Skip to main content

As a liberal who opposes torture, I care a lot about whether or not Nancy Pelosi was told that torture was going on. It's unethical, and Pelosi should know much better than to quietly let it go on. But why would Republicans care?

The best that I can come up with is that they believe this exonerates the Bush administration. After all, if a high-level Democrat knew about the torture program, Republicans cannot be blamed. I hope that this is the reason; if it is, then it means we all oppose torture. I'll let the Republicans keep on thinking that Democrats are as much to blame for the torture as themselves because this means both parties are opposed to torture.

For those who support torture, though, the best that I can guess is they are merely calling out a hypocrite. Really? Being a hypocrite is bad, but it does not even begin to rank up there with torture.

So what's going on here? Is this just random Pelosi bashing? Is this all political? Maybe the Republicans know that they're being branded as the party of torture and would like to throw some of that onto the Democrats (even though the Republicans still support torture).

I can understand what liberals like me can be mad at her for possibly turning a blind eye to torture, but have no idea why the Republicans are doing this?

Any other explanations would be appreciated.

Originally posted to Terrified Liberal on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM PDT.

Poll

Why is the media/Republicans obsessed with the Pelosi story

8%10 votes
33%40 votes
45%55 votes
4%5 votes
9%11 votes

| 121 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well we know it does not matter BUT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, Greasy Grant, Jeff Y, viet vet

    they are sure framing it like it does. The Dems need be on tv/internet blasting this very point! They need to show some backbone.

  •  Republicans are masters at... (15+ / 0-)

    ...using faulty logic to provide cover for their actions.

    They are tryign to argue that if democrats knew about the torture, then they are complicit in it.  If democrats are complicit in it, then it's not a republican problem.

    Of course they're simultaneously trying to argue torture isn't bad because it works but I think they're relizing people aren't buying that.

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:46:27 AM PDT

  •  None of the above. (9+ / 0-)

    The GOP knows that several Bush officials are going down for this at the highest levels, thus damaging the party brand for decades to come.  This is a shell game where they are trying to deflect the public's attention from the real crimes...

    No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

    by jarhead5536 on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24 AM PDT

    •  they still hate her though..... (8+ / 0-)

      The ultimate point is to deflect, distract, confuse, etc....but they still hate her guts and always have.....Godforbid a WOMAN - a LIBERAL woman be in charge of something....They have been after her since she ran for office.

      Proud to be a Red County, Texas Democrat!

      by Webslinger on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:58:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To the Republican way of thinking you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samer, Philpm, JVolvo

        are right.  As you said, they her guts and she's a woman and a LIBERAL woman.  

        That's all bad enough but what puts them over the edge is that she is a liiberal woman from San Francisco of all places.

        I'm glad she's liberal and I'm glad she is a woman and I'm glad she's from San Francisco and I'm glad that combination drives Republicans nuts.

        •  agreed 95% (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Samer, jarhead5536

          SOME of what she does/stands for is in contrast to my own views, HOWEVER - I do not see her as the "failure" that she is portrayed as being.  I don't care that she's from San Fran - if she's a good leader, she can be from Alafukinbama (oxymoron, I know).....I find nothing to complain about her and I think her "San Fransisco values" are just fine.....of course, as with any other person, I don't agree with them 100% of the time, afterall, I am a free-thinking liberal and not a lockstep, walking, lemming, hence why I said 95% initially ;-).

          Proud to be a Red County, Texas Democrat!

          by Webslinger on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:33:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am actually a fan of Nancy's. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Samer, doc superdog

            I love that she's a San Francisco liberal woman, especially because her very existence infuriates the Right.  She's just about as liberal as they come (Kucinnich is in his own league altogether), yet has managed to rise to tremendous power.  From what I can see, her biggest fault (if you can call it one) is that she is a tad too Machiavellian and patient.  Ms. Pelosi is looking so far down the road to Democratic Party dominance that she lets things go that she feels will not move her mission forward (ultimate utter destruction of RW ideology)...

            No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

            by jarhead5536 on Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:05:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It is a shell game because it is irrelevant (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samer, ybruti, JVolvo, Calamity Jean, 1BQ

      what Pelosi knew or when she knew it.

      Excerpt from email received today from americanprogressaction.org:

      ...Regardless, the debate over whether Congress was an "accomplice to torture" ignores the fact that an August 2002 DOJ memo flatly stated that "Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." In other words, the same conservatives railing that Pelosi should have loudly objected to the program also defended the president's absolute right to order abusive interrogations, with or without congressional approval.

      An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Mohandas Gandhi

      by msmacgyver on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:46:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not random Pelosi bashing - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, dennisl

    it's she's a Democrat, hit her again.

  •  Deflect, deflect deflect (7+ / 0-)

    It is all there party stands for. The base of their whole argument is that she knew, and then said nothing until now...Of course, that doesn't take into account that by law, even if she did know, she could not have released the information to anyone until it was released by the president, which is what makes the fact this is even news so reprehensible.

    •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Philpm, JVolvo, 1BQ

      If bushco destroyed torture tapes and incriminating memos, I'm sure nobody, even Pelosi was allowed to tell anyone. Bushit and Cheney had complete power when they were in charge. That's why they got away with torture. I'm also convinced they destroyed a lot of evidence and  I for one believe Pelosi when she says they were mislead by the CIA. If they CIA was committing the torture and going along with Bushco why would they divulge it. They also know there is no record of WHEN Pelosi knew what. Like she said in the press conference yesterday, let's get a truth commission together. IMHO that's a pretty strange request for someone they're trying to discredit.

      Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

      by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:35:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Repugs are making a big side-show (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Politburo, Samer, Philpm, JVolvo, 1BQ, kevin k

    out of claiming that Pelosi knew about BushCo's torture program.

    It's time for Speaker Pelosi to start a House investigation, she needs to put up or shut up.

    "Load up on guns, bring your friends, it's fun to lose and to pretend" Kurt Cobain-1991

    by Jeff Y on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

  •  It Doesn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, 1BQ

    It only matters that people talk about it.

    If spittle & tooth=vigor & youth Bill-O & Savage won't grow any older If wishes & dreams=bitches & beams We'll all live in skyscrapers bu

    by TooFolkGR on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

  •  It Is A Distraction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaywillie, 1BQ, kevin k

    Do I think that senior people in the intel community didn't know what was going on, give me a break. If they were in the dark, things are worse then we think.

    But this isn't the point.

    When did Nancy now isn't close to knowing when Bush approved the torture of people.

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

    by webranding on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:52:11 AM PDT

  •  I think that a basic being raised (0+ / 0-)

    is whether the Bush War On Terror could lay claim to bipartisan support. My memories of 2002-2003 was that it sure seemed that way. Pelosi as the ranking Democrat didn't exactly go out of her way to alter that impression.

    Personally I'm interested in knowing more about the precise nature of her involvement.

  •  As best as I can think on it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, Jeff Y

    Their strategy, if they have one, is to say that Pelosi didn't think it was torture then, so why is it suddenly now, other than that the redefinition is politically expedient for her party?  It's just another "flip-flopper" charge.  It could undermine Pelosi, and in fact does appear to be having that effect.  Expect the RNC to be running "for it before she was against it" ads.

    It's still a ridiculous and suicidal gambit though: if the interrogation techniques she was briefed on were not torture and Pelosi is somehow trying to capitalize on the situation, then all she's guilty of is being a politician -- in a district that carries her into the House on a sedan chair every election.  And if torture did occur, as the general consensus, historical precedent, and common freaking sense seems to indicate, then I don't really need to say where that ends up for the republicans, do I?

    •  Pelosi couldn't talk about it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samer, JVolvo, Calamity Jean

      even if she wanted too, right?

      Aren't these high level briefings top secret?

      "Load up on guns, bring your friends, it's fun to lose and to pretend" Kurt Cobain-1991

      by Jeff Y on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She has congressional immunity. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heart of a quince
        •  No she doesn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, Jeff Y

          It's a felony to disclose classified information (unless you're a Republican of course), and congressional immunity specifically doesn't cover that.

          From Article 1, Section 6:

          They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place

          (emphasis mine).

          Granted, she could have gone ahead anyway and defied them to arrest her, but I can't exactly mount a vigorous defense of her propensity to put principle before politics, given the lack of evidence to show in that regard.

          •  This is the relevant part of the clause. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Politburo, Jeff Y

            and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place

            The US Supreme Court held in US vs Gravel that members of congress were protected from prosecution for release of classified information on the floor of congress on in committees.

      •  Definitely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeff Y

        and I believe if they told Pelosi anything it was only what they wanted her to know. IMHO they didn't tell anyone anything that would incriminate them. This is why they came up with this circus. DISTRACTION is the name of their game. Always has and always will be.

        Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

        by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:37:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rhetoric 101 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, JVolvo, 1BQ, kevin k

    When I took rhetoric, there was, of course, the technique of a "red herring".  The texts should now be revised to include this as THE classic example of a red herring.  It is absolutely, 100 percent, irrelevant what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

    •  You don't think that there (0+ / 0-)

      is any way on earth that the ranking Democrat in congress could have had relevant participation in the conduct of government policy?

      •  No. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samer, 1BQ

        Suppose for the sake of discussion she knew all about this.  What were her remedies under the terms of these top secret briefings?  None.  Now, Ms. Pelosi may have many faults but I don't think she's crazy.  Her comments yesterday are backed up by Senator Gramm.  If the CIA has the goods, they should come forward with it, and it should be declassified.  But I doubt they have the goods.  

        •  She has congressional immunity (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          heart of a quince

          derived from the speech and debate clause of the constitution. She could have told what she knew and been protected from prosecution. It would have been politically risky for her to do that, but she had the option. She was not helpless or powerless.

          I do hope that the CIA decides to declassify the relevant material.

          •  And the constitution was somewhat unreadable (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Samer, JVolvo

            between 2001 and 2009 because it had so many of Cheney's brown smudges on it.

            Theoretically, Pelosi would have been immune. Practically, Bush/Cheney would have done a Siegelman or a Plame on her.

            The FOX is a common carrier of rabies, a virus that leaves its victims foaming at the mouth and causes paranoia and hallucinations.

            by Calouste on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:45:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong. There are criminal statutes that (0+ / 0-)

            control divulging information from these briefings.  

            •  See the SC decision (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Samer

              in US vs Gravel. They held that a member of congress cannot be prosecuted for releasing classified information in the conduct of congressional business.

              •  You have misread the holding in that case (0+ / 0-)

                totally.

                  •  Because the case in no way says what you say it (0+ / 0-)

                    stands for.  

                    Have you read the case?

                    •  Yes I have. (0+ / 0-)

                      Here is the relevant part of the decision.

                      US vs Gravel

                      The last sentence of the Clause provides Members of Congress with two distinct privileges

                      Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. [408 U.S. 606, 616]    The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer - either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution - for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Our decision is made easier by the fact that the United States appears to have abandoned whatever position it took to the contrary in the lower courts.

                      The court divides the clause into two sections. It is the second section as quotes above that provides the immunity from prosecution for actions taken in the conduct of congressional business.

      •  No, not when bushit and Cheney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samer

        were running the show. The last people they wanted to know anything were the Democrats. For goodness sake, at least we know that much.

        Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

        by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:40:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No we don't know that for sure. (0+ / 0-)

          That is why we need an investigation. If in fact they failed in their constitutional duty to inform the leadership of the opposition party about the conduct of government policy, then that is one more charge against them.

          I don;t think that anything should be taken on faith.

        •  Emptywheel's analysis backs you up (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Samer, Calamity Jean

          From her post "If You’re Trying to Commit a Crime," You Wouldn’t Brief Democrats (all emphasis in original):

          The first time CIA can say for certain that any Democratic members of Congress at all were briefed on waterboarding was in July 2004, after CIA had waterboarded for what ended up being the last time, and after their own Inspector General determined they were breaking the law.

          She then continues (emphasis added):

          And then, in 2005, when CIA was trying to sustain their ability to torture against Congressional wishes, CIA had briefings for Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for John McCain with no Democrats in attendance. They had two briefings for Bill Frist with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Duncan Hunter with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Crazy Pete Hoekstra with no Democrats in attendance.

          Lindsey Graham says that, "if you were trying to commit a crime ... you would not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it." And that, as it turns out, is exactly what the public record shows: that the Bush Administration did not tell Democrats about what they were doing.

          There's also a detailed timeline here.

          The Tyranny of the Minority - WHY did 60 become the new 51?

          by 1BQ on Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:08:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Emptywheel is not the final authority on the (0+ / 0-)

            matter. Pelosi herself has said that she had information about waterboarding as early as 2003.

            •  From her aide, not from the CIA (0+ / 0-)

              Frankly, I'm just about sick of this subject. Who the hell cares what she knew and when she knew it? She didn't authorize torture. She didn't write legalistic mumbo-jumbo justifying torture. She didn't order anyone to be tortured. Hell, she wasn't even Speaker at the time!

              This bright shiny object is successfully derailing the investigation about precisely what Bush and Cheney knew, when they knew it, and what actions they took/ordered taken based on their knowledge. The media and even folks here are busily chasing down the "Pelosi vs. CIA" story as if it were THE hot story of the day. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but it's certainly secondary to investigating real criminal acts.

              Unless it can be proven that the Bush Admin did an illegal end-around Congress, this is not the real story. But the republicans are sure trying to make it that way!

              The Tyranny of the Minority - WHY did 60 become the new 51?

              by 1BQ on Fri May 15, 2009 at 02:09:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Very late Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RElland, JVolvo, 1BQ

    Thank you all for giving your opinions about this situation.

  •  Pelosi is just a shiny object (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, 1BQ

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:02:43 AM PDT

  •  It's about the Bush administration's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, 1BQ

    intentional coverup of what they were doing. They lied to her and other members of congress.

    We've gotten many indications that prosecution for torture isn't likely, but prosecution for a coverup is a whole different matter. They're trying to "poison" Pelosi because she's not backing down from saying they misled her, and they'll go after anyone else who stands up, too.

  •  It changes the subject (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, 1BQ

    That's the principal reason.

    John Boehner: Bovine Gastroenterology Expert.

    by Bobs Telecaster on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

  •  When an issue isn't playing well for GOoPers, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Politburo, askew, 1BQ

    they drag Democrats into it and say, "See?  It's a problem with BOTH parties."  This is supposedly to muddy the waters and confuse independent voters.  During the Abramoff scandals and other Republican corruption deals the right-wing talking heads couldn't stop mentioning William Jefferson and the $90,000.00 cash in the freezer.  Our one guy is equal to their dozens.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office. There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:04:35 AM PDT

  •  The Chewbacca Defense (5+ / 0-)

    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:05:35 AM PDT

  •  Nancy should demand an investigation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, 1BQ

    to get to the bottom of it. That would soon make it clear that whether she did or didn't know isn't important since she wouldn't be investigated for "knowing". They would be investigated for doing. I wish she would really start pushing for a full torture investigation.

  •  She's a woman you moran. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, 1BQ

    Gopers are scared to death of powerful women, and she is third in line to the throne, I mean, presidency. They just cannot believe a woman made it to third place, and they want her GONE. Always have. It doesn't matter what she does, they are the party of no, remember?

    The moran was said with love and satire, and meant to be funny, not personal. It means, 'think like a goper' and you will understand their hatred of her.'

    Your diary makes an excellent point. It's not about the facts with the gopers, ever.

  •  It's simply a distraction to the fact (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, 1BQ

    that Bush/Cheney used torture to get "information" to lie us into war.
    They don't want the real truth to come out, so they blame Pelosi.
    All Pelosi knew was that they had techniques that were deemed legal but had not yet used them. She was never told that they DID use them, as they already had before even telling her.
    We need to go after Bush and Cheney on this. Forget Pelosi.

    Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by MA Liberal on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:13:26 AM PDT

  •  Republicans have this thought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, 1BQ

    that if they can stir up the public about the torture issue and make it seem like 'everyone' was doing it, then they can slow down or prevent the actual instigation of investigations by those who represent said public.
    IE Congress and Senate.
    Until the Democratic Party is willing as a whole to say enough is enough you're scum who sadistically love to hurt people, then, it's going to continue.

    Good info, bad info, torture is still torture. Illegal.

    by RElland on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:13:45 AM PDT

  •  It's a distraction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    The  more we talk about Pelosi the more it becomes about JUST Pelosi.

    •  It's also a distraction to (3+ / 0-)

      Health Care reform. They're killing more than one bird with the stones they're throwing.

      Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

      by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:44:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Taking her down (0+ / 0-)

        is really, really dumb.  I just don't get it.

        I mean, passing health care reform is a moral imperative, too, if you ask me that, if nothing is done, could cost thousands their well-being, or, worse, their lives.

        I wonder how happy they'll be to get their sacrificial lamb while they watch all the other major items get scuttled, shredded, gutted, bogged down.  And who would take her place?  Hoyer?  That would be a disaster - the man, despite what anyone has to say about Pelosi, is much worse and under his leadership I'd see us moving backwards.

        We'll shall see.

  •  It's very simple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    They're taking the spot light off themselves and the actual acts by going after Pelosi and the Democrats. This is exactly the kind of moment they've been waiting for. They want to discredit Dems in any way they can. I definitely don't condone torture but we must never forget THEY are the tortures and should be prosecuted.

    Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

    by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:23:19 AM PDT

  •  It's an obvious ploy to prevent ANY investigation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    or accountability for the waterboarding.

    The way to achieve that is to undermine Democratic congressional support for an inquiry.

    i can't watch [Obama] speak on tv for more than 5 minutes or else what he's saying starts to make sense to me. It's very scary.

    by Kimball Cross on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:27:08 AM PDT

  •  The Republicans need a scapegoat. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott

    They need a Democrat on whom to focus hate. They seem to prefer a woman for this purpose.

    The mantle seems to have been passed, from Hillary to Nancy.

  •  The title of your diary would make an excellent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terrified Liberal

    question for reporters to ask various Republicans.  

    The "why" is part of the who, what, when, where and why fundamentals of reporting as I understand it.  

    If any of them are asking the "why" question I guess I missed it.  And I assume you must have missed it too or you wouldn't have asked the question yourself.

    I'm enjoying your diary.

    •  Hey what happened to their (0+ / 0-)

      re-branding the party tour? Probably wasn't a big hit and it didn't hurt the Democrats status. Now this is more important than talking to and listening to the American people. No surprises there.

      Some people are like Slinkys. They don't have a purpose, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

      by desnyder on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:48:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Republicans think that if A Dem knew... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, 1BQ

    ...that somehow it excuses the questionable behaviors and illegality of decisions made. It's all BS and should be ignored. I

    The Republican claim that nothing 'wrong' was done falls apart. If nothing wrong occurred, why all of this posturing that if a Dem knew, then everything is ok? Isn't everything ok whether a Dem knew or not?

    Obvious Conclusions...

    1. Investigation and prosecution should take place regardless of party affiliation.
    1. The Republicans are full of $hit and they know it.  

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:38:49 AM PDT

    •  I think it's more... (0+ / 0-)

      ...along the lines of if a Democrat knew (the higher ranking, the better) then the Democrats will be less likely to prosecute a crime.

      They know what was done is wrong. And they are banking on Congressional Democrats being viewed as complicit with it and I wouldn't put it past them to pull that off.

  •  Because it allows them to accuse us of hipocrisy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    They assume that we, like them, will stand up for people in our own party who have committed crimes and attempt to rationalize their illegal behavior.

    The only reason they bring it up is that they want the chance to jump up and down and scream "OMG HYPOCRITE!!!" when we do.

    The problem, of course, is that the debate over how complicit Pelosi was or was not has been raging in the left blogosphere for years, and we, unlike Republicans, believe in holding our own, as well as the opposition, accountable for their wrongdoing.

    In short, they're trolling us, and failing miserably.

    To be human in 2008 is to rise in defense of the planet we have known and the civilization it has spawned.

    by beatpanda on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:53:13 AM PDT

  •  It's the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, 1BQ

    "But all the other kids are doing it, Mom" defense.

    How can you punish R's when the Dem's knew too.  That's what they are doing and it is a cya and nothing more.

    *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

    by Shirl In Idaho on Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:59:57 AM PDT

  •  In a nutshell: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ

    The Goposaur strategy is to smear Pelosi with knowledge of torture and acquiescence in it in order to discredit the movement to hold the torturers accountable as a partisan witch-hunt.

    In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. - H.L. Mencken

    by Simian on Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:00:19 PM PDT

  •  You people are putting too much thought into (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    the reason. Its the same as when they are accused of lying to take us into an illegal war in Iraq.
    Its the five year old in them coming to the surface. So and so did it, so therefore they can't be held responsible for their actions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site