Greenwald: Pelosi and other Criminal Accomplices

[kpete]

Pelosi and other Criminal Accomplices

Greenwald: "One of things that often gets overlooked because these programs (Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc.) are typically blamed on the Bush Administration - and rightfully so since they are the ones who conceived of it and first implemented - it is the extent of the complicity on the part of leading congressional democrats..."

Maddow: "Bingo"

Greenwald: "in most of these programs."

Greenwald: "Not only were they briefed on it, people like Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harmon and Jay Rockefeller were briefed that we were torturing, that we were eavesdropping illegally. In many cases they did nothing about it. Often they assented actively to these programs."

Greenwald: "You also have a whole series of laws that have been passed with the aid of the democrats and even with the democrats in control of congress to authorize things like the military commissions and to immunize the people in our government who have broken the law and violated international treaties."

Greenwald: "And so the fact that the leading house Democrat on the intelligence committee (Sylvester Reyes) is urging that the CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence, the people who have overseen these programs that have done such damage to our country, urging that they be retained and that some of these programs be maintained by Obama is not surprising. Many of these Democrats have given full-throated support to a lot of these programs even as they try to keep the blame on the Bush Administration."

Video & more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/12/14040/556/925/672347

[lutherj]

1. The next order of business for the "left" (which seems to be a

synonym for "patriot" these days) is to replace these Vichy democrats with people who will uphold the law and stand on principle.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. Great observation, lutherj!

My sentiments exactly, right down to the "Vichy" comparison. Well done.

And welcome to DU!
:toast:

[bahrbearian]

7. Yes a good comparison.

.
You might want to check lutherj's profile.
He has been here longer than you

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. I never look at profiles,

just at the number of posts.

Now that I know that lutherj has "been here longer than" I, what am I supposed to do with that useless bit of information?

Withdraw my greeting?

You might have too much time on your hands, honey.

[bahrbearian]

15. Thats ok sweetie

"I wonder how people get 1000 post so quickly?" they must have too much time on their hands, Honey.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. Or, and this is the more likely reality,

they're faster and smarter than you are, not a slave to a job as an employee of someone else, or perhaps just better-informed, with something to say.

In any event, I'm glad you're all right and able to come back with such a snappy response. Seems like my welcoming someone to DU really rocked your boat.

As I said, your well-being is significant, and it's good to know you're still among the living, even if your observations are those of a wanker.

Be safe.

[lutherj]

9. That's okay. Some of us are not as prolific at posting. I've wondered

how people can rack up 1000 posts so quickly.

:toast:

[lutherj]

10. Thanks.

:toast:

[glitch]

11. Absolutely agreed. nt

[ixion]

2. it's time to clean house... all corrupt politicians need to be held accountable

in a court of law for their crimes against humanity and We, the People.

[Individualist]

4. K&R

[pleah]

5. K&R n/t

[OneBlueSky]

6. I still can't get over the fact that they passed the Patriot Act almost unanimously . . .

without even reading it! . . . yeah, I know . . . Conyers says they never read the bills they're voting on . . . but you'd think that something this monumental would require at least a modicum of personal attention on their part . . . particularly since it was drafted and ready to go before 9/11 even happened . . . you'd think that that fact alone would raise some serious red flags and would be cause for a pause before acting precipitously . . . nope, they just voted it into law and moved on, leaving it up to BushCo to "interpret" how to implement its provisions . . .

there are a myriad of other examples, possibly the most egregious of which is the Military Commissions Act, which effectively negated habeus corpus, one of the cornerstone principles of Anglo-American law since the Magna Carta in the year 1215! . . . pardon me if I believe that that's something that they shouldn't be fucking with without considerable national discussion and debate -- and maybe not even then . . .

criminal accomplices, indeed . . . all in the service of the corporate/government oligarchy that owns everything and makes the laws --which they then deem themselves to be above . . .

[malaise]

12. I assume that someone is keeping some serious secrets

for some of our leaders.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Longstanding US techniques

From the various US penal colonies to any number of CIA operations.

Remember Dan Mitrione, kidnapped and killed by Uruguay's Tupamaros and portrayed by Yves Montand in Costa-Gavras's film State of Siege?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmitrione.htm

[slipslidingaway]

14. Greenwald is on Bill Moyers tonight...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12122008/profile.html

"Bill Moyers sits down with political commentator and Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald who asks:

Are we a nation ruled by men or by laws? As the administration is set to change, Glenn Greenwald has been looking at the legacy of the Bush Administration, the prospects for President-elect Obama's cabinet choices, and the possibilities for government accountability. In his December 8, 2008 blog entry "Top Democrat urges "continuity" for CIA, DNI and interrogation policies," Greenwald lays out what worries him most about the changing of the legal guard of the nation:
While virtually all of the Bush agenda over the last eight years ended up being deeply unpopular and profoundly discredited, it was his foreign policy and intelligence programs (torture, rendition, illegal surveillance, war) which caused the most intense opposition, at least among Democratic voters. That is a large part of why Democrats just won their second straight national election promising to oppose Bush's policies and to implement "change." It was the policies implemented and overseen by Bush's Pentagon, CIA and "homeland security" apparatus that caused the most disgrace. "Continuity" in those areas would be nothing less than a patent betrayal of everything Democrats, over the last two years, told the citizenry they intended to do..."

Also...

Emma Coleman Jordan

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html