Pelosi-gate
Pelosi-gate, in a nutshell: What did one member of the minority party know about the majority party's illegal war crimes and when did she know it?
This has to be the stupidest "angle" I've ever seen to coverage of a major scandal. Are reporters really this dumb and gullible? To the extent Nancy Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's torture program and didn't raise objections, she deserves to be criticized. But there's a HUGE difference between ordering the commission of war crimes and simply being on notice that they may be occurring. On the list of culpable actors, of which there are many, the people who lacked the courage to protest are far down the list, particularly those like Nancy Pelosi who had no real say in what was going on (remember she was the minority leader[on reflection I don't think she was minority leader at the time]; the Bush administration did not care what she thought about anything).
Finally, and this is worth emphasizing, Pelosi herself is calling for the creation of a Truth Commission, which presumably would explore what everyone knew and when. The level of hypocrisy and incoherence it takes for Republicans to point to Pelosi as being some sort of key figure in this scandal is astounding. And the fact that the press corps would latch on to this rather ridiculous diversion is telling.
This has to be the stupidest "angle" I've ever seen to coverage of a major scandal. Are reporters really this dumb and gullible? To the extent Nancy Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's torture program and didn't raise objections, she deserves to be criticized. But there's a HUGE difference between ordering the commission of war crimes and simply being on notice that they may be occurring. On the list of culpable actors, of which there are many, the people who lacked the courage to protest are far down the list, particularly those like Nancy Pelosi who had no real say in what was going on (remember she was the minority leader[on reflection I don't think she was minority leader at the time]; the Bush administration did not care what she thought about anything).
Finally, and this is worth emphasizing, Pelosi herself is calling for the creation of a Truth Commission, which presumably would explore what everyone knew and when. The level of hypocrisy and incoherence it takes for Republicans to point to Pelosi as being some sort of key figure in this scandal is astounding. And the fact that the press corps would latch on to this rather ridiculous diversion is telling.
posted by A.L. at 4:27 PM
22 Comments:
You seem to fail to realize that most Americans do not believe anyone committed any war crimes.
The aren't asserting Pelosi is culpable for anything only that she is a hypocrite at the very best and quite possibly lying about very serious national security issues to make political points.
That is an impeachable offense and has nothing to do with your claims of war crimes.
If Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic leadership want to pursue that path they should do it but that has no bearing on what Pelosi has or has not done.
It certainly looks to me like she is a liar and it would be pretty easy to prove. If that happens she should resign as speaker and as a member of the house.
But she wont. Would you hold her accountable?
A.L.,
You make some excellent points, but I have to correct you on one important detail. Pelosi wasn't the minority leader when she was briefed on the program she was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee. Once Pelosi became minority leader she was cut out of the loop (possibly illegally from what I've seen so far) since the Bush administration was only briefing the Gang of Four. So once Pelosi was better situated to actually cause the administration some grief by virtue of her position she was removed from the equation.
And the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis continued unabated...
Seriously, anonymous?
How EXACTLY did Pelosi commit an "impeachable" offense? What crime is she alleged to have committed? Did she give her press conference under oath? Did she out a CIA agent (remember, conservatives don't think anyone should have been even INVESTIGATED for that) She gave a press conference where she asserted that the CIA misled her committee on the intelligence. By the way, Bob Graham also has said as much, and has hinted that his notes show that the CIA doesn't even have the dates of the "briefings" correct.
Most Americans believe that the Iraq War was started under false pretenses, but of course there should be NOOOOO investigation of that, huh?
Several intelligence officers have gone on record saying that they were ordered to secure confessions from Gitmo prisoners that Al Queda and Iraq were in an alliance, even though the Administration had no actual evidence that such an alliance existed. But, nope, we can't discuss that.
So, if you feel no war crime has been committed, then why did CIA agents illegally destroy 93 videotapes of the "perfectly legal" interrogations.
If no war crime was committed, then why exactly were the Abu Ghirab soliders prosecuted for committing acts that they themselves said they were ordered to.
To the extent Nancy Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's torture program and didn't raise objections, she deserves to be criticized.
It's way more than that.
Finally, and this is worth emphasizing, Pelosi herself is calling for the creation of a Truth Commission, which presumably would explore what everyone knew and when.
Presuming that Pelosi wants a Truth Commission to fully explore all this is a presumption not based on any actions Pelosi has taken, her press conference yesterday being the latest and a perfect example of it. She has no interest in pursuing justice, but in politicizing it, doing what she accused the Bush administration of doing. Based on her past actions and her press conference yesterday, Pelosi would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to testify under oath, which would be absolutely required if there was to be a proper and real Truth Commission. With her statements of the past month (and even going back years), guessing that Pelosi would tell the truth is a crapshoot.
The hypocrisy is Pelosi's, not that of Republicans.
"She has no interest in pursuing justice, but in politicizing it, doing what she accused the Bush administration of doing."
Ah yes, a Senator accused of politicizing. Horrors! What a crime! Impeach! Of course any indication that the Bush Administration politicized anything is purely a fabrication of the nefarious Liberal Media. Good luck selling that pile of crap, Steve.
So you support a Truth Commission then - that's something, at least.
On the list of culpable actors, of which there are many, the people who lacked the courage to protest are far down the list, particularly those like Nancy Pelosi who had no real say in what was going on (remember she was the minority leader; the Bush administration did not care what she thought about anything).
I'm going to raise my objection to this meme again. Pelosi wasn't being paid to be window dressing. She also wasn't being paid to subvert the administration, the military, and the intelligence services in order to improve the power of her party and herself while the country was involved in a war she voted for (the 2001 AUMF). This is what she said she did during yesterday's press conference.
There was one person who did raise concern about enhanced interrogation, Pelosi's successor as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman (Pelosi had moved on to House Minority Leader). How did Harman get rewarded? Pelosi got Harman removed from the committee after Pelosi became Speaker.
Pelosi is in power now. But she isn't calling for a Truth Commission that she believes would jeopardize Democrats, especially herself, who either "lacked the courage to protest" or supported what the administration was doing. She is only going after Republicans. That is a politicization of justice.
Considering Pelosi's culpability, her politicization of the justice system, and her false accusation that the CIA was lying to her and Congress (her "clarification" today is weak and too late), everyone should be calling for Pelosi to be removed from being Speaker since she has no business in that position.
Politicization of the justice system, huh? You mean like when the Justice Department fired US attorneys for not indicting Democrats right before elections? You mean the same Justice Department who (illegally) used overt political litmus tests in hiring? The same Justice Department that ginned up a phony conviction against Don Siegelman? The same Justice Department that sat quietly by while American citizens' phone calls were being monitored and recorded (including journalists).
Thank goodness that before Pelosi's dastardly...umm...press conference, that lawyers working for the White House didn't do anything as bad like reverse engineer legal memos to justify a torture policy that had already been ordered and implemented to gin up a phony link between Al Queda and Iraq as a pretext for a phonier invasion.
Anonymous (9:47pm):
So you're saying it's ok for Democrats to politicize justice, because Republicans (supposedly) did it.
You mean like when the Justice Department fired US attorneys for not indicting Democrats right before elections?
Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been "investigating" this for two years. Number of convictions: 0. Number of indictments: 0. Number of arrests: 0. These zeroes would indicate that the law wasn't broken.
You mean the same Justice Department who (illegally) used overt political litmus tests in hiring?
Take a look at the Civil Rights Division. It's made up of nothing but leftists, including those who made political contributions to groups who raised money illegally.
The same Justice Department that ginned up a phony conviction against Don Siegelman?
All but two of the charges Siegelman was convicted on were upheld on appeal.
The same Justice Department that sat quietly by while American citizens' phone calls were being monitored and recorded (including journalists).
Sure they were. Just like they sat quietly as JFK was assassinated by the 2nd gunmen on the grassy knoll. Which pretty much covers my reply to the rest of your comment.
Please stick to the case at hand, what Bush and his administration may or may not have done are irrelevant.
Did Pelosi lie or not?
It is quite apparent that she did. That being the case are you are you or are you not going to hold her accountable and call for her resignation?
her false accusation that the CIA was lying to her and CongressYou somehow know that what she said was false? Bob Graham, who is known to take meticulous notes of his activities, is saying the same thing.
It's not as if the CIA has never lied about anything. The CIA, who has been involved in torture, has a motive to lie as much as Nancy Pelosi does.
Ironically, with their attacks on Pelosi and demands to know the "truth", Republicans are being drawn into a long and painful investigation into possible crimes for which mostly Republicans will be found culpable. Another brilliant strategic move by the GOP.
Looking at this controversy in purely political terms, I think the Republicans are playing a bad hand. There are two narratives being pushed:
A) "The Democrats, who coddle terrorists and root for America's defeat, are just as culpable for any torture we allegedly may or may not have inflicted on those terrorists."
B) "The CIA lied."
Partisans will of course believe what they believe. But I think most Americans -- say, the 57% who believed a conspiracy killed JFK -- will find it easier to accept narrative B.
The bush administration did nothing but lie to us for eight years. I didn't hear any Pelosi haters calling for their resignations then.
I take issue with the blog post, or at least with its emphasis. Of course the Republicans are being hypocritical in focusing on Nancy Pelosi when it comes to torture. But it is SO IMPORTANT for the United States to put torture behind us. I don't care how the Republicans get there. If it makes Republicans feel better that Democrats were also involved (albeit secondarily, asht eblog post rightly emphasizes) then that's fine with me. This is one case where I think it's better to look the other way at Republican insanity, if it helps some people to realize that yes, torture by the U. S. Government really is a BAD THING, and we must hold people to account for it, and insure that it never happens again. Frankly, I suspect Pelosi really does share some of the blame. Congress is SUPPOSED to check-and-balance the President, and torture is a pretty darned important issue. In this, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld went over to the dark side, but it's not unimportant at all to investigate why Congress failed to check-and-balance.
So far as I understand it, Republicans are saying that they don't think the Bush Administration did anything wrong at the black sites, so neither they nor the Bush Administration has anything to answer for. But Nancy Pelosi has this odd idea that something wrong was done, so she had a responsibility to speak up and she didn't.
Or, more likely, they are saying that Nancy Pelosi doesn't actually believe anything wrong was done either, as evidenced by the fact that she didn't speak up at the time. She is just pretending to think there is anything wrong with waterboarding a terrorist 183 times in order to pander to the base, so they are trying to embarass her into admitting as much.
I'm scientifically trained, and disposed by philosophy to look for underlying simple rules for complex behavior.
Doesn't always work, of course. Sometimes a complex situation is the result of complex interplays of many factors.
With that caveat firmly in mind, you might want to take a look at this.
I think the solution to the whole mare's nest might just be found in understanding the particular form of dementia that has struck Dick Cheney.
Although the Pelosi brouhaha is pointless in the greater scheme of things for both the Democrats and the Republicans, it may serve to generate sufficient impetus to force at least a truth commission. After that (with apologies to A.L.), I think there will be no stopping the prosecutions.
And if it turns out the whole thing is the result of Cheney's monomania, it may help wean the GOP from running old farts for office.
C2H50H,
Though I think that your predictions are quite logical based on the possibility that Cheney does in fact suffer from a form of dementia, I disagree with your characterization of "old farts" as all suffering from some form of dementia and thus are unfit to hold elected office.
Our society is so youth-oriented and negative concepts of aging have been tolerated for so long, most people are unaware that ageist characterizations are no less prejudiced and pejorative than if they used the same characterizations for "black," "female," "Hispanic," etc. For instance, instead of "old fart," suppose the statement said "And if it turns out the whole thing is the result of X's monomania, it may help wean the GOP from running blacks for office."
I'm an "old fart," several years older than Cheney in fact, and still have full command of my mental faculties. In reality, there are many well-known and not-so-well-known scientists, doctors, educators, writers, etc. who are functioning brilliantly in their old age, some in their 90s. So old age isn't necessarily an indication of one's thinking abilities. Not all old people suffer from dementia.
In most cases, we older people understand that no disrespect is intended and just overlook it. My comment is in no way intended to belittle you and I take no offense at the characterization. Your statement just presented an opportune "teachable moment" to explain "ageism" to anyone reading your post.
Anyway, good post on your part.
Fritz,
If age alone were the metric by which one became an "old fart", then I'm one myself.
It isn't the inadequacy of the elderly, but the peculiar tendency of the GOP to run people whose best days are long past, if they ever had any, which in some cases is doubtful.
Reagan, Dole, Cheney, McCain, Thompson.
Need I say more?
Pelosi, if briefed, wasn't alone on the intelligence committee, correct? Republicans were in the majority at the time. Where were/are their voices? Is it only up to democrats to investigate law breaking by the executive branch? No. It's up to congress. If Pelosi is guilty of hiding facts,so,too was the entire intelligence committee.
Torture is not a partisan issue. It's a serious war crime, punishable by life imprisonment and sometimes execution. If Pelosi is culpable, everyone who on that committee is culpable.
C2H50H,
Sorry I misunderstood your use of "old fart." In the context of your definition, it's certainly an apt description of many Republicans in and running for office, and I fully agree with your assessment.
Still, because of my antipathy toward the negative perceptions of old age spawned by widespread ageism in our society, I feel that "the peculiar tendency of the GOP to run people whose best days are long past, if they ever had any," would be better expressed by a term not associated with old age. After all, there are plenty of younger Republican office holders and prospective candidates who are no more progressive than their older counterparts, and some have even loonier agendas.
Anyway, even if you don't agree with my opinions about ageism, we certainly have a meeting of the minds when it comes to the Republican party. So, I'll end with words borrowed from a country-western song I heard the other day, "That's my story and I'm stickin' to it." ;)
Look, I'll be the first (and perhaps last) liberal to say this publically - if Rep. Pelosi (or any of her Democratic colleagues) were breifed on the torture being conducted by the CIA, and they in fact sadi nothing, they deserve a good public shaming. But they do not deserve prosecution. That should be reserved for those who actually broke the law - and in this case the specific laws would the Constitution and the Convention Against Torture. That latter law, incidently, was signed by President Reagan, who modern conservatives supposedly revere as their archtype. He put his Presidentail pen to a law that says, in plain english, that waterboarding is torture, and that anyone who authorizes it or carries it out is guilty of a fdederal crime.
I have found it so sad that the Republican Party, which so oftne claims to in support of law and order, is so willing to disregard law breaking by its own.
Philip H. puts it well. I would also add that I'm equally concerned by what Pelosi, Reid and crew did in terms of public legislation during this period, including the Patriot Act, FISA "reform" and a host of other ill-advised restrictions on our liberties.
Martin Luther King said, "All that needs to happen for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
The average American still suffers from the illusion that significant ideological differences exist between republicans and democrats, and that the debate arising from these differences will serve the public welfare. In keeping with this perception, we still allow our public discourse to be framed in ways that suggests that one party is more culpable than another or that one party is more capable than another. The truth is that both parties are serving the needs of corporate America at the expense of the average Joe.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home