Pelosi The Enabler

Nancy Pelosi is no Dick Cheney, nor a George W. Bush. She was neither the author of a systematic policy of torture nor has she been, like Cheney and most top Republicans in Congress, an enduring apologist for its practice. It is a nonsensical distraction to place her failure to speak out courageously as a critic of the Bush policies on the same level as those who engineered one of the most shameful debacles in U.S. history.

But what she, and anyone else who went along with this evil, as lackadaisically as she now claims, should be confronted with are the serious implications of their passive acquiescence. Why did she not speak up, or if it were a matter of a lack of reliable information, demand an accounting from the executive branch, as befits a leader of the loyal opposition in Congress?

If the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and later House Democratic leader, lacked the authority to publicly question a policy of torture, then how can we condemn, indeed imprison, ordinary soldiers who thought it their duty to follow orders?

Even though Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times before the September 2002 briefing of Pelosi, she now claims she was told only that the practice might be used and that it had been approved by the Bush Justice Department as legal. Wasn't that approval in itself sufficiently alarming to justify a strong and public dissent? Certainly that would have been the appropriate response when Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy, along with Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., were informed by the CIA in no uncertain terms five months later that Zubaydah had been subjected to specific "enhanced" methods including waterboarding. Pelosi admits to possessing that information, but according to one of her aides quoted in Politico, after Harman's letter questioning the practice received "no response" from the CIA, "there was nothing more that could be done."

Why not? Does the CIA or the White House that directs its activities stand above the law without any congressional restraint, as mandated by the U. S. Constitution that Pelosi has sworn to uphold?

Should the members of the 9/11 Presidential Commission not have been informed that two of the "key witnesses" upon whom their report was based had provided the information critical to the report's conclusions only after being waterboarded a total of 266 times? On Page 146 of that report, there appears a boxed disclaimer that even the commissioners, possessed of high security clearances, were not allowed to meet, let alone cross-examine, the witnesses or even talk with those who did the interrogations.

As the presidential commissioners conceded in their report, "We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting."

In short, the basic narrative of the origins and conduct of the 9/11 attack that so fundamentally perverted American politics relied on cherry-picked information that the White House and its operative in the field chose to release to the commission. As a result, we the public still know nothing of certainty about the financing of the terrorist organization emanating from Saudi Arabia and the UAE or the logistical support supplied to the Taliban and al-Qaida by agencies of the government of Pakistan.

What the public was offered was not an unvarnished look at the available evidence concerning the attack but rather a fear campaign justifying an undifferentiated and illogically constructed international war on terror. As Steve Elmendorf, chief of staff to Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., the Democratic leader following 9/11, put it: "You have to remember, in the 2002 period, the whole atmospherics, it was all about scaring people every day."

That fear-mongering drove a majority of Democrats to support the president in his invasion of Iraq, the one Arab nation where al-Qaida had been most brutally oppressed by its sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The "key witnesses" affirmed that reality even after being subjected to torture, which would have proven deeply embarrassing to the Bush administration were it revealed in open court proceedings.

By acquiescing to the cover-up of unpleasant truths in the treatment of prisoners, Pelosi contributed to the betrayal of the ideal of public accountability that is the bedrock of our system of governance, which Congress is charged with protecting.

Comments

[ReedYoung]

Stop being silly. Anybody could tell the fix was in, from Alberto Gonzales' "opinions" about illegal wiretaps to the Downing Street Memo and its second billing in the United States' corporatist media. Pelosi's aide was right, "there was nothing more that could be done" at the time. Pelosi could not depend on the court system that illegally appointed Bush in 2000. Only a democratically elected government can be rationally expected to represent the people's rights and the democratic institutions that protect them. We have only had a democratically elected government for a few months. It is time to begin an investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena powers, not to start recklessly calling people complicit, especially on the dodgy honor of the CIA.

[Artemis34]

And if Dems would have committed political suicide, how would that have helped anyone?

[AbrahamSadegh]

Most of our public official unfortunately function on the basis of "The Survival of the Fittest" not what is best for the country. What we need are statesmen and stateswomen who place the welfare of humanity above their own job security. What we need are true believers in "The Survival of the Wisest."

[GrainOSand]

Survival of the honorable, the empathetic, the healer, the lover of humanity, the problem solver, the universal family member, the fellow citizen worthy of love, care and respect...­survival of the idea that we have not yet reached the highest incarnation of our potential to manifest a loving society...

Survival is easy, let us discuss living and what that means, that seems the more compelling topic. Survival is breathing, eating, and sleeping, the basics, but what of the quality of food, the source of food, the idea of food, the morality of food? If I scorch earth for food at what point is that by which I survive slated for depletion? If I ransack the village for a place to lay my head, how long before the village is no more? In other words, if survival requires me to eat my foundation for life, what good is mere survival?

Perhaps there is an endless supply of consumers to be consumed by the consumption system, but is that really the best we can do concerning an economic system, a social system, a system that promotes ideas beyond mere survival, such as life liberty and the realization of happiness.­..what it means, what it consists of, where it emanates from... Is the best we can be, a consumer in a system who is tracked by a number and a name from day one to days gone? As a mere grain of sand, I see more potential for this beach of life.

[bayside]

I had heard rumors too but could do nothing about bushs policies..­Bush and Cheney via signing statements could disappear you and it would be legal according to them..For this last administration almost succeded in making us a police state.It wasnt because bush didnt try.Thank god he was not too bright.

[plsps]

It has never been proven what Nancy P. was actual told. You don't believe she was told anything that vital.

[onenation]

1. The Speaker was NOT informed. 2. Cheney ordered the action. 3. Bush may NOT have signed off. 4. Cheney ordered the action. 5. Waterboarding and other methods were originated way old times to get (false) confessions to being against the Roman Cathlic Church. After waterboarding confessions, the person was burned or drowned.

Liz is embarassment. Such a string of nonsequiters and lies.

[mjc]

Just something to think about.....­, Pelosi did represent the Democratic Party in Congress AND in the nation as the Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfeld team was trashing this nation and its Constitution. When the Democrats came to power after November of last year Barack Obama was depending on them to write much of the legislation that would implement the Stimulus Bill, the Budget, and whatever would be needed for economic recovery as well. Obama depended on her leadership and perhaps Reid's as well, but the point is IF she knew about the torture she probably would have done well to spill all to Obama because now the way it is dealt with, the possibility that it MIGHT be used in the future, and the damage it has done to the US are all on the line and it becomes Obama's policy if the past isn't revealed.

[norgotoad]

When she took "impeachment off the table" she was giving the Bush administration total license to do anything they wanted without major consequences. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether she "KNEW" the specifics of torture. She gave license. The same goes for the misdirected discussion of the "efficacy" of torture. Efficacy does not excuse criminal acts. If I park my car in a red zone, I cannot argue that parking in a red zone was more effective toward my successful parking of my car. I still would get a ticket and a judgement of guilty. Efficacy does not absolve criminality. Ignorance of specifics does not excuse aiding and abetting criminal acts. The Godfather would just give "suggestions" to his minions to "make an offer that could not be refused." Now he did not tell his minions specifics on what that "offer" was. They took care of the details. Pelosi gave Bush license to murder and torture anyway he saw fit. The details were left to the Bush administration to concoct and implement.

[njguitarzan]

Well said. Most importantly, she became speaker as a result of the 2006 mandate fom the people to hold Bush& Co. accountable for their many crimes. Her failure to do so makes her not just an enabler, but a co-conspiraitor. She needs to step down or recuse herself so the war crimes trials can begin.

[TomR]

Well said Robert. Pelosi was complicit, even if only around the edges. Now the next mystery to solve is what the Bush administration used to blackmail or threaten her in to taking impeachment off the table. I'm sure the Bush administration found unbridled spying on U.S. citizens and a finger on the nuclear button had their advantages in keeping people like her in line.

- Tom

[Rule Of Law]

Robert, you are the Howard Zinn of the internet. Please keep giving us the truth about what our "representatives" are really doing.

Her behavior may very well explain why impeachment was "off the table!"

[faith]

Wonderful analysis Mr. Scheer. It is heart breaking if one considers the "why" concerning our elected legislators - why are they afraid to speak up, demand an accounting, and inform the public. Is it because they are concerned that they will lose a position of power? It is false logic if our representatives argue that if they lose their positions truth will never be available. It is time for integrity, intelligence, and honesty in politics. If that requires an entirely new generation of elected officials, then that is what should be done.

[LinkSync]

Fear and selfishness work.
We the people need to go forward regardless of these hindrances.
They all remain innocent untill prooven guilty, thats the Law, and my own view on the matter.
But these issues are SO very fundamental to our Nation we can not allow any more obfsucation.
It is long past time to lift the veils and take a good hard honest look at what was done by whom, when and why.
Include in that effort the desire to learn what was known, by whom, and when.
Let the chips fall where they may, then take all that are prooven guilty, be they Executive branch, Legislative, Judicial, CIA, Military, or anyone at all, and HANG them.
Other than Cheney (whom I admire for his gumption in this) nobody seems willing to step forward and if needed pay the price for freedom.
All these patriots trying to hide behind memos and orders and National Security Secrets.
Isn't it always the way?
The ones that call for a thing are the first to abjurr and deny it.
I just did jury duty and marveled at how every jurror told the truth.
No kidding.
We all of us served honorably and I am proud of us.
Even while everyone that has power LIES.
They have ENRONised our world.
Remove their power from them and take it for our selves.
Instead we shall continue to tell the truth only, as we are led to the slaughter house.
For we are honest sheep.

[GrainOSand]

How far do you want to pull the veneer back on America? Can this nation really stomach the truth of how sausage is really made in America, how it was made back in the day, and how there are plans to insure a certain process of sausage creation continues? Do you think that those who have much to lose...due to unmasking their butchery of the touted American idea, are going to sit idly by while they are unmasked?

“No more obfuscation” is the call and has always been the call, yet here we are. It is kind of like “Better education for all”, often stated, seldom seen. It smacks of “Stop the killing” as shots ring out in the night, blood rolls red, and tears roll down the cheeks of those caught in the grip of sorrow from murdered life. “No more obfuscation” is quite similar in boldness to “Big business does not run America”.

[GrainOSand]

Progress is mule slow, and a sign of real progress is a well-functioning government, free of corruption, distracting and harmful divide, and free of lies (transparent) about what it does on behalf of the people it supposedly represents. I always say I have no problem with “dog-eat-dog” or “every person for themselves” in a scheme tilted for outcome that benefits a few at great cost to many. I do take issue with the lie that says we are anything but such a system. Give me the truth or give me death is the call. But then, everybody wants to go to heaven, but few really want to die.

[humanpoliticalresponse]

Like captainkirk, I have never been a fan of Pelosi as Speaker, especially because she contributed to the ceding of the power of the House and the entire Congress--and any "moral credibility" it may have had--by immediately saying impeachment would never be considered. She has never had a backbone or good ideas for framing or reframing debates.

What concerns me is that her behavior during the briefings and now her outright lies about the role she played (as well as her lame attempts to cover her hindquarters, as witnessed by her stuttering and dismissive remarks during recent press conferences) might point to Obama's real reasons for not holding the Bush administration accountable on this score. I fear Obama wants to skirt this issue because he knows that Pelosi and many other big-name Dems will be implicated in approving torture. Pelosi tellingly still refers to torture as "enhanced interrogation," which seems to make her complicit with the Repubs in diminishing the horrors of torture so that, once the truth comes out, the damage to her and other Dems will be less.

Thus Pelosi has now lost any credibility and integrity she may still have had. I hope the Dems will start thinking about electing another Speaker. (But If her district were to vote her out....) I also hope the Dems won't find that their leadership's terrible decisions don't catch up to them too soon, namely in the 2010 or 2012 elections.

[rwext]

or maybe , just maybe.... Like Clinton and Carter and most of the Amercian poplulace.­.. These enhanced techniques were and are not considered torture.

[JoKnows]

What she doesn't seem to remember is that, like Bill Clinton, it's not so much what she did or didn't know - it's all about the fact that she is lying. If she knew, but couldn't say anything because of national security - fine, say that, but don't lie!!!