...while those who were actually responsible for the torture have precious little to say?

But we can't get Dick Cheney to shut up! It's just not the right people, like say a grand jury, asking Dick questions that's the problem.

And McGoober once and for all shows what a flaming asshole he is by comparing torture to a minor scandal involving a real estate deal.

You Republican apologists simply don't realize that the more you speak, the dumber you look. So you just keep on a-talkin......

Shorter McGruber: Who cares if Bush broke the law? Let's all just pretend it didn't happen. Look over there, Nancy Pelosi!

The GOP truly believes that two wrongs might a right.

For the sake of argument let's pretend she did know, big deal. She would have been the messenger anyways, let keep focused. The right is trying to say "If she knew and didn't say anything, then torture is fine, only after the fact are you liberals going bananas." And from what I can tell, it is working.

Wingers are unreliable witnesses when it comes to what Pelosi says-- they believe their own propaganda about her, they hear from her what they want to hear. What I hear is that she's probably fudging a little-- but when the fight gets to the stage of drawing blood, it'll be nearly all Republican.

You all need to take a look at this story that Salon is reporting on. Sy Hersh is saying that young boys were sodomized in front of female prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It is very chilling to say the least.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html

I find the interest in what Pelosi knew and when to be something of a distraction.

I'm sure that never occured to the Bush apologists.

The Republican argument is that since Pelosi knew at the time and didn't do anything, the Democratic outrage is therefore entirely disingenuous. It may not justify the Bush use of torture, but their intent is to make it a political fight, not a legal one.

Sure, Pelosi is secondary (esp. as Minority Leader) but RushRandlicans have to play "you too" every chance. But it isn't just about the instigators v. Pelosi. What about all the then-Majority (most times) Republican leaders in Congress who would certainly be briefed off and on (and perhaps more intensively) during the relevant period about the same things? They would logically come first anyway.

In general, I find the interest in what Pelosi knew and when to be something of a distraction. In fact, the Republicans' criticism of the Speaker needs a little work. The first GOP line is, "The Bush administration didn't torture; everything was legal; and even having this discussion is outrageous." The second GOP line is, "We demand to know what Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's torture policies."

The arguments don't quite add up.**********************************

Why? Because, as usual, the Repigs are full of shit.

Slightly OT, someone from the Daily Beast was just on MSNBC saying that Cheney was suggesting that a prisoner in Iraq be waterboarded by weapons inspectors. Charles Duelfer refused to do it, but this goes beyond setting policy. It's micromanagement. It's also an interesting insight into the power structure within the administration.

Back on topic, if Pelosi didn't know what was going on, it was because she wasn't doing her job - especially if she wants to argue that her aide knew, but she didn't.

Sy Hersh is saying

Five years ago he said that. Nobody really cared. Bad apples, etc.

For the sake of argument let's pretend she did know, big deal.

WTF? Well, yeah, Scott, if she did know, it is a fucking big deal. We need to get to the bottom of this shit. If we lose some of our own people along the way because it turns out they enabled torture, then down they go.

If I was a torture apologists, I'd be very confused. So I'm supposed to argue that Nancy Pelosi knew what Bush/Cheney knew...then I'm supposed to point my finger and say, "How dare her!"

Confused, man...confused.

McGruber has it wrong, as usual.

The point is the Pelosi DIDN'T KNOW because the CIA DIDN'T TELL HER. Add that to Graham's pointing out that not one, but TWO "briefings" were completely made up by the CIA as part of the CYA project. They never happened.

And, exactly what would Pelosi do as minority leader, anyway? She didn't control the gavel, Bugman DeLay and Denny the Crook Hastert did. Why aren't you going after the GOP members who apparently did get "fuller" briefings ex parte and did nothing as well? It seems a tad partisan on your part to complain about Pelosi (who didn't have a gavel, and also wasn't briefed) but not Goss or Hoekstra, why the double standard? IOKIYAR, McGruber, no matter how treasonous? Is THAT your standard? Yes or no.

So, McGruber, you are on record as supporting a full, completely open investigation of who knew what and when, under oath? It sounds like that's the only way we'll get the truth of this.

Shorter McGruber: I only believe what Rush Limbaugh says. Oxycontin gives him special insight.

Perhaps it's the Chewbacca Defense.

IOKIYAR, McGruber, no matter how treasonous?

Yup, he said as much above. Everyone supposedly wants this to go away, so we should all just pretend that it didn't happen.

if this could take down hoyer and rockefeller, i would gladly cede Pelosi. Plus, the only way they go down is if the Bushites go down too.

win-win for the DFH.

eric

There need to be investigations of the crimes of the Bush administration. If there are dumbocraps involved, they need to be investigated as well. If rethugnicans and dumbocraps are prosecuted for crimes they committed, that works for me.

To borrow from another web site:

"Fact #1 - Torture is a crime under US Domestic, US Military, and International Law.

Fact # 2 – Photographs, video tapes and first hand testimony attesting to the use of torture have been documented

Fact # 3 – George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and the judge in charge of the military commission process at Gitmo all have admitted their roles in authorizing the use of torture.

Fact #4 - We have a crime, we have the evidence, and we have the confessions.

What the hell is left to debate?"

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/8864-kafka-for-dummies-the-absurd-debate-over-torture.html

The only thing left that is indirectly being debated is whether there is a class of people in the United States that is above the law!

McGruber:

Over the course of thirty plus years of reporting, Hersh has established himself as an extremely credible voice when it comes to exposing government malfeasance, particularly crimes perpetrated by the United States military. As with anything claim from an reporter, circumspection and judgment are required, of course, by Hersh has earned his investigative bonafides the old-fashioned way. By contrast, it takes no time or intellectual rigor to dash off a quip that dismisses anything Hersh says as tripe, because... well, I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he looks for things that look hideous in the sunlight?

Here is the pragmatic, anti-moral argument against prosceuting the Bushites.

I think you could make a veyr compelling case that the Clinton impeachment was payback for the impeachment of Nixon, so that there was no corruption assymetry between the parties.

If you prosecuted Bush and Cheney, I cannot imagine the level the GOP would stoop to in an effort to repair the prosecution assymetry.

Also, given the way the GOP seems to want to encourage treason now, i harbor fears that there would be certain violence directed against Obama.

that is a pragmatic view of it all.

Let me also say that i find a lot of this anti-torture and presecution rhetoric somewhat disingenuos when the School of the Americas has been in operation for years and the CIA has been doing renditions for years and none of that has been any secert. Look at what the US sanctioned, trained and supported in Central America. There, too, we should have held ourselves accountable, but we did not. Why? That is for the pro-prosection crowd to tell us.

eric

Indepependent of Pelosi's exact role and knowledge in the tortured torture business, wouldn't it be delicious if the double clever attempt by the CIA to implicate her would add impetus to get a serious congressional investigation started? What does it take for that? The Speaker of the House accusing the CIA of lying is not enough?

Look at what the US sanctioned, trained and supported in Central America. There, too, we should have held ourselves accountable, but we did not. Why? That is for the pro-prosection crowd to tell us.

Um, some of us have been actively pushing for School of the Americas accountability for years now. What we've done in Central America and other places is one of the chief disgraces of the U.S. during my lifetime.

shortstop....i do not doubt that. i apologize to imply anything directed at you. I am just tired of hearing how I am such a monster for not demanding prosecutions of the President of the United States for torture. I get that it is illegal. I successfully won asylum for a woman who was tortured.

But this will cost a very very very high price. There is no way to just go after the underlings. I am not sure we can afford that price right now. Look at the recent comments regarding the "drug war," global warming, health care, tax policy. None of it is perfectly progressive, but my god we need those things bad.

Now, I think all of the lawyers should be disbarred at the very least right now and that does not require any government action.

Sorry, but there will be no winners here.

The Repugs want to defend torture? Go ahead, they have no souls to lose at this point anyway.

The Dems want to claim innocence? Sorry, too late.

Representative "Off the table" Pelosi can cry foul all she wants, but she is neck deep in this.

While Bush launched two wars, attacked the Constitution and destroyed the nation's moral standing in the world, the Democrats were not innocent bystanders but engaged co-conspirators.

Those involved with torture should resign, be jailed, or sent abroad to face justice -- depending on the extent of their involvement.

Pelosi and Reid should resign . . . at bare minimum.

"The first GOP line is, "The Bush administration didn't torture; everything was legal..." The second GOP line is, "We demand to know what Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's torture policies."

The arguments don't quite add up."

Sure they do. They're not arguing that she knew, therefore she's complicit in an illegal act they just yesterday said was legal. The "fact" she was notified is one more part of what _made_ it legal.

Recall the repetitive language of the torture memos: "You have informed us that X was subjected to Y minutes of technique Z." On and on. The reasoning seems to be that CYA "notification" of legal supervisors constitutes proper legal authority.

Sort of "just following orders", upside down. "We told our superiors what we were doing and nobody ordered us to stop." Very entrepreneurial, no?

shortstop....i do not doubt that. i apologize to imply anything directed at you.

I wasn't taking it personally, eric. I'm simply pointing out that if you're implying that no one who wants accountability for torture (and by the way, there's a wide variety of opinions on what that should mean) also demanded accountability for Fort Benning, you're wrong -- it's been a major cause on the left, particularly the academic left, for years.

Eric,

The government is capable of pursuing multiple activities at once. The Justice Department often handles many cases simultaneously. It is possible to address climate change, the economy and pursue justice at the same time.

If that is not politically possible, then what Obama needs to do is to turn this over to a special prosecutor.

The press will cover it 24/7 non stop, to the detriment of all other issues, but if Barney Frank promises to have gay sex in his office, the focus will shift. After all, coverage of Iraq has all but disappeared. You would think we had already withdrawn.

Perhaps we could find out all the names of people that were briefed about this. Bob Graham backs Pelosi, I am told that if Bob Graham says something you had better believe it, he keeps notes of everything everyday.He was briefed and says the same thing that Pelosi does.

jen....here is my moral calculus: I would rather put off investigating the torture allegations until 45 million americans get some form of meaningful health care. I want to see our infant mortality rates rise to first world levels.

I do not believe that a special prosecutor will go after the former President of the United States and the Dems not get blames by the MSM and the GOP. They would fight in ways that make Clinton's impeachment seem like child's play.

I think that we should take the long view on this: Murder will out.

eric

Truth Commission.

But I'm curious, why is Pelosi the one hosting press conferences and being peppered with questions, while those who were actually responsible for the torture have precious little to say?

Um, liberal media?

The Pelosi "connection" is political flak, plain and simple! Whatever her proximity to the question of what she knew and when did she know it, such a query is nothing more than swagger to shut down any thorough investigation of just what policies were promoted by the Bush adminstration regarding the UnAmerican practice of torture.

The media can obfuscate this most important issue, but whomever devised, promoted, implemented and practiced, over and over, torture needs to be in the docket answering to torture policy misdeeds. If Pelosi is culpable, that will be borne out in any investigation.

I can certainly maintain a separation between an individual being briefed on questionable practices and the individuals who were responsible for bringing such Anti-American pracitces to bear! Torture apologists are betting otherwise! -Kevo

I continue to find the idea that the CIA tells the truth to be very strange. These people were sure there were WMDs. If there were evidence to exonerate them, they destroyed it.

here is my moral calculus: I would rather put off investigating the torture allegations until 45 million americans get some form of meaningful health care. I want to see our infant mortality rates rise to first world levels.

Why is it either/or? The torture allegations will be investigated by the Justice Department, which is not, as far as I know, deeply involved in formulating health care policy. It's a big fucking government. It can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I do not believe that a special prosecutor will go after the former President of the United States and the Dems not get blames by the MSM and the GOP. They would fight in ways that make Clinton's impeachment seem like child's play.

Look, the media and the GOP will whine and stamp their feet anyway. They're doing it now. Since they're going to obstruct no matter what we do, why take their obstruction into account? Do you honestly think that if we say fine, we won't investigate your perverted torture regime, then they'll say OK, then you can have national health care in return? It's ludicrous.

That's not even getting into the argument that we don't want to reward this type of extortionate behavior.

I found Boehner's response to Pelosi's charges especially humorous:

"It's hard for me to imagine that anyone from the [CIA] would mislead a member of Congress."

Look, the media and the GOP will whine and stamp their feet anyway. They're doing it now. Since they're going to obstruct no matter what we do, why take their obstruction into account?

EXACTLY.

GOP bitching has to considered an invariant cost. There is no way to arbitrage it away, and it only costs our side more to even try.

eric: I've been a big fan of yours on this site, so please don't take this personal. :-)

I would rather put off investigating the torture allegations until 45 million americans get some form of meaningful health care. I want to see our infant mortality rates rise to first world levels.

As others have noted, I don't see why that would matter. The GOP is dead set against changing the current system -- they get too much money from the industries involved to do so, and don't really give a shit about helping others anyway.

So that doesn't quite make the cut, IMHO.

I do not believe that a special prosecutor will go after the former President of the United States and the Dems not get blames by the MSM and the GOP. They would fight in ways that make Clinton's impeachment seem like child's play.

1. A special prosecutor has gone after a sitting president. Why not a past one?

2. What the heck makes you think the GOP won't do that anyway?

3. Do you seriously, honestly, in your heart believe the current GOP will ever do anything in good faith? They haven't done so in my lifetime -- and they're just going to start doing it now?

Don't get me wrong--I understand your point. I really do. I get it.

But thinking the GOP will play nice if we're nice to them is to assume facts not in evidence. They're assholes who will destroy all for their failed ideology.

They've been that way for 30 years and are currently doubling down on teh stoopid. So it'll get worse no matter what.

IMHO, if Pelosi knew and didn't do anything about it, she should face the music -- she had the power to speak up and stop it, but didn't.

The law is the law. It shouldn't take into account what party someone represents.

Minutes should be kept of important briefings of legislative leaders.

Nancy Pelosi's briefings are not the whole story, and not even a gigantic part of the story, but I am still interested.

I'm interested in what she knew and when. I am interested to know whether she was misled. I am interested to know if she knew and did not object. I am interested to know why she said in February she was not briefed about them at all, and then admitted in April, after the release of a memo, that she did know a little bit after all.

Given the number of Democrats who supported our illegal war with Iraq even in the face of credible questions about our pre-war intelligence, is it really so hard to believe there were Democrats who knew what was being done to our detainees and lacked the spine to do what the law required them to do?

Yes, I am interested. Yes, it is part of the story. yes, it is worth knowing.

But I agree that Nancy Pelosi is far from the only one who should be obliged to answer these questions publically.

Mark D. - I agree with the last post except for the assumption that Pelosi had the power, she did not. No gavel = no power. The closest one could come for D power were the policy hearings chaired by Waxman, and even then they were banished to undesirable locations by the Bugman. They were also addressing unclassified topics, which brings us to...

Revealing classified information (which this was) is a felony. So, exactly what could Pelosi do that both Harman and Rockefeller didn't do (sending classified protests, never to see the light of day). One can only leak classified information if one is a Bushie. IOKIYAR after all, right Mc Gruber? I mean so what if a CIA agent is outed for political payback.

ruggero--
Yeah, great points. Hadn't considered some of that.

Although, how is it that the GOP can do pretty much anything it wants when in the minority, yet Dems are powerless?

I sometimes wish Dems were as willing to ignore rules, laws, etc. the way the GOP does.

Sometimes ...

I found Boehner's response to Pelosi's charges especially humorous:

"It's hard for me to imagine that anyone from the [CIA] would mislead a member of Congress."

Posted by: Disputo on May 14, 2009

I wonder if the briefers were political types or careerists. Remember, there was a special office set up at Defense to promote the Iraq war and there might well have been similar stuff happening at the CIA.

Was it political?