A LIBERAL VIEW: MADAM SPEAKER, STEP DOWN.
Madam Speaker,
During the Bush Administration when much concern was being shown regarding the abuse of power by the Executive Branch, you adamantly refused to entertain congressional hearings on many relevant issues, such as torture or even consider impeachment hearings for President Bush. In fact, you appeared to be too accommodating with the Republican opposition, not because of siding with them, but because you may have feared a conservative backlash. Further, as a ranking democrat member in the intelligence committee, you caved in to the deceit by the Bush administration in not protesting many of his policies; for example, the use or potential use of waterboarding. Now the chickens have come to roost and you cannot fully explain where you were or how robust you stood. If however, the Republicans pulled one over on you and misled you, how could you have been so naive and abdicate your oversight responsibility? You therefore must now step down from your post as Speaker of the House and allow another Democrat who can robustly represent the Democratic agenda.
Joseph Chez
You are such an ingrate. It is only because of the careful and successful strategy of the Democrats that we were able to take back the nation from *total* GOP rule in 2006 - 2008. Pelosi has presided over this stunning reversal of GOP rule. Not protests, not "impeachment", not Code Pink -- simply beating the stuffing out of the GOP has finally ended our national nightmare. So my hats off to the Dems who helped make this happen.
May 15, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we are to be grateful that the Dems played dead and rolled over through 8 years of Republican false intelligence, invasion of two countries, rendition and kidnapping, torture and murder, to the point where Bush is so reviled by the country, it turned decisively to the Dems. Heck of a job Pelosi.
Signed,
Ingrat
May 15, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are blaming the wrong fucking people for the war and torture!!! Who does that help??? Blaming-spreading only serves to let the culprits walk free. Don't you see this is a trap?
Pelosi opposed just about *everything* Bush was doing. Why are you so eager to listen to the same fucking asshole CIA which LIED to us about Iraq and torture and everything else.
Josh said it best:
These folks helped liberate us and it is unjust to tar them with the same brush as the criminal Bush regime. Give credit where it is due.
Now she is asking for a Truth Commission, something we should all support. Where's the problem? The CIA leakers/smearmongers obviously don't want that to happen, and have tried to blackmail Dems to backdown.
May 15, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
SCREAMING doesn't make your falsehoods true. The TRUTH is the Republicans were able to get away with the most heinous crimes and the worst excesses in authorizing financial fraud bringing the world to its knees is because the Dems, half of the country, didn't do MUCH to stop them.
Heck of a job you're doing fighting through the teeth for the Speaker.
May 15, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't "liberate" us, please...you're embarrassing yourself in your accolades here. The American people TURNED AGAINST the Republicans. The tide TURNED, it wasn't Pelosi there parting the waters. Sheesh.
May 15, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people just rose up and crafted the ads, created the databases, provided professional organizers to focus the volunteers, identified target districts, and made sure the candidates were funded ... while tweaking marginals likely to go GOP with just enough cash to deplete the GOP's ability to compete in the hard targets.
Yeah right.
May 15, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi just happened to be around when people got sick of Bush (due in part to Katrina). It was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that actually did any good, not Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC.
She didn't accomplish anything herself.
May 15, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes she is responsible for 9/11 and the Iraq war even though she reached 3rd in the chain of command in 2007!!!
No.
I do see Ms. Pelosi as doing one heck of a job.
Once again we have the flailing GOP, the party of criticisms, crying, and whining attemping to sabatoge the success of the Democratic party with manipulation and cover up.
This issue is a perpetual negative for Repugnants but they will hope for the immediate gratification of inflicting harm to the speaker.
May 15, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heres the deal. IF she knew about it, odds are she was
A) Not given the opportunity to do anything about it, just told: Here is what we are doing, FYI
and
B) Most likely couldn't do a damn thing about it do to security clearance issues and such.
If you honestly think that she was in a position to make a stink to prevent it or could have exposed it, you are sorely mistaken. If she knew and had leaked it, she would be in federal prison now, not Speaker of the House.
May 15, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's patently untrue. There have been plenty of whistleblowers, even one Deep Throat. Just read any Seymour Hersh - Washington LEAKS. There could have been myriads of ways if she had intended to register her disagreement. On what legal basis would you presume that the US Courts would JAIL whistleblowers of CIA torture, a lawmaker, not less?? These are all strawmen arguments. In the end, if Pelosi KNEW about CIA torture and kept quiet, she isn't responsible for it but she would have been complicit.
"An individual is complicit in a crime if he is aware of its occurrence, has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite easily being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making him a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.
Law relating to complicity varies. Usually complicity is not a crime although this sometimes conflicts with popular perception. (See The Finale (Seinfeld episode)). At a certain point a person that is complicit in a crime may become a conspirator depending on the degree of involvement by the individual and whether a crime was completed or not."
May 15, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deep Throat is a profoundly poor analogy. This would have been treated as a national security leak. It would have been pursued, and Nancy Pelosi's freedom would have hinged solely on the determination of the reporter she leaked it to's determination to protect their sources. And yes, someone would have been imprisoned at the time. From January 2003 to January 2007 the GOP controlled everything- justice, congress, the supreme court- everything. Yes, it may have stopped torture, although I doubt it. Rove would have waged a full-scale war on Pelosi's crediblity, Hastert would have seen about getting her censured and possible expelled from congress. Gonzo would have seen to it that she was prosecuted. Don't kid yourself, fuckstick, she couldn't go to the press.
Besides, given that I sincerely doubt she would be spending time trying to coordinate her message with Rockefeller and Bob Graham (and their stories have match)if she did know, because otherwise, they would be treating this entirely as every(wo)man for themselves. And, she would be falling into the trap that this is all about- The GOP is hoping to use this as a means to get her to kill her support for a truth commission, but if you hear her statements, shes calling for one now stronger than ever. Does that strike you as someone who has anything to lose over this.
You are an intellectual disgrace.
May 15, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Typical. Ad hominems when you CANNOt come up with a halfway decent rebuttal to my question:
On WHAT legal premise would Pelosi be JAILED in a Court of Law in this land for DISCLOSING evidence of Torture??
Answer that FIRST.
Otherwise, it's not only disgraceful, but dishonest.
May 15, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for violated confidentiality laws etc. how do you not see this?
And no, I am not defending complicity in torture, hell, I was quite clear from the beginning that I believe her when she says she didn't actually know- her comments and continued call for full investigations are not something someone involved would do. Such a person wouldn't say a damn thing, now would they?
I apologize for crossing the line there, but frankly, your complete inability to show any respect for the possibility that, perhaps, you are wrong precludes you from earning my respect.
Sit still for a minute, please, and think of this rationally- everything about this stink doesn't come across as a real issue- it seems fabricated, bait for the left to tear itself apart. Even responses from GOP members, such as Shelby http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/richard-shelby-weighs-in-but-doesnt-clarify-key-points/ don't seem to actually be refuting claims of Pelosi et al. You are taking a very with us or against us approach. I don't like that, there is nuance here that you are blowing off entirely.
That is all I have to say on this issue, you haven't presented a tangible rebuttal here in any way, you've just restated your disturbingly reactionary original post over and over. Do not expect me to respond to you again.
Good day to you sir.
May 15, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Ma'am, if you please.
"Confidentiality"??? Now that that takes the cake... Has anyone ever been jailed for "breaking confidentiality" in reporting a CRIME??
In fact, it is the other way round - you MIGHT be incriminated if you DO NOT REPORT A CRIME.
As to whom has not presented a credible rebuttal, the posts will speak for themselves, and perhaps one's conscience.
In the end, *IF* it is proven that Pelosi is complicit, she SHOULD resign, along with Dems like Harman. Just Go. They weren't representing the country, they were enabling Bush.
Perhaps THEN it would be possible to have a new, un-implicated Majority Leader for whom Impeachment is NOT Off the Table.
May 15, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One last thing- and I've made this point above.
At the time it was, tragically, not a crime per se. The Bush Justice Department had put together legal opinions that justified the torture. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees were Republican. Most of the courts and prosecutors that would have had jurisdiction were Bush- appointed. Bush was still VERY popular then- it would still have been very easy for them to maintain the public spin about it 'protecting America' (nonsense, to be sure, but they would have managed it).
No one pursues it, no crime. And it would be a security breach regardless. Immunity could be granted sure, but speaking out publicly would still have been illegal.
May 15, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ask yourself one question - Why would Pelosi be scrambling to DENY that she was briefed about the torture if it would have been ILLEGAL for her to disclose the information at that time? Why is she fighting the fight of her life if what she had done then was to merely abide by the Law?
Incidentally, the Law does not Change. If it is illegal NOW, it would have been the same THEN, regardless of the political climate.
You keep talking about *some* vague idea of a "law" that would make Pelosi's disclosure of the torture at that time ILLEGAL and that would send her to prison, but you have not actually quoted ANY, just your impression of something somewhere somehow.... It remains a fantasy of yours to explain Pelosi's legal obligation to remain Complicit, it does not qualify as a defense.
Please do quote us the FULL legal premise to justify Pelosi's keeping mum about the crime, not simply stating your personal beliefs in your posts. Google, cut n paste if you must. You seem ADAMANT that it exists, and I am interested to see it.
May 15, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, its always illegal, as it is the Law. However, my point is that there
A) needs to be someone who will enforce it. I'm not certain that existed in 2002-2003.
B) those who are charged to enforce the law in question are unlikely to enforce a law that they themselves are breaking
Granted, a figure such as Patrick Fitzgerald could have potentially changed all that.
As for precedent, how about the Valerie Plame Affair? The initial investigation was started in light of a media leak, granted no convictions came from that, largely because Libby saw fit to lie, stonewall, and generally obstruct justice.
A weak precedent, sure, but it is one, and its contemporary with the issue at hand. I could spend a while looking for more, but I think that'll do the trick
May 15, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really don't want to be beating a dead Spea...um, horse, but the huge difference between the Plame and Pelosi affair is that Plame was not "outed" for having committed a crime. If she did something illegal under US Laws, eg. treason, then yes, it would have been a legal obligation to "out" her even if national security were at stake. IF (big *if* here...) Pelosi was briefed about a crime, then it would have been her obligation to "out" it - otherwise, she would be deemed complicit in the crime under US Law.
Which is why the debate isn't hinged on what you're suggesting at all, but on whether she was briefed or NOT briefed.
May 16, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi would ONLY be breaching national security IF Torture is legal and admissible under US laws and officially sanctioned as part of the State's apparatus, and its use is considered a security issue under US Laws.
In fact, it is the other way round, torture is ILLEGAL, and Pelosi, though not responsible for the illegal act, is obliged to report it, which is why there is a Law about Complicity to begin with.
In the end, you just want to defend Pelosi with everything you can think up and throw out.
If there is substance in the "laws" you're talking about and not citing, do send them to the Speaker's office, attn legal defense.
I might as well be talking to an impregnable fortress of Pelosi-tude, enough of this farce and absurdity.
May 15, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, you are DEFENDING COMPLICITY in TORTURE. You're making excuses for WHY Pelosi, with the FULL protection of the Law, didn't Speak up. That would make you...????
I'm keeping an open mind as to whether she did or did not know. If she knew, she is complicit, PERIOD.
May 15, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you don't lay off the explicit 4-letter words, "eg. "fuckstick", exemplary of your, ahem, refinement, obvious intellectual superiority and scintillating knowledge of the Law, I would be lodging a complaint against your verbal abuse.
May 15, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, Pelosi's defenders are just flogging the partisan horse here. They don't have much else to beat. Let's have ALL the documents out. Transparency, remember???
In your gushing adulation of the Speaker, do deign to pay some lip service to one Howard 50-State Dean who galvanized the grassroots-netroots and paved the way for a Democratic comeback and the Obama landslide.
May 15, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean did an awesome job. The rest of the democratic leadership did as well.
May 15, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously if Pelosi had been briefed and was unable to do anything about it for legal/national security reasons she would say so. It might sound a little bit Bushie, but it's better than the circles she's going in now.
Pelosi resigning as speaker would not only be appropriate, it would help the democrats distance themselves from torture and the failed policies of the Bush era in which they were a very weak opposition. As long as we keep the tent big enough for the moderates, we can afford to be ideological with our leadership.
May 15, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I have always wondered about the DLC and whether it really represented the American people who were sick and angry about Bush - it was Howard Dean's run for the Presidency that inspired me and many other Dems. Remember "I represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!" ? It was an especially depressing period for us, seeing how the Dems were lining up to kiss Cheney's ass, clinging desperately to Blue Dog States, and Dean was a bold, dashing glimmer of Hope.
Perhaps I'm older than many posters here, and can recall Dean, and able to trace the trajectory of today's success and netroot movement to him.
Seriously, what were Dems like Harman and Pelosi doing? I don't want to excuse them by recalling the "political climate" at that time, many others, Kucinich, even a Republican like Jeffords, did the right thing.
May 16, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink