Vision, Mission, and Strategy

Hillbilly Politics

As most of my regular readers are aware, I wrote a diary last week titled, “Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down”. In this diary, I chronicled all of Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous behavior over the past two years (since she became the Speaker of the House), such as attempting to appoint unqualified corrupt cronies to positions of power over more qualified people, appointing a man to chair the House intelligence committee who doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim, requesting regular military flights for herself, her staff and her lackeys, giving a highly partisan speech that helped to tank the TARP/Bailout bill, and putting all kinds of earmarks and waste in the stimulus/porkulus bill (like giving a 5.2 billion dollar bailout to ACORN), just to name a few. Speaker Pelosi’s absurd behavior seemed to culminate last week with her denials that she knew anything about waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques, despite leaked CIA memos that said that she had been briefed about waterboarding in 2002 (H/T Moe Lane of Redstate).

In fact, even Jon Stewart mocked her obvious fabrications last week in the video below (H/T bk of Redstate)–and Stewart RARELY mocks Democrats.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Waffle House
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic Crisis Political Humor

Now, considering the humiliation sandwich that Nancy Pelosi was being force fed last week when I wrote my previous diary (“Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down”), I thought surely she had hit rock-bottom and couldn’t possibly sink any lower–however, I was oh so very wrong. A few days after I wrote the above diary, Speaker Pelosi gave her infamous press conference where, throughout the first half, she was utterly incoherent–

Then, in the second half of her press conference, Speaker Pelosi ACTUALLY ACCUSED THE CIA OF LYING TO CONGRESS!

Now, at the risk of our own Caleb Howe (formerly known as absentee) calling me a cliche’, I must say that I, literally, felt embarrassed for her. I mean, I could feel myself squirming in my seat and my cheeks getting warm as I watched that train wreck of a press conference. Furthermore, after watching Speaker Pelosi prevaricate in the above videos, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for this woman to hit rock-bottom, because she appears to have no sense of shame, but I digress.

And to make matters worse, if she wasn’t already humiliated enough after her infamous press conference, Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA for the Obama Administration and Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, totally discredited/smacked-down Nancy Pelosi, according to The Washington Post, when he said the following–

“It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress,” Panetta said in a message meant to shore up employees of his agency, which is at the center of a relentless political firestorm over Bush policies and the Iraq war. “Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [terrorism suspect] Abu Zubaida, describing the ‘enhanced techniques that had been employed.”

I think that John Dickerson made a really good point in his excellent column (be sure to Digg it) when he stated that, “The reason this new attack on the CIA is such a bold and perhaps very bad idea is that the CIA is very good at these battles”. Furthermore, I think that Dickerson really hit it out of the park in regard to why Pelosi put herself, as well as the Obama Administration, in such a pickle by taking on the CIA in such a ham-fisted fashion when he wrote the following–

The escalating mess is exactly why President Obama didn’t want a thorough look into the question of torture. Fights like these distract from his effort to get politicians to focus on other matters, and the arguments potentially weaken his party by either undermining its high-road position on torture or making leading Democrats look unsteady, as Pelosi looked during her halting and jittery press conference. As one former senior Bush official put it, “Their real political problem [with investigating torture] is when they look back, they will find many of their own there. This sh*t storm will leave everyone stinky. Or might just leave their side in deeper doo-doo for the worst political sin: hypocrisy.”

At some point the president may be asked what his view of the Pelosi matter is. It’s a tricky spot. He doesn’t want to get in the middle of a he said/she said debate. If he defends Pelosi, he alienates the CIA. That relationship is already tender because Obama released Bush-era torture memos against the wishes of the CIA, whose agents participated in the torture. On the other hand, if Obama defends the CIA, he undermines his leader in the House and angers her liberal supporters.

On a side note, Mark Steyn has recently written a fantastic column in which he explains with perfect clarity exactly why Nancy Pelosi is so contemptible with her prevarications about what she did and didn’t know in regard to enhanced interrogation techniques. Steyn points out, in so many words, that Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi pretty much have the same views on waterboarding, but that Vice President Cheney has the cojones to man-up and tell people what he really thinks. Furthermore, Dick Cheney has the courage to stick to his convictions–unlike Nancy Pelosi who calls the brave men and women of the CIA “liars”. Mark Steyn further elaborates on these points in two excerpts from his column that I have pasted below. First, Steyn writes the following–

Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding?

He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent.

Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding?

No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naïveté) soul. Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly believe about waterboarding?

Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back when, over six years ago.

Then, Mark Steyn further states the following about the Pelosi drama–

Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the Speaker’s fellow San Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08 or ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”

Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush-Cheney-Rummy war crime.

Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her colleague’s behavior. The alternative – that Speaker Pelosi is a contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security – is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she supported all those years ago. But it’s OK to hold Cheney or some no-name Justice Department backroom boy to account?

Well, sure. It’s the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack doesn’t mean it, so that’s okay, whereas Carrie does, so that’s a hate crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of national security. Nancy doesn’t, because to her it’s about the shifting breezes of political viability.

[By the way, if any of you are interested, Jennifer Rubin has recently written an awesome blog where she points out how the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the MSM never saw Dick Cheney coming when he was touring the Sunday talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. They were so obsessed with Cheney’s unpopularity and President Obama’s charisma, that they forgot one very important point–that Cheney had the truth on his side. Here is an excerpt from Rubin’s blog that really says it all–

In this obsession over Cheney’s unpopularity the mainstream media and the Obama administration share a common and debilitating fault: an preoccupation with personality and polling data. It makes not one wit of difference that someone not running for office has a current popularity rating of 20% — if what he is saying is deadly accurate and central to a key policy debate. The media and the administration somehow believed Cheney was irrelevant because they, not he, are hung up on irrelevant data points and are largely immune to arguments on the merits.

The media is obsessed with who the “leader” of the minority party is and who the “frontrunner for 2012? is. How bizarrely out of touch are they? Well, no more so than the Obama team which spent weeks tying the GOP to Rush Limbaugh while they created a disastrous stimulus package and frittered away a trillion dollars.

The administration and the media jointly overlooked the power of Cheney’s message which was based on a set of facts over which he has complete mastery (and which they were either indifferent to or ignorant of). So they now sit slack-jawed while Cheney has largely pinned the Obama team to the mat.]

So, in conclusion, not only is Nancy Pelosi officially a laughing stock (even in Democratic circles), but she’s also an untrustworthy prevaricator (and that’s putting it nicely–“liar” would be more accurate) who refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes–instead she pathetically and desperately tries to pass the buck to our brave men and women in the CIA. I almost feel sorry for her. (ALMOST being the operative word. Anyway, my Dad always says that it’s hard to take pleasure in watching people self-destruct or get what they deserve.) However, not only is Nancy Pelosi an untrustworthy hypocrite, she’s also a loose cannon who should not be in a position that gives her such power and influence over our national security–especially since the CIA doesn’t have any confidence in her.

In closing, I will leave you with a poem by Mike Huckabee that says all that needs to be said about why Nancy Pelosi needs to resign as Speaker of the House–it is funny, it is concise and it echoes my sentiments exactly. I hope that for the good of our national security, Nancy Pelosi will heed his advice. Take it away Governor!Update: Steve Foley of The Minority Report has just put up an excellent column with a video in it of Nancy Pelosi’s latest press conference. In her press conference, Speaker Pelosi not only refuses to recant her statement about the CIA lying (or apologize to the CIA), but she also refuses to even take any more questions regarding the matter. Unbelievable.

This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.

20 Responses to Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down–Part Two: Electric Boogaloo [Updated]

  • xsd4tex says:

    While the criticism of Nancy Pelosi is justified I have no idea why her complaints against the CIA should warrant her stepping down. It’s not that she isn’t hypocritical because most politicians are, especially the longer they’ve been in office. That is why it has been almost impossible for any congressman/woman to get elected to the presidency. Until 2008 of course, since both candidates were U.S. senators.

    But considering the fulminating by Newt Gingrich and his outrage expressed by his characteristically hyperbole that Nancy Pelosi should resign, why hasn’t he demanded the same of congressman Hoekstra? Here are a couple of examples why the hyperventilation by the right-wing Base is totally pointless and childish:

    “Rep. Pete Hoekstra asserted that the CIA had a role in the deaths of Christian missionaries in Peru a few years ago; Hoekstra demanded public hearings that would no doubt be embarrassing to the country.”

    ‘Then, too, there is Gingrich’s own history of criticizing the Agency. In 1990, for example, he urged the President not to trust the CIA reports on the state of affairs in Afghanistan because they were skewed.”

    “Earlier this week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich went on ABC’s Good Morning America and called on Democrats to pressure Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to resign her position as Speaker. He claimed that she has “disqualified herself” for the leadership spot, because “if I were a person trying to defend this country, I’d have very little confidence that the Speaker of the House had any regard for what we were doing.” Host Diane Sawyer challenged Gingrich, noting that he never criticized Rep. Peter Hoekstra’s (D-MI) repeated criticism of the agency, including this statement in 2007: “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.” Gingrich struggled uncomfortably…”

    So, whose accusations against the CIA are worse? And, what does any of this have to do with the huge mess we’re in because of Bush’s 8-year trail of detritus?

    The Base continues preaching to a dwindling choir of Red States squished into an ever shrinking Old Confederacy. Good luck reviving the Groveling Old Party and their Rush Limbaugh-led remnants.

    But, with Michele Bachmann’s demonic screech shortly after Michael Steele became the RNC chairman, “You be da man!” it’s no wonder the once Grand Old Party has become so disconnected in the 21st Century.

  • Susannah says:

    My, that was a mouthful!

    Newsflash Einstein–Pete Hoekstra isn’t Speaker of the House–Nancy Pelosi is. I’m not saying that Pelosi should resign from Congress all together, only that she shouldn’t be Speaker of the House when the CIA has no confidence in her, and when it’s obvious that she’s totally full of it.

    Oh, and by the way, the CIA can be criticized if the criticisms are legitimate. It’s not about Pelosi criticizing the CIA–it’s about her LYING that the CIA even briefed her, and then falsely calling them liars.

    Oh, and bringing up Newt Gingrich’s comments from 1990 (like anyone cares what he said in 1990), when Gingrich isn’t even in Congress any more for crying out loud, is just pathetic debating skills on your part–it’s totally irrelevant to whether or not Speaker Pelosi is a liar (and she is). You obviously can’t defend her past record, or her present actions, so you go bringing up something that Newt Gingrich said back in 1990. Sorry Sparky, but you’re going to have to do better than that.

  • xsd4tex says:

    So, it’s really all about the lying? O.K., I got it.

    Maybe if we backtrack a bit here and look at the reasons why G. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice spent $3 trillion, put 4,300 U.S. military in body bags, put over 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children in early graves, build permanent military bases, and the most expensive “embassy” (about $750 million), occupy Iraq for eight, nine, or ten years; and use the American military to police Iraq’s 25 million people there would have been ZERO public support for the enormity of the Bush LIES that were told to the American people.

    When G. W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln floating 30 miles off the coast of San Diego in May 1, 2003 and declared “major hostilities have ended in Iraq” maybe it’s more about his nuanced meaning of the word “major.”

    I doubt though that the families and loved ones of the 4,300 U.S. military who Bush is responsible for their deaths after May 1, 2003 would think of the Iraq tragedy as “minor.”

    But, the issue sure is much clearer now that I know it’s all about the lies. The question still remains, who will be held responsible? Do I hear any calls from the Republican Base for an accounting for all those lives lost, all the taxpayer dollars down the tubes?

  • Susannah says:

    OK–first of all, what in the hell does ANYTHING that you just wrote have to do with Nancy Pelosi and whether or not she should keep her Speakership? Not a damn thing! Even if you are right about your “Bush Lied” talking points (which you’re not because Bill Clinton also thought Saddam Hussein had WMD’s) and even if you are right about a hundred thousand Iraqis being killed by our troops (which you’re not–you just pulled that figure out of your ass. BTW, here is a real figure for you–Saddam has killed over a million Iraqi’s. Oh, and you’re a real patriot for accusing our troops of murdering a hundred thousand Iraqis, but I digress), again–what does any of this have to do with whether or not Nancy Pelosi should keep her job? NOTHING!

    Now, I’m going to use small words and speak real slowly so that you will understand. George W. Bush isn’t the president any more Sparky–and this whole WMD debate is sooo 2004. This diary is not about George W Bush, Newt Gingrich, Condoleeza Rice, Pete Hoekstra or any other Republican boogey man that you chose to haphazardly throw into the mix (none of these people are even mentioned in my diary). This diary is about NANCY PELOSI–if you are still not sure, go back and read the title (it’s called “Nancy Pelosi Should Step Down”). Now, the fact that you’ve talked about everyone else except Santa Claus (and you’ll probably bring him up next), yet you have not offered ONE compelling piece of evidence in Nancy Pelosi’s defense, demonstrates to me that I am right and that she should step down. Otherwise, instead of desperately and pathetically attacking every other Republican under the sun (who are all totally unrelated to the topic at hand) you would be DEFENDING Nancy Pelosi–which you obviously can’t do. Why? Because she is indefensible. Now, I’m sure that there is a Guitar Hero tournament going on somewhere in your dorm room–so kindly beat it, and let the grown-ups discuss politics.

  • Susannah says:

    Update to my readers:

    FYI–It came to my attention that the second video of Nancy Pelosi’s press conference, that I had put in my diary, was removed from You Tube. So, I just now replaced it with another video from The O’Reilly Factor that shows the infamous clip of her accusing the CIA of lying. Actually, this video is even better than the previous one that I had embedded, because it also includes a very interesting discussion between Bill O’Reilly and Bill Sammon regarding Nancy Pelosi’s press conference.

  • GW says:

    Very good post. I am torn. Yes, by all rights, she needs to step down (and then be taken to have her meds adjusted). She has greatly harmed the CIA for her own partisan purpose. And I note now that, since the CIA made the confidential records available, neither she nor anyone else is talking about a commission to get to the truth on this matter. That said, there is no better lightening rod than this deeply disturbed woman through 2010 midterms.

  • StephC says:

    Susannah, he’s not right with his Bush lied talking points but he has to keep saying them. You know what they say: “Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.”

    At least that’s what the Democrats do.

    GW, I wouldn’t worry too much about the CIA or whether or not Pelosi steps down. It’s just going to be really interesting for awhile in D.C.

    Is Pelosi reprehensible? Yes, she is. However, given the leadership in D.C. from the W.H. down is she any different from anybody else? Well, perhaps some are better liars than she but other than that…

    BB, you had to reach for that one, didn’t you? It’s amazing how little press all those 100 of thousands of tons of yellow cake being quietly moved to Canada got.

  • Susannah says:

    Thanks GW–I’m glad that you liked it. 😀

    And, speaking as a partisan, yeah, I agree with you that it would be better for the GOP if she stayed around. But, speaking as an American, I think that it would be worse for the CIA and for our national security. However, I can definitely see your delima.

    Oh, and Steph, the reason why this troll’s “Bush lied” talking points got on my nerves so bad is because they had absolutely nothing to do with my diary. Furthermore, it reeked of sheer desperation, because if he could have found some way to defend Speaker Pelosi, other then shrieking “Bush Lied”, then I’m sure that he would have. But, you’re right with the whole “If you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth” expression. 😉

  • StephC says:

    It’s all they have, Susannah. Remember the blog post I made before yours? It’s all about blaming somebody else to justify their own shortcomings; like schoolchildren saying somebody else made them do it.

    It’s nerve racking because the Democrats campaigned using the blame game and promises to fix it. Instead all they do is blame the opposition for their failures. They have racked up a lot of failures in a few short months haven’t they?

  • BB-Idaho says:

    That yellowcake was discovered and isolated at the ruined Tuwaitha nuclear complex by us in the FIRST
    Gulf War. It was continually inspected by the free world periodically. It was in such poor shape that it had to be repackaged for sale. 40 tons BTW, and not from Africa…speaking as a former WMD type, ya know.
    It was an accidental ‘reach’..a deliberate one would have been the tons of munitions Reagan/Rumsfeld
    sent to Osama bin Laden when he was our ‘friend’.

  • StephC says:

    BB, does it really matter at this point? The facts don’t matter. The Democrats have scapegoats and will never ever take responsibility for their own actions.

    Pelosi should step down. She really should. Why? Because every time, every single time, something happened with a Republican, she was first among those calling for them to step down. Instead, it’s someone else’s fault, whether it’s Bush, Cheney, or the CIA.

    The Democrats campaigned against this sort of thing. They made all kinds of promises they haven’t kept and have no intention of keeping since the 2006 elections.

    When is enough, enough?

    And this kind of behavior from the Democrats is exactly why, in a previous blog post, I said I never ever wanted to hear or see the word hypocrit used toward a Republican by a Democrat ever again.

    I’m actually considering making it a banning offense at this point because I’m sick of hearing it when the Democrats excel at hypocrisy and nobody calls them on it because people just simply their shoulders and explain it away as that’s what Democrats do.

    Okay, if you want to blame Bush for whatever it is that floats your boat. I can’t stop you but it’s time to stop blaming him for other people’s actions.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    “The facts don’t matter.” Huh? I was a scientist…we found them quite compelling. 😉

  • You get em, Steph.

    Democrats always point out a wron by one of them to a fabricated wrong by Republicans.

    If she was any kind of patroit, she would be so ashemed she would have already resigned.

  • Susannah says:

    Steph, please ban this jackass. He is rude, he is obnoxious, he is stupid, he makes false accusations, and he insists on threadjacking.

    OK Sparky, let’s see who you’ve mentioned so far–George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Karl Rove, Sonya Sotomayer (you forgot the Easter Bunny)–what do all of these people have in common….let’s see… oh, yeah, absolutely none were mentioned in my diary!! You falsely accuse me of “genuflecting to the Limbaugh choir”–guess what PeeWee? I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh! Oh, and you accuse me of wanting to attack Sonya Sotomayer…guess what? I don’t give a flip about her (or you) one way or the other. Oh, but after your “tantrum” about the Iraq war (which doesn’t have a damn thing to do with my diary and must make you the worst debater in history), guess what you STILL have failed to do? Defend Nancy Pelosi (or give one shred of evidence defending her) in any way shape or form (probably because you can’t). You accuse me of “Pelosi hatred”, yet I wasn’t remotely interested in her until she became a one-woman circus. Did I put a gun to her head and make her say those silly things? Did I create those videos (embedded in my diary) out of thin air and make her say all of that ridiculous BS? Did I make Jon Stewart or SNL mock her? Is it my fault that she looks incompetent? Or maybe it’s you who is so filled with hatred towards anyone who remotely disagrees with your worldview, that you attack strangers, and waste your valuable time threadjacking diaries and websites, just to be a pain in the ass. Dude, you really need to get some therapy. Now, beat it and go play with you Wii and let the grown-ups discuss politics without your pathetic, off-topic, alcohol induced, incoherent rants.

    PS–You said exactly that “100,000 Iraqi men, women and children were put in early graves”–either take responsibility for what BS you write, or don’t drink and blog.

  • StephC says:

    I didn’t actually ban himbut I did remove his last comment. I think he might be off his meds (or in need of some) and will give him a chance to rectify the situation himself. There have been the few odd times when he has actually said something that made sense.

    This time, however, is not one of them.

    xsd, the last comment you made, proves my point from my first comment to the last one above. Democrats will use distraction and blaming somebody else for their own actions.

    I find all of it rather strange. IIRC, you were a McCain man.

  • StephC says:

    RP, I wish I had a smiley huggy. Really good to see you.

    When you going to come over here and set the liberals straight?

  • StephC says:

    I’m glad of it and you’re right. He’s been posting a long time so I believe it’s worth giving him a chance.

May 2009


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.