We should always remember the morality of Elite Villagers, those who supported the pointless war in Iraq and who mostly are now decidedly not horrified at the fact that the administration tortured the shit out of people in order to justify the atrocity that was the Iraq war. The Villagers loved their little war. It made them feel heroic. They wanted justification for it, too.
Josh Marshall: Reporters Gettin' Played
Everybody's talking about Nancy Pelosi's press conference yesterday. I'm listening to Republicans on cable yapping about this contradiction or that contradiction. But what I've seen very little attention to is the fact that Pelosi had an answer that really answers all the questions, a plenary answer you might say: she supports a Truth Commission.
Here's where we are. There are various documents and recollections from around through the news ether. Pelosi's accusers are saying she knew more than she admits. She says that many of these claims are false and the documents perhaps erroneous, and that she's been consistent and true to her opposition to torture. And then she says, and I think there should be a broad-ranging Truth Commission to investigate what happened, who's telling the truth and who isn't. You can see it here at about 3:45 in.
That says it all. She wants it all investigated. The whole point of this storm about Pelosi is that her critics want her to be embarrassed and stop supporting a Truth Commission or any sort of examination of what happened. But she's not. She still says there should be an investigation. Her critics still want the book closed. That says it all. She'll have to stand or fall with the results of an actual investigation. Her opponents on this are simply risible hypocrites.
- Atrios: Republicans Still Rule Their World The ease Republicans have in shifting the conversation from "torture is illegal" to "NANCY KNEW," as if the latter, even if true, in any way changed the former. They kick the soccer ball, and the press follows. After all these years I'm not entirely sure why that is, but there you are. And, you know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why?
- Sargent: Pelosi’s Claims Getting Much More Media Scrutiny Than CIA’s Assertions
Whichever side of the torture debate you’re on, it’s a simple matter of fact that Nancy Pelosi’s claims about what she was told and when about torture are getting far more intense media scrutiny than the CIA’s claims are.
Simple fairness demands that both side’s claims get treated with a similar level of skepticism. And they’re not.
Multiple news accounts this morning report that Pelosi’s credibility is in question after yesterday’s press conference, in which she accused the CIA of lying about what they told members of Congress about the agency’s use of torture. This theme was sounded by MSNBC, WaPo’s Dan Balz, the New York Times write-up, and many others.
That’s as it should be. But I challenge you to find a news account that stated with equal prominence that the CIA’s credibility is also in question.
Let’s briefly recap. Three senior Democrats — Pelosi, Bob Graham, and Jay Rockefeller — have all publicly claimed that the CIA didn’t brief them about the use of torture in the manner the agency has claimed. Meanwhile, the CIA itself has conceded that its own accounting may not be accurate.
Yet key facts that cast doubt on the CIA’s claims have been buried or completely omitted from multiple news reports. The Times’s first mention of Graham’s claims came today, five days after he first made them, and they were buried in the 22nd paragraph of the paper’s write-up. Neither The Time nor The Post have even mentioned Rockefeller’s claims once. The networks have refused across the board to mention the CIA’s own unwillingness to vouch for the accuracy of its information.
There are notable exceptions. McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay, for instance, has talked up the importance of the CIA’s caveats. And to its credit, The Politico has shined a spotlight on the dissents of Graham and Rockefeller and on some of the contradictions in the GOP’s criticism of Pelosi.
This is not only about Pelosi. It is a dispute. One side is claiming one thing, and the other is claiming the opposite. Simple fairness demands that equal levels of skepticism are applied to people on both sides of this argument. And that isn’t happening. There’s no way around it.
- Benen: WHERE ARE JIM WRIGHT AND TOM FOLEY?....
One of the big political stories of the day, apparently, is Newt Gingrich's blind-rage attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I mentioned it earlier, in large part because a) I find it hilarious that Republicans have let a disgraced former Speaker become one of their leading attack dogs; b) his argument was incoherent, but common among Republicans; and c) Newt seems to be getting nuttier as time goes on.
Nevertheless, Gingrich's tantrum is being treated as one of the day's most important political stories by major outlets. Atrios asks the right question:
[Y]ou know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why?
I suspect it's not because they think it's hilarious that Republicans have let a disgraced former Speaker become one of their leading attack dogs and because Newt seems to be getting nuttier as time goes on.
Let me put this a slightly different way.
Remember Jim Wright? He was a Texas Democrat who served as the House Speaker for about a year and a half in the late 1980s. Remember Tom Foley? He was a Washington state Democrat who served as the House Speaker for about six years, following Wright.
When was the last time you heard either of them throw a partisan temper tantrum, lashing out wildly at Republican officials? If, every other day or so, Wright and/or Foley popped up in D.C. to take cheap shots at GOP leaders, would it be treated, each and every time, as a huge political story by establishment reporters?
More to the point, when was the last time major news outlets asked Wright and/or Foley to appear on major news programs, giving them a platform to launch attacks at their political rivals?
Newt Gingrich left office more than a decade ago as a national embarrassment. He is one of the nation's least liked and least respected political figures. And as a practical matter, he is just as relevant to the current political landscape as Jim Wright and Tom Foley. (Wright fell victim to an ethics scandal, but then again, so did Gingrich.)
In fairness, Gingrich maintains slightly more importance, by virtue of the fact that his shrinking political party keeps turning to him for advice, as compared to Wright and Foley, who Dems tend to ignore. But that's not much of an excuse -- just because Republicans on the Hill are foolish enough to take Gingrich's tirades seriously doesn't mean political reporters should do the same.
- sgw: Barry Goldwater And The CIA
If you go over to the "Morning Joe" website and look at the clips for today you wouldn't know that Lawrence O'Donnell was even on the show today. The reason why might be the fact that O'Donnell pointed out that Barry Goldwater, like Pelosi did yesterday, said the CIA lied to him back in 1984. Because Joe Scarborough and the rest of his yes men and women had spent all morning trying to convince the world that the CIA NEVER lies this was probably an inconvenient truth for them.
Thank God for MediaMatters
Now notice that in order to support torture Joe Scarborough is willing to defame one of the major players in the conservative movement, Barry Goldwater, by saying he was crazy. That is the state of Republicans and wingnuts today. They will through anybody, even their most revered icons, in order to protect the Republican brand. Disgusting.
- Benen: IF WE JUDGE PELOSI BY HER ENEMIES...
The other day, I compared Newt Gingrich to an erupting popcorn maker, spewing incoherent talking points in every direction. Today, he offered a good example of what I was talking about.
In an interview with ABC News Radio's Marcus Wilson, Gingrich, R-Ga., said Pelosi, D-Calif., "has lied to the House" in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.
"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," Gingrich said.
He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."
I see. The Bush administration engaged in systematic torture, but our disgraced former House Speaker is outraged that Nancy Pelosi did what members of Congress have been doing for decades: she questioned the veracity of a CIA briefing.
I'm not even sure what ol' Newt was whining about. The Speaker of the House is a "trivial politician"? What does that even mean? Pelosi's questions about the briefing she received in 2002 is "despicable" and "vicious"? How's that, exactly? Kevin Drum suggested Gingrich may be "getting political Alzheimer's or something," which sounds about right.
But the controversy surrounding Pelosi's comments yesterday seem to have brought out the nuttiness in the GOP's most nutty personalities. Fox News' Megyn Kelly, always a paragon of journalistic integrity, asked Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) this morning "what can be done to take away her speakership?" King then called for Pelosi's ouster, calling her "an enemy of national security."
And if Steve King wants the Speaker replaced, I'm sure House Democrats will get right on that.
In the meantime, let's not lose sight of a key detail here: Pelosi wants a full investigation. She's so confident that she's telling the truth, she's anxious for a Truth Commission to determine exactly who's right, who's wrong, who committed crimes, and who covered them up.
As Josh Marshall concluded earlier, "[Pelosi] still says there should be an investigation. Her critics still want the book closed. That says it all. She'll have to stand or fall with the results of an actual investigation. Her opponents on this are simply risible hypocrites."
A new Rasmussen poll finds that only 37% of Republican voters think the party has no clear leader, a definite improvement from a 68% figure two months ago. But there's a catch: There's no agreement on who the party's clear leader actually is.
John McCain comes in first place among possible leaders at 18%, followed by Michael Steele with 14%, Sarah Palin on 10%, Mitt Romney at 8%, Rush Limbaugh with 6%, and Dick Cheney at 4%.
The polling memo reiterates a recent point by Scott Rasmussen: "To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation's capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance."
Benen: TOUGH TALK FROM ANONYMOUS REPUBLICANS....
National Journal routinely polls a panel of "political insiders" to gauge the establishment's take on various issues. This week's question was a good one: "Has Dick Cheney helped or hurt the Republican Party since leaving office?"Among Democrats, it wasn't close -- out of 103 insiders, 92% believed Cheney is hurting the GOP. Among Republicans, it was far less clear, but a majority (57%) agreed that the former vice president is doing more harm than good for his party.
But notice some of the quotes Republican insiders gave to National Journal:
"The message on interrogation techniques is right. The messenger is not."
"He seems determined to vindicate his decisions and policies even if it damages the GOP's recovery. And it has."
"Anything that reminds the public of the Bush administration harms the party's ability to turn the page. If he'd had any concern for his public image when he was in office, he wouldn't have to worry as much about defending his reputation now."
"There is nothing Dick Cheney can say or do to help the Republican Party today. The best thing he can do is disappear for the next 10 years."
"Overall, hurts, but if there is a terrorist attack on the United States, Lord forbid, he will have turned out to be prescient, and the Democrats will be out of power for a long time."
"Let's face it: The guy doesn't know anything about winning elections outside of Wyoming."
"Not even a close call. With Cheney out there, Obama doesn't even need to remind the American people about the mess that was the Bush years."
"He's advocating for what's left of the party. We need to expand the party."
"Cheney represents the grumpy intolerance that has come to characterize the GOP. Get off the stage!"
That's real tough talk from a group of Republicans who know their anonymity will be protected.
It gets back to what we talked about yesterday: most of the party is anxious to see Cheney go away, but they're still afraid to say so. The GOP doesn't like Cheney, but it does fear him.
Maybe the former vice president put together embarrassing dossiers on everyone he could think of during his time in office? Sure, it seems unlikely, but let's not hastily rule anything out.
OOPS. Think Progress: Hoyer and Cantor forget to take ‘AIPAC’ off file name of letter to Obama on Middle East peace.
Earlier this month, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent a letter to President Obama regarding the Middle East peace process. The letter says that the U.S. “must be both a trusted mediator and a devoted friend to Israel,” adding that “Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement.” The Washington Post’s Al Kamen writes today about a discovery he made when opening the computer file version of the letter, in an item titled “Now, That’s Lobbying”:Curiously, when we opened the attachment, we noticed it was named “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf.”
Seems as though someone forgot to change the name or something. AIPAC? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee? Is that how this stuff works?
Matt Yglesias observes, “It is worth noting, however, that while public talk at the AIPAC conference was about devotion to peace, the substance of this letter is to try to make people think there will be a domestic price to be paid for any serious effort to push for a solution. This is similar to how Israel’s land grabs in-and-around Jerusalem are at odds with the Israeli government’s public presentation of itself as interested in peace and disturbed by the lack of a credible partner.”
Aravosis: Obama's decision to continue the military tribunals
You may have read yesterday that Obama is going to continue using the military tribunals for a small number of prisoners, but he'll be giving them more legal rights than they had before. Did he just cave? I'm not so sure. While the decision to continue some trials by tribunal would seem to contradict his earlier opposition to the process as "flawed," if in fact the detainees are being given adequate rights - and the question is whether they are - then is there a justification for not simply prosecuting them in the courts? The articles I've read don't make it terribly clear why they can't be prosecuted in the federal court system. Though, perhaps the reason is buried in this NYT article.And in a clear rebuke to Mr. Obama, Democratic leaders refused to include $80 million the White House had sought for closing Guantánamo. Senate Democrats also said the administration must provide a plan for relocating more than 200 detainees still held at the prison. The Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its version of the military spending bill Thursday with the $80 million but banned the transfer of detainees to the United States.It appears we're having a case of "terrorist NIMBY." Let's prosecute them all, even if they're just innocent farmers, and lock 'em up forever, damn it! But not in my backyard, thank you very much. It seems Republicans and Democrats in Congress are afraid of having any of these terrah-ists shipped to prisons in their own states. Which means, of course, they'll all be shipped to DC, since we don't have any real representation in Congress. Of course, the joke then would be that every single member of Congress who didn't want these guys in their own backyard would in fact have them in their own backyard, in DC.
No comments:
Post a Comment