Nancy Pelosi, Torture, and Bush's Warmongering

Rightwingers splayed across the corporate media, including Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, constantly remind us that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 members of the Bush administration were doing their darnedest to keep the nation safe. Bending the law a little to coerce information out of known terrorists must be seen in its context. They were operating in a "pressure cooker" atmosphere, they tell us, with intelligence "chatter" about "sleeper cells" and possibly more "mass casualty" attacks. Yet now they assail House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not going public in 2002 after she allegedly learned about some of George W. Bush's "enhanced interrogation techniques." They condemn her for NOT publicly opposing torture. But they also claim that torture is vital to our "national security."

FOX News "analysts" and other Republican mouthpieces assert flatly that Pelosi is in no position to advocate investigating Bush administration torture policies because she was culpable in their implementation. They claim that because she received some kind of briefing from the Bush White House she is now a hypocrite for being open to discovering if members of the Bush Administration violated the law. But they keep it hazy about what exactly they think Pelosi, who was then the minority leader, should have done upon hearing about the administration's plans to use new interrogation "techniques." Should she have held a press conference, leaked classified information, and raise a ruckus against President Bush? And how do you think the Republicans would have responded if Pelosi had chosen such a course, which they now condemn her for NOT taking?

At the time, of course, the GOP controlled the House of Representatives and would have given Bush anything he wanted in the aftermath of 9/11. So why didn't Bush take the lawful route and ask Congress to change the statutes banning torture as he had done when he requested sweeping new powers under the "USA PATRIOT Act?" This question has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.

The Right's tactic of distancing itself from torture by targeting Pelosi reminds me of an old Republican trick that the former GOP apparatchik, Allen Raymond, outlines in his book, How to Rig an Election. Raymond tells the story of one Republican candidate he worked for who had received tainted campaign cash from an indicted white-collar criminal. So Raymond neutralized the political fallout by having the same crook donate to his Democratic opponent's campaign. When the donor lists became public the Republican denounced his challenger as a hypocrite for also accepting a tainted donation (a payment made at Raymond's request). By constantly bringing Pelosi's name up in connection with torture the Republicans are fighting a Raymondesque rearguard action of damage control.

But it's worst than that.

Torture cannot be compartmentalized as if it were a merely a sideshow of the "War on Terror." Military and CIA officials have confirmed recently that at least some of the torture the Bush White House approved was aimed at finding ties, no matter how tenuous, between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was that same quest that led then Secretary of State Colin Powell, on February 5, 2003, during his epic lie-fest to the United Nations, to blow out of proportion the significance of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The scholar and journalist, Loretta Napoleoni, in her book, Insurgent Iraq: Al-Zarqawi and the New Generation, shows that Zarqawi was nothing but a bit player in Al Qaeda who never even saw action in Afghanistan during the years of the U.S.-backed jihad against the Soviets. Powell pumped up Zarqawi for the same reason torturers brutalized Al Qaeda suspects: To demonstrate a link between Saddam and 9-11 as a way of justifying invading and occupying Iraq, which was, according to Paul O'Neill (and other former officials), Bush and Cheney's agenda from the moment they were inaugurated.

So the U.S. torture policies are better understood in the context of Bush's warmongering generally.

The bottom line is this: Had Bush and Condi and Colin and Rummy and Ari and Dick told us that the United States was going to spend $3 trillion and send 4,300 American soldiers to their deaths (as well as a quarter-million Iraqis); build permanent military bases, and the biggest, most expensive "embassy" in the history of civilization; occupy the country for eight, nine, or ten years; and use the American military to police Iraq's 25 million people -- believe me -- there would have been ZERO public support for such a gratuitous and bloody imperial adventure. Yet that is what we got. And that is why Bush and his official mouthpieces lied to the American people about their true intentions in Iraq.

And they lied about torture.

So why should we believe their assertions about what Nancy Pelosi knew, and when she knew it, about the torture program?

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

It's now June 2 and Cheney hasn't let up on his media tour defending torture as a tactic that "saved lives" -- so once again the Republicans have it both ways, they can rail against Pelosi for not coming forward and denouncing the war crime of torture while defending the war crime of torture as a necessary step to "save lives" and even more, Obama is endangering America because he says he won't torture -- now Cheney blames George Tenet (recipient of the Medal of Freedom) for botching the Iraq intelligence -- okay, let's finally get a commission at least to look at this stuff -- Congress is too wimpy to do it.

[mbaty]

Nancy Pelosi was told, from what I understand, that the Bush administration Could use "enhanced interrogation techniques," but she may not have been told that they were already using them or that they would continue to use the harshest techniques possible. I also think she is the wrong target in all this--there was immense pressure upon her to do as the Bush administration wanted anyway. Almost everyone in the administration who was called to testify was blocked from doing so by "executive order/priv­iledge."

[LooktotheLeft]

Funny, I knew this day would come the day I saw a bunch of f**king clowns, on 9/11/01, on the steps of the Capitol singing "God Bless America".

[Yermammy]

What I want to know is why this is a red/blue issue? War Crimes were committed and investigations are compelled. If indeed Nancy's innocent or not will be determined there. What's the problem? We KNOW there's enough proof to start investigations to Bush's crimes. Spain has already begun! Why not here? We don't honor our treaties no more per Article Six of the Constitution?

[incognito-ergo-sum]

Okay, lets take their side for the sake of argument. Say she knew, suspected or had reason to believe that people were being waterboarded.

(1) What exactly should she have done?

(2) How exactly could she have proven it to the public without any paper or tape recording?

(3) What do you suppose the Republicans would have done to her at that point?

(4) Why didn't Republican leaders speak out if they knew, suspected or believed this was happening.

[Sunmaker]

The Bush Administration misled the American people on the Iraq war, so now, we are to believe they were honest with Nancy Pelosi?? Give me a break! Read between the lines, they are only trying to cover their own butts!!

[blusharp]

Although POTUS must sample a smidgeon
of that Rovian ragin' religeon
Neocons in the know
See in Nancy Pelosi
a much more accessable pidgeon.

[lastcallmd]

Look guys, Bush isn't President anymore, and his successor obviously has no appetite to pursue this chimera. Now, why do you think that is the case? Because when you are actually responsible for the US's safety, as opposed to running for office promising pie in the sky, you can't. I'm surprised that the fervent Obama supporters won't support his judgments as President. Don't you trust his judgment?

[Senzasord]

It is a question of justice. If someone had challenged Gerald Ford's improper pardon of Nixon, if Ronald Reagan's criminal activities in Iran Contra had been prosecuted, we would have far less corruption in government today. They weren't, and so it became very easy for the Bush Cheney junta to think that they could get away with just about anything they want including murder. The whole concept of rule of law and no one including the President is above the law is at stake.

President Obama has sworn an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution. Therefore he must prosecute those who would have destroyed it piece by piece so that no one will ever be able to say, "If the president does it it is not illegal," again.

[realpolitic]

Yes, it almost surreal. The right says Bush did not torture and if he did it was effective anyway. Then they blame Pelosi for not doing anything to stop Bush who was not supposed to be doing anything wrong regardless. Who cares what Pelosi knew and when? It is a side show. Prosecute the people whose policy it was to torture and that was the Bush administration and its sycophantic lawyers. If the right wants to prosecute later those who were informed and did nothing, then after Bush, Cheney, Woo and the rest are snugly locked up we can pursue those prosecitions as well!

[Truthahn]

Leon Panetta has confirmed that Pelosi's story about being lied to by the CIA is baloney. Considering that Leon Panetta is the epitome of a loyal Democrat, you liberals are going to have a hard time selling this as an anti-Nancy Republican conspiracy, but good luck trying.

[valkyrie607]

Nice dodge there, cowboy. You avoided the larger issue, which is: if torture so gol-darned effective and awesome and securitizing like y'all say it is, WHY make an issue of Nancy Pelosi not raising alarms about it?

[Gidster]

No, he said he would look into it.

Former Senator Bob Graham also backs her story, so do several appointment books...
But that is neither here nor there,

If Bush was not torturing as he stated many times, her briefing was about that, why should she have said anything about Bush, not breaking any laws?

Except, his administration was, now it's then minority leader Pelosi's fault, she could have stopped the Bush Juggernaut, from progressing it's plans.....­. Really?

[GreatNews27]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. This, like everything else the Republicans do, is being cheerled by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and CNBC. Unless we are very lucky, congress will retroactivly legalize torture and the detention without charges of American citizens. I can already smell it coming.

[realpolitic]

Yes, the networks always adopt the Republican line without fail.

[Gidster]

It is because they are owned by uber wealthy conservati­ves....

[Yurdelite]

MSNBC daytime too starting with Morning Joe and continuing through til Ed Schultz set the record straight, then KO then Rachel. Tingles Matthew was spewing the repub talking points.

[russrpm]

As I see it, the easiest way to settle all these questions would be to appoint a special prosecutor with the same type of authority and open ended agenda as Ken Starr had. He should be tasked with finding the truth about the use of torture, who knew about it, whether any laws were broken, and who, if anyone should be prosecuted. In congress, he should not limit himself to investigating just Pelosi, but should look at all who were briefed to determine if they had an obligation to report a crime. He should also investigate the CIA;s briefing to determine if the facts were glossed over to hide what was being done, and if so, follow the trail to find who gave the direction to mislead Congress. And just like Starr, he should feel free to expand the scope of the investigation in any direction he sees fit, anywhere he believes a crime may have been committed which is in any way connected to the use of torture, the war in Iraq, or anything else that catches his fancy. In such an investigation, Pelosi and a few Democrats might be embarrassed, but I would bet that anyone prosecuted would be wearing an elephant pin.

[Gidster]

Agreed!

I am sure that anyone even remotely involved would be embarrassed, they are already on the hot seat for signing the war papers on ginned up information!

[thehonestpolitician]

my sediments exactly..

Good article.

[Weirdwriter]

Very good points.

The CIA is a past master at spinning intel, swearing on a stack o' Bibles that disinformation is the Real Deal, and generally covering its ass when the truth comes out.

But of course if the Republicans say youc an trust 'em, we should!

[lovable]

where is my comment to palermo about going on tv and saying the beside blogging this