More Egg on the Face of Pelosi and Democrats
BY: NCViking
Who knew what and when did they know it? This seems to be a running theme in Congress these days when it comes to controversial issues. Now Democrats are in power and the left wants them to prosecute the sins of the Bush Administration. The problem is what sins, who knew about them and when did they know?
Over the Bush years most on the left and Democrats had an extraordinary ability to paint the Administration using the broad stokes and dark colors of evil, dastardliness, ineptitude and failure. They were so effective that even average center Americans were fed up and the media played right along. Masterful. Now that evil has been vanquished and ‘The One’ and his righteous flock are in power, a problem is rearing its ugly head – most of that picture painted was untrue.
Here is a big example that permeated the country’s vernacular:
Bush lied, people died! The Bush administration corrupted intelligence on WMD’s in order to go to war for the benefit of bloodthirsty Neocons and access to Iraq’s oil. Uh … no. Everyone seems to forget that Bush Sr. and Bubba Clinton left an unfinished war with a dangerous, smoldering powder keg for Bush Jr. to clean up. Also, nobody arguing against an Iraq War ever illustrated a viable alternative to it. Leave a madman in power with UN administrators on the take? Then release sanctions on him since he supposedly had no WMD’s? Yikes! Also most in Congress saw the same intelligence that the Bush Administration saw and came to the exact same conclusion. When this fact is brought to light it is egg on the faces of the many Democrat politicians who later promoted the ‘Bush lied, people died!’ message (see video). Funny how there were no prosecutions for supposedly lying us into war. Go figure.
Now the latest one:
Bush and Cheney tortured and should be prosecuted as war criminals! The Bush administration systematically brutalized prisoners in that dark, illegal torture chamber known as Gitmo. This is a newer one that is currently haunting Speaker Pelosi who has been leading the charge on this accusation. Problem is that it isn’t true. Pelosi knew about the techniques and said nothing. Congress was informed and did nothing. Water-boarding is harsh but it being torture is debatable. Navy pilots go through it as conditioning, yet the Japanese were hung for it, but Congress wasn’t too concerned with it in this case. Also, let’s not forget that the Red Cross has had access to Gitmo, it has been deemed in compliance with The Geneva Convention, prisoners there were non-uniformed soldiers in an unprecedented war, on and on. Even Obama is continuing Bush policies on Gitmo and detention, the war in Iraq and even escalating the war in Afghanistan knowing full well that not doing so would leave Americans at great risk. Only when it was politically expedient did politicians cook up this rhetoric and now they have egg on their faces – again.
From WaPo:
For the first time, Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged that in 2003 she was informed by an aide that the CIA had told others in Congress that officials had used waterboarding during interrogations. But she insisted, contrary to CIA accounts, that she was not told about waterboarding during a September 2002 briefing by agency officials. Asked whether she was accusing the CIA of lying, she replied, “Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States.”
ad_iconWashington now is engaged in a battle royal of finger-pointing, second-guessing and self-defense, all over techniques President Obama banned in the first days of his administration. Both sides in this debate believe they have something to prove — and gain — by keeping the fight alive.
Both sides have champions and villains. Pelosi has become a lightning rod for criticism from conservatives, and a hero to the left, much as former vice president Richard B. Cheney has become a target of the left and the darling of many on the right.
The Bush Administration had to make hard decisions in the face of the gravest threat to our homeland in its history, all in order to keep us safe, and they did a very good job of doing so. Congress primarily went along with the program, right or wrong, and should share in its success and failures. Either own up to it or learn how to duck those eggs.
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
Former Sen Bob Graham agrees with Pelosi, http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/senator-bob-graham-the-cia-made-up-two-briefing-sessions/, so maybe not the greatest meltdown of historical proportions.
Don’t fall over yourselves over this just yet, Obama will imposed hegemony in the ranks soon enough.
She knew about it and neglected to object or speak out until it was politically advantageous. Oops. The point is there is a revisionist pattern amongst Democrats and reality is not living up to the evil rhetoric they’ve spun about the Bush years. W was certainly not perfect, but he also was certainly not the evil, dumb-chimp cretin the left and Democrats made him out to be. This reality is also making it increasingly difficult for Congress and Obama to yield the pitchforks of the far left. I am impressed that in some cases Obama has chosen reason over political pressure and correctness. This shows kahonies … something overly-abundant in W and lacking in Bubba C.
My debate with you is not going to be about what Pelosi knew and when. Whether she knew it and chose to be politically expedient or not is a subject of value only to the voters of her district.
You would like to have it that she is representative of the entire democratic party or of the entire left. She is neither. Nor is Obama. You tend to view everything through very polarized views: it’s either right or left. And to you anyone expounding even the smallest of conservative principles is good enough for you, or so it would seem from your posts. Witness: Bush and Romney. The latter has flipped flopped enough and barely has conservative values.
Bush is likely to go down in history next to Nuremberg. The entire case of whether torture is acceptable isn’t settled – no matter what Pelosi knew or when she knew it. If torture is so wonderful, explain these two stories
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html
Both stories relate to torture: the first from an FBI interrogator saying it doesn’t work; the second saying we captured and tortured at least one innocent person.
I doubt you feel that you will ever be the innocent person being tortured. But that history is with us; it happened under W; I hope it never happens again. I will be disappointed if it happens under O; O will lose a lot of votes if it continues under him.
Approving torture takes no cajones (it is definitely not spelled kahonies, but may be you guys in NC have something else in mind). W doesn’t come across as having any C’s in my book.
He sent an army to Iraq, and provided dreadful care when they came home. We pay the army crap, with a lot of them on food stamps. I don’t call that C at all. I call it shameful.
The bottom line is that those who aren’t in love with W still want (a) torture to stop, (b) Bush’s henchmen on a platter, and (c) they still will call W evil. The fascination with Pelosi is fleeting.
If Pelosi is going to be at the head of the lynch mob, she better make sure her hands are clean. And I find value as an American in what she does and says as she sets the legislative and political priorities for Congress.
You spend a great deal of your debates with me being presumptuous, especially since I praised Obama in my last comment. Also, left, right, center are commonly used terms to generally illustrate political and social positions and are in no means meant to be absolute.
I guess you are also presuming I believe torture is acceptable, I do not. I am surprised you forget this from my Conservative Principles post. This particular post is about Pelosi and hypocrisy. If we are to lynch Bush and Cheney for water-boarding, then let the heavens fall … that includes the ones involved and the accessories in Congress that knew about it, were briefed, and said and did nothing. Same with the Iraq War. If not, it is a partisan witch hunt – nothing more.
I said Obama had kahonies (a crude Urban Dictionary spelling, by the way) or cajones for not giving in to far left pressure and doing what is right. I will disregard your NC statement. I am not sure what your are implying so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was not an inappropriate insult. I take you for being better than that.
The NC comment was in jest.
I applaud and can agree with your stance that everyone involved with torture, from ordering it to covering it up needs to feel the heat of congress and the American public.
Given Pelosi’s district is more progressive than not, the heat she’ll receive will likely have to be from those in her district, unless democrats begin to feel she’s more a liability than an asset. Omaba may feel that way – we’ll have to see.
We process information differently. For me, I concentrate on the idea, it’s aims, and what effects it will have on the America people. Your posts rely heavily on “those on the left”, “dems”, and other large groups. I often doubt that who you mean on the left are the same people as who I would say are on the left. Your left may include my center.
I’ll admit that your opposition to torture did not come across in the Pelosi post, only that W will not be vilified as much by the left. There was faint (strong) praise for W, his actions, and his kahonies.
I had assumed that you were referring to his willingness to torture, but perhaps what you had meant was that he wasn’t politically expedient. He didn’t have to: his party had control of the legislature. Cajones would have been if he said “Damn yeah we are torturing them.” The actual history is that he stayed quiet (no cajones), and Cheeny denied torture (even less cajones).
Bush cajones were for his willingness to make and take hard and sometimes unpopular decisions/positions in the face of opposition, even within his own party. His stance on illegal immigration, the guts to clean up an Iraq mess his predecessors let smolder (and he paid for it with his legacy), stem cell funding ban, aggressive foreign policy stance, retooling the entire intelligence and security apparatus, pushing prescription drug benefits, being immediate and forceful after 9/11, cutting taxes, etc. Whether one agrees with what he did or not, he was a cowboy in the face of constant attack and rarely backed down. I think in some areas he was tremendous, some thoughtful, some out to lunch, some horrible. He was certainly not a dumb chimp nor was he evil – time continues to reveal this fact.
I am still undecided if Congressional prosecution or that of the Justice Department against a previous administration is good for the country. Politics would likely overwhelm and taint it, especially when nearly everyone in Congress on both sides went along. It also would create a harsh precedent that could stoke a cycle of retribution. Ford was right to pardon Nixon and allow the nation to heal just like Bush was right not to prosecute Clinton for perjury. Obama should probably put this to bed also … that would take some cajones.
This post best illustrates my position on the torture issue: http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=4070
The absolute minimum standard for a president is to avenge attacks on this soil. Bush met would have met this standard if when he attacked Afghanistan he would have stayed with it, even used special forces in Pakistan, to (a) capture Bin Laden, and (b) completely dismantle Al Qaeda.
He failed that minimum of standards.
Bush did not have to invade Iraq. There was never any intelligence linking AQ with Iraq or any intelligence that Iraq had WMD. Since Iraq was never a credible threat, Bush did not go there to “clean up an Iraq mess his predecessors let smolder.” Iraq was at the end of Clinton’s years the same as it was at the beginning. If it was anything it was the smoldering wreck that Bush 41 left.
To me, that kind of stretch is revisionist history.
Bush accomplished nothing with his “aggressive foreign policy stance” and created another completely underfunded entitlement program pushing “prescription drug benefits.” The quoted items are taken from your post.
I think you understand but don’t wish to admit the huge debacle that is “cutting taxes.” Let’s start with the premise which you and I can both agree to: cut taxes and it will pump the economy. What Bush did was cut taxes but did not cut expenses. This drove up the deficit, which amounts to generational theft. It is generational theft because you yourself are unwilling to pay back the money borrowed. You yourself will either force a dem to raise taxes (and then complain) or force the next generation to pay it back.
The tax reduction did not create sufficient tax revenues to balance the budget in any year. In fact it pretty much killed the tax reduction/revenue enhancer theory.
As for stem cell funding, there is an important difference that should highlighted for the general public. Funding for embryonic stem cells (there are many other kinds). Bush would have made significantly more progress had he passed a stringent ban on medical research on cloning and other types of development.
I don’t think Bush received any harsher treatment than Obama or Clinton is now receiving, or has received in the past. Bush isn’t crying about it and neither should you. The political debate arena requires a tough skin.
Bush showed some unusual inability to read or work his own party or his opponents: immigration and social security come to mind.
He did “retooling the entire intelligence and security apparatus.” It was a response warranted by the 9/11 attacks. The US has always been focused on a two-war strategy: Russia and China presumably. The current threat are rogue agents like AQ. He gets points for that.
We’ll see whether he’ll get much positive credit in the future.
Easier said than done, as Obama is finding out.
Hardly revisionist history.
As I had stated, Bush Sr. and Clinton left the smoldering powder keg. Bush Sr. didn’t finish the job and Clinton threw cinders on it by his apathy and an occasional bombing of the no fly zone. Saddam kicked weapons inspectors out in 1998 and Clinton and the UN did nothing. All intelligence reports from the time indicated he had WMD, corroborated from Russian, British and other sources. This is a credible threat. It would have been reckless for Bush and Congress to ignore it. If something would have happened in the face of this, especially right after 9/11, it would have cost them all their careers and maybe more. It wasn’t until after the invasion that it was revealed that the world was deliberately duped. Bush could have left it alone, ignored the intelligence at the time and let the UN lift sanctions and hope for the best. Hindsight is 20/20; yet even after knowing the WMD deception, doing nothing was not a viable option.
Bush had always underplayed the al Qaeda-Iraq connection, contrary to the picture painted by his political foes. Small connections were indeed found and Saddam frequently took care of the families of Palestinian terrorists. Were they in all-out cahoots? No. Could they have grown a nice Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran-like relationship? Certainly. Meetings with high-ranking al Qaeda officials show it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility.
Agreed. I am not on board with Obama’s polar opposite approach either.
Agreed. Revenues went up but not at the pace of spending. Hard choices on spending must be made and Obama hyper-charging Bush’s spending habits makes things much worse.
He asked for it.
I don’t agree. I post frequently on the inequity in the press and media, which has a tremendous influence over Americans.
Agreed.
This conversation has been useful and I find it refreshing that we agree on most points.
On Obama’s current approach re international relations, it remains to be seen what his good will approach will yield. I don’t expect that they will all want to join a coalition-of-the-willing if for example we had to invade DRNK, or to make major concessions. China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, will always be problems for now.
On the other hand, I think O’s approach removes the we-hate-America-bullying. It makes it more patible for politicians in several countries to support America because their population support America.
We’ll see how that plays out. It still makes it entirely possible for the French Foreign Minister to walk out on America at the UN, or other similar gesture. I don’t expect any miracles.
Russia is playing hard ball on Europe, Iran, DRNK, and the best alternative is to find something the US could do to absolutely cause Russia to want to work with America. For example, a pipeline through Turkey. That would scare them.
As for the inequities of the press, it is often stated but never proven. It is a point of conservatives that they either feel or expound the belief that they are somewhere between victims and less than well represented in the media.
But it is not proven. I can be, but conservatives don’t want to.
For conservative bias all you need to do is look at FOX news and the Wall Street Journal. There are both conservative and liberal media watch groups. Often cited are Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation (the parent of FOX News). Former FOX News producer Charlie Reina notes that unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, FOX News’s editorial policy is set from the top down, stating that “The roots of FOX News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered.”
Eric Alterman wrote a book on conservative bias in the media called What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News. Also, Jim Hightower’s There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos and, of course David Brock’s The Republican Noise Machine. Of course, Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, exposes a section of right-wing media that seeks to promote a conservative ideology rather than report the news.
Conservatives will argue that anything that does not quash choice (as in abortion) is liberal-bias. There are odd conservatives who will argue that NPR is left leaning. From my pint of view, NPR is down the middle. So do most independent researchers.
Show me a real example of media bias and we can analyze it.
First, media bias needs to be separated into two groups – mainstream media journalism and opinion/analysts. It is well known that Olbermann, O’Reilly, Hannity, Maddow all do shows with biased content. This is OK because of the entertainment and analysis nature of their programming, that is until it steps over the line, then it should always be called out.
Many journalists reporting the news for traditional mainstream outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, USA Today, etc. slant heavily to the left in their reporting and have taken it upon themselves to be advocates of an ideology instead of simply reporting on events. I give continual analysis of it here at TGI, from a CNN reporter slanting coverage on the Tea Parties, to the WPC treatment of one president to the next and on. It’s so bad that there is a non-profit watchdog group specifically monitoring the systemic problem, The Media Research Center. Browse through this site to see tons of examples of the problem and admissions of bias.
I have seen programs like “Out Foxed!” and read analysis of some of the books you list. Editors always set the news agenda and it is clear ones at Fox slant conservative while all others slant liberal. Murdoch has his say just like Immelt does at NBC – the unfortunate nature of media deregulation. Fox is no better than the others but it is also a very lonely port in the media ocean, though dominant (ratings) on cable news. I tune in on occasion and find most programming very right-biased but reporting largely unbiased. Just watch Shepard Smith (a liberal) who does pretty much the only news reporting show on there anymore. Special Report is by far the best show, Gretta and Huckabee are the worst IMHO.
I have listened to NPR almost every day for the last 15 years and agree for the most part NPR reports the news untainted. There has been occasions where a reporter’s liberal bias rears its ugly head, like in the case of Cokie Roberts in 2000. She was reporting from the Democrat National Convention and made a statement in her question to Al Gore in the effect of “… what is your strategy going forward, knowing that you are clearly the more qualified candidate for president?” It still sticks in my memory because it was so blatant. Whether or not one is more qualified for president or not is a subject for analysis, not a supposed truism to set up questioning. Otherwise, NPR is pretty good about just reporting the news and it certainly isn’t systemic. I also get news from the BBC, which pretty much does a good job.
Americans are grossly underserved by our news outlets. Most rely too heavily on AP or UPI for headlines or articles, have anemic journalism and have abandoned it internationally all together. I rant about it in more detail in this post. One needs to look no further than Iraq War coverage for proof. During the Vietnam War, journalists were everywhere digging, investigating and reporting. Iraq? Conspicuously absent. It often frustrated me to no ends when the WPC and reporters would get furious with the administration for spinning reports or not giving enough information. Of course the administration is going to be selective and sugar-coat the government’s efforts, when have they not? This is what ‘Freedom of the Press’ is for – getting the truth. The press had gotten furious because they relied too heavily on the government to do the journalism for them. Very few reporters were on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan digging and investigating to get the truth. Easier just to run the casualty number. Terrorists and insurgent groups there are certainly no more dangerous than the brutal, shadowy Vietcong! And while traveling overseas, the foreign news outlets had lots of boots on the ground in Iraq and were giving many reports not carried here. It was mind boggling that a Ukrainian could know more about what was happening in Iraq than me.
There are several non-profit watchdog groups. The Media Research Center is so blatantly right-wing that it does not pretend to be anything else. It has as bold letters on its masthead, “The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Bias in the Media.” That’s hardly a reliable source in an argument.
Other media bias monitors (and they don’t all agree it’s just liberal or conservative bias) are: fair, Media Matters, and Center for Media and Democracy.
The right course of action is to look at all four of these watch groups. I certainly would not just listen to one. To believe one you would be purposefully filtering analysis to just whatever you wanted to hear. They all may not agree, but the wider range of analysis provides a wider point of view.
You and I agree on NPR. Most people can read and filter comments such as the example you gave by Cookie Roberts. Too much of that can raise as much a backlash as not, so it is a mixed bag.
I also agree that “One needs to look no further than Iraq War coverage for proof. During the Vietnam War, journalists were everywhere digging, investigating and reporting. Iraq? Conspicuously absent.”
This was a decision to embed reporters. Iraq is not Vietnam and reporters don’t have relatively free zones where they could walk and talk. It has seriously affected independent reporting that could have made for a more responsive administration.
My intent was to provide a reference of one specifically focused on ‘liberal’ bias in the media as discussed.
The embedding program provided optional access and protection and most journalists have praised it. Reporters are free to go were they need generally unrestricted but choose not to as they claim it to be too dangerous. Here is an article about a journalist survey regarding reporting from Iraq. Looking past the typical pats on the back, you see fear … but that has never stopped them in the past. Here is a quote from a 2008 NYT article … “CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.” Incredible! Maybe journalist fear coupled with corporate media organization cost-cutting or apathy has lead to this, I am unsure. Maybe they are there and the stories aren’t being run, like what is stated in the NYT article. Either way, what I am sure about is that we are being grossly underserved.
The business model for all media is under significant pressure if not in outright free fall. Theoretically you should be able to transition advertiser supported media to the web. The reality is that no one will spend $500k for an ad on the web, certainly not to show on Fox or on CBS.
This is the free market effect. At a time when communication across the globe costs no more than calling your neighbor, the diffusion of attention has eroded the price base that all media relies upon, print, broadcast or net.
Market consolidation will invariably eventually restore ad revenue base to some. Of the broadcasters that can survive the longest, count FOX and CNN (cable fees).
Trackbacks
The Strident Conservative
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 32 minutes, 7 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags