# Why Pelosi? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484 "2009-05-15T02:09:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/41 "2009-05-15T18:12:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > While I do think there is value in elucidating what happened and how it happened I have absolutely no belief that a process of finding who to blame will serve the goal of preventing a next time. What’s to prevent a next time, then, other than the measures that did not prevent the first time? > [@](#): > > But right now we have a national body that is critically ill, with multiple systems near failure. Get past this crisis time first. All I’m saying is, when this crisis time passes, the events we’re discussing will be even further in the past and it will be that much more difficult to dredge them up. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/42 "2009-05-15T18:17:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The GOP is just sitting in the wings with a leaf blower laughing and fanning the flames. If they fan em too hard, they’ll likely get the investigation they don’t want, and we’ll end up with GOPers in jail. As I mentioned upthread, I’d happily trade Pelosi for that. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/43 "2009-05-15T18:20:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My impression is that only the committee chairman and ranking minority member were briefed. See e.g. [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/14/pelosi\_moves\_to\_the\_fore.html?wprss=44](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/14/pelosi_moves_to_the_fore.html?wprss=44) Pelosi has already, finally, admitted, in a convoluted manner, that she was made aware that waterboarding was occurring. She knew that her aide was briefed to that effect. As a result, all the rest is irrelevant diversion–i.e., she DID know that waterboarding occurred. It’s in your cite. Why her knowledge of this if the CIA briefed her is a major distinction from finding out from her aide defies explanation. She KNEW, contrary to her prior assertions and in contrast to her recent shock and outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/44 "2009-05-15T18:26:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > But to believe that, we must believe that Pelosi is a nice upstanding lady, rather than the Godless she-demon from homosexual California that we know she is. > Nope, that strategery doesn’t hold water, so the strategery must be to claim that one of the leaders of the democrat socialists supported torture. Don’t even know what this means. We needn’t believe anything except that Pelosi knew and didn’t make a peep about it, whether she’s a paragon of noble motives or Satan’s spawn. It merely makes apparent that her current moral outrage is hollow bullshit. If she believes something illegal occurred, she’s complicit. OTOH, if her inaction was harmless, then nothing illegal occurred (from her perspective). Them’s the choices, and I’m sure she’s choking on them. Her stammering tapdance now makes clear that the strategy has some legs. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/45 "2009-05-15T18:37:13Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I’d be willing to trade Pelosi’s position in the senate for Bush, Cheney and Condoleezza behind bars. Is that really what the pubbies want?, because it sure looks like that’s what they’re pushing. by same logic… If you want to put Bush in jail, you’d have to put Pelosi in the cell next to him for aiding and abetting the crime… ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/46 "2009-05-15T18:44:13Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > by same logic… > If you want to put Bush in jail, you’d have to put Pelosi in the cell next to him for aiding and abetting the crime… I don’t particularly care if Pelosi goes down over this, but you might want to check out the definition of “aiding and abetting.” Mere knowledge that a crime has taken place is not always enough to meet the legal definition (see, e.g., [this lectlaw article](http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a033.htm)). It is very possible that she is an accessory after the fact, but we’d have to know in detail what she did and what her actions were. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/47 "2009-05-15T18:45:10Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Don’t even know what this means. I am glad to hear that you have totally made it to your post-partisan era. However, anyone who believes that the Republicans as a whole have any post-partisan sympathy whatsoever for Nancy Pelosi is a fool who has not been paying attention to the news. She is the enemy, thus any logic, any lies are permissible so long as they lead to her destruction. Can you honestly claim the GOP’s motive is any better than that here? Have you any evidence for that position? I’ve sure not seen any. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/48 "2009-05-15T18:55:53Z")
An example of GOP good will: Some asshat who wasn’t even there when Pelosi was briefed said: > [@](#): > > “I think her accusations against our terror-fighters are irresponsible and, according to the CIA’s record, Speaker Pelosi was briefed on what had been done,” said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri. “It’s outrageous that a member of Congress would call our terror-fighters liars.” > > Bond said he reviewed the CIA’s material and it was clear that Pelosi had been informed about the harsh interrogation method, although Bond said he was not with Pelosi when the spy agency briefed her. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap\_on\_go\_co/us\_pelosi\_torture\_26](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture_26) “terror-fighters”??? Valerie Plame was a terror fighter. I don’t think the guys who tried to torture up some bogus evidence to justify our conquest of Iraq qualify as “terror fighters”. It’s becoming ever more obvious that a serious investigation/prosecution is needed if we’re ever to put this torture crap behind us. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/49 "2009-05-15T19:10:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > whoa there, insert a period or two next time. First off, it was the CIA, trained in interrogation techniques, and not untrained solders. The abu grab situation had nothing to do with codified procedures and was prosecuted as such just as any other war crime. Second, There were checks and balances in the interrogation techniques and they were spelled out in the briefings to Congress. Okay, agreed. A bit of a run-on. And I did conflate Abu Grab with officially sanctioned torture by experts. But both came from the same wellspring: a message from the top and approved of by much of America that going to the dark side was the right thing to do. Were there checks and balances spelled out in briefings to Congress? No, informing a very few muzzled members of what was being done while instructing the CIA to torture doesn’t quite qualify. Even if this trained staff of professional Inquisitors could always fall back on “just following orders” because other staff created distortions of the law. **Marley23** , focusing on the officially sanctioned torture/enhanced techniques, I’d suggest much greater required oversight (not mere informing a few muzzled Congresscritters of what you are doing) and clearer definitions of what is torture and what is allowable. Yes, I’d like to see Cheney punished. And many others. And I’d like to see those who could have spoken up effectiely but remained quiet slapped down (and maybe that does include Pelosi, maybe not, I don’t know). But I think it is a poor idea to expend much energy on that while we have more critically emergent issues to attend to. If that means that my need for justice is perhaps less well served at the end of the day but we have instead accomplished a healthcare reform package that works, made progress on dealing with global climate change, and stabilized some foreign policy hot spots instead, well, I can live with that. Which of those would _you_ sacrifice for punishing Cheney and others? Because I am convinced that several would wither if we spent the effort to pursue this as far as it really should go. Of course what I think doesn’t matter, but I am also convinced that Obama thinks that too. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/50 "2009-05-15T19:21:21Z")
Did she know? Probably, but when you get situations like this you need to examine the hypocrisy of it not the act itself. They are not debating whether it is right or wrong, they are debating whether someone who knows about something has a right to decry it later on. The fact is we all do stuff we know is wrong, it’s just a matter of degree. For instance, I worked at a hotel in the system department. The GM of the hotel would have me steal images from other websites and use them on our site. I pointed out very strongly this is wrong, illegal and could get us sued. He replied, “Mark that won’t happen, before we’re sued they send us a notice saying ‘Take down our stuff,’ and we will then.” OK he was right, the few times it happened other companies just send a cease and desist type of thing and it ends there. But it was STILL wrong. Was it wrong enough for me to quit my job over? No it wasn’t. I asked myself, can I live with this? I said, yes but the fact is it was wrong. If Pelosi KNEW this was going on she and she was AGAINST it and USED IT AGAINST her political opponents, she had a duty as an American to speak out against it. There are ways to call for an investigation without revealing too much. To decry this while she knew means she has a moral failing. We all have these, both Democrats and Republicans do. It’s a typical “glass house” thing. Kind of like in WWII the soldiers claim “I was just following orders.” Rules of war say you don’t follow orders that are just wrong. But if you don’t then you get killed (or whatever) so it’s a rock and a hard place type thing. I can’t stand ANY politican double dealing. If she knew she needs to be called out on it. Then the voters in her district will decide whether she’s worthy of retaining her seat in Congress. EVERY politican needs to be called out on things. This should happen MORE not less ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/51 "2009-05-15T20:22:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Okay, agreed. A bit of a run-on. And I did conflate Abu Grab with officially sanctioned torture by experts. But both came from the same wellspring: a message from the top and approved of by much of America that going to the dark side was the right thing to do. > > Were there checks and balances spelled out in briefings to Congress? No, informing a very few muzzled members of what was being done while instructing the CIA to torture doesn’t quite qualify. Even if this trained staff of professional Inquisitors could always fall back on “just following orders” because other staff created distortions of the law. The CIA was tasked with gaining information from our enemies and they were asked to draw a hard line in the sand as to the techniques used. To this end they codified (for Congress) where that line was. The purpose of the briefings was to ensure everyone was on the same page in the common goal of protecting our country. Now you can argue about the severity of the techniques used but they have a common theme and that is to trick someone into thinking harm will come to them. This is decidedly different than having body parts cut off and a host of other torture techniques used by our enemies. We will not gain any respect in this public display because we are heathens who will never be respected. In their eyes we are the great Satan to be destroyed regardless of the outcome. Nothing, and I mean nothing good will come of this. It’s political showboating for the personal gain of those engaging in it. At best, a public display of eating our own will play to our enemies at a time when countries like Pakistan are fighting them in the streets. It will not gain us any respect from Al Qaida and if anything it shows a weakness to them to be exploited. They are fighting an asymmetrical war where terrorism and civilian death is the weapon of choice. This is not a war of acquisition with the Queensburry rules posted at the gate. Our only tool in fighting them is the gathering of information. We are fighting people who live in caves and train people to walk in disguise among us until they can be turned into living weapons. This is an enemy that professes world conquest for the greater glory of Allah yet they are equally busy killing themselves in the misguided belief that THEIR version of Allah is the correct one. Instead of moving forward and declaring a desire not to use certain techniques we have turned on each other and the agency tasked with keeping us safe. We are certainly poisoning the well of the CIA if we expect them to continue their function without fear of being stabbed in the back in the future. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/52 "2009-05-15T20:46:00Z")
I would dispute your characterization of how and to what purpose information was presented and to whom. Again, informing a few muzzled by law Congresscritters of what you are doing is not oversight or making sure we are all on the same page. Torture is harm even if it leaves you with your body intact and if waterboarding is different than cutting off a finger it is only in that you can only cut off ten fingers whereas you can waterboard over and over again - eighty times for one subject, right? It is wrong and it is illegal. Even if it _did_ work better than other means of gathering information. The issue is not whether or not we will be respected by the Islamists for living to our own standards. The issue is if we can respect ourselves. As I’ve said I do not believe that the value of pursuing this is worth the cost to accomplishing other goals, but in a more perfect world we would indeed hold people accountable for ordering it, for enabling it with distorted legal briefings, for doing it, and yes, even for staying silent if speaking out was possible and could have been effective. No matter what party they belong to. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/53 "2009-05-15T21:15:36Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I would dispute your characterization of how and to what purpose information was presented and to whom. Again, informing a few muzzled by law Congresscritters of what you are doing is not oversight or making sure we are all on the same page. I’m just using basic observation skills. The current head of the CIA is Leon Paneta who is an Obama installed throwback from Clinton. He’s confident enough to stand up for his people. He has a job to do and letting Congress use his agency for their personal gain interferes with that. > [@DSeid](#): > > Torture is harm even if it leaves you with your body intact and if waterboarding is different than cutting off a finger it is only in that you can only cut off ten fingers whereas you can waterboard over and over again - eighty times for one subject, right? The japanese police use sleep deprivation which would be considered torture by your definition. I’m not sure what you expect the CIA to do. They use mind games to break people down and waterboarding is one of them. To suggest that Congress somehow had it’s hands tied in respect to the standards agreed to dismisses the purpose of the committees specifically tasked with this oversight. > [@DSeid](#): > > It is wrong and it is illegal. Even if it _did_ work better than other means of gathering information. In your opinion their techniques are wrong. Congress was given the guidelines for their opinion on the matter. > [@DSeid](#): > > The issue is not whether or not we will be respected by the Islamists for living to our own standards. The issue is if we can respect ourselves. I would respect politicians more if they did their job instead of trying to score points politically. If Congress was briefed under Obama’s administration this thread would be filled with people giving him the benefit of the doubt. > [@DSeid](#): > > As I’ve said I do not believe that the value of pursuing this is worth the cost to accomplishing other goals, but in a more perfect world we would indeed hold people accountable for ordering it, for enabling it with distorted legal briefings, for doing it, and yes, even for staying silent if speaking out was possible and could have been effective. No matter what party they belong to. I can respect people’s opinion regarding waterboarding but I do not accept that it was so far beyond question that it can be used for political fodder now when it should have been challenged at the time by the members of Congress entrusted with overseeing it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/54 "2009-05-15T21:58:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …when it should have been challenged at the time by the members of Congress entrusted with overseeing it. If “it should have been challenged” by members of Congress, doesn’t it necessarily follow that the dominant party bears the greater burden of responsibility? And isn’t this especially true at the committee level, wherein the chair wields so much power? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/55 "2009-05-15T22:52:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My impression is that only the committee chairman and ranking minority member were briefed. See e.g. [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/14/pelosi\_moves\_to\_the\_fore.html?wprss=44](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/14/pelosi_moves_to_the_fore.html?wprss=44) That is true; at _that_ meeting. I’m guessing there was more than one meeting with the CIA and the topic of enhanced interrogation. I’m assuming lots of people knew, but Pelosi is the target because she has name strength to encompass the entire Democratic Party. Whereas, an unknown Democrat, would just be alienated. Here, her fellow members are forced to make a decision with her or against her and can then all be tied in by association. How did all this start? Did her aide feel guilt and come forward? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/56 "2009-05-15T23:00:16Z")
He was waterboarded. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/57 "2009-05-15T23:04:22Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > That is true; at _that_ meeting. I’m guessing there was more than one meeting with the CIA and the topic of enhanced interrogation. > > I’m assuming lots of people knew, but Pelosi is the target because she has name strength to encompass the entire Democratic Party. Pelosi is a target because she drew a bullseye on herself when she lied about what she knew and then threw stones at the CIA. Nancy has to face her nemesis every time she walks by a mirror (assuming she can see her reflection). ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/58 "2009-05-15T23:27:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Pelosi is a target because she drew a bullseye on herself when she lied about what she knew and then threw stones at the CIA. Actually, It’ll take a serious congressional investigation to decide whether Pelosi, or the CIA lied about waterboarding. As Leon Panetta says: > [@](#): > > “Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened,” wrote Mr Panetta, a former member of Congress who was appointed to lead the CIA by US President Barack Obama. > **[BBC NEWS | Americas | CIA rejects Pelosi torture blame](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8052993.stm)** > > The CIA chief rejects claims by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the agency misled her about the use of torture. Congress should get started on this _soon._ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/59 "2009-05-15T23:33:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Pelosi is a target because she drew a bullseye on herself when she lied about what she knew and then threw stones at the CIA. … Before this time, she basked in the warm bi-partisan respect and comity generously afforded her by the Pubbies? Which accord she betrayed, then? By the by, I asked you a question upthread. If you have some ethical or religious objections to answering questions, would you so advise? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/60 "2009-05-15T23:46:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Before this time, she basked in the warm bi-partisan respect and comity generously afforded her by the Pubbies? Which accord she betrayed, then? She’s basking in the warm glow of a fellow CIA jackass. > [@elucidator](#): > > By the by, I asked you a question upthread. If you have some ethical or religious objections to answering questions, would you so advise? Thanks. Wasn’t aware I had to respond to you. This thread is about Pelosi and her foot-in-mouth disease that only allows her to talk after the fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484.md?page=4)