Arlen Specter Backs Pelosi
I appreciate that there are some basic political truths that are awkward for most politicians to actually utter. But one reason that it’s good to have some politicians around who are worried about their left flank, is that you can get this sort of thing from Arlen Specter (D-PA):
“The CIA has a very bad record when it comes … to honesty. It goes back a long time,” Specter said in a speech before the American Law Institute at a Washington hotel.
The Republican-turned-Democrat listed a handful of examples in the past where the CIA has withheld key information from Congress.
“It’s a real problem as to how you get the information,” he said.
Right on. Not that we should be acting like the CIA is just somehow full of dishonest people. But it’s an agency that’s well-equipped to do things in secret. Sometimes presidents like to use it because they want to do something legitimate that requires secrecy. But the secrecy capabilities are also useful if you want to do something that’s illegal or immoral. Like torture people. But when the CIA is being asked to do illegal and immoral things in order to keep them secret, that naturally tends to extend toward keeping congress in the dark. There are many historical instances of this, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone if the CIA’s briefings on the Bush torture program turn out to have been less-than-thorough.
Good for Specter.
43 Responses to “Arlen Specter Backs Pelosi”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 20th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Arlen Specter Backs Pelosi *Today*; who knows about tomorrow
There, corrected for you.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Arlen could have said this when he was a Republican – there are endless examples of politicians making exceptions to their ordinarily horrendous conduct, or making exceptions to their occasionally worthy conduct.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
LOL Politico. “Arlen Specter seems to side with Nancy Pelosi on CIA.”
One can only envision what the title would be if this were another breathless Newt Gingrich stenography piece. “Gingrich declares his unfettered support for Hoekstra” or something.
What an absolutely horrible publication.
Also, it would’ve been nice if they, you know, listed a single instance of CIA misleading that Specter apparently talked about.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
A life-time of looking over his shoulder may take a little time to overcome, but once Sen. Specter realizes there is no down-side to speaking his mind now that he is a Democrat, he could become a major contributor to the party and efforts to solve our many problems. His colleagues from Maine, however, may regret not following Specter. There may not be many wingnuts in the state, but it doesn’t take many to take down an apostate.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Also, it would’ve been nice if they, you know, listed a single instance of CIA misleading that Specter apparently talked about.
I’ve read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, which is a good starting point.
http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/about.htm
It will be interesting to see what the Senate Intelligence Committe report says when it comes out this fall.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I’m all for a little healthy party loyalty, and good for him and all that. BUT, this level of enthusiasm seems a bit premature, and a little weird, given how much time he’s spent poking his finger in the eye of “his” party. Maybe I’m wrong, and he really is beginning to understand that this is a real political party with a platform and principles; and not The Island of Misfit Toys. But I doubt it. And maybe he will survive a Democratic Primary, and not be sent packing as the untrustworthy, opportunistic turncoat that he is. But I hope not.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Specter’s been a DFH for decades.
Also, Specter has no mind. He has a primitive sense organ which is attracted to campaign donations, much like flatworms have sense organs that are attracted to light.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
The question is what is the CIA cooking up to bamboozle President Obama. Iran hates America because of CIA tampering with its democracy in the early 1950’s.
Kennedy got taken by the CIA with the Bay of Pigs invasion,which failed miserably due to CIA incompetence. Intelligence failed to note a Cuban manned lighthouse. America had switched to unmanned lighthouses and didn’t give the Cuban one a single thought. Lighthouse staff radioed that numerous U.S. destroyers escorting tramp steamers of CIA trained rebels were on their way to Cuba.
Guess who was the envoy to Israeli PM Netanyahu, the one delivering the warning not to attack Iran? CIA Chief Leon Panetta. Obama formed a high level workgroup between the U.S. and Israel on Iran.
Something stinks and it smells like CIA tampering. Will America ever learn?
May 20th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=the_cia_lie_to_congress_its_ha
In fact, the CIA has lied to members of Congress a number of times, detailed in Tim Weiner’s history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes. Here are just a few prominent instances. . .
May 20th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Jesus. You people are tough. What do you expect?. The dude has been a RETHUGLICAN for forty odd years. I’ll take every quotable bit of support for Pelosi I can get. Moreover, I’m sure he’s correct on the merits.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Biggest, boldest lie in American intelligence history is Arlen’s single bullet theory, but, I know, I’m old and it really doesn’t matter anymore…
May 20th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Well, it’s nice to see Arlen on our side this time. He’s an interesting guy, and one of the two senators I’ve shaken hands with (McCain being the other). He’s actually really smart, but his primary focus is being reelected. As for where he really stands, that’s a mystery that will never be solved. He makes the vote that will keep him in office. The quintessential politician. But unlike McCain, at least he’d spend some time talking to me. McCain was an ornery old man long before he was even old. I’m guessing McCain was telling the kids to get off his lawn when he was seven years old. But Arlen was never that way, he just does what he’s told and is usually polite about it. The Anita Hill thing was the only time I ever saw him break character. I was stunned by that.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Arlen was the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee late in Bill Clinton’s administration. And Wild Bill certainly raised the bar when it came to deceit.
I suspect the CIA ..er.. trifled with Arlen affections on one or two –or maybe 100 — occasions.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“And Wild Bill certainly raised the bar when it came to deceit.”
Umm, Nixon raised that bar so high that anyone could get under it. But even that wasn’t high enough for Cheney. But then again, Cheney came from the Nixon administration. So he knew how high the bar had to be to avoid impeachment. And he certainly raised it so high that a president could rape a five year old child on national television and everyone would say: “it’s necessary for national security.”
May 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Classy. I was with you right up until the baby raping, surely you could steer you outraged hyperbole in a less nauseating direction, no?
May 20th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“surely you could steer you outraged hyperbole in a less nauseating direction, no?”
I guess I could, but I try to keep it real. And by real, I’m not talking about the sanitized reality you see on TV. We think carpet bombing a country and killing a million people is just a nice dandy thing to do. But in the countries that got bombed, it ain’t just honey and roses. I’ve been to those countries, and I’ve been pretty shocked. Americans need to experience that kind of pain. So I try to mix it in with my writing so Americans might get just a little taste of what reality is really like.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The “keepin’ it real” defense, interesting. Point taken, though; third world solidarity etc. etc. etc.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Wow, that smear on Pelosi fell apart quickly. It’s funny, people – ok, not people exactly, but Republicans and the DC media – were treating the assertion that Pelosi knew about and approved the use of the water torture as established fact less than 48 hours ago, and now it’s all falling down.
Good for Pelosi. She hung tough, didn’t give an inch, and came out the other side with a big “Don’t Fuck With Me” tattoo on her bicep.
I guess we’ll be back to Republicans saying “calls for an investigation are a partisan witch hunt that endangers da trooooooooops” by Friday. A flip-flop-flip, so to speak.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Bombing of Cambodia.
Watergate.
Mining Nicaraguan harbors.
Arms for Hostages.
Contra funding.
Saying you didn’t get head from a woman you met at the office.
One of these things is not like the others.
One of these things just isn’t the same…
May 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
It is really safest to start with the assumption that if the GOP is doing something these days, it is more likely than not going to backfire.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Say we don’t have a serious alternate budget plan, will you? Well, we’ll show you.
Boo-yah! Who’s laughing now, socialists? Who’s laughing now?
May 21st, 2009 at 5:27 am
I don’t think it’s anything to cheer that any of our members of Congress are calling the CIA liars. If Matt’s blinkered construction that what he cares about in this matter is collecting expected political chits from questionably-Democratic Arlen Specter is real, that affects my respect for him somewhat. I’d rather see those chits come in on health care, by a looong shot.
It’s likely the case that the CIA is lying on this, or not being fully honest certainly. But I was frankly astonished at Pelosi’s handling of the situation. As bad as the CIA might be, we don’t need a spat of this magnitude undermining confidence in the agency further. It’s dismays me the relish that she took in escalating the battle. Who does she think it helps? In my view, the attacks on her were gaining a bit of traction, but she was in no real danger. She has been calling for a commission; surely she is confident then that ultimately she will be vindicated. Did the sophomoric suggestions that somehow she was responsible for torture really pose a threat in her estimation? But things are different now. Engaging this forcefully magnified the visibility of the attacks greatly, and by all accounts she did not come off well in her conference. What is she up to here? It seems like elementary political communication: don’t engage your detractors on their petty (and that’s what they were) attacks, unless somehow your hand is forced. Otherwise, you legitimize them. What gives?
And it is especially strange given that this is going on with a staunch party-man Democrat in charge at Langley. It seems almost staged in that respect. But I don’t think it is. I think she’s just a little nuts.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:54 am
Shorter Mike: “The CIA might have lied, but more importantly, Pelosi is an uppity woman!”
May 21st, 2009 at 7:32 am
Mike makes it sound like Pelosi randomly called a press conference to call the CIA liars. In fact, she called a press conference to address an issue of manifest public concern–rightly or wrongly, people obviously are concerned about this issue–and when specifically asked if she was accusing the CIA of lying to her, she responded with the facts as she saw them, which is that the CIA misled Congress about what it was doing in 2002.
I guess Mike is arguing that Pelosi should simply refuse to address issues of public concern and refuse to answer questions from the press as long as she calculates that she is “in no real danger” by so refusing. But I would prefer otherwise when it comes to our public officials.
Indeed, if it is true that the CIA misled the relevant members of Congress in these briefings, I think that is very important for the public to know. In that sense, I think Mike’s outrage is contingently misplaced: if Pelosi is telling the truth, it is not her fault for discussing it, it is the CIA’s fault for doing it.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Robert Baer was on NPR recently saying the same thing-that the CIA lies to Congress all the time.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:43 am
Maybe it’s because, you know, the CIA is in the SECRECY business.
Like defending the nation. Believe it or not, that is really an important thing for a President to do.
FTA:
Pelosi, last week, via CBS News:
Specter is the perfect Democrat, lying about what one of his bosses actually said. The Democrats can have him.
But that is exactly what the left and Democrats are doing, all while the CIA and the military are trying to defend the nation, the Constitution, and the people while the U.S. is at war. What the left is doing is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, an enemy the U.S. is at war with. The Constitution has a word for it.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:44 am
Whao cares what Arlen Specter thinks or says. He’s a two faced political hack. Dissolve the CIA already. I challenge someone to provide evidence of any benefit they have provided the nation. Predicting the fall of the Soviet Union? No. Infiltrating Al-Queda? No. They’ve been useful in assisting the overthrow of democratically elected gov’ts and that’s about it.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
and torture. Apparently they’re good at torture.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:46 am
Re bob h at 25: “Robert Baer was on NPR recently saying the same thing-that the CIA lies to Congress all the time.”
————
I think the word “lie” does not fully capture the grandeur and stunning creativity with which the CIA practices the strategic art of deception and misdirection. Usually abroad.
Of course, much the same could be said of Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. Sometimes gifted amateurs can outshine shopworn professionals.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
But that is exactly what the left and Democrats are doing . . .
Really? They are saying everyone who works for the CIA is dishonest?
Nonsense. And if you can’t make your argument without spouting such nonsense, that is a pretty good sign your whole argument is nonsense.
What the left is doing is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy . . .
A country which considered criticism of the government a form of treason would be much less worth defending. Fortunately, people like SteveAR are fringe whackos who don’t speak for most of the country.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Re Mike at 22: “But I was frankly astonished at Pelosi’s handling of the situation. As bad as the CIA might be, we don’t need a spat of this magnitude undermining confidence in the agency further. It’s dismays me the relish that she took in escalating the battle. Who does she think it helps? In my view, the attacks on her were gaining a bit of traction, but she was in no real danger. She has been calling for a commission; surely she is confident then that ultimately she will be vindicated. Did the sophomoric suggestions that somehow she was responsible for torture really pose a threat in her estimation? But things are different now. Engaging this forcefully magnified the visibility of the attacks greatly, and by all accounts she did not come off well in her conference.”
——————
Mike reminds me why I like Nancy Pelosi and why we should support her. Unlike most Democrats, when she is attacked she does not run like a rabbit. As far a I can tell, she is the only member of the Democratic Caucus with a pair of testicles.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am
But that is exactly what the left and Democrats are doing, all while the CIA and the military are trying to defend the nation, the Constitution, and the people while the U.S. is at war. What the left is doing is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, an enemy the U.S. is at war with. The Constitution has a word for it.
I can’t believe anyone has so little shame that they’re still willing to drag this tired, pathetic argument out of the closet. The CIA pursues the interests of the CIA. It’s long past time the agency was closed down and restarted from scratch.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am
Re SteveAR at 26: “What the left is doing is called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, ”
—————
1) SteveAR the buttkissing sycophant is reminding us of some primal tenets of Republicanism:
a) If you criticize the whoring acts of George W Bush, you are attacking America.
b) If you criticize the whoring acts of a shopworn politician named George Tenet, you are criticizing every member of the CIA.
c) If you criticize Big Oil for provoking Sept 11 in pursuit of $400 Million payoffs for CEOs, you are committing Treason.
d) Patriotism consists of wearing a chickenshit little lapel pin and waving the flag — while killing 4500+ US soldiers in an unnecessary war, wiping your ass on the Bill of Rights and
bringing disaster down upon your countrymen in pursuit of private profits.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:16 am
DTM:
That is exactly what Specter, and Yglesias, are trying to convince people what is going on.
Criticism? If it were only constructive criticism that would be fine. The destructive criticism engaged in by the left while the nation is at war is something else. I thought the left was interested in the law. Well, there is a law in the Constitution and on the books that addresses this kind of behavior. It’s a harsh assessment, but it’s one I thought the left would appreciate. Apparently, the left doesn’t like to be held to the rule of law they claim everyone else should be held to.
It is also readily apparent that Mr. Yglesias doesn’t have a problem with Specter’s outright dishonesty (which I highlighted) because it serves the false greater progressive good.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am
That is exactly what Specter, and Yglesias, are trying to convince people what is going on.
Yeah, “exactly”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If it were only constructive criticism that would be fine.
Yes, obviously the First Amendment should be limited to “constructive criticism”, as determined by GOP partisan hacks defending the crimes and corruption of one their own administrations. That is “exactly” what the adopters of the Bill of Rights had in mind.
Well, there is a law in the Constitution . . . that addresses this kind of behavior.
Yes there is, and I just mentioned it.
But here is the good news, SteveAR: the First Amendment also protects your right to express your freedom-hating partisan-hack whacko theories. So rock on.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:24 am
SteveAR, it’s perfectly all right to criticize the CIA and say that they lie and get things wrong, even in times of war. At least, it was OK to do this four years ago, when the White House was quite clear that the faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq came out of the CIA.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
Ken:
Saying the CIA made mistakes in regards to Iraq is valid criticism, especially there is plenty of evidence to show it. To say the CIA lied about Iraq, or that the administration manipulated intelligence (which would make members of the CIA an accomplice in this), is itself a lie since both CIA and the administration have been shown not to have done so via at least three Senate Intelligence reports and the Robb-Silverman report.
So now on to the current mess. Pelosi said the CIA, an agency with a job to defend the U.S., lied to Congress. Specter, in defending Pelosi, tells a blatant lie about what she said, which I highlighted above. Yet, somehow it is still the CIA that is lying? Are you saying it’s ok to say that the CIA is lying and offering as “proof” another lie? It’s free speech to slander every single member of a particular agency? How is deliberately defaming an agency whose job is to defend the U.S., and the sorry asses of Pelosi and Specter, not giving aid and comfort to the enemy the U.S. is at war with?
May 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
It’s free speech to slander every single member of a particular agency?
Well yes, but again this never happened. So who is the liar now, SteveAR?
How is deliberately defaming an agency whose job is to defend the U.S., and the sorry asses of Pelosi and Specter, not giving aid and comfort to the enemy the U.S. is at war with?
If you don’t like living in a country with a Bill of Rights, you are free to move elsewhere.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Specter, quoted in the post from the article:
Pelosi:
DTM:
It never happened? It’s happened twice within a week. Then Specter lied about what Pelosi said to help “prove” his slander.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I love this feigned outrage: OMG, how can anyone say the CIA lies to Congress? Why, that’s an outrage!
The CIA lie? Why, I never!
Are you kidding me? Who do you think is going to find this argument plausible? Eight-year-olds?
The CIA? Lie? No, they’d never do that. Not the CIA. What kind of whacko would say the CIA lies? Are you sure you’ve got the right agency?
C’mon. This is idiotic.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Since SteveAR is a really a principled fellow, who’d never make arguments in bad faith out of pure partisanship, I expect we’ll see him return shortly to blast the Republican Congressional leadership for this:
BLITZER: Last year, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely — an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash — a coverup, he alleged, involving the CIA.
He said these words: “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.”
That’s what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.
BOEHNER: Pete Hoekstra did say that, and the inspector general at the CIA did an investigation, and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up.
…
BLITZER: You agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?
BOEHNER: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does, and the inspector general did in fact do an investigation, produced a report, and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims.
Just in case it isn’t clear, John Boehner is the House Minority Leader, and would be Speaker if the Republicans gained the majority, and Pete Hoekstra is the Ranking Republican Member of the House Intelligence Committee, and would be Chair of that committee if the Republicans retook the House.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
The CIA certainly lies; they likely lied to Pelosi; she has every right to make the accusation if she can produce the goods. Nevertheless, I don’t see it as a reason to cheer when all that supposed “Democrats” can agree on is that a beleaguered punching bag of an agency, now headed by a loyal Democrat, is pack of lying sacks of shit. Which is how this thing came off. What I’m questioning is how this even has helped Pelosi herself, much less any other progressive cause larger than her. It’s a dumb fight for her to have engaged; at best it is about her personally. I’m all for strong engagement of the issues by Democrats. I don’t see how smartly sidestepping these dumb Republican attacks would have been not being willing to fight for progressive values. We know Pelosi is a fighter. But this was just dumb tactics. She was being plenty strong when she was just saying, let’s have a commission and we’ll see who comes out looking bad.
Also, it may have been her regular press conference, but she drove the message, she stayed past time to continue on the topic, and she actually came back to the podium to say more after she left because she felt she had left something unclear.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 am
The Reuplicons are despicable. They just throw out stupid rhetoric implying a lack of patriotism rather than talking about the evidence.
No wonder studies find conservatism is negatively correlated with intelligence.