Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Pelosi and Dem Leaders Complicit in Bush's Torture Policy?

By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan L. Smith, AlterNet. Posted December 11, 2007.


Have Congressional Dems known of Bush's waterboarding and rendition policies since 2002?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What did Congressional Democrats know, and when did they know it?

Is it possible that many Democratic leaders have been informed by the Bush administration over the years about its doubtfully legal activities?

If so, are they therefore complicit in the Bush administration's lawlessness?

It's just been disclosed that Representative Jane Harmon and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were briefed by the Bush administration on the use of waterboarding. Harmon objected but Pelosi did not -- and when she became speaker of the house, she rejected Harmon for chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Administration has frequently responded to charges of Executive usurpation by saying the Congressional leaders were fully briefed on such questionable practices as NSA surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques.

And evidence is mounting that they were. According to the Washington Post, since 2002 leading Democrats lawmakers received "about 30 private CIA briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding, overseas rendition sites, "and other harsh interrogation methods." Officials present at some of the meetings, told the Post that the reaction from legislators "was not just approval, but encouragement."

If so, it would answer one of the great mysteries of 2007. The Democrats, once in control of Congress, had the courage to pursue cutoff of funds for the Iraq war, even though the Bush administration was happy to take advantage of their effort by characterizing it as failure to support the troops. The obvious companion strategy would have been to conduct intensive investigations to show that the entire Bush project has been to subvert law and Constitutional government in the interests of aggrandizing power nationally and internationally.

But Congressional Democrats have systematically avoided serious investigation of Bush administration lawlessness, and so far have retreated from using the power of contempt when the Bush officials have refused to respond to subpoenas.

Could this be because some Democratic leaders in effect colluded in Bush administration crimes -- knew about them but failed to report them?

Senator Joseph Biden has just called for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the destruction of the terror tapes. But Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, opposes this, telling the Associated Press, "I don't think there's a need for a special counsel, and I don't think there's a need for a special commission. It is the job of the intelligence committees to do that."

But if Congressional Democrats may be complicit in the Bush administration's crimes, isn't this a proposal that Rockefeller and his fellow members of Congress be allowed to investigate themselves?

The same logic applies to other cases of Bush administration lawlessness. According to Seymour Hersh, for example, the NIE report on Iran has been suppressed for months by Dick Cheney. It's hard to believe that Democratic Congressional leaders didn't know about it. Did they ask to be briefed on it? Were they briefed on it? Did they know that the intellegence community disavowed Bush's falsehoods about Iran? If so, what did they do about it? If they knew and did nothing, what is their level of complicity?

The only way for Congressional Democrats to clear themselves from the suspicion of complicity in Bush administration crimes is to appoint a special prosecutor, empowered to investigate not only the destruction of the torture tapes, but also other government crimes and efforts to conceal those crimes. Otherwise, their "investigations" may appear to be little more than another layer of cover-up.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: congress, bush, torture, white house, nancy pelosi, waterboarding, jane harman

Jeremy Brecher is a historian and co-editor with Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler of "In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond" (Metropolitan/Holt) and is a co-founder of WarCrimesWatch.org. Brendan Smith is a legal analyst and currently co-director of Global Labor Strategies and UCLA Law School's Globalization and Labor Standards Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The War Party Investigate Itself ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 11, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we have seen from Pelosi and other War Party Democrats is nothing short of obstruction of justice , and now we know why, they are complicit in the heinous acts that shamed and continue to shame our country.The sewage gets deeper and we wonder ; Is there a bottom to this cesspool and how , in Gods name, can we get out and clense the stench ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time for a General Third Party? Posted by: edgar_michel
Absolutely...up to their necks in complicity.
Posted by: nzo on Dec 11, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you think they are so reluctant to impeach?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time for Kucinich to take a definitive stand for peace and justice
Posted by: Rune on Dec 11, 2007 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dennis Kucinich has gotten a lot of mileage out of his bill to impeach Cheney (which seemed doomed to fail until the Republicans kept it alive against Pelosi's will) and calling an illegal war and occupation what it is. However, he has yet to risk anything of his own--like his status as a member of the majority party--in his push for peace and justice. Now is the time.

If Kucinich is serious about standing apart from crime and corruption in Washington, I think he must issue an ultimatum to his fellow Democrats in the House: either they dump Pelosi as Speaker and censure her for colluding with Bush to institutionalize crimes against humanity as a national policy or he will quit the party himself and run for president as an independent. If he does it, he has my vote. If not, I can't take his rhetoric about his commitment to the Constitution, rule of law, stopping the war, holding Bush and Cheney accountable, etc., seriously.

So, come on, Dennis. I would love to vote for you, but I refuse to vote for anyone who identifies with any party that, as a whole, endorses the greater crimes and misdeeds of the Bush administration, wagging fingers and jeers from a few backbenchers not withstanding. If you are not one of them, now is the time to make that clear and do something that might really help to turn the country--or at least the Congress--around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I absolutely agree, but.... Posted by: RickHarlan
» RE: Al Gore / Bill Moyers Posted by: edgar_michel
» to briefly finish my thoughts. Posted by: RickHarlan
» Kucinich Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: to briefly finish my thoughts. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: to briefly finish my thoughts. Posted by: edgar_michel
Let me catapult this propaganda
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 11, 2007 2:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may take a wide stance on the Democrats because they are the "opposition party", but they show me very little these days. From their complicity in boy emperor's constitutional overreach to impeachment being off the table to how easy it was to cow them into supporting the war, the 'Patriot' Act, etc. Their leadership leaves something to be desired, and they would do well to jettison Pelosi and Reid for new blood that can rally the forces of their party and the American people behind sane policies. Lately, their actions have been just short of treasonous, and I see why they've never met an election they can't lose. Can you say President Huckabee? Their candidates are lame, their tacit endorsement of Bu$hCo's 'unitary executive' is scary, and they don't fool me with their rhetoric. They had better get it together soon, but I'm not holding my breath. 4 more years of this type of republicanism would destroy this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same difference
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 11, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What they knew and when they knew it is irrelevant.

Even if they weren't actively complicit, it happened on their watch, and they're doing nothing about it, as usual. That's why they should all be locked up in the same cage with Bush & Co. How else are they going to learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same difference Posted by: John Wilbur
» RE: Same difference Posted by: donnee
If this is true
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Dec 11, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will the "Hangin tree" carry all that weight??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If this is true Posted by: VZEQICVA
a familiar tactic--when you're going to do something wrong, involve your opposition
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 11, 2007 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly works in the UK.

When my local Liberal Democrat council wanted to avoid having the required public consultation for a very unpopular project (putting homeless people in tiny rooms inside a traffic bridge support) proposed by a very unpopular local multi-millionaire, they had an unminuted meeting (ever heard of the Chatham House Rule?) and involved a Labour councillor. This meant that no Labour councillor wanted to challenge the wrongdoing by the LibDems.

Guess what? People plot and scheme all the time. Sometimes it for a good purpose (the American Revolution), but very often it's not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nap Time
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 11, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article - something I've argued for some time.. Pelosi couldn't clean the cesspool because she is in it. How anyone could have missed the political nonsense in the last election is beyond me. With all the BS flying around it was obvious the dems were just concerned with regaining that 51%, and committee chairs and not with any real reform or change... as usual. The result, the worst congress we have ever had!

But why should anyone be surprised, it's the way that party has always acted - big on talk, weak on action! Could it be because their "ideas" really do not translate well into reality!

Seems they fell asleep after the first 100 hours!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zog identified by the snake eating its own tail. by: Keith Richard Radford Jr.
Posted by: KeithRichardRadfordJr on Dec 11, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American war machine wants to eradicate the Tirol's in Afghanistan Pakistan and other stans while making a stand against drugs. These tribesmen farming there lands for thousands of years and given their historic relationship with wine one can understand their aversion to ripping out poppy's to grow grapes. The Grendel's of our own making are not ours to command by not honoring their humanity. Assigning fate to a class, race, ethnic, posture of mankind is no different than the fight taken up by the haters of Zog identified by the snake eating its own tail. while the world is reduced to the Genna 6 playground of men. As long as there is a son to stand the inhumanity of mans story will be told. and the greedy will be exposed for their inability to justly get along in peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a SPINELESS party
Posted by: xvictor on Dec 11, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I strongly hope for a congressional Democrat majority seated after the next election, I want most of the Dem incumbents to be thrown out and replaced with those more attuned the people of the United States. Ron Paul types would be nice.

Wishful thinking? Yes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a SPINELESS party Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part One
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 11, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.


Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.



http://chlamor-deepintheheartofnowhere.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part Two
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 11, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.


Can Progressives "Take Over" the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to "take over" the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly "taken over" by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid '60's, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.

But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.



http://chlamor-deepintheheartofnowhere.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part Three
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 11, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word "progressive" refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight's name -- "class warfare." Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, "By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!" This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly "make all boats rise" over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth -- and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

http://chlamor-deepintheheartofnowhere.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelievable
Posted by: Wacre on Dec 11, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And people wonder why it is that so many are apathetic. A more accurate question would be why would you not be apathetic when you learn that not only does the United States government torture, but the so-called opposition party knew about it–assuming that what seems to be coming out in the press about Democrats being informed is accurate–and just went along to get along.

This is peripherally connected to why I cannot ever vote for Hillary Clinton, or any candidate like her. Those that have grown accustomed to influence and riches haunt the haunt the corridors of power like unexorcised ghosts.

They're nothing more than agents of the status-quo. And the status-quo isn't doing that well; for most of us, at any rate.

If this story happens to be true, the Democrats will pay for this–as will the Republicans. I am not sure how, but if there's any Justice (and I sometimes like to humor myself that there is) they will pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: donnee
» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: Wacre
What do you expect?
Posted by: ReidPelosiFatwa on Dec 11, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals are so intellectually dishonest. Now we find out most of your own are in on the “waterboarding revelry” oops…now what. Liberals have no guts or the stomach to admit what is facing us in this country. Those in the know hide behind the veil of secret briefings but emerge and claim ignorance of what’s going on. Mark my words, this so-called investigation will lead nowhere because they all are in on it. They emerge and mouth platitudes to their moveonalong.org lemmings. On another note, please someone tell Ted “the swimmer” Kennedy never ever bring up any topic remotely associated to waterboarding. How delusional can that bloated drinker be? Ah! Almost forgot, he is a liberal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: donnee
» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: ReidPelosiFatwa
Palosi
Posted by: alternetrose on Dec 11, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi has singlehandedly done more to diminish the illusion of the two-party system, of which we pretend that we live within. The 'exposure' of this latest masquerade MUST lead to change in the leadership on both sides of the fence.

WE are so close to turning a corner in our country's history, a corner from which it will be very difficult to come back around from, to find the right direction again, unless we - the people - demand that our government is responsible and honest.

Today's government is no longer that of Republicans and Democrats. The "one" party that has taken over is representative of neither! The gang in Washington is a free-wheeling corrupt - drug, sex, and monied power-machine. The only party in town is theirs, and it does not reflect or resemble a government structured by our Constitution. It is not representative of either Republican or Democrat ideals. Bush & Co. has changed the playing field; rewritten the rules of the game! Their bullying, manipulation, scheming, underhandedness, their threats of blackmail, 'castigation' and payback keep Congress, even heads of other countries in line.

Our responsibility is to wake up and support those who want to clean up our government: Independent, Green, Republican, or Democrat. I believe that the best candidate, who courageously wants to tackle the hard chore of bringing integrity back into our government is Dennis Kucinich. I will continue to hope that enough voters will join in his effort to do this for us, and will put their money where their ideals are... supporting and electing Kucinich our next President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They knew.
Posted by: ReidPelosiFatwa on Dec 11, 2007 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street Journal Tuesday Dec, 11 Page A26

Waterboarding: Congress Knew
After three days of screaming headlines about the CIA destroying videotapes in 2005 of the "harsh" interrogation of two terrorists, it now comes to light that in 2002 key members of Congress were fully briefed by the CIA about those interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. One member of that Congressional delegation was the future House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

The Washington Post on Sunday reported these series of briefings. While it is not our habit to promote the competition, readers should visit the Post's Web site and absorb this astonishing detail for themselves as reported by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen in ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zigo Mandelbaum
Posted by: Zigo Mandelbaum on Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sent the following letter to each of my so-called representatives in Congress, with nothing more than lame, generic responses at best -- and only after complaining about the lack of responses.

"Senator/Congressman - I have increasingly heard & seen references to the state of readiness within the military establishment and the intentions of the administration to attack Iran. Is it reasonable to imagine that this possibility concerns you & your office? I certainly hope that such an outrageous but utterly unsurprising act by the claque in and around the upper reaches of the administration is a matter of utmost concern to you. The prospect of such a war is horrifying. What is your stance in the matter?

As for impeachment of the President & Vice-President, all the parsing, nuancing & equivocating in the world serves to confirm the invertebrate nature of the Democratic Congress, as has been suggested. If, for no other reason, impeachment is not taken up with these two who have committed impeachable acts, then you and yours are establishing precedent for even more egregious misdeeds with future incumbents. The aversion to impeachment, when considered in the context of recent history, is ever more inexcusable.

As a registered democrat, I am weary of the onslaught of fund raising surveys sent in my direction. I don't need to be surveyed; I need to be persuaded that the party holds values by which it will act to counteract the relentless lying of the two-term oligarchy. Anything less than this suggests to me that you are members of the loyal opposition more interested in remaining in office and symbolically jousting than representing my concerns."

As each day's travesties unfold, I am convinced that the letter is all the more pointed in defining the reality of our trashed political process. This gives me no particular comfort, though. There seem to be no easy answers to the depth of corruption in Washington D.C., and I still see no organized efforts to undo the entrenchment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pelosi and too many of the Democrats are political opportunists,
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Dec 11, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I wish they were nothing more. With almost the first words out of Pelosi's mouth being, "Impeachment is off the table", there was only one interpretation other than complicity. She's not talking about a group of people who negotiate in good faith, who occasionally pass laws that are good for regular people, or anything of the sort. She's not talking about people who can be "worked with", which might then might make sense of not wanting to confuse the issues with a lot of partisan bickering that would never go anywhere.

She's talking about a would-be dictator who WILL not negotiate, who lies and falsifies anything necessary to get what he - and they - want - and let's go to the plural here. The neocons and their sycophants are also accused of torture so definite it should have already triggered impeachment proceedings, of repeated negation, ignoring and outright attempted destruction of the Constitution of the United States that should already have triggered impeachment proceedings; of bribery, blackmail, cronyism that has cost the next countless (literally, including global warming) generations of Americans perhaps their very existence in exchange for a few short-term profits and power. That latter exchange has also prompted other actions of theirs that include kidnapping, possible murder and assassination, including of American citizens guilty of nothing more than knowing and/or trying to tell the truth of the illegal actions of their own government (which is consonant with the oath many or most of them took in good faith)that should already have triggered impeachment proceedings.

Pelosi and her supporters are talking about an administration that has turned the very basis of American society and government on its head and demonstrably is attempting to destroy the representative republic America was designed to be in favor of a Calvinist-derived aristocratic, murderous, fascist dictatorship based on fear, violence, thievery, war by choice and environmental destruction in a time of ecological crisis that may well threaten ALL species, including our own. She is talking about a truly criminal administration. I would describe it as not just criminal, but criminally insane on a scale that makes the Nazis look like slightly annoying neighbors. The true list of their KNOWN crimes is far too long for this comment.

Either Pelosi and her supporters are almost literally too stupid to breathe and walk at the same time, or they are complicit. I see no alternative whatsoever.

And "impeachment is off the table". That is complicity. Again, there simply IS no other word.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Torturing a Few Prisoners Has Created Thousands of Jihadists
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 11, 2007 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA fails to realize that the stories of USA state sanctioned torture have been flashed across the world. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the story is "they are torturing our brothers." They are desecrating the prophet and flushing holy books (Koran) down the toilet. What do you think this does? Let me tell you, even if torture extracted some small bit of information that prevented something, I doubt it could ever be worth the trade off. That being thousands of young men who read about USA "barbarity," even if the stories are exaggerated somewhat, it does not matter, and then they turn to radical Islam. At one point, there were so many of them that they literally had a "waiting list" of potential suicide bombers. By losing moral integrity and resorting to torture, to barbarism, the USA has only fed the fires of terrorism. And, it is just getting worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not a plan Posted by: Jbuuty
One party state
Posted by: Jbuuty on Dec 12, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember watching Chomsky interviewed by Bill Moyer many years ago. He said that the USA has a one party system with two factions of that same party. That is what it is; a corporate political party with two factions. One is terribly evil and the other only moderately so!

I can foresee the American political scene entering upon a new era with an imperialist faction and an anti-imperialist one. In this set up a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican may have a lot more in common than anti-imperialists and imperialists of varying degrees of liberalness and conservatism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I tried...
Posted by: victoria794 on Dec 12, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to send Ms. Pelosi an e-mail re: funding Bush's War. It was returned unread w/the explanation that she only read mail from her constituents. Her constituents??!! I thought she had accepted Speaker of the House! It really put me off. Why would she want to shield and isolate herself from the general population? It's such a Bush White House thing to do. Since then, I hold no hope for the Democratic Party, because it is evident that they are part of the problem and definitely not any part of the solution.

Now what? I don't want to vote for either party in the next election, but I want to be heard. I want to send a message. I want change, dammit!! We are at the crossroads and it's crucial that we get it right!!

Unfortunately, by that time, it will be too late to impeach Bush & Cheney... but it won't be too late for them to face the charges that they have earned and deserve - treason. That includes Pelosi and anyone else that was complicit in this horrible administration's greedy plots against it's own population and spanning the whole world. Hopefully, they will receive a fitting sentence - the firing squad!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I tried... Posted by: Lauren
Good grief, this is depressing....
Posted by: PaulC on Dec 12, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all guessed that it had to be something like this. The only difference now is that we can't pretend it is not or may not be happening - the benefit of doubt is out the window.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pelosi and Dem Leaders Complicit in Bush's Torture Policy?
Posted by: opeluboy on Dec 12, 2007 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a question we are supposed to take seriously, or was the writer asking it rhetorically?

The answer is, of course, yes.

But they have behaved more than complicitly: they have cheered it on. They have encouraged it. They have defended it.

But here's a question for you.

What if the people we were torturing were not Arabs or Muslims. Would they still support it?

What if they were Anglos? Christians?

What if they were Jews?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think I know what needs to be done
Posted by: PaulC on Dec 12, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, I'm past the shock stage, the grieving stage and have arrived at the action stage.

As progressives we apparently have gotten ahead of ourselves trying to clean the nation's house by going after Bush/Cheney/Satan et al. How can we do that when our own house is in disorder? That is the problem we are facing here. Conversely, if we go after Pelosi that will be much more within our grasp as WE are HER base!! If we take her down that will send a very strong message, don't you suppose? And it will impress independents that we have that kind of integrity - it would be HUGE, absolutely HUGE - and the press would put the things she did wrong FRONT AND CENTER for weeks and weeks to come.

We need people with connections to begin organizing and pushing this nationwide, hard. Let's get Kucinich, who was just cut out of the Iowa debates and is probably pretty pissed about it, to put aside impeaching Benito Bush and instead declare war on Pelosi.

We have NOTHING TO LOSE - the public already smells rat and that is why this congress's ratings are ALREADY IN THE TOILET. On the other hand, if we do this it will show we have strength and we mean what we say. WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.


peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Optometrist is needed...
Posted by: talkville on Dec 13, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mere fact that individuals in Federal, State and Local governments operate under the general umbrella of the Democratic Party does not speak to their actual behaviors in such capacities. It is terribly dis-ingenuous, especially at the Federal level, to believe that just because an individual is a "Democrat" they are absolved and automatically on the side of democratic, open and just policies in government. J Harmon, a Democrat, has set H.R. 1955 in train to passage as Law of the Land. Feinstein and Schumer issued a pass to Mulkasey into the Justice Department. Wall Street knows no "party affiliation". If anything is true as a general rule, it is that the financial state of 'leaders' and individuals entering "public service" at the Federal level improves astronomically from the time the entered to the time they exit such positions -- regardless of party.

Within the Democratic Party, grass-roots, 'bottom-up' efforts are urgently needed to restore some semblance of principle which, at the Top seems only to be an after-thought if any thought at all. Key Democrats have failed miserably in very significant aspects of social, economic and political policy "up there". "Leaders" up there need to be held to account.

We do not need myopia these days; corrective lenses are urgently needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dem/Rep
Posted by: Amerikagulag on Dec 13, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those still believing there are actually 2 separate parties in the US, you'll continue to be disappointed by their actions.

One Party - Two faces.

what the country needs is a second party. Failing that, a revolution

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: STORMY78 on Dec 13, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS IS THE REAL REASON "IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE" IT'S CALLED BLACKMAIL, KARL ROVE STYLE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Read "The Function of the Dem Party...Parts I, II, III above
Posted by: mcartri on Dec 13, 2007 4:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chlamor's explanation for what the Democratic Party really is, was eye openly profound to me. I've been battling on progressive sites to stop using framing such as, Dems are "caving, spineless, out maneuvered or cowards". The Democrats love this framing because it gives them cover for what they really are-corporate owned down to their underwear. After reading Naomi Wolf's, "The End of America", and Chlamor's piece, I'm thinking global warming might make Canada more climate friendly for escaping Americans. When one border closes, another opens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]