Gingrich: Pelosi ‘Lied,’ ‘Despicable,’ ‘Dishonest,’ ‘Vicious,’ ‘Trivial’
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has joined the forces attacking current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most readers will know by now that Pelosi said for years that she opposed Enhanced Interrogation Techniques passionately. They constituted torture, she said, and she even talked about prosecuting the Bush officials who allowed the CIA to use them on captured terrorists.
This year we found out that the CIA informed Pelosi about EIT’s years ago. She knew all about them in 2003 or even in 2002. Yet, when she was informed about what the techniques were exactly, she did not object to them.
Pelosi responded angrily, claiming that the CIA was lying. She was never told by them! She never knew! It was all purely hypothetical.
Right, until a report was presented to Congress and the CIA continued to leak information which showed that not the intelligence organization but the speaker herself was lying.
Pelosi has been under fire for weeks now. She has changed her story (and timeline) so many times that you have to wonder how she keeps track of them all. There is little doubt about who is and who is not lying here: Pelosi is obfuscating, spinning, twisting, distorting and, yes, lying through her teeth in order to save her own sorry butt.
But we will not play along, of course, and neither do Republican leaders like Gingrich who said today that Pelosi “has lied to the House” in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.
“I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don’t think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.
He continued: “I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I’ve seen in my lifetime.”
“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior.”
He added that “Speaker Pelosi’s the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses. The fact is she either didn’t do her job, or she did do her job and she’s now afraid to tell the truth.”
Gingrich is right, of course.
Meanwhile, other Democrats are doing nothing to defend Pelosi. As far as the Obama White House seems to be concerned, she can consider herself as being thrown under the bus. And other Democrats realize she’s toxic, and are distancing themselves from her pretty rapidly.
Some have wondered whether Republicans are overplaying their hand. Perhaps. But can you blame them? This is a terrific opportunity to slap down one of the worst partisan and ideological hacks in Congress.
I’m more interested in an independent assessment of all this. Gingrich and Pelosi’s fight over the news cycle is the truly trivial matter here.
Further investigation of this matter wont happen. The dems cried for years about EIT’s. Yet all of the high ranking ones knew about it, and continued funding for it. Once the public found out they changed their story. Its hypocrisy at its finest. The fact of the matter is EIT’s kept this country safe. It is proven by one simple question: how many times have we been attacked since 9-11?
“It is proven by one simple question: how many times have we been attacked since 9-11?”
We’re still doing this? Keep trying to drag those goalposts down the slippery slope people, but the law -and all basic failsafes against barbarism- is on my side.
@Garland
You are having a hard time getting around my argument. The question isn’t a slippery slope. Don’t accuse me of a logical fallacy if you can’t explain why. The current CIA director who was appointed by Obama, and the past three directors all have stated that EIT’s have “provided information that has saved American lives”. This is irrefutable. Ill even entertain your argument. Let’s say, hypothetically, that EIT’s are torture. Terrorist aren’t protected by the Geneva convention because they themselves are violating it.
“The current CIA director who was appointed by Obama, and the past three directors all have stated that EIT’s have “provided information that has saved American lives”. This is irrefutable. ”
This is irrelevant. That’s my way of “getting around” your “argument”; seeing that it isn’t an argument and walking all over it. See, due to American ratification and signature of the Geneva conventions the “rescuing lives” argument is not an argument if it used to provide an excuse to breach the Geneva conventions and the 1984 human rights decree (signed by none other than Reagan, proving once again that irony hates politics). The EITs (which are actually “potential war crimes” and not some sneaky abbreviation) could have saved all the kittens in the world – it still doesn’t matter one bit. The saving of lives doesn’t even enter into it – the only matter is the legality of what has happened and if the acts are found illegal (which I find probable) there will then be investigations into which people are to be tried and sentenced. I’m not arguing about this because i can defer to the law, and since I am not currently acting against any laws I can stand by that in any weather.
“Ill even entertain your argument. Let’s say, hypothetically, that EIT’s are torture. Terrorist aren’t protected by the Geneva convention because they themselves are violating it.”
Which is why war criminals are shot on the spot without a trial – gotcha.
Well, Garland, maybe if you can take a break from constantly repeating the same scripted refrains long enough to actually deal with the tough issues of “how” that you say you are interested in, perhaps you could deign to offer some ideas as to how “investigations” could possibly be designed in a way that would avoid hyper-partisan hijacking, presumption of guilt, withholding of evidence, and other pathologies that would destroy the process?
Or is your whole advocacy just to wield a cudgel against those you have declared to be your “enemies”?
This is another easy test — your response will determine whether you are appropriately classified as either a serious discussant or merely just another partisan troll. As I have said before, I am at least somewhat intrigued by the idea of a “truth commission” if I would be convinced that a way exists to make it genuinely non-partisan and if a way could be found to meet the other necessary components of a successful truth commission process (e.g. genuine buy-in from diverse stakeholders on both sides of the ideological divide). So far, exactly NONE of those calling for “investigations” (including you) have even tried to answer those concerns. And that failure alone calls into question the sincerity of their claims to seek a non-partisan way forward.
@Garland
You are the type that likes to argue what “is” is. This is where we differ: you would rather see Americans die than to “torture” a terrorist to protect Americans. These people are out to kill us. Every friday for the last 25 years, in Iran, arabs parade the streets chanting “death to Americans.” They want you and I DEAD. Your focus is on legal or illegal. My focus is life and death! Can’t you see how one out weighs the other? Your “gotcha” mentality is humorous. To say that you are walking all over my argument makes me giggle.
I can’t believe I would be on Garland’s side of anything, but this is where the pro-torture argument goes off the rails: There is simply no evidence that torturing anyone actually DOES help protect Americans. Information gained under torture is notoriously unreliable. And even if accurate information could be gained, there are no real-world situations where it is timely enough to matter.
“Well, Garland, maybe if you can take a break from constantly repeating the same scripted refrains long enough to actually deal with the tough issues of “how” that you say you are interested in”
I will when the right starts dropping the question of “if”. Makes no sense to talk about chess when one side is still trying to win in checkers.
“hyper-partisan hijacking, presumption of guilt, withholding of evidence, and other pathologies that would destroy the process?”
Assuming that all of this will happen, we must look to the past as much as we can. What worked and why, what factors impeded a smooth process and which kind of people would be advisable to put at the helm in a situation like this? From where did any undue and uninformed resistance originate? How much input should the investigating entity be subject to when it comes to assignation, legal status, limitations, size etc.? It must be accountable without being spineless – if this balance is struck then there will be a foundation for making speedy yet solid work upwards. If you have a non-controversial, competent and serious commission from the start you don’t have to yield to all the obstructions hypocritical democrats and hysterical republicans will try to lay down.
“e.g. genuine buy-in from diverse stakeholders on both sides of the ideological divide”
But this isn’t an ideological issue, is it? The main problem seems to be that even if we got some real professionals of the legal world at work there would still be an issue with what sort of material they would be issued. I guess we could either assign the commission a mix of people from both sides, who are more competent and knowledgeable rather than high-profile and invested, or somehow make the parties agree to give the commission any material they desire without any hassling or whining. What’s most important is to make sure that any halting of the proceedings to ask question actually stems from genuine concern – the commission must be held accountable without being subject to the whimsy of the grudge-holding and attention-seeking garble-mouths on both sides of the aisle.
“So far, exactly NONE of those calling for “investigations” (including you) have even tried to answer those concerns.”
Part of this *could* be explained by their being tired of arguing whether investigations should take place in the legal, ethical and moral sense. Not all people are taking your route when questioning the idea of investigations.
“This is where we differ: you would rather see Americans die than to “torture” a terrorist to protect Americans.”
I’d rather see my mom die than have my government beat up people (including but not limited to innocent civilians who only happened to look like the terrorists but were still subjected to a living nightmare) and crush their mental fortitude using the tactics and rationales of history’s most evil entities.
“These people are out to kill us.”
These people were not all terrorists but just happened to be swept up along with terrorists because of scared and self-righteous Americans like you. The next subject to “rough treatment” could be my family members according to your sense of morality – I’m not giving you power over them just because you’ve decided your life is at stake, see.
“Every friday for the last 25 years, in Iran, arabs parade the streets chanting “death to Americans.””
And for decades American voters have looked away while the US government worked to destroy democracy in Iran (leading to torture and oppression), supplied a war between Iraq and Iran that killed thousands and issued a completely senseless embargo on Iraq that killed about half a million people. “The Arabs” have more reason to fear “Americans” than vice versa.
“Your focus is on legal or illegal. My focus is life and death!”
I tried reading your sentence out loud but my tongue was suddenly covered in a residue of pure insanity. Are you even aware of how utterly empty your sentence is?
“To say that you are walking all over my argument makes me giggle.”
Well, you have to have *some* fun in your life.
@Jason Arvak
Refer back to post #4. There was a planned attack on a LA skyscraper that was thwarted because of Al Zubeta’s (sp?) water boarding. George Tenet, who was appointed CIA director by clinton in 1997 and oversaw the water boarding said so on national tv. Youtube it.
I’ve heard the report. I don’t buy it because the timeline does not match up (they have the attack being “prevented” by torture that occurred AFTER the attack was supposed to happen).
Also, there is good evidence from the before/after Abu Ghraib experience that says intel gathering improves under NON-coercive techniques for the simple reason that coercive techniques tend to confirm what al-Qaeda recruits were told about Americans while non-coercive techniques tend to undermine their assumptions and cause them to question what else al-Qaeda lied about.
Torture just doesn’t work. And other techniques work far better. The empirical data is pretty conclusive over a period of decades, regardless of what spinmeisters might say to try to react to one specific set of charges.
@Garland
You would rather see your mom die? Oh wow. You’re a lost cause. You are also guilty of the fallacy of false dichotomy. Your black and white style of argumentation isn’t convincing. You plug your ears screaming, “but its illegal! its illegal!” All the while not allowing for reasons why water boarding was used to enter your mind. You try to control the argument to your advantage. You build it up then blow it down, a straw man fallacy. You are foaming at the mouth with ignorance. Take some logic classes. Im done with this conversation, it’s like talking to a brink wall. You are detached from reality. You live in a dreamworld and, you have been successfully defeated argumentatively by a 21 year old college student.
Unacceptable, Garland. If your position is that you will not move into a real discussion until every single person on the other side surrenders one of its position, you are clearly rigging the game in a way in which you will never have to actually be responsible to advocate anything, since you will always be able to find some caricature of “the right” to excuse yourself.
Also, if your position is that you will willingly and intentionally embrace a dysfunctional non-debate until the other side gives in, then you’re really no better than they are, because you are essentially mirroring them.
Precisely. And when comparing successful truth commissions (South Africa) to unsuccessful ones (Cambodia), the clearest difference in the research literature is whether the process becomes a partisan witch-hunt with punitive sanctions. When it does, discovery becomes all but impossible, partisan spin takes over, and the process immediately degenerates into just another realm of combat where reconciliation and accountability are impossible. When truth-telling and reconciliation are interwoven, however, it becomes possible to bring even grave crimes out into the open where they can be condemned and the system reformed with BROAD support that is sustainable over time.
Unfortunately, most (not all) on the side calling for truth commissions are still doing so out of a transparent drive for vengeance. No one can read Greenwald or any of the other avatars of the left and not see the transparent, foaming, vengeance-at-any-cost hatred there. This means that as of right now, that precondition has not been met and a functional process is not yet on the table. It is up to those seeking truth commissions to decide whether real reform is their goal or mere vengeance. “The right” is not the only actor in this little play of yours. “The left” has responsibility to behave appropriately as well. Maybe you could stand to step back from your partisan talking points long enough to accept a more nuanced view of the world, Garland.
Right now it is, and the left has had an equal role to play in making it that way that the right has had. For example, when word came out about Pelosi’s knowledge, the left betrayed its ideological agenda by trying to defend her and promote her “the CIA lied” spin instead of simply saying that she should be held just as accountable as Bush administration officials should be.
This is one of several areas that you are failing to see your own ideological allies’ role in creating the partisan stalemate that is making any REAL “truth commissions” impractical at this time.
As both a college professor and a debate judge who is also generally more sympathetic to anyone who is arguing against Garland, I would have to say you have dramatically overestimated your level of argumentative success here.
Oh, and my wife is a logic teacher too.
You seem to be asking for an impossibility. If you expect every person on the left to suddenly switch to non-vengeance mode, I think we’ll be waiting some time before anything can happen. Perhaps never.
Perhaps the solution is to go looking for the sane ones (if they’re there) and leave the crazies out of it. The far-left won’t like it, but frankly, they can go STFU for all I care.
“If your position is that you will not move into a real discussion until every single person on the other side surrenders one of its position, you are clearly rigging the game in a way in which you will never have to actually be responsible to advocate anything”
You criticize me for not talking about the “how”, but that’s because I am busy repeating myself in front of people who talk about the “if” with the same tired arguments again and again. You asked for an answer on “how” and I gave you one. Your criticism was unfounded, but my answer to it doesn’t hold any water really – I just can’t see why I should bother explaining the “how” to people still talking about “if”.
“No one can read Greenwald or any of the other avatars of the left and not see the transparent, foaming, vengeance-at-any-cost hatred there.”
I don’t read them and I don’t plan to, on this issue. I find Greenwald to have done some great work in these past eight years, and if he is incapable of meeting some standard of dispassion then I can’t blame him – he’s been on a less superficial level than most left-wing critics yet he’s been lumped with them by default. I’m not afraid of him or what he can do to the work of the commission, provided the commission is set up properly and will only heed legitimate and extremely thorough work.
““The right” is not the only actor in this little play of yours. “The left” has responsibility to behave appropriately as well.”
I find the right to be incredibly dense regarding the “if” right now – they even creep back into Cheney’s embrace again just because he can spin the media well, and that’s the only skill they seem to respect. The left here might be angry and could hurt the preparation for a solid commission, but once a strong commission with a proper degree of power and accountability is in place I don’t worry about any side’s obfuscation and petty demands.
” For example, when word came out about Pelosi’s knowledge, the left betrayed its ideological agenda by trying to defend her and promote her “the CIA lied” spin instead of simply saying that she should be held just as accountable as Bush administration officials should be.”
I’ve said both, actually. I said Pelosi should go down if she is found an accomplice but that the idea that the CIA lied isn’t unnecessary to raise. They knowingly wanted to invade a nation that it made no sense to invade and they beat the Iraq-AQ link out of people. They sold a stupid invasion – not only do they lack scruples, they also have a capacity to obfuscate and hurry the debate to the point that the moronic media plays along. That doesn’t mean my consideration of both accounts will somehow help Pelosi evade responsibility – it just means that I don’t want to make up my mind until an independent investigation can present a sequence of events.
I was first harsh on Pelosi and then I saw Cheney and Gingrich waddle around and spew rhetoric, so I tempered myself when I realized that the origin of the attack on Pelosi coul be tainted. I’ll try to remember to treat other politicians the same way I treat Pelosi.