If we could get to the main criminals by sacrificing Pelosi; shouldn't we?

[shadowknows69]

We take away their ammunition and they shoot nothing but air. If one of ours went down for being "complicit", then there would be nothing left to stop going after the actual perpetrators. The criminal is not absolved of their crimes (Bush/Cheney Co.) just because the buck gets temporarily passed to an accomplice.

Personally on the torture issue I'm still on the fence as to the Speaker's innocence or guilt in the matter, but in my opinion she should be removed as Speaker for a litany of other reasons.

[MrModerate]

1. Pelosi shouldn't go as a sacrifice . . .

She should go because her hypocrisy, ineffectuality, vulnerability to opposition attacks, and consistently bad judgment are damaging to democratic objectives.

[shadowknows69]

5. "A traitor by any other name....

Still keeps her seat."

Oops did I misquote Willie S on that?

[KharmaTrain]

12. Which Has Zero To Do With If She Was Complicit

I could give a long list of Congresscritters who fit that definition with (D)s next to their name. Do we sacrafice them all cause they are damaging to "democratic objectives" (whatever those were or is).

If it's uncovered that she was in on the planning and implementation of torture, she should be held accountable with all the other war criminals. She says she favors hearings to dig out the truth...would a person guilty of complicity go along with such a thing?

People here harp about how ineffective she was despite all the bills the House passed in 2007-08 that were killed by the Senate or by a booooosh veto. But I guess here's the chance for some to settle scores and are all but happy to toss Pelosi under the bus, just like the rushpublicans are hoping we do.

[MrModerate]

13. She's going to use some garbled form of the "I couldn't tell anyone anyway . . .

and besides everybody agreed . . . and it really wasn't made clear to me," ad nauseum -- until the waters are so muddied that no one is brought to justice.

And yes she shepherded doomed legislation through the House, but caved on the big issues and basically behaved like a typical pol. The result? The electorate gets to say (again), "fuckin' politicians, they're all crooks."

With regard to the DINOs you allude to, yeah, we sacrifice 'em all, to the extent possible. And we do that by electing more and more dems so we can begin easing out the Blue Dogs and their ilk -- before the 'Licans get their act together and begin fielding credible candidates again.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Doomed Legislation?

Raising the minimum wage was doomed? Damn right it was...in the Senate and by a boooosh veto. I had a long list of bills passed out of the House that died in the Senate...bills that could have prevented a lot of the hardships many are facing today. But since Pelosi is the do-all end-all...she was some kind of wizard behind the curtain enabling. Did she "shepard" FISA through? Look back, it was Steny Hoyer who "revised" it and pushed it through. Pelosi voted against, as she did against the Iraq War after learning about that torture was being employed, but sworn to secrecy not to dislose it.

A newsflash...Pelosi acts like a politician cause she is one. So is everyone else in the beltway. Tip O'Neill nailed it when he said all politics are local...each representativ...politician...is elected because the people in that district see them protecting their interests first and the national second. Thus, if there's a disconnect, it's with those who elected the "DINOs" and Blue Dogs. It's electing "better" Democrats...and assisting those who represent political viewpoints (there's that damn word politics again) in line with yours or mine through contributing to their campaign.

Falling into the right wing spin that "everyone was complicit" feeds right into that "they're all crooks" attitude and does little to fix the system, just polarizes further...

[MrModerate]

58. Your last statement is the most interesting, IMO . . .

And mostly correct. My knock on Pelosi is that she contributes to the spin -- is vulnerable to rightwing attacks -- because of a lack of principle, courage, and judgment and should lost her post for those reasons.

[merh]

2. There is no sacrifice.

If Pelosi knew they were torturing then she broke the law and should be held accountable. No one, no matter what party or office held, is above the law.

The torture of detainees must be investigated and all responsible, all who took part in the conspiracy to torture, must be held accountable.

We sacrifice our nation by allowing the torturers to get away with the crimes, with the abuse committed in our name.

[pecwae]

4. Justice isn't sacrifice.

"No one, no matter what party or office held, is above the law." I would only add that this applies to any and all current office holders as well.

[lisa58]

3. We won't have to...

...all this bluster is going to force the gop to be on board with a truth commission. If we actually get the truth then the chips will fall where they may, and deserve to.

[shadowknows69]

7. Hope you're right lisa

Although I still would like to see a different Speaker of the House. Nancy excercised too few of her mandated responsibilities since she took the job IMO.

[cali]

6. she won't be removed as Speaker

there is no way the dem House caucus will let themselves be bullied into that by Fux and the repukes. And unless there's a real smoking gun, they shouldn't.

[shadowknows69]

16. I agree, but if there does end up being a smoking gun

Then we can't be picky about who goes down for it. That's the Rethug way. Only by allowing our criminals to be punished do we point out the hypocrisy of theirs unfortunately. Well, the only way to get fair treatment in the media about it anyway.

[frogcycle]

8. If she actually was complicit

vs. either not grasping the enormity of what they told her or truly not having been told clearly then the ideal scenario would be for her to 'fess up - spill the beans - and resign. Then tell all. Every fucking detail they told her.

However, I don't believe she was that well informed. At the worst, she knew things she was not ok with and failed to be a whistle blower. Hers are sins of omission; theirs are sins of commission.

[shadowknows69]

18. I agree but where is the line where omission becomes complicity?

It's pretty thin.

[frogcycle]

46. yes, sins of omission are still sins!

I am not trying to draw that line. Just saying doing it is worse than failing to blow the whistle, if in fact such failure occurred, and that HAS to be where the focus stays. If throwing her under the bus would take them all down, then I'd say she should take one for the team, whether truly justified or not. But let's give her a chance and see how good a scrapper she is with her back against the wall. Maybe an awakened and pissed NP is better than no NP.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. I'm not convinced this is the way to go.

It may theoretically be a purification of the party, but the result is also conquer and divide which is an underlying strategy of the republicans along with controlling the message AND the name of the democratic party. I'm looking at long-term ramifications.

Pelosi has a lot to be held accountable for but so would anyone else in her position in 2002 when democrats were nullified as a political force due to the * Administration, 9-11, and the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[OHdem10]

10. I hope you follow the GOp enough to realize Nancy is not the only

Democrat they are after.

The decision is do we want to throw our agenda to the wind and
pass nothing . Do we want to give the Media a circus for TV and
not pass Health Care??











are?

[Chemical Bill]

48. Exactly. n/t

[WeDidIt]

11. Sympathy for Pelosi has been taken off the table. n/t

[TwilightZone]

14. You really believe it would stop there?

Don't know the Republicans too well, do you?

Bob Graham would likely be next. Then, they'll move on to someone else who was "complicit" in something they had no direct influence on.

[shadowknows69]

19. Let the chips fall. Punish any and all involved. Period.

If it's proven Jesus himself is for torture or covering it up as the fundie wing nuts would have us believe then someone should drag his ass out of Heaven and directly to The Hague.

[TwilightZone]

28. That's not what you're asking for in the OP.

You're suggesting that we throw Pelosi under the bus with the assumption that it would end this somehow.

[shadowknows69]

30. No, I didn't say that specifically. I used Pelosi as an examole because she is target Alpha now.

Solly Mack put it better than I did in another post in this thread. I'm for full disclosure and full justice no matter what the letter beside the name is. I should have made more clear that I meant if Speaker Pelosi was actually found to be culpable in all this.

[TwilightZone]

31. Full disclosure is fine.

The argument that Pelosi is in any way, shape, or form equally responsible for torture as those who orchestrated and performed it is not.

[shadowknows69]

34. When did I say she was equally to blame?

But we do actually arrest people for being accesories after the fact in this country. The German people weren't put on trial after World War II but soldiers were. Were they as culpable as Hitler for ordering the Holocaust? No, but like it or not Speaker Pelosi is a soldier in the "Army" of Congress, and a high ranking one at that, so if she knew and didn't expose it then she is at least partially to blame.

[TwilightZone]

37. Pelosi wasn't Speaker then.

Why do people keep making that claim?

A soldier in the Army of Congress? Oh, please. This has gone beyond ludicrous.

[shadowknows69]

39. She was still one of our "representatives"

And the American people deserve to know if their representatives have information about illegal activities coming from the executive branch. It's called "checks and balances". Look into it.

[TwilightZone]

41. Well, string up the other 534, too.

If you think Congress is an Army, and they're all complicit, then let's have show trials for everyone!

[H2O Man]

17. Put the cards

on the table. Then evaluate who is responsible. My guess is that Pelosi would not rank high on any list, except perhaps Sean Hannity's.

[shadowknows69]

21. I think Speaker Pelosi might have been the victim of blackmail or threats if anything

I'm still waiting for the representative with the guts to blow that whistle, because I know in my heart it had to happen with the crew of thugs that stole this country for eight years.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Playing right into the Rethugs hands

How about we sacrifice you instead?

Don

[shadowknows69]

23. Doubt I'm a big enough fish to make a difference.

But thanks for believing in me.

[Solly Mack]

22. I think all members of Congress who served while Bush was in office

should answer for their actions and inactions, for any votes that enabled the torture, for any votes that attempted to whitewash the torture, and for any votes that attempted to make the illegal legal.

Congress should answer for what Congress did (or didn't do), in other words. Let a court decide the degree of guilt for this group.

This won't necessarily require formal charges but it could (and should), in some cases, mean removal & barring them from holding office - any office - permanently. Removal because it harms the country to have people in office so willing to go along with crimes.

Certainly, press formal charges if the facts demand it. For example, Lindsey Graham admits to flying to other countries & witnessing interrogations - interrogations that were abusive by his own admission. He went beyond the Senate floor to involve himself with what was going on. And I'm betting he wasn't the only one.


The Bush administration - to include the DoD/Pentagon, the DOJ, the State Department, the CIA & the NSA (but not limited to the offices named) should answer for what they did. And as they are all at the heart of the problem - there's no real question about their involvement. Prosecute them... Top-Down.

Just like contractors (to include ALL war profiteers) should answer for what they did.

Just like the troops that engaged in torture and abuse should answer for what they did. (and many have already)

For me, all this - he said/she said/they're guilty too bullshit - is just another farce. Just one more farce in America's bullshit "debate" about torture and war crimes. Any squabble is preferable to actually doing something, or so it seems to me. Squabble. Squabble.BS Debate. More BS Debate - anything but accountability.

I feel like it is all an elaborate production with only one goal in mind - to avoid any accountability of government officials, both former and still serving.

At the end of the play, instead of a curtain dropping, a huge carpet will be placed over the entire production.

But that's just me

[shadowknows69]

25. Well said as always Solly

Can I hire you to ghost write for me? I piss too many people off B-)

[Solly Mack]

35. LOl! I piss people off too..so we're both SOL :)

[cali]

27. a court? no member of Congress will be indicted for

what they didn't do while serving in Congress. That's not the way things work. And you can't haul people into court unless they're charged. that's not the way the judicial system works.

[Solly Mack]

32. Yes, I know Congress has a degree of immunity.

But we are talking special circumstances - war crimes.

And the US has been involved in creating a war crime tribunal before...it's not a stretch to do so again.

Of course the immunity factor will play into it. But, as I'm sure you well know, that immunity does have its limits.

[cali]

36. it's a stretch. We were involved in creating war crimes tribunals

for other nations. And all one has to do is look at the countries that prosecuted their own post-Nuremberg. It's a very small list. And it's not really a matter of congressional immunity. Look at the Nuremberg trials. No one was convicted of something they weren't engaged in.

[Solly Mack]

38. Nor should members of Congress be convicted for what they were not

engaged in. By "answer for", I mean they should be asked why they did anything they did (or didn't do) and they should have to explain themselves. Which is why I made a distinction between that and formal charges. Graham did a lot more than just his Senate duties when he was witnessing a criminal interrogation.

Nor should anyone be convicted for what they were not engaged in

That wouldn't be justice.

I want justice...not sacrificial lambs or scapegoats or easy targets.

[spanone]

24. they won't stop with pelosi....you can't 'give' the fuckers ANYTHING.

[shadowknows69]

26. Now is not the time to circle wagons in my opinion

It is time to let the fires of truth and justice consume all that betrayed those principles.

[spanone]

40. i don't assume pelosi was lying...i do assume the cia is lying.

[shadowknows69]

42. I'm a cynic, I assume everyone is not telling the whole truth.

[GreenArrow]

47. I don't think that's cynical at all,

especially considering the parties involved.

[JVS]

29. Hell yes. If throwing her under the bus makes it "bi-partisan" enough to get Bushco, go for it!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[elizfeelinggreat]

43. If they admit they're criminals

we don't need to pass any bucks. Not even "temporarily".



This stunt about focusing on Senator Pelosi is a media circus and we shouldn't participate in it. They can take their newest bright and shiny "look over here" thing and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[shadowknows69]

44. Pssst, Representative or Speaker of the House Pelosi please.

I'm not a fan but the woman at least deserves to be identified correctly.

[elizfeelinggreat]

45. You're right, I need more coffee

this morning.

[lonestarnot]

49. Interesting Shadow.

[Chemical Bill]

50. It's a poor assumption ...

to think that the repukes and corporate media would be happy to investigate torture just as soon as they grind up Pelosi.

Bill

[Stinky The Clown]

51. The only way Pelosi should 'go down' is if she is guilty of a crime. And even then, only after .....

.... the BIGGER criminals are in prison.

Too damned many in **Democratic** circles seem will to toss her under the bus. Too damned many seem to think she is as bad a criminal as bush or cheenee or rumsfeld or conzo or rice or feith or any of the scores of bushco insiders who ACTUALLY COMMITTED ACTUAL CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

When those crimes are punished, then, if you really want to, look at Pelosi.

I am of the opinion that she is being singled out ONLY as a result of repubican machinations and a per-existing set-up to sue her as cover for a time whent he shit starts its inexorable trip through the fan ... and journey now underway.

I believe that anyone calling for her to be charged with a crime (or even ousted) *now* is a pawn of the right wing - wittingly or not.

Stinky to Democrats: "Show some fucking spunk and stand up for your own."

[warren pease]

52. She became one of the main criminals...

... the second she signed off on torture after that CIA briefing in late 2002. And if that wasn't enough, she certainly became an accessory before and after the fact -- dishonoring the Constitution and violating her oath of office in the process -- when she unilaterally disarmed the entire progressive population by declaring impeachment too messy for her delicate little Brahmin sensibilities.

Rather than tossing her under the bus, I'd prefer something more in keeping with the magnitude of her crimes. Something like this, maybe...






And then we can start on Uncle Harry...



wp

[cali]

53. "signed off on torture"? did she?

and no, she's not one of the main criminals by any sane or legal standard. she didn't authorize, design, carry out or approve torture. the people that did those things are the main crimnals.

Some DUers have let their dislike for Pelosi, rot their brains.

[warren pease]

56. And yet ...

... even though my ancient brain is slowly rotting from within, as you point out with painful accuracy, the more analytical left-brain functions seem to be working well enough. If nothing else, I can still tell the difference between integrity and courage and political posturing and expediency.

So I still can't help wondering why otherwise smart, rational people who pride themselves on the accuracy of their bullshit detectors, leap to her defense and claim she's doing her best with the hand she's been dealt.

Nonsense... In fact, it's now a pat hand. An alleged progressive dem in the white house; 60 dems in the Senate (although many hide their politics behind the little "D" after their names); and a huge majority in the House.

But when you look at the 2007-2008 financial disclosure statements filed with the FEC, things make a lot more sense.

We've probably all read -- or at least heard about -- this December 2007 Washington Post story about Pelosi and five other ranking members of congress at that time getting a "virtual tour" in September 2002 of some of the CIA's offshore "black sites."

CIA briefers apparently revealed the use of physical and psychological torture -- now known as "enhanced interrogation," courtesy of the Ministry of Propaganda's Department of Euphemisms -- as a standard "interviewing" technique.

By not immediately going public and condemning the CIA's practice of torture, specifically waterboarding, she tacitly agreed to ignore gross violations of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This made her an accomplice to the Bushies' war crimes.

Ever since, her behavior has been that of an accomplice and enabler rather than that of a symbol demonstrating the courage of the beleaguered warrior, refusing to compromise personal principles, no matter the consequences.

Pelosi remains complicit in giving the Bushies' an eight-year pass for their international crime spree, essentially a global extortion racket that enabled grand theft on a previously unknown scale.

She's also indictable for helping the Bushies' stay out of jail despite non-stop breaches of worldwide bans on torture, another violation of the Eighth Amendment and a crime under Article VI of the Constitution that requires the US to comply with all international treaties to which it's a signatory.

Of course she didn't want impeachment hearings. Of course she doesn't want a Congressional investigation into torture. She's not interested in investigating herself, understandably. Nor are Jane Harman, Bob Graham or the other three accessories before and/or after the fact.

According to the Post article, "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

"Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."

Nothing to see here -- as long as nobody dies in the process, I guess.


wp

[TwilightZone]

57. "apparently"

"CIA briefers apparently revealed the use of physical and psychological torture"

Well, did they or didn't they?

You mean, you don't really know? You're basing your entire premise on "apparently", plus the word of the CIA?

Speaking of the CIA, the WashPo story quotes "two US officials".

Hmm, do you suppose that those two US officials could be CIA?

The same CIA that we already have confirmed lied about meeting four times with Bob Graham and who admittedly destroyed evidence?

If you actually had bothered to read what you posted and digested the parts that you didn't cut-and-paste, you might have accidentally learned something.

For example, as for Harman, you should have kept reading:

Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

Wow, look at that. A Democrat DID protest the program, and in February 2003. Treason!

[TwilightZone]

55. "Signed off on torture"

Are you confusing "might have attended a meeting where torture may or may not have been discussed, assuming the CIA has more credibility than Bob Graham" with "signed off on"?

If not, perhaps you can provide a link to support your claim. Otherwise, your choice of picture looks like a good place to deposit your statement.

[newspeak]

54. why?

So, the Repukes with the help of the media get their way again? I love how they seem to now make it Pelosi's fault that a criminal administration tortured. I just love it!!! And, the lemmings fall in line again. They frame scenario, this time to cover the asses and some of the public eat it up. We know where the blame lies and even though I'm not a great fan of Pelosi's, I'm not willing to see one of ours go down for their criminal acts.

Those directly responsible for the torture should be held accountable, not this passing off the guilt to some third party. I've watched the media for over eight years repetitiously catapulting * propaganda--no matter what network, it was the same old Repuke talking points--so, here we go again. Nothing really has changed in the media-there still carrying water for the criminals and I doubt I'll see change anytime soon.