Pelosi has been pushed to impeach for years now.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I did not say the article said impeach..I SAID IMPEACH..It is my opinion that if the republicans can try to impeach a wonderful president who brought prosperity and calm to his land through the 1990s over a personal private matter, most definitely we can impeach a warmonger who has thrown us into a war that will be endless and will last for over 100 years, as one of the terror specialists has said. You see, you guys dont read or interpret what is really being said..Geez..

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, �The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Cheney and the Bush administration.�

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dik Cheney

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an AL Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

If you want to spread lies, you need to go back to the board where that happens frequently.

In the meantime, you should take this opportunity to educate your ignorant self and actually READ the article rather than inventing words that don't even exist in it.

Experts fear 'endless' terror war
Analysts say al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren�t encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of �endless� war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, �I don�t think it�s even started yet.�

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London�s bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

'Self-sustaining' jihad
Now, he said, �we�re at the point where jihad is self-sustaining,� where Islamic �holy warriors� in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida�s bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Thursday�s attacks on London�s transit system mirrored last year�s bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration � but little more � to local �jihadists� who carry out the strikes.

Although no arrests have been made in the London attacks, a group using al-Qaida�s name made a claim of responsibility, otherwise unconfirmed. Experts say the bombings bore hallmarks of al-Qaida.

The movement�s evolution �has given rise to a �virtual network� that is extremely adaptable,� said Jonathan Stevenson, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies� Washington office.

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to the �softer� targets of mass transit.

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, �are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century,� said the University of North Carolina�s Cynthia Combs, co-author of a terrorism encyclopedia.

Cycle of recruitment
Combs said the so-called Earth and Animal Liberation fronts in the United States are examples � if less lethal ones � of �leaderless� militant movements based on isolated cells. She also said it�s not unrealistic that another American example � far-right �militia� cells � might make common cause someday with foreign terrorists against the U.S. government.

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who fears an �endless war,� dismisses talk of al-Qaida�s �back� having been �broken� by the capture of some leaders.

�From the terrorists� point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties,� said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

What should be broken, he said, is the cycle of terrorist recruitment through the generations. �Here you come to the main challenge.�

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world�s richer powers must address �underlying causes� � lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries.

Combs cited bin Laden�s use of Afghanistan as his 1990s headquarters. �If we hadn�t been ignoring Afghanistan and instead offered real assistance, would it have become a base for bin Laden?� she asked.

'Depressing' outlook
Not all agree this is an answer. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar in the field, prescribes stoicism.

The American, British and other target publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge, said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.

�The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents,� he said.

Scheuer, who headed the CIA�s bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out � through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership�s �willful blindness� to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end �unqualified support� for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state �tyrannies.�

He acknowledged such actions aren�t likely soon, but said his longtime subject bin Laden will �make us bleed enough to get our attention.� Ultimately, he said, �his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies.�

For James Kirkhope, the outlook is �depressing.�

His Washington consultancy, Terrorism Research Center, sometimes �red-teams� for U.S. authorities, playing a role in exercises, thinking like terrorist leaders. That thinking increasingly seems focused on a struggle for Islamic supremacy lasting hundreds of years, he said.

And for the moment they just �want to be kept on our radar screen,� Kirkhope said. For all the terror and carnage, he said, last week�s London attacks carried a simple message: �We�re still around.�

This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.

The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.

Temptations resisted

To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.

House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?

Can it work?

No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.

But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.

Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.

Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.

This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.

They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.

Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.

These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.

The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.

Nancy Pelosi has NO charisma but she is both knowledgeabe and competent. Both parties agree. Even the diehard Republlicans in both houses are embarrassed by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin and many are now calling for her to be replaced. I genuinely feel badly for her.........she was chosen only to prove he is a "maverick" and did not strictly follow party lines.She was not given much time to prepare before being thrust in the spotlight. This will probably destroy what could have been a bright future for her.

Seriously, did anyone see her interview with Katie Couric? She has to get "her head arount Putin's"??? I was genuinely embarrassed for her.

I also wondered can't she just look in his eyes like George Bushi did and see his soul?

I will NEVER post again to this board. Such vitriol from some of the posters and it is not worth it. I do not like the feeling of being attacked for a simple statement.

We all have our own personal beliefs and opinions.I am just wondering, though, how many people running for a powerful office are routinely filmed being blessed by their pastors for "protection against witches".

I also wonder how many "Christians" would slash their state's Special Olympic budget and then objectify their own special-needs child for political gain.

Pelosi Bungling Democratic Win With Hastings Appointment

They took a trip to the UK for partridge hunting and it cost us $88K. Aren't we so kind to them. Yeah, go ahead AIG, take all the trips you want. We don't mind. You all need that time to think up another trip.

Pelosi wants another $300B from the bailout. Don'cha just love her? She's so wonderful.

both say they demand a PLAN from all three before they will agree to give them any money, that they wanted full accountability and transparency. (I had to DOUBLE-CHECK to make sure it WAS Pelosi and Reid I was hearing.)

I think this is a good idea. Maybe if those conditions had been applied to Paulson, the Wall Street crooks would have had to toe the line a bit. Instead, sadly, Wall Street gets a blank check, NO oversight, NO transparency, and Paulson keeps changing his mind about what to do with the money.

I don't want to see America lose GM, Ford or Chrysler. They have the technology available to them to manufacture cars that can get 50 miles per gallon. (I bought one in the mid 1980s.) Maybe they need to spruce up the old ཽ Mustangs, or even the beloved ཱུ Chevies with that kind of gas mileage for those of us who can't afford the expensive hybrids they want to offer.

The main problem, though, seems to be the arrogance of the CEOs of these companies (particularly with the private jet issues). One of these CEOs (I can't remember his name now) was asked if he would resign if it was for the good of the company, and he flatly refused and indicated there was nothing wrong with his performance. In my opinion, the cockier their attitude, the less they may be likely to get.

The other option of bankruptcy would force restructuring, and I believe would force out the incompetent CEOs and managers, developing a viable plan and starting from scratch, while still operating and not needing to lay off so many workers.

I've known for well over a year now that we were in a recession. I used to watch the Dow every day, did a happy dance and sang a little song (with apologies to Neil Sadaka): "Dow, doobie do, Dow down. Come on, Come on, Dow, doobie do, Dow down. Goin' broke is hard to do."

I think those of us with the least noticed this trend a long, long time ago. I realized then that until and unless the richest of the rich started to feel the "pinch," people like us would never have a chance because we were the invisible Americans. (I guess this is the "bottom-up theory.")

In a convoluted sort of way, this might help some Americans. I know it's going to hurt a lot of people, as well, but the less money people can spend, the more prices will be forced to go down. That old "what the market will bear" kind of thing. So working from the "bottom up," as Obama has mentioned, seems to go along with the way I've been thinking this for a long time now.

Regulations must be put back in place regarding Wall Street. They all will be getting their Christmas bonuses this year -- quite hefty ones -- and you and I are paying for them. Meanwhile, Christmas in my home is looking very bleak this year.

I read somewhere that the CEO of any company, by law, shouldn't be allowed to earn more than the President of the United States earns.