Saturday, May 16, 2009

... or is crime OK so long as we clear it with Nancy Pelosi?

Isitjust me is nothing if not a big tent. Well, maybe a big vomitorium but the issue is that all viewpoints are subject to equal scrutiny...except for Saint Barack, may the sun always shine on his jumpshot.

Therefore, with an eye toward fairness, we will now examine the case of yet another air-headed Miss California, Nancy Pelosi; what did she know and when.


First, Nancy is a politician, which tells you all you need to know about her concept of veracity. She has none. Ms. Pelosi has been a Congresswoman since 1987 and you don't get to spend 22 years in office without learning what to remember and what to forget. Basically, you remember all the stuff you did that worked out well (taking credit at every opportunity), and you forget all the things that ultimately went south. Phrases like "I was sick that day" or "I can't recall every detail" have served elected officials well since the invention of fire (first used to burn the notes from ill-advised meetings).

If Speaker Pelosi were exposed to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" made popular by D. Cheney and his squadron of ass-hats, she would probably remember it like this: "The country had just been attacked. The CIA wanted to round up every character who could even spell Al Qaeda and squeeze them 'til they told us where and when the next attack was coming. The Bush administration was convinced that Iraq was involved. Congress, specifically the intelligence oversight committees and the leadership, were told that questioning would involve more than harsh language and dessert deprivation. Congress was assured that 1) to object would cost thousands of lives and, 2) what they were proposing was shady but mostly legal."



"Not willing to take an unpopular stand, I accepted what I was being told. Waterboarding might have been discussed, I really don't remember. I do remember thinking that if I oppose this action and there is another attack, I couldn't get elected to my grandson's little league board. I made the easy choice and now I'm stuck with it."


None of this changes the larger issue. The government of George W. Bush acted illegally when it tortured detainees. Whether Nancy Pelosi or Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Jesus Christ knew about it changes nothing. Nancy Pelosi does not have the power to absolve the Bush administration. She cannot negate the Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Telling the House Minority Leader (the post Pelosi held from 2003 to 2007) that you are about to commit a crime doesn't make the crime OK. It makes her complicit and subject to whatever penalties are due.

However, if no one plans to charge the actual criminals, it would seem disproportionate to charge any co-conspirators. Madame Speaker would certainly not be the first official to approach the block. She would be lined up behind Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, David Addington, John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld and a host of others including, of course, George the Lesser.


In Nancy's defense...she has no defense. She needs to stop dancing and tell the truth. Her only course of action is to admit that she probably would have authorized dropping Arabs from a helicopter if it prevented another 9/11. It might not look like the right thing to do by today's standards but, if you weren't there, you can't judge.

What the hell. This approach appears to be working for Dick Cheney.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What would be interesting and revealing is what the actual CIA briefing documents show.

What was going on with the Bush administration was a giant CYA operation.

Everyone knew that what was being done was illegal and criminal under probaby a half dozen sets of laws - Government agents are not allowed to mistreat prisoners period.

Therefore, the Bush people got their extremist lawyers who truly believed that a wartime president has powers that exceed those claimed by George III and got them to write up memos covering everyone. The military lawyers, the military, a portion of the CIA and the FBI vehemently disageed (The FBI which was the only source of real expertise in interrogation refused to take part.)

Everyone also had to have known this would become public some day and would be hugely controversial and, in ordinary American practice, would lead to criminal prosecutions. Thus, the DOJ memos were intended to provide legal cover.

The notification to Congress was required by law but also was designed to provide political cover.

Thus, if I were the CIA briefer, I would make it clear what was going on - just to protect against this sort of situation. I would also make sure that my internal paper trail - preferably by a secure internal e-mail which would establish the date - reflected telling the Congress explicitly. In fact, I might generate such an e-mail even if I didn't provide the notice.

If the contemporaneous CIA documents don't reflect explicit notice then it probably did not happen.