Tags for This Article:

Impeachment (3193)  Torture (780)  Cheney Dick (754)  Pelosi-Nancy (463)  Foreign Policy Failure Iran (369)  George W Bush (293)  Books (182)  Illegal Wiretapping (16) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
August 7, 2008 at 16:39:55

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined on 8/7/08:
Nancy Pelosi Book Signing: Know Your Power, Just Don't Speak Truth to It

by Cheryl Biren-Wright     Page 1 of 4 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

Inside Nancy Pelosi's book signing in Philadelphia. Her remarks on Iran, Iraq - impeachment? And, what did this writer ask that caused her to be escorted out of the building? 

Arriving at the steps of the Free Library of Philadelphia Tuesday night where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was promoting her book, "Know Your Power," I was promptly scolded by my good friend, activist Joanne O’Neill.

"What? No impeach sign? Here, take a sign," Jo insisted. "Nope," I replied. "I’m goin’ in."

An hour earlier, I swallowed my pride - along with some bitter acid reflux - as I shelled out 17 bucks to purchase a book about "knowing my power" authored by a woman who spent the last few years wielding very little of it when it mattered the most. But, a little heartburn and forgoing a few lattes for the rest of the week was what it would take for me to get close enough to pose a question to the "most powerful woman" in America.

Having learned of the event just the day before, I was relegated to the simulcast room with about 60 others as the auditorium was sold out. I spotted one friendly in the crowd, but he was clearly in plotting mode so I decided to crack the binding of my new book while I waited for the Speaker to arrive. It was a quick read at just over 170 pages laced with anecdotes, some touching, some inspiring - okay, not so much.

It did offer some unique insights. A few grabbed my attention, though I am sure not in a way intended by the author. The reader is invited back 60 years to her father’s Mayoral inauguration. Nancy and her brothers were sent to a room to wait quietly before the ceremony. When a man walked in and engaged them, Nancy upheld the family rule of not speaking to strangers. Her brothers determined it was okay to say hello. When they discovered the man was the outgoing mayor and it was his office, they quickly found themselves in a standoff.

Pelosi recalled, Joey said to me that he was going to tell Mommy that I was not polite to the Mayor. "If you do," I said calmly, "I will tell Mommy that you talked to a stranger." I had just turned seven, and Joey was nine. I didn’t squeal on him, and because I’d earned his respect, he didn’t squeal on me.

Anyone with a sibling can easily recall such a moment. It was Pelosi’s assessment, however, that gave me pause. She writes of the occasion, "I had just built my first strategic alliance."

A common explanation for why the House Speaker took impeachment off the table is that the table could easily be turned on her because of her prior knowledge of and complicity in some of the most egregious offenses by the Bush administration. Perhaps she determined this was one of those times where it would be in her best interest not to "squeal."

Another charge made against Pelosi and other Democratic leaders is their insistence of putting Party before all else. In "Know Your Power," Nancy Pelosi recounts the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and the tone of the 1968 Democratic Convention.

She writes, "Hubert Humphrey won the nomination, but the Democratic Party was still divided, particularly because Vice President Humphrey did not disassociate himself from Johnson’s Vietnam War Policy. I, too, opposed the war, but, wanting to get a Democrat in the White House, I stuffed many ‘Humphrey for President’ leaflets under apartment doors that fall." Need I remind anyone we ended up with Nixon?

In her book, Nancy Pelosi tells us how much she admires "disrupters." Yes, disrupters. "Sometimes," she explains "it is necessary to disrupt the status quo. That is the tradition of our country. Our Founders were disrupters - magnificent disrupters. Martin Luther King Jr. was a disrupter, as were the suffragettes. It is the American way. The change that resulted from these leaders has made our country greater. How can we follow their lead?"

Funny, I don’t recall in the time that Ms. Pelosi has served as House Speaker her appreciating our nation’s wave of disrupters all that much.

I would learn first hand later that evening in a not so subtle way by the Speaker and her security detail that not only does she not appreciate disrupters, she doesn’t take kindly to anyone like myself who would dare...ask a question.

I was deep in thought about Nancy and the Disrupters and it was beginning to give me a headache when suddenly the energy in the room changed. The women around me perked up, inched to the edge of their seats, and leaned forward in eager anticipation. Nancy Pelosi was about to make her entrance.

Tamala Edwards, morning show anchor for 6abc Action News was selected to moderate the evening. Did I mention she was with ABC? As Ms. Edwards sat with a small pile of index cards, Madame Speaker made it clear who was going to guide the discussion. She regaled the audience with vignettes from her book and they ate it up and swallowed it whole. Tamala allowed the Speaker to take her monologue as far and away from it’s starting point as she cared. Occasionally, when Pelosi’s voice tapered off and she allowed for an opening, Tamala would inject an innocuous question like, "Do you ever get scared?"

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt. Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com. Contact info: cheryl[at]opednews.com cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
44 comments

DaveyS is a 5th-generation Texan now living in California, a proud liberal (product of the public education system in North Texas!), and a staunch critic of conservative policies that are destroying our nation.
daveysDaveyS is a 5th-generation Texan now living in California, a proud liberal (product of the public education system in North Texas!), and a staunch critic of conservative policies that are destroying our nation.

Let's pull an Anita Bryant...

...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 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 176 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 5:47:22 PM
 


Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump s...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Rob KallRob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump s...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Great article and Idea

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 (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 1:52:57 PM
 


A United States Marine Corps Viet Nam Era Veteran trying to do what I can and expecting Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, to do what they can to keep the nation strong and free by remaining true to the Constitution first of all.
Gene CappaA United States Marine Corps Viet Nam Era Veteran trying to do what I can and expecting Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, to do what they can to keep the nation strong and free by remaining true to the Constitution first of all.

Nancy Pelosi Book Signing

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 (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 62 diaries, 264 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 6:46:30 PM
 


freelance writer interested in education and computers
taylor leefreelance writer interested in education and computers

very funny

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, August 7, 2008 at 6:51:44 PM
 


'The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.' Thomas Jefferson 1787
Munich'The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.' Thomas Jefferson 1787

Re: Nancy Pelosi Book Signing

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 (0 articles, 74 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 922 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:07:50 PM
 


Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Cheryl Biren-WrightWriter/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Ad

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 (27 articles, 26 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 412 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:20:34 PM
 


August Adams is a CPA and holds a Masters Degree in Psychology. He is an activist striving to create a fair and just world for all.
August AdamsAugust Adams is a CPA and holds a Masters Degree in Psychology. He is an activist striving to create a fair and just world for all.

Awesome work!

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 (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 469 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM
 


Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Brett PaatschBrett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.

If only this witness faced a prosecutor in a courtroom

 

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, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments) on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM
 


Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Cheryl Biren-WrightWriter/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Evidence

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 (27 articles, 26 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 412 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM
 


B.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.
AuroraB.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.

briefing - Oct 01 (her response of immediate concern)

"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, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 381 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:01:13 PM
 


Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Cheryl Biren-WrightWriter/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, will settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.

Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.

Contact info: che...

to see more of bio, click on member name

thanks

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 (27 articles, 26 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 412 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:19:58 PM
 


B.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.
AuroraB.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.

general's reply

"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, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 381 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 5:00:50 PM
 


B.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.
AuroraB.Soc.Sci (Aus). Helped start an Organic Food Co-op and a Local Energy Transfer System (goods & services exchange, no cash). Lived near permaculture's Bill Mollison for a time, saw semi barren land transformed into gardens and orchards. Worked in a Community Support Center. Currently in NZ/ Aotearoa.

What are those "constraints"?

"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, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 381 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 5:43:07 PM
 


Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Brett PaatschBrett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.

Aurora's evidence is important to understand the exchange

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, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 9:52:12 PM