Pelosi's "focus is on winning the war in Iraq."

QUOTE . . . .

“My campaign is going to happen, because we know she is not going to put impeachment on the table,” Sheehan said.

A spokesman for Pelosi said her “focus is on winning the war in Iraq.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4956565.html


That's prompted me to send e-mail to Pelosi --
americanvoices@mail.house.gov to remind her that this is an "illegal" war
based on lies by this administration
and she is confused if she thinks that voters put Democrats in office to "win the war."

Further, it would seem that with "winning the war" on Pelosi's mind that she would need to deflect messages of ending the war, deauthorizing the war, and stopping the funding of the war.

Whose side is Pelosi on?


Actually, I didn't originally like Cindy Sheehan's idea about opposing Pelosi at all - -
now I'm wondering . . . ???

Win what?

When did she say it? In what context did she say it?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It IS a quote, isn't it? And not a total distortion of Pelosi's record? I just want to be sure that Pelosi said that. Or perhaps wrote it in an article? Fundraising letter?

no additional context, which is sloppy on the Houston Chronicle's part.

But it sure does make her look all the more clueless, on the face of it.

if it is an accurate quote. But there's the rub, right?

Bryant

Are they prone to severe misquotes?

Pelosi never alluded that it was her desire to "win" the war in Iraq. Link please.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/495656...

Hey, we all CARE as much as you too what in the hell is on Pelosi's mind . . .
That's what the article said.

Pelosi has said on numerous occasions that her focus will be on ending the war in Iraq. C'mon folks, use your noggins. Pelosi is not going to parrot a Bushism.

There's no way that Pelosi's seat will go to a rethug, even if the progressive vote splits right down the middle. In the unlikely chance that Cindy wins, she'll still vote with the Dems on almost every issue. If she loses, she still has enough name recognition to put the fear of god into Pelosi. Plus, Cindy has the added advantage of being right.

Where's the downside?

and humiliate and embarrass our party. Something like Nader, right?

I mean there's no way Bush can actually win, right?

Bryant

Pelosi's district votes close to 90% Dem & Progressive. Do the math.

And last I checked, Bush wasn't running for her seat.

As far as humiliation and embarrassment go, Pelosi's doing a fine job of that all on her own. Maybe a strong challenge from the left is what's needed to wake her up.




Edit: you know what's really humiliating? Misspelling "humiliation".

I guess I am in favor of Democrats, not independents. Last time I checked this wasn't independents underground.

Bryant

And please don't start quoting the fricking rules at me. IMHO, the best thing that can happen to the Dems is to get the shit scared out of them by the left. Then maybe they'll align themsleves with the majority of the country and actually hold on to Congress in 08.

I'm just expressing my preference to a life long committed public servant over Cindy Sheehan (who I was going to characterize but then thought better of it). If Cindy Sheehan wants to pick a fight with Nancy Pelosi, I know who's side I am on.

Bryant

Just showing up to Congress and collecting a paycheck doesn't count in my book.

Why? All that did was give aid and comfort to Bushco -- !!!????

Meanwhile, it also stopped discussion, stopped the press discussing it, and stopped Conyer's investigations -- supposedly she told him to lay low on the issue.

WHY?

Who could that possibly benefit except Bushco?

That's the response I got from a congresscritter's staffer when I asked them about supporting HR333.

It's the equivalent of Bush not wanting the Attorney General to go to the Kennedy's Olympics for the Disabled . . . because he sees it as "helping that family." !!!!

Is it so impossible for you to imagine that many progressive Democrats support Cindy?

And that she has put the anti-war movement in America and protests into more prominent display?

Of course that helps those who want to "end the war."

Also -- many progressive want impeachment --

Are you absolutely against this war?

Are you for or against impeachment?

If both, you may be for Cindy Sheehan -- !!!

Well I just might not be absolutely against the war. I might not be for impeachment.

Actually, as I've said before, I'd like to see Bush impeached, but as a tactical matter, it's not in the cards

Bryant

If you're not sure you're against the war --
and not for impeachment necesarily --

You're sounding like a DLC Democrat --

Wow . . .

Like how about there's a lot more to not being progressive than opposition to the war.

Ron Paul is against the war, does that make him a progressive democrat?

Let's try those terms --

Or . . .

do you in any sense favor continuing the war in Iraq?

do you think impeaching Bush/Cheney isn't necessary?

Allow me to be clear. I'm opposed to the war and I don't think impeachment, as a practical matter, is possible right now.

My point was, of course, that failure to support Cindy Sheehan will be taken, by those who are under her spell, as failure to oppose the war sufficiently.

Bryant

and standing against this record of corruption -- violence -- torture --

wars of aggression, warmongering, bankrupting of our Treasury.

You may not be successful --

It's about getting it on the record in investigations and standing against it.

But I don't want to piss away political capital tilting at that particular windmill.

Bryant

Where are you in disagreement with progressives?

What are you major differences?

What other than her position on the war qualifies Sheehan as progressive?

I know there was that famous outburst that blamed the Dems for starting every war in the 20th century that included a statement that the income tax is unconstitutional as is the Federal Reserve. I wouldn't put her down as progressive until I know what else she stands for, and that part of the statement doesn't sound like someone who could be considered very progressive or at least well-informed.

Someone needs to put Pelosi's feet to the fire on this whole "off the table" bullshit. Maybe she'll adjust her thinking if she knows that she's going to have to explain it to her district in a public forum.

Just to point out by 2008 the whole issue of impeachment will be moot anyway as Bush will be on his way out.

At least we wouldn't have to pay his pension.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“ The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

It nullifies their pension and prevents them from holding office again. Of course, once they leave office, I think we should work on getting them to the hague.

Income Tax

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our “Saviors” because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

Did you actually read what she said?

eom

I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our “Saviors” because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians.




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

Actually, thanks for the link to Cindy's "diary" --
I hadn't read the whole thing before this.


I don't know that I disagree with her much at all in what she is saying --
and she may be prophetic in her understanding of where the Democratic Party could be headed if we do not insist on accountability from Democrats as well as Republicans.

Cindy is criticizing the two-party system --
Anyone want to suggest that limiting ourselves to two parties now both owned by corporations has been working for us?

Cindy speaks of FEAR of voting for third party candidates --
and while she is somewhat naive about the political structure she is humanly wise on how we got to this point with Bushco.

We also have had corruption of our voting system with electronic voting machines which were actually introduced in the late 60's or early 70's -- See: "Votescam" -- and the fascist GOP "rally" at Miami-Dade Election HQs to stop the counting of votes. All successful.]

I doubt you'd get anyone who really understands the PRIVATE Federal Reserve Bank dictating our economic policy -- rather than Congress making these decisions -- would question what Cindy is saying. See: William Geider's "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country."

There is no denying that we have a questionable WWII record in imprisoning the Japanese in concentration camps. It is said that Hitler actually took his lesson about concentration camps from our forced movement of native Americans into "reservations/concentration camps."

And then two atomic bombs. Is anyone proud that we did this to Japanese civilians?
Read the history of that decision by Truman. The many, many, many Generals -- Eisenhower, for one --
and government officials who were against dropping these bombs. Japan was destroyed and ready to
surrender. Though this is a Democratic president, this is a very right-wing decision.
And, if you know anything of the history of FDR and his VP -- Henry Wallace -- you understand that the man who should have been president was removed to put Truman in.
Truman began a right-ward turn in the Democratic Party, post FDR.

FDR, himself, frightened of Catholic reaction in America -- which was being incited by the Vatican --refused to put down fascism in Franco's Spain -- all of which led to WWII and the holocaust.

As Cindy is also making clear, it is "people" who change society --
not elected officials. Howard Zinn recently spoke on that issue.

Of course, currently we have Haliburton with contracts for building concentration camps supposedly for "illegal immigrants."

And we are engaged in an "illegal" war of aggression by our government --

What's new? Just another Vietnam.


I don't know how many other people watched earlier government but I well recall that Democrats had the majority for a long, long time. They refused to oppose Newt Gingrich when he stood for relection because . . . Gephardt and O'Neill understood that he would vote for pay raises!!!
You'll find that story in Pat Schroeder's book.
Right now, the Congress is awarding itself another $4,400 per annum.

Also, I watched as Majority leader Sen. George Mitchell turned the Senate over to Minority leader Robert Dole.

You have to decide whether you want a people's government and an end to corruption.
If that's what you truly want, then you might have to entertain something other than traditional notions of getting there. Our founders dressed up as "Indians" and threw tea in the harbor.
It was a statement against capitalism -- against a British corporation.

How did we get Lincoln?

And how did they get rid of Lincoln?


PS: As for your fears about "income taxes," I think we should be more concerned with getting rid of the tax cuts for the few. As former Gov. Cuomo said more than 15 years ago, at that point if we wanted to restore taxes on corporations/elites: "we'd have to call out the militia."
In fact, Bush is borrowing from the Social Security surplusses to PAY for the tax cuts!!!!

So -- after all that Cindy said, what stuck in your mind was "income taxes" -- ????






QUOTE: I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our “Saviors” because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians.

Who says she would vote with Democrats if elected? Why would she vote with Democrats believing as she does that we are the "party of slavery" populated with warmongers? If she did vote with Democrats after her recent comments what does that say about her principles?

I am quite certain that Cindy will continue to marginalize herself by continuing to act capriciously and by making such bizarre ignorant statements about ALL Democrats.

If she won't caucus with the Dems, she's going to lose any possible support. I still want to see her debate Pelosi, though.

How do you win? What is the metric for winning a ware in this day and age? We won the war in Iraq already by any measure possible. Our military forces crushed their military forces. Thats what a war is. But that is insufficient in this day and age to accomplish what it is some had hoped to accomplish. And now we are stuck over there trying to kill people into liking us. There is no win in that scenario. There is only loss.

$10 says that Pelosi never said anything like focus on winning the war. Either the reporter misquoted the unnamed "spokesman" or the spokesman misspoke. Pelosi has never said anything like that before.

Reporters are very lazy.

Bryant

Before you give yourself license to disbelieve that this is what Pelosi actually said,

why not call her office????

Pelosi has never said anything like that, voted against the recent war funding bill, and voted against the IWR. I seriously doubt she would say anything to that effect, someone is grossly misquoting or making shit up.

There is an email addy at the foot of the story. Just ask.

I'll wait to see if that quote from one of her people...

Nah better to just throw out baseless speculation.. you know kick up dust? :sarcasm:

:)

fist they connected me with the press room which was checking . . .
after five minutes I found myself back with the staff personnel --
she checked comments and couldn't find anything --
but couldn't verify or deny --

This brings up a huge problem because here someone who voted for Democrats to end the war is calling on this comment and they don't know????

OK -- let's try the newspaper . . .

I bet you 3 pennies the reporter asked "Mary Jane" in the local Pelosi office "Is Pelosi focused on winning or losing in Iraq?" -- and then applied the quote out of context.

I guarandamntee it.

aide was quoted. Or misquoted, as the case may be.

Po' li'l Cindy, enduring all that abuse and hatred. I suppose that's the hatred all of her supporters at Camp Casey brought down on her head.

Or was it that Party of Slavery that sent her over the edge?

Or, fancy this, is it the reality of a big ol' nasty world that has people in it who won't kiss her ass every minute of the day?

Hey, some movements make it and some movements fall flat. If YOUR movement is running out of steam, trying to kill off your allies is the way to go, right?

That's the Nader way, not the smart way.

Nancy? How is that helpful?

Reporters misquote people all the time, even good ones. Sheesh.

I admit I'm maybe a bit excessive dumping on Cindy.

But only a little bit. A wee little bit.

I honestly do not see any benefit, aside from a few days of news releases, from her latest actions. Even if she does manage a run against Pelosi, I can't see how that could be anything but a Naderesque diversion with no good outcome.

I am not a Pelosi-basher. A few days ago I proposed comparing her 6 months in office with Tip O'Neill's years in office and see if she still looks so "bad." So far, one could argue Pelosi is doing better against Shrub than Tip did against Reagan. Even when Carter was in office, O'Neill couldn't get some things, like a health plan, on the floor.

Speakers are not omnipotent, and don't have much, if any, power over Presidents. Nor do they have any power over Senates, particularly Senates about 60 votes short of the mark.

:)

part of the job of Speaker is to count Senate votes and make sure the House isn't completely wasting its time on an issue.

Nancy/Cindy/GD Flappery. You're right, of course.

here is her statement from her spokesperson two days ago. The OP article seems to have mangled her words. Either way it still sucks. IMPEACH the rat bastards!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/09/262611.aspx

Pelosi's office on Sheehan
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:29 PM by Mark Murray
Categories: Congress

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Here is reaction to the Cindy Sheehan pledge/threat to run as an independent against Speaker Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi does not initiate impeachment proceedings in the House. From a Pelosi spokesperson:
"Speaker Pelosi has said repeatedly her focus is on ending the war in Iraq. She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon. July will be a month of action in Congress to end the war, including a vote to redeploy our troops by next spring."

and in none of those times was there anything but sloppiness.

And, of course, there are other possibilities, like trying to stir up controversy. Which is why we should just ask the reporter. :shrug:

Talk about being sloppy that's something that demands a mea culpa.

So now we see. We can't leave until we declare victory in a occupation (whatever that means). Is this for real?

I'm still not super-impressed with Pelosi, but at least she apparently hasn't quite thrown in with Commander Lovely Man to the extent the quote suggested.

Always like to check before I say anything.

invaded their country!

How about you scroll up and see for yourself.

There has been no indication that the article is incorrect --
Someone has suggested that the quote was based on a prior quote --

If this is what Pelosi actually said . . .
I certainly want to know --

And I'm a little mystified at all the attempts to avoid knowing whether it's true or not.

If there is any chance that this is what Pelosi truly thinks she is there to do . . .
then we should all want to know.

Because you don't like the answer

Just pick up the flipping phone.

came from the Associated Press which is also credited in the story.

I've e-mailed them and we'll see if they respond.


And, the only people going "la, la, la, la" are people who are frightened that this quote could be true.

Heaven help us!!!

Aide: Pelosi worried about ending war, not Sheehan

July 09, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is spending her energy on ending the war in Iraq, not worrying about a possible challenge from peace activist Cindy Sheehan, her spokesman said Monday.

“Speaker Pelosi has said repeatedly her focus is on ending the war in Iraq,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. “She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon.”

Daly labeled July as “a month of action in Congress to end the war.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/aide-pelosi-worried-about-ending-war-not-sheehan-2007-07-09.html

They totally misquoted her!