This Story is Archived
Pelosi Goal: Make George Bush and Dick Cheney Lame Ducks »
Posted by: wayjer 1 year, 11 months agoNancy Pelosi wants to shut down the Government for the final 2 years of George Bush's term.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
Submitted By:
wayjer
I am a huge music fan, I tend to lean towards rock and have always kept up with the newest rock. I enjoy computers and ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 81
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 4:12 p.m.Pelosi does NOT want to "shut down" government for the next two years!
I saw the last part of her interview on 60 Minutes.
What she said was -- she is committed to NOT allowing any impeachment investigations of Bush and Cheney. She would rather let them be Lame Ducks for the next 2 years. Meanwhile, she would work on getting some important / meaningful / needed legislation passed.
What would that legislation be? I'm sure details will come, IF (and that IS an IF) the Democrats win enough seats in the House to actually have a majority.
Until then, I am sure LOTS of folks will speculate on what sorts of bills would be presented - but unless they are all psychic, I doubt that their conjectures would be accurate.
-
ind06
Oct. 24, 2006, 3:20 a.m.Yes, she confirmed that tonight on MSNBC. Another election month scare tactic.
Right up there with raise your taxes. Bush's tax cuts are in place until 2010. This congress will not be doing anything with taxes.
Oh, and if I hear one more complaint about "the liberal media" I'm gonna scream. Yeah, I'm sure the liberal media must be such a HUGE problem, after you've torn yourself away from FOX news on the TV, Hanity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly on the radio, and the Wall Street Journal in your newspaper box and if that's not enough, switch over to MSNBC where Tucker Carlson rules the roost all day long, and don't forget to catch Joe Scarborough and read The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor, and Barrons. And oh yeah, Ann Coulter has a new book out too. Crimeny! Be honest, when is the last time you went for a single second wanting for a conservative voice in your media? What? 1976?
Gimmeabreak.
-
-
Lurch
Oct. 23, 2006, 5:43 p.m.Hey, they broke the laws they took an oathe to protect. They lied us into an unecessary and disastrous war.
Why would anyone in their right mind rule out impeachment?
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 6:13 p.m.Good question ... in a way, I understand it ... if Bush is only in office for 2 more years, and he can't run again - by the time they do all the bureaucratic stuff to get to the point of hearings, most of the 2 years would probably be GONE.
Believe me, I strongly disagree with the way Bush and Cheney, et. al., have run this country and made a mess of an unjustified war. And I believe that there is enough evidence of lying and Consitutional violations that would support impeachment.
But, it does seem academic to spend 2 years on them when there are issues that needs to be addressed.
Another thing - the Democrats have 2 years until another election - 2 years to show the country that they can get some things done, things that make sense and are good for ALL of the country, not just a select few.
They are in a "catch-22" situation if they gain a majority - spend too much time on impeachment & get nothing else done, or pass laws that will get good or bad reviews.
-
Lurch
Oct. 23, 2006, 7:03 p.m.Yes, I see your point.
But there is also this; we deserve the truth and the only way we are going to get to the bottom of the lies and corruption is through an investigation with sworn testimony from Bush, Cheney, Rove et al.
We`ll never know for sure what actually happened since Bush I pardoned the crooks.
-
-
posthumous
Oct. 23, 2006, 6:52 p.m.Pelosi is a pathetic example of an American government represenative, and you blindly support her? You do not even know what she/they want!
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 23, 2006, 8:35 p.m.Please enlighten us by presenting ten points of Representative Pelosi's platform to support your statement!
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 23, 2006, 8:37 p.m.At least SHE didn't cover up a Republican Rep.'s sexual messages to 16 year old pages like Hastert and the other Republicans!!
-
-
dr-don-from-denver
Oct. 23, 2006, 8:32 p.m.Lame ducks should be put out of their (and OUR) political misery!
-
GUNNY945
Oct. 23, 2006, 8:49 p.m.If the Democrats win the Mid-Term Election, the terroist will strike on our home front and that is for sure. Our taxes will sky rocket, they will stop funding the war and pull our troops out leaving the terroist alone to do more damange and plan how to kill more of us. Is that what you want? I don't want my grandkids growing up in a world like that.
-
Lurch
Oct. 24, 2006, 12:15 a.m.What kind of logic is that?
Because the terrorists plus Iraqi freedom fighters are so busy killing us right NOW, they don`t have time to plan to kill us in the future.
Wrong, in two fundamental ways:
1) Who says they aren`t planning more attacks now? BO? AC? Hannity? Rush?
2) Interesting you`re over-reacting to a potential future threat when they`ve already killed 80 Americans just the last month alone. You want those grandkids growing up in this world?
-
-
season
Oct. 23, 2006, 9:28 p.m.Gunny
Are you psychic? There is NO guarantee that terrorists (no matter who they might be i.e. home grown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh) will or will not strike our homefront.
The Republicans of late seem to be doing an outstanding job of spending.....And that debt will have to be repaid. As it stands now, your grandchildren, my kids & any children they may have will inherit the debt that has been accrued for current war.
Regardless of which party is the majority, the above issues have to be tackled--the war, the federal debt, taxation laws (I don't fall into the income bracket that the Republicans help you may) as well as many many domestic issues (i.e. social security) that seem to have put on the back burner.
I just read an article in TIME about Nancy Pelosi. She is smart, determined, cognizant of her weakness & knows how to compensate for areas that are not her strengths. it would interesting to see her as the speaker of the house and what she accomplishes
-
Maui420L
Oct. 23, 2006, 9:47 p.m.I thought it had been shut down...
I still can't figure out what George and Crew have done...
He's real good at hiding among the "base" and giving speeches
where to their ears, but he's never been out among "The People" who are felling the blunt of his screw-ups...
The economys good for the 1% at the top....
And unemplyment is low...cuz we all have to work two jobs now to make ends meet and pay for HEALTH INSURANCE"...
Now, since he's made America and the world more UNsafe, I don't feel safe going on vacation...or even the mall...
What have they done?????/
-
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:01 p.m.funny how the libs always play the mcveigh card. ah ol nancy with that wide eyed maniacle stare the old gal is obviously medicated
-
Hawklead
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:05 p.m.Great thnking. Show how bad thngs are by making things worse! Definatly good forward thinking on Nancy's part.
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:10 p.m.season
LoL have you been keeping up on current events? remember 9/11 do you think that was an accident? we will get hit again and again they arent going to give up on us,just how much damage has to take place before the libs realise we are in danger? if 1 or more of our cities were vaporised would that change your mode of thinking? im beginning to feel like im in a special education class
-
season
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:15 p.m.True
It is interesting that many cons play the "terrorist and how Repubs will keep us safe card." I am Arab American & Muslim. While I can not deny that the majority of the terrorist have been Middle Eastern & fanatical Muslims (and they DO NOT represent Islam) you CAN NOT rule out the possibility of terrorist activity being homegrown like McVeigh, Nichols, the woman who attacked & killed people at a McDonalds, any of the people that have attacked their schools, etc... We Americans rarely think of those acts as being the actions of terrorist -- but think about the carnage, & the physical/emotional damage those acts caused. And please do not say they are only a handful or isolated incidents.
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:17 p.m.trueamerican --
You apparently ARE in a special education class ...
ONE MORE TIME, as it would appear that EVEN NOW some still DON'T GET IT --
Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!
There was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and Al QAEDA!
There were NO WMDs! The ONLY stuff ever found that even 'resembled' WMDs was a bunch of barrels of OLD sarin and mustard gas -- they were dated back to 1991 and were so degraded that they were USELESS.
There were NO Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. Saddam supported some terrorism, but that was against Turkey and Israel and was mostly FINANCIAL. His was a SECULAR dictatorship.
Of course, per the latest NIE, there are LOTs of Al Qaeda Jihadists there NOW - recruitments are UP because of the MESS we have made in that country. ONE MILLION Iraqis have LEFT to get away from the violence and the mess.
2 Senate investigations and the 9/11 commission document all this!
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:19 p.m.And if you think that there are no terrorists in America right now, you are amazingly naive. They are here - we are only LUCKY that we have not already had another attack, what with the pathetic security of our borders and of cargo shipping.
The terrorists are EVERYWHERE, but they originate from Afghanistan.
We need to be fighting terrorists, but we need to be fighting them IN THE RIGHT PLACES!
Iraq was / is the WRONG place.
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:25 p.m.the mcdonalds incident is not terrorism its called crime,crimes like that and similar crimes occur everyday here,mcveigh and nichols were an isolated incident they never pledged jihad against a christian country,9/11 was the worst attack ever on american soil it is the modern day pearl harbor,while its true all muslims are not terrorists all terrorists have been muslim,a practitioner of the religion of peace killed sveral women at a synagogue and said he "did it in retaliation for isreal going into lebanon" another ran his suv into a number of people in sanfransicko killing several and admitted it was an act of terrorism
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:31 p.m.bubba2
where did i say that there arent any terrorists inside our borders right now?? im the one who is always saying that they are here,and there is no way for you to know that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 do you work for the cia or something? i say they might have because i am taking an educated guess,i also think iran and syria could have had a hand in it,besides i was repling to seasons statement that said there is no guarantee that muslims will strike our homefront,its an ignorant statement since they already have struck us
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 11 p.m.It isn't what I know about what Iraq had to do with 9/11. Check out the first of 2 Senate investigations about ALL of the 'intelligence' leading up to the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
Note this at the end of the article, about a 2nd investigation in progres --
"Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress." The conclusions of these reports were that there was NO prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was NO evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda."
Also this ...
"A September 7, 2006 article by journalist Jonathon Weisman in the Washington Post reported that the part of the phase two report comparing the Bush administration's public statements about Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private would not be released before the November, 2006 election."
How Convenient ...
-
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:44 p.m.believe me i want our boys home just as much as you do i feel our mission is complete,we took sadam out of action,democracy will never take hold over there the people are to busy fighting amongst oneanother to ever embrace it,the only problem i see from logistics point of view is iraq has a rich natural resourse that will be in enemy hands they can sell that oil to france,russia,china among others for cash or trade for weapons or nuclear materials,we would probably have to return in 8 to 10 years but at least by pulling out, our boys arent standing aroung making targets out of themselves
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:54 p.m.You are right about the resource - oil.
THAT is what the corporate buddies of Bush and Cheney want their hands on ... NOT democracy for those people.
ALL of our oil is in enemy hands. The Saudis are NOT our friends. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. They STILL teach, in all of their schools, the children that America is evil and infidels because America is not muslim.
-
-
PadreLasCasas
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:48 p.m.Nancy Pelosi's agenda fits well with the ultra liberals from San Francisco, how is her message going to translate nationwide? With a leadership that leans so far left, the Dems will run into problems within one year of taking control of the house.
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 10:53 p.m.if the dems take control,we the american people will be in big trouble,they will undermine everything gw has done to protect us,we havent been attacked for the past 5 years,that speaks volumes,the man has kept us safe,i for one will not spit in his face for doing so,yes he has been drastic,but drastic times calls for drastic measures
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:06 p.m.Can you list some specific things W has done to protect us and keep us safe?
You cannot give credit to Bush for us not having an attack in the last 5 years. We have only been lucky. Funding for screening devices for liquid explosives has been HELD UP by his administration. Security at our borders and at our cargo shipping facilities is practically non-existent, as around 90% of cargo containers are NOT inspected.
I am not 'spitting in his face', but I am angered that he and the Republicans have been allowed to violate the constitution with warrantless wiretapping and with the Military Commissions Act. If he were a Democrat, I would be JUST as angry.
-
eottman
Oct. 24, 2006, 12:19 a.m.Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old tired lines from supporters of the miserable failures in the white house.
"Dems want us to loose the war." Like we could do worse than spend over $300 bilion, 2800 servicemen and hundreds of thousands of civillians killed to bring civil war and al Queda to Iraq where (thank you very much, Dumbya) they can kill Americans in their backyard where it's more convenient for them. Meanwhile GW has no plan but the "Lie and Die" plan.
News flash! We're already in big trouble, Largely because SOMEBODY (and it ain't the evil, commie dems, poeple) has managed to ****** off the entire Musliim world and most of the non-Muslims too. The world looks at our leaders and makes the erroneous but entirely understandable assumption that we are a nation of greedy, violent, petulant liars. This shift in world opinion is a shining example of how the "Nucular President" has made America safer. Hekkuva job,George.
Me? I'd LOVE to see much of W's folly undone. War under false pretenses, suspension of Habeas Corpus, interfering with Stem Cell research, public subsidy of Big Oil, rollback of environmental protections, erosion of church/state separation, power grabbing by the executive branch, lip service only to alternative energy, tax breeaks for the untra-rich, the "What's our oil doing under their sand" mentality...
The list is endless.
They don't hate us because we love freedom-they hate us because we love money.
We aren't in Iraq defending liberty and democracy-we're in Iraq defending wealth.
-
-
Virginia
Oct. 24, 2006, 2:15 a.m.Did you see eottman's list right above your post. I hope she does manage to stop any more bleeding of our republic. As far as throwing Nancy Pelosi is concerned, she is a pretty small sized almost 70yr. woman. I think you, luv, talk tough enough that you could probably throw her a lot farther than you could throw Denny Hastert, the current Speaker. So, draw your own conclusions from your silly metaphore. Your trusting her. hehehe
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:01 p.m.bubba2
i know my friend,it probably does boil down to an "oil war" and yes they do teach the kids that we are the great satan,there has been a dispute between muslims and christians dateing back 15 hundred years,remember constantinople,the muslims were the first to invent biological warfare they would catapult disease ridden corpses over the walls of the city to infect the populace holed up inside
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:03 p.m.luvmyprez
well good evening,nice to see a voice of reason in here tonight
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:06 p.m.i remember recently,ol pelosi defending gw after chavez called mr bush satan,how pathetic,she among other dems have said much worse about the man for several years prior,what a sham i can read her like a cheap dime store novel
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:15 p.m.While I guess it was 'decent' of her to defend Bush in that instance, I actually thought all that was rather amusing.
It was, like, only Americans can criticize the President, and any non-American on our 'soil' that criticized him and called him names was horrible and not allowed. Like, only Americans can criticize American leaders ... whatever?
While Chavez' commentary on Bush was crass and rude, I don't know that it makes any difference, as he has said the same things wherever else he is. It wasn't exactly a revelation, what he thinks of Bush ....
-
Lurch
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:43 p.m.I thought that was kind of strange too.
After all, Bush has screwed us Americans pretty bad with incredible debt failing agenda on terror, environmental regression, education, etc.
What right does Chavez have to call Bush names, I mean Bush only backed the coup d`etat that tried to steal the country and kidnapped Chavez putting his life at risk. If the Venezuelan people and military hadn`t fought the coup conspirators, who knows if Chavez would be alive today. Yeah, who does that Chavez think he is?
-
Virginia
Oct. 24, 2006, 2:22 a.m.First luv wants to throw her. Now you want to read her. Strong verb-al attacks. Luv was not going to throw her too far and you think they still write cheap dime store novel. What has become of the metaphore for now, today. Yesterdays' idioms for today's Blogs. LOL
-
-
trueamerican
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:12 p.m.bubba2
i feel you and i view the same problem a bit differently but our conclusions are pretty much the same and you dont call me a nazicon LoL i think you and i can get along
-
bubba2
Oct. 23, 2006, 11:18 p.m.I see no reason or point or relevance in trying to name-call or otherwise attack anyone. I am always interested in discourse but hopefully sticking to the subject.
We ALL live in this country - we all love our country and we want the best for it. For whatever reasons, we have our views and our loyalties, based on fact, history, opinion, background, all of the above.
I believe that every American that cares about America will always, bottom line, support and defend her.
If we want the truth, we will find it. We may disagree a whole lot along the way, but we can get there if we want to.
-
The first 43 comments are shown. Show all 81 comments »
Got a Story?
