-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/32367/faux-news-reveals-true-motivation-behind-attacks-on-pelosi/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
First of all, that is not quite what the source (Think Progress) said. Here is the exact quote again:
"Launching hypocritical and disingenuous attacks," and "characterizing any question towards the Speaker's statements and actions AS attacks" do not mean the same thing.
And the first phrasing is accurate.
Sure, I'm positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn't mean that the Speakers actions are above question.
I don't believe anyone has said that the Speaker's actions are above question. But the attention that is being paid to how much Pelosi knew and when she knew it and what she should have done, compared with the attention being paid to the actual war crimes that people are arguing over how much she knew, is truly bizarre. At least it is if you assume that most people think war crimes should be prosecuted.
I'm glad you're not going so far as to say that Pelosi broke the law, because, with the information we have now, there is really no basis for anyone to think that. And I can't understand why Pelosi and her colleagues falling down on their oversight duties, as reprehensible as that might be (assuming they had a meaningful choice, which is a large assumption), overshadows and is so much more horrifying and contemptible than actually coming up with that list of torture techniques and slicing and dicing the law to try and make it fit what they wanted to do.
She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.
I'm sorry, Jazz, but that is extraordinarily bizarre. Truly. I have never been a Nancy Pelosi fan, but how anyone can characterize her behavior as "disgraceful" and say she should "pack her bags and leave" is beyond me when many of the same people who actually authorized and justified torture are still employed by the C.I.A.; when Jay Bybee is a federal judge one level below the Supreme Court; when John Yoo is a professor of constitutional law at one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, AND has been given a monthly column at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
There's something really wrong with that, and I think you should think about it.
Nancy Pelosi has called for a Truth Commission. Other Democrats have also called for investigations. Liberals and Democrats both inside and outside Congress have said they are willing to go wherever the facts lead. I have seen many liberal or left-leaning bloggers state outright that they are perfectly fine with holding Pelosi and other congressional Democrats responsible if an investigation shows they were complicit in torture. I have not seen any Republicans, in Congress or in the blogosphere, say they want everyone who planned, justified, and ran the torture program to be held responsible.
I think it's Republicans who are trying to avoid responsibility, not Democrats.
None of the Pelosi distractions mean anything to me. Neither she nor any other legislator had any role in DECIDING or ORDERING that misconduct. And jwest, cutting off funding for the CIA is NOT a viable way for the opposition party to stop these practices, even if they could have done so, which they could not, especially without disclosing the reasons why. It's also completely lame to suggest Pelosi or others should have broken national security laws by disclosing the content of top secret briefings. And CS, we have no knowledge whether or not Pelosi "refused" to sign Harman's letter.
So what I'm reading here from the right is they excuse the depravity that their team inserted into military service but want Dem legislators investigated for not breaking federal law to try to stop it.
As for the CIA lying, it's already proven. They claimed to have "repeatedly" briefed Pelosi and others. Not true. Provably not true. Yes, let's investigate. Let's prosecute. Let a court decide if there's sufficient evidence to indict and if so, to convict. That's how American law works.
My daughter joined the Navy less than a month ago. She did not join to learn "outright sadism and depravity", nor to become a "sadistic sex offender" - she joined to serve her county honorably, a country she loves, and you obviously hate.
What is sad and pathetic is America-haters such as yourself spilling your vileness towards people, our Armed Services members, who have more honor, patriotism, and true valor than sick little ... like yourself ever did have, or ever will.
I love this country, a country that stands against sadism and depravity and torture and has fought valiantly for the international laws requiring decency in treatment of prisoners.
You apparently do not stand against those things and now defend the same twisted tactics for which we have prosecuted others.
Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope Obama succeeds in assuring that she is never ordered to do those things, and that those who ordered them in the past are punished as a warning to others that even in the treatment of our enemies, we have morals, ethics and the rule of law. America is made up mostly of decent people. Those things are not decent.
By the way, how would you feel if your daughter were a prisoner in one of those pictures? How about if she was the one holding the leash? Like that image? How patriotic.
Physician, heal thyself.
If you find yourself saying "everyone is crazy but me", then it's usually time to start taking a look in the mirror...
Once again, your analysis is a near miss.
The issue all along has been the criminal matter of torture. As a crime, not only who did it, but also who planned it and who covered it up. The right has desperately tried to obscure this by first creating the tissue of feeble legal reasoning, outright lying to oversight panels, and now trying to misdirect the debate into political channels.
You now choose to imply Kathy's case as some nefarious attempt to shield Pelosi and keep this political.
The only partisanship here is the Right's. Nary a one is willing to back a truth commission. Covering up a crime is a crime, so let a truth commission investigate. Your final paragraph simply demonstrates how you wish to split hairs and charge Kathy with the splitting.
"Those questions have nothing to do with torture, beyond being the subject of the statements. You can investigate torture policies AND investigate whether or not the Speaker of the House was lying about it and then tarring the CIA with her accusations. The two are not mutually exclusive, so this accusation of "distractions" is pretty thin gruel."
No one here separates Pelosi's statements from the crime they address except you. Why? The only distractions come from your wish to play devil's advocate. Why not write an article on all the Republicans who are trying to block an investigation, or write an artricle on all those who support an investigation? Pelosi's part in this is subject to the same rigor as all other's involved. Don't distract from that yourself.
Thank you for persevering and staying on message.
Illegitimus non tatum carborundum
Dorian
About your question:
"Nancy Pelosi has called for a truth commission that will answer all these questions. Do you support her on that?"
Absolutely yes. Shine a bright light on this sorry business. The brighter the better.
In the instance of the CIA's torture program, however, Congress as a whole was not briefed. Only key members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed. That's just a handful of people. Actually, maybe less than a handful.
No one needs to disclose anything. It’s all done behind closed door.
jwest, are you out of your mind? Congress cuts off funding for a program and no one knows that it happened, or which program was defunded, or why?
Do something that congress doesn’t like and the money stops. This is how our government works.
Um, but jwest, Congress has to know that the something is happening before they can decide they don't like it. Congress was not briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Maybe five or six members of Congress were briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Those five or six people were bound by law not to reveal or discuss what was said in those briefings, to anyone who was not in the briefings. "Anyone who was not in the briefings" includes all those other members of Congress who were not briefed.
How do you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman would have cut off funding for the CIA's interrogation program by themselves, without telling anyone else in Congress why they wanted to do so?
I honestly and truly do not understand what is the confusion about this point. What is it you don't understand?
Of course you can, so let's have at it.
Of course you can, so let's have at it.
Then we probably don't disagree as much as the rest of our readers here in the comments seem to believe. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said investigations in to torture, extraordinary actions, et. al. can and should go forward. My only point was that the first source you quoted characterized any questions towards the Speakers statements and actions as being "hypocritical and disingenuous attacks."
Sure, I'm positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn't mean that the Speakers actions are above question. I'm not even going so far as to say Pelosi broke the law here. But I have watched a string of video appearances by her on the subject ( on the oh so conservative MSNBC no less) clearly showing how her story has changed and even reversed itself.
Now, if that was the extent of it, then all we would be dealing with would be a politician lying to the public. I know... I know. Coming up next on TMV News, Scientist reveal that oceans are wet. I wouldn't lose much sleep over it. But the accusations against the CIA and the paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread) were more than a bridge too far. That was really crappy. Not illegal, but it should be politically poisonous to do that. And by the way, for those of you defending, check the Sunday show circuit. Pelosi is already trying to walk back from those accusations, saying she didn't mean to say the CIA, blah blah blah. Make that story number seven out of her on this one.
She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.
This is so obvious that only those who think 'partisan points' are more important than country even bothered with this phony 'scandal'.
Last week the wingnuts tried to sell a Pelosi Scandal... the week before it was Swine Flu... next week watch out for Texas Cession... Good god where's Tom Delay when they need him?
The 18%ers want to talk about anything and everything except reasoned, responsible governance.
Now, you refer to "paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread)."
Is it slander to say the CIA is wrong about their briefings? Let's see. The CIA said they briefed Congress "repeatedly." Bob Graham said oh yeah? What dates? They specifically said they had briefed Graham 4 times. Oops. Bob Graham is a notorious note taker and his notes are in the U of FL library. Three of the four briefings never took place. The CIA lied. Or at the least, the CIA was wrong. Now THEY'RE backtracking; all the way back. They say "Graham is correct." Should they "pack their bags" and leave in shame? Maybe they were lying, maybe they were just shabby record keepers. But there is no doubt they were WRONG.
And what about that Panetta disclaimer? He pushes back on Pelosi, saying the CIA stands by their version. *Then* he repeats the very lawyerly disclaimer that they're not sure of their version. Remember? "This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."
The "notes" he refers to, we now know, were compiled years later, and may well be mistaken, as they surely were in Graham's case.
Oh, by the way, one week after the CIA claims it told Pelosi about waterboarding (Graham backs her claim that it was never mentioned), the CIA gave their NIE claiming certainty about WMD. Again, whether the CIA was lying or spectacularly incompetent, they were WRONG. And that lie or incompetence led us to war. I really don't see how you get all indignant now about someone "slandering" the CIA.
Yes, let's investigate. All of it.
So? What does that have to do with the criminality of torture?
I don't know what you mean by "full briefing," but regardless of what she was told or not told in the briefing, it doesn't affect the criminality of the acts themselves.
We need to see the CIA's notes of those meetings -- but if they contradict what Pelosi has said, that still doesn't prove anything, because Pelosi was not permitted to take notes during the meeting. None of the members of Congress who were briefed were allowed to take notes. The briefers did not want them to have records of what was said, to be able to compare their notes or talk to anyone else about them. So if only one side is allowed to take notes, and there's a contradiction or an inconsistency, by what measure of fairness do we give the benefit of the doubt to the side that forbade the other side to take notes?
Yes CStanley in rereading your comment I see that you did.
My first read didn't get past "there's still a real question as to whether she has repeatedly been using this issue as a political weapon to bring down the GOP." as I assumed that your comment was just another party-before-country rant... Sorry.
Regarding the Harman Letter and 'who said what & when' we all pick the parts that support our opinions but all the facts ARE NOT on the table... These are the issues that need to be looked into and that is why I can't understand how anyone (other than the guilty) object to formal investigations to look into this very important issue.
"The GOP doesn't want a truth commission, so they are trying to point out shabby activities by the speaker as a distraction. Ergo, the speaker couldn't have done anything wrong."
The two issues under discussion, sad to say, are almost entirely unrelated. The first question would appear to be, "did the United States engage in torture, who authorized it and will they be held accountable?"
Fine and dandy. Le's investigate that by all means and get solid answers and policies in place for the future. Let's have a truth commission if you like. Take it away.
Now let's look at the second set of questions.
"Whether the policies in question amounted to torture or not, was the Speaker briefed on them repeatedly? Did she lie about knowing that these policies were in place or that the procedures were being used? After being called out on such statements and changing her story two, three, four times, did she accuse the entire Central Intelligence Agency of lying just to cover her political behind?"
Those questions have nothing to do with torture, beyond being the subject of the statements. You can investigate torture policies AND investigate whether or not the Speaker of the House was lying about it and then tarring the CIA with her accusations. The two are not mutually exclusive, so this accusation of "distractions" is pretty thin gruel.
can drive you mad if you let it In the case of the author of this rubbish, it doesn't take a drive because she's a short putt away from the madhouse.
Looks like the only one here frothing is you Dave. Get a grip.
Who knew that Pelosi, too, is a Republican operative? Just another example of the Machiavellian nature of politics, I guess.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3680 (it was worth repeating)
Cheney picking a fight with Pelosi is basically a no-lose proposition for Cheney. He is an ex-VP who nobody likes, Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. He has nothing to lose, politically she has a lot to lose. It's extremely unlikely he will be found guilty of anything criminal, and if he is it's extremely unlikely he'll be punished. I think Cheney sees every day Pelosi is in the news as a victory. Pelosi's silence on the torture issue, even if unproven, will reflect negatively on her to some extent.
Under those conditions we grant immunity to those individuals drawn into the fringe of abetting behavior against their better judgement...as Pelosi et al almost certainly were. We take the lesser players, the non-diabolical "cohorts" and grant them immunity in exchange for their testimony that fingers the kingpins of the move to legitimize illegal acts in the name of corporate profiteering in oil-rich Iraq.
However, even if they are keeping the pressure on Pelosi for this reason, there's still a real question as to whether she has repeatedly been using this issue as a political weapon to bring down the GOP. She's almost admitted as much in saying that she felt it was more important to work for party change in the White House than to explore any method of exercising Congressional oversight over the then sitting administration. That's blatantly politicizing an issue of national security concern, and it shouldn't be acceptable to people on either side of the aisle. I realize that her defenders say that she had no options because the briefings were classified, but we already know that she was unwilling to put her name on the letter that Jane Harman wrote (which was the logical first step to take without violating any confidentiality), and that she sent a staff member to one of the briefings that she should have attended herself and then didn't even bother to get briefed on what was discussed there. She's not likely to be guilty of anything illegal in all of this, but ethically it smells to high heaven.
daveinboca is a perfect example of how neo-republican logic 'works' with this issue.
After five voices from the right, not a single one has noticed (let alone addressed) the elephant in the room:
"She did nothing about it because she signed an agreement not to disclose anything she learned in the briefings..."
The whole reason congress is briefed on what the CIA is doing is so they can cut off funding if they disagree.
No one needs to disclose anything. It’s all done behind closed door.
Do something that congress doesn’t like and the money stops. This is how our government works.
jwest,
Do you honestly believe this? OMFG.
You're right that this is how it's SUPPOSED to work, but there's a nasty thing called politics that interferes.
Unfortunately. BTW this reflects poorly on both Rs and Ds, not one or the other.
I see what your trying to say JWest, I told the same thing in 10th Grade Civics/Government class and I remember thinking that it was a great way to do things.
Do you still believe this is how it actually works?.. What really happens? If you do would/could you please give me a recent (last 10 - 15 years) example? I'd like to get some of my youthful naivety back.
Yes. Yes I do.
This method work especially well when the subject is opposed by the party not in power in the executive branch. If not for the power to end/stall/reduce funding, what good is congress?
" what good is congress?"
I often wonder about that. The Founders designed a beautiful system, but we are often poorly represented by those in Congress, whose greed and lust for power is more important to them than serving the Constitution or the people they are supposed to represent.
It doesn't have to happen because we know it could. Pelosi starts to raise hell and say she is going to raise hell if they do this and then they don't do it because they are afraid to piss off a powerful member of congress. They only approved the use of waterboarding on three people. The idea that they wouldn't do without it if Pelosi raised hell is debatable. The idea that Pelosi was worried that so close to 9/11 she wouldn't get reelected if she was soft on terrorist is very likely. If she got a full briefing and kept her mouth shut then how can she know accuse cia or military of criminal activity? I mean lawyers said ok, congress knew and said nothing, if it was that clear cut then something is wrong. If not then Nancy shouldn't of got up on a soapbox.
"She did nothing about it because she signed an agreement not to disclose anything she learned in the briefings..."
Steve, that's because the voices on the right -- come to that, the right in general -- is NOT reality-based. Their thinking and their arguments are not based on what is factual, true, or possible given objective reality.
Kathy, it's dismissive and partisan attitudes like yours that gives me hope that fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility can eventually recover. Did you even listen to Obama today? Is that whole "common ground" thing just BS as far as the left is concerned?
It seems that Jazz has gone on to a new post without taking the time to reply to the points and questions you have raised... Not worth his time it seems.
Jazz, your non-reply speaks volumes.