click here

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:57:13 PM

  (0+)

...and give Pelosi a big fat Fruit Pie in the face.  She is nothing more than a common criminal with her obstinate bullshit about not knowing whether Bush committed a crime.  I mean honestly!  What is it going to take to restore law and order to this nation?

by daveys (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 272 comments [20 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:47:22 PM

  (0+)

I'm responding tot his comment to get closer to your link for pelosi's book signings. I assume you're thinking that other people will want to do what you did. IT would be cool if a wave ofpeople did it at each location. And plan what to do as you are carried out by the goons. Even come up with a script.

Drudge report that the book is a total flop, less than 3000 sold.  

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:52:57 PM

  (0+)

Thanks Rob. There is indeed at least one person amongst the commenters on this thread who will be visiting Nancy within the next few days. Looking forward to the report!

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:41:09 PM

  (0+)

A wonderful job.   Thanks so much for showing up and telling the story so beautifully.

:)  Linda 

by Linda Milazzo (128 articles, 1 quicklinks, 18 diaries, 210 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:27:52 PM

  (0+)

Maybe her book will be in the Bush Library

by Dennis Kaiser (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 730 comments [137 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:12:51 AM

  (0+)

There will be no books in George's library if he has anything to do with it.   He will just want to listen to the echos!

by Hayesml47 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 540 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:26:44 PM

  (0+)

In Philadelphia, the birthplace of the Constitution, in a Public Library, the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slithers away from answering a citizen's question about impeachment CLICK HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7fI3aT3as                

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 348 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:37:50 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   That takes guts to step right up and speak truth to power and then get repelled by power itself in the very city that gave birth to the Constitution while surrounded by British forces no less. Bravo Cheryl and thank you.

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 348 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:46:30 PM

  (0+)

On a funnier note, the comedy website 236.com had a great feature on Nancy Pelosi’s new book: http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/07/post_51_8187.php

by taylor lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:51:44 PM

  (0+)

Forget  Pelosi's book signing for a moment, why is there a Newsmax ad up on Oped with a sinister looking photo of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which says Bomb Iran? How freakin sad is that!

I've been noticing this on many different sites, even on Merriam Webster's. It is an outrage!

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:07:50 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you Munich and have voiced my concern as well. Google has the capability of placing specific ads in articles and websites that have keywords that relate to that ad. There may be a way to control, not sure, but that is the price of not having more funding or advertising I guess. I have shared your concern (and mine) with Rob.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:20:34 PM

  (0+)

FAQ: Why Am I Seeing "This" Advertisement on OpEdNews?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:26:03 PM

  (0+)

You are hot ;-)

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:22:41 PM

  (0+)

I always wonder why there aren't MORE people asking the tough questions and making all of these so called leaders feel uncomfortable where ever they go.

Nice work! 

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM

  (0+)

She smiled and I leaned in and said in a calm voice, "You were briefed about torture and the wiretapping years before the public found out. Why didn’t you use your power to stop it?"

Pelosi was indignant, "We didn’t know."

In an instant, I felt a very firm grip being placed on my right arm. I chose to ignore the fact that it was beginning to tighten and that the man in the suit who belonged to the hand was now leaning into me and trying to pull me aside.

I looked straight ahead at Pelosi and said, "You knew. You were informed."

Then my left arm was seized by another guy and Pelosi countered, "No, I was not."

I dug my feet in and continued, "You were briefed as a member of the gang of four about torture in 2002 and as the gang of eight about wiretapping."

Pelosi was pushing my book across the table and attempting to turn her attention to Gregg when she replied, "We stopped it." I was incensed. "What? Uh, no you didn’t."

Some part of me wonders if Pelosi is telling the truth. She seems to shift her position from general denial to making an excuse as you get more specific. A great deal of insight might be gained if only a Bugliosi type prosecutor could put Pelosi on the stand.

If you are in the mood to take requests Cheryl, I'd be interested to see a review of the evidence that shows that Pelosi is not telling the truth if she isn't.

Whilst Pelosi is Speaker impeachment goes nowhere except with her consent. This is the very pointy end of the impeachment effort.

Pelosi is putting herself in the spotlight and holding herself out as a role model but as Kucinich points out in a video I received today via email and I imagine you will too, impeachment is about "the restoration of the Constitution".

My point is that if the Constitution needs restoring then there is currently no rule of law and no valid government. 

Jefferson said that the liberty tree needs nourishing from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots, its natural manure. If impeachment is not successful, if the Constitution is not being upheld due to the unprincipled leadership of the two dominant political parties I think these become one of those times.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM

  (0+)

First - thanks to everyone for your comments. I really appreciate them.

I'm still kind of processing that exchange, but I tend to think that she either denied it initially because she may have thought I was not in the know about those briefings and thought she could just brush it off and/or she thought if she could deny it in the presence of others no one else would start picking up on it. The thing is she already admitted publically to at least the wiretapping briefing. The waterboarding one I don't know if she discussed, but it is pretty well documented that it occurred. It's just that it really didn't go anywhere in the press which is one of the reasons I felt the need to bring it up again. I wanted her to know we know and I wanted others who weren't aware or who hadn't put the pieces together to fully understand. And, of course, to elicit a response about why she stayed silent until it was made public.

Here is the link to the WaPo article that Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding in 2002.

Here is the link to Pelosi's 2006 OpEd in the WaPo admitting that she was briefed on wiretapping. What I don't know - and if anyone does, please post it here - is when Pelosi was briefed on the wiretapping. Corporate-owned media and politicians like to say that it was as a result of 9/11, but we now know that the wiretapping began before that, just a few months after Bush took office. So, the next question is was she and the others briefed before 9/11 or after?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM

  (0+)

"So, the next question is was she and the others briefed before 9/11 or after?"

Re:  NSA pre-9/11 spying:   -- Her letter expressing concern, sent to General Hayden on 11 Oct 2001, strongly suggests that she was not aware of the situation prior to that time.  It seems extremely unlikely that she would have written such a letter if she had prior knowledge of this.

Excerpt:
"During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions."

Read the declassified doc here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/01/pelosi010306.html 

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:01:13 PM

  (0+)

Thanks Aurora! I had not seen those before. not sure why...

The redacted info. definitely leaves room for some speculation, but the fact that she said things like:

"Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis," she seems to be letting him know hey if you don't want resistance from [redacted ] pony up. But chances are that she, herself, was not going to give them a hard time on it.

She says " I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the NSA received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."

This tells me that as long as the prez gave the order that's all she needs to know. Screw FISA, Screw the Constitution, Screw the 427 other members of Congress. All power to the President.

The thing that bothered me most when she came clean in her 2006 OpEd she said simply, "But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval." Well, then what the hell is the point of being briefed? She really doesn't seem to have any grip whatsoever on the checks and balances.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:19:58 PM

  (0+)

"She says " I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the NSA received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."

"This tells me that as long as the prez gave the order that's all she needs to know. Screw FISA, Screw the Constitution, Screw the 427 other members of Congress. All power to the President. "

Yes.  And yet it could have been so different, if only she had at least allowed impeachment - She would not have had to push for it or even endorse the hearings -- but just allow the normal course of justice to proceed.

Here's Gen Hayden's brief reply, wherein he takes all responsibility himself.
("I had used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.")

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/surv22b.pdf

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:00:50 PM

  (0+)

"when she came clean in her 2006 OpEd she said simply, "But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval." Well, then what the hell is the point of being briefed? She really doesn't seem to have any grip whatsoever on the checks and balances. "

Which raises the question, WHY is she there?  I mean, what is her own understanding, at this time, of her role, and the role of congress for that matter, in actual governing.

Here is that full quote from her WaPo oped:

"But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely."

What, specifically, was or is "constraining" them from discussing it more widely?  
What would be evidence or examples of such constraint? 
What would actually happen to them if they did speak freely?   Are they being threatened, and if so, with what?  Are their lives at risk?  Or ...?    

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:43:07 PM

  (0+)

It is certainly possible in light of it (and I think probable) that Pelosi did NOT know about wire tapping.

When she released her letter of October 2001 in 2006, if she had misused it, McClusky who had a copy, or other members of the Committee who did (and some would be Republican of course), could have embarrassed her politically with denials or by proferring contrary evidence (her real letter perhaps) of their own.

So I think she is telling the truth about not knowing about wiretapping.

If we assume that she did not know about wiretapping but did know about torture then her response to the questions Cheryl ask make human sense.

Cheryl coupled the two issues together in her questions. Torture AND wiretapping. If Pelosi felt accused of knowing A AND B, and Pelosi did not know BOTH A and B then she was telling the truth to say that that "we"(the Democrats - she was the ranking member) "did not know" BOTH A and B. And when Cherly said You knew. She was still telling the truth when she said she didn't know BOTH A and B.

Now if Pelosi didn't know about B (wiretapping) and is of the genuine opinion that she really tried (as her October 2001 letter suggests, however lamely her attempt might appear to others like us) to get some accountability as the ranking Democrat, and changes to the wiretapping process and breaches to FISA were on her mind as more important to her and Cheryl that torture, her comment "we stopped it" makes sense too. She is saying to Cheryl we stopped the wiretapping AS IT WAS OCCURING BEFORE.

She is not right to say she stopped it completely but she may feel she is right (truthful) to say the Democrats partly through her actions stopped some of the abuses.

Why does this matter? Because Pelosi as well as being Speaker of the House is a human being. She may feel some personal guilt and have some personal insecurities about not doing her job quite so well in hindsight as either she would have liked to have done it, or, as she knows Americans looking to her as a checker and balancer of the President would have liked that she had done it.

To hound Pelosi for her less than optimal checking and balancing is counterproductive to getting the Speaker of the House to hold impeachment hearings. And that should be the goal.

It is common ground between impeachment activists and Pelosi that Bush did not disclose information to congress. That failure to disclose critical information to congress for congress to be able to do its job and to make good decisions, or rather misleading congress by presenting incomplete information with respect to Iraq is what Kucinich's (consolidated single) impeachment article is about and also what Bugliosi makes as the core of his charge that Bush is guilty of murder.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:52:12 PM

  (0+)

It is established that the "gang of 8" was informed of the wiretapping. Not just based on the letter that Aurora produced.

The reason Nancy Pelosi wrote the 2006 OpEd where she states:

The executive branch provides notice of some especially sensitive intelligence information only to the chairman and the ranking member of the minority party of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and to the leaders of Congress. This is how I came to be informed of President Bush's authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of electronic surveillance.

But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared with no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely. That limitation must change.

Was because it became public knowledge that a select group of members of Congress had been informed by the administration of this wiretapping. It's a fact Brett. As it is a fact that she had been briefed on waterboarding.

Someone asked me earlier why I didn't confront her on another issue. The reason was because of time and because I wasn't up on all the details.

But, these two things at issue here are public record. I have read about it and written about it. In 2006, Gonzalez informed the public that the administration informed the gang of 8 (that's they're defense that Congress was informed because a select group was). The gang of 8 doesn't deny that this happened. Don't know how else to explain it to you.

Regarding "hounding" Pelosi hurting the impeachment cause...

1.  Asking questions that the corporate owned media is afraid or unwilling to ask is not hounding. It is investigating and reporting about accountability in our government. If they aren't going to do it then I will. It's one of the reasons sites like OEN exist to ask important questions.

2.  I have been advocating and working tirelessly for impeachment for a few years now. I have a full-time job and a teenager at home and often my work on impeachment leaves me with 3 hours of sleep a night. But, I am not going to cower and let public officials off the hook because it it might not take us on a straight line to impeachment. Nancy Pelosi is going to do what Nancy Pelosi is going to do. It's going to take an overwhelming explosion of righteous indignation by the American people to move that mountain. Me asking Pelosi about her choices a few years ago isn't going to affect her decision one way or the other.

And yes, she is a "human being" Brett and that fact did not escape me. In fact, there were moments reading her book that I actually was moved and felt my heart soften some. But then I remember that she remained silent when our government, my government, was actively advocating torture of other "human beings." As for me, I will stand up for the human beings who have no voice.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM

  (0+)

Cheryl wrote: a select group of members of Congress had been informed by the administration of this wiretapping. It's a fact Brett. As it is a fact that she had been briefed on waterboarding.

        Those facts are accepted and I agree.  Aurora's link show Pelosi was told something about wiretapping in October of 2002.  

Cherly: Someone asked me earlier why I didn't confront her on another issue. The reason was because of time and because I wasn't up on all the details.

    I understood that.  

Cheryl: But, these two things at issue here are public record. I have read about it and written about it. In 2006, Gonzalez informed the public that the administration informed the gang of 8 (that's they're defense that Congress was informed because a select group was). The gang of 8 doesn't deny that this happened. Don't know how else to explain it to you.

    I understand what you are saying, no other explanation is necessary.

Cheryl: Regarding "hounding" Pelosi hurting the impeachment cause...

1.  Asking questions that the corporate owned media is afraid or unwilling to ask is not hounding. It is investigating and reporting about accountability in our government. If they aren't going to do it then I will. It's one of the reasons sites like OEN exist to ask important questions.

    I did not mean to imply you were hounding. You did an excellent job. You set the bar. But I do however mean to imply that if someone else uses exactly the same topics in their approach focusing on what she failed to do with waterboarding and wiretapping in the past, rather than what she is failing to do with respect to impeaching Bush for misleading the Congess into a war, next time, then that would be hounding and that would sent her into a densive posture from which she would be less able not more able to put impeachment on the table.  

    We can't afford to have Pelosi having to defend herself from impeachment activists for her past failings that Bush isn't responsible for. If we want Pelosi to impeach Bush there just isn't time for that.  

Cheryl: 2.  I have been advocating and working tirelessly for impeachment for a few years now. I have a full-time job and a teenager at home and often my work on impeachment leaves me with 3 hours of sleep a night.

    Noted and again, thank you.  

Cheryl: Nancy Pelosi is going to do what Nancy Pelosi is going to do. It's going to take an overwhelming explosion of righteous indignation by the American people to move that mountain.

    Its going to take more than an explosion it is going to take intelligent pressure in the right places.  

Cheryl: Me asking Pelosi about her choices a few years ago isn't going to affect her decision one way or the other.

    Oh yes it is. I suspect she remembers you ;-)

Cheryl: And yes, she is a "human being" Brett and that fact did not escape me. In fact, there were moments reading her book that I actually was moved and felt my heart soften some. But then I remember that she remained silent when our government, my government, was actively advocating torture of other "human beings."

    I know but please include in your consideration that Pelosi, just like Jane Harman (see in either the first link you provide or in my response to rhalfhill which I hope you read what Harmans says about a secrecy oath), would have been under two oaths. The oath that you are rightly concerned which  is her oath to defend the constitution from domestic enemies. And I'm concerned about that too. And the oath that she took to keep the nations secrets. She really was in a difficult spot especially in the time shortly after 9-11.  Had she reported abuses of civil liberties (wiretapping) or reported about torture she most certainly would have been attacked for doing so.  

I'm not saying she was right. I'm saying it behoves us to understand she had conflicting pressures.

Cheryl: As for me, I will stand up for the human beings who have no voice.

I have no doubt of it. 

I have great respect for you.  I hope you read the further comments I have added in this thread.  

What questions are NOW going to be the best ones to put to Pelosi to make her work with impeachment activists to impeach? Shouldn't the focus of questions to be Pelosi be about what is to be done about Bush's deceptions  that led the nation into war? Is it possible to give Pelosi room to move on impeachment without requiring that she cut her own throat politically?

I think we have to be very careful because of the time constraints to ask the very best questions. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:15:15 AM

  (0+)

It is not counterproductive!  If we are ever to get impeachment out of this Congress, ALL the Congress members who are not actively pushing for impeachment must be aggressively confronted at their every public appearance.  If they are not pushing for impeachment, they are violating their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and are thus impeachable themselves.

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments) on Saturday, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:50:51 PM

  (0+)

ALL the Congress members who are not actively pushing for impeachment must be aggressively confronted at their every public appearance.

1) I am not saying Cheryl was hounding. Cheryl did an excellent job given the constraints she was under - constraints which her article make vividly clear.

But as the time remaining to get impeachment on the table is rapidly running out, and there is no time to replace Pelosi as Speaker, the next approach, in order not to be counterproductive, needs to build on what Cheryl did, it needs to focus Pelosi's attention on the things that the impeachment movement knows that she CAN do about impeachment, not on things that we think she has personally done wrong in the past.

Being aggressive with Pelosi about her past failings (on waterboarding and wiretapping), when she is still the Speaker, will be counterproductive to the goal of getting impeachment on the table, because we would back her into a corner and cause her to treat impeachment activists as if they were an unruly lynch mob incapable of discriminating or prioritising.

The most serious impeachment charge against Bush is of misleading Congress and the nation into a war which resulted in massive loss of life. And that was what Bush did when he gave Congress a redacted National Security report that exaggerated the threat of Iraq and made it seem that Iraq was an imminent threat when the security agencies did not think it was.

If you take a look at the second link Cheryl provides in response to my request for evidence you will see that Jane Harman says

"when you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

This, I submit, would be very, very probably, a true statement by Harman. It makes perfect sense in terms of protecting the national interest from foreigners that mean the nation harm. And Pelosi would have signed the same oath. Pelosi would have been under the same pressures as Harman.

I submit that 9-11 put new pressures on old systems of checks and balances. Bush was pushing hard to protect the nation as he saw it. Hayden as head of the NSA was doing likewise as he saw it. And Pelosi in her role as one of a small group of 4 or 8 checkers and balancers was caught between two oaths - to defend the constitution and check the President (like all Congressional reps) and to keep the nations secrets in the 9-11 environment from foreigners that clearly meant the nation harm. She did have a genuinely very, very difficult job is my point.

And in October 2002 when she wrote Hayden, she was doing something, not absolutely nothing. And I should point out she did vote AGAINST the Authorisation to Use Miliatary Force in Iraq at about that same time of October 2002. Steny Hoyer her likely rival for Speaker did not.

If impeachment is going to happen its only going to happen with Pelosi as speaker. And if Pelosi gambles on impeachment and loses Steny Hoyer who is the guy that is more of a break on impeachment in terms of his public comments than Pelosi even though he has less power, may campaign to take her down as Speaker. It is Steny Hoyer that led the trust to get the impeachment resolution of Cheney out of the House. It was Steny Hoyer who when impeachment hearing were being mooted by Conyers and Pelosi after Kucinich read his single consolidated article, got himself reported in the press as saying they may be hearings but they will not be impeachment hearings.

Hoyer is Pelosi's real political rival and he will oppose impeachment being on the table (because as a blue dog it carries more risk for him in his electorate if the message that great wrongs have occurred and they are the Presidents fault can't be sold even to the republicans through the impeachment process) and he will try to make Pelosi pay for doing so if she puts it on the table and it fails to get through the Senate.

Pelosi has been making statements recently and for some time about how the President did not inform Congress. At critical times she may have been more informed then some of her Congressional colleagues but her ability to brief them was constrained by an oath of secrecy.

As a practical matter impeachment activists will need to forgive Pelosi her (understandable) inactions on waterboarding and wiretapping if they want to work with her to get Bush for lying the nation into war.

For impeachment activists to further attack Pelosi for her failings in waterboarding and wiretapping checking and balancing will close her into an entirely defensive stature with respect to impeachment activism.

She may go into an entirely defensive stature anyway, but if impeachment activists challenge her to pursue the Bush deceptions of Congress that resulted in a war then they can find ground on which Pelosi might, just might come around. But there is very very little time for political blunders by the impeachment movement.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:29:57 AM

  (0+)

brett, i agree that people - and i expect that they will - need to focus on areas that will help make it easier for pelosi to be willing to accept impeachment as an option, eg. executive privilege and subpoenas - although it looks like the administration is faking some cooperation with that right now. but, i do get what you're saying.

you have to understand though my questions to her were not focused on how can i best get her to impeach. i just sat through an hour of her bullshit about know your power. i have been wanting to know for two years why she can rail against the administration for torture and wiretapping when she knew about it.

i was also fully aware that the majority of activists approaching her - some that night - were going to ask the democrats.com $1000 question. in this regard, i was a reporter first. this is a question that should have been ask by any legitimate journalist in the last few years but they failed to because they are all frauds. i'm not trying to suggest that was the key to anything but truth.

i do understand where you're coming from in general, but please understand i wasn't looking to attack pelosi. i honestly wanted to know why she didn't do it and i don't believe it was because of an oath. she's not concerned about her oath to defend and protect the constitution and that is the only oath she has taken before the american people so while she may have been paralyzed by fear it wasn't because of an oath in my book.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:59:12 AM

  (0+)

Daniel Ellsberg (leaker of Pentagon Papers) wrote a terrific article for the Harvard Law Review about Secrecy Oaths in 2004:

Are Secrecy Oaths a License to Lie? 

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:41:53 AM

  (0+)

I'm so proud of you and I don't even know you! I'm glad you didn't get tased or sprayed. To hell with Pelosi - what a damn phony she is!

Boycott her book! Bird dog her everywhere she's hocking it - oh and if you plan to speak to her - buying her book is forgiven as it'll be a ruse for getting in her face. Take it home, use it under the cat box.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:48:22 PM

  (0+)

She's scared. I didn't really know it until know. Once she admits she knew to anyone, even a lady in her book signing, she'll be on record forever.

Great article! How come you didn't ask her if she knew Iraq wasn't a threat, why she didn't tell Congress or the American people that we were being hoodwinked?

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 3:40:11 AM

  (0+)

thanks for the comment ronald.

despite my drawn out description of the exchange, it all happened in a blink of an eye. give me a sit-down and i'll have a laundry list of questions.

i did, though, think of that question, but it seemed to me that there was a more gray area about exactly the intelligence she was referring to and since i wasn't privy to that i would have been at a disadvantage.

regarding the other two - waterboarding and wiretapping - i was more clear about what was discussed in those briefings and more importantly to me despite this info. becoming public about her knowledge a while back, nobody ever asks her about it and i am quite sure the majority of the democratic base aren't even aware.

this is one that i will keep jumping down the memory hole and dragging back up.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:37:32 AM

  (0+)

But I recently got this emailed to me - I added the info about the 40 years.  Shame on Pelosi for squandering her history as the first female speaker by upholding this criminal administration whatever her reasoning is.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM

  (0+)

"As John Dean points out, Bush/Cheney have broken the same laws Nixon did, only Nixon's actions did not cost the lives of over 4000 brave American men and women".

Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable US executives in American history. If the House Democrats do not hold impeachment hearings soon it will be plain to all that they are unworthy of their office.

The failure of the House Democrats to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for the WMD Lies is unforgiveable. The only way any Incumbent House Democrat will get my vote is to hold Impeachment Hearings prior to the election.

No matter what Bush/Cheney Crimes evidence comes out the House Democrats will try to ignore it. It is time for some tough love for Incumbent House Democrats.

How can we make Impeachment Hearings Happen?

Arrayed against impeachment literally, is nearly the entire Democratic Party establishment as well as most Republicans. But the Democrats control Congress and can start Impeachment Hearings with a simple majority vote. The Dems have the votes.

Most rank and file Democratic voters want Impeachment but are being ignored by the Democratic Congress.

In addition, many of the so called progressive organizations are also in lockstep with the House Democrats (such as: MoveOn, ACLU & UFPJ ) and against impeachment. It will take a very hard fight to over come this and some real courage on the part of individual Democratic voters.

In Colorado we have actually been doing negative campaigning against all incumbent Democratic Congressmen who refuse even to discuss impeachment.

We have a Congressman Udall who is running to be a Senator from Colorado. He supposedly has a liberal background but is moving right as fast as he can. He avoids all protesters who want to stop the Iraq War funding and who support impeachment. The difficult aspect is that the Colorado Democratic Party, the Media, and most Colorado Progressive organizations are helping him avoid us.

Even so, the race for the US Senate from Colorado is statistically "too close to call", so we have a real chance to make a difference here. We believe that since the race is "so close" that we actually can stop Udall from winning and going to the Senate.

The way we are doing this is by doing "Negative Protesting" at our weekly impeachment events, at all of his public events and by constant "commenting" on all newspaper articles about Udall (nationwide). We only have to sway the vote of a very small percentage of voters to keep Udall out of the Senate. This is doable.

Up until about two weeks ago, the honking at our weekly events had quadrupled since January. Then we used much "tougher" anti-Udall language on our signs and the honking doubled again. So much so that the Denver Police came and threatened arrest if we continued to use "honk to impeach" signs and also threatened us with citations for "disturbing the peace". A strong indication that we are getting to the Democratic establishment and that the public is with us.

Regarding "commenting", after awhile you become somewhat adept at changing the subject of an article to relate it to Udall and why he shouldn't be a Senator from Colorado. It really stirs people up and gets the discussion going. If you all are interested in how we do that I can share a list of links to articles that we've commented on.

Given that impeachment advocates have worked hard to lobby Congress to hold hearings and have done so for many years with no results, we think it is time for all impeachment advocates to get tough with Incumbent House Democrats.

The House Democrats have ignored us for years. Unless we threaten to un-elect them with negative campaigning they will continue to ignore us. The only thing they care about is getting re-elected.

Unless Angry Liberal Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Greens and the rest of you get off the couch and carry signs in front of all Incumbent House Democratic Congressmen's offices with harsh language such as "UDALL is a Traitor to Our Constitution because he Refuses To Impeach"...

There Will Be No Impeachment.

It is up to you.

John H Kennedy, Denver CO, 43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to the Denver County Democratic Convention, organizer of the
IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com

..

by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:42:50 AM

  (0+)

Cheryl,  if there were awards for speaking Truth to Power, you would be, unequivocally, my nomination for this month.

It is in times such as now, when there are intense conflicting pressures between rulers and ruled,  between deception and truth, between intimidation or coercion and courage,  that true heroes and heroines emerge.

Thank you so much for that simple act of speaking truth to power.

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:44:30 PM

  (0+)

Just what we need is another power hungry, lying, blocking, ignorant, dimwit, who ignores the Constitution and other laws just to play a power game.   The Founding Fathers made a great many rules/laws to stop people just like Pelosi but they had notcounted on the free press being shutdown or the public not caring.   In a Democratic Republic every rights has a responsibility that We, the People, must carry out if we are to remain free!   Way too many people have forgotten that simple principle.   Vote out almost all incumbents now and forever until they remember who they are supposed to answer to!

by Hayesml47 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 540 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:24:16 PM

  (0+)

If ever there was a book that deserved burning it would be Pelosi's.

by Hayesml47 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 540 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:28:44 PM

  (0+)

I've known for a while that Pelosi is a complete fake, flake and hypocrite. Thanks for the details that confirm SHE IS ALL THAT. :-)

And thanks for holding her accountable, too.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:35:59 PM

  (0+)

Thanks, Cheryl, for a great recap of your evening and a glimpse into Pelosi's book -- you've saved a lot of us $17.

I enjoyed your comments on Pelosi's "first strategic alliance" -- apparently she still gets mileage out of her "I won't tell if you won't tell" philosophy.

But I was even more interested that Pelosi is now extending her trademark "grotesque mistake" line with a relatively new addition, namely that:

"They went into that war knowing full well there was no intelligence to support the imminent threat that this administration was contending. I was a senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee at the time. It’s called the ‘gang of four,’ the top Democrats and the top Republicans in the House and in the Senate and we saw all of the intelligence and there was no intelligence to say that there was an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. It was clear. I voted against the war." "I had all the intelligence and I knew the threat wasn’t there. So, this administration knew all this faulty intelligence stuff, they knew it wasn’t there."

Pelosi's been plying her "grotesque mistake" line for years now. First in her Sep 2004 weekly radio address -- but when she used it back then it was simply because the Iraq war was "not making America safer". That same explanation echoed again and again through 2005 and 2006 -- the later ones embellished with comments about her role on the Intelligence Committee and with our troops "not having the proper Intelligence to get the job done".

This new explanation for why she considers the war a grotesque mistakes just started a little more than a year ago and I was astonished at the time. In Jun 2007 at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington DC, she said virtually word-for-word your quote from her book signing talk, and as you point out that was NOT the reason she gave on the house floor for her opposition to the war.

This now the second time I've heard this revisionist reason for the grotesque mistake, though I have no doubt that it'll be reiterated as a theme in this new book signing tour.

Nancy, if you knew at the time that the intelligence was inadequate and contorted THEN WHY DIDN"T YOU SAY SO THEN? The only explanation is that either you're lying or you were scared -- but now we also know that you've stricken "scared" from your vocabulary. Well put it back in. Either you were lying, scared, or you've just plain deluded yourself. In any event you "Know" nothing about "Power".

PS Nancy: I'll invite you to take a look at the Kucinich Wexler Articles of Impeachment. They may interest you -- in it they call for the ouster of the Executive for starting a war with inadequate and contorted intelligence.

by Robert Knowles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 59 comments) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:38:23 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   Growing up in Wyoming I knew that women had the vote, else there would not have been enough adults to petition for statehood. My mother tried to warn me, however. She described that we couldn't sit on juries. I asked her why, and she said they thought we were too emotional. I remembered that for Maalox moments in later life. Like in Washington D.C. as we sat listening to Helen Gahagan Douglas describe how Richard Dixon was trying to railroad her. Time smoothed a few problems in later skirmishes. I used to enjoy debates and wanted to join Toastmasters, and learned I was only a Mistress. Thought about that the night Data Processing Management Association chapter in Chicago had nominations. I'd been writing notes for the newsletter forever. When the nominating committeeMAN wanted me to run for secretary, I declined but would settle for VP. Didn't press the issue. Now I wish I had kept the issue when Jack Kemp came to tell us how he was proposing that Congress be televised. God bless him for quarterbacking something which gives me many hours of entertainment and some knowledge. But then there is Nancy, who did the right thing--raised her kids and then went on to do public works. I saw her tell Brian Lamb (Q&A on C-Span) how important it is to have power. And she has it and knows how to use it. If you have an hour, it's available online. But Cheryl did it with real feeling. What is it about these business types> Don't they study Management 101? Somehow you acquire power, but it is of no consequence if you don't earn the authority! We can forgive Dubya with his MBA, because he probably cut class that day. But she should know that all organizations cannot function well with a TopDown business model. Remember Pelosi had a hard time even arranging her No 2 man. Cheryl, you are to be congratulated for enduring the event. It takes talent to write such a revealing tale.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1852 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:37:36 PM

  (0+)

It may not have happened in the US yet but I and I sense much of the world has formed the opinion that it is safer to oppose the US legally albeit covertly but if necessary openly and by all means necessary than to be led over the cliff by this delusional government.

People fear the incompetence of this government more than its wrath.

by kwalsh (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 275 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:07:28 AM

  (0+)

So Pelosi knew the WMD threat was a hoax, voted against the authorization for Bush's war, yet she didn't shout from the rooftops that it was a deliberate, massive ruse. I have to wonder if she would have been more vocal if one her own were destined for the killing zone.  (And for all the others in the majority that voted for war.)  And the Iraq debacle she describes as such a "ghastly mistake" is funded, each and every time by Pelosi and her crew to this day. What a political tightrope to walk by only the most seasoned of political weasels.

Of course Hussein had Chemical and Biological weapons.  I have no doubt that countless receipts are to be found among the Reagan archives.

Cheryl, I admire your restraint. I would have likely been dragged from the auditorium shouting phrases like "institutionalized murder!" and such.

I'm proud to know a man that, in attendance of a Cheney 'press the flesh' event, refused the VP's handshake. When the dick puzzled, my friend flatly remarked that he 'never shook the hand of a man that he didn't trust".  And from Cheney's glare, he was sure that he heard it.  Asked by one of the goons that began to closely watch him, "Why did you attend?", he replied that he wanted to glimpse the evil behind Cheney's eyes, first hand, in person.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 488 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:42:45 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   It's such a shame that there aren't more articles like this in the local and national media. Pelosi has about as much credibility talking about power and changing the status quo as George W. Bush does promoting democracy. If either had an ounce of integrity, they would have resigned long ago.

by Alan G (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:09:04 PM

  (0+)

Petition to Remove Nancy Pelosi from the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives

Whereas Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, having failed to fulfill her oath of office as a United States Representative from the State of California, to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” by abusing the power of her office as Speaker of the House to prevent the consideration of Articles of Impeachment – impeachment being the Constitutionally mandated process to hold the Executive accountable for violations of the Constitution, the laws passed by Congress, and international treaties having the force of law under the Constitution, and

Whereas Nancy Pelosi, as Minority Leader, prior to the mid-term elections of 2006, publicly stated that “Impeachment is off the table”, a politically partisan strategy designed to avoid activating Republican fears that might have disadvantaged her party’s candidates in the election, and

Whereas Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi continues to obstruct the Constitutionally mandated process of impeachment in furtherance of a politically partisan strategy designed, as she has repeatedly stated -to pass the Democratic Party’s legislative agenda in preference to fulfilling her Oath of Office to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, and

Whereas Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi’s continued use of the power of her office to compel other Democrats -  Members of the House of Representatives - to withhold their support for impeachment, in violation of their oaths of office, corrupts the most basic functions of the separation of powers designed by the framers and set down in our Constitution,

Therefore: we, the undersigned concerned citizens urge the Democratic Party to take action to the end that Nancy Pelosi be removed from the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives and sanctioned for her obstruction of the Constitutionally mandated investigations and impeachment proceedings occasioned by the many credible and well documented allegations against George W. Bush and Richard “Dick” Cheney.

Further: we pledge to withhold financial support for any candidate, office holder, or organization such as the DSCC, DCCC, or DNC seen to be failing in their responsibility to the Constitution in calling for immediate investigations into the actions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney leading to the possible filing of articles of impeachment.

by William Bassett (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 3:52:14 AM

  (0+)