Why Hayden's Wrong, Why Pelosi's Lying

[davidswanson]

Tom Hayden wants peace, but he's sincerely mistaken about how to get it. He claims that Wednesday's unsuccessful vote to end the war in Afghanistan makes ending the war less likely, and that the way to end the war is to pass a bill that would then have to pass the Senate and the President, a bill requiring an exit strategy, any exit strategy -- it could be "redeployment" to Iran in 2038 or anything else.

I'm not against moving bills forward, even meaningless bills if they send a helpful message. I'm not against ending the war in a way that leaves the president in charge of Congress, if that proves the fastest way to end the war -- even though it leaves us in a state in which more wars are inevitable. I don't think we're especially likely to force the House to cut off the funding next month.

But forcing a debate on the war, and forcing congress members to put their names down on one side or the other, does not make those members more likely to stick with those positions. It makes them more likely to oppose the wars. Why? Because it raises public awareness and public pressure. Those who voted to end the war are now being thanked and rewarded and pressured to vote no on funding what they just claimed to want to end. Those who voted to keep the war in Afghanistan going are now being pressured to change that position in a way that they were not when all was silent. Hayden, of all people, is leaving the public out of his calculations.

If we are handed an opportunity to -- at least temporarily -- block the funding, because all the Republicans vote No for some unrelated reason, we will need to seize that opportunity. It will increase the same dynamic of public involvement. It will advance a strategy that is one of the most likely to eventually end the wars. And it will advance an understanding of power dynamics in Washington that will discourage wars by shifting war powers back away from presidents, something that will also be needed in the coming months if we are to end the war in Iraq that too many people naively believe we've already ended.

Those who think that opposing wars should involve, you know, opposing wars, should build on the recent debate and vote, by joining in upcoming actions including:
Brown Bag Vigils, and
Peace of the Action.

Pelosi does not sincerely want anything substantive and tends to lie whenever her lips move. And here's what she says about war and impeachment:

Pelosi: The issue that … bothers me the most is the issue of the Iraq War. There's so much evidence that there was no reason for us to go into that war at that time or to go into it period. But to think that thousands of lives have been lost, lives affected to the tune of hundreds of thousands, the cost in terms of our military readiness it has not made our military stronger, in terms of dollars to the treasury, but again most of all loss of lives our precious treasure on this war and there was really no price to pay for it so . . .

Maddow: Do you regret having taken impeachment off the table?

Pelosi: No, no, I believe that the if there was evidence, if we could have the evidence to impeach the president then that could come forward. Just because I say it's off doesn't mean if the evidence is there that something wouldn't go forward. It's not a question of not knowing where the culpability is, it's what you can demonstrate and what you can prove. But I do think that those who had a hand in perpetrating not just going to war but misrepresentations to the American people - . Every piece of evidence that we have points to the fact that there was no reason in terms of weapons of mass destruction to go into Iraq…. It's one of the great tragedies.

So it is. And truly tragic as well is to brazenness of it. Pelosi's poodle, John Conyers, who backed off impeachment at her command, offered a wide and varying and self-contradictory list of excuses why, but never present among those excuses was any claim of lacking evidence. Conyers' committee staff spent most of the relevant years publishing books documenting the evidence. His excuses were about electoral campaigns and the corporate media and the likelihood of winning conviction in the Senate.

The level of mendacity in Pelosi's remarks above, her dedication to obeying the president (articulated just prior to what I've quoted), and her allegiance to the war machine: this is what we are up against. We will not defeat it without a massive public movement. We will not generate a massive public movement if we are afraid of raising the issue, pressing our demands forward, naming names, and rewarding and punishing elected officials as merited. This is a life and death struggle, brothers and sisters, and it's not going to be won through fear, stealth, or timidity.

[tabatha]

1. it's what you can demonstrate and what you can prove

Nancy Pelosi is a hero in my mind, and I find it objectionable that her name and the word mendacity are used in the same sentence.

[pberq]

2. So you believe there was no evidence?

In spite of the huge amount of evidence documented in the books mentioned by David in the article?

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. IOW, you want the defendant convicted before the trial starts.

She may be a hero in your mind, and in her own, but to the real world she has been a huge disappointment. She made excuses for Bush's war, and she makes excuses for war today. IMO, she doesn't want to see any movement against the bushies in court because that would reveal her own complicity.

[tabatha]

5. I don't think she was complicit.

I think she saw that the only way to rescue the country from the Republicans was not to have a distraction and concentrate on getting Obama elected.

And I don't understand "you want the defendant convicted before the trial starts".

You are blaming Pelosi for being complicit without one shred of evidence.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. What do you want, beyond her own words?

"No, no, I believe that the if there was evidence, if we could have the evidence to impeach the president then that could come forward. Just because I say it's off doesn't mean if the evidence is there that something wouldn't go forward. It's not a question of not knowing where the culpability is, it's what you can demonstrate and what you can prove. But I do think that those who had a hand in perpetrating not just going to war but misrepresentations to the American people - . Every piece of evidence that we have points to the fact that there was no reason in terms of weapons of mass destruction to go into Iraq…. It's one of the great tragedies."

So she says "if there was evidence" they could impeach - then says there IS evidence, and won't impeach.

In her position as minority leader she knew damn well there were no WMDs that threatened the US, and certainly no nukes. She did nothing to hold Bush accountable for those lies (is there anybody in the country who DIDN'T know that the yellow-cake memo was a fraud?) and therefore is complicit in perpetuating them.

Holding the bush administration accountable was NOT a distraction - it was the reason they are there. It is their job to protect the integrity of the government. And, btw, the move to impeach came up two years before anyone even considered Obama running.

[tabatha]

8. You are parsing words to mean what you want

and not what she meant.

"No, no, I believe that the if there was evidence, if we could have the evidence to impeach the president then that could come forward."

She is talking about specific evidence to impeach the President.

"Every piece of evidence that we have points to the fact that there was no reason in terms of weapons of mass destruction to go into Iraq…. It's one of the great tragedies."

means that since going into Iraq they have not discovered any evidence that there were WMDs, and therefore going into Iraq was a mistake.

I think you need a lesson in comprehension ---- not just linking the same word used in different contexts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Are you simply pretending to not understand?

Or do your really not remember the administration INSISTING that they KNEW that there were stockpiles of WMDs that were an IMMINENT THREAT.

The fact there there in no evidence of any such thing is clear evidence that the administration was deliberately lying - and that is grounds for impeachment.

What's more, in her position she had to know that the arguments for invasion were fraudulent - that makes her complicit. Hell, if tens of thousands of people who were completely out of the loop KNEW that Iraq was not a threat, why didn't someone who was perched on the arm of the seat of power? She KNEW there was no threat - and publicly opposed the invasion because of that - and yet when push came to shove she gave bush exactly what he wanted, and then gave him cover when his crime was exposed.

Real heroic.

[tabatha]

12. I remember quite clearly.

I remember Colin Powell going to the UN.

"She KNEW there was no threat" - are you a mind-reader? I find it offensive that you can even make that claim when you do not know what she knew. How could you know and how dare you claim to know?

The evidence that the Bush admin provided to the Administration was such that many jumped on to sign on.

The evidence came from a taxi driver --- yep the 45 minutes.

The congress was provided with the evidence, but not the source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. They were provided with bogus evidence, which specifically did NOT

include any caveats from the original reports, and other sources (ever hear of Hans Blix?) said the Iraqis had NO means of delivering any WMDs even if they had them, and there was no evidence they did have them.

I assume that Pelosi is a smart person. I am also somewhat smart, and I figured out that the administration was LYING. Why didn't she?

And, all that aside, when the move to impeach came up three years later the evidence was CLEAR that the administration lied - yet she still refused to back impeachment.

That is simply not defensible. The war in Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, 4000 of them American soldiers (and an unknown number of mercs), as well as cost us the capture of Mullah Omar and OSB when we took our eyes off the people who really DID attack us. Your hero was in the thick of it and has done nothing to redeem herself.

[defendandprotect]

20. Also admits war based on LIES, but not impeachable either---!!! And still funding it -- !!!

[truedelphi]

24. Yes there is that. her own complicity.

She sat in on National Intel hearings about torture and the rest of it.

She would be complicit.

The Bush Administration was quite clever in seeing that all their Dem Buddy supporters would be afraid, very afraid, of proceeding against them once they were ousted.

[Lost4words]

6. Nancy Pelosi is a hero? Really?

the word hero has been so over and missed used, it has very little meaning to me today. There are people whos actions or deeds I admire and/or respect greately. I guess my last hero was Charles Lindberg as a child, then I learned about his politics. I learned that humans are capable of good and bad at the same time and its worng to assume someone is either all good or all bad. Nothing is ever black or white just endless shades of gray.

[tabatha]

9. Yes, when the last word is written about her,

it will be clear.

[EFerrari]

18. Yeah, she's the hero that took impeachment off the table.

And now she turns around and says, what she said didn't matter.

[bigtree]

3. right

Hayden is essentially inviting us to abandon the fight for peace and sign on to the administration's plan; hoping that the president and Bush's generals will pull up short of total catastrophe just because he's got one foot on board the empire express.

[jonathon]

11. Excellent David, per usual.

It should be interesting to see what will happen with the Peace of the Action camapaign. I love Cindy, however the media has demonized the poor woman to such an extent that half of DU now perceives her negatively (given the posts and comments of Sheehan related threads).

The effort has my full support and I will spread the word.

[ShortnFiery]

22. +1.

Fully concur with jonathon's thoughts and sentiments.

Thanks so much for a well considered evaluation and commentary. :thumbsup:

[tabatha]

13. Bad article.

"Every piece of evidence that we have points to the fact that there was no reason in terms of weapons of mass destruction to go into Iraq…. It's one of the great tragedies."

Van you explain to me with concrete evidence that she was talking about evidence obtained before the war or after the war?

[upi402]

14. "Did you even look for evidence for impeachment?"

... should have been Rachel's follow up question. Pelosi leaves me very suspicious. That if someone dropped a stack of evidence in front of her, and pushed her into it, that MAYBE someone might consider appointing a committee to someday review the consideration of possibly thinking about restoring the rule of law - possibly in America.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Very confusing and rambling post. Let's see if I can summarize

1. It's ok to push resolutions that we know have no chance in hell of passing the House or the Senate because they send a message. Ok, I'll give you that. I'll also agree with you that Hayden is wrong. But for different reasons. Hayden is wrong because ending the war in Afghanistan won't happen with a resolution that will pass both House and Senate. It'll happen when the mission is complete, and so far, things look on track for 2011.

2. Ok, now you move onto Pelosi, and I'm not sure what her statements about Impeachment have to do with ending the war in Afghanistan other than Iraq and Afghanistan are both wars. But if that's your link, you confuse it by using failed logic to claim that evidence that shows there was no reason to go into Iraq and evidence of Impeachment are the same thing. They aren't. I still think Pelosi was wrong in not impeaching Bush. The impeachment would have allowed for an investigation that would have uncovered evidence worthy to convict, but that is not your argument here. For an impeachment to have been successful, there would have had to have been the following:
a) evidence at the time that showed there were no reasons to go into Iraq
b) evidence to prove the reasons were fabricated
c) evidence to prove that Bush was responsible and directly ordered it.

Yes, I believe that evidence was there, but it was not investigated or considered. There was certainly evidence in category a. There was some evidence in category b. But there was no evidence in category c. And you can be assured, the GOP had their Ollie North (think Colin Powell) lined up to take the fall for this. But there is one more problem why Impeachment would never had succeeded. We did not have a majority in the Senate until 2008. And you can bet your bottom dollar that not a single Republican at the time would have voted to convict.

Do I think Pelosi is lying? No. But even if you do, it has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

17. Good job, David.

K&R

[defendandprotect]

19. Rather, it is Pelosi who is the "poodle" --

She goes back and forth like a swinging gate -- and the comments on impeaching Bush

are ridiculous . . . when you consider the GOP as the "devil with a blue dress on" --

what entrapment!

Newt Gingrich/GOP closed down government putting America in "banana republic" territory --

and then after humiliating themselves, they sought to humiliate Clinton!

Not that I'm thrilled with Clinton . . . but it was an entrapment, no an impeachment!!

On the other hand, considering torture, wiretapping, signing statements, faked WMD,

terrorism on his watch -- conspiracy with VP -- and I'd include 9/11 -- it should have been

impeachment!

[bertman]

21. Speaker Doody is a corporatist in her cold, steely heart. She can try to woo

us with pronouncements of caring and love of peace, social consciousness, and freedom and democracy, but she only believes in those things in the abstract. Maybe at one time she believed in them for real, but the Washington vampires have sucked those elemental fluids from her veins and replaced them with anti-freeze.

Any human who could work in that environment and honestly think that they can do good things without upsetting the business-as-usual apple cart is deluded. Mrs. Doody is not an apple cart upsetter. She's a go-alonger.

In the Imperial Capital Washington, D.C. in this day and age, the word "peace" is only applicable to those who rest in it.

Rec.

[20score]

23. Good job, as always. I'll use the same comment I wrote for the actual interview.

One of the other great tragedies is that the leaders who were not the driving forces behind crimes, are too cowardly or involved in the crimes to do their duty. It is beyond belief that this is what constitutes leadership in our country now. Anyone who advocates doing what is legally and morally obligated is labeled a nut.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table in an effort to make sure that proof of the crimes committed is never entered into the official congressional record. Thirty years ago or so, carrying out their legal and moral obligations in a situation such as this would have been considered a given. She was certainly around when Nixon was chased from office for less than Bush admitted to publicly.

If everyone in the country had the same deal as Bush and company, we could save billions by scrapping the entire penal and judicial systems.

Future crimes only? Damned insulting.

[omega minimo]

25. "The level of mendacity in Pelosi's remarks above" inspired this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7900545

[gimama]

26. thoughtful & eloquent, David, thank YOU

I see madame speaker as an enabler-accomplice.
Last night's interview disgusted/saddened me..
Luckily, she can't steal MY HOPE..
I continue to Work & enVision JUSTICE..& PEACE.

Please ck out Vince Bugliosi's(charles manson prosecutor)site:
www.indiegogo.com/bush

I have a goood feeling about HIS efforts..
Please share & BELIEVE!

[omega minimo]

27. .