Throughout much of 2007, I defended Nancy Pelosi at a time when the left had decided to make her the object of one of their Orwellian hate campaigns. In 2008, I finally turned against her after she embraced Obama. The prog attitude toward Pelosi at that time was dichotomous: Some believed that the Lightbringer's magic had healed whatever it was that had made her so detestable, while others continued to loathe her while loving Him.
Now she is embroiled in a scandal which I consider ludicrous. Much of the country is asking "How dare she impugn the integrity of the CIA?" -- as though the Agency's word automatically trumps hers. Keep in mind that we are talking about the CIA of George Tenet.
For what it's worth, I suspect that a CIA briefing made a somewhat vague reference to waterboarding, without defining the term. It's possible to whisper a difficult truth just loud enough to get it on the record, but not so loud as to garner attention.
How things have changed! Back in the late 1970s, if Tip O'Neill and the Agency had offered conflicting views of what-happened-when, most Democrats would have backed Tip without question, and never mind the facts of the matter. Of course, Tip was a canny political animal who never would have allowed a "scandal" of this sort to last more than a couple of news cycles.
At any rate, Minority Leader John Boehner has some interesting observations.
In a Monday morning interview on Fox News, Boehner not only repeated his demand for an investigation but also suggested that a memo from newly-appointed CIA Director Leon Panetta defending his agency against Pelosi’s charges had “probably” been authorized by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual.
“It’s pretty hard for most of these agencies to make such a public statement without the White House providing some kind of a blessing,” Boehner stated. “I don’t know that the President was involved in that decision. But, typically, before some agency would make some announcement like that, the White House would sign off. Especially, when it was a letter as hard-hitting as it was and a rebuke to the Speaker of the House.”Okay, consider the sources: Boehner and Kristol are creeps, and Kristol has a particularly poor record as a prophet. But their logic, in this instance, has a certain persuasive quality.
Although Boehner did not expand on his suggestion of White House involvement, he appeared to be echoing a Sunday opinion piece by Washington Post columnist William Kristol speculating that the White House may be deliberately trying to either weaken Pelosi or force her out as Speaker.
Kristol — whose speculations have at times misfired in the past — wrote, “Does Emanuel (and, presumably, President Obama) want a chastened Pelosi to remain speaker? Or are they following the model of the Bush White House in December 2002. Then, Karl Rove, on behalf of the president, played a behind-the-scenes role in nudging out Majority Leader Trent Lott — a legislator for whom the White House had little respect, but who had his own power base in Congress, so wasn’t easy for the White House to control? Are Emanuel and Obama happy to be deal in the future with a weakened Pelosi? Or do they want a new speaker, presumably Steny Hoyer?”
Why would the Obama White House want to can Nancy? This squib in Roll Call (which comes to us by way of DCBlogger at Corrente) offers one very troubling motive:
The White House quietly sought to get the ball rolling on overhauling Social Security earlier this year, but it either abandoned or significantly downgraded the process under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and outside liberal interest groups, according to sources familiar with the stalled effort.I still don't trust Nancy Pelosi. But I have an even deeper mistrust of Barack Obama's intended "reform" of Social Security.
Blue Lyon (quoting from an unnamed "friend") offers a series of related musings:
It is within the realm of possibilities (certainties?) that Emanuel engineered the selective release of the memos to distract away from the president, and place it all on Pelosi and other Dem members of both houses for their complicity under Bush 43. Call it a culling the heard (sic), something we also told you last year that Team Obama wanted very much to do. Remember that Obama hates conflict which is why he changes his mind so often.I'm not sure that BL's friend has offered a coherent narrative. Why would Team Obama tarnish both Harman and Pelosi?
They all knew of the Pelosi/Harman blood feud and had the patience to wait until the moment was right to capitalize on it.
Trust me on this, Emanuel is that smart, that bright, and that devious, and so is the president.
10 comments:
Only here could you find the worse of two evils and it not be Pelosi. Horrifying.
Check Bob Somerby his Monday post has a bit about Pelosi.
Remember the speculation was Pelosi wanted Obama over Hillary because she thought she could control him? Maybe this is push back on his part.
"Why would Team Obama tarnish both Harman and Pelosi?"
Perhaps they have too many X chromosomes for the Lightbringer's taste.
The word around the campfire is that Obama wouldn't mind taking out a rival power source. If Nancy's dumped, he can get his first choice for Speaker in there, and that Speaker will be indebted to him. As it is now, it is with Nancy's assistance that Obama won the nomination and it may be perceived that he is indebted to her.
I just think they're a bunch of creeps tearing away at each other.
I think Justin Raimondo, May 18, 2009, has a worthwhile take on the subject at hand here.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/17/the-tortuous-logic-of-nancy-pelosi/
The thing is, how many people are considering that this whole soap opera which we follow day to day is happening in the context of an accelerating worldwide systemic collapse of unimaginable ferocity? [I can't hear you--fingers in ears--Lalalalalalalalala...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3zZ6qNWeGw
That link is 10/21/08 PBS NEWS HOUR Interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, famous economist and author of "The Black Swan" and Dr. Mandelbrot, professor of Mathematics.
Simple, they're both women.
BO and Company must want a man they can trust - like Hoyer. Afterall, you know how disgusting we women are!
I think the CIA tricked her-I think a 4 year old could trick her though.
There were rumors even before Obama was elected that he wanted to get rid of Pelosi. She hardly fits his image.
It would make sense if Obama was trying to get rid of her. He has a mob mentality-he would want to either corrupt her or remove her-she is a true liberal and I dont think he could corrupt her basic belief system.
The interesting question then is what will she do if she feels threatened by him. She somehow has amassed a formidable power base.
If this does not work and she keeps her position...what's the expression-hell hath no fury...
Pelosi's problems here are (her lack of) presentation skills, and the tendency of public discourse to mishandle any level of nuance.
I see no contradictions to her statements in this alleged dispute, if things parse out the way I think they are being parsed.
In the early briefing, she says she was told about waterboarding having been determined as legal (whether by the OLC, not sure), but not that it was either going to be, or had already been, used in the field.
It had already been used, so it was technically accurate, but possibly wholly misleading, to say she was briefed on the procedure that had been used on KSM (or whomever). The trick is how you interpret that clause.
This is weasel wording, IMO. They did not say that NP had been briefed that the procedure had been used , but instead are giving that impression without actually saying it. If they COULD have said that, I believe they WOULD have said it, plainly.
Instead, they are hiding behind the clause's several potential meanings, implying it means one version when it is only truly accurate in another version.
I take their formulation to be shorthand for 'she was briefed on a procedure (that as jas later been revealed) had (already) been used (but we didnt' mention that part).'
The later briefing that did, by all accounts, reveal its prior use, was not to Pelosi herself, but her aide, who told her some or all of it, perhaps in violation of classification and secrecy laws. (But again, this wasn't a briefing to her.) If this exegesis is true, and I believe it most likely is, Pelosi has been accurate and consistent, although showing shaky presentation skills under such pressure.
So there is a linguistic confusion that is in the interests of many to ignore, for the variety of purposes in play on the various sides.
If there is any question of whether the CIA may mislead Congress, revisit the scathing comments of Uberconservative Saint Sen. Barry Goldwater as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor.
He blasted the agency, and called for the resignation of DCI Bill Casey over the lies told him.
XI
Joe, I didn't publish my friend's entire email. The tarnish was purely for Pelosi. I will forward the entire email so you can see it in context. I excerpted parts of it for my reaction, but there is much, much more.
Why would the Obama White House want to can Nancy? This squib in Roll Call (which comes to us by way of DCBlogger at Corrente) offers one very troubling motive:
The White House quietly sought to get the ball rolling on overhauling Social Security earlier this year, but it either abandoned or significantly downgraded the process under pressure from Speaker Nancy PelosiClearly, this is it. I was going to say this before you did.
Post a Comment