You want to know what's wrong with the Democratic Party? Read and analyze my poll with 20/20 hindsight. Can we are can we not UNITE?
Mr. Greenwald has written an excellent article, as usual; this time it's about new revelations from the Speaker of the House regarding Senator Leahy's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission".
As most of us know, the Senate is currently considering how to set up a "Truth Commission" to probe issues such as wiretapping, torture and the firings of US attorneys. There are some excellent diaries here at Daily Kos discussing what this commission should look like or whether one should exist at all, prosecution being favored by many here.
Senator Leahy has proposed a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", started by a petition: http://www.bushtruthcommission.com/ which now has 33,869 American signatures to back it up.
Senator Leahy also posted a diary about the subject here at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Apparently, the Speaker is somewhat skeptical of Leahy’s proposed "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" because she does not want improper immunizations, preventing future prosecutions. In her interview with Rachel Maddow, she reportedly says:
PELOSI: Senator Leahy has a proposal, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is a good idea. What I have some concern about though is it has immunity. And I think that some of the issues involved here, like the services part, politicizing of the Justice Department, and the rest, they have criminal ramifications, and I don't think we should be giving them immunity.
http://www.salon.com/...
I generally agree with Mr. Greenwald’s conclusion:
Ultimately, while Whitehouse and Conyers are proposing a Truth Commission with the explicit possibility of subsequent prosecutions, and Pelosi is arguing for prosecutions now, Leahy's overt argument against prosecutions -- no matter what his "Truth Commission" finds -- is nothing more than an attempt, by definition, to place the President above and beyond the rule of law. Whether she's sincere or not about it, it's at least good (and potentially productive) to see Pelosi being critical of such a lawless posture from the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman.
http://www.salon.com/...
The good news seems to be that our voices (those of us who believe we must examine the Bush adminstration's record before we turn the page) have finally been heard. It looks like the debate is now turning to process, which excites me. It means "something" is going to be done by the legislative branch. I, for one, am overjoyed to see a healthy discussion breaking out between the House and the Senate about how to proceed with the much needed investigation of the Bush years.
Although I am sympathetic to the House’s position that we should not foreclose possible prosecutions, I am also mindful that the House bypassed Congressman Kucinich’s well-considered and well-written "Articles of Impeachment". http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/...
Did the House lose some of its credibility on this issue? Afer all, it was the Speaker who insisted impeachment was "off the table".
Back then, she not only stole Congressman Kucinich’s boots, the chance for the House to act on his proposal, but she also stole his bootstraps, the Senate, since the House must initiate impeachment hearings.
Regardless, I am pleased to see that Congress is finally finding its voice and acknowledging its proper role, as Senator Whitehouse said:
When push comes to shove, we are the legislative branch of government. We have oversight responsibilities. And we don't need the executive branch's approval to look into these things just as a constitutional matter.
http://www.salon.com/...
I would love to end by saying I look forward to watching Ms. Maddow’s show. Unfortunately, I refuse to support the further pillaging of our airwaves by buying cable.
News and speech should be free. I sincerely wish her show was still aired on the good old-fashioned radio.
I look forward to opinions, followed by reviews of "The Rachel Maddow Show" here at Daily Kos and beyond.