Is it Me?
 

For that matter, why werent the editors of the NYT not arrested for sedition - if not treason - for all those front page stories chock-a-block with classified intel?

Is it Me?
 

counting this one

397-21

Is it Me?
 

:td:

WSJ backs you up:

Amen and pass the potatoes.

Is it Me?
 

FWIW, me, the dumb one, got to that position on my own, but I submit that any rationale thinking person would do the same so I'm not bragging.

Is it Me?
 

I was asking for examples of Pelosi leaking classified stuff. You have none. 1-0.

Oversight. They can't make things public. You and I and Marty Lederman seem to agree that this system is f*cked up.

I don't know what she did to change things, and neither do you.

Whoa, there, pardner. You just jumped from two or four Dems to the whole party. Yeah, that makes sense. And you haven't established yet that they accepted anything.

Is it Me?
 

one difference between us, I'm willing to bet on what she did, and you aren't.

of course now that this is public well have the chance for her to show what she did.

I just don't get how you can be so forgiving Ty, people are having their rights taken away by being tortured, how can she ignore that?

Is it Me?
 

You're not betting, you're making shit up and pretending that you know it.

I don't particularly want to defend Pelosi, but I think you've got an indictment without any evidence.

If Democrats in Congress did what you said, it doesn't mean that they're hypocrites. It means that they're particularly ineffective. Which wouldn't surprise me none, alas. You're after Pelosi, but it wouldn't take much to persuade me that Jay Rockefeller is a feckless disaster.

Is it Me?
 

beg pardon, and i appreciate your admission they did fuck all in 2, but if you want off you have to admit what they've done in the last year or so is complete grandstanding. you admit that and I'll take just a half win per dem congreesmen on the relevant committees.

Is it Me?
 

Blaming the Democrats on the Hill for getting nothing done while ignoring all of the Republican filibusters -- they're breaking all sorts of records -- and the White House's vetos and veto threats is kind of like blaming the Brits for not getting a breakthrough at Ypres. It's muddy and ugly and a stalemate, and that's the nature of the conflict. If a simple majority was all it took, you'd have seen more done.

Is it Me?
 

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, and that's my fault. Do you admit that when they had hearings about how bad torture is, it was complete horseshit?

would you agree that congressmen be guilty of trason when they fuck with the country and it turns out it is only for some limited political gain?

Is it Me?
 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphic...0051delay1.jpg

Ask this man.

Is it Me?
 

No, and I think this is pretty stupid, even by your standards.

Just Congressmen?

You were never upset with Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, and they actually leaked stuff. Here you're feigning outrage that Nancy Pelosi didn't leak stuff.

Is it Me?
 

Why? that is what the WSJ said too. why is it stupid?



No, and I think this is pretty stupid, even by your standards.

Is it Me?
 

Actually, TY, being centrist on these matters and not thinking that there is anything wrong with Pelosi being a hypocrite for political gain considering the dirty tricks nature of politics right now, I would have to agree that if she did know about waterboarding but didn't do anything about it until she was able to use it for political grandstanding, she is a hypocrite. And a pretty low one. But like I said, they all are, and for the WSJ or the GOP to point the finger at her and "tsk tsk" might be even bigger hypocrisy.

You seem to be taking the position that Pelosi had no options but to leak the waterboarding. I know you're doing that to trap Hank from a debate standpoint, but we both know she had many more options to address the issue other than an illegal leak.

If she did what Hank accuses her of doing I say "So what?" This debate has always been a very obvious political game engineered by the Democrats. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I understand your wanting to believe the Democrats are above that, but come on, dude. They're no better or worse than the GOP (well, recently I'd have to say the GOP has been worse, but that will balance in the future). This is what these people do, and the sooner we admit that to ourselves, the sooner we have sensible debates about this stuff, and, as you described yeaterday, might "take this board seriously."

You realize no one in this country outside the Beltway, Berkeley and blogosphere care about this issue, don't you? That tells you a little bit about the generally perceived credibility of the "controversy."

Is it Me?
 

he almost got me too. is it just slave, club and me that really care about the substnative issues?

the problem is the moral outrage that torture carries for those guys. now I'm wondering it maybe it isn't just a bit, a tiney tiny little bit, contrived.

Is it Me?
 

I wouldn't take the WSJ's reporting as much more than opinion these days. And just wait until next week, when Rupert has control of it.

Is it Me?
 

I'm not following this story (and I'm willing to believe that just about any politician -- D or R -- is grandstanding at any given point in time), but how does the secret letter Jane Harman sent to the CIA when she was in the so-called Gang of 4 (objecting to the interrogation techniques that she was briefed on) fit into your theory?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801664_pf.html

Is it Me?
 

No, I think to his credit, Ty views torture as a real substantive issue, which it is. Politically, however, it is being used for leverage, which robs it of any credibility in the national discourse. I think his moral outrage is real. I just don't think the politicians using the issue for gain have any real moral outrage.

He has a point. Torture is something we ought to debate, for obvious reasons. the problem is, as you've cited, the people bringing that debate are not serious about it and everyone knows it.

Is it Me?
 

Why didn't Pelosi send it? And why only one?

Is it Me?
 

Since I don't think the Democrats are doing enough on torture, out of fear of being painted as weak on terrorists, I'm not seeing the grandstanding here. The basic problem is not that Democrats don't think torture is wrong but are pretending that it is for political gain. It's that they think torture is wrong but are not doing enough to stop it for fear of political losses.

Is it Me?
 

ty says we can't rely on what isn't proven. what did her letter say?

Is it Me?
 

Fuck if I know, other than the fact that Harman was the D in the Gang at the time, not Nancy. And I have no idea what else she did.

But not too many people have the patience to keep being ignored. At one of my old firms, we had a policy regarding staff compensation get changed in a way that may of the alleged owners of the place viewed as unfair to the staff. Needless to say, when our objections to the change were ignored or disregarded, we didn't keep sending emails, and it would probably had been a violation of our fiduciary duties to rabble rouse about it. So, we dropped it until the next time the powers-that-be needed something from us.

(Didn't work then, either, but they did change the happy hours to include all employees.)

Is it Me?
 

Some would say that's a distinction without a difference.

That's also not saying much. I think even Republicans agree torture is wrong, but an unfortunate necessity.

BTW, I'm surprised you haven't whacked Hank with the GOP's cynical exploitation of this debate to whip up its base. I mean, the sins here are pretty evenly distributed from what I see of the debate.

Is it Me?
 

You're dodging the question. A Democratic House member in the Gang of 4 at the time of a briefing objected at the time to the interrogation techniques described -- how does that fit in your theory?

(And I don't know what the letter says -- the news story I linked to said that the letter is confidential, but described it as objecting to the techniques. Do you know what was said in the briefings, or are you relying on news reports, too?)

Is it Me?
 

How is torture being used for leverage? In another context, Hank would telling everyone that the American people are scared of terrorists and support torture.

Is it Me?
 

According to that Post article, no one was being waterboarded yet when Pelosi was brief. The CIA was still developing its "procedures."

If you're asking why Jay Rockefeller didn't do something, it's because he's useless.

Looking at that Post article, I marvel at the way that Porter Goss's self-serving utterances get transformed into facts as they migrate from his mouth to the WSJ editorial page to Hank's posts.

Is it Me?
 

You answered your own question. There are many contexts. And in one, the Democrats think the torture issue can be used to demonize the GOP.

Is it Me?
 

What's the record of her follow-up with the CIA to determine what those "procedures" would ultimately involve?

That's rhetorical.

Is it Me?
 

Except that they turn on contradictory assumptions about empirical reality. Other than that, they're just the same.

Not all of the GOP. McCain is a pleasant exception. But Giuliani and Romney, to name two, seem to have concluded that the way to win the primary is to outflank everyone else on their willingness to be bad-ass motherfuckers. Either this is exploitation or a true reflection of who they are -- I'm not sure which is worse.

Is it Me?
 

So in your world, a bunch of Democratic politicians don't believe that torture is wrong but do believe that lots of voters believe that and will give the Democrats more political power if they just point out that the Republicans like torture. Presumably in this world, the Republicans also understand that voters are against torture, and are running scared at the notion that people will find out they're for water-boarding.

Not the world I live in. In my world, the Democrats are agree that torture is wrong, so they're not making an issue of it in the primaries because it's not a way to distinguish themselves from one another. But they're also not doing much to keep the issue in front of the rest of the public out of fear that it will hurt them. They've decided that GOP filibusters and the presidential veto will prevent them from changing the law before the next election, and their best chance to change things is to take back the White House -- by running on other issues.

Is it Me?
 

couple things:

first, unless "Gang of 4" is a term you have learned long ago, you shouldn't use it that way. it intimidates me into thinking you know way more than i posssibly could, so i figure why bother. OTOH if you just plucked it from the article, you should introduce the term to your reader.

second, she could have objected to any number of things that in no way object to the practice. the rest of your guys were silent but we have to assume her letter was some ringing denouncement? no thanks.

third, this issue is critical to the debate Ty wants to have. Ty wants to talk about "congressional oversight." I bet he is going to propose giving congress some real teeth!

But to me an intial question is what will congress do with whatever authority is does get, and when we now look at what it does with the authority it has now we know it simply misuses that authority to attempt political hatchetjobs with no real concern for whether it is helping or harming the country. I believe everyone agrees that is what's going on, Ty abstaining.

so now we can frame the question ty wants to talk about:

Should we give congress strong new oversight authority where it has been using its present authority solely for political gain, and with disregard for whether it harms the country?

Have at it everyone!

I say no, because it seems to me congress' current authority is sufficient to misuse its oversight for political gain with disregard for whether it harms the country. Our system is working!

Is it Me?
 

sorry, no. i don't read anything political. although in a "it takes one to know one fight," I realize I'm in trouble if you start accusing me of getting my talking points from opinions and blogs.

Is it Me?
 

Someone needs to oversee the CIA et al. Do you think it should be the executive branch, without any legislative involvement, or do you think it should be both branches -- and, hey, let's throw the judiciary in there as well. I vote the latter. Because unchecked power tends to produce bad results, and I don't see any systemic reason why the executive branch would fail to misuse the oversight powers in the way that you think Congress will. It's happened before.

And if you're interested in specific proposals, just read the post from Marty Lederman that I quoted from and linked to. He worked at OLC and knows more about this stuff than you and I.

Sailing the sea needs a helmsman.
 

Sorry. It's a delightful flashback to the days when I worked for Ambassador Duke in Peking.

And since everyone was talking about the briefings and who was there, and who said or failed to say what, I assumed that people were familiar with the term, which has been used in each of the few articles I've read about this issue.

Is it Me?
 

You dope, you started this conversation with a post quoting a WSJ editorial, which is what I was referring to.

Dyslexia
 

I keep thinking that someone shot Barak Obama when I read headlines like "Mother of Omaha mall shooter apologizes".

Is it Me?
 

If that's the best you can do, Not Bob wins. Your answer is: "I don't know. I don't believe it. Now, lets talk about this . . "

Yes, Hank -- we all know you "don't answer hypos", but you also do a lot of ducking and dodging in between claiming to be the Board's sole source of substance and independent ideas.

S_A_M

Is it Me?
 

Your first point isn't much more than a clever twist of phrase. They are not mutually exclusive or contradictory perceptions unless you want to see them that way. All is grey in that area and I doubt you really believe politicians have any one consistent position or perception. What they think shifts by the hour and most recent poll.

Is it Me?
 

You're not making any sense. Either the Democrats see political gains in exploiting the torture issue or they don't. Either they really care or they don't. You and I see different realities on both points.

Is it Me?
 

The first sentence of your first paragraph is an accurate, although self-servingly rephrased description of what I wrote. Your second is not, which you knew. Hence, "presumably."

The second paragraph is wishful thinking. I hope you're right, but I can't help but thinking it's pretty naive.