There is daily news implicating House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in the “scandal” over Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT). Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) had been a long-time opponent to EITs and the practice of water boarding in particular. In an article that she wrote for Washington Monthly in March 2008, Pelosi (D-CA) was clear in her opposition to enhanced techniques.
“The use of torture violates fundamental American values. It damages the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the international community, and it increases the risks for our military personnel, diplomatic officers, and intelligence agents around the world. Many intelligence professionals have stated that torture is ineffective: it is unlikely to produce the kind of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots. The negative consequences of the use of torture far outweigh the supposed benefits.”
It seems, however, that is the public image that Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) wanted to portray to the country. This public position did not fit with her private position on EITs. Mounting evidence is that Pelosi (D-CA) may have known and encouraged the use of advanced techniques (or as the left would call them – torture) as early as 2002. Maybe she was just caught up in all of that patriotic spirit after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Many in the media are making hay with this news. The conservatives are hoping to bring down the person who is second in line to the presidency who also happens to be a democrat. The mainstream media (“MSM”) just loves to bring down a powerful person. What I find unusual about this treatment by the MSM is that they are, in this case, doing it to a democrat. This kind of MSM feeding frenzy is almost always reserved for a conservative. They are actually treating Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) worse than Governor Palin’s daughter, Bristol Palin. This recent posting from the New York Times or MSM shows how they still want to destroy this young lady.
I have noticed a sustained effort in this case to bring down a democrat and the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). When you look at the sequence of events leading up to Pelosi’s (D-CA) peril it looks a little scripted to me:
- April 16, 2009 – The Obama Administration releases the “torture memos” that delineate how the Bush Administration sought legal opinions about the use of EITs.
- April 16, 2009 – Barack Obama stated that former Bush Administration officials would not be prosecuted for their roles in the use of EITs.
- April 22, 2009 – Barrack Obama seemed to change his mind about prosecuting former officials. Many speculated about the apparent change in position and who changed Obama’s mind.
- April 23, 2009 – The Washington Post reported that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) denied having knowledge of EITs to be used on terrorist suspects.
- April 2009 – Obama administration officials titillated the MSM as they “contemplated” releasing “torture” photographs.
- May 7, 2009 – White House releases information about congressional briefings proving that Pelosi (D-CA) and others were briefed on the use of EITs.
It is my view that the White House set up Ms. Pelosi (D-CA) for a fall. The MSM being the “free press” (as in free Obama publicity press) willingly goes along and seem to be intent on ending the reign of House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and maybe even her political career.
Why would Obama do this? That is easy to explain. Whether you like Pelosi (D-CA) or not, she did not owe her position to Obama and in her role as the Speaker, she represented the legislature which is supposed to be a counter to the power of the White House. Remember, our forefathers set up a system of checks and balances so no one branch of government could become too powerful.
Even though Pelosi (D-CA) is a democrat, she is not beholding to Obama and may therefore be a threat to his power and authority. Even if she survives this scandal, she is politically damaged and will be more likely to cow-tow to Obama’s plans. She, in essence, will be his puppet. The message that the White House sends to the rest of his party officials are that they better stay in line. This is a very chilling tactic.
This is, of course, speculation on my part. There is some other evidence supporting my theory. Consider Obama’s consideration of prosecuting Bush officials (attacking the previous administration). In socialist/communist countries previous officials are generally killed, jailed, or, if they are lucky, are simply deported.
Dictators often go after their previous competitors. An article this morning supported this tactic as the “Feds target Edwards’ campaign.” Make no mistake; the “Fed” in this headline is the White House. This type of investigation would not move forward without Obama’s support. Again, even if Edwards survives this prosecution, a strong message has been sent to potential opponents.
Attacking and prosecuting your predecessor…free
Solidifying your support and power within your party…free
Sending a message to potential rivals…free
Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Saul Alinsky must be very proud.
Makes you wonder how Hill and Bill are feeling right about now.