Comments (67)

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 10:43 AM:

The learned about the tapes in 2006. Probably (conveniently) after the midterm elections - and change of party power.

JohnW1141 wrote on December 7, 2007 10:48 AM:

Rockefeller is useless. Remember when Pat Roberts was Chairman of the Intel Committee how Rockefeller would bloviate on the Phase 2 hearing on how the Bush gang used/misused Intel to go to war?

Well, ol Rocky has been Chairman for almost a year now and no mention of Phase 2.

dave wrote on December 7, 2007 10:50 AM:

You misidentify Rockefeller as a Republican in the beginning of the article; just FYI

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 10:51 AM:

change rockefeller's party affiliation in the second sentence from an R to a D.

y'all aren't going fox news on us here, are ya?

Dennis wrote on December 7, 2007 10:54 AM:

So Rockefeller, although supposedly investigating the torture, was actually helping cover it up. And then, by reference, his membership on the Senate Select Committee to investigate what the White House, prior to the 9/11 attack, knew and when it knew it is also a phoney investigation.

Our "brave men and women" are certainly not found in our Congress.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Dr. Zoom wrote on December 7, 2007 10:57 AM:

Jay Rockefeller is a disgrace. Time and again he has given tacit cover to the worst of the Rethuglicans' tactics. Lederman is absolutely right. Let him go eat with Lieberman at the Closet-Republican table while someone with a brain, a spine and at least one testicle runs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 11:01 AM:

WTF? What is with these dems? This happens over and over again. Were they sleeping??????????? I really don't understand. They probably had the info on the iran NIE a year ago and didn't do a f'n thing about the king ratcheting up the war drums. Why are they on the intell committee and getting briefed if they are just going to roll over??????

Mary wrote on December 7, 2007 11:07 AM:

And where were those members of the Congressional branch of government when the Executive Branch was busy spinning lies to the Judicial Branch of government in the Moussaoui case and elsewhere? It's pretty clear that complicity and duplicity involving Harmon, Reid, Rockefeller & Pelosi is largely why impeachment is off the table. Getting at the real story won't make anyone comfortable voting for Democrats either. Impeachment off the table is just Legislativebranchspeak for "state secrets" - a shield against responsibility for their own actions and inaction.

I do get a kick out of the reference in the story to the CIA "hiding" information from the DOJ. The DOJ sent out the memos soliciting the torture, it's a stretch of imagination to think that the same players who solicited the torture and approved the torture didn't want the evidence of the torture destroyed - particluarly given the Bush DOJ track record for "misrepresentations" to the court.

It's a DOJ that took its oath to the President, not the Constitution, and that has contempt for the law, their own profession, their ethical and legal responsiblities, and in particular contempt for the courts as not only an independent third branch of government, but also as the branch from which they actually derive their ability to claim to be lawyers.

OTOH, when you look at something like the disposition of the el-Masri case, it seems the Judiciary Branch is commited to suicide, trying as hard as it can to destroy any reason to keep up the pretense of having a Judicial Branch at all.

If you believe in anything beyond this life, it makes you wonder what happens to the souls of the men and women who sacrificed so much to honor that uniform Hayden wears when he stands in it and lies and orders up torture and despeartely licks the boots of a man like George W. Bush. It will save his hide in this life, since the United States no longer has any government or legal system that will generate consequences for his actions as long as the Executive is pleased with the droolshine on his boots.

I'm betting, deep down, whatever he says, he hopes the aethists are right. Because if they aren't, nothing he's earned in this life will balance what he's facing in the next.

TomH wrote on December 7, 2007 11:09 AM:

"I regret the freudian slip."

You have a sly sense of humor, Mr. Ackerman. TNR's loss is TPM's gain.

Jim the cynic wrote on December 7, 2007 11:23 AM:

It seems our politicians don't understand that torture is repugnant. I am disgusted with our government for engaging torture as I am disgusted with our government for engaging in an unnecessary war. I believe that the majority of Americans share my views on the morality of government actions. It seems that a fair number of Democrats and the Democratic leadership don't understand this.
The sea change of the 2006 mid-term elections was only the beginning. Mr. Rockefeller and his ilk should forget about whatever Cheney/Bush are blackmailing him with and do his job.

Great White Buffalo wrote on December 7, 2007 11:33 AM:

"It's pretty clear that complicity and duplicity involving Harmon, Reid, Rockefeller & Pelosi is largely why impeachment is off the table."

Mary nails it. Rockefeller is clearly complicit.

Weren't these the confessions that (supposedly) proved Al-Quaeda was behind 9-11? One of them was of Abu Zubaydah, the the CIA's first detainee. Gadzooks, I sure hope that we didn't invade those countries and kill all of those people and kills and maim all of our own people because of coerced confessions or anything like that.

linda wrote on December 7, 2007 11:34 AM:

michael a: no. they weren't sleeping. they were active accomplices in the destruction of criminal evidence. that is why the senate intel committee has been so fucking useless -- too much daylight would have revealed what just came to light.

everyone of these sons of bitches must be held accountable for the crimes they were accessories to. they need to fucking hang for their treasonous and depraved behavior and their complicity in the dishonor and degradation they have brought upon this country.

every last one of them.

David wrote on December 7, 2007 11:41 AM:

Resign, resign, resign. Those who are complicit in hiding this information, reguardless of party affiliation should resign at once.

linda wrote on December 7, 2007 11:42 AM:

and, fwiw, there's a very interesting comment at tp i've copied here:

Gerald Posner suggests another possible explanation:

Re the breaking news that the CIA destroyed the videotapes of interrogations with 2 terror suspects, you might have seen that the tapes of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah were destroyed.

You might also recall that in my 2003 NYT bestseller (reached #2), Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, my last chapter was titled, “The Interrogation.” Based on two active US intelligence sources, I was the first to disclose Zubaydah’s interrogation. To date, I am the only reporter to have printed the info about what happened to him.

Zubaydah, wounded when he was captured in Pakistan, was fooled in a fake flag operation to believe that the Saudis held him. Instead of being afraid of the ‘Saudis,’ he demanded to talk to three Saudi princes (one, the nephew of the King, who happened to be in the U.S. on 9/11). He gave his interrogators the private cell phone numbers of all 3. He did the same regarding the chief of Pakistan’s air force.

After the U.S. told the Saudis and Pakistanis of Zubaydah’s finger pointing, all four men had tragic ‘accidents.’ The King’s nephew died of complications from liposuction at the age of 43. A day later, the 41 year old Prince named by Zubaydah died in a one-car accident on his way to the funeral of the King’s nephew. The third named prince, age 25, died a week later of “thirst,” according to the Saudi Royal Court. And shortly after that, the chief of Pakistan’s air force died when his plane exploded with his wife and 15 of his top aides on board

When my book was published, CIA officials trashed it ‘off the record,’ but made no public comment. I have always held the same position. There is (or was) firm evidence of what transpired, of whether my reporting was accurate or not. Make the interrogation tapes public and then we’ll know whether one of the top al Qaeda operatives accused leading Saudi royals and a top Pakistani military man - now all dead - of being his sponsors. And accused two of them – the King’s nephew and the Pakistani air force chief – of having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Now, suddenly coincidence of coincidence, the CIA says the Zubaydah interrogation tapes are destroyed. How convenient.

Long Memory wrote on December 7, 2007 11:47 AM:

This is just great. We don't torture! (Except when we do.) The next president will get a bit of slack from the international community, but only if we come clean with the world.

If we weren't the biggest funder of the UN, I believe somebody would already have sought sanctions against us over this torture business.

Then some idiot like Chavez could stand up and use the same arguments on us that Bush uses on Iran right now.

I remember when the Golden Rule meant something.

visitor wrote on December 7, 2007 11:50 AM:

Can I just ask in the light of this revelation, was there not another time that Rockefeller knew something and was sworn to keep it secret on the fact that if it was revealed he would have been prosecuted? Didn't he keep a copy of a letter in his safe to show afterwards? Perhaps this is the same case in that if only the top 4 were told, once again they were told just enough but not enough to say anything substantial or that they would be prosecuted if they said anything, and you know darn well, Bush and CO., especially Cheney would have done it.

Legalize wrote on December 7, 2007 12:07 PM:

Yet again, Rockefeller and the rest of the craven Dems in the Congress exemplify the very worst of the criminal enterprise posing as a government. At least the GOPers don't hide their evil; they promote it and revel in it. The Dems on the other hand purport to care about this country. It's good cop - bad cop. The GOPers kick us the balls, while the Dems smile and hold our hand. Nothing more.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 12:16 PM:

Since the White House has indicated that it will categorize this information as state secrets, any attempt by Rockefeller or Harman to reveal that information could have resulted in their prosecution; indeed, even confirming this information after it was leaked to the press could result in prosecution.

I don't believe they are required to go to jail for not notifying the public of something neither they nor the public could have halted.

The responsibility for these actions continues to rest on those individuals within the CIA and Bush administration who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity or facilitated, abetted, or covered up the same.

Don't lose your focus by going after the wrong people.

eric wrote on December 7, 2007 12:17 PM:

Say what you want about Rockefeller, but he isn't bloodthirsty, and I doubt he likes torture. There clearly is more to this.

A friend of mine says that the reason that these people don't speak up is that they are compromised. There is something that is being held over their heads that they so fear that they can't do the right thing. They can't cross Cheney. Fear of prosecution? Fear of having some fact exposed? Fear of going down in an airplane crash? An envelope of anthrax?

Remember what Cheney said to Sen. Wellstone in 2002: "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

Sure, it's tinfoil hat land. But don't people really still have that in the back of their minds? I think they do. And I can't think of a better explaination for all of this odd behavior when the democrats inexplicably roll over on this terrible, terrible stuff.

bwindrip wrote on December 7, 2007 12:26 PM:

I had forgotten that Jane Harman was co-chair of that 9/11 inquiry.

She is also a sponsor or co-sponsor of a bill to form "committees" to investigate web-based communications that advocate violent or radical acts to effect political change, or some such vague bullshit as that. I read that some think-tank dick gave a PowerPoint dog & pony that listed, among others, 9/11 truth sites as being dangerous.

Uh-oh.

Jane's perfume has worn off, and I think I caught a whiff of AIPAC.

chabuka wrote on December 7, 2007 12:37 PM:

what a worthless, self important little turd...haven't we had enough od these people...on both sides of the aisle???

chabuka wrote on December 7, 2007 12:38 PM:

what a worthless, self important little turd...haven't we had enough of these political worms...on both sides of the aisle???

cevrero wrote on December 7, 2007 12:38 PM:

We are War Criminals all the way up and down our government.

RichM wrote on December 7, 2007 12:43 PM:

And people wonder why I switched from 'Democrat' to 'Unaffiliated' in my party affiliation. I'm begging to believe that Nader was right - there's not a nickle's worth of difference between the two parties. We elected the Dems to provide oversite and restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. What happens when the watchers are part of the same power structure as those who are being watched? We've been punked, my friends.

woody, tokin librul wrote on December 7, 2007 12:45 PM:

It is precisely in these matters--their devotion to the national security state and their fealty to the most authoritarian institutions of our so-called 'democracy--that the synonymy of the interests of GOPs and Dims is most obviously and glaringly revealed.

Jane Harman is the fascist bitch who is pushing that "Homegrown Terrorist" thought-crimes piece-of-shit bill trhough the Congress, further imperilling the 4th amendment.

PRINCE GEORGE SEKOU wrote on December 7, 2007 12:53 PM:

Kindly accept my apology for sending this unsolicited mail to you which I hope you will treat as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.I believe you are a highly respected personality, considering the fact that i sourced your profile from a human resource profile database on your country.I am Prince George Mobutu Sese Sekou, Son of the late President Mobutu Sese Sekou of Zaire, new Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).There was war in my country and so my family members escaped to Morocco or God knows where they are right now in africa.I have for the past {6} years, been moving from boder to boder and country to country.

Yesterday i managed to find my way into cotonou, a western boarder town of Benin Rep where my old friend, now a retired military officer resides.This Country is too big and there are so many Nationalities here, I have simply just adjusted quick as usually.Due to my fathers tarnished image and past crises, It is not safe to put any investment in my country.Seven troubled years has passed and everything has supposedly died down. Now I want to set up Viable Business Ventures in your country.

I sincerely have the sum of $29.6 million u.s dollars set aside for this project but I would not want my name or family's name to be used for security reasons.I am prepared to offer you 12% (or a re-negotiated sum) of the total amount received,if you assist me in claiming the funds from the financial and security vault in europe, where i deposited two {2} boxes containing the funds in my name before my fathers death.I honestly assure you that this deal is 100% risk-free,So Please contact me if you are interested and capable of helping by sending your telephone number for me to reach you because I cannot receive any international call due to my present condition.

I came into this country with only $40 and intend to use this money to stay in touch with you all the way.If you can convince me of your honesty and profound interest in this transaction,then i can proceed to furnish you with the details of this transaction.I need sound assurance that you are solvent and capable of handling a transaction of this magnitude and that my share of the money will be safe with you. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Warm regards,

Prince George Mobutu Sese sekou.

AC wrote on December 7, 2007 1:02 PM:

eric,

where/when did cheney say that to wellstone?

On the Clock wrote on December 7, 2007 1:02 PM:

Quite right, Mary, impeachment is off the table because the leadership of the Democratic Party has been complicit in some of the worst transgressions.

We're in a fine mess Constitutionally. Kudos to the American people, btw, who reject both administration and Congressional performance by 2/3s or more.

We've got to battle through another 13-1/2 months. And you know who's saving us? Our bureaucracy.

EH wrote on December 7, 2007 1:05 PM:

@eric: That "did a Wellstone on him" talk removes any credibility you may have cultivated in your previous sentences.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 1:08 PM:

On the Clock: Quite right, Mary, impeachment is off the table because the leadership of the Democratic Party has been complicit in some of the worst transgressions.

Impeachment is off the table because it would not succeed in the impeachment, much less conviction, of either the president or the vice president and would, therefore, be a waste of time, be simply the same type of political theater that liberals like you condemned when it was the GOP doing it, and ultimately hurt Democratic chances of expanding their control over Congress.

But I wouldn't expect reality folk to actually get that.

You'd be better off if you were operating in a haze of hippie lettuce smoke, rather than operating in the haze of self-righteous intellectual buffoonery that you are currently in.

johnnydoughey wrote on December 7, 2007 1:10 PM:

Let's see now...

Why are we supposed to trust our democrat leadership more than our republican leadership?

Absolutely NONE of those clowns in Washington deserve air time to give opinions about our nation and democratic principles... our heritage... NOTHING!!!

They are gaining power while throwing our entire reason for being a great nation out the window!!!

I will NEVER vote for either party again... EVER!!!

Those of us who have seen torture close up know what it can do to human beings... whether on the giving or receiving end...

anyone who even remotely condones or does nothing about it is just as guilty as those who actually follow through with the actions... IMHO

EH wrote on December 7, 2007 1:13 PM:

Impeachment is off the table because it would not succeed in the impeachment, much less conviction, of either the president or the vice president and would, therefore, be a waste of time

How exactly do you know this? Keep in mind that Andrew Johnson's (second) impeachment was conducted in May of an election year.

elf wrote on December 7, 2007 1:17 PM:

These two were played for the fools they were and are, just like the rest of them.

I am sure the "boogeyman" was invoked endlessly just as now in the form of those "End-Times" Gaffney and the rest are spewing w/ the NIE leak.

On the Clock wrote on December 7, 2007 1:20 PM:

Anonymouse,

"hippie lettuce smoke"... mildly amusing.

I accept your characterization of the '98 impeachment as political theater, as welll. I'll never forget hat fat old hypocrite Henry Hyde -- grhs -- hoisting a flag from his belt buckle on the floor of the House just before Livingstone resigned in disgrace.

Where you are flatly wrong is in asserting impeachment hearings would hurt Democratic chances of expanding their majority. They currently are languishing at 11 percent approval, precisely because they are ineffective in arresting the current Constitutional trainwreck. I think it's reasonable to predict that they'll come close to losing their majority at their current pace, particularly with the certainty of a Democratic president.

theWalrus wrote on December 7, 2007 1:38 PM:

Terrific. This will be a MAJOR rightwing talking point: the fact that Harmon and Rockefeller knew about the torture tapes.

It will be used in the same way that "Dems voted for the war, too" has been used to effectively silence the Dems.

Sad. Not only do we need to get rid of Bush and Co. but looks like, in 2008, we need to get rid of a lot of Dems too.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 1:43 PM:

--- "How exactly do you know this?" ---

No Repuklican will vote for impeachment.

A sufficient number of House Democrats will not vote for impeachment.

Democrats don't have enough votes in the Senate to convict, which would require 2/3 in favor. Not even close.

Will. Never. Happen.

I know that as sure as I know that Democrats can't get enough votes to pass an AMT relief bill with tax increases to offset the tax funds lost, as just happened.

If you can't even get legislation passed in the House over Republican objections, you can't get bills of impeachment passed.

It's just that simple.

BTW, I'm not talking about the '98 impeachment, but the vast supply of legislation the GOP used in the run-up to elections to put Democrats on the spot on hot-button issues for the GOP base - bills they knew would never pass, but submitted simply to show up the Democrats and make a political statement about "values."

--- "They currently are languishing at 11 percent approval" ---

You are an idiot (pardon the insult) if you believe this.

Congressional approval is at 11%, which includes both Democrats and Republicans.

Separate approval rating polls for Democrats along puts approval of their performance much higher - maybe not great, but nowhere near the 11% you mistakenly cite.

--- "I think it's reasonable to predict that they'll come close to losing their majority at their current pace, particularly with the certainty of a Democratic president." ---

Moreover, you are conflating overall congressional approval with the approval ratings for individual members within the segment of the public that is permitted to vote for that individual member.

Individual members are very likely to have approval ratings of over 50% with their constituencies, so they are in no trouble with those constituencies as long as the don't rock the boat by going off the deep end and wasting time on trying to impeach a president which simply doesn't have the level of public support you think it does, particularly when compared with the support for measures that would have to go on the back burner while impeachment attempt floundered away.

The public simply won't have the stomach for an impeachment-for-show of a president who even if the process was successful would be removed with virtually no time left to serve - the process would take months out of a remaining 12 months in office, even assuming Congress didn't take any breaks, Republicans didn't throw up a boatload of delaying procedures, etc, etc, etc.

You people are living in a dream world.

=============

Hey, TPM, allow html tags for comments.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 1:46 PM:

--- ". . . the certainty of a Democratic president." ---

None of the potential Democratic candidates has a strong lead, much less a commanding lead, over the most likely Republican nominees, so this is just more evidence of how far out there you are in reading the political tea leaves.

Of course, I hope you are right, but there is no polling evidence to back up your assertions at this time.

onceler wrote on December 7, 2007 1:48 PM:

of course the Dems ALL know about this crap and have kept silent. silent to us anyways. they haven't kept silent with each other, in asking all around that nobody let the cat out of the bag and incriminate the Dems along with the Cons. too bad we have such weak, amoral elected officials in general, if we had real Dems representing us they'd be able to take the Republicans on in this issue. but since they colluded with Bush and allowed it, we're stuck with a bunch of self-serving assholes who won't say sh#t, because it will end up making them look bad as well.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 1:55 PM:

onceler: --- "too bad we have such weak, amoral elected officials in general" ---

So quit whining and run for office.

I'm sure you would have the backbone to do a bang-up job.

Of course, you'd only last one term, would never get a majority to go along withyou, and immediately be replaced the next election by someone a little more pragmatic, but you would've done the right thing and you would be able to pat yourself on the back for being a righteous loser.

classified info? wrote on December 7, 2007 2:00 PM:

isn't it true that senate intel comm members are prohibited from revealing classified information? perhaps that's why he didn't say anything about such matters until it had been leaked -- he didn't want to jeopardize his position on the committee or break the law. makes sense to me.

of course, some of you will argue that he should reveal the info anyway and accept the consequences, but that isn't too smart if you think about it -- because if he did, then he'd be removed from the committee and then wouldn't even have access to info anymore, which would lessen his ability to try to influence the executive even more.

in the end, a senator ought not break the law by revealing classified info unless it is an absolute necessity.

classified info? wrote on December 7, 2007 2:00 PM:

isn't it true that senate intel comm members are prohibited from revealing classified information? perhaps that's why he didn't say anything about such matters until it had been leaked -- he didn't want to jeopardize his position on the committee or break the law. makes sense to me.

of course, some of you will argue that he should reveal the info anyway and accept the consequences, but that isn't too smart if you think about it -- because if he did, then he'd be removed from the committee and then wouldn't even have access to info anymore, which would lessen his ability to try to influence the executive even more.

in the end, a senator ought not break the law by revealing classified info unless it is an absolute necessity.

anon wrote on December 7, 2007 2:01 PM:

OT but I agree, it's not productive to holler "Wellstone" but...but...it's yet another example of Team Bush's very, very good luck and it's hard to forget. And considering what we know the administration has done, putting an overly enthusiastic Blackwater team on Wellstone seems like footnote. However, it's not productive to harp on it because, well, yeah, there's no evidence that Wellstone was murdered and quite a lot of evidence that he died in an accident. And sticking to the truth, to the known knowns, as they say, is necessary (if not sufficient) if we're ever going to get out of the mess we are in.

sandy wrote on December 7, 2007 2:10 PM:

Jay Jay vs. Wet Noodle. Wet Noodle wins again.

Right Fools wrote on December 7, 2007 2:11 PM:

What is wrong with the Congressional Democrats?

They really need to strap on a couple!

benjoya wrote on December 7, 2007 2:14 PM:

jello jay is in on it, too. what a freakin surprise. yeah, i'll write a check to the DSCC.

anon wrote on December 7, 2007 2:14 PM:

I just read the most amazing thing, a section of Sheldon Whitehouse's comments from the floor today, just posted at Scott Horton's No Comment blog on Harpers. Amazing. It's very, very clear and cuts to the heart of the matter. Among other things, Whitehouse says:

...In a nutshell, these three Bush Administration legal propositions boil down to this:

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2.“I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3.“The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”...

He provides clear examples of each and sticks to his guns throughout. It's the best display of Democratic leadership I've seen in years.

John D. Rockefeller IV (R, in reality) wrote on December 7, 2007 2:16 PM:

why don't you people trust the commander in chief the way i do?

W Action wrote on December 7, 2007 2:21 PM:

Did Rockefeller put on file another secret objection that he can now pull out and say, "See, I WAS concerned, trust me"? Better Democrats, please.

mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 2:30 PM:

We need a Dem hit-list. We need to scrape the mud off our boots and move on. Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Harmon, Boxer, who else?

Get the F$%* out of my party!

kavips wrote on December 7, 2007 2:56 PM:

There are two threads here that need pursued:

Complicity by the Dems:

Intimidation by the Repub's:

Anyone out there who can bring new facts to these arguments? Opinions are great, and always welcome, but facts.......well they hold up in court.......

Mary wrote on December 7, 2007 3:07 PM:

Who knew that lettuce came in hippie v. evangelist versions?

If, by "liberals like you" you meant me, it's pretty funny. I stuffed envelopes and door knocked, many many years ago, for Dick Lugar, before I could even vote. Quite some time later, I contributed to and voted for Warner when I lived in VA.

I'm a lifelong, diehard Methodist.

It's interesting to know that I'm the paradigm of the "hippie lettuce" eating "liberal."

Of course, since that's coming from someone who thinks that investigations into torture, kidnap, massive illegal domestic spying, propagandized lies and misuse of intelligence and treasury assets to scheme up a war in Iraq that has resulted in death, destruction and millions of refugees, etc. - is "just the same as" the "political theatre" of the Clinton blow job between consenting adults statements - I'm wondering if I should be sceptical about the hippie lettuce part. I mean, where does hippie lettuce keep its love beads?
condemned when it was the GOP doing it, and ultimately hurt Democratic chances of expanding their control over Congress.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 3:20 PM:

mo2: "We need a Dem hit-list."

You already had one.

Dukakis followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

Bradley followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

Nader followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

Dean followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

Gore followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

Kerry followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost.

----------

Clinton didn't follow that advice and he won.

Get the picture?

Self-righteous, sanctimonious, unpragmatic ideology is a losing proposition in politics and that type of attitude on the Left is what got Bush elected twice.

And if Obama is the Democratic nominee, and he and his supporters represent exactly that attitude, and that attitude drives up hatred on the Left for current congressional Democrats and candidates, there will be a GOP president in 2009 and Democrats will either gain few seats or lose them to Republicans.

And only uninformed, intellectually snobbish fools think there is no difference.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 3:30 PM:

Mary: Of course, since that's coming from someone who thinks that investigations into torture, kidnap, massive illegal domestic spying, propagandized lies and misuse of intelligence and treasury assets to scheme up a war in Iraq that has resulted in death, destruction and millions of refugees, etc. - is "just the same as" the "political theatre" of the Clinton blow job between consenting adults . . .

And characterizing my comments as suggesting these things shouldn't be investigated is a lie.

Impeachment is not investigation, it is an attempt to remove the president or vice president or other high official.

There are plenty of congressional investigations going on and I applaud them.

That you would deliberately misrepresent investigations and impeachment as the same thing is typical of your self-righteousness.

BTW, I was raised Methodist and voted for Lugar as a young adult.

So what?

That means absolutely nothing to whether you are high on the weed of self-righteous and self-congratulatory intellectual fantasy that demeans politicians trying to balance the interests of maintaining what little influence they have on our out-of-control president and the path of righteousness.

Even Bush pushed stuff into his nose.

Being divorced from reality is a condition embraced by all ideologues.

You are blaming the wrong people.

The problem is you can't convince enough of your fellow Americans, because if you could they would have tossed Bush out after his first term or would be raving in droves for impeachment today and they aren't.

So because you are a failure at convincing the only people who can actually make a difference, the voters, you blame the victims of the Bush administration and the public's indifference: congressional Democrats.

And that makes you far more pathetic than either Harmon or Rockefeller.

JubleJohnson wrote on December 7, 2007 4:53 PM:

Ah yeah! good ole Rockefeller & how about Harmon these folks are creepsNo sence of decency,It's why many members of the Dem Party must be voted out in Nov & make way for new blood.
Any wonder why impeachment was taken off the Table ?Much more implicating Dems in congress will come forth.

Bill Reynolds wrote on December 7, 2007 5:08 PM:

Wow, "anonymous" (above at 3:20 PM) lumps together: Dukakis, Bradley, Nader, Dean, Gore, and Kerry, and then (rather bizarrely) claims they all "followed the advice of the self-righteous pragmatism-criticizing Left and he lost."

*laugh* What unreality-planet is s/he living on?

Dukakis (tank), Bradley (economy), Gore (brown suits) and Kerry (voted for it) all tried to be "centrist" (i.e. compromised, not standing up for their values, alienating their base).

Nader was a fringe candidate who doesn't belong in that list.

Dean was taking the country by storm until Gephart and Kerry knifed him in the back with TV ads morphing Dean's image with Osama bin Laden's, last-minute attack funding in Iowa, and corporate-media frenzy over his microphone in Iowa.

By contrast, Bill Clinton NEVER, EVEN won more than 49% of the vote. He never got a majority. The only reason he win in 1992 was because Ross Perot took 19% of the vote and forced Bush Sr. to defend himself on the Texas/business/right flank, distracting Bush from going after Clinton.

*sheesh* What a mis-reading of history.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 5:58 PM:

Bill Reynolds: "By contrast, Bill Clinton NEVER, EVEN won more than 49% of the vote."

Rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, Clinton got 49.2% of the vote in 1996.

That is more than 49%, no matter how many decimal places you add.

"The only reason he win in 1992 was because Ross Perot took 19% of the vote."

Rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, Perot got 18.9%, which is not 19%, and never will be no matter how many decimal places you add.

*sheesh* what a misrepresentation of history!

And we're supposed to trust YOUR reading of history when you can't even get the statistics right?

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 6:01 PM:

Also note the following:

"However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory."

Your claim that Clinton would have lost had it not been Perot is a conservative talking point that holds little if any water.

In any event, it is not a correct reading of history to assert as a definitive fact that Clinton only won because of Perot.

But, LOL with your talking points.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 6:07 PM:

Reynolds: "Dean was taking the country by storm until Gephart and Kerry knifed him in the back with TV ads morphing Dean's image with Osama bin Laden's, last-minute attack funding in Iowa, and corporate-media frenzy over his microphone in Iowa."

For the committed (or those who need to be), it's always somebody else's fault that their candidate lost.

But even if what you say is true, you prove my point: those willing to engage in pragmatic politics, including but not limited to attacking their opponents, will win and those who don't will lose.

That puts Nader, Dean, et al. in the same class: non-pragmatic ideologues who were so ideologically demanding that they pushed away potential allies and thus were too self-absorbed with their own righteousness and too whimpy to win in the end.

anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 6:58 PM:

BTW, Clinton received a greater percentage of the popular vote in 1996 than Gore did in 2000 and Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, so your point about Clinton's percentage of the vote is meaningless.

Whether it was against one or two or three or a dozen other candidates, CLINTON WON.

Your preferred type of candidate can't even get the nomination and would lose spectacularly in a general election.

So, LOL.

chris wrote on December 7, 2007 7:42 PM:

No undue offense, but these threads lose their credibility when message after message simply attack people in silly ("wet noodle") or crude ("turd") or draconian terms ("resign, resign").

Haddie wrote on December 8, 2007 2:24 AM:

I think we've seen what "pragmatism" has done to America over the past 6-odd years. Meantime, I'm disheartened by the House rush to approve Jane Harmon's HR 1955, another example of "pragmatism" I guess.

BernieO wrote on December 8, 2007 1:13 PM:

You know Bush would have prosecuted Harman and Rockefeller if they had disclosed this information. Bush takes the leaking of classified information by Democrats very seriously. We all know how he feels if Republicans do it.

Mary wrote on December 8, 2007 5:02 PM:

I can kinda understand why you want to remain anonymous, anon.

Impeachment absolutely begins with an investigation (how do you get that it is not an investigation???) into high crimes and misdemeanors and the investigatory powers of the Congress are at their maximum in that context. So the House step of impeachment proceedings are the main investigatory step Congress can and should take when there is credible reason to believe that an Executive Branch officer has been engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors and in particular where not criminal proceedings are taking place in the Justice Department.

The trial portion takes place in the Senate and only after the investigatory stage in the House.

You are spouting nonsensical strands or rhetoric, hoping that any subpart of a sentence sounds good enough to make it worthy of having been said. When your rants about crazed left wing hippies are met with the response that your defintion if the crazed left wing is against a lifelong Methodist, former Lugar and Warner supporter, you suddenly try to pretend that you weren't talking about left wing v. moderate v. conservative at all, but about ideologues generically - the hippie lettuce smoking Malkins are who you meant. uh huh.

Then you rant about failure in chaning the minds of America, with absolutely zero, zilch, nada s support for that statement and, to the contrary, huge support for the fact that the "crazy left wing hippie lettuc smokers" have pretty much changed minds of Americans over concerted media propaganda and bizarre rants like yours that there shouldn never be accountability for wrongdoing. No one buys what you're selling on that.

And of course Congress has to be blamed when Congress fails to perform. That's not blaming the wrong person - it's blaming the correct institution and leaders in that institution. Go back and look at the Nixon investigations/impeachment and figure out whether they were an afterthought, once public opinion had already gone first, or the force that helped drive public opinion as revelation after revelation was made.

Of course America believes in accountablility and in doing your job. Congressional failure to do its job is why its approval is so pathetic and why CONGRESS is losing the battle for any positive opinion from the American people.

djrichard wrote on December 8, 2007 11:12 PM:

When in doubt, don’t trust your instincts. That’s what this is all about. And what’s a good way to keep the dem leadership in doubt? Put them in situations where their voices are drowned out by competing messages. I’m sure Harman and Rockefeller would do the right thing if they could share responsibility with their colleagues on what’s going on under the cone of silence. But they can’t, and honestly they’d have to be real card players to out maneuver the administration and their toadies when they’re holding the cards of “national secrets” and such.

That said, the game is beginning to be rope a dope. The dem leadership in the senate should have this figured out by now, if not Harman and Rockefeller themselves. But if this is the best they hope to do, I have to assume they’re too frazzled in other quarters. It’ll come with time.

KFB wrote on December 9, 2007 10:46 AM:

I am watching Jay Rockefeller on Face the Nation talking about torture tapes and I am wondering what drug he is on.

djrichard wrote on December 9, 2007 2:36 PM:

Hmmm, maybe scratch what I said last night. If the dems in the "the gang of four" actually encouraged the CIA and their use of torture, as today's WaPo article suggests, then they might as well be neo-cons. Before today's WaPo article, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now though, they've got some serious explaining to do.

tr wrote on December 11, 2007 1:00 AM:

maybe bandar ordered bush to destroy the tapes. porter goss better lawyer up.