Shorter: "He's Lying!"

Man, although i wasn't initially a huge fan in the last week (between her comments on the Democratic race and this) i have really come to respect the balls of this women.
She is brassy and truthful. How refreshing!

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

Check Out Our New Polls Posted Weekly!

Pelosi's record on "imminent threat" and Iraq are a mixed bag. Look at this, National Catholic Reporter, Posted January 22, 2003:

Joe Feuerherd: Is war justified absent an imminent threat?

Pelosi does not change the wording, and responds to the question "absent an imminent threat."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: I’m not the commander-in-chief. If war is justified with Iraq on the basis of their development of weapons of mass destruction, the threat they pose to the United States, and the treatment of their people…than I think there are several other countries which are candidates for us to go to war with.

She then expressly listed Iran and Korea! How's that for "change"?

She didn't expressly state that she was opposed to a war with Iraq based on these claims; only that these claims would "justify" attacks on other countries. This is hardly a record of saying, "I'm opposed to the President's activity."

She wasn't clear or emphatic. She cannot argue in 2008 that she was emphatically opposed to the President's invasion. She did the opposite: She left the door open to other invasions of other countries using the same dubious criteria. This hasn't been change, but recasting the rubber stamp as an applause of the President.

It appears Pelosi is the one who is lying or leaving a false impression, not just the President. She's changing her tune.

Pelosi:

I said the intelligence on Iraq does not support the threat of -- an imminent threat to our country that the administration is contending.

The record does not support her restatements. Rather, she did not rule out an invasion of Iraq absent that imminent threat. Rather, using that same dubious "lack of imminent threat," she supported invading Iran and Korea. Pelois and the President both misrpresenting the record, facts, and history.

Not clear what Pelosi is tryign to prove in 2008, other than she can change the argument from whether she did or didn't support the invasion; to whether somone else deceived her. Pelosi appears to remain interested in finding excuses to support her delusions. She wants to be called a "leader"?!?

Your analysis is a bit twisted, testing.

Pelosi is breaking new ground on challenging the president. when her fellow dems begin to see her approval ratings come up because of this, they will quickly come to heel and realize their interests and the interests of the american people are best served by bringing bush to heel.

Why can't President Bush just sign the bill into law and add a note granting his retroactive telecom immunity with one of his signing statements?

Or maybe President Bush could simply pardon the telecoms?

This woman is just flat-out cool.

You've fallen into a trap. You're implicitly arguing Pelosi knows there was no imminent threat, yet you support her action not to impeach?

No imminent threat means a war crime.

She is the best Dem around.

Pelosi for President!!!!

i vote for obama, hope he won't become the 2nd Spitzer. by the way, i causually see the woman who realateed to Spitzer on a free dating site named intimatemingle.com i can't upload the pics now, or you wil be surprised.

Pelosi has definitly gained my respect with her rejection of the shared ticket, and now this.

This is, indeed, the sort of straight talking woman I would love to see as our president.

The fact that she is not pushing for impeaching Bush does not bother me. It merely reflects the political realities of our time.

That said, the times are changing. I do believe truth will soon be coming into it's own.

We can help this to happen by becoming more involved politically. And by holding our media responsible for rewarding truth and rejecting lies.

First off, we need to address the currently circulating sucessful lie: That McCain is somehow "better prepared" to lead our nation out of the disaster of Iraq because of his military experience.

Democrats need to address this. Pelosi may be the best "straight talker" to do this.

Time is of the essence.

Testing:

Does your screen name reflect what you do to everyone's patience?

I read that it's the GOP who called for this closed door session and that it's likely a ruse to stall so the House won't pass their bill out before vacation.

I guess the Whitehouse prefers to be able to bash Democrats for going on recess without passing any FISA bill rather than bash Democrats for passing a FISA bill President Bush swears he'll veto.

It is a bit interesting that Pelosi's "He knows he's wrong"-argument isn't backed up by real actions: Impeachment. Pelosi was the one who raised the issue of "imminent threat", but hasn't backed that "problem with lack of imminent threat" with a war crimes investigation.

Let's revisit the "big concern" Pelosi had about pre-emption. This expressly shows Pelosi was opposed to the "idea" of pre-emption; but when given evidence that the President in Iraq did just that, what does she do? Talks about it, but does not impeach.

Joe Feuerherd: Is the policy of preemption articulated by the administration a shift in strategy?

Note here, Pelosi talks about "moral" standards and "civlized" conduct: Those are important. They show that she's aware of standards of normalcy which this President is ignoring. Those standards of civlized conduct are codified in the Geneva Conventions.

Here, before she was Speaker, Pelosi expressly communicated her concerns about "moral" and "civlized" conduct. She is expressly communicating in 2003, before the invasion of iraq, that there is a problem when the United States pre-emptively uses force.

Yet, in 2008, despite that known illegal, pre-emptive use of force without an imminent threat, Pelosi continues with the same: Just talk, and no action [Added text] in brackets:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: There definitely is a shift. I believe there is a shift when we talk about a preemptive strike or what they call preventative war, which to me is an oxymoron: If you’re having war than you haven’t prevented it.

While I think we should never hesitate under certain circumstances to use force and that countries will have to know that we are prepared to use force, we have a moral [and legal] responsibility to exhaust every possible remedy first. Some of those are diplomatic; some are technological, in terms of deterring and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction…

I think it would be a step backward that we would [engage] in preventative war; what we want to have is preventative diplomacy so that we avoid war. Because no matter how you twist and turn, you are now in an era where the weapons of mass destruction …can be used against our young people, placing them in harms way…

And if we say that if you use weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological, then we’ll use nuclear on you, then I don’t think we are advancing the cause of civilization.

The Speaker is talking about the President "being wrong". The Speaker knows this President is "more than wrong" on Iraq and the issues of pre-emptive, preventive war, and imminent threats. The Speaker knows that the President did not have information justifying his use of force. When Congress authorized force, it did not authorize the President to illegally use force; nor use force absent an imminent threat.

The Speaker suggests the President is more than warong. Her statement is meaningless unless she is willing to put an impeachment investigation behind her accusations against the President. Indeed, the President was wrong; but this President and Congress do not care about whether something is wrong as evidenced by the reckless disregard for, and failure to enforce, the Geneva Conventions which expressly ban pre-emptive use of force without an imminent threat.

The President was wrong. The Speaker knows the President is wrong, but she's not doing anything about other than talking. She. Is. Wasting. Her. Time. As. Speaker. And. Should. Resign or be removed. To make way for impeachment of the President and Vice President. The issue of "being wrong", as it applies to war crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, or other events is less important than the common problem: Congress refuses to do anything about it, other than make meaningless assertions of, "Being wrong." This President doesn't care about the law or public comments. Pelosi openly calling him "wrong" is meaningless. The President will not respond. Pelosi knows, or should know this. Time for something new other than calling the President, "Wrong."

It appears, even if the President were to engage in more war crimes, Pelosi in 2008 appears to have reversed herself, despite her 2003 statements clearly supporting the assertion that she well knows a pre-emptive strike absent an imminent threat is not lawful. She knew the standard in 2003. Whether that standard is or isn't applied to the President is not in question: Pelosi hasn't imposed that Geneva requirement through impeachment or budget cuts against the President.

It doesn't matter if Pelosi says the President is "wrong" about POW abuse, FISA violations, imminent threats, or other illegal activity. Her words only mean something if they are backed by lawful action against the President. Nothing before us suggests Pelosi has a consistent policy on pre-emptive use of force as it is enforced against the President. One day Pelosi is against the use of force, another day she says this is immoral or uncivilized, another day she says the President is wrong, but on another day she will take no action against the President.

If the President will not be challenged, then Pelosi must be challenged to make way for that challenge against the President. An impeachment investigation would deny the President of a pardon. Yet, despite Pelosi's "concern" about the President being wrong, she would rather take impeachment off the table, but keep the option for a Presidential pardon on the table. That, Nancy Pelosi, is wrong, especially on issues of illegal warfare, FISA violations, POW abuse, and other alleged breaches of the laws of war.