The American people have spoken very clearly about their opposition to the course of action in Iraq.

and you, Madame Speaker, have failed to listen.

she doesn't give a shit what the American people want, all queen pelosi cares about is maintaining the power she has.

Yeah. Maybe she should just throw it down the shitter to please a bunch of naive lefties who know nothing about how the political system works. Yeah.

PALOMINO!

Pelosi needs to pay some lip service to the voters that made her house majority leader, before she inevitably crumbles to Bush's wishes. This seems like a rerun. Is this happening because of the writers strike?

Could we please get our National Guard troops and Reservists out of that hellhole? Whom are you representing?

Knee-jerk reactions. Like Pavlov's dogs, a mention of Pelosi is like ringing the bell and posters here salivate.

I suppose she is doing all she can. Introduce legislation that advances what the people want, knowing full well that it will never make it into law. It would never pass the senate, and if something like it did and could be reconciled with the House bill, Bush would never sign it. So it would never become law. Why? Because Democrats don't have the numbers, especially in the Senate. Hence, it's a symbolic gesture. But what would you have her do?

Oops. Sorry to interrupt your rant on a bumper-sticker level of thinking.

Reality check: Nancy Pelosi represents the 8th district in California - in other words she represents most of San Francisco. She has never received less than 75% of the vote in her congressional races. Her voter base is extremely liberal and probably overwhelming anti-war. I'm sure if Nancy Pelosi could snap her fingers and withdraw the troops, she would.

Throw it down the shitter? Is that what you want her to do? I have a suggestion, how about using it in service to the American people! Pretty radical huh?

"Yeah. Maybe she should just throw it down the shitter to please a bunch of naive lefties who know nothing about how the political system works. Yeah."

Or maybe she could use that power to demonstrate a little leadership and actually represent the will of those who elected her. At this point I would settle for her doing anything that doesn't involve kneeling in front of Bush, but that's apparently asking for a lot.

"The American people have spoken very clearly about their opposition to the course of action in Iraq."

Followed by, "and we basically told them to go @#$% themselves, we're doing what we want. But, don't forget to contribute to the DSCC."

"I believe that this legislation gives voice to the concerns of the American people..."

And, I believe there's a pony in there somewhere...

I think this is the best she can do. People who have Republican elected people in DC should focus on pressuring them to help us get Americans out of that hellhole. And of couse those who have Democrats who keep voting for funding this war. The only money they should get is to bring them all safely home. But right now Pelosi doesn't have the votes to get us out of there.

...Harry Reid.

This isn't politics, its bad vaudeville.

Pelosi's whole game plan right now is "holding the Republicans accountable".

She's taking one from their playbook, too - don't actually fix the problem, keep it in place for the next election cycle.

Georgejr learned that if you hold a war (like daddy's "bloodless" Desert Storm), and accomplish your goal too soon, your victory may be forgotten by the time the next election comes around - and other issues may not be in your favor, so you lose. But if you can keep the crisis alive throughout your term, and into the next election, you can spin the disaster as a reason to keep you in office. If he'd been successful in capturing bin Laden & breaking up al Qaeda, when he had the chance (and not attacked Iraq), that victory would have been forgotten 2 years later - and he'd have lost in 2004, because there'd be nothing to scare people about except the mess he'd made of everything domestically.

Both parties need Iraq to be the big issue next year, for different reasons. If congress passed a veto-proof bill to bring the troops home tomorrow (and they came home now), what would be the big issue that either party would have the advantage on?

"I suppose she is doing all she can. Introduce legislation that advances what the people want, knowing full well that it will never make it into law. It would never pass the senate, and if something like it did and could be reconciled with the House bill, Bush would never sign it. So it would never become law. Why? Because Democrats don't have the numbers, especially in the Senate. Hence, it's a symbolic gesture. But what would you have her do?"

What would I have her do? Well, since the House of Representatives is in charge of sending budget bills to the President, they can make sure every budget they send him is tied to the troops coming home. After every one the President vetoes, they can send him another one. And another. And another.

Either end the war or shut down the federal government, Bush. It's your call.

Hm, that last line could even fit on a bumper sticker!

This is more theater put forth to keep public sentiment in check. Consider that congress just passed the defense appropriations bill for this quarter and they have specifically said that this is "not a blank check" and this money will not be used for "funding the war". This is the same bill that includes retrofitting our stealth bombers so they can carry those bunker buster bombs right? Or am I confused. So in essence shes saying hey look at the ball in this hand, while the other steals your wallet.

Its an empty gesture meant to keep the public outrage to a minimum. Nancy Pelosi is complicit in the destruction of our country and this is just one more thing to hold her accountable for.