Laughter is the sound that breaks the silence. Those poor dumb Dims.
In A Specter Is Haunting Dems the dullard Dims who enjoyed the political corruption “fix” during the 2008 Democratic primaries are now complaining because the fix this time is against them. Those poor dumb Dims:
Upstart progressive populists, the very people that turned the party’s fortunes around in recent election cycles, have been given a very clear message from the bosses: Welcome Specter. “Our goal in 2010 is not to have a primary,” Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney told reporters.
In other words, forget the fact that on his first day as a Democrat, Specter said he would support a filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act. On his second day, he voted against the Obama budget. On the third day, he voted against the housing bankruptcy reform legislation, which would have given a break to families facing foreclosure. And he continues to oppose a healthcare reform bill that includes a public option.
These Dimocrats were silent, nay, gleeful, when the 2008 primaries were manipulated by party bosses, Dean/Pelosi/Brazile/Kennedy/Kerry, to drive Hillary Clinton out and gift Obama the nomination. Now these Dimocrats are complaining that Obama and his corrupt Party pals, are doing to them what they did to Hillary. Only now do the Dims understand that:
Primaries are the main mechanism of internal party democracy, by which the parties’ rank and file selects candidates for general elections.
The same Obama who was gifted the nomination by corrupt party officials, who ignored the electorate and tampered with the “main mechanism of internal party democracy”, is now gifting the U.S. Senate Seat to “stimulus” voter Specter.
We hope Specter is defeated in as many ways as possible. Unlike the Dims, we know Specter is getting his pay for screwing the country and getting Obama almost a trillion dollars to waste. Specter scratched Obama’s corrupt back. Now Obama is scratching Specter’s corrupt back. It’s all done silently. The sound you can hear between the Obama laughter, is those poor dumb Dims crying.
* * * * *
Nancy Pelosi, trashed Hillary Clinton privately and publicly during the 2008 primaries. Pelosi imperiously did as she pleased to gift her pal Obama the nomination. When it came to blocking the “main mechanism of internal party democracy” Pelosi made a lot of noise.
But Pelosi, after trashing Republicans, has been strangely silent about torture. Perhaps Pelosi should be waterboarded until she truthfully tells us everything she knows about torture.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday.
The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.
But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.
Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally “approved by the president.”
Nancy is now silent, as silent as when she was told about waterboarding. Republicans, especially some of our very least favorite Republicans, are not silent and make some very strong solid statements and ask some very good questions we want answers to too.
Why didn’t Nancy Pelosi do more to stop waterboarding?
With the “what did she know and when did she know it” questions more or less resolved — Pelosi learned that the Bush administration was waterboarding detainees no later than February 2003 — Republicans are now directing their attacks on the muted, indirect way in which she responded.
“If she felt it was wrong, she should have acted,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime waterboarding critic, told POLITICO on Tuesday. “Let me just tell you, I was briefed on it — and I vehemently objected to it. We did the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
The entire issue of torture had been silenced. Then Obama, presumably with knowledge of Pelosi’s early knowledge (from published reports going back years), reopened the controversy by releasing Bush era memoranda. If Obama ever wanted to get rid of a potential power rival, he hit on a shrewd way to torture Nancy. Now Nancy, who thought after gifting Obama the nomination she would have a “yes” man in the White House, not a strong woman like Hillary, is discovering that Obama has thrown her to the wolves.
Only now is Obama realizing that the torture issue has flames lapping at the White House. Only now is Obama realizing that the damage to Nancy is done and that the flames will scorch him. Only now is Obama realizing that release of torture photos, is not wise for him – politically.
And the wolves are biting:
Over the past week, a half-dozen senior Republican and Democratic aides canvassed by POLITICO have outlined a menu of options Pelosi could have pursued to protest harsh interrogations.
All agreed she could have written a classified letter to the CIA — as Rep. Jane Harman, her successor on the intelligence committee, did after she was briefed on the technique in February 2003.
Pelosi, they said, also could have pressured President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney directly by requesting a meeting with them, or by buttonholing them during previously scheduled meetings, or by writing a letter to them.
“To the best of my knowledge, she didn’t do any of those things,” said Rep. Pete Hoeskstra (R-Mich.), currently the ranking member of the House intelligence committee.
We have supported and continue to support a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of these tawdry events and even tawdrier people. Let’s investigate. Lamar! Alexander:
“If we’re going to look backwards, as some have insisted, then we need to make sure we talk to everybody instead of just harassing lawyers who were asked for their opinion in the Department of Justice,” he said. “And let’s talk to members of Congress who knew about them and may have encouraged them.”
Even some of Pelosi’s supporters are frustrated with her obtuse, less-than-direct answers to questions about classified briefings — as well as her claim, advanced through aides, that she had no “appropriate” avenue of protest in 2003.
“She’s done a horrendous job,” said a top Democratic consultant who otherwise is a Pelosi fan. “She’s really dug herself a hole.”
Let’s investigate what Nancy knew and when she knew it. Waterboard her if necessary to get the facts – but we do prefer a special prosecutor to get the serial liars:
Pelosi has said she never did anything to encourage the interrogation practices — and she has told reporters that she supported Harman’s missive to the CIA, which registered “profound” concerns about the tactics employed.
But Pelosi didn’t co-sign Harman’s letter — and, even by her own team’s account, she communicated her support to Harman indirectly, through an aide. Harman’s office has refused repeated requests over the past three days to comment on Pelosi’s involvement — or lack thereof — in drafting the letter.
And some independent observers have begun to question Pelosi’s account of her own actions.
On April 23, Pelosi told reporters: “We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.”
But this week, sources close to Pelosi admitted that Mike Sheehy, a former top intelligence aide, was, in fact, briefed on waterboarding on Feb. 4, 2003.
Sheehy informed his boss of the technique shortly after, sources said.
Such inconsistencies prompted PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking arm of the St. Petersburg Times, to give Pelosi’s statement a “false” rating on its widely cited “Truth-O-Meter.”
In April, Nancy has been making tortured excuses for herself. Those excuses are no longer “operative”.
Let’s end the silence with a series of special prosecutors. We agree with the repugnant Republican Pete Hoekstra:
Hoekstra spokesperson Jamal Ware says that Hoekstra is now seeking the release of the memos and notes that comprised the basis of the documents that came out today that claimed Dems had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.
“He has seen documents that would clarify exactly what the Speaker was briefed on,” Ware tells me, “including whether she was briefed on all enhanced interrogation techniques that had been used.”
Asked if those techniques included waterboarding, Ware replied: “Yes.”
Coming on the heels of the Hill story posted below, this bodes very ill for the Speaker. She said she’d never been briefed on these techniques, then she said she’d been briefed that they could be used but not that they would or had been used, and now the CIA is saying that she was briefed and Hoekstra is claiming on the record that those briefings included details on the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah.
How can Democrats in Congress possibly investigate the alleged abuses of the Bush administration when their own leader was complicit in approving the very techniques they would now call torture? If Democrats are at all serious about making this anything but a partisan witch-hunt, the first thing they’ll need to do is get their own house in order.
There is a lot of silent consent these days as the crimelords firm their grip on Washington and the nation.
We need special prosecutors to loosen some tongues.