« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Disingenuous Left’s Confusion Over Pelosi’s Lies and the Right’s Reaction

She lied and protected "torture." The left doesn't care about that but only why WE would be mad at her!

There is one particular lefty whose blog I frequent. I do so for several reasons. First of all, he is not psychotic, second he has a great sense of humor, and third I think he really means well for the country. Of course, he’s still wrong, naturally. There is also a fourth reason. I watch his blog because I get the lefty spin du jour without having to sift through the stupidity of the DailyKos, the childish profaneness of wonkette, the circus acts of Olbermann and Maddow, or the down right mental disease that infests the Demmocraticundergound. Plus my friend Piker saves me a lot of time, really.

Anyway, the lefty spin of the day is over Pelosi’s “torture” lies. What the left is selling itself is a claimed “lack of understanding” over why those of us on the right are so exercised over the lies that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is telling concerning when and of what she knew about the enhanced interrogations being carried out by the CIA and others of America’s intelligence forces.

You see, instead of trying to wrestle with their consciences over her lies and her obvious tacit, half decade of support for what they consider “torture,” the left has decided to worry more about why the right is so upset at Pelosi. I guess that is preferable to introspection. Less mental anguish that-a-way, I suppose.

So as it happens, many on the left are asking some questions of the right on this Pelosi business. After I saw the question on my aquaintence’s blog, I took a look around the web and saw it in multiple places. I’ll give two sources shortly, but I saw these themes on more than a few lefty sites.

They are essentially asking why we would be upset at Pelosi for being quiet about the “torture” over the last few years? How can we justify being mad at her for doing what we obviously think was a good thing? If she was quiet that whole time why attack her for what she knew? What makes us so mad about the whole thing?

The second aspect of their spin is that the right is still the worse party because calling Pelosi a hypocrite over her sudden desire to prosecute Bush officials over “torture” means that she did know “torture” was carried out. This line of lefty thinking posits that we are mad that our “torture” program is being revealed so, while Pelosi may be a hypocrite, her being so pales in comparison to Republicans being pro-torture. Ergo, they can still stomach a lying, hypocrite that made a bad choice of staying quiet because we approve of torture. (How’s that for a pretzel?)

Perhaps you can see their dilemma under their terms?

Of course, the main problem with their somewhat warped view of the situation is based on faulty premises all the way around.

Their first wrong-headed premise, and the most important one here, is that Republicans are “pro-torture.” This assumes that waterboarding is torture and also assumes that we on the right consider it as such. This, however, is completely wrong. No one on the right is a supporter of torture, nor do any of us agree that sleep depravation, waterboarding, or the other items that comprise “enhanced interrogation” is torture. So, their very first premise, the one that undergirds their entire argument, is faulty. We just aren’t “pro-torture.”

Secondly, we on the right are not mad that Pelosi kept quiet before. We would be just fine with her ignoring the whole debate now — and that would include not pressing the absurd idea of prosecutions of Bush officials today. She is a hypocrite on the issue not because she is lying about what she knew and when she knew it but that she is attempting to use the “torture” issue only now when she thinks it might pay her political dividends. If she was so upset over “torture” as she now claims to be, why did she remain quiet all this time until now? Of course we all know that the answer is that it is only now when her party is in control of Congress and the White House. It is now that she feels she can safely use the debate as a political football.

But the very fact that she is only bringing it all up now proves that the idea of “torture” really doesn’t bother her at all and never did. It can’t have ever truly bothered her because if it so horrified her, why was she quiet for so many years? And her claim that she didn’t know is simply a lie. There isn’t a soul in any position to really know that is backing her play. Porter Goss, Leon Pannetta, Pelosi’s own staff, and her own past actions prove she knew everything there was to know.

So…

  • We aren’t mad that a “torture” program is exposed because none of us agree there ever was any torture carried out
  • We aren’t mad that Pelosi was quiet for half the decade
  • We aren’t even mad that she’s a hypocrite. After all, we all assume one must be a hypocrite to be a Democrat in the first place. That is a given!

Here is what we see with the issue:

  • Pelosi never cared about “torture” in the first place because she went half a decade without protesting it even as she knew all about it
  • She knows that the U.S. wasn’t torturing anyone but now pretends we were merely for the sake of politics
  • She is only now raising the issue because she thinks she can make political hay out of it proving she has no real principles
  • She is playing politics with our national security
  • The left is stupidly covering for someone that they would call a “war criminal” if only they’d have had an “R” next to their name

So, there you have it. A little example of how the left twists itself into a pretzel to explain away its own failings and that of its fellows. An Olympic gymnast could not bend himself in half so effectively as the unprincipled American left does to explain away their own hypocrisy.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Achance

    If we define lie as knowing one thing to be true and saying another, the way real people usually define it, lefties do not lie because truth has no meaning to them. Whatever they feel to be true, is true and what they feel to be true is usually dictated by what they feel to be expedient. This is the point of veiw of the post-modernist multi-culti crap that has been force-fed a couple of generations now in the name of celebrating diversity. There is on “truth” in any absolute sense, there is only true for me and true for now. So, it doesn’t surprise me that they are confused by our objections to Naughty Nancy saying one thing one day and another thing another day.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      Folks really ought to go to the News Hour website and listen to the podcast of the Sheilds and Brooks segment from Friday and hear erstwhile “conservative” describe his greatest outrage with Pelosi as not that she lied, but that she lied six times but picked the wrong lie to settle on.

      Much like with Clinton, its more about how skillfully Nancy can weasel out that whether she has lied.

      Even some repubs are more interested in a committee report that says she should apologize, for what? Who cares. They don’t call their honorable friends liars.

      I won’t abide that DC game.

    • jazzycmk

      In poker terms, she either needs to fold (i.e. – shut up) or continue to go all in.

      It would have been one thing if she had made one of her random, Bush-bashing statements and had lied. She could spin that and it would fade with the help of the sympathetic MSM.

      However, we all know Nancy is not going to abandon her crusade against all things Bush. But now, if she really wants to continue pressing for show trials, she’s in a bad place. Republicans can say, “OK, but if we go there, we all go there.”

      My guess, is Nancy will double-down. She and Obama are going to lock horns on this and she will lose because he is the current and future of the Dems, and he and his people are smart enough to see this as a political loser.

  • skorrent1

    That’s as good a job of explaining the inexplicable as we’re likely to get.

    Of course, the main element of the discussion that makes it all worth discussing in the first place is:
    “She is playing politics with our national security”.
    Hypocracy we can expect from the left, but giving more ammunition to “the Arab street” by insisting that the US has been, and is, “torturing” the poor souls in captivity is simply inflamatory. You can bet that the coverage on al Jazeera uses the Arab word for “torture” without explanatory descriptions of “face-slapping” and “caterpillers”.

    Without intending to threadjack, let me say that it was this aspect of McCain’s insistance that we “pass a new law to stop all this torture” that sent me into orbit. If we weren’t doing it in the first place, why did we need a new law?

  • ctmommy

    Its, the same as their refusing to acknowledge what the tea party’s were all about, even though the President just outlined it very well in his speech in New Mexico.

  • AngstFree

    I love to now and then go to the lefty sites and view their “tortured” logic.

    Hey Warner, is that Pelosi picture for real? Damn.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      No that is an um, er, “enhanced” photo of Pelosi… not that her NORMAL face isn’t torture enough!

      LOL

  • Next93

    Many of the same people who insist on the term “pro-choice” (as in “NO ONE is pro-abortion, we just feel that it’s too important a decision to be left to the government”) are using the term “pro-torture” do descrive the right.

    My response is that no one is pro-torture, it’s just that waterboarding is too big a decision to be left to the House of Representatives.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Don’t grant them that lie.

      • JadedByPolitics

        when being talked about by the left….in that it tortures the mind the mental gymnastics it takes to think that water up the nose of a murderer is torture!

    • JadedByPolitics

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      [Troll Torture dismissal Form-Comment, I keep this handy since it always comes up]

      Many Diaries exist see here covering all that including how water-boarding is NOT torture and the UN agreement the US is part of, how Democrats still do NOT pass a law to declare it such and/or PROHIBIT it (even as an EIT), the memos diversion, and on and on…

      Again, if you want it to be known as Torture your lefty loons in Congress could so make it so by passing a new Law stating that it would now be considered Torture… They have NOT attempted to do so since they took power in 2006… Nor will they now… They know it is a LOSER and they will NOT give up the EIT?s under a Democrat despite their BS rhetoric about it. You waste time and space with that easily refuted crap and we are NOT going to waste our time when we?ve covered it countless times already (see the above link to other RS links).

      There are many Diaries here at RedState that already refute all the Democrat Talking-points contentions and I am sorry but I do not have the time to cover that ground again. A simple google search within RedState will yield that information and I invite you, and hope you will, look over the many thoughtful Articles that provide some additional Facts, Quotes, Links, etc, (on top of this one and maybe even some from the same author of the Diary this conversation is taking place in) on this topic and/or the things you (parroted) brought up (Election Issues recap [with links]).

      • Next93

        Mea culpa. I menat to say “Pro-Waterboarding Choice”, as JadedByPolitics pointed out. My mistake.

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          apology that is…. as I know you are NOT a Troll/Moby…. that post (which I keep handy) is meant to be purposefully “dismissive” to Trrolls/Mobies as it has been standard practice for them to pop up in any Diary that remotely relates/can-be-tied to water-boarding to go on about the ‘deflect to the torture meme’ tactic

          As Neil stated, we CANNOT let them get away with the redefinition – I (and a few others) want to make sure that ground is not conceded ONE INCH!!!

          Take care

  • chaney

    but this is only one example of the general “politics over policy” problem that Mr. Huston is talking about. Whether it was enhanced interrogation, rendition, Guantanamo, military tribunals, staying in Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan (I’m probably missing some), the democrats had a political strategy and a willing press to help implement it; namely, vilify Bush and anyone or anything connected with him regardless of how sensible the policy is. Now that Bush is gone, the same policies that were supposed to be Nazi-Hitler-fascist-constitution-shredding depravities are just dandy.

    See, for example, Victor Davis Hanson (always a must-read that VDH) imagining how the press would have reacted to Obama’s first 100 days if they were the first 100 days of a Palin administration instead. I think VDH’s weakness here is that he’s too intelligent and thoughtful a person to really capture the press’s irrational hostility to Palin, but it’s a fun read anyway.

    I guess all that justifies anger, but I can’t help but feel some relief that Democrats weren’t really stupid enough to believe the things they were saying. They just stumbled upon a winning strategy to get Republicans voted out.

    Of course there’s still the concern that American voters were stupid enough to fall for it and that Obama’s election is more of a symptom of a nation in the advanced stages of some horribly destructive disease than the source of the decay. That’s the realization that really depresses me. But, it’s a problem for another day.

    • chaney

      http://article.nationalreview.com/q=MDU4NDI5MjgxZmRjZTY4ZGFlOTA5M2U2MmY2NDA2Y2M=

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      Of course we also have Obama’s example from the debates. Namely why would he increase tax rates when it has been proved that lower tax rates increase tax receipts? His answer was “fairness,” which means “politics,” or “fascist/socialist politics.”

  • harlan

    One of my last mind-numbing discussions with a doofus, liberal ex-friend was over the topic of “the truth”.

    He argued vehemently that truth is relative. His truth is different than my truth, which is different from all of your truth(s).

    Now honestly, how can a sane person argue such nonsense?

    • Pomme

      Guess that really blows their minds.

    • Next93

      That’s the only explanation I can think of.

      • Achance

        do it even without the psychotrophic substances.

        • ss396

          and conditional behaviors: K-12 in the public school of behavior modification is as good as psychotropic drugs any day.

    • chaney

      I was a teaching assistant in a large intro philosophy class, and I don’t see how any student could have walked out of there a conceptual relativist. The professor just addressed the relativist as Samuel (or something I don’t remember exactly).

      Prof: “It is Samuel isn’t it?”
      Budding Relativist: “No. Actually my name is John.”
      Prof: “Well, to me it’s Samuel.”

      Now why remain a relativist after that?

      • chaney

        Should be “My name is `John’.” Use/mention and all that.

      • Martin Knight

        If he says it hurts, respond; not to me.

        I remember some woman – a self-proclaimed radical feminist – arguing on the radio, I think it was with Dennis Prager, that there are no absolute truths and therefore no one can say that there are absolute wrongs.

        To which Prager challenged her to disagree with him that rape is always wrong. Her silence spoke volumes.

  • jeffreywturner

    It isn’t that she knew about the waterboarding, etc that ticks me off. It is the fact that she and others come out with this righteous indignation lambasting Bush for using these tactics. If it were Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich, I would be fine with them condemning these tactics because they condemned essentially everything Bush was doing to win the war on terror WHEN he was doing it and had sky-high approval ratings. I commend principled individuals like them, because they do what they believe is right, regardless of public opinion. The ones I can’t stand are the subversives like Obama (think same-sex marriage here) who refuse to come out and say what they really feel because they are political cowards.

    • bk

      If someone says “I’d rather see a US city get nuked than for us to torture anyone” you can at least say they have some principles whether you think they are misguided or not. This is what I like about someone like Camille Paglia – what she thinks doesn’t change as a new poll comes out. Bush was pretty much like that too.

      But people like Pelosi and so many other Dems (and a fair number of Reps) only focus is on doing whatever it takes to win elections, forgoing all principles they may have had (if they ever had any) along the way. We’re seeing why someone from Congress makes a lousy President – as President you have to look at the big picture and provide leadership. In Congress it’s all about political posturing, preening, and pandering in the pursuit of power via getting re-elected for the rest of your life. Nothing else matters.

  • Warrior

    destructive disease. Yeah, public education. (As has been mentioned, but I couldn’t resist.)

  • farstar99

    Prepare yourselves for that.
    The “press” has declared it over, so it will be.
    Obama has leaked most of the photos and the rest will be leaked whenever he needs cover.

    • mbecker908

      I’d hate like hell to have her replaced with Hoyer.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Watching the Democrats try to decide which one to jettison: Pelosi, or Murtha.

        • mbecker908

          I now have snot on my keyboard. I’m off line for a while.

  • korymasing

    I like dropping by here every once in a blue, because, let’s face it, we need dissenting opinions to keep each other in check. However, this is a sad post. Could you honestly not find something else more significant to write about? First off, this is front-page material on Red State? You claim that this is the “lefty spin of the day” and then go on to reference your friend’s blog and a low-impact DailyKos diary as your main examples of the spin. I read boths posts, and no disrespect to either author, but neither seemed to generate much buzz. The Kos diary had 85 comments (low by Kos standards, whose front-page posts have hundreds if not over 1000 comments posted) and your friend had 9 comments. Neither article pointed to any outside links to back up their points. So, based off of this, how is this really the “lefty spin of the day?” You claim that you saw this theme on other “lefty blogs.” Really, which ones? Were they being referenced by other blogs, and if so, what kinds of exposure do the authors have? Seems to me like you are making a pretty general claim based off of a bunch of insignificant blog posts. Second, I couldn’t help but see glaring faults in your explanation of “warped views” and “faulty premises”. Your first point is that “you aren’t pro-torture because you don’t believe that the actions taken (waterboarding, etc.) are torture.” And yet, you call the dems arguments “wrong-headed.” Wow. This is such a blatant violation of logic: we believe therefore it is not. Amazing. Just because you don’t believe that actions taken by our country aren’t torture doesn’t mean that torture has not taken place. Where are you getting your definition? Google “torture definition”, and you will find endless references as to what torture means. Just because Alberto Gonzales and the Bush DOJ put out its own definition of torture, doesn’t mean that it’s the gospel. Your second “wrong-headed” argument, that Pelosi only brings this up now because of the dems position and it paying her “political dividends”, is almost as faulty. Now I’m no fan of Pelosi, but let’s be honest. If she did know about what was going on (and I’m actually assuming that she did,) then I’m hard pressed to believe that the main reason she didn’t come out in the first place is because of one reason: political suicide. She would have been branded a traitor (standard “if you’re not with us your against us” crap) and terrorist appeaser. Why on earth would she have done something that would have been so wildly unpopular at the time, with Bush’s ratings being fairly high and the country behind the war? There was no way she could have won that fight had she come out at that point and time. Is she trying to cover her tracks now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case. Finally, there’s only one true reason that the left is up in arms, and that’s because this entire thing is a distraction from the central argument, which is to determine whether or not we unlawfully tortured people. The Pelosi situation is a typical straw man argument to take attention away from the torture issue. Seriously man, this is disappointing at best. It’s no wonder the Republican party is going down in flames (and we need it not to, because we need checks and balances.) The only confusion from this lefty is why you decided to spend so much time writing on such an insignificant subject. If you could provide some more substantial links back to back up your assertion that this is the “big lefty spin of the day”, then I’ll happily come back and apologize. Until then, pretty weak sauce man, pretty weak sauce.

    • bk

      The Maureen Dowd column echoed the same sentiment. After agreeing that Pelosi lied through her teeth, Dowd offers this:
      “Besides, the question of what Pelosi knew or didn?t, or when she did or didn?t know, is irrelevant to how W. and Cheney broke the law and authorized torture.”

      That’s exactly the same thing you’re saying it seems to me, and at least part of what WTH was saying people on the left were saying.

      So it looks to me like you proved his point at the same time you said he’s off base about it.

      Or did I miss something?

    • Achance

      now take your talking points and go away.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      637 ungrammatical, repetitive, often badly-spelled words. Which would be forgivable, if there was any real indication that there was thought behind them.

      Blam.

  • WarEagle01

    I just shake my head in sadness every time I hear a lib describing waterboarding, or walling, or sleep deprivation as torture. I was in Kuwait for the liberation in ’91 and unfortunately saw some of the victims of actual torture carried out by the Iraqis. I won’t describe what was done to these people, but it was really, really bad. Fortunately for them, they had all died at some point during their horrific ordeal.

  • stevedibble

    is that, while it’s great to see Pelosi up against the wall, the semantic cost we’re paying is extreme.

    In this post, the word “torture” is used 20 times. 20 times! In varying states of scare-quotes, yes, but essentially as the default term for what it is we’re discussing that Pelosi lied about. And also, in the media, and in blogosphere, what is being discussed is whether Pelosi lied about “torture” – not EITS, but “torture”.

    So, while Pelosi takes her hits (and I’m not convinced they’re amounting to anything significant), those of us actually worried about the future legitimacy of these programs are wincing. Because every time Pelosi gets hit over “torture”, the national vocabulary becomes increasingly used to identifying EITs and security interest with an illegal act. There is a codifying effect, and it’s exceptionally damaging – we’re losing the language game.

    What we need is to expand this debate – Republicans need to be out there, not just asking why Pelosi lied, but asking what she is lying about. Namely, that she approved these programs because they are effective. This needs to be the focus: Pelosi had approved these programs because they’re legal and effective.

    Snarkandboobs has an excellent diary detailing how the terms of this conversation have been switched on us. The EIT push needs to be made in terms of results – how our safety has been maintained – and in terms of reimplementing and expanding the program to cover as wide a criminal pool as possible, both internationally and domestically.

    Hammering Pelosi for lying about “torture” – no matter how often you scare-quote it – is going to damage her, sure, but it’s going to damage even worse our chances at winning the public debate on security, and any hope we might have of bringing the EIT program home to bear on our own mess of murderous, domestic thugs.

  • stevedibble

    is that, while it?s great to see Pelosi up against the wall, the semantic cost we?re paying is extreme.

    In this post, the word ?torture? is used 20 times. 20 times! In varying states of scare-quotes, yes, but essentially as the default term for what it is we?re discussing that Pelosi lied about. And also, in the media, and in blogosphere, what is being discussed is whether Pelosi lied about ?torture? – not EITS, but ?torture?.

    So, while Pelosi takes her hits (and I?m not convinced they?re amounting to anything significant), those of us actually worried about the future legitimacy of these programs are wincing. Because every time Pelosi gets hit over ?torture?, the national vocabulary becomes increasingly used to identifying EITs and security interest with an illegal act. There is a codifying effect, and it?s exceptionally damaging – we?re losing the language game.

    What we need is to expand this debate – Republicans need to be out there, not just asking why Pelosi lied, but asking what she is lying about. Namely, that she approved these programs because they are effective. This needs to be the focus: Pelosi had approved these programs because they?re legal and effective.

    Snarkandboobs has an excellent diary detailing how the terms of this conversation have been switched on us. The EIT push needs to be made in terms of results – how our safety has been maintained – and in terms of reimplementing and expanding the program to cover as wide a criminal pool as possible, both internationally and domestically.

    Hammering Pelosi for lying about ?torture? – no matter how often you scare-quote it – is going to damage her, sure, but it?s going to damage even worse our chances at winning the public debate on security, and any hope we might have of bringing the EIT program home to bear on our own mess of murderous, domestic thugs.

  • stevedibble

    N/T