Reid on Christiane Brown (KJFK, Reno), October 8, 2007

Brown: . . .people ask you -- and I'm sure you've heard this argument -- "What about impeachment?" -- that we all say "this is an illegal war" we say we went in there for the wrong reasons. . .

Reid: I think that Ah that would be such a waste of time. We have a year to go -- approximately -- in his Presidency -- the election will be in approximately a year. Why talk about impeachment?

Brown. (crossing) . .to save the lives of. . .

Reid And the clincher of it all, Who would be wind up with as President? We would wind up with Cheney President? Does anybody wnat that?

Brown Well you know impeachment hearings reveal, Ah Senator Reid, a lot of things. And I think that one of the things the people want is the hearings so that this evidence comes forward and then possibly you do end up getting the votes. The impeachment of Nixon only took a few months. People feel like a year is a long. . .

Reid (crossing). . Why would you want to impeach Bush? Cause all you'd wind up with is Cheney.

Brown. . .you impeach Cheney as well. What people want to know is why do we want to wait for more deaths over the next year because we say our hands are tied?

Reid Well I respectfully suggest that to anyone that suggests impeachment that it is a very foolish idea.

Brown Well, respectfully, I disagree, and I know there are a lot of people that do, and it is frustrating to feel that are hands are tied.

Reid Foolish I'd. No one feels more strongly about George Bush than I do. I've been through impeachment. I've sat there when we've impeached Federal judges. And the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Brown Well, that was a ridiculous impeachment.

Reid: Ridiculous impeachments are in the eyes of the beholder. I think we have about a year left in his Presidency. And I think if you look at what went on in the attorney General's office, there is a case to be made for doing something drastic. But I think recognizing the time it takes for impeachment, it just would be a total waste of where we should be focused. . .

Pelosi on Situation Room.

. . .PELOSI: I completely concur, but I just said to you, we did that. We sent it to the president. He vetoed it. Any further attempts to do that have been met by the 60-vote barrier in the United States Senate.

Now I'll be the last person to give you a civics lesson about what that means. But what it does mean is that the republicans in the Senate have now taken ownership of the war in Iraq. It's President Bush's war. And now it is the republicans in Congress' war. And that marks a big turning point for us because we had hoped to have bipartisanship in redeploying the troops out of Iraq, to do so in a timely fashion. Now we have a loss of life that continues, a loss of readiness to our military, which harms our ability to protect America wherever our interests are threatened. We have the loss of money.

BLITZER: So are you telling your angry base out there the Democratic Party that wants to see this war over with, wants to see the U.S. troops home that you as speaker, there is nothing you can do? You have to just throw your hands up and say ...

PELOSI: I didn't say that at all.

BLITZER: Given the legislative problems in the Senate and the president's stubborn refusal to back down, that there is nothing you could do?

PELOSI: How could you ever have gotten that impression when I have said, for those who pay attention, is that we will hold this administration accountable, time and time again for the conduct of this war in Iraq.

I don't have to discuss how we went in on the false premise. That's well known to the American people.

What we do have to do is show them every step of the way how the president is taking us farther down a path from which is going to be harder to redeploy out of Iraq.

BLITZER: But when you hold the president accountable, I just want you to explain what does that mean, besides just complaining and holding hearings? Specifically, is there anything else you can do?

PELOSI: Holding hearings and the oversight that we have on the corruption and contracting in Iraq, the hearings that we're holding and the harm to the readiness of our troops that the president is causing with his abstinence in this war in Iraq.

The retired generals tell us that if we want to talk about the stability in region and that's what we're trying better. How do we have a vision of stability in the region? Democrats are saying our vision for stability in the region begins with the redeployment of troops out of Iraq and the generals say you cannot have stability in the region until you redeploy the troops out of Iraq.

So what we are saying is now with what happened in the past two weeks, with General Petraeus' presentation and with what happened on the Webb resolution in the Senate, that republicans are committed to a ten-year war in Iraq with the highest level of troops presence there with permanent bases.

The democrats are proposing a redeployment out of Iraq, a greatly diminished mission there out of the civil war, protect our diplomats and protect our troops who are there, fight the al Qaeda and if we have to train the troops, if we have to continue to train the Iraqi security forces, it doesn't have to be in country. And it doesn't have to be all American. That can be done out of country.

So we are talking about a greatly diminished force there and a redeployment when safe and responsible within the next year. The president is talking about ten years. And then after that, a Korea- like presence in perpetuity. That's the choice.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. Impeachment, that notion which some of the base clearly would like, that's off the table.

PELOSI: I've always said that impeachment is off the table. 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. . .