New Kind of Politics in our Nation’s Capital:
“Culture of Corruption” Crosses the Aisle
Remember how sanctimonious the Democrats were back in 2006 finding it easy to run against Republicans who had then controlled Congress for a dozen years? As the then-majority party was abandoning its conservative ideals, scandals were accumulating on a seemingly daily basis. Democrats called it a “culture of corruption”
Well, Democrats haven’t needed a decade in power to rack up the scandals. It seems that as soon as they regained the majority, they began to act like the Republicans they had so recently replaced. We didn’t get that “most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history” that the Democratic Speaker promised.
With evidence increasing that the very Speaker, San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi, lied about her knowledge of the enhanced interrogation techniques of the previous Administration, it seems the Democrats will not merely do anything to benefit from the fruits of power, but also to destroy and otherwise discredit the opposition. With Mrs. Pelosi leading the way, this is anything but the “most honest” Congress in history.
Can you imagine how the media would react if a Republican Speaker were caught in a lie? Or if the Repubilcan Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee sought donations from companies receiving federal bailouts (and lied about it) while failing to disclosing rental property he owned? Of if the ex-wife of the Republican Chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee had been an Executive for ExxonMobil (whild said Congressman worked to ensure that the energy giant received kid glove treatment from the federal government)? Of if the nephew of a Republican chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee gets millions in non-competitive defense contracts? And if the GOP blocked an ethics inquiry “into campaign contributions to House lawmakers by recipients of pet project money and their lobbyists“?
And if that were just scratching the surface of the GOP’s scandals . . . .
There would be a media firestorm. Look how the media worked itself into a lather over e-mails a Republican Congressman sent to pages. But, Democratic scandals just don’t generate the same interest.
Maybe that’s because in the eyes of the media, they’re fighting the good fight, so a little corruption in pursuit of noble ends is an acceptable byproduct of liberal idealism.
30 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
One glimmer of hope: Jon Stewart took Pelosi to task
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227326&title=waffle-house
Comment by Pink Elephant — May 13, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - May 13, 2009
Began?
C’mon Dan. What’s with the suggestion that the liberals were pure as the wind driven snow until 01/06?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - May 13, 2009
Dan, you’re right –of course. The MSM and its minions are very selective on how they report the continuing corruption in DC. It was’t a GOP vs Democrat story, by the way. It’s a power run amuck, ego in overdrive corruption that is directly feed by the red carpet, padded kneelers and silk lifestyles that corrupt our national leaders.
We have term limits of state legislators in Michigan and it’s killed the corruption, ego-driven, kingdom building excesses that are still in vogue in DC irrespective of which party is in power.
Our Founding Fathers were wrong on one very important point: no one should serve more than two terms in office and the federal judiciary should NOT be lifetime appointment. The only way to limit the institutional corruption in DC is to limit terms and limits on “service”. And to do that, we need to amend our Constitution.
The Dems are equally adept at embracing corruption and excess while in power. It isn’t a GOP character trait, no matter how hard the Dems try to convince us otherwise.
ABScam Murtha and Lyin’Pelosi are only the latest two self-corruption legislators. And they’re not the last.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 13, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - May 13, 2009
I’m for a thorough investigation. On the other hand, were those briefings classified? You can’t have it both ways; if she had come forward and released classified information you would have been screaming for blood.
I’m interested in who formulated, justified and executed the policies. Everything else is a sideshow. More noise from the noise machine.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - May 13, 2009
#4 – “I’m for a thorough investigation.”
Oh, be still my heart! Could it be that one of our resident liberals is actually talking sense? (Hey, was that a pig flying by my window? Oh, wait – Rosie O’Donnell is parasailing again. Never mind.)
The point, Alec (“don’t call me Mr. Baldwin”), is that Speaker Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, according to a now-declassified CIA report. This revelation directly contradicts what Madam Speaker has been saying for the longest time – that she wasn’t informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on the al-Qaeda leader.
In fact, she was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee – but she never once decried its use while on the committee!
Here’s the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/house-majority-leader-congressional-hearings-explore-pelosis-interrogation/
So why is Madam Speaker flip-flopping on this issue like a landed salmon?
One theory is that Madam Speaker is guilty of prevaracation for political purposes. The other theory is that she is incompetent and truly does not remember. (I’d just like to note that these theories aren’t mutually exclusive.)
Actually, this really shouldn’t be a surprise because Madam Speaker is employing the same defense Democrats used to explain away their votes for the Iraq war resolution in October 2002 – you know, voting for the war before they voted against it? (Hello, John Kerry, who served in Vietnam by the way.)
Funny, though – the Drool-By Media bought that excuse back then, so why aren’t they all buying it now? Could it be that it happens to dovetail with The Snob’s decision to flip-flop himself and not declassify the alleged torture photos?
“I’m interested in who formulated, justified and executed the policies. Everything else is a sideshow. More noise from the noise machine.”
And similarly, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi’s assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects.
Good to see that you’re following the Daily Kos and HuffPo talking points, Alec.
Thanks for playing. You may now leave the table.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - May 13, 2009
You can’t have it both ways; if she had come forward and released classified information you would have been screaming for blood.
And you know this because, in the past, your Obama Party has had no trouble releasing classified information for political purposes.
Which makes your “it’s classified” defense as to why your Obama Party fully sanctioned what you are now screaming is “torture” not only absolutely hilarious, but completely hypocritical.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2009 @ 4:57 pm - May 13, 2009
Actually I disagree with the refusal to release the photos as well as the CIA’s refusal to release information on the briefings. So I don’t know what your bitching accomplishes here, apart from getting something off of your chest and general rabid Obama bashing.
My defense isn’t of the classification of the information or the briefings, just the expected results; surely you don’t expect our elected officials to violate felony federal laws? Or maybe you do, given the history of the Bush administration.
In any event, is there any doubt that the real question is whether the “harsh interrogation techniques” were in fact torture and prohibited under US federal criminal law? Because that’s my question, and that’s what we need to be getting to the bottom of.
Again, this is just a sideshow. Principled Republicans and Democrats should support a thorough investigation; if torture is a partisan issue, we’re in more trouble than I thought.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - May 13, 2009
#7 – Mr. Baldwin states: “surely you don’t expect our elected officials to violate felony federal laws? Or maybe you do, given the history of the Bush administration.”
I don’t know about the folks you hang out with, but I would expect any elected official who violated federal laws – for example, Democrats such as John Murtha (embezzlement), William Jefferson (bribery), Charles Rangel (extortion) – to resign immediately.
Unfortunately, these motherless cretins still believe in hanging on to what they believe is their birthright. But I digress.
Speaking of getting stuff off your chest and rabid Bush-bashing, please show me exactly how the previous administration violated federal laws. I want to see exactly where it is documented (kook fringe websites notwithstanding).
“In any event, is there any doubt that the real question is whether the “harsh interrogation techniques” were in fact torture and prohibited under US federal criminal law?”
Nope, because they were not considered torture under US laws. Not even the Geneva Convention defined it as torture. Neither did the UN, for that matter. (Besides, how would the UN even be able to deal with it? Pass numerous resolutions like they did with Saddam Hussein, perhaps?)
“if torture is a partisan issue, we’re in more trouble than I thought.”
I agree – which is exactly why I never watch “The View” or anything on MSNBC. Surely nothing is more torturous than those items.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - May 13, 2009
Warrantless wiretapping. It wasn’t even a close issue.
Waterboarding isn’t torture? I’m curious, then: why has the US prosecuted individuals for waterboarding in the past? Against the Japanese and, under the Reagan administration, Texas police officials?
Just curious.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - May 13, 2009
If waterboarding is torture, why aren’t you out protesting and demanding your TinC (torturer in chief) cease it as part of training for US soldiers?
Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 13, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - May 13, 2009
Patriot Goddess,
An interesting question. Since it is being used to prepare soldiers for the use of waterboarding in violation of US and international law, for the purpose of extracting information, I think that there’s a clear difference. Presumably, they consent to the procedure. There’s no question of consent in the context of detainees.
Are you against prosecuting terrorists who have used waterboarding to extract information from US soldiers, then?
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - May 13, 2009
Waterboarding is the least of my concerns when it comes to terrorists. I’m a ’sort it out on the battlefield and avoid messy containment and trials’ kind of gal. However, I wasn’t aware we’ve had that issue come up in regards to prosecuting terrorists for waterboarding US soldiers, especially since it’s part of some divisions’ training. Can you site examples of these prosecutions or is it a big old straw man?
Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 13, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - May 13, 2009
#9 – “Warrantless wiretapping.”
Which is a misnomer, and therefore wrong. You must be talking about “terrorist surveillance,” where NON-AMERICAN citizens’ communications were monitored after 9/11 per the Patriot Act (you know, the one that even Dhimmicrats voted for).
It was not illegal as it was part of the Patriot Act. That is, unless you wish to re-write history as such.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - May 13, 2009
Patriot Goddess,
To my knowledge it hasn’t come up in any prosecutions of terrorist operatives yet, but we don’t have many examples of Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives who have captured and tortured US soldiers. Clearly, though, the US military (at least the Navy) anticipates such a possibility because they’re training them for it. So my question to you is this: If the method is used on US soldiers, would you support prosecutions for it?
BTW, we’ve prosecuted US soldiers for the use of waterboarding against prisoners of war, maybe most famously during the Vietnam war.
What’s ironic about SERE is that it was established after the Korean War, to assist soldiers who would be subject to abuse when they were captured by communists, who used the techniques to obtain (often, if not usually, faulty) intelligence. The use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is merely a reverse engineering of sort of SERE by the Bush administration, to use the resistance training to obtain intelligence. But in doing so they managed to ignore one of the central findings of the Korean War: the taped “confessions” obtained by Communists during the Korean war were false. And military intelligence officials knew they were false because they had the correct intelligence, and the soldiers being tortured didn’t have the information. So, morality aside, they were usually ineffective. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html
Does the Taliban use waterboarding? We know that they use torture. I don’t think it would be a stretch to infer that waterboarding is at least not outside the range of what they deem acceptable.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - May 13, 2009
Peter,
The surveillance did not only involve non-citizens (it is the international nature of the communications that are at issue, not those who receive the communications), and it wasn’t authorized by the Patriot Act. The administration argued that the AUMF “implicitly” authorized a circumvention of the FISA statute, despite the exclusivity provision in the FISA statute. Alternatively, they relied on the president’s constitutional authority.
But I’ll give you this much: Obama and Congressional Democrats were complicit when they authorized retroactive immunity for telecoms.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - May 13, 2009
Waterboarding isn’t torture?
Obviously not, since the Obama Party supports and endorses it, as we see from Obama and from Nancy Pelosi, as well as its refusal to prosecute and impeach both Obama and Pelosi for supporting it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - May 13, 2009
But I’ll give you this much: Obama and Congressional Democrats were complicit when they authorized retroactive immunity for telecoms.
But of course, you don’t plan to actually do anything about that, because after all, that wouldn’t benefit you politically.
The funny part is, Alec, that you seem to have the belief of your Obamamessiah that you can mouth weaselly words and not actually do anything. What people are realizing is that you and your fellow Obama Party members simply lie when you claim you oppose these things. It’s not unlike how you claim to oppose welfare fraud, then support Obama’s illegal-immigrant aunt living in welfare housing, getting welfare healthcare, getting a no-show government job, and getting welfare checks large enough that she can afford to give money to Obama’s campaign.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - May 13, 2009
I find this mindset that water boarding is torture to be a bit difficult to accept. When I see people hurling themselves from 80 stories up to escape fire, that is torture. When I see journalist being beheaded, that is torture. When I see innocent men, women and children being blown up by suicide bombers, that is torture. When the perpetrators of that torture are subjected to water boarding, which sure as hell scares the shit out of them but in no way physically injures them, I refuse to accept that as torture. No where is it written that the US Constitution was ever a suicide note. If a non-physically injurious process saves innocent American lives, go for it. And I can conceive of situations where much more severe means could, and should be used, and still be morally correct.
Comment by John in Dublin, CA — May 13, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - May 13, 2009
Alec said, “we don’t have many examples of Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives who have captured and tortured US soldiers… If the method is used on US soldiers, would you support prosecutions for it?”
We don’t have examples of it because they prefer beheading and other apparently ‘kinder, gentler’ (to the left) methods rather than waterboarding, which I don’t consider torture, so no, I wouldn’t support prosecutions for waterboarding of our soldiers. Like I said before, waterboarding is the least of my concerns where terrorists are involved, in any capacity.
Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 13, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - May 13, 2009
North Dallas: We haven’t prosecuted or impeached anyone for formulating and executing policies in support of waterboarding. There’s no allegation that Obama and Pelosi have done anything close to that.
As for your other post, I hope you’re medicated.
Patriot Goddess: Needless to say, I’d support prosecutions for beheading. If we’re at the point where you are not concerned about the US government using illegal methds to interrogate prisoners, then I don’t know what to say. It will be of no comfort to those who are tortured when you tell them, sorry, but it is all tit for tat now, we waterboard so what happened to you was perfectly fine.
Thankfully, that’s not the position of the Pentagon.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - May 13, 2009
Are you actually equating beheading with waterboarding?
And if you’re in support of prosecution for waterboarding, once again, why aren’t you demanding prosecution of your TinC as the head of the military that waterboards its own?
Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 13, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - May 13, 2009
Alec and the rest of the left is perfectly content to prosecute their own for saving the lives of American citizens. Chairman Obumbler is perfectly content with punishing Yoo & Bybee, but has no problem using their decision and advice when it suits him:
The Justice Department’s Torture Hypocrisy
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2009 @ 11:42 pm - May 13, 2009
Patriot Goddess,
No, I believe you were stating that you weren’t concerned with waterboarding. It sounds a bit like deeming rape inconsequential when compared to murder. True, I suppose, but hardly material to the conversation at hand. And the Navy’s use of waterboarding as a technique to prepare consenting soldiers for interrogation techniques they will encounter in the battlefield is a far cry from its use on nonconsenting prisoners. They’re not even comparable situations and the ethics and legal issues involved are entirely different.
ThatGayConservative,
Even if there was evidence that torture “sav[ed] the lives of Americans,” there’s absolutely no evidence that it is generally effective and no evidence it is more effective than other interrogation techniques. Again, why don’t you bother to look at the history of the SERE program?
Bybee should be impeached. As far as prosecution, that’s a complicated matter. But Bybee has no place on the 9th Circuit.
Comment by Alec — May 13, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - May 13, 2009
North Dallas: We haven’t prosecuted or impeached anyone for formulating and executing policies in support of waterboarding.
Then later, Alec whines and screams:
Bybee should be impeached.
But of course, not Pelosi or Obama, both of whom lied about their endorsement of what they are now screaming is “torture”.
And along those lines:
If we’re at the point where you are not concerned about the US government using illegal methds to interrogate prisoners, then I don’t know what to say.
Obviously given that you are not berating Pelosi and Obama for their lack of concern about what you call “illegal methods”, you shouldn’t say much.
If only you had as much concern for the lives of law-abiding citizens as you do those of murderous criminal thugs, Alec. But unfortunately, in the Obama Party, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Bill Ayers are more valuable than those people they sent to their deaths.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 14, 2009 @ 1:41 am - May 14, 2009
The problem with the ‘The Japanese waterboarded, and we prosecuted them’ mem is by the Japanese standard, we didn’t waterboard. The Japanese poured water down the person’s throat while holding their nose, often letting the lungs fill or letting the stomach bloat with the water then hitting them repeatedly.
A little water on a dish cloth is nothing compared to that.
And for those who love to cite the Geneva Conventions (which also are not a suicide pact) the GC apply to signatories. Al Quaida aren’t. They apply to uniformed personel, Al Quaida aren’t (beards don’t count) Under Geneva, we can Jack Baur them all we want.
“That the relationship between the “High Contracting Parties” and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. “…Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
Comment by The Livewire — May 14, 2009 @ 7:19 am - May 14, 2009
So to Alec, rape is to murder what waterboarding is to beheading. Ok, would you prefer to be raped or waterboarded? You’re being obtuse and unreasonable with your comparisons. And I could really give a rat’s ass what terrorists consent to- these are the same people who claim a female touching their Koran is torture.
Comment by Patriot Goddess — May 14, 2009 @ 10:41 am - May 14, 2009
Patriot Goddess, LW, ND30 et al -
Mr. Baldwin’s liberal mind (I know, an oxymoron) is made up. Don’t try to confuse him with facts.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 14, 2009 @ 11:35 am - May 14, 2009
By the way, Her Speakerness is now saying that the CIA lied to her!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/pelosi-reiterates-didnt-know-waterboarding-use
Hint to Madame Botox – don’t piss off the CIA. They know how to get rid of people who cause them trouble.
I’m just sayin’ is all.
PS – I’m surprised a lot of troofers don’t recall that George H.W. Bush used to be in charge of the CIA. Coincidence? I think not.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 14, 2009 @ 12:24 pm - May 14, 2009
Back to our regularly-scheduled topic…..
Corruption “crosses” the aisle?…it’s always been there. It been there since the Party’s and the Nation’s founding.
Comment by Ted B. (Charing Rhino) — May 14, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - May 14, 2009
Madam Speaker is opposed to drilling for oil offdhore and ANWR, she won´t allow a vote on it. She does say that she is for alternative sources. What she won´t tell us is that she and her husband are heavily invested in H. Boone Pickens wind project.
Comment by Roberto — May 14, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - May 14, 2009