Pelosi Secures Her " but "

Today on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responded to a viewer who asked why she took the impeachment of George W. Bush off the table. Pelosi's response (below in video and text), is categoric proof of her incompetence, dereliction of duty, disdain for the Constitution and disregard for the people of this nation. It underscores why she should NOT continue as Speaker of the House and why she should NOT be reelected in November.

By not going forward with her Constitutionally mandated requirement to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors, Mrs. Pelosi has cemented her legacy and secured her "BUT" forever. Let me be clear - I don't mean the double "TT" derriere kind of "BUTT." I mean the single "T" conjunction kind of "BUT." The proviso. The disclaimer. The tiny word that will ever be the prefix to her legacy. The "BUT" her grandchildren will hear from those who know history and politics - and who care about humanity - when they mention that Pelosi is their grandmother. The "BUT" like:

"BUT" wasn't your grandmother the one who wouldn't impeach George W. Bush?

"BUT" wasn't your grandmother the one who let Bush get away with murder?

"BUT" why did your grandmother do that?"

Grandma Nancy, or Mimi as her grandchildren call her, will live ever in infamy, having failed to take George Bush to task. Former Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the man who put Charles Manson in jail for murder, has prepared the murder case against George W. Bush - despite being ignored by Pelosi. Characteristically, both Pelosi and Harry Reid dismissed Bugliosi's request for information for his murder case against George Bush. I have before me, courtesy of Mr. Bugliosi, copies of the letters he sent to Reid and Pelosi. Judging by the contents of the letters, had Pelosi and Reid cared in the least about justice, they would have responded to Bugliosi's request.

Below is Speaker Pelosi's inexplicable rationale for not impeaching George W. Bush. I hope you're as angered by it as I am. It begins with CNN's Wolf Blitzer introducing viewer Kris Craig's question for Pelosi, with the words:
"We got a lot of questions like this one"
- indicating Americans' deep concern over impeachment.

CNN Viewer: Kris Craig of Olympia Washington:

I'm Kris Craig from Olympia, Washington. Speaker Pelosi, in 2006 you asked us to vote your party into power so that you could hold this administration accountable and yet a few moments after we did just that you said that "Oh by the way, impeachment is off the table."

Blitzer to Pelosi: "I'm sure you're asked this question all the time...

Pelosi: Constantly.

Blitzer: Why did you immediately rule out impeachment. I guess that's the thrust of his [Kris'] question.

Pelosi: I ruled out impeachment before the election in terms of a priority for the new Congress. Impeachment's always on the table depending on the behavior of the President of the United States but in terms of where we planned to go I said before the election that impeachment was off the table. And for the following reasons:

Our country has serious serious problems - some of them springing from this President's backward looking policies. We came in. We had our six [inaudible] six. Most of it is the law of the land relating to our energy bill, raising the minimum wage, having the biggest package for college affordability since the G.I. Bill in 1944. The biggest increase in health care benefits for our veterans in the 77 year history of the Veterans Administration. Again the G.I. Bill for Afghan and Iraqi vets coming home. About education. About energy policy. About healthcare. We just passed the Medicare Reform Bill. It was my view that the priority was to get something done for the American people.

Blitzer: And that [impeachment] would have been a diversion...

Pelosi: And that would have been a diversion of the time and it would have divided the country. It would have divided the country.

Should there be a look into the irresponsible use of power by the President of the United States taking us into a war on the basis of a false premise without a plan and how we would succeed and without a strategy to leave? Certainly. And Congress has had that oversight over and over again and we will continue to do so."

I can't imagine that any lover of our democracy, or of our Constitution, or of our misused and abused military, would find this woman, Nancy Pelosi - this shameful example of incompetence - anything less than despicable. She has traded the rule of law and any sense of reason, for passage of legislation - that under a skillful leader - could have passed during impeachment proceedings.

That Congressional oversight Mrs. Pelosi alludes to, which she says takes place again and again, is under the Chairmanship of my own Congressman, Henry Waxman - who has produced NO measurable results from any of his many hearings - except perhaps indictments against athletes for abusing steroids.

Indeed, even after the emotional testimony in one hearing of Jessica Lynch regarding the military's dramatization of her rescue from an Iraqi hospital, and Mary and Kevin Tillman's testimony regarding the military coverup of the friendly fire murder of Mary's son and Kevin's brother, Pat Tillman, nothing has come to pass. Mary Tillman had to resort to writing her own book on the events of the death of her son because Congress just performed for Cspan's cameras.

Both Waxman's "Oversight" Committee and John Conyers' Judiciary Committee have produced NO "actionable" results. The only real actions that take place in Congress are those of the ever present pro-peace/pro-Constitution members of CODEPINK, who constantly risk their freedoms to challenge the criminality of the Administration and the ineptitude of Congress. Regardless of how many high profile hearings Congressman Waxman conducts, he produces NO results. The real criminals - those who orchestrate wars, default banks, drive up oil prices, instigate mortgage crises, coverup environmental studies, and more, are allowed to continue on.

Henry Waxman does NOT have my vote this November. I do not support his charades. In that same spirit of truth and justice, San Franciscans should NOT support Mrs. Pelosi. She has secured her "BUT" for her consituents, just as she secured it for her family. If San Franciscans reelect Pelosi in 2008, they will forever be doomed to hear:

"BUT" how could you vote for Pelosi when she wouldn't uphold the Constitution?

"BUT" how could you vote for Pelosi when she wouldn't impeach George Bush?

"BUT" how could you reelect Pelosi when she ignored the will of the people?

... and on... and on... and on...

"BUT" really, San Franciscans, after seeing this video and reading Pelosi's words, in all good conscience, how can you reelect her?