Republicans are dangling Pelosi over the torture cliff because it works

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

and Democrats are too chickenshit to make the correct response to this gambit, which is "We will investigate torture in open, full, public hearings and let the chips fall where they may."

By NOT doing this, Democrats have allowed the Republicans as usual to conquer with their new frame which is "Dems were involved too" and "If it's so bad, why didn't Nancy Pelosi do anything to stop it?" thus replacing the REAL issues of:

Who ordered it, who fulfilled it, who knew about it, why was it ordered, how was it carried out, how and why was it covered up, how many were tortured by how many torturers, what were the results (which might include intel, most of it bad along with deaths, homicides, etc.)

There is no way in a comprehensive investigation of torture that Nancy Pelosi's name WON'T come up, but in such a peripheral role that it will be all but lost( good for her) while it will also pinpoint the issue that there has to be a way for people who become unwilling or unwitting accomplices to illegal acts that are shrouded under the National Security blanket to have an official way in which to voice objections for the official record and possibly a way to make public their objections without opening themselves up to vengeful prosecutions for spilling the beans.

So, Dems, say "You're right! We need to investigate EVERYTHING!"

[babylonsister]

1. She needs to get out in front of this-yesterday.

Her silence is allowing them to frame this.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. She's really not helping herself with her conflicting memories.

Jon Stewart skewered her the other day.

I think she should just go with "I will provide a complete and full account of my very limited involvement which I was legally required to keep silent about when we have the full and open hearings."

[babylonsister]

5. There you go-that would be a perfect statement.

Her silence isn't helping.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. we need to go after Bush, cheney et al (perpetrators)

[Dogtown]

3. If she's guilty of collaborating

she should be prosecuted as well. This is about our national identity, not party affiliation.


If we do not prosecute the war-criminals, we are all guilty.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. I agree that anyone involved who broke any laws should be prosecuted

regardless of party affiliation. I do believe that Nancy has a some legal cover in that she was precluded from voicing objections by the way our National Security laws are framed. We need to correct that. I doubt very much that she could actually be prosecuted, but I don't know that, that's up to an Independent Counsel to decide.

But I certainly wouldn't try to not have hearings/prosecutions just because a Democratic name or two or three or however many will arise.

[grantcart]

6. Clear, open and impartial - investigate all of it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. This is the least that is owed to the American people

These awful torture apologizers in the media and in the Congress inself are actually corrupting the entire value system of the country. People have to know what we are actually discussing. They still think it's panties on the head, cheerleader pyramids, a "little water poured on your face" and the like.

[OneGrassRoot]

8. K&R. It's time for that open air and sunlight to hit ALL crevices. n/t

[ccharles000]

9. I bet she wishes she could have some Felix Felicis right about now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. I have no idea what that means. nt

[gkhouston]

12. It's from the sixth Harry Potter book -- a potion that would give you extraordinary

luck for one day.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. Thank you for the explanation. I'm behind on my Harry Potter

I don't know what she drank, but something gave her some extra spunk today!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. Happy to see Nancy fighting back this afternoon.

Bring it on Nancy! Now, insist on an independent counsel or a full investigation.

[Supersedeas]

14. Even with the best minds in Congress and in the WH, Reskanks continue to win the FRAME game

[Two Americas]

15. even here we can't say that

We cannot advocate taking that approach here without being accused of tearing down Democrats, etc.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. Can't say what? I'm not sure what you are responding to. nt

[Two Americas]

19. oh I forgot

You can't say that you can't say that.

[rug]

17. Is hostage-taking a form of torture?

[jeanpalmer]

20. She says the CIA misled Congress

But doesn't propose doing anything about it. If I were a congressman and found out the CIA had misled me on torture, my reaction would be outrage and a call for hearings. Did Nancy look outraged?

Just reading between the lines, Nancy and the rest were never really outraged by torture. So long as it was GWB doing it and they didn't have to be involved, that was fine with them. They were told about it and didn't object. Well, Rockefeller did write a memo to himself and put it in his safe, lol. Since they didn't object, I assume they tacitly agreed with the policy. After all, they were politicians and did not want another 9-11, they might lose an election. So they went along in a way that now lets them weakly claim "I wasn't told."

That's why there won't be any hearings. Because they were complicit. They didn't fulfill their responsibility.

They did the same thing on the war. First, they never examined the "evidence" that Bush used to support going to war. Most of it was laughable, didn't pass any credibility test. And the Democrats knew about that or had the ability to find out. They didn't want to know. When it became clear to the public that W had lied about WMD, Democrats did nothing. No calls for investigaion. An investigation would have exposed them for being willing gullible dupes.