts to spread out responsibility only play into the hands of the criminals in question, who can actually be found only, and exclusively, within the Executive branch of our government.

For the rest, all fighting is about outcomes, and it is by the outcome that all fighting is judged to be victory or defeat. Fighting is not about 'sending a message' or any such nonesense. Fighting is about imposing one's own will over opposition to it; anything started without that in mind, and a clear idea of both what one wants to achieve, and what can be achieved with the force available against the opposition to be expected, is mere noise and posturing, that will not be taken seriously, and does not deserve to be taken seriously.

[truedelphi]

23. You say:

"For the rest, all fighting is about outcomes, and it is by the outcome that all fighting is judged to be victory or defeat."

Even using this line of logic, which as an idealist I often do not use, the fact remains:

The Democrats in office shirk their duty on a daily basis. Not only in regards to whether they put impeachment of Cheney/Bush forward, but every time that they wag a finger at Rove rather than calling in the Sergeant at Arms and having him arrested for his failure to comply with the Congressional issued subpoena.

[Senator]

29. Hyperbole can often help. But I've not used any.

In fact, your claims about the limitations of the Geneva Accords are the exercise in hyperbole. They require action on the part of all gov't officials. Only a trial can determine what types of willful inaction constituted aiding and abetting the ongoing torture and war crimes.

But at least you see that failure to enforce/uphold the law (in this case through impeachment) is "criminal behavior of its own."

For the rest, all political fighting is "sending a message." Just as failure to fight is "sending a message" (one of tacit approval/exoneration). Even your limited view that "imposing one's own will" is the only purpose for action -- as opposed to seeking agreement, or persuading others to fight too -- is "sending a message" that there is no principle on which you're willing to stand, unless it achieves your desired "outcome."

Sadly, our current "outcome" is lack of even objection to the war crimes committed in our name. Some of us think that changing this is the only thing that can be "taken seriously."

Your mileage may vary.

---

[dbt]

3. This may be the sharpest and most pointed item posted here today.

K & R

[bobbolink]

5. Send this quotation from RFK to Pelosi!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3739436

[truedelphi]

7. I will attempt to pass it on to Cindy or Shirley

But I cannot deal with any of Di Feinstein's puppets!!

And I did think of making fun of something RFK had said, and just couldn't bring myself to do it. Many of his quotes are far less well known than his brothers or MLK's, and so my spoofing the quote would not be offset by any great existing admiration for the quote.

What a wonderful man. And a brilliant scholar.

[bobbolink]

9. ?????

And I did think of making fun of something RFK had said,

I am confused... are you saying *I* made fun of RFK's quote?????

[truedelphi]

10. Sorry if I wasn't clear. PLEASE, I didn't say that you made fun of RFK

I was explaining my reasons for not using any of his speeches for my satire.

[ihavenobias]

13. K & R, nothing wrong with poking fun at our leaders, especially when they fail miserably

[Greyhound]

18. ROTFLMAO, K & R

:kick: & R

[Marr]

21. 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what the country can do for my party.'

I'd adjust your Kennedy quote. :)

[puebloknot]

25. Great! Here's another one. George Bush: "Is our children impeachin'?" nt

[John Q. Citizen]

26. MLK- I have a dream,-but until the next 2 congressional elections nothing can be done, because

people opposed to racism hold such a thin majority. In the mean time, send me money and please quit complaining about your right to vote.

[truedelphi]

31. If anyone should have ever given up, due to the odds against him

It was King.

Not only were people being killed, their homes torched, the church basements bombed, but his ideals included non-violence based on Ghandi's surreal and deeply spiritual prinicples.

At one point, even King's closest inner circle of other Black ministers abandonned the idealistic notions that he held. They advised, as Pelosi has done, that the time is not upon us, wait until the climate is better for change, etc.

Naturally he was disenheartened.

So he retreated into himself for a very brief while, then he turned to the high school kids and the college kids. Using them to buoy up his spirits, he re-approached the problem of de-segregation.

And ended up inadvertently giving his life to the cause.

But his cause succeeded.

[cascadiance]

27. Pelosi: We can't sue OJ. The jury found no crime was committed...

Oh wait, Pelosi probably wouldn't let OJ be charged...

And then Bush will laugh later and say something like. "Madame Speaker has the good sense not to be runnin' round misimpeachin' folk!"

[riverdale]

28. This is fun

Those that give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve our support.
- Benjamin Franklin

[truedelphi]

30. LOL!! n/t

[TexasObserver]

32. "Damn the torpedoes! Let's go back home!"