What, Exactly, Was Pelosi Supposed to Do?
Listening to the news over the past week, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi was personally responsible for torturing prisoners. Because that's how the storyline seemed, if you had just beamed in from Mars and didn't know anything else about the debate on prisoner interrogation. The problem is, we have not just arrived on this planet, and Nancy Pelosi will ultimately wind up in the history books with a footnote (if that) in the description of what took place under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But her critics in the past few days have remarkably failed to answer a very basic question (not that the media is really asking, but maybe they'll get around to it) -- what, exactly, was Nancy Pelosi supposed to do?
In other words, set aside for a moment the relative culpability of Pelosi versus others involved. Assume the worst her critics are charging her with in the "what and when did she know?" debate -- that she was told a month or so after waterboarding had happened that it was being used. And then answer the question: "What would you have done in her place?" Any critic of the Speaker of the House today should be able to come up with an answer to that, or else their criticism should be discounted as sheer partisanship and political games.
Let's review a few facts, and then lay out the possible courses of action for Pelosi at the time. The Central Intelligence Agency is, by law, required to brief certain members of Congress on covert activities. This is a safeguard put in place since the abuses of the agency came to light in the 1970s. The CIA is required to brief not only the White House, but also the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, and the ranking minority and majority members of both houses' intelligence committees. These eight members of Congress -- four from each party -- are given secret briefings by the CIA to inform Congress what is being done in the American peoples' name.
That is "secret" not in its normal English-language sense of "not in the public view" but in its national security sense of "closed-door hearings where classified information is disseminated." This is important.
Nancy Pelosi, in the time period being talked about, was the House Minority Leader. Republicans controlled the House at the time. This is also important.
Those are the basic facts. Now, whether you believe the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, or Nancy Pelosi about what was said in those briefings, the subject of waterboarding came up at some point, in relation to "this is what we're doing/considering doing/about to do (take your pick) to detainees." Pelosi tried to split this hair in a disastrous press conference last Thursday, but no matter how that hair is split, she still knew enough to make up her mind on the central issue -- should the United States of America waterboard prisoners?
Which brings us to our central issue: what should she have done at the time? Let's look at the options as I see them.
Agree with the policy, or do nothing.
If Pelosi agreed with the Bush policy, she could have done nothing, or publicly supported it (without, of course, revealing details). Or, if she disagreed, she could have done nothing, and the Bush policy would have continued. Net result: no change in policy, no political risk for Pelosi.
Speak privately to the president, or send him a strongly-worded letter.
Pelosi could have gone to see Bush, and let him know exactly how she felt about the waterboarding issue. She could have even put it in a letter (as Jane Harman did), which she could point to later in defense of her anti-waterboarding position. Net result: Bush and Cheney crack jokes about wimpy Democrats, no change in policy, would have given Pelosi a "cover your ass" political chip she could have played at a later date.
Leak it to the press.
Pelosi, if she felt strongly that America was about to do something it should not do, and was otherwise powerless to influence the decision, could have put the debate squarely in front of the American people by leaking the story to the press. Net result (remember, this was mere months after 9/11 happened): the press could have declined to run the story (a real possibility in the jingoist times this took place), or they could have run it and a massive investigation would have followed to find the leak. This is classified information in wartime, after all. If the press gave Pelosi up, she could have faced prison or (at the very least) being stripped of her security clearance and (quite likely) been forced out of her leadership position in the party. If the press refused to give her up, the reporters would have faced prison time.
Shout it from the mountaintops -- go public.
Pelosi could, of course, been so morally outraged that she went public with the story and put her own face on the opposition to waterboarding. This would have been the morally correct thing to do, for those who live in black-and-white moral universes, but it would have had severe consequences. Pelosi herself would have been hounded mercilessly by Republicans. She almost certainly would have immediately faced charges for revealing classified information. She would have been called "traitor" and "treasonous" by many, for revealing secrets to the enemy in wartime. Net result: Pelosi would have lost her security clearance, faced a court case, given the Republicans even more reason to beat Democrats up on "national security" politically, and (even in the best case scenario) would have reduced herself to merely the "House member from San Francisco" and been stripped of her leadership by frightened Democrats looking at the next election cycle. Bush policy would have remained unchanged, although we would have had the whole Cheneyesque "enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture, because we say so, and we don't torture (as long as we get to define what that means)" debate a little bit sooner than it actually happened.
Resign and shout it from the mountaintops.
Pelosi could have resigned from either her leadership position, or from the House itself, and gone public with the story. Apart from committing political suicide, this would have had almost exactly the same effect as the previous answer. Net result: Pelosi would have been in a lot more danger of actual jail time as a result, because instead of just being "a voice of dissent from a Democrat in Congress" she would have been relegated (by the media, mostly) to "left wing lunatic" status, and seen as a pariah from her own party. Think: Cindy Sheehan. And the Bush policy would have been debated more forcefully in public, but likely would have remained unchanged anyway.
Win the House majority back, then do something about it.
Pelosi, however, could have played the long game, and worked as hard as she could to win back the House (and support efforts to win back the Senate) for Democrats, which would have given her the power to actually change policies as the majority. Being in the minority in the House is no fun, because there isn't even the filibuster threat to keep you relevant. Minority party status in the House is about as powerless a position in Washington as you can get. So Pelosi could have gritted her teeth, put her nose to the grindstone, and worked to win the House for her side, so something could be done. Net result: with Democrats in power in the House, they could have served as a serious check on the Bush policy, and with the purse-strings firmly in hand, could have forced changes in the policy as soon as Democrats prevailed.
Wait until there is enough political cover, then say you're against it.
Or Pelosi could have taken an even longer view, and diligently worked to gain a majority; but then when such a majority was won, refused to challenge Bush on any of his wartime policies, and continued passing every bit of legislation he asked for on the foreign policy front. Pelosi could have led Democrats (in the meantime) to fund two wars, provide amnesty for illegal wiretapping, indeed even provide amnesty for torture itself -- retroactively. When Pelosi was finally given cover by a Democrat winning the White House (who himself took and is taking the political heat for declaring America's torture period over), she could have loudly supported such a president. Net result: exactly where we are today.
As you can see, I hold no one completely blameless in this sorry chapter in American history. Republicans who are now gleefully (while attempting to appear quite prim) jumping on Nancy Pelosi for her actions (and inactions) during the time period in question have not answered the basic question: "What was she supposed to do about it?" If any Republican can now say with a straight face that he or she would have respected Pelosi going public back then, and not called her a traitor, I would like to see that (although I would stand well clear, just in case a bolt of lightning struck them down from the sky). Because they simply have no credibility for somehow taking Pelosi to task for not going public, when they would have immediately led the calls for chucking her in jail had she done so.
This was classified information given in a secret briefing. It's hard to get around that fact, which is why almost all of the news stories on Pelosi in the past week have completely avoided even mentioning it. It makes for a better storyline without pointing out this fact, so it is conveniently omitted.
Pelosi's hands were tied. She could not go public. She could not leak the story. At least not without breaking the law. She could have sent a letter to Bush, which would have achieved exactly nothing, except to provide her with a political "out" later on. For her own reasons, she did not do so.
Pelosi can be defended for being in an impossible situation at the time. Even if she disagreed with the policy, there simply wasn't much for her to do about it. She could have introduced legislation to stop it, but you have to remember her minority status at the time. The bill would likely not even have made it out of committee, even if she had chosen this route. Or, conversely, the Republicans may have let it sail through to the floor, to force Democrats to vote on it (probably about a month before a congressional election), to use against them in campaign ads. Either way, Bush would not have changed his policy.
What is inexcusable (to me at least) was what Pelosi did in 2007 and 2008 -- after she became Speaker of the House. With her own party in charge, Pelosi absolutely refused to tackle the issue head-on. And by that time, the information was public and "national security secrets" were no longer even an issue.
When Pelosi was first briefed on waterboarding, she had no legal way to raise a public objection. She could have raised private objections, which would not have accomplished anything more than making her feel better for having done so. And even if it had gone public, these were the days of flag pins, car window flags, yellow ribbons, and all the rest. So even a public debate would not have gotten very far (at least in my reading of the situation).
It seems to me that critics of Pelosi -- whether coming from the left or right -- would do well to concentrate on the last two years of Bush's second term, when Pelosi could have been a "profile in courage" and instead gave Bush exactly what he wanted.
But that's not the way the storyline goes, at least not so far in the mainstream media. But what I find ironic is that the entire fracas may actually get us closer to some sort of "truth commission." Republicans (at least some of them) now seem a lot more open to the idea, now that Pelosi may get ensnared by such a fact-finding commission. They see it as an opening to blunt criticism over Bush and Cheney for their actions, since "Democrats were told about it at the time and are therefore culpable as well."
I really don't have a problem with that. I've always said a truth commission should search for the truth, and if some Democrats suffer as a result, then so be it. The truth of what was done in the name of the American people is (to me, at least) about country, and not about politics.
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think the consistent negative attacks with few convincable alternatives don't help at all, and the uninsured, underinsured are eagerly waiting for the desired health care package to pass promptly.
If the purpose of the security briefings is to have a check on the power of the CIA, then there needs to be some mechanism for her to act on the information she gets. Of course, she should be able to speak up. Otherwise, it completely defeats the purpose of making sure that our elected officials are overseeing the actions of the CIA.
What did the Nuremberg Principles have to say about war-crimes, Chris? They said, among other things, that you have no excuse of "I was just following orders." They said that if you are a government officer in a government that is committing war-crimes, "so did you."
The blunt fact of this matter is that AMERICAN civil officers are or have been ... sociopaths. They not only tortured prisoners, but did it hundreds of times. We cannot point at anything that, say, Stalin ever did if we continue to have a gulag ... not in Siberia, but in Cuba. War-crimes are something that cannot be tolerated; they are a gangrenous, festering sore that must be ripped out. And punished. Probably, hung.
But first, this very deadly thing must be taken very seriously.
Any Member of Congress should have recognized that it was his or her positive duty under the Constitution to promptly enforce Article 2, Section 4: the impeachment clause. And, to do it against "any (thus, every) civil officer" who was involved.
But they didn't, Chris. And you know why. Nancy baldly proclaimed that "impeachment is off the table," which to the criminals meant: "I'm in. I've got your back."
And that, to me, was in itself an act of Treason, because "the enemy" can sometimes be "a fellow officer of your own Government." The enemy can even be... "you."
Of course, Pelosi could have done what so many others did, and demand Bush be tried for war crimes. That's a whole lot of days gone by without action. Maybe, today? If she has questions, she can review her notes of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.
I want Nancy Pelosi to keep her position as Speaker. Ed is right shed should stay. I've forgiven her for taking impeachment off the table. She's fine as Speaker.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
Vinca -
Sorry to use your comment to post something unrelated (I'm having slight problems posting comments today).
To all -
Fellow HuffPoster Frank Dwyer wrote a response to this article at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-dwyer/what-pelosi-could-have-do_b_205006.html
In it, he answers my basic question. I must admit I wrote this article for Republican critics of Pelosi, but got a lot of Democratic criticism as well. So, in answer to Dwyer (and in answer to a lot of people's comments here), I have written a second article on the subject, at my web site (I don't post on HuffPost on Tuesdays):
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/19/pelosi-part-two/
Anyone who would like to continue the debate is welcome to come on over and post their comments.
-CW
Pelosi is and has always been a political hack. She finally rose to the top of the heap and has shown that remaining there is her most important goal, not serving the public interest. Unfortunately, Weigant seems to accept that goal as most important. His "analysis" is flawed at best and an apology at worst. That Bush and Cheney directed the unlawful acts doesn't acquit Pelosi from her irresponsibility and deceit.
As for the risk Pelosi may have assumed had she spoken out, I suspect she may well have been immune from any prosecution had she taken to the House floor and denounced Bush and his program as torture under the Speech and Debate Clause. And isn’t the purpose of informing Congressional leaders so they can speak out if the President is acting unlawfully? Pelosi's acts on the floor of the House probably would not have changed Bush's actions, but that does not excuse her failure to act in order to protect her political skin. And who knows what might have happened.
As for a truth commission, let’s not go down that path. Let's not spend the entire Obama presidency wrapped up in these issues. Let the Huffington Post serve as an informal commission! I am not worried that a failure to investigate and prosecute will cause it to happen again. If it happens again that won't be the reason. It may be for reasons like those that led Lincoln to unlawfully suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
I have lost all respect for Nancy Pelosi. She's obviously a liar. It was enough to see her body language and they ways she tried to avoid answering the questions. If she was a woman of principles, she would have known what to do. Doing nothing is not an option. I can't stand her anymore. I'd rather have another Speaker of the House. Nancy, GO HOMEA
Being a "left-wing lunatic" I would have stood on the House Floor and told CSPAN and the American public what the criminal Bush regime was doing.
I would have gone to prison and gladly to prevent these horrible crimes which resulted in so much carnage.
Hey, I wasn't a "left-wing lunatic" in 2002, but I knew and still know the difference between right and wrong.
Cheers!
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy,
While I respect your statement that you would have done so, I can assure you, you wouldn't have been given the chance.
It was an excellent article right up to the last paragraph. All was clear, specific, good examples to make a point...... And then, at the end, the standard and worn out: "The truth of what was done in the name of the American people is (to me, at least) about country, and not about politics." That kills the whole article and turns it into flag waving nonsense. Like a General sending soldiers off to get killed "For America" when all he's really after is his own self glory.
I'm sorry for being so rude, but here in America freedom of speech allows me to do so and that's why I wave the flag and sing God Bless America and even wear a flag pin! Don't you??? We must do what's right for America and wave the flag a bunch and salute George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
what444 -
I admit it sounds trite, but I don't have a problem with a truth commission finding out the ENTIRE truth about what happened, and let the chips fall where they may. If Democrats like Pelosi bear some of the responsibility, I want the commission to examine that too. I have no doubt that Pelosi will wind up in the footnotes of an enormous volume of what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and others did, and am not too worried about her political future as a result. Republicans have been after her for three years now, and although she gave a terrible press conference, I don't think she's ready to step down any time soon. Nor do I think she should.
But I'm not after "the truth about what Republicans did" any more than Republicans should be after "the truth about what Pelosi and Democrats did." I want the Truth (with a capital T) about what was done in our name by people in power at the time. It is, to me, about country. And living up to our ideals. And when we don't, examining what happened so it never happens again. I don't consider that flag-waving, but if you do, then I respect your opinion. Patriotism is a personal thing, and is not the sole property of the left, the right, or any political party. And it has nothing to do with how many flags you wave, in my opinion.
-CW
Excellent analysis, Chris!
A better question:
We were ALL complicit...what were WE supposed to do? (Yes, we could have...but we didn't, now did we?)
The best question:
What should we being doing NOW?
What was she supposed to do? The answer can be derived from answering the question "What is wrong with enhanced interrogation techniques?".
It is illegal. it is so illegal that we executed those that did in WW II.
So she sends a letter to the White House and CIA sating that what they are doing is obviously illegal. That is not the same as sending a strongly worded letter arguing a policy difference. CIA already knew the program was going to end badly so that would have them more reluctant. Remember the FBI had already walked away from the torture sessions. White House wasn't able to convince the FBI that torture was acceptable.
And since she did nothing then she has to say why and the truth would be a good start.
Chris,
There is no one - absolutely no one - who can get to the crux of the matter of a complicated and sensitive issue like this one surely is, with the depth, precision and clarity, like you do on a regular basis.
I have always thought that as much as Obama/Biden would like to travel down the path toward the truth and accountability for the actions of Bush administration officials - especially the condoning and justification of the use of torture - they have been extremely reluctant to lead the way because of the high probability that a rabid variety of partisanship may rise up and derail their vast and critical agenda.
I agree that all of this may very well get us closer to a grande 'truth commission' that can at least avoid the kind of destructive partisanship that may have characterized such a commission before everyone and their brother - of all political stripes - was publically calling for one!
All's well that ends well? I hope so.
...continued...
My Question In This "Case" is:
What about the Other SEVEN Informed Ones ???
Actually once again let me say, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, CIA and the DOD director were totally in charge of the behavior of all the interrogators. This search light on Pelosi is simply a bait and switch that Republicans are blabbing about because they know that if they do not do something, their President, VP and their head of DOD will be marched in front of the world court at the Hague and tried for crimes against humanity. And of course, all this palaver about Pelosi is well calculated to put a stop to the prosecution of these war criminals who drug our country back into the Nazi era. God have mercy on their souls. AND, God direct the House and Senate to try these fools for their war crimes and shut them up. There was not one thing that Pelosi could have done to stop this illegal abuse of POWs and all three of these guys know that to be a fact. Pelosi is NOT it at all. Whether she knew or not has no affect on the illegal activities of the Bush administration and its chief enforcers, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush in that order. Alas, the bait and switch attempt is just not going to work!!!! We insist that the real perps be tried at the world court or by our own counts, or better yet, both. We threw these beggars out and we need to hold them accountable.
Yes and the esteemed GOP majority leader, Mr. Boehner. He had all the info also so why did he not put a stop to it???? A bait and switch job for certain with all this side stepping about Pelosi. The perps are Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush!
From Pelosi's body language and actual vocal language, I could tell she was not being fully truthful. That said, Bush and Cheney had absolute immunity from prosecution as they carried out hideous crime after crime after crime. Tell me - did ANYONE in their own cabinet call them on it, besides Powell who is now being disparaged as a result? Did the party in joyous command throughout the first 6 years of their reign of terror - the Republican Party - doing anything to stop them? We all know that the answer to my questions is NO!
After they carried out the long planned, troop-boosting acts of Nine-Eleven in order to launch the war in Iraq, they felt safe to do anything and everything they wanted to do....both to human beings and to our Constitution. If anyone is to blame, it is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz and all those who fully supported each and every illegal act they carried out. And to imagine they served TWO terms doing such things. Shame to all who voted for them and to the Democrats who did not stick their own necks out to protect the people and property and ideals which suffered harm as a result.
Please share the specifics of your expertise in body language and actual vocal language so in we all might better be able to discern when mendacity, fabrication and/or equivocation is underway and attain a clearer perception of illuminated truth.
For starters she could have told the truth instead of mangling. When you have her and other political leaders accusing others of torture and saying there should be a truth commission, telling the truth is a prerequisite. Its obvious that none of it is about the truth, its just political rhetoric.
Further she could have expressed her concerns in the meeting, which by the accounts I have read she did not do.
She is a congressperson, and a rather powerful one. She had quite a bit of influence even then and the truth is that even though the Republican's were the majority party at the time, she could have influenced the Democrats at minimum without giving up any secrets. Pelosi is not new to politics, she knows how to play her cards. She is perfectly willing to do it when it meets her goals and chose not to this time. Why? Perhaps because she felt it would have greater impact once it came out and she could act innocent and claim lack of knowledge. She is complicit in the act by her failure to act.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
