I’m now convinced.  If you take the drivel from Truthdig and throw it in a blender with the blather from Newsmax, and if you’re very clever and careful, you might just be able to pull out some truth from the sludge created.

Democratic Party Full of Racists

  “The battle over who will be the No. 2 leader of weakened House Democrats in the next Congress took on racial overtones Monday as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who is white, and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who is black, battled for supporters.

  Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who chairs the 41-member Congressional Black Caucus, told colleagues in a letter that it’s important to keep an African-American on the party’s House leadership team. Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois African-American, sent a separate letter backing Clyburn for the post.

  Thirty House Democrats - none of them black - sent colleagues their own letter soliciting support for Hoyer, who’s served in Congress for three decades.

-

This is such bullshit.  It’s all so needless and dangerous.

There’s a saying that there is no such thing as a stupid question but I disagree.

A stupid question can be one you already asked and has been answered, repeatedly (but you didn’t like the answer). You ask it again expecting a different answer.

A stupid question can be one that is based on obviously untenable premises.

The answer to your question is blindingly obvious—the underlying facts changed, there were no more WMDs.  That is not reasonably open to discussion—even George W. Bush now admits there were no WMDs in Iraq.

The remaining part of your question I have already answered, multiple times.  You simply have turned off and tuned out that part of the answer because it doesn’t fit your world view.  That’s your problem, not mine.

Now it’s possible and even probable that GWB actually believed the intelligence he believed because he wanted to believe it.  That doesn’t absolve him, as President and therefore head of all the Intelligence Communities, of responsibility.

Carl Sagan, in the early part of “The Demon Haunted World” relates an incident of a ship-owner who didn’t want to spend the money on fixing an unsafe ship.  So he CONVINCED himself that the ship was safe, and when it was lost said something like “but I was sure it was safe. I didn’t know”  Sagan’s point was that WILLFUL ignorance is no excuse when bad things happen, the “Reasonable deniability” is still immoral.  Read it—the book is a wonderful exercise in logic and it’s only political to those who believe that Evolution is a fraud and the Earth really is only 6,000 years old (and if I remember correctly, you don’t fall into that category).

Just as Barack Obama is being held accountable for the shitty economy (that was shitty from 2001 on) so, at a MINIMUM, GWB must be held responsible for getting us into a war to rid Iraq of WMDs that didn’t exist because he should have known that the WMDs that had been there were gone.  That’s the minimum.

Why GWB didn’t know is a whole ‘nother story and far dirtier.

ITW, - “You base your position on two premises”

1)that what the Congress sees and what the President sees is exactly the same thing.

-

Pretty much.  The Senate and House receive the PDB and may, and do, ask any question of anyone in each of the intelligence agencies.  They may, and do, request more information or a deeper briefing on any subject they wish.  Most especially the respective Committee Chairs.  They are not to be encumbered from any information which is available to the White House. 

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have dozens of their own briefer’s and sources as well. 

Everything else you wrote is of your own making.  I swear it’s as if you see FrankenCheney in place of my actual words.  You make assumptions on my position and run with those on your own.

I do wish you would answer a question every so often.  Makes everything that much more interesting.

-

Honestly, I scanned your reply for an answer to my question.  I didn’t go through it all. I couldn’t hear your theory on this subject one more time with never an opportunity to get a direct answer to a tough but fundamental question. 

If you find yourself interested in listening send me a private messg. 

You get the last word.

Now I understand.

You base your position on two premises

1)that what the Congress sees and what the President sees is exactly the same thing.

2) That the President, the White House and the Executive branch (which includes the entire intelligence community) is totally incorruptible and will only send forth the utmost best analysis they are capable of, even if it displeases their superiors, shortening their careers and ending all chances of promotion.

If you believe these things are true, then your conclusion that Congress is equally responsible would be reasonable.

But there is lots of evidence that the second one is not true, that the raw data was cooked and massaged to say exactly what the higher ups wanted to hear.

IOW, if the Intelligence community “bends” the truth to give The Boss what he wants to hear, isn’t it HIS fault for not running the institution better?

To be more explicit: We now know that word came down the intelligence ranks that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn’t be happy if the assessment came that there were no WMDs.  Having to feed families like everyone else, people bent or even broke the truth to support what the President and his “dream team” had already decided MUST be the truth.

Please note that Mr. Bush is now saying he was “deeply disappointed” to learn there were no actual WMDs around.

Now here’s another question or two:

Why was Hans Blix so VASTLY differing in his assessment of Saddam’s WMDs than the American Intelligence Community’s?

Why was Hans Blix, with his little group of people able to, so clearly, outperform the US Intelligence Community?

Why do I say this? Because the invasion proved Blix was right and the US Intelligence Community was wrong in what they presented to their higher ups.

I’m not a conspiracy addict.  I don’t believe there was a Mossad/CIA conspiracy to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon.  I don’t believe the CIA/Mossad/Mafia killed JFK.  I don’t believe the moon landing was a phony.

But I do believe there was a criminal conspiracy in the WH under Bush’s regime to mislead Congress, and the American people.

ITW, “Do you really expect Congress to have the same complete and total access to intelligence and intelligence analysts that the White House does?”

-

YES!  Absolutely yes!  That’s precisely the point.  Not only is this the law but it’s been this way for over 60 years.  The exact same intelligence and analysis is given to the House and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairs as is given to the president.  In fact the Presidential Daily Briefing is also shared with the House and Senate.  That same briefing is also shared with all surviving U.S. Presidents.  I am shocked that you do not know this.  Genuinely shocked.

One Step At A Time.

Now, can you explain how one of the longest serving democratic members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee made all the same claims about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq for over 20 years leading up to and past 2002, never having changed his opinions and conclusions but, it was Bush and Co. who “tricked” him into believing that what he had been saying for those decades was all a lie?

Can you attempt some kind of explanation before we move on?  You cannot keep ignoring this and simultaneously claim you have a handle on events.

GRYM:

Please get real. Nobody denies Saddam Hussein had WMDs and used them. Nobody.

But he didn’t have them in 2002.  That’s the case.  PROVE Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 2002. You can’t.

PROVE that the “intelligence” presented in 2002 to Congress was legitimate. You can’t.

PROVE that the intelligence community in 2002 was SO incompetent they couldn’t determine there weren’t any WMDs.  You can’t.

PROVE Hans Blix was wrong when he said there was no evidence of the existence of WMDs.  You can’t.

PROVE that Wilson didn’t prove that there was no Yellow Cake purchased from Niger, though the admin said there was. You can’t.

You can prove a lot of things, but they are as relevant as proving that water boils at 0 deg Celsius, but you cannot prove that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2002.

So here’s a simple question:
Were there WMDs in Iraq in 2002?

Here’s another: Since in 2002 the WH SAID there were WMDs in Iraq, was it due to TOTALLY fabricated evidence or simply the worst intelligence blunder since Neville Chamberlain assumed he had stopped Hitler by appeasing him at Munich?

Go ahead. These are the two questions you have been dodging for the last year.

You’ve proven NOTHING.  Your premise is that Dems, Reps and everybody was equally to blame for the invasion of Iraq as the White House.  You avoid the question: Did the WH mislead Congress into believing Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

Bonus question: Do you really expect Congress to have the same complete and total access to intelligence and intelligence analysts that the White House does?

ITW, - “The case is done. Stick a fork in it.”

-

Here’s the thing:  You can’t actually prove what you believe in.  You can only prove that others believe the same.

I, on the other hand, can prove every bit of what I’ve written here today.  Example: You made a statement here regarding WMD in Iraq after 1998.  When pressed you have been unable to cite even one source. - You immediately went on the attack in place of a simple source.

Tax me on anything I’ve written on this thread.  Anything you wish.  Any piece or part.  I’ll prove what I’ve put forward here.  For you I’ll even supply the links.

-

At the risk of sounding full of myself I will tell you that I have investigated crimes for nearly 27 years.  I know what a fact is.  I also know what a supposition is.

-

You’re trying to make sense of why Sen. Jay Rockefeller, one of the nations longest serving members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, could have been so wrong about Iraq for over two decades.  Your explanation lays in him being lied to for several months by some people whom you readily admit you do not like.

But that is not close to reality.  Sen. Rockefeller reported exactly the same things about Saddam Hussein during the Bush and Clinton years as he did after 9/11.  No change whatsoever.  And I can actually prove that.

A man says a thing for over 20 years but you’re convinced he only believed those things because he was lied to by President Bush in 2002?  You believe the two men were privy to the exact same information but President Bush KNEW it was all a lie?

You and others make an impossible argument.  And I can actually prove it.

I’m calm, I just fell asleep on the ???????????????????????????????????????? key.

No re-writing of history.  In 2002 all those people supported Bush because they were given false intelligence.  It’s as simple as that.

The source of the intelligence was knowingly corrupted.  Then it was presented as fact to Congress and they, never believing the WH would deceive them so deeply and deliberately (there was still a bit of innocence in the air) bought the false intelligence.

It doesn’t matter if Saddam had WMDs earlier—nobody denies that (after all, he gassed the Kurds).

The decision to go to war had been made.  A justification needed to be found.  There was no current (as in, current at the time they needed it) evidence of WMDs in Iraq, so to get Congressional support, they simply manufactured it, and trashed the careers of Joseph and Valerie Wilson for saying the truth about one piece of that phony evidence: the purchase of yellow cake from Niger.

No re-writing of history.  And there were no WMDs found in Iraq after we invaded, either.

1) Saddam Hussein had had WMDs and we all knew it.
2) Bush & Co wanted to invade Iraq even before the inauguration.
3) Congress could only support an invasion if there was evidence of WMDs
4) There was no CURRENT evidence of WMDs.
5) There was no CURRENT evidence of WMDs.
6) THERE WAS NO CURRENT EVIDENCE OF WMDs.
7) So false evidence was created.
8) This was the evidence shown to Congress.
9) This was the evidence shown to Colin Powell and presented by him.
10) That evidence was all fabricated.
11) Congress and Powell believed the evidence was real.
12) They therefore all supported the invasion.
13) GRYM cannot come to grips with this elementary chronology and must keep referring to 1991, 1993, and 1998, when all of the above from 2) on took place between 2001 and 2003.

The case is done. Stick a fork in it.

Here’s take on the so called budget crisis by a man named Cowan, the Executive Director of the Third Way, a DC Thimk Tank.

He says Democrats must get the message of the last election and push for compromise.  In other words, they have to get back in line and govern from the middle.

He cites the tax debate and Social Security Reform.  He wants the Democrats to cave in to the demands of the Plutocrats and adoopt Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan for Social Security Reforms, namely, raising the retirement age to 70 and doing means testing for those who have, as Minnestoa Fats used to say, ‘plenty of cash.’

In short the thinly veiled argument from this charade of a Thimk Tank is for the Democrats to ‘touch the third rail.’  Hence the name of the group, the third way, or is it the ‘turd way.?
Raising the age to 70? 

I just went into forced retirement (laid off) and I am in the second half of my 60s and I can’t find a job.  If I get an interview, the prosepects are all over the minute they see how old I am.  They don’t want to see their Insurance Premiums being changed, and they can’t or refuse to make the effort to relate to someone who’s been around a few more years than they.

What do you do with with a corporate culture that ignores their responsibilities and keeps on sticking it to their employees?  (All for the bottom line.  Produce, produce and keep producing.  We’ll find a buyer sooner or later.  Besides, I’ve got to buy gold, move manufactuing to China or Mexico.  Can’t you see the fix I’m in?)

The ‘means testing’ scam is even more insidious. It means converting Social Security from an insurance program to a welfare program.  And everyone knows that welfare programs are the first to be cut.

I can hear the change in argument a few years after Social Security has been reformed, “Let’s cut this welfare and change it it workfare.”

The middle has morphed to the right wing.  Obama is selling arms to India (Let’s see how good a salesman he is for the agents of death?). Pelosi and the Democrats and the Mad Hatter Republicans are having a field day. 

It is, after all, as you about to find out, all about them.

ITW:  Keep up the good fight.  I am so sick of this making excuse for war machine.

PS. One grisly character calling C-SPAN, probably from the swamps of Florida, said that during the Depression, unemployment was up to 25%.  Then President Harding lowered the taxes and that brought us out of the Depression.

I would’ve added that it was just in time to pay for the Moon Launch two years later.  Here, take a swig of this.

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?

Wouldn’t it be nice if she actually said something like, “I want to stay because
there is so much more that I need to do for the people of this country. So many of
our men, women and children are hurting, homeless, hungry, jobless and I feel a
personal sense of responsibility to those who volunteered, donated their time and
money and worked so hard to get me to this place. They believed in me and I
cannot leave them now and betray their trust in me to make things better for
them. I feel morally bound to continue and be there for them now, when they need
me the most?” Wouldn’t that be nice?

ITW, - “Why is that so hard for you to understand??????”

-

Calm yourself.  I believe I do understand.

During the 1991 election season Bill Clinton and Al Gore repeatedly condemned President Reagan and President Bush for refusing to go to war with Iraq, for refusing to take sides in the Iran-Iraq War, for attempting to engage constructively with Iraq, and for limiting sanctions against Iraq.

(Video and audio of Al Gore outlining all of the above is available upon request)

Clinton and Gore repeatedly cataloged Saddam’s atrocities, his weapons of mass destruction programs, his war crimes, and his support for international Muslim terrorists. And they repeatedly demanded action to bring about regime change in Iraq (audio and video available).

They accused the Bush administration, which was responsible for ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, of being soft on Iraq, soft on WMDs, and soft on terror (Audio and Video available).

They demanded action.

President Clinton four times ordered military strikes against Iraq due to Saddam’s support of terrorism and his refusal to disarm.  Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which changed U.S. policy to remove Hussein from power as a direct threat to the globe (audio and video available).

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians repeatably condemned Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of international Muslim terrorism; warned that he was intent on conquering the Middle East and imposing his will on the rest of the world (reams of audio, video and text available)!

2002

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the majority of Democrat politicians supported President George W. Bush in finally going to war against Saddam Hussein (reams of audio, video and text available).

2003: NO WMD WAS FOUND.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrat politicians now say that they are complete and utter idiots who were tricked by a man they think is a moron into believing that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a war-monger, and a supporter of international Muslim terrorism, and that he was intent on conquering the Middle East and imposing his will on the rest of the world.

I understand, alright.  I understand that all of the above claimed to believe the same things regarding Iraq but you and others like to believe a “moron” knew all others were wrong about Iraq and felt the need to lie about things that everyone already believed in.

I understand your attempts to re-write history, in this case, will not work.

GRYM:

WHO CARES????????  Not of that matters. Only one thing makes ANY of this relevant:

All that matters is that the President and his team knew there were no WMDs when they were saying there were WMDs in order to get support for a war that has bankrupted this nation.

Everything else means NOTHING important without that invasion and war.

Why is that so hard for you to understand??????

ITW,

I wrote nothing of when WMD was or was not removed from Iraq.  That is an entirely different subject.  I wrote ONLY of what Nancy Pelosi stated SHE believed between the years of 1994-2002.  Right up to the time nothing was found in 2003.  Her public statements have been clear through the years. 

My question was; what makes you believe these weapons and programs were dismantled between the years of 1998 and 2003?  Can you simply cite a few sources?  If you have, there may be a discussion in it.  If not we can bid Good Day.

Still twisting it around are we, GRYM?  It doesn’t matter if the WMDs were destroyed in 1993 or in 1998. 

The ONLY thing that matters is that when Bush&Co; were pushing out the lies that Saddam had WMDs in 2002 and 2003, they KNEW there were no WMDs THEN.  It doesn’t matter if they were still there in 1998, or not. 

It ONLY matters that they were NOT there in 2002, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld KNEW they were not there, but lied and falsified evidence to convince Congress to let them go to war.

Again you try to obfuscate the issue by bringing up utter irrelevancies. 

Let me put it in baseball terms for you: It doesn’t matter if the ump rules the ball outside by a millimeter or a meter—it’s still outside.

It doesn’t matter if the WMDs were removed in 1998 or in 1993 because they were GONE in 2002.

Everything else is bullshit to try to cloud the issue.  As usual.

I take back all the things I said about most commenters to Chris Hedges post on fascism. (Namely, I agreed with a nicer commenter who said - paraphrased—“Enuf with the ‘pecksniffery’ and word-parsing that does nothing but massage the commenters’ ego!!”

Comments on elitist author Richard Schiekel re: Elliot Spitzer AND above comments on EJ Dionne’s sweetums piece on Pelosi are actual substantive comments. This article on EJ & Pelosi made me change my mind a dozen times about whether or not I’d sign the THANK YOU, NANCY PELOSI petition they keep sending me.

Still not sure. But thanks for the real commentary.

O.K. ITW.  So that everyone understands the issue; who knew what and when, let us take this one step at a time.

You claim all WMD had been removed from Iraq after 1998.  Correct?

According to the Kay and Duelfer reports, with the aid of several interviews with Saddam Hussein, WMD had been removed closer to 1993.

What makes you believe these weapons and programs were dismantled or destroyed between 1998 and 2003?  Can you cite some reference(s) for us?

-

Special note: Please refrain from assuming too much. 

I wrote nothing of what or when WMD was or was not removed from Iraq.  That is an entirely different subject.  I wrote ONLY of what Nancy Pelosi stated SHE believed in 1994-1996-1998-2000 and 2002.

I will repeat my question: What makes you believe these weapons and programs were dismantled between the years of 1998 and 2003?

****************

Pelosi is more a blue dog than her words indicate
and for sure what her actions demonstrate. Being
she is from one of the biggest weapons industry
states, of course she would do nothing to
interfere with that cash cow she has nursed on,
most likely since her mummified ass was first
elected. Doesn’t hurt to gerrymander her district
to ‘apparently’ win every election honestly.

And ‘impeachment’ is off the table? That sure
shows she is nonexistent when it comes to crime.
Just like she razzle dazzled her voting on tarp to
bail out those responsible for our ongoing
financial terrorist attack on the taxpayers.

She’s one of those permanently entrenched
incumbents badly and sorely in need of being
kept out of government.

I agree with ITW.  Chomsky said it in 2005 or there abouts.

“GRYM keeps playing the same game:  He cites what was going on in 1998 and claims it was the same as what was going on in 2003, five years later.

He deliberately ignores the FACT that Saddam Hussein got rid of his WMDs in those 5 years, and that, in point of fact, when in late 2002 and in 2003 the Bush Admin was claiming Iraq had these WMDs, they had no evidence.  They were gone.  Saddam Hussein got rid of them…”

Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

GRYM is one of those holograms of a person who is soul less, shame less, and willing to do anything for the Father Cause.

GRYM keeps playing the same game:  He cites what was going on in 1998 and claims it was the same as what was going on in 2003, five years later.

He deliberately ignores the FACT that Saddam Hussein got rid of his WMDs in those 5 years, and that, in point of fact, when in late 2002 and in 2003 the Bush Admin was claiming Iraq had these WMDs, they had no evidence.  They were gone.  Saddam Hussein got rid of them to get rid of and excuse for NATO to blast him to kingdom come.  After all, even lib’rul Willie Clinton had bombed him.

Situations changed.  GRYM pretends, yet again, that they didn’t.

Who lied? The Bush team lied.  What was there in Iraq in 1998 was no longer there in 2003, and they knew it but covered that up.

I’m not even going to waste time characterizing what GRYM is doing yet again.

This was the subject of this morning’s Washington Journal on C-SPAN. 

(I like watching Washington Journal from 7 to 8 because one can lie in bed and doze off at 7:10, wake up at 7:55 and not miss a thing.)

The jibber jabber that I caught about Pelosi reminded me of an incident that happened about 15 years ago in a 99 Restaurant in Charlestown, MA.

Gennaro Angiulo had already been carted off to jail from the Cantina Italiana a few years ealier and several overweight Italo-thugs tried to replace him.  They were using the mafia’s tried and true tactics of extortion with force.  I knew one of its strong arm men from high school, a plug ugly who was involved in the Black Friars massacre but was never convicted.  (A strange intrigue is behind that story.)

Anyway, they, the new mafia, four in all, threatened to kill the son of a man who had a temper, and who now had a cause, had a gun, and had an Italian sense of Justice.

The man was seated across from them at the restaurant one morning when suddenly he got out of his seat, walked over and plugged each one.  Killed two and seriously wounded the other two.

Pandemonium! 

One woman as she bolted from the joint was overheard by a newsman.  She screamed, “It’s the guineas!”

Now that’s what this Democratic fight concerning Pelosi is really all about.  It’s not about us.  A Republican struggle would be the same thing.  Heavens, that for sure would not about us.

It’s their thing. 

Like the idol worshippers used to say about Frank Sinatra:  “It’s his world. We are just in it.”

Happy Skeptic,

I have one question for you.  Who lied to Ms. Pelosi in 1996, 1998 and 1999 concerning Iraq’s WMD and ties to terrorism when she was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee?  Below is but one of many statements by Ms. Pelosi.

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq - December 16, 1998

The revision of history falls squarely in the lap of soon-to-be former, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Who exactly is the liar?

Happy Skeptic, November 8 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

I have my differences with Pelosi but they don’t involve reinventing history.I wish other Democrats would fight as hard as she has.
******************

Yeah, that’s what I remember too. Because that was what was in the news. But the idea that Congress was lied to, fooled, and deliberately manipulated by the White House, especially Cheney, has been written out of the Right-wingers’ lexicon.  Somehow, now, it never happened….kind of like the old Soviet “disappeared” who never existed…but they did. So that’s gone from history along with Thomas Jefferson in Texas!

I think she made a tactical mistake in 2007 saying impeachment was off the table. That was just dumb.  It was clear an impeachment was going to go nowhere, but why close out an option?  Everyone could count to 67…and there was no way to get to 67 votes to convict, just like with Clinton.  But why not just shut up about it or say it’s up to the Judicial Committee.  I also think she was weak in the 2007-2008 session, acquiescing far too much with the White House and the Blue Dogs.

Well, the White House is now Democratic, and most of the Blue Dogs will be gone in January…

Let’s now see what it will cost to redecorate the place for Boehner.. can’t have him in there without new furniture and so-on..

Probably it will be more than what Pelosi supposedly spent on those private flights.

But hey! .. it’s good for the ‘economy’.

Adios.

I think we are all suffering from short term memory here.Peolosi was lied to like everyone else in regards to WMD.Pretending that she should have known is a cop-out.
Correction: Saddam did have “chemical” weapons of mass destruction and used them on the Kurds.Remember?

Pelosi fought long and hard for health care reform.Pretending otherwise is skewing the facts.

I have my differences with Pelosi but they don’t involve reinventing history.I wish other Democrats would fight as hard as she has.

In 1996 Nancy Pelosi claimed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was holding and producing weapons of mass destruction.

In 1999 Nancy Pelosi claimed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was supportive of international terrorism and was holding and producing weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003, while her nation was at war, Nancy Pelosi claimed the President of the United States had lied about Iraq’s support to international terrorism and lied about Iraq holding and producing weapons of mass destruction.

I suppose it’s up to every individual to “cherry-pick” which Nancy Pelosi to believe in.

SteveL, November 8 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

If it upsets Republicans that is good enough reason right there.
***************

LOL!  There is always that!  (but if she STILL persists in “compromise” with the GOP insanity, it’s not enough)

If it upsets Republicans that is good enough reason right there.

While the remaining Democrats may be better able to maintain party discipline now that most of the Blue Dogs are gone, it still seems appropriate that the House leader who just led her side to the worst loss in years would realize that she SHOULD at least offer to turn the leadership over to someone else.

OK, so they mounted attack ads.  What did YOU do to counter them?  What ever it was, was not effective. 

Generals don’t get to keep their jobs by losing battles due to their being unable to foresee or counter attacks.  The attack ads are going to be 10x worse in 2012.  Why should the members trust YOU to be any more effective at countering them in 2 years?

What EJ has yet to come to terms with is that Pelosi, Obama and Reid do not
have a ‘communications problem’ or a ‘leadership problem’.

Pelosi, Obama and Reid have sold the American people down the river for the
interests of the financial industry, the insurance industry and the
military/mercenary corporations.

Let’s review of EJ what Pelosi, Obama and Reid have actually done:

1. Gutted real financial reform (no Glass-Steagle, no ‘too big too fail)
2. Rejected the only health care option that would simultaneously extend
coverage and cut costs (single payer)
3. Supported a stingy stimulus (one-third tax breaks)
4. Doubled-down & accelerated the Bush bailouts
5. Escalated a fruitless war in Afghanistan
6. Not helped people in bankruptcy & needing mortgage remediation
7. Not passed a jobs bill & had trouble extending unemployment compensation
8. Ignored previous Republican profligacy, crimes, misdemeanors
9. Used “Heck of a Job, Timmy” to promote low taxes for the wealthy on capital
gains, dividends and ‘carried interest’
10. Sandbagged Obama’s “Budget Commission” with Max Baucus clones to
accelerate the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

The opposition to Pelosi, Obama and Reid is not due to ‘communication
problems’ or ‘leadership problems’.

The opposition to Pelosi, Obama and Reid is because they sold us down the
river.

“I spoke with Pelosi less than 24 hours before she announced she wanted to stay on as Democratic leader, and everything she said made clear that she’s not ready to allow millions of dollars in Republican attack ads to drive her from public life.”

Oh, I see.  This is all nothing more than a pissing contest which has nothing to do with the true welfare of the people of this nation.  Ever see those photos taken by the Hubble Telescope that make your jaw drop because they’re so fantastic?  The kind of corruption embodied by Pelosi makes my jaw drop even farther.

Did E.J. and Eugene both get drunk together? This article is another pathetic recycle of the boot-licking done by Robinson a few days ago. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in a new article yesterday, these limousine liberals are disconnected from the rest of the country.

Here is what was done to Health Care under Pelosi.

1 The American people wanted a government administered plan like Medicare -
for everyone. (72% - CBS/New York Times poll June 2009)

1A. Democrats gave private sector insurers a windfall: mandated customers,
with a taxpayer-paid overhead rate of 20% for ‘mandated customers’ (20% of
our premium spent on administration, CEO salaries, bonuses, Boards to set
rates and decide who’s covered and ‘profits’).

Here’s what was done re the Bush-era “preventive” (pre-emptive) warfare”
policy under Pelosi.

2 64% of the American people opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and
wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’
policies.
2B. Democrats gave us an expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

Here’s what was done re financial reform under Pelosi.

3 The vast majority of Americans opposed the transfer of taxpayer wealth to
cover private company debt – the bailout.
3B. Democrats kept the 6 too-big-to-fail banks – now bigger than ever; kept
deposits at risk by maintaining huge grey areas between commercial and
investment banking; didn’t ‘punish’ the financial industry - now even more
profitable, with bonuses among the biggest ever.

Heck of a Job Nancy.

It’s a good gig, masters of the universe and all.

Sounds like she wishes she could take her defeat off the table.

Ah poor Nan, she’s gonna have to vacate the Speaker’s Office. Ahhh poor poor
Nan. Silly douche doesn’t seem to mind millions of common Americans having to
vacate their homes.
She’ll be okie-dokie though. A short visit to the day spa with Arianna Huff ‘n’ Puff
and a fresh round of Botox and she’ll be good as new.
Unfortunately, that can’t be said for common Americans everywhere.

In order to cow or render us servants, landless, etc., the priestly class invented god.
This invent turned out the best ever tool for depriving people of land or any
human right.
However, ca a century ago, many people began seeing god as a phantom which
obviously it is.
And the priests appear the last people who believe in god.
Since, then, powers of ‘god’ began to wane, the nobility had to invent another
‘god’: psychiatry-pills.

Nobody gets cured by a psychiatrist or a pill for sorrows, but being desperate or
suicidal, one hangs on any straw.

So, to conclude: aunt, nanci, jane, petra, barbara and uncle john, pedro, tom
come and go, but the new ‘god’ remains and the region with 1k ethnicities and
dozens of cults—aka, u.s.—governed by about twelve uncles; among them
siegel, sam, pierre, goes on and on. tnx

Now come Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, vying for the minority whip post. Hoyer thinks he’s better for the job than Clyburn. Hoyer is a racist!

Pelosi may call herself a progressive, but she supported every war budget Bush ever proposed.

She is doing this in order to feel heroic, true, but all that says is that her ego is as rigid and mask-like as her face.

Reminds me of Artaud’s “Theater of Cruelty.”

When will things finally begin to crack, both in Pelosi’s deathmask and that of America?