In this week's National Journal poll of political bloggers, the first question was: "Does your party stand to gain or lose politically if a torture commission is established?" While the question generated a fair amount of pushback from both the Left and the Right (in that political concerns should not be the determining factor), the overwhelming vote on both sides was that their party would be much more likely to gain than to lose. On the Right, I was one of the few who voted "lose," although for the anomolous reason that I am one of the few (perhaps the only) Democrat in Right group. I wrote: "Obama loses. The inquiry will consume the nation's political energy, as did Lewinskygate and Watergate. The result would make it harder to move the Democratic agenda forward."
Which is not say that this reason should be decisive in anyone's consideration; most people today agree that pursuing the Watergate investigation was the right thing to do, despite the fact that it consumed the nation's political energy for over a year.
Question 2 was "Which of Obama's policy priorities presents the best opportunity to rally his network of online supporters?" On the Right, 53% said alternative energy/climate change, and 33% said health care. On the Left, 76% said health care, and 18% picked energy/climate. The other choices (budget, reduce wasteful spending, taxes) got hardly any votes. I wrote: "The climate issue appeals to lots of idealistic young people, the core of Obama's online network." If the question had been about Obama's base and interest groups more broadly, I might have voted for health care. I concede that the Left bloggers obviously have a better sense of the desires of their readers; my guess was about the "online" supporters more broadly--such as people who signed up as Obama fans on Facebook, but who are not necessarily regular readers of political blogs.
Bloggers: Torture Commission would be good politically. Energy & Climate, or Health, will help Obama's online appeal:
A competent, efficient and relatively non-partisan official investigation could get the facts out and let us move on. But I don't see how we move on without knowing the facts. Too many people are digging and finding small parts of the puzzle for this to just go away on its own.
Or "how?"
Big tent!
Perhaps it could, but as it's an impossibility to do that, maybe we shouldn't waste effort trying to do the impossible. We wasted effort with the 9/11 Commission, and all we seem to have profited is a bloated, nearly useless and increasingly politicized Homeland Security Department.
A Congressional investigation is the proper avenue, much like Watergate. Accountability can only arise there, but that's exactly what the congresscritters seek to avoid of course.
Maybe I'm just obtuse, but what facts are there, that would be material to your understanding of this? Seems we waterboarded people. Ssems some like that, some don't. Obama's suspending the practice. Since the only real benefit of an outside investigation would be the collection of documents for future review (the 9/11 report itself was pap, but the source documents to it may be useful over time, much like other such investigations), why not pressure the WH and the Congress for release of documents straight away? Don't you think the "commissions" are put in place to block such disclosure?
If so, at what point does it no longer continue to make sense to call yourself a Democrat? When you disagree with pretty much their entire platform, and agree with most of the other party's platform, support their candidates, etc?
A commission, or Congressional investigation, will divide, not unite, the country. Some people think that the only problem with the interrogations is that the interrogators were too squeamish; others appear to think that ANY interrogation of the detainees beyond "let's share a Coke and smile" was off limits.
I can't conceive of any facts that are going to change the minds of one camp or the other about this. I also do not think it to be of sufficient historic importance to this country.
- A lot of people remember 9/11 and its aftermath. The mistreatment of illegal combatants was done in that environment.
- The Democratic proposition here is essentially that it is better to not mistreat known terrorists than to prevent another 9/11 level or style attack on us. Combined with Obama's apparent cozying up to our enemies right now, this is not likely to leave many with a good feeling about our security.
- The Demococratic leadership, and in particular, Speaker Pelosi, were in on this from the beginning (in her former role on the Intelligence Committee). She at least gave her tacit, if not actual, consent to it. She may play dumb now, but that is likely to just make her look old and incompetent. She was there and was apparently fully briefed at the time.
You're right about Gorelick and Ben-Veniste. The Commission should have been all Republican, as you know how effective self-investigation. Certainly that would have avoided those embarrassing questions about the August 2001 PDB. In addition, "the Wall" is another disproven meme.
In a pure political sense, Obama should wait until the bloom is off the rose and he needs a lot of distraction. Of course, perhaps he hopes now to hide massive spending and statist moves behind the glare of show trials.
Sure, rot their teeth. Not to mention the caffeine might cause sleep deprivation, a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
You disgust me.
In addition, "the Wall" is another disproven meme.
No, it isn't.
Look, Democrats have been accurately portrayed as unserious about national security. And they are.
To take a difference of opinion in where you would draw the line in a definition of torture and elevate that to the level of prosecutorial proceedings or a "truth commission" will do wonders for the American people's view of Democrats in action.
But make book on this: when the tables are turned and the pendulum swings back, Democrats are going to get it from Republicans times 10. The legal persecution of Democrats will look like a blitz krieg. One successful terrorist event while Obama is in office and the entire lot of them will be held accountable for it.
Guaranteed.
Thanks. I think that's closer to what I was after. Usually when my head is spinning that fast, I lose the power of language entirely.
There's likely very little that could go wrong in this country in the next 4 years that won't successfully be blamed on the Republicans.
Really?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.