Ask her why don't Democrats attempt to stop the war via funding, where they need a simple majority, rather than go for bills where they need a 2/3 majority (because they'll be vetoed.).

In the energy bill now moving, why not a provision that says anything built with public money, including economic development and community development assistance, must be built to green standards? The standards exist in the LEED program by the U.S. Green Building Council, and many local governments have adopted them in one way or another. It's time for the federal government to get off its ass and deal with climate change, energy independence, wars for oil, etc.

Why is Congress spending too much time bickering over the war (when the votes clearly are not there to do much), and investigations (which look petty to Joe and Jane watching the evening news), and not spending more time on the promises they made and on other would be domestic successes that they could crow about come '08.

I fully support keeping up the pressure on Bush to get us out of Iraq, and would like to see the likes of Gonzo and others nailed to the wall, but there has to be more done before '08.  She and Harry need to re-focus.

Bush may be the most criminal President in the history of this country. Having said that, why keep "impeachment off the table"?

Does she realize that the American people are fed up and have no patience for any of this posturing, that we want our troops OUT OF IRAQ?  Do whatever it takes, but she CANNOT lay down to Bush again.

their impeachment right because Bush has not shied away from using all his rights and more under the constitution?

What are they going to do about the signing statements? Is that not a cause for impeachment?

Suggest a Period of Repudiation, where the country reverses the worst moves of the Bush administration.  Habeus corpus, torture, preemptive war, the Patriot Act, Bush's nuclear policy.

The Bush Administration is laying the propaganda groundwork to try to justify launching air strikes against Iran. Here are three pertinent questions:

(1) Do you think that President Bush has the authority to launch an air war against Iran without authorization by Congress?

(2) Would Congress, if asked, authorize the use of force against Iran?

(3) What do you think would be the consequences--both immediate and long term--of launching a war against Iran? What would be the domestic political consequences in the U.S.? What would be the political and military consequences in the Middle East? How would Russia, China, and Western Europe react?

The question that always comes to mind when I see Nancy Pelosi on TV is, "Why did you declare that impeachment is off the table???"

Does the U.S. have special forces inside Iran today?

Is the U.S. providing money and materiel to groups engaged in violent actions against the government or people of Iran?

Are Administration claims that Iran is supporting the Taliban (their sworn enemies) and al-Qaeda (also their sworn enemies) credible?  If the Administration is lying (again), why isn't anyone speaking out to denounce the lies?

If a "false-flag" operation (i.e., one that is sponsored by the U.S. but pretends to be an Iranian operation) succeeds in taking down a U.S. warship, what will Congress do?

A single question??

Does the congressional democratic leadership think that kowtowing to bush/republicans is going to lead to election wins in 2008?? Nothing worse than watching feeble democratic leadership in action.

What are her plans for reducing the debt burden on young voters as a price of entry to the middle class?  

What are her thoughts on the College Cost Reduction Act introduced by George Miller?  Now that the education committee has passed the bill, what will she do to ensure full passage in the House?

"Speaker Pelosi, our readers want to know if you will take the 15 minutes out of your busy schedule to please read the 'Impeachment FAQ' written by David Swanson (founder of AfterDowningStreet.com).  Here is a printout for you, or it can be found online at: http://impeachpac.org/impeachfaq
It answers many doubts that you and others have raised about the wisdom of impeaching Cheney first.  Thank you."

And thank you!  :-)

What's the downside?

Why if the objective was to end the occupation of Iraq, did the Democratic leadership shoot down stronger bills before they could build momentum with the American public, did many Dems repeat the Republican talking point of abandoning the troops without equipment and why did Dems appear in the media discussing all the ways they were willing to cut meaningful requirements out of the supplemental before the final bill was even drafted?

These are not the actions of a party that wants to negotiate from a position of strength to obtain the desired results. They are actions that make me wonder just how much the Dems really want to end the occupation prior to the 08 elections.

Frankly I'm already sick with her and the do nothing Dem Congress - where is the Health Care legislation?

I've written her about this myself, but there seem to be only baby steps forward. Michigan has always been obstinately behind their Big Three, but if the voters continue down this road, the situation for Michiganders will simply worsen as the rest of the country purchases high mileage cars made by their competitors. It's time to demand that Detroit free itself from fuel bondage to the Big Oil slave masters.

What's the plan for New Orleans?  Are they going to add more money for the Road Home program?

How about a National Catastrophe Insurance plan to replace the national catastrophe that is our private hurricane insurance industry?

Are we going to investigate the Caging that the Republicans have been engaging in?  Will we press for an indictment against the RNC for violating the Voting Rights Act should the evidence be strong enough?  

How about a Transportation bill like the Highway bill, but for Public transit improvements.  Us Chicagoans would love to see some federal money come in to repair the disgraceful CTA and Metra.

Ask her about the public financing/fair elections bills in the pipe right now (I think HR 1614 is the bill in the house right now.)

Since the Congress caved to Bush and funded the Iraq war in the supplemental, their favorables declined in polling. Bush's support also declined.  I don't think the decline came from the Republican base, who are already-committed, pro-war Republicans. It points more to dissatisfaction from the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

In other words, there isn't much middle there, and trying to cater to some middle-road on Iraq is just going to lose more support from the Dems best supporters.

If George Bush is the one who vetos a spending bill for the troops w/timelines, isn't he the one who will be held responsible for "not funding the troops"-

And please explain how "not funding the troops" is a bogus argument.

Why would you consider a summer recess when there is a war that needs to be stopped?

If vulnerable GOP incumbents can't get back to their districts to stump and raise money, don't you think that sooner or later they are going to be forced to do the right thing.

Given the fact that Chairman Dingell has been obstructing improvements in the CAFE standards and Chairman Boucher is pushing liquid coal, does Nancy Pelosi still have confidence in their ability to lead the development of the House efforts to write legislation on energy and global warming?

{p.s. I am not Congressman Kennedy}

Ask her why she is dragging her feet on earmarks and the perception that the Dem congress is just as bad on corrpution issues as the Repubs.

Ms Pelosi,

Why pretend that ANY representative of the Bush administration has ANY credibility? Why not simply ASSUME that they are lying, and demand evidence at every turn?

Why give any credence AT ALL to the SAME people who designed the war in Iraq? Why not ASSUME that the ones who screwed up so completely are still screwing things up?

If Bush lied before, don't you just assume he's lying now?

Given that getting anything through the Senate this year has been like drawing blood from a stone, why not increase the rhetorical pressure on Republicans and the President by passing stronger bills on everything from Iraq, to employee rights, to healthcare, to the environment, to New Orleans?

Isn't there a better chance of getting a decent compromise if we're asking for more?

NASA NASA NASA -- Please, ask if the Dems have any plans for a new direction at NASA? New leader at NASA? New goals for NASA? Can the foolish, one-off, bank breaking, astronaut killing, Manned Mars Mission be scrapped? Please!!  
Good Earth science, good Lunar science, good weather science and a perminent Moon base would be much favored by me over any one-off Manned Mars Mission and cost LESS to boot.
Is that why the Reps want to do the daffy Mars Missions?

Now that I've had a few cups of coffee, I think "right thing" is finally voting to end the war and then still losing next year because their challenges were out beating the pavement while they were whining about how Pelosi was making them work.

Why can't Democrats take a stronger stand in favor of leaving Iraq?

How can Democrats make it clear that we DO want to leave Iraq NOW, bring out soldiers home, and spend that essential money on infrastructure, education and health care?

Why don't Democrats support single payor health care, when most Americans want it?

Is she aware of MediaMatters study showing that a solid majority of Americans support "liberal" positions -- including environmental care, a strong government, gun control, health care -- even though they do not call themselves "liberal"?

Question:  Real Leadership requires that you try to hold this administration publically accountable for their multiple violations and open contempt of the U.S. Constitution, our Democratic processes, the Geneva Conventions, the principles of the Nurenburg Trials, and International Treaties.  Investigations into their lawless activity must be held and specific charges must be formally cited and established as unacceptable public conduct for which there are indeed serious consequences.

For, if you do not first remove the man who has flouted our whole system of government by inventing a "unitary executive", dictatorship theory from his office - then no significant policy change will ever occur in Iraq no matter what else Congress does. To compare the Impeachment of Richard Bruce Cheney for War Crimes with a purely personal attack on Bill Clinton that had nothing to do with government affairs is total nonsense. The public is much much smarter than that. In the case of Richard Bruce Cheney, three quarters of a million innocent Iraqis have been horribly slaughtered and mutilated. 3,500 American kids were used as cannon fodder for War-Profiteering purposes and have been killed needlessly and dishonestly, while Osama Bin Laden remains on the loose.  Another 25,000 of our people have been badly mamed and crippled.  The U.S. Treasury has been bankrupted and pirated away while American taxpayers face a declining standard of living and less liberty than ever before.

The public understands that this is very serious but they see no serious action at all from Congress.  To end the Iraq War you must first end the Iraq War Profiteering and hold the chief War-Profiteer publically accountable and have the sense to publically make the case to that Richard Bruce Cheney is unfit to remain in office.  That is real leadership.  

My question Speaker Pelosi is will you now finally hold Richard Bruce Cheney accountable for his serial crimes against our Republic and encourage and welcome your fellow Representatives to cast their votes based on the merit of the charges?  That is what real leadership is.  
Doesn't your swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitition require that there be an accountability moment for Richard Bruce Cheney?