Nancy & the Rattle Snake

I have been watching the media reports on the growing conflict between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and those who are seeking to stop any further investigation into the OVP’s torture policy. It reminds me of an old story that I learned when I was young, involving an Indian teenager and a snake.

In such old stories, snakes tend to represent "the devil," or more specifically, "doers of evil." Hence, for years, I’ve made references to VP Cheney as a snake, not meaning the actual creature, but the implied human status. The snake lies, and convinces the individual that they can find some benefit from doing something they know that they should not.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

In this story, the youngster has climbed a high mountain. He encounters a rattle snake, shivering in the cold. The boy asks the snake why it is on the mountain? It answers that it got lost, and that the bitter cold now threatens its life. The snake asks the boy to take it and place it in the warmth of his shirt, and to carry it down the mountain, to where it is warm.

The boy responds, "But you are a rattle snake, and dangerous to me." The snake replies, "If you help me this one time, I promise not to hurt you. In fact, if you help me, I will give you a valuable reward."

The boy takes the snake, and places it inside his shirt, and walks down the mountain. When he gets to the bottom, he is excited as he anticipates his reward. As he begins to pull the snake out of his shirt, it bites him.

"But you promised. You said that you would not hurt me, and that you would give me a valuable reward," the boy protested, as he lay dying.

"But you knew I was a rattle snake," the snake answered. "It’s my nature to lie and bite."

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

I tend to believe what Nancy Pelosi said at her press conference yesterday was true. But as she is finding out, snakes can shift shapes, and can twist things in such a manner that the truth appears as a lie, and lies the truth. This is especially true when they filter lies through certain intelligence agencies that engage in misinformation and disinformation. The corporate news media, for example, employs many snakes who purposely spread misinformation, just as surely as the agencies they front for spread disinformation.

In Nancy’s circumstance, her mistake was cuddling that rattle snake, when she took impeachment off the table. Giving comfort to a rattle snake is risky business. The "reward" one gains rarely turns out to be what one anticipated

Acting is not her forte. By rights she shouldn't keep her day job, either.

Maybe Nancy will not run again. We can hope.

but not this one. All of this who knew and when crap is designed to take our eyes off the ball. There is one issue. Waterboarding is torture. The Bush Administration waterboarded, ergo, the Bush Administration tortured. Everything else is just so much bullshit to keep from concentrating on that point. The former vice president has even admitted it. Why we are paying attention to Pelosi is not important. Besides, she was in the minority then. Who was she going to tell about it? The majority leader?? I'm sure Tom DeLay would have shared her concerns and went the whole nine yards to make the administration cease and desist on the torture. Uh huh. Don't play the media's game. Waterboarding is torture. The Bush Administration admitittedly waterboarded. The Bush Administration tortured. No more. No less. And we should not even engage in the other superfluous bullshit.

We the public just want the truth. Congress is clouded by their own involvement, or their suspicion that colleagues might be involved and the desire to prevent a scandal. They are walking a tightrope.

"Waterboarding is torture."

Well, yes, there's that. Certainly in context of the Nancy Pelosi pile-on by the media, it is important to remember that our focus should be on those who ordered and committed the torture, rather than those who may have had some complicity in not doing everything they could have done to stop the torture.

My question remains this: why the hell are we focused on waterboarding, when dozens of people died in our custody, whose deaths were ruled "homicide", their deaths a result of "harsh interrogation techniques". Even the infamous torture memos mentioned "organ damage or death" as hallmarks of torture. So while I understand that waterboarding is important, especially insofar as it is a specific technique that was specifically approved at high levels, it is also a distraction. Already we have pundits saying "But look, this was only done to three individuals" (not that I believe them, really, but that is what I have heard them say) -- while nothing, absolutely nothing is said about the dozens who have died due to torture. So in that sense I see it as a distraction also, it allows the talking heads to battle it out about whether waterboarding is torture, all the while ignoring the fact that there already has been torture committed, by any definition, including John Yoo's definition.

You are correct. EVERYTHING we have done illegally with regards to torture and murder must be brought to light. And the focus should be on the people who were in the position to bring those acts to fruition. That would be the Bush Administration. No one else. Pelosi's main problem, in my opinion, is she let herself be used as a figleaf by the Bush Administration. All too often, these politicians look at each other across the aisle as colleagues, even when it is clear that the leadership end of the GOP for YEARS has been operating as a crime organization. For Pelosi to not realise that she was being set up by crooks is unfathomable to me. I thought she had more sense than that.

"....may have had some complicity in not doing everything they could have done to stop the torture."
doesn't stand on its merits as she was in the minority when the majority pretty much silenced all opposition. Remember Bush ruled like a dictator, and the Republicans in Congress reinforced his tyranny.

...but if the argument holds any water at all, that she was complicit in not doing all she could to stop the torture -- well, then, it simply reinforces that torture was done, ergo crimes were committed and prosecutions are in order.

In most criminal cases, the perpetrator is held to be more guilty than someone who had nothing to do with the original crime, was unable to stop it or only knew of it after the fact, but may have protected the guilty party in some way. If I rob a bank, and a relative who had nothing to do with it gives me a place to hide, yes they are guilty of a crime but their crime is a much lesser charge than mine is in that circumstance. So let them scream about Pelosi's "guilt" -- it only makes theirs greater.

usually completely overlooked - point.

And yes:
In Nancy’s circumstance, her mistake was cuddling that rattle snake, when she took impeachment off the table. Giving comfort to a rattle snake is risky business. The "reward" one gains rarely turns out to be what one anticipated.

Good morning Water Man ':hi:

Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas

They bite and their bite can be deadly.

I'm not convinced the CIA out and out lied to Congressional overseers about this. The overseers are the overseen, and they tend to be very docile. More like sheep living with wolves.

by categorizing facts as "secret." Lots of presidents have done the same thing, but Bush did it to an extreme. Bush asked his aides to defy subpoenas. Remember? That is another means through which Bush drastically limited Congress's oversight ability.

Bush and Cheney and some of those working under them were crooks. Face it. And if you disagree, please support the request for prosecutions so that the courts can determine whether or not they were.

I always liked the one about sleeping with dogs. If you sleep with the dogs, you will wake up with fleas. Something like that.

Johhny RIver's "The Snake" (1966)

A tender hearted woman
saw a poor half-frozen snake

His pretty colored skin
had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh, well" she cried, "I'll take you in
and I'll take care of you."

CHORUS

Take me in tender woman
Take me in for heaven's sake
Take me in tender woman
SSSSiiiiggghhhhed the SSSSSSnake

She wrapped him up all cozy
in a comforter of silk
and then laid him by the fireside
with some honey and some milk

She hurried home from work that night
and as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taken in
had been revived.

Chorus

She clutched him to her bosom
"You're so beautiful" she cried
"but if I hadn't brought you in
by now you might have died."

Well she stroked his pretty skin again
and then kissed him really tight,
but instead of saying thanks,
the snake gave her a vicious bite.

Chorus

"I saved you!" cried that woman
"and you've bitten me but why?"
"you know your bite is poisonous
and now I'm gonna die."

"Ha ha, shut up, silly woman."
said that reptile with a grin.
"You knew darn well I was a snake
before you took me in."

Chorus

Oh, you better take me in ssssssiiiiigggghhhed the Snake.

Other than that, the story is almost the same. Another difference is that the scorpion stings the frog in the middle of the river, and as they both drown, the frog asks the question and the scorpion gives the answer. I guess this version is a little more pointed because the scorpion is so evil he's willing to ensure his own destruction in order to live out his nature.

It's in ancient Sanskrit and so goes across Hindu and Buddhist cultures, it's been misattributed to Aesop the Greek, it shows up in African, Muslim, and Hebrew folktales. And there's a Coyote version in Native American folklore.

I'm sure there are people in Washington who believe that the entire city is a nest of scorpions. The older I get, the more I wonder the same. Good luck to all our Dem leaders -- they surely need it.

Hekate

I used to use it to teach storytelling to children, as it is well-suited for the purpose.

Personally, I've always thought the snake got a raw deal when it comes to reputation.

Still, it's an apt metaphor. For Pelosi, and for the current administration's stance on including the snake at every level of policy making.

Perfect fit to what is going on and has gone on with Speaker Pelosi.

With pleasure I K&R this OP! :hi:

Politicians and spooks are both masters of ambiguity. They said it, they didn't say it, what did they say? The listener heard what served the listeners purpose at the moment. And now maybe it's heard differently.

based on misplaced priorities. The chances are great it will strike when it feels an opportunity has presented itself. The problem for us is that a politicized clandestine organization does not serve us first. Its priority is a political agenda.

how would impeachment change this story?

would have served to cut the head off this snake.

he became more popular and remains popular, the impeachment didn't hurt him at all.

I was talking to some young coworkers who didn't even know he was impeached. They knew there was a scandal, they thought he was going to be impeached but wasn't. One of them looked it up online but it was just trivia to them, just a technicality.

to compare Clinton's being impeached over a blow job, to Cheney's not being impeached for a wide variety of criminal offenses and abuses of the power of office. It's rather hard to take such a comparison seriously.

would it change anything?

What does "cut the snake's head off" mean? If Cheney was impeached, would RW extremism be dead? Even hurt?

You know what did hurt RW extremism, no question? Winning the 2006 election, then the 2008 election.

that criminal affected in those years. I suspect they disagree with you.

And there is no reason to believe that our 2006 and 2008 victories would be in anyway impeded by upholding the laws of this country. Bush's numbers were tanking and the people turned against the war and were struggling in their own lives.

And you know what didn't hurt RW extremism? Allowing them to continue unchecked as we do mostly even today.

the Founding Fathers included impeachment in the Constitution? Do you think they were serious? Or was it a joke they included on a whim?

there are serious charges of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' would have demonstrated that this is a country of laws, rather than the lawless state it has become.

If there continues to be no consequences for the treasonous crimes committed by the Bush administration, even worse crimes will be committed in the future. So it would also have made it less likely that we see such crimes committed again for quite a while.

It was a dereliction of her duty for Nancy Pelosi to claim that she even had the right to make a decision that was clearly unconstitutional, removing Impeachment, the only tool Congress has to go after elected officials who break the law, not to mention that it made her complicit in those crimes, whether they told her about water-boarding or not (we knew, so I assume so did everyone in Congress).

As far as rightwing extremism being 'cut off', that is not the purpose of the law, so has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals. Justice is what was at stake, not eliminating political enemies.

Electing Dems in no way eliminated right-wing extremism, it simply put them temporarily out of power, or it should have. And being technically out of power doesn't seem to have changed much as Cheney appears to be controlling the debate at least on issues of national security and torture, judging by Obama's flip-flop this week and Nancy, rather than Cheney, has successfully been turned into the torturer in chief in the minds of the public. Seems to me, Cheney and Rove are still in charge. However, if Impeachment had been kept on the table, the Dems might not, once again, be on the defensive where, no matter how big a majority they get, always seems to be where they end up.

A friend of a friend of a friend knew a woman who had a boa constrictor. Or maybe it was a python. Anyway, it was a snake and it was pretty big and she would sleep with it. They would sleep curled up, snuggling. Then it started sleeping along side her, all stretched out. Head to toe. So she asked a friend who was an expert what he knew about it. He said the snake was measuring its size against hers, and when it grew big enough it was going to eat her.

True story. (maybe! ;))

--imm

Our Democratic representatives cannoty seem to see what we can see so clearly from afar:

Republicans cannot be trusted.

And I use it quite often.

There is no question that the CIA lies to protect their interests. (Were you laughing as loudly as I was when the reporter asked Pelosi, with amplified incredulity, "Are you saying that the CIA actually lied to you?" As if God fumbled in the end zone.) But Pelosi is ignoring the full context under which she was misled: the CIA was completely pigeonholed by the OVP through the pressure of the Office of Special Plans into making every possible piece of "evidence" conform to a bullshit narrative where al-Qaeda and Iraq were bosom buddies.

By placing the focus of the scandal on the CIA, Pelosi is playing right into Cheney's hands by taking the focus of Congress and the Beltway Media Blitz off the real instigators of this Deep State Scandal and into the same institution that Bush/Cheney tried to scapegoat when the truth came out that the al-Qaeda/Iraq alliance was non-existent. Any "independent commission" that focuses on the CIA and ignores the OSP will be guilty of the same miscarriage of justice.

Innocent or guilty. Up or down. Bring the charges (including homicide), present the evidence, hold trials.

No "fact-finding commissions". Holder needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor to compile the facts that every DUer could easily provide. Probe further beyond the easily available facts to get the really dirty details. Then establish justice by prosecuting these traitors!

My understanding is torture has three purposes:

1. Extract information.
2. Elicit a false confession.
3. Provide a thrill to those inflicting or more rarely those receiving torture

Surely Pelosi is not just now discovering the true nature of those who think they own the Republic (aka Republicans)?

Coddling that rattle snake was indeed Nancy Pelosi`s big mistake. The easy way out isn`t always the easy way out.

Good story. I believe she was played like a fiddle but she went along to get along and now she's getting bitten. If she goes down it will be a crime because she's no more guilty of torture than Lynndie England, but no one can say she shouldn't have seen it coming, or SOMEBODY should have. She shouldn't trust that snake Hoyer for instance or anyone else for that matter.

A Cherokee elder was teaching his children about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to them.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too.”

The grandchildren thought about it and after a minute one of them asked, “Which wolf will win?”

The elder simply replied, “The one you feed.”

We will never know the answer to that question, but I'm happy with the result.

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership (and Obama) are smart enough to not get ahead of public opinion and to appear like the bloodthirsty Republicans did during the Monica Lewinsky "hearings".

Letting the torture news drip out, letting the public swallow the truth and building a desire to have hearings is better than just doing it arbitrarily. One will make us feel better, the other will have a longer and greater effect.

I am supportive of Pelosi.

Lindsey Graham foolishly tried to make Pelosi the subject giving Pelosi the opportunity to say "the CIA lied" and now to now begin taking the scab off of the festering truth beneath of all the crimes the GOP committed.

There will be hearings. There will be testimony under oath. And the Republicans will have brought it all upon themselves and the Democrats will not be seen by Americans as being on a "witch hunt" now.

I just see this differently.

K & R

Nancy Pelosi is a political animal. She is from a political family and has been in politics all her life. She learned enough to do the one thing that has kept her 'holy grail' mission alive long enough for seniority to elevate her a position that has overwhelmed her. She moved to CA, more specifically, San Francisco.

Back when she talked about impeachment, the one thing she had to avoid was saying "impeachment was off the table". Senility on steroids. Never say never and always avoid always. And so on like that. Not to mention something else staring her in the face - a barely functioning little blob of protoplasm by the name of Harry Reid. And now that pronouncement has come back to bite all of us in the ass.

Nancy, please tell us why you said "impeachment was off the table".

:applause:

I fully expected the deal with the Devil to fall apart someday, and here we are.

Pelosi is nothing more than Connie Corleone, turning states witness in order to save her precious skin.

She disgusts me.

Edit to add: My personal jury is still out on Speaker Pelosi, but I always loved that story.

I posted the definition of torture in another post and here also. IMO, Nancy Pelosi was not an accomplice. Congress passed a law prohibiting torture in 2005 after struggling to get Republican support. That's what Congress is supposed to do. The only other thing Congress could have done was to impeach Bush. Yes, they should have done.

Of course, Pelosi responded to this post and the argument that she should not have taken impeachment off the table with her statement that she chose to get a Democrat elected president instead. That was a judgment call. Considering the fact that she knew that the government was at the very least approving torture techniques, it seems her judgment was so impaired as to disqualify her as Speaker.

We need a different Speaker, someone with a backbone who knows right from wrong. Does any member of Congress qualify?

I recommend my Congressman, Xavier Becerra. Take a look at his website:

http://becerra.house.gov/HoR/ca31/home

And his voting record:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=2009&person=400021

And the definitions of accomplice
One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.


Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi's "mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act" would not be "enough, no matter how reprehensible" would not make her an accomplice.


IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was "knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent" united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not even know until later that it had actually been performed. Whether she is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don't have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA's memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA's witnesses on this.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "equally concerned" in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not "present" and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, "though absent from place when it was committed." We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail "to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime." She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi's statements.

As a congresswoman, I would think she had a duty to act.

The hard part here is that she lied to us. She said she never heard of it being used until it was exposed that she had. I can't trust her on this issue after she purposely lied to cover her political butt.

One thing I like in this is that President Obama is still squeaky clean on the issue.

ZIP, and that's the way they want it!!! Repukes & Democrats! Not all to be sure but there are very few Bernie Sanders' around anymore!!

CA, a state known for LIBERALISM for the most part has a Repuke Governor at this point in time, DIFI is "dust in the wind" and perhaps one of those snakes, so what do "we the people" who live in RUBY RED counties in Florida have anything to BELIEVE in???

It SUCKS, It SUCKS, It SUCKS!! I recently contacted BOTH of my Senators and my Representative about how Chase, who bought WaMu raised my interest rate from 6.49% to 10.24% and didn't even get a reply that they received my inquiry! My argument was that I'm a good customer, never a late fee, always paid almost all of my balance and yet they SCREWED me for being a good customer!!

My conclusion about this is that THEY don't WANT good customers, when called they essentially told me so. I resisted using my Credit Union because the rate was higher than what I had... now I switched to my Credit Union rate 8.75% and Chase won't even give them a pay off amount!!

Snakes On a Plane... Snakes hiding in wait... and you know what is ironic... I, as a female when I encounter a snake myself won't ever kill one! Well, I'm not so brave, I know about certain snakes because I do a lot of landscaping, but have been bitten a time or two.

Too many people don't even "think" these days, so again I say... IT SUCKS!!!

cia admitted he was correct.

if he hadn't kept notes..............

who is the cia?

we know contain mistakes.
Bob Graham:"three out of four of these alleged briefings never took place"

On top of that we know, within the CIA, there are still people who argue that torture works and should be continued. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is very much a proponent of torture.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/hayden-chain-interrogations-yielded-bulk-intelligence-knowledge/
So,i can't believe there are no high-ranking CIA officials today who still support torture and are rooting for Dick Cheney's argument to prevail.
Only a full declassification of torture memos and all briefings by CIA to congress and an independent prosecutor can really give us the truth

His impeachophobic cuddling is as old as Pelosi's. And he stuffs every DC/Euphemedia-Analstocracy-generated serpent in as fast as they can float them out.

He's subjugated our Constitution and Rule of Law to the "morale" of the CIA -- committing http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">his own crime in the process.

He's stroked the corrosive secrecy-snake from the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5296318/Binyam-Mohamed-secret-information-to-be-reviewed.html">courtrooms of Great Britain, to the http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/10/MNGS15QB5B.DTL">civil courts here at home, to the http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1931533.aspx">public's right to know what was done in their name.

As he obliviously "looks forward" to reaching the bottom of the mountain, he takes us all down with him.

--

As I read this thread, it feels as though I've read it before.

I don't like to rely on my gut feeling. And I don't like to admit that I do. Nancy Pelosi has never set off my bs-o-meter. I feel it works well for me. But when convoluted situations exist, gut feeling may not exist. Or may be very slow.

I've always felt that she took on something poisonous. And thereby became a part of the poisonous brew. There is much to be revealed. I'm impatient.

It is a lesson most people learn with age. Some never learn, and some, though they have learned, have also forgotten. This is a lesson I have never forgotten, and is probably why I seem, all too often, cynical.

i've always loved that analogy. it's played itself out in my life too, unfortunately. live and learn...i'm sure nancy has too.

Thank you.

I lean toward buying her statement as well. Either way, she may have betrayed her responsibility to defend our constitution, treaties, and laws by taking impeachment off the table, etc.

Now this? So she kissed the devil - lets all hope she doesn't get screwed by him in the end. It's as grand a job as it is a stressful thankless one, it seems. RIP Tip O'Neill. O'Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House, like Herbie Hoover with a smile, cheerleader for selfishness. Even after falling victim to Reagan's new MSM propaganda organ, he missed the thrill of politics. Must be a very dangerous drug.

totally on point! :thumbsup:

Thanks!

I don't recall Nancy's exact words but I do recall Nancy talking about what a great guy George Bush was right after she'd been to the White House, where the snake had charmed her.

I remember that she kept saying over and over that there was no reason to even think about impeaching Bush or Cheney. Was she under the snake's spell, was she afraid for her own safety, was she lazy, or was she stupid? I'll pick all of the above!

And it is in a sense driven by greed...you knew I was a snake but the promise of reward made you blind.

you sup with the Devil, you need a long spoon."