Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment

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."

Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. 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.

In the first question of the morning, Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said. Today the entails finalizing ethics and lobbying reform. Tomorrow it will mean expanding children's health care and boosting Medicare benefits. By the end of the week the House will likely pass an energy bill and legislation will be brought to the floor that reins in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Pelosi's no fan of Gonzales or his bosses. "The Administration wants the Attorney General to sign off on what can be collected," she says of the wiretapping proposal. "Absolutely not."

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.

But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House. [UPDATE: Pelosi's staff notes she only said that she opposes impeaching Gonzales this week and did not comment on the larger policy. Listen to the recording for yourself at 19:30.]

"If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place."

As to whether she fears a primary challenge from pro-impeachment activist Cindy Sheehan, the topic sadly never came up.

Comments (67)

1. "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."

   But Mr Berman...as HSUBFOOLS will CLEARLY explain here shortly...

   she's just kidding!

   Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 12:10pm

2. "The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning....

   No more so than Loonies starting the `division' process beginning with the Florida election results of 2000......a continuation of the hounding of everything Bush!

   Anyone on this board believes the country is presently `united' and an impeachment "would divide the country"? An incremental amount of `division' ain't the issue.......

   Posted by Happy at 07/31/2007 @ 12:14pm

3. Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

   By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza

   Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

   Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM

   House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.....

   Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House,......

   "I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

   ........of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

   -------------------------------------------------------

   Very, very few things sadden me in politics, but success in The Surge, not a forgone conclusion by any means, can create "a real big problem" for one of the two major parties, saddens me!

   Posted by Happy at 07/31/2007 @ 12:29pm

4. This site is a pain to navigate. Too slow and too many unnecessary steps...

   As for the girl, Nancy, blah, blah, blah and blah, blah, blah.

   It is your god damned job--it is your god damned agenda, you vacant princess. If you don't do this--everything else is a joke because it assures half-measures as long as these criminals are still in the mix.

   GET ON WITH IT or the people will be getting increasingly restless.

   Posted by Lil at 07/31/2007 @ 12:31pm

5. Posted by ZERO 07/31/2007 @ 12:20pm

   SHE DOES HAVE A POINT, THOUGH...

   The Democrats just don't have the votes to impeach and the Republicans in the House simply wouldn't go along, at least not enough of them. They may make anti-Bush (or at least anti-war and anti-Gonzales) noises from time to time but they've already proved they're not there when the votes are counted. The Dems have already been made to look like chumps by Bush/Cheney for their failed attempts to end the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. I think Pelosi has probably also had enough of this chumpdom for a while.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 07/31/2007 @ 12:31pm

6. Happy, try to either stay on topic or if not, at least don't indulge in childish fantasies.

   If Petraeus reports some kind of "success", the only problem the Democrats will have is dealing with not only a CIC that lies constantly, along with an AG that does it under oath, we'll now have a lying field commander. Great!

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/31/2007 @ 12:38pm

7. There weren't the votes to get Nixon-the Republicans got the message--and the Republicans sure as hell didn't worry about going after Clinton. Please, it isn't about votes anyway, it is about doing the right thing for the country now and for the future.

   Posted by Lil at 07/31/2007 @ 12:40pm

8. P-Lo has to do SOMETHING. BushCo is so outrageously illegal, to never even let some kind of resolution come to the floor for a vote is just unconscionable. History will record that the president was out of control, but what was worse is that an opposition congress stood by and did nothing.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/31/2007 @ 12:45pm

9. GET ON WITH IT or the people will be getting increasingly restless. ----Posted by LIL 07/31/2007 @ 12:31pm

   Seriously, LIL....or "the people"...will do what? Vote out Pelosi in 2008?

   Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 12:50pm

10. There weren't the votes to get Nixon-the Republicans got the message--and the Republicans sure as hell didn't worry about going after Clinton. Please, it isn't about votes anyway, it is about doing the right thing for the country now and for the future.

    Posted by LIL 07/31/2007 @ 12:40pm

    It's also not about tearing up the country either. Karl Rove, Bush and Cheney have done a good enough job of that on their own. Congress is not doing it's job if it doesn't at least attempt to go through impeachment proceedings of Gonzo. If they can get Gonzo to talk, Cheney and Bush will fall like dominos.

    And as far as things going well in Iraq, what is it that is going well? The lack of deaths doesn't mean anything. The enemy could be re-arming, planning a different method of attack etc.

    Now Rice and Bushco plan on selling more arms to nutcase regimes in the middle east starting with Saudi Arabia? Once again, I will point out that the majority of the terrorists responsible for the only attack on the U.S. proper since WWII were mostly Suadi nationals. So, how in the hell does selling weapons to the Saudi's help the fight on terror? Remember the Saudi's are Sunni and Al Qada are Sunni!!!! Iran is mostly Shiite. SO SHIITE ARE NOT AL QADA. Sounds more like we are in middle of the war to thicken the wallets for defense contractors.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/31/2007 @ 12:52pm

11. What a bunch of manure--that the country will be torn up that the country will be divided--that the country can't survive it. If THAT were the basis of anything NOTHING would ever be accomplished. The Country wasn't all aboard for holding Nixon accountable and that was small time compared to this criminal lot. You think the Bush Neo-con junta care if their actions divide the Country? Hell no--they just call the majority a special interest group.

    BTW, wolfgang, who exactly is the enemy in Iraq?

    Posted by Lil at 07/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

12. a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House

    How could the report possibly be 'strongly positive' based on what we know NOW, just a month or so away from th report?

    The only way US casualties (one barometer of success) will be reduced is if our troops lay low, but if they are going to do that, they might as well come home!

    US presence is what is fueling the insurgency, so we don't need a report from Petraeus to tell us that!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/31/2007 @ 1:05pm

13. Pelosi's no fan of Gonzales or his bosses. "The Administration wants the Attorney General to sign off on what can be collected," she says of the wiretapping proposal. "Absolutely not."

    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."

    No one seems to have reported the fact that Pelosi may not wnt to pursue impeachment because she's vulnerable on exactly the issues she raises in the statement above.

    Immediately before the infamous visit by Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft's hospital bed, there was a meeting of the 'Gang of Eight' to discuss the re-authorization of the NSA program that was expiring; this program was the Terrorost Surveillance Program (TSP), or a facet of it (it's looking like the specific provision was the data mining program). According to Bill Frist, who was a member of the Gang of Eight, the group was told that Gonzales was going to the hospital to seek an override of Comey's decision not to re-authorize the program:

    "I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital" --Bill Frist

    Therefore, each member of the Gang of Eight knew about the TSP, and even knew in advance about the hospital visit. And who else was in the Gang of Eight? Porter Goss, Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, Jane Harman, Pat Roberts, Jay Rockefeller...

    ...and Nancy Pelosi.

    Posted by kirchh at 07/31/2007 @ 1:05pm

14. Poll after poll has shown that even in the 46 so-called bluedog congressional districts, the voters want us out of Iraq and favor impeachment of Cheney. If Pelosi is not able to rub these polls in these bluedogs faces, then we know something else or some other interests are preventing us from moving forward!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/31/2007 @ 1:08pm

15. If they can get Gonzo to talk, Cheney and Bush will fall like dominos.----Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/31/2007 @ 12:52pm

    WOLF, what are they going to threaten Gonzales with to get him "to talk"?....Impeachment?

    "Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said."

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 1:10pm

16. Hogwash. The country is more divided now than ever. None of the items on Pelosi's to-do list will get near passage with the Bush in the White House, and 49 repugs in the Senate. (The remnants of the do-nothing congress are now the don't-let-them-do-anything congress.) It could be argued that every minute congress spends trying to enact legislation the president opposes (and can effectively block) is a waste of time.

    Impeachment votes can't be counted until congress and the American people have heard the all the evidence. Its like the DA choosing not to seek an indictment, because the jury won't commit to a conviction before they take the case to trial.

    Pelosi's arguments are thin and self-serving. Politically, this is a catch-22; alienate the base or fuel the opposition. But if both choices are losers, why not just do the right thing.

    If the 111st congress achieved nothing but ending the war in Iraq and impeaching the administration it would be a historic success. But even if they pass a ton of good legislation the American people will remember them as a historic failure if they can't accomplish what the American people clearly want from them. Priorities matter. You can't just skip past what's hard to pass what's doable. No one voted for the do-anything congress.

    Posted by artboyz at 07/31/2007 @ 1:13pm

17. it is a myth that the repubs were held responsible fir the charade that was Clinton's impeachment. they did not lose their majority in congress and "won" the subsequent pres. election.

    Bush will be impeached when the repubs have had enough. never?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 1:17pm

18. If they can get Gonzo to talk, Cheney and Bush will fall like dominos.

    the only way they can get the Gonz to talk is rendition and waterboarding.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 1:19pm

19. Posted by ARTBOYZ 07/31/2007 @ 1:13pm

    ART, a question....if "None of the items on Pelosi's to-do list will get near passage with... and 49 repugs in the Senate."...

    "Impeachment votes can't be counted until congress and the American people have heard the all the evidence"...

    why will you get Bush and Cheney removed from office by those same "49 repugs", who won't pass Pelosi's agenda??!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 1:24pm

20. Yo, Nancy, how 'bout this. If you don't impeach these three SOBs then you will have the dubious honor of presiding over the House that enabled the second nuclear attack on a foreign country by the United States. You'll preside over the House that gave, by inaction, the POSTUS dictatorial power. Your 'off the table' will be read and reread by millions who will wonder 'why didn't she save the earth?'. And the answer will be 'because she didn't want to be distracted'. Vote Sheehan. We need more than a cowardly female in charge if we hope to save the world from GWB et al.

    Posted by Noodle at 07/31/2007 @ 1:26pm

21. Once again, good to see a lively thread in response to another impeachment piece. Always good to see some diverse and intelligent feedback.

    For the "SlapHappy" crowd of Bush dead enders here's some more factual information --from MotherJones.com-- to stick in your craw.

    The captain of the victorious Iraqi soccer team isn't terribly happy with the American presence in his country.

    Iraq's 1-0 victory over Saudi Arabia on a 71st-minute header by captain Younis Mahmoud was an inspirational triumph for a team whose players straddle bitter and violent ethnic divides. After the game, Mahmoud called for the United States to withdraw its troops from his nation.

    "I want America to go out," he said. "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out. I wish the American people didn't invade Iraq and, hopefully, it will be over soon."

    ........and this...........

    There's a lot of talk lately about how the Iraq troop "surge" is working and how, at long last, we may finally be close to turning a corner in the struggle to stabilize the country. I call bullshit. (So does George Packer.) Isn't this the sort of self-serving delusion that got us in there in the first place? No? Well, take a look at this report released yesterday by Oxfam International and the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), a consortium of non-governmental organizations. From the report's executive summary:

    Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, health care, education, and employment. Of the four million Iraqis who are dependent on food assistance, only 60 per cent currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 per cent in 2004.

    Forty-three per cent of Iraqis suffer from ‘absolute poverty'. According to some estimates, over half the population are now without work. Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 per cent now.

    The situation is particularly hard for families driven from their homes by violence. The two million internally displaced people (IDPs) have no incomes to rely on and are running out of coping mechanisms. In 2006, 32 per cent of IDPs had no access to PDS food rations, while 51 per cent reported receiving food rations only sometimes.

    The number of Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies has risen from 50 per cent to 70 per cent since 2003, while 80 per cent lack effective sanitation. The ‘brain drain' that Iraq is experiencing is further stretching already inadequate public services, as thousands of medical staff, teachers, water engineers, and other professionals are forced to leave the country. At the end of 2006, perhaps 40 per cent had left already.

    It's highly unlikely that any meaningful corners can be turned in Iraq until the population's basic needs are met. Yes, lack of security is the primary reason for the lag, but aren't we responsible for that, too? For those of you who missed it, NPR's "On Point" aired an interview with filmmaker Charles Ferguson, whose documentary, "No End in Sight: The Occupation of Iraq," won a special jury prize at this year's Sundance Film Festival. It opened in theaters last Friday. You may think you've heard it all before, but you haven't. Take a listen.

    So, "Heaven, Hell or Houston Happy", (RE: post of 12:29 pm) maybe you'd like to entertain us by producing your own crocodile tears video on youtube for us (ala John Boehner's recent performance Boehner weeps [youtube.com]

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/31/2007 @ 1:43pm

22. It's unfortunate but true that today in DC appearance eclipses substance and idealism is seen as a weakness. If impeachment would make Nancy etal look good, it'd happen. If idealism reared its 'ugly' head during an impeachment proceeding, the politicians behind the movement would be made to look weak - resulting in their political death.

    Unfortunate but possible that today's American voter reacts favorably to theater and unfavorably to idealism. Politicians, afterall, only do or don't do what will get them re-elected. The ball is really in our court.

    Posted by felicity at 07/31/2007 @ 1:46pm

23. Here's a link to the NPR On Point podcast of the Charles Ferguson interview:

    NPR On Point [onpointradio.org]

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/31/2007 @ 1:50pm

24. "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.

    and NOT impeaching him is bringing us together Nancy? Since impeaching and not impeaching will have the same effect on whether the country is divided, why not go with protecting the constitution Nancy?

    To be more concerned about the feelings of those who advocate lawlessness, making her culpable as well, in her refusal to act is infuriating!

    Posted by jkbriscoe at 07/31/2007 @ 1:52pm

25. There is no impeachment because there is no support for it in the land and therefore in the congress...and Pelosi and the rest of the dems want to get re elected...it is that simple, boys.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/31/2007 @ 1:54pm

26. it is a myth that the repubs were held responsible fir the charade that was Clinton's impeachment. they did not lose their majority in congress and "won" the subsequent pres. election.

    Bush will be impeached when the repubs have had enough. never?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/31/2007 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

    Exactly. The Repubs lost a few seats in the House in 1998, but they still kept their majority, and Bush was able to run on "restoring honor and integrity to the White House". Even with the lackluster campaign that Gore ran in 2000, Bush probably couldn't have won without this issue.

    Posted by green2006 at 07/31/2007 @ 1:59pm

27. Recently uninterred, Johnny "The Monster" Maasch weighs in with his massless comments.

    There is no impeachment because there is no support for it in the land and therefore in the congress...and Pelosi and the rest of the dems want to get re elected...it is that simple, boys.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2007 @ 1:54pm

    It's okay Johnny, get back into the crypt from whence ye' aroused. That's good, now sleep....sleep....sleeeep.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/31/2007 @ 2:06pm

28. "There is no impeachment because there is no support for it in the land"

    Yeah, but the country couldn't wait to string up Clinton for his indiscretions, right? The Country really rallied around that as opposed to say, war crimes.

    This is like the the "support the troops" meme. How the hell is supporting the troops sending them to kill and be killed based on lies and then, to suggest that if we don't drain the treasury to continue the criminal lie--we aren't supporting the troops?

    Posted by Lil at 07/31/2007 @ 2:12pm

29. Posted by KIRCHH 07/31/2007 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    Very good point Kirchh.

    When Nancy blows smoke of "it'll divide the country", which has been thoroughly debunked in the postings above mine.....why do the "progressive" journalists even stay in her "ornate office"?

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/31/2007 @ 2:25pm

30. Lil-Americans have,sadly,become accustomed to being lied to when it comes to wars since most have been based on lies and misinformation,but nothing riles and excites Americans more than a good sex scandal.A good sex scandal about Bush and Condi would have taken 9/11 and Osama off the front pages the day after 9/11.We Americans have our priorities and sex comes first.Unfortunately for Bush the DC madam thing isn't good enough for us.Nothing like an intern drooling a presidents DNA on her blue dress in the White House to get us going.Americans love,but pretend to be indignant about,that sort of thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/31/2007 @ 2:40pm

31. "There is no impeachment because there is no support for it in the land..."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/31/2007 @ 1:54pm

    Depending upon the poll, somewhere around half the country favors impeachment. That's as many as if not more than the percentage who were in favor of Clinton's, and the number of those in favor of Bush/Cheney's is on the rise.

    Your statement is false.

    Posted by drhammer at 07/31/2007 @ 2:53pm

32. If House Leader Pelosi has her way -- and there seems little reason to believe she won't -- no impeachment, of either Cheney or Bush or Gonzales, will allow their illegal behavior to stand as accepted precedent. Something for future presidents and their appontees to build on. Thank you, Leader Pelosi, for helping to destroy the Republic and tear up the Constituion.

    Posted by sloper at 07/31/2007 @ 3:05pm

33. Posted by DRHAMMER 07/31/2007 @ 2:53pm

    You're right, Doc. MAASCH should have said "There is no impeachment because there is no MAJORITY support for it in the land..."

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 3:32pm

34. BTW, wolfgang, who exactly is the enemy in Iraq?

    Posted by LIL 07/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

    BUSH AND CHENEY. Unfortunately their chicken butts are sitting in Washington, but we really need them over there so they can make informed decisions on how we can really win...ha ha ha.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/31/2007 @ 4:13pm

35. Posted by HAPPY 07/31/2007 @ 12:29pm

    You keep wishing for that surge success. Perhaps this month, now that U.S. military casualties has returned to pre-surge levels, we can call that a success. Iraq having the equivalent of a 9/11 casualty rate every month? Success! Say it enough times it might even come true!

    Hogwash! (Simply had to find a reason to use that word; thanks, artboyz)

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/31/2007 @ 4:18pm

36. the only way they can get the Gonz to talk is rendition and waterboarding.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/31/2007 @ 1:19pm

    JR, I like your thinking. Hey, Gonzo, Bush and Cheney would have to approve of those techniques to get down to the bottom of this case because it really is a case of national security via treason. So, if they can get Gonzo to confess after a few hours with some of our trained CIA folks in another land, who knows what would come up.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/31/2007 @ 4:22pm

37. thank you Wolfgang. I believe the truth will come out, eventually. it will be a cataclysmic event for americans, similar to the moment when Stalin's crimes against his own people became known. it shattered the american left, and it will shatter the american right.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 4:44pm

38. Impeachment of Clinton divided off the Dems because it all stemmed from a personal issue after they hounded and tried everything under the sun to hook the Clintons.

    Bush's infractions are against US and the people of Iraq.

    While I do not expect Republicans to make important distinctions, nor have integrity to stand up for their country, and support impeachment, how can we possibly get more divided?

    It is us against them already, and the only thing Pelosi has to lose is her base.

    She's making a huge mistake.

    Posted by peachfuzz at 07/31/2007 @ 4:45pm

39. the only way they can get the Gonz to talk is rendition and waterboarding.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/31/2007

    JR, That might be the only way Congress can wipe that smug smurk off Gonzo's face.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/31/2007 @ 4:46pm

40. You're right, Doc. MAASCH should have said "There is no impeachment because there is no MAJORITY support for it in the land..."

    Posted by MASK 07/31/2007 @ 3:32pm

    Dead wrong, Maskot.

    But that's okay, you just keep up the full time job you've become so professionally adept at --barkin' up the wrong trees.

    Good job, here's a treat. Now go.

    The fact of the matter is that poll numbers are good for some things and not others.

    In the case of impeachment --running at just over 50 percent in favor (a majority)-- it wouldn't matter if the numbers were significantly higher.

    The Washington insiders --many Dems included-- are resistant to doing the people's business because of massive amounts of special interest money and the general tangle of Washington corruption.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/31/2007 @ 4:55pm

41. Impeachment = 67 DECENT Senators

    All the 67 have to be is DECENT - just decent, and that's all.

    Posted by conshame at 07/31/2007 @ 4:58pm

42. Pelosi is wrong about impeaching Gonzales - he's low hanging fruit and he should be bagged ASAP.

    Posted by conshame at 07/31/2007 @ 5:00pm

43. On dividing the country: it is already divided. Half the country wants the criminals occupying the White House impeached.

    On the Democratic "agenda": they have none. House bills have stalled in the Senate, no thanks to GOP obstructionism, and even that which passes is vetoed if it is not to the dictator's liking. And let us assume, for a moment (setting aside realism) that Congress manages to overturn a veto. Bush will simply issue a signing statement declaring the law null and void.

    These excuses have been brought up and shot down. If Pelosi lacks the courage to do her Constitutional duty, she should step down as Speaker and let someone with a stronger stomach fulfill the wishes of the public and the demands of the Constitution.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 07/31/2007 @ 5:52pm

44. The bottom line is:

    Should we allow a person to get away with a crime?

    And that would include the president and all of his accomplices.

    The Republican's argument that there is no factual proof only highlights the Republican's mastery of manipulating the issues and their expertise at hiding the evidence by not testifying or submitting incriminating documents.

    In other words, without an impeachment, the Democrats would be aiding the Republicans in their cover-up.

    In the end, politicians only serve themselves, not their constituents.

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 07/31/2007 @ 7:25pm

45. "The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country" Yes, and there may be violence if we leave Iraq.

    Posted by pizzmoe at 07/31/2007 @ 7:39pm

46. Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/31/2007 @ 4:55pm

    I'm sorry, B_KOOL...can you reference all the polls showing that?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 7:42pm

47. Nattering Nabob Nancy's Impeachophobia

    It could be that simple reality is finally beginning to penetrate the beltway bubble of delusional complacency. Nancy still natters on with the Impeachophobes' tiresome false propaganda memes, but it has begun to cause some visible distress. This is what happens when everything you think you know turns out to be a delusion.

    There is no "progressive place" to go without impeachment. There is only what filibuster, veto, and ultimately "Rule By Signing Statement" allows. These ignored realities dictate what "success can be on those issues," or on the war, or on stopping the torture -- none.

    And the comparison to the Clinton farce is just patently oxymoronic. The facts and circumstances are diametrically opposed.

    She only "sketched her case" because there is none to be made. Her Caucus is literally impotent to actually accomplish anything other than impeachment. Yes, really.

    And this objection MUST be voiced -- on behalf of The American People -- against liability for that which has been committed in their names, without their proper consent.

    Worrying about Senate removal is above her pay grade. Worrying about damage to the Party (there will be none) is beneath our minimum morality and patriotic grade. That "oath" -- the one she has finally remembered to at least pay lip service to -- demands nothing less.

    Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime. It would cement bushcheney's monarchical, "unitary" claims as "without objection, so ordered." The WORST of all possible outcomes.

    Pelosi fiddles while our democracy burns.

    ---

    Posted by thedeanpeople at 07/31/2007 @ 10:30pm

48. Posted by THEDEANPEOPLE 07/31/2007 @ 10:30pm

    Curious is "DEAN" in "THEDEANPEOPLE"....Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont?

    Cuz....he TOO came out against impeachment on the Rachel Maddow Show on Air America this past Tuesday.

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 10:56pm

49. Clinton lied about something that was none of our business, nor the business of the prosecutor in regards to the investigation.

    Bush lied about our reasons for invading Iraq thus causing the deaths of many innocent Iraqis and our brave soldiers.

    If one cannot see the difference then we truly deserve what we have.

    In fact we're not even able to brag that the ends justify the means in Iraq because we can't even see the end as it is wrapped in a cloak of bloody despair and eventual chaos no matter what rosy scenario is painted by the administration.

    But we do know the past and the present and it is still a sham as portrayed by a deceitful, crimminal administration.

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 08/01/2007 @ 01:18am

50. Impeachment Ribbons Color: ORANGE

    Posted by Anthony Look at 08/01/2007 @ 01:26am

51. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. Does she really think any of these causes can go anywhere while Bush still has veto power? Is Pelosi incapable of multitasking, or is preserving the Constitution not a priority? I personally think that Pelosi and the majority of congress, both Republicans and Democrats are cowards. They are afraid that if they go up against Bush and Cheney their kickbacks will dry-up!! They may think different when Blackwater is Goose-Stepping down main street USA!! I'm proud to be an American and I pledge allegiance to the Constitution, Not to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Pelosi or any other person or group!!

    Posted by epro at 08/01/2007 @ 01:40am

52. The Legislature is given two mandates by the Constitution. One is to make law, to Legislate. The other is to keep the Executive honest. So long as the current administration is in place, Legislation is impossible. The laws being passed by the Legislature are going nowhere. It is impossible that Pelosi does not know this. The only reason to pass law is to try to gain points with the public for the next election. Legislation as campaign rhetoric. But this is highly delusional. In November 2008, even the brightest pundits will have to consult their notes to remember these Legislative initiatives. The public will be totally oblivious.

    Meanwhile, refusal prosecute an Executive that has for six years done nothing but break law, fail to execute law, illegally make law, claim nonexistant powers, and generally trample every Constiturional idea and undermine every Constitutional process gets ignored gets free reign to keep on doing the same. The problem with this thinking is that it passively acquiesces to the abuses of the Executive. And in doing so it decreases the stature of the Legislature far beneath what was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. There is no certainty that the Democrats will win the next election. And, in fact, if they persistantly dodge their responsibilities to investigate and prosecute Executive wrongdoing they may lose points with the electorate. But even if they win, failure to act puts the Legislature on the fast-track to becoming an awkward vestigial organ in a new imperial state. Or perhaps that has already happened and Pelosi has not yet told us.

    Posted by mtspace at 08/01/2007 @ 07:20am

53. But even if they win, failure to act puts the Legislature on the fast-track to becoming an awkward vestigial organ in a new imperial state. Or perhaps that has already happened and Pelosi has not yet told us.

    Posted by MTSPACE 08/01/2007 @ 07:20am

    MTSPACE, I think the latter is the case. She doesn't want to go the impeachment route because congress has lost it's power to check the executive branch. It's easier to draw their paycheck and let things go than to actually do their job. If they do their jobs in congress, they will lose their jobs in the future. So, it's self serving not to do their jobs and that is why congress has lower approval ratings than the executive branch. The executive branch over reaches it's powers and breaks the law, and congress does nothing. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, as stands, simply backs the executive branches wishes.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/01/2007 @ 07:59am

54. Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/01/2007 @ 07:59am

    Curious WOLF, so you're saying that EVEN IF Pelosi had 400 of 535 Dem seats in the House, and Reid had 80-85 solid (non-Lieberman) Dem seats in the Senate...and the polling (Harris, Gallup, Rasmussen, etc.) was 80-85% pro-impeachment....

    that they STILL wouldn't impeach Bush or Cheney?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 08:50am

55. I would argue that Pelosi is 180 degrees off when she says impeachment would divide the country; the country is already divided, and has been so since these miscreants were blessed by the Supremes following the 2000 election.

    Impeachment would do more to unite the country and heal its wounds than the Democratic agenda ever would - and she is fooling herself if she thinks that vaunted agenda is going anywhere while Shrub and Schlub are in office. The only way to end this war prior to 2009 is impeachment; the only way to advance a sensible agenda is impeachment; the only way to repair the damage to the Republic is impeachment.

    Impeachment is now of higher priority that the GWOT. Pelosi needs to smell the coffee.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 10:13am

56. Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

    Posted by HAPPY 07/31/2007 @ 12:29pm

    Slap Happy

    What makes you think that Patraeus' report will be anything but upbeat, trumpeting great progress and successes all over?

    It's already been written by his handlers at Shrubco; it quite likely was written before he ever left. To contradict that now would cost him a star, his command, and his career. If he is a yes man, then he might get to be Army Chief of Staff or Chair of the Joint Chiefs.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 10:18am

57. Depending upon the poll, somewhere around half the country favors impeachment. That's as many as if not more than the percentage who were in favor of Clinton's, and the number of those in favor of Bush/Cheney's is on the rise.

    Your statement is false.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 07/31/2007 @ 2:53pm

    Actually, somewhere around 66+/-% were against impeaching Clinton (but the pubecrawlers did it anyway).

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 10:29am

58. What a disappointment you are Pelosi. Stop calculating the next election at the expense of the Constitution. What's it going to take for Congress to grow a spine?

    It's not even about Bush as much as it's about the Office of the President, Congress must set limits.

    Posted by kyzipster at 08/01/2007 @ 4:42pm

59. I encourage people to read Barbara Jordan's 1974 speech in support of impeaching then Pres. Nixon. You can find it here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesbydecade.html. Her simple, powerful point is that her duty as a congressperson obligates her to pursue impeachment. Her speech is a model of probity from which our present Congressional leaders could learn much. She makes the argument for the necessity of her course of action clear and in presenting it to the public in the best possible terms definitively shapes the debate as one of duty and accountability. Why can't this argument be made as forcefully now? Instead of talking about the perils of division, as Pelosi does all too often, which is nothing other than reaching for some imaginary, pointless consensus, why not talk about the need to hold an overreaching executive accountable?

    Posted by tnthorpe at 08/01/2007 @ 4:48pm

60. The disregard for the constitution and lying in the Bush administration is pervasive. The nation's founders put impeachment into the constitution to remeady this type of outragious behavior. Impeachment is the people's business to return the country to the people and must be persued.

    Posted by dennis1000 at 08/01/2007 @ 5:16pm

61. These people are too dangerous to be left in office. God knows what kind of idiocy they can come up with in their remaining time in power.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/01/2007 @ 11:47pm

62. RIO BRAVO, if you don't believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were manipulated then you may want to look at the 2 videos at these URLs:

    http://www.nw0.info/files/Documentaries/Election%20Hacking:%20Clinton%20 Curtis%20Testimony%20Ohio%202004/Election_Hacking-Clinton_Curtis_Testimo ny-Ohio_2004.wmv

    http://www.nw0.info/files/Documentaries/Votergate/Votergate-Computer_Vot ing.mov but you may want to remove your blinders.

    TNTHORPE, "Why can't this argument be made as forcefully now? Instead of talking about the perils of division, as Pelosi does all too often, which is nothing other than reaching for some imaginary, pointless consensus, why not talk about the need to hold an overreaching executive accountable?"

    When Nixon was impeached the majority of congress still believed in the Constitution, but in the last 6 years our government has been privatized. Today congress doesn't care about the Constitution, global warming, health care, the war in Iraq, our right to vote or anything else, except their corporate retirement fund!! They may think different when Blackwater is goose-steeping down Pennsylvania Avenue!!

    Posted by epro at 08/02/2007 @ 02:34am

63. Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/01/2007 @ 07:59am

    Curious WOLF, so you're saying that EVEN IF Pelosi had 400 of 535 Dem seats in the House, and Reid had 80-85 solid (non-Lieberman) Dem seats in the Senate...and the polling (Harris, Gallup, Rasmussen, etc.) was 80-85% pro-impeachment....

    that they STILL wouldn't impeach Bush or Cheney?

    Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 08:50am

    MASK, Yes, that is what I am saying. What other reason would there be. Pelosi herself has said that if she wasn't the majority leader, she would probably be pushing towards impeachment proceedings. So, if she truly believes that impeachable offenses have taken place, then it is literally her duty to move forward with the impeachment proceedings, not play politics with the outcome. If they go through the process and Gonzo, Bush and Cheney are found to be innocent, or not enough material can be established, at least Congress would have executed it's right to proceed in that direction. Not all trials end up with the defendent guilty. But, there is question of wrongdoing going on here and couple that with all of the White House stonewalling, and I think they have reason enough to proceed. So, in a nutshell, yes, it's political expediency over protecting the constitution.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/02/2007 @ 07:35am

64. . Our political system is so corrupt that it corrupts or defeats one and all with a death of a thousand cuts. Every agreement reached, every law passed; or not, is a result of mind to mind combat where all are scarred. Combat wounds eventually heal, but self-inflicted wounds fester. Betrayal of a trust leaves you feeling diminished, providing you have a conscience, but not everyone has a conscience, some are stuck in primitive subconscious state. Like Dick Cheney.

    A good offense has always been the best defense, and Cheney is one of the most offensive. That's the mark of the "winners."

    Subconscious is the fight or flight survival mode which some leaders live in and exploit to gather followers and power. But they diminish themselves and their countrymen in their lust for power, and all the pleasures that power bequeaths.

    We elect politicians to represent us, but they don't. Our Representatives represent wealth and power for their own advancement, and that's the way our political system works. We elect leaders, but once they get to D.C., the political process which excludes any input from the average American, takes over. The individuals we elect don't determine our fate as a nation, the "process" does. And the process is corrupt by design. Designed by "special interests" who control both parties.

    We are ruled by a sociopathic system, and the only way the meek can get out from under, is to rip it apart and start over.

    If only we had the time.

    . Dennis Kucinich is a system "shutout."

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/02/2007 @ 08:00am

65. Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/02/2007 @ 07:35am

    Well, WOLF, you were still in the present paradigm....I was referring to a hypothetical, by which Pelosi and Reid had solid support in Congress AND solid polling support from the American public.

    Now, I don't see how they could NOT go forward with impeachment in THAT case.

    But otherwise, I think you're right. It is political expediency, but perhaps INFORMED expediency. Isn't it possible that they DO know what the general public want...and it isn't impeachment. And that the pro-impeachment movement IS a minority, even a small minority (if quite vocal).

    In other words, is it POSSIBLE that Pelosi and Reid....are doing what the people WANT them to do?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 10:00am

66. I find Pelosi's argument lacking. Are we Americans so stupid that we can only concentrate on one thing at a time? Whatever happened to multi-tasking? The Dems can't pass anything the president vetos anyway because of the lack of votes.

    Posted by derwind at 08/02/2007 @ 11:58am

67. In other words, is it POSSIBLE that Pelosi and Reid....are doing what the people WANT them to do?

    Posted by MASK 08/02/2007 @ 10:00am

    I think that even with a majority of votes as you stated earlier, they would still hedge their bets. The reason I say this is because they don't want to risk coming out of impeachment proceedings on the losing side.

    It kind of reminds me of prosecuting attorney afraid to go to trial for fear of losing so that attorney never takes a case to trial. Do these fools really think Gonzo, Bush and Cheney are just going to hand over damning evidence that may push them out of office. I would think not. So, they (Congress) will have to push them and use their power to get that evidence via the Supreme Court. I think the court could probably clear their slate for something of this stature. But we all know how the supreme court leans.

    My take on this is that Pelosi and Reid will play it safe because they think they'll be in control in 2008, so they'll just let Bush and Cheney continue to be the bad guys until then for political clout.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/02/2007 @ 1:51pm