"I've always said that impeachment is off the table," I think I can say that most Americans are saying, well put it back on the table. That's what we voted for and made it possible for her to become the House Leader.
She started by saying this is the President, the Vice President and now the Republican Congress war. She blamed the Senate as being closely divided and claimed she did not have the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding.
What then is her role as House leader? What exactly can she do about said war? Yes, it is true that the Senate can be stopped because of 60 votes needed to over ride the President. The House, may I remind the Congresswoman, has the majority and can set which bills will go to the Senate for a vote or vice versa.
She stated, the House could simply cut off funding for the war. "I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogatives as well."
The president vetoed a bill that called for troop redeployment earlier this year, and Pelosi blamed Republicans in the Senate for blocking any bills that attempted to change course in Iraq, such as a recent measure that would have guaranteed troops as much time out at home as they spent at war. It failed to receive a necessary 60 votes to move out of the Senate. So yes, she does have a point, but to not even try and blame it on not haveing the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding or anything else the Senate oppose is just not trying and giving up the fight. I'm sure that's not what Americans sent her there to do.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team has charged a band of mostly centrist members with recommending a House Iraq strategy, pushing for the lower chamber to be the source of bipartisan action on the war. Shouldn't that have been done after she saw this President veto the bill to withdraw troops from Iraq?
We know that it is hard to get any bill pass the Senate, because we the voters failed to place more Democrats in that branch of government to do the people will. We have left enough Republicans in the Senate who are going to anything and everything they can to keep their President policies on Iraq alive.
What is it that Rep. Nancy Pelosi can do to archive the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?
What can she do to start a honest impeachment of the President that will pass the Senate?
She started by saying this is the President, the Vice President and now the Republican Congress war. She blamed the Senate as being closely divided and claimed she did not have the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding.
What then is her role as House leader? What exactly can she do about said war? Yes, it is true that the Senate can be stopped because of 60 votes needed to over ride the President. The House, may I remind the Congresswoman, has the majority and can set which bills will go to the Senate for a vote or vice versa.
She stated, the House could simply cut off funding for the war. "I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogatives as well."
The president vetoed a bill that called for troop redeployment earlier this year, and Pelosi blamed Republicans in the Senate for blocking any bills that attempted to change course in Iraq, such as a recent measure that would have guaranteed troops as much time out at home as they spent at war. It failed to receive a necessary 60 votes to move out of the Senate. So yes, she does have a point, but to not even try and blame it on not haveing the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding or anything else the Senate oppose is just not trying and giving up the fight. I'm sure that's not what Americans sent her there to do.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team has charged a band of mostly centrist members with recommending a House Iraq strategy, pushing for the lower chamber to be the source of bipartisan action on the war. Shouldn't that have been done after she saw this President veto the bill to withdraw troops from Iraq?
We know that it is hard to get any bill pass the Senate, because we the voters failed to place more Democrats in that branch of government to do the people will. We have left enough Republicans in the Senate who are going to anything and everything they can to keep their President policies on Iraq alive.
What is it that Rep. Nancy Pelosi can do to archive the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?
What can she do to start a honest impeachment of the President that will pass the Senate?
13 comments:
What is it that Rep. Nancy Pelosi can do to archive the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?
What can she do to start a honest impeachment of the President that will pass the Senate?
She can step down from her position and let someone who wants to do the job the American people hired her for.
That aside, I feel like things are starting to happen in a positive direction for Dems.
She's a phony along with the rest of the DLC, Blue Dog, Yellow Dog, and Bush Dog Democrats. They have no interest in ending the occupation of Iraq. Too much pork being brought home to their districts. Too many jobs being created in the defense sector in their districts that they can brag about to get re-elected.
It's funny. Republicans can filibuster and block nearly all legislation they choose to.
How come Democrats can't? They can. They can fucking filibuster every dman Iraq spending bill from here to eternity and force an end to the occupation but they won't do it.
It's funny how when Democrats threatened to filibuster the Republicans threatened them with the nuclear option. Now that the tables are turned, Democrats are just happy to take in the ass rather than do anything.
They won't dare filibuster. And why not? Republicans sure will.
Makes no sense to me.
My only conclusion is that most of our democratic leadership is on the take in one form or another. Either money coming into their districts or campaign contributions coming in from the military industrial complex. It's not in their interest to end the occupation of Iraq.
Hi Mary Ellen, I think maybe stepping down would be a better choice than not. That's if she really has no desire to impeach this President.
Well put PoliShifter, it makes no sense to me as well. I just can't seem to understand just what the Democrats are waiting for.
At this point all I can come up with is "whatever"... I am having a little bit o' Dem-fatigue and Nancy-fatigue.
she can start by educating her staff and others ALL the house on what their responsibilities are regarding the constitution. She can elevate the issue beyond Partisianship..it does transcend it. She needs to get to the root of the matter. And remind people that Impeachment is the medicine for the Constitutional crisis,NOT the crisis itself. She needs to do her job. The people do not want a dem. in office with the current over reaches in place..just my .5 cents.
FranIAm. I can surely understand that.
proudprogressive, that was very well said. Thanks!
Call me ignorant, but I have no idea why the Democrats can't or won't just cut off funding for Iraqmire. The funding has to be approved; the majority party has the power to not approve it.
All they need now is a spine transplant.
Impeachment, arrest, and a life sentence. For most of them. That would be the rational way to go. Why aren't they doing that?? Makes me crazy too.
This whole thing makes Watergate look like a day in the park, and yet they do nothing about it.
You make a very good point Chandira.
Pelosi needs to step aside and give the job to someone who cares about what's really happening.
Yes she does Lizzy, more so now because of the stories about Bush and Saddam.
What's Pelosi's plan to keep her removal as Speaker off the table?
Post a Comment