Political Theater

Nancy Pelosi cracks me up. I watched the news conference where Pelosi attempted to refute the accusations that she knew more than she has claimed about waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. Man, that was almost as good as watching Clinton ask for clarification on what the definition of "is" is.

Now, any of you who read my blog often know that I typically harp on the Republican Party. But more than anything, I like to think of myself as a critic of all politicians. My mind changes over time on who I ally myself with, based on who I feel has the best ideas.

Tonight, my subject is the Speaker of the House and what she may or may not have known about waterboarding.

Here's how I see it. Of course she knew we were waterboarding terrorism suspects. She was a prominent leader in the minority party at the time in question, 2002. She was briefed on these so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" after they had been used. So she knew about it, then she didn't know about it, then she knew that there was the potential to maybe be used but hadn't really but it wasn't so clear.

What? That's political drivel for "I knew about it and now I know I'm screwed."

She knew. She was told by the CIA what was going on, and she was doing what was politically popular. There was a prevailing anti-terrorist sentiment that surged through the country post-9/11. I think we are all still very anti-terrorism, but maybe now we ask more questions because other nations don't really like some of the things we may or may not be doing. Back in 2002, the definition of "terrorist" was also probably a bit wider than it is now, but that's not really the point. We know that Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were terrorists, so they got the worst. So what was the popular choice? Nail the bastards and get whatever we can out of them.

So she went along with it. If Pelosi had objected to torture, as she claims now, she would have spoken out based on principle right then and there, if she were honest. But there was no need for honesty; there were points to be scored with the public.

Fast forward a few years. The public tide is turning on Bush and Cheney. They've done some questionable stuff, and the public doesn't like it. Pelosi is now Speaker of the House, giving her a very prominent bully pulpit. Waterboarding is torture, waterboarding is wrong. This is what the public wants to hear. This is what Madam Speaker pronounces.

The political tide continues to turn, with a sweeping Democratic victory in the 2008 election. The time is right for change. I voted for that change. So now what does the public want? That's not entirely clear. Do we let it go? Do we form a Congressional truth commission? Speaker Pelosi calls for a truth commission. This would seem to be a reasonably popular choice - do everything we can to get to the bottom of any illegality, prosecute it, and let justice be done. In principal, this is the American Way. Obey the Constitution, do what is right.

This is what Speaker Pelosi calls for. The rest of Congress, however, is not so convinced. Republicans sense that there may be a witch hunt brewing, potentially smearing an already-smarting political party. Democrats (whose noses are also not fully clean in the matter) don't really want to push it, because some of their own may be at risk. They hold the power and they like it. Any political party likes to be in charge. So what are the odds of a truth commission? Probably pretty slim, given the overwhelming indecision throughout our Legislative Branch.

So where does Nancy Pelosi sit in all of this? Exactly where she wants to be - safe. She played the game in 2002 and went with the prevailing hawkish political tide. Now she speaks out forcefully against waterboarding, again, just what the public wants to hear. She speaks out so forcefully that she even promotes the idea of a truth commission, the American Way - justice for all.

Because she knows it will never happen.

She knows it keeps her safe. Those in the public who aren't sure what's going on hear what they want, and behind the scenes, the political gears continue to turn. How, if she is so enthusiastic about 100% transparency, can she have anything to hide? That's exactly the point she wants to make. She promotes something that she knows will not come to pass. Political theater at its best. She's playing all sides, likely will not face any real trouble aside from the political sniping from the Republican Party, which is mostly on point on this issue, I think.

See? I agreed with conservatives.

All well and good, and nothing major is going to happen. I just thought I'd observe that this is some interesting politics at play here. It's all about message and spin. And sometimes, just ever so often, you can play all sides until you're in the position you wanted after all.