Nancy Pelosi is schizophrenic. That’s not a psychiatric diagnosis, but it does seem a reasonable assumption to make considering what she told Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday. To cut to the quick here’s what she said to Blitzer that I find suggests evidence of a massive dissociative mental disorder and a deranged personality:
Nine months after taking control of the House, Nancy Pelosi is taking credit for “changing the debate” on the war while in Iraq there are 30,000 more troops than on the day the San Francisco Democrat first rapped the Speaker’s gavel.
Yes, we’ve certainly changed the debate all right. The debate is now over how much more money will we give to Bush with no strings attached for his surge in Iraq, and whether the leading Democratic Presidential nominees will ever commit to removing all our troops from Iraq.
Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate, reiterated her refusal to commit to a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2013. Her top contenders, Barack Obama and John Edwards, joined her in declining to speculate on hypothetical situations so far in the future.
That’s certainly a big change, all right. We elected Democrats in 2006 to change the course in Iraq, based on their own campaign promises. Who knew that the only change they would effect would be to approve an escalation of the war with no promise to ever bring it to an end? But back to Pelosi and Blitzer:
Pelosi lectured Blitzer, adding condescendingly “for those who pay attention” that she said Democrats will “hold this administration accountable, time and time again for the conduct of this war.”
Great news right? Except yesterday the only people we saw the House holding accountable for exercising their constitutional right of free speech daring to criticize Bush’s hand picked front man for the escalation in Iraq, General Betrayus Petraeus, was the liberal activist organization, Moveon.org which the House, by a vote of 341 to 79, condemned for their ad in the New York Times that merely informed the public of all the “inaccuracies” in General Petraeus’ testimony before Congress.
It seems to me that to hold the President accountable for the war you either have to:
1) Stop funding the war,
or
2) Commence an impeachment investigation into the lies that were used to mislead the Congress and the American public into supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq, an action that violated the UN Charter by prosecuting a war of aggression, and then continuing to occupy that country with thousands of American troops four and a half years later while millions of innocent Iraqis have been killed, maimed, ethnically cleansed or become refugees without a country, all while Bush’s campaign contributers make billions off the war.
So is that what Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has in mind when she speaks of holding President Bush and his administration accountable for their criminal prosecution of this war? Uh, not exactly:
“I’ve always said that impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi said Tuesday at the tail end of an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “This is President Bush’s war; it’s Vice President Cheney’s war, and now it’s become the war of the Republicans in Congress.”
Pelosi blamed the closely divided Senate for preventing passage of meaningful reforms in the Iraq war strategy and claimed she did not have the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding.
So she and the Democrats in Congress will hold Bush accountable, they just won’t do anything that would actually hold Bush and Cheney accountable? Unless by accountability she means pointing the finger at the Republicans and blaming them for her own failed leadership. Make sense to you? Me neither. Then again, it’s probably easier to bash the American people who provided Democrats with their majorities in Congress last Fall, then it is to provide any real accountability for the sins of the Bushies over the last seven years.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed frustration yesterday at the public perception that Democrats in Congress had failed to end the war in Iraq …
“We have to make it very clear to the American people that it was George Bush’s war [but] it is now the Republicans in Congress’s war,” she said.
The perception among many Americans, she said, is that Democrats, despite leading Congress since January, had failed to make meaningful progress toward ending the war, which they promised to do after winning both chambers of Congress in last fall’s elections.
Gee, I wonder how any of us got the perception that the Democrats had rolled over for the Bush administration whenever they have been asked to show some backbone? I’m sure it had nothing to do with this:
Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an
attempt to limit President Bush’s authority for
taking military action against Iran as the
leadership concentrated on a looming
confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
members of the leadership had decided to strip
from a major military spending bill a requirement
for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Or this:
THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.
And those are just two of numerous examples where the Democratic Leadership in Congress has capitulated to the demands of the Bush administration or the minority Republicans in the House and Senate. I guess in Nancy Pelosi’s world abject surrender counts as accountability. Too bad for the rest of us we have to live in that world with her.
PS. For those of you who are interested in actually watching Pelosi’s “conversation” with Blitzer, Raw Story has the video here.
My friend, you have that wrong. It’s the Democrat Party, emphasis on the RAT.
That’s what you call someone who’s two-faced, makes promises that were never intended to be kept, uses you for your money and support, and then stabs you in the back the minute the going gets rough.
It’s the Democrat Party. There’s nothing democratic about it.
well maybe we are there. Of course we are so divided that nothing is gonna happen. All of your points are right on Steven but once again, thru the blatantly obvious collusion between the goppers and the media they have once again pushed back the goal line, fence posts or whatever. The only thing that came out of the debate that is worth commenting on is the most important point in the current history of this conflict(joke) between the goopers and the dems. And here it is– 2013!!! They have done it again and the morons just jumped right in.
This fits perfectly. In essence, we were informed last night that the troops are going to be there until forever.
i guess that right now ny only question is: What now?
I think it is time we came to grips with the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not stupid. If they had any intention whatever of changing course in Iraq, they would do it. They both have plenty of experience in Congress watching the Republicans obstruct legislation so they certainly know what tactics will work.
We have to consider that they support the Bush agenda, or that their prime constituency ($$$$) supports the Bush agenda and they intend to posture for the public while cooperating with the destruction of the Constitution and the Middle East. Pelosi is not schizophrenic, she is lying.
The Democrat Party, as GW calls them, is fully aware that progressives are not going to vote Republican, and they count on the fact that when we get into the voting booth in November, we will vote for whoever is on their ticket in preference to the Republican. If “netroots” progressives want to enact their policy ideas, which are clearly supported by a majority of Americans, they will need to abandon this shell of a political party and figure out how to win without them. It won’t be easy. It may not be possible. Voting for Democrats is obviously not going to achieve anything.
I’m certainly not voting for Hillary Clinton next year if she becomes the nominee for the Dems. It may be time to join the Green Party.
hey there- guess what! The goopers leave nothing to chance. Did you see yesterdays McClatchys’ post re Caging? I really urge all to read it.
Yeah, I did. Making caging legal is the worst thing that could be done.
I’d vote in the primary for Kucinich first, then go Green!
I’ve been a proud Green for almost 10 years now, and am very pleased.
I have to live with myself, and I’ll sully myself for 6 months, change my affiliation to Dem, vote for Dennis and split back to Green.
It’s politics, it’s dirty.
I agree with this strategy. Kucinich and then Green. Last night was the first debate I watched and I was really impressed with Kucinich. He is sincere and consistent–he does not apologize for advocating for peace. Liberals need someone to clearly state that stopping war will make us safer. Peace through peace not war. Obama was the opposite of this–what does he stand for? I got the impression I was supposed to be impressed with the tenor of his voice when there really was nothing substantive behind the words he was speaking.
After my states primary, I am going to deregister as a Democrat.
One of the few ways I can see to make the Dem Party establishment wake up and stop colluding with the Republicans is for progressives to deregister from the Dem Party on a massive scale.
Time for a Mass Resignation From the Democratic Party
Pelosi is not schizophrenic, she is lying.
Precisely. In this interview, the Dems’ strategy becomes transparently clear. I recommend this video to everyone.
The strategy is to do nothing about the worst things the Republicans are doing, say that the reason they can’t do anything to stop the Republicans is “parliamentary” procedure, and then blame everything on the Republicans.
This is not szichophrenia, it is a confidence trick. And fewer and fewer Americans are falling for it.
The con comes out most starkly in the following exchange:
How does this war being “President Bush’s war” in any way justify not impeaching him? “This is Bush’s war” is nothing but a talking point. So she is now able to give not a single justification for the failure to impeach. Instead of giving a reason, she replies with an irrelevant talking point.
How stupid does the think we are?
She has to go.
This is distressing, so horrible there is hardly a word for it. She has caught the Washington Disease: up is down, black is white. Now she wants us to believe its the repugnants war? What crap! It’s the U.S.’s war, the war America has inflicted on Iraq and the rest of the world. How many Democrats voted for the motions which let the U.S. go to war, among others, Mrs. Clinton, who strikes me as a Bush in sheep’s clothes? As a result, the Democrats also own the war. The whole country is responsible and if the Democrats refuse to get us out when they have the means and power, they are doubly responsible for duplicity and deceit. The brazen hypocrisy of Mrs. Pelosi is the core of her credibilty: it looks to the nation like Pelosi and Reids’ war. Sorry folks, disenchantment has struck with a vengeance.
Seven D: Pelosi is sending the message she wants to send. Evidently she thinks it’s the RIGHT message. Don’t make excuses for her as if she doesn’t know what she’s doing, as if she wants to send another message and doesn’t know how. This is her message! Short and sweet. War, war, war.
Didn’t mean to give the impression I was making excuses for her. If I did, mea culpa, because I think there is no excuse for what she and other Dem leaders have done and continue to do.
People are often fond of saying “there is no difference between the parties”. It pops up at this site quite often. And the responses, often quite correct, point out that on the majority of issues there are major differences. But what is becoming apparent is that on the most important issue of the day to the American public, Iraq, there is increasingly no way to distinguish between the two parties, except on the fringes of their particular arguments. On the major point, which is when and how to end this war, they seem to be marching in lockstep. The war will not be ended by either party. The major difference is that the Republican Party, for the most part, has been quite adamant about their support of the war’s continuation. The Democratic leasership, on the other hand, have plainly misrepresented their intentions to those who supported them because of their purported stance on doing something about this war. Which is more shameful, the Republicans or the Democrats? At this point I’m not so sure.
I think demolover lays it out quite succinctly (emphasis mine):
That is the reality we face right now. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we have been lied to by the Democratic leadership regarding their intentions on the Iraq War.
Yes, demolover has read the tea leaves and we now know too. How can anyone take the Democrats seriously? Their hidden agenda is Orwellian, just as much so as Bush’s: up is down and black is white. ‘Oh, we so wanted to end the war but were only able to enlarge it and extend it to 2013. Have pity on us suffering Democrats’, moans Nancy Pelosi who runs the household. Sickening and stupid. I’m beginning to think that the only thing which might wake Congress is if someone threw a fresh, bloody corpse of a U.S. military person onto the chamber floor. Disgusting? Sure enough. It’s not permitted in the land of the free and the home of the brave to make such crude statements because the Iraq occupation is ever so ueber-civilized.
Only news I can give folks from out here in Pelosi-ville is that Code Pink is occupying her lawn. Seems about right.
She seems to have descended from merely plutocratic to despicable.
And the Democratic leadership has apparently decided that the Democratic grassroots is more dangerous to them than the Republicans. They want you and me to go away Steven.
My vote is not going to any Democratic candidate who does not make a firm commitment to end the war and withdraw our troops. Period.
That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for the Republican candidate, but it does mean that, unless there is some radical shift in the likely Democratic candidates for President, I will show up at the polls to participate in the congressional and local elections, but I will not be casting a vote for the presidential race, at least not for a major party.
I’m not advising anyone to do likewise, mind you. I just can’t lower myself to vote for a pro-war presidential candidate. I just can’t do it. I will not give my tacit assent to this war just because I’m not being given a real choice at the polls.
Just vote of Kucinich!!!! Let’s Do It!
Voting for Democrats at this point in time only hurts the liberal cause. They are killing the brand of liberalism and we will never recover unless we fight back against the Democrats. By not disavowing the rightward shift in the Democratic party we continue to let Hillary, Bush, Rush and Coulter define liberalism for the American people. Hillary and the mainstream Democratic party have hurt liberalism for decades. When they see Hillary and the other Democrats running away from us in droves and treating us like “loons” our cause is severly damaged–that act of betrayal by the Democrats is far more damaging than having Rush Limbaugh call us loons.
We have to be willing to lose the battle and win the war folks. We have to accept short term losses and stick to our liberal prinicples. That shouldn’t be that hard because the battle for 2008 is already lost. We will have a choice between two right-leaning candidates–one on the fascist right and the other from the Rockefeller right. Lets fight for the liberal cause–not Democrats.
Unfortunately. there is no way that a third party representing the liberal cause is going to emerge from the ether. And if by “short term losses” you mean persevering through the next 8 or 10 election cycles to even begin to even have an opportunity to formulate a credible Progressive based third party, then your patience might be rewarded, or not.
But right now the the situation is becoming more dire by the day. And we have two choices to try and push the liberal/progressive causes which we feel to be important. We can hitch our wagon to the Republican Party or we can throw our lot in with the Democratic Party. With which party do you think we stand a greater chance of success? It is easy to get emotional about this and scream about the severe dysfunctions within the Democratic Party. I do it, everyone does it. You have to do it occasionally in order to keep your sanity. But the fact of the matter is that right now, for better or worse, the Democrats are the only game in town right now for us on the Progressive side of the ledger. We have to find a way to incorporate the Progressive/Liberal view within the existing structure of the Democratic Party. And that is the stickler. It starts at the local and state level. That means there is a whole hell of a lot of work ahead for all of us if we want to transform the Democratic Party into a mechanism for true Progressive values.
It is cathartic to think about throwing the current Dem leadership under the bus and magically elevating new Liberal faces to the top of the ladder. But that just isn’t going to happen. There’s no free lunch here. None of what we want to get done will happen if we just walk away right now. It is a “long hard slog” as Rummy said.
It was said best in one of the movies from my teenage years:
The good news is that inevitable military defeat in Iraq and possible loss of a big part of our fleet in the event we attack Iran may cause the needed shift in the Democratic Party. Rather high price to pay, but defeat did wonders for Germany and Japan.
I assure you I am not letting off steam as a cathartic release. I know that my solution is somewhat radical. Hey, I thought Nader’s run was harmful in 2000 and I know that Democrats are better than Republicans. But I truly believe that smashing the Democratic party into a thousand pieces is the best way to advance the liberal/progressive agenda.
Politics isn’t just about parties. Look how much the Republicans have changed their positions over the last 20 years–look how much Democrats have changed over the past 20 years. Certain forces have moved both parties to the right over this period. Conservatives have redefined politics to their advantage over this period. We need to move the parameters of acceptable debate back to the left. If we keep wedding ourserves to centrist Republicans (the typical modern Democrat) in our effort to fight right-wingers we will continue to lose.
We need something to break this odious cycle. Breaking up the Democratic party is the best way I can think of doing this. We need to remind Americans that liberalism and a non-Imperialist foreign policy makes us safer and better off. It’s not looney to be a liberal peace-loving country. We should have started this process in 2004 and even though we still would have lost the election we would have a head start by now.
I agree that politics is not just about parties. I’m just as pissed off at the actions and words of the current Democratic leadership as anyone can be. I probably feel a greater disappointment right now than I did when I was lying on my couch in the wee hours in early November 2004 coming to the realization that this country had reelected George Bush. But after the Democratic Party is “smashed into a thousand pieces” just where do we go from there? Storm the castle with pitchforks and torches?
Everything you say is true. Both parties have evolved and devolved their positions over the last 20 years. Both parties have moved to the right and conservatives have redefined politics to their advantage and yes, we do need to find a way to redefine the parameters of acceptable debate. And, unfortunately, many Democrats have formed a centrist alliance with Republicans which has, in reality, moved the Democratic Party too far to the right.
But this didn’t all just happen by some great cosmic quirk over the last 2 decades. There is a reason for these events. And it wasn’t because the Republicans woke up one day 25 or 30 years ago and decided they had to smash their own party into a thousand pieces. We have ended up here by a confluence of many events, one of which was an almost unprecedented effort on the part of the Republicans over two decades ago to mobilize a grassroots effort to change the debate in their favor. And this did not happen overnight. They worked very, very hard in the beginning to create the environment where they could plant the seeds of their message and be confident they could grow. They nurtured it and supplied the tools necessary to fine tune and strengthen their political machine.
Whether they know it or not, the majority of the American people support a progressive agenda. On issue after issue, they repeatedly come down on our side of the issues. So why don’t they elect progressive Democrats? That is what we need to think about and talk about amongst ourselves. The Republicans dream-come-true would be a fracturing of the Democratic Party and the creation of little minor Parties all fighting amongst themselves for their little corner of the political market. I just think that would be a recipe for providing them on a silver platter what they haven’t been able to get on their own merits, a permanent Republican majority.
Your prescription for changing the terms of the debate is right on. Yes, the Republicans learned how to do this. My main point is that liberals should learn from Republicans how to do this–not necessarily mimic the strategy. I really think that while conservatives were able to do this from within the party liberals will not be able to do this from within. I can think of no better time than in 2007 to try and convince Democrats to get a spine and to actually stand up for liberal principles.
Unfortunately, this strategy has failed at the time when it was the most hopeful. We will now have a moderate Rockefeller Republican that is the same right-of-center Democrat we’ve had the last couple of decades. In fact, it’s worse. Hillary sounded like a right-wing hawk last night . . . in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Those of us that have stood with the Democratic party have been kicked in the teeth by our putative allies. Not only are the Democrats maintaining their rightward tilt–they’re are utterly failing to learn how to change the terms of the debate. The Dems just kicked the liberal faction of the party in the teeth. Would Republicans mock their right-wing base by censuring them or running away from them because they’re “loons”?
I know it won’t be easy. We will be in the woods for a while. But 10 years from now I hope we have a strong liberal party in hopefully a multiparty system. It’s really the only hope. Clinging to the dim hope the Democrats will get a spine is a dead end strategy. It’s kicking the problem down the road for one F.U. instead of dealing with the problem now.
It is certainly true that to we Progressives, the behavior of our Democratic Caucus is abominable and unforgivable. Their chronic capitulation is 180 degrees removed from what we were promised prior the 2006 election. And for that they must be made to pay a price.
In the end, our goal has to be to fight for the Progressive candidate every time and when there is not a Progressive candidate we have to find one. We have to increase the current slim majority with Progressive candidates. And when an elected Democrat does not consistently hold to the Progressive principles that got them elected, well they will have to go. That is certainly a part of what the Republicans did. This last election the goal was to get people elected who had a (D) next to their name. That was because the overarching goal was to throw out Republicans. And that is a start but it is obvious that is not going to get us anywhere near the place we need to go. So this election we have to make the effort more than just getting (D) candidates elected. We have to get Progressive (D)’s.
I think we are in agreement on the goal, my friend, we just have a little different perspectives on the ways we can get there. In no way am I saying we should stick with what we have in there right now. So many have been major disappointments. 2006 was a major shift, it just didn’t quite take us to where we wanted to ultimately go. That is why focusing on getting Progressives elected should be our primary goal, above all others this go round.
The mistake many progressives have made is that we can take over the Democratic Party and regress it back to the desperate days of FDR and the Depression to spurn social programs and sane spending for our people here and around the globe, simultaneously defunding the pork barrel Department of Defense and the military industrial complex.
If you think it’s more efficient to try and change the Democratic Party than change the American public’s attitudes and perceptions, you are wrong. It’s EQUALLY hard.
Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, et al., are already in lock step with neocons and the big impact “defense” spending has on Big Money Wall Street, etc.
Now you see, don’t you, John & Jane Q. Progressive, that the Big Money Dems are just as difficult to work with as the public at large, in fact, more stubborn? Our leaders are unelected people lost in the masses; the elected are cronies and neocons and profiteers, not government representatives or leaders!
is only doing what the Illuminati tell her to do.
She is an Illuminata!
it’s not the wrong message, it’s a failed marketing strategy…tired repetitive propaganda that 3/4’s of the population is not buying.
since day one, back in 2001-2002, at every step of the way the democrats have ultimately, acquiesced and gone along with the status quo. if one disregards the posturing, whining and misdirection offered by the likes of pelosi and reid and applys the operable concept of occam’s razor to the situation, there is no other conclusion than to agree with what arthur silber has been saying:
“This is President Bush’s war; it’s Vice President Cheney’s war, and now it’s become the war of the Republicans in Congress.”…she couldn’t be more mistaken. it’s now the governments war, both parties, and it is not only being waged in the ME, but also against the majority of the people in this country that are adamantly opposed to it.
the system no longer even pretends to be of, by and for the people, and is now in the firmly in the grasp of the military/industrial, corporate oligarchy. change is becoming less likely, unless as knut says above, there is a significant defeat, either in iraq or iran. imo, if that occurs, the change we are most likely to see will not be a return to the golden days of a democratic republic, but a descent into a full blown fascist dystopia.
lTMF’sA
“Failed marketing strategy” is too polite. As I say in the post above, it is a confidence trick.
The con is for Dems to pretend that they share our objectives and aspirations, in order to get our votes, but then do nothing to stop Bush, because the real masters of both parties are the same—not blocks of voters, but various blocks of corporations such as the war, oil, health insurance, and financial industries, and pressure groups such as AIPAC.
Outstanding post, Steven, thank you for giving us a chance to talk about this (so, thank you, too, BooMan…once again).
It’s quite astounding to me how little self-awareness Nancy P. seems to have. What you’ve posted that she said is really, really strange. They don’t KNOW that we know they’ve sold out? Can’t they at least be a bit less obvious about it?
As someone said, I cannot vote for Hillary knowing she voted to allow Bush/Cheney to start World War III bombing…or nuking….Iran. More than a million innocent Iraqis have already died. Nearly four thousand of our young kids. ENOUGH!
I may not vote at all….or will write in Dennis Kucinich. Not that anyone will ever count…or report…how many votes he got.