Blogs and Stories
GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands.
Just when it seemed to many that the right had lost its mojo, give conservatives credit: They're still enormously good at ginning up controversies and controlling the news cycle. Thus a story that was once about the Bush administration's decision to authorize barbaric and illegal acts of torture has successfully been morphed into a to-do about Nancy Pelosi's account of CIA briefings.
As political gamesmanship, it's been masterful. I particularly like the way the right has managed to trot out an endless procession of figures willing to express outrage that anyone would ever hint that the CIA might mislead a member of Congress. From conservatives' incredulous responses, you'd think Pelosi had suggested that little green Martians stole her briefing memos. Obviously, I wasn't in the room with Pelosi and whoever briefed her, but anyone with any recollection of history should be aware that it would hardly be unusual for the country's marquee intelligence agency to do something like that. Indeed, deception of Congress has been a common occurrence in the agency's history, and one former director, Richard Helms, was even convicted of lying to Congress.
The CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.
None of which has anything in particular to do with a unique CIA penchant for dishonesty. Rather, the crux of the matter is that the CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.
Helms' conviction related to the Nixon administration's role in overthrowing Salvador Allende in Chile. In the 1980s, CIA Director Bill Casey misled Congress about the Reagan administration's illegal continued support of anti-Sandinista terrorist organizations in Nicaragua. Under George W. Bush, the United States government embarked on the repeated torture of terrorism suspects in violation of American and international law. This fact was kept secret from the American people for the normal reason presidents like to keep illegal activity secret. It's illegal, after all, and "keeping it secret" is what people normally try to do after they commit crimes.
That basic logic hardly amounts to a proof that Pelosi was kept in the dark, and she almost certainly knew more about what was going on at the time than, say, I did. But it does suggest deception is a plausible scenario. And more to the point, it gets us refocused on the real issue here, which is not about what briefings were or were not given to Congress but about the underlying activity that was the subject of the briefings. We've had, for example, a steady drip of evidence, most recently from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, indicating that one main use of Bush-era torture was to compel people to "confess" to the existence of various ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
And here's where the right's tactical acumen comes up short. Various conservative commentators have expressed their hope that gunning for Pelosi will blunt progressive calls for a "truth commission" to thoroughly investigate what really happened on Bush's trip to the "dark side". Fox's Neil Cavuto said we might be in a "Mexican standoff" wherein Pelosi would agree to drop the idea of investigations to prevent herself from attracting scrutiny. Steven Hayes, Dick Cheney's official biographer, said, "Democrats who have been so enthusiastic about truth commissions have to be stopping and saying, OK, wait a second." What conservatives are missing here is that this is a fight they were winning before they started gunning for Pelosi. Their best ally in this fight was Barack Obama, whose desire to "move forward" rather than focusing on the past had been the subject of much consternation. Had conservatives simply reached out to grab the hand that was being extended to them, they could have gotten what they wanted.
But in their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely. Obama wanted to avoid a backward-looking focus on torture in part because it distracted from his legislative agenda. But if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin.
There's no sign that Pelosi or anyone else is backing off the truth-commission idea. And, indeed, by suggesting that Pelosi could be a target of an investigation, conservatives have helped cleanse the idea of the odor of victor's justice. The question of CIA briefings of congressional leaders would, after all, be a legitimate subject of inquiry. And it's very possible that, done rigorously, Pelosi and other Democrats, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), could wind up getting a black eye or two. But however bad an investigation might make the members of Congress who were supposed to be preventing illegal conduct look, the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse. Today, the congressional Republicans look extremely clever. But in a few months' time, we'll look back on this as yet another example of a conservative tactical victory that winds up backfiring. After all, selecting Sarah Palin looked brilliant for a week or two. And the anathematization of Obama's stimulus proposal seemed like an unexpected coup until it wound up pushing Arlen Specter into the arms of the Democrats. Gamesmanship, in short, can only get you so far. But conservatives sure are good at it.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Politically Scandalous Deficit Fixes
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Brilliant Speeches Only Get You So Far
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
How to Win 2010
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
ElLamer
Returning to logic rather than political games; even if all allegations were correct shouldn't Pelosi be somewhere on page 6 or 7 of the list of wrongdoers? Its stupid that people don't see the transparency in these political games.
cbeenthere
Exactly.
johnjohnson68510
Well, games, yes, but she still tarnishes herself, apparently, as not being as truthful as she pretends. I mean, to go from outraged accuser to, well, page 6 or 7, is still a big deal.
logicwhore
Every body cut the shit ok.....pull the documents the reports the session notes the photos the tapes ...what ever - if some one is guilty prosecute them if not move the hell on......jesus H. why do they treat this nations people like pre schoolers with this horse shit
jackee
What you and the author neglect is that Republicans want the truth commissions. Those actually responsible aren't in power anymore. They can blame it on those who are no longer in power and move forward while Obama and the Dems look petty. It certainly wouldn't leave just Pelosi, Rockefeller, and Harman with black eyes. Obama would have a shiner too.
RRoseH1
Doubtful! The ridiculous rantings of Newt of all people asking Speaker Pelosi to resign is the height of hypocrisy! He resigned in disgrace and because he has presidential ambitions, he over stepped his boundaries. He has no right to ask for any TRUTH commission since he is irrelevant. The GOP are trying to deflect the negative attention they receive by putting a bulls eye on the back of the Speaker. The outcome of all the fallout is now back firing on the GOP and an investigation will now happen exposing Cheney for the war crimes he authorized.
Dave1959
This writers use of the phrase "CIA's penchant dishonesty" is interesting ... Should it not rather read "CIA's penchant for keeping its secrets safe, because that is what they do.
Either Pelosi is lying or if she thought she was not being told the truth then why did she not make a big deal of it then, if this is the case she simply was not doing her job !!
Gamesmanship vs Stupidity .. I think the latter in this case.
Yankintex
Uh, safe from Congress? Sorry, that ain't the way the CIA is supposed to work. Of course, Dick Cheney and his lust for absolute power within the Executive branch of government would have it work exactly that way.
Look, we all know Pelosi is playing games here, but only in the context of something much, much bigger.
xbainx
Dave I don't expect you to get this, but here we go: Congress is supposed to authorize all wars, military interventions and coups. The C.I.A.'s budget is almost entirely "black" meaning congress just signs them a check not knowing if it is going towards national security or hookers and crack. That is un-constitutional.
So anytime the C.I.A. does something like, overthrow a democratically elected leader, they are committing treason, war without congressional permission. Read your history.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcrossnyc
She could not make a big deal of it because she was forbidden under the law from telling anyone what she learned in these briefings. She wasn't even allow to take notes, and she was forbidden to make notes afterward.
exploora
We are all kept in the dark, that is why we are living in the dark ages. "Dear".
Pics
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-torture-photos-published-in-2006-went -largely-unseen-graphic.html
Delete space keep hyphen, space comes up when pasting this long link.
Issywise
Ad hominem partisan attacks may be reassuring to the base, but they should not deflect serious inquiry into what was actually done and by whom.
Don't just hate partisan spin? It is so irrelevant and even silly that it shouldn't be assumed it will actually distract.
SharksBreath
Dave you completely missed it.
What is Pelosi guilty of.
Hiding Bush's torture program.
The same program the GOP continue to say was legal. You can't have it both ways.
Republicans need to answer this question.
If Pelosi is guilty of hiding BUSH'S TORTURE PROGRAM.
WHAT BECOMES OF BUSH AND THE GOP.
It's a suicidal argument they can't win.
IMHO If we can rid ourselves of the GOP and the one person who stopped Bush from getting Impeached I'm all for it.
theoPitt
So you want to get rid of the Republican Party? You really think the country would do better with a ONE party system?
oliverckerr
Yes! One party should be registered voters, the other party should be unregistered voters (who are mostly poor but not all - who "deep end" on government for Medicaid, and more).
The goal of the registered should be to get the unregistered involved, and the unregistered should be in charge of managing and running the elections.
One party with a tent wide enough for all to join - factions - instead of "parties" would / will be a lot less expensive, too.
RRoseH1
FYI: The republican party is already gone. The more those hypocrites deflect the truth about the CIA and war crimes, the worse they make it for themselves.
Dick Cheney has experience with the CIA. Remember Valerie Plane? Scooter Libby fell on the sword so Rove and Cheney could continue to smear Plane and her husband Joe Wilson.
baptox
Why do you assume there would be only one party? There are plenty of parties, but we currently have only two viable parties.
Whether those of you who are stuck in your Republican fantasy worlds like it or not, this country is moving to the left.
The current Democratic party will be the conservative party of the future and there will be more viable parties with progressive agendas.
Republicans will survive but not as a viable party.
Dave1959
No, I think I get .. it is simple. Here is a scenario. A suspect is taken into custody and there is strong resaon to believe the suspect knows of a pending Nuke/Bio or Chemical attack on a large city ... What should we do ??
Carole65
You have raised a very good question and one that should be at the center of the debate. I, personally, am not wringing my hands and losing any sleep over terrorist getting waterboarded and giving up useful information for keeping the world safe. How should we try to get information is the big question!
Fenario
I don't think you do get it, Dave. You seem to believe that the ticking time bomb scenario ISN'T the ultimate goal of a terrorist. That, for any degree of pain, a murderous religious fanatic would cede such power over us, to cause our nation great harm and sow fear in the heart of every American. A pending nuclear/biological attack, and you think a person wholly convinced in the righteousness of their actions and debauchery of their foes will respond to torture in any way other than lending further credence to their twisted worldview? Yet always it is those of us on the 'left' who 'don't understand the terrorists'. You play right into their hands.
Progressive2
Let's use KSM as example of your analogy.
He was waterboarded 183 times in a month if their was ever any tikking time bomb don't you think it would have already went off?
and how is waterboarding someone in 2003 prevent a attack in Los Angelos in 2002?
It's unaffective.
untop of that it's illegal and a warcrime.
AlanD2
No torture - it doesn't work.
@ Carole65: You should be wringing your hands about innocent people being waterboarded. Of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo, very few were actually terrorists.
jbuck23
Call me naive,but how is it everyone is up in arms about "torture" acts now that they are being used on suspected terrorists. Where was the outrage of this "inhumane" act of waterboarding, when we were using it to train our own soldiers? I have yet to see someone who wants prison for prior administration officials even call for a stop of the practice to our own troops. This is not the same "waterboarding" the Japanese did in WWII. Our country needs more options than just asking pretty please for answers. No one got bones broken, nails pulled out, on put on the rack. If waterboarding is so outrageous for terrorists, at least be consistant and call for a stop of this "torture" of our own troops.
Cearbhallain
Gee Dave...don't you get it? The Bushies used the CIA to perform torture methods used by the Red Chinese back in the Korean war to elicit false confessions. Torture, besides being illegal is a very unreliable way of getting information. However, it is used to elicit false confessions and leads.
baptox
My, my Dave...We spend a little too much time on this question because we watch a little too much television, don't we.
This is not the scenario we should be worried about because terrorists who are privy to this type of information are not going to be found by our current intelligence services.
Any doomsday scenario strategy you can imagine will soon be obsolete because the terrorists are smart, motivated and have different value systems than ours.
Could not a large part of this problem be eliminated if we stopped creating situations, like the torture of innocent people, which serve to recruit more terrorists?
This change in policy would at least reduce the increasing numbers of enemies of our country and increase the likelihood of developing viable intelligence strategies that work.
It may not make for a compelling episode of "24," but really, it's the only stategy that has ever worked.
Tango121
I just heard Lanny Davis on the John Gibbon show on radio. He stated that anyone who allows a poor terrorist to be water boarded to stop an attack on America should be charged and put in prison. "But if there is a ticking atomic bomb waiting to go off, if would be ok to water board the terrorist to safe lives". Really he said it just like that. SharksBreath what is the difference between the two and would you still insist the person doing the water boarding to be charged and put in prison after they saved American lives Chris Matthews said the same thing the other day on Morning Joe.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--alcamadusThis comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Ozone69
I wouldn't credit the republicans for "ginning" this controversy up. The press discovered the Speakers innacuracies and hypocricy on this issue. She was leading a fight for a truth commission and now probably regrets that.
Progressive2
Why would she regrets that? Being told someone is braking the law, isn't braking the law and would be treason to blow the wissel.
She's smart enough to know that it's a even better reason for a truth commission and special prosecutor.
benjoya
i don't see her showing such regrets. i think MY is right; now that pelosi's a target of an investigation, it's more likely we'll see some outside entity investigating it. suits me fine. you?
RRoseH1
Why should she show regret? For speaking the truth? This is why only 21% of the voters call themselves republicans. Then, let us speak of hateful Newt and Huckabee. The epitome of hypocrisy has brought on an investigation they did not want. They never know when enough is enough. Pelosi is a distraction from the liars on the right, nothing more.
Cearbhallain
The briefings were classified.
Progressive2
"the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse."
Exactly you hit every single point on this issue spot on.
milkman57
You might be right but you could be wrong too.. Bush screwed up and the democrats investigate. This could be the time to declare victory and end this investigation. It reminds me of after 1974 when the democrats won large majorities and began investigating Nixon and the CIA after Watergate. The liberal wing of the democrats drew some blood and felt very powerful. Jimmy Carter was elected with a big majority in both houses. (I know JC isn't BHO) His CIA was decimated by the democrats and he governed from the middle and pissed off Teddy Kennedy. We ended up with Reagan and 30 years of Iranian terrorism. I hope the democrats in congress remember some of their history. Was the revenge of the 70's worth it? I think not. If Afghanistan and the economy tumble it could weaken Obama and come back to haunt them like Reagan and Iran haunt us today.
Progressive2
I don't understand the logic.
Just because event B(reagon)
happened after event A (investigating Nixon)
Doesn't mean that event A was the cause of event B.
Reagon was very popular and he won that's simply how elections works.
milkman57
Open a history book. Actually Carter was ahead of Reagan during the election, almost till the end, their debate sealed the deal for Reagan. Reagan didn't achieve his mythical status (aka popularity) until after he was shot. He beat a Carter weakened by the Iran situation, caused in part by a weak CIA, and a revolt by the democratic left, led by Teddy Kennedy. You could be correct and my logic has no relevance today. Who can tell? Obama for sure is not Carter. He comes into office as a senator, a Washington insider with a winning personality where as Carter was an outsider governor who was a bit stubborn with his democratic congress. If Obama or his agenda is weakened by this look back at the Bush administration I personally believe it is not good for America. As they say be careful what you wish for.
Progressive2
Hmm I personally believe it's unavoidable but I understand what you're saying.
People consider the president of the US as the US so if he did something wrong it will be America did something, I'm assuming that this is the same reason Obama Admin is holding back.
Foreign country's won't see it as a party or as a few members fault, it applies to the entire nation, which the president is responsible for.
But I believe it must be done, our total lost of credibility around the world is at stake.
jukejoint
Let's consider using inductive logic here....what kind of punishment would we use against whomever is found to be "guility" of a crime? What legal basis would be considered "constitutional" by a supreme court, in a finding of guilt? What would the opposing (defendants) parties use as their defense if they were "government employees" following orders? Would the public support the sentencing of an Executive Branch personnel? I doubt that any course of conclusion fits the crime here and tons of money would be spent pursuing a so-called "justice" for the crime. Conclusion: The Bush Administration has been cast as a criminal regime on previous occasions, including everything from advocating torture to collusion, treason and initiating a WAR without Congressional approval. How much worse is advocating water-boarding than the actual "crime" of starting a WAR without Congressional declaration?
Banjo1
Now that Pelosi and Obama are gradually extracting themselves from the embrace of the Code Pink wing of the party, I think we can look for the "truth commission" idea to gradually go away.
Munodi
Code Pink? You actually think Code Pink is that powerful?
So you're afraid of homosexuals and your afraid of women in positions of authority. Are you scared of the dark too?
AllAlongTheWatchtower
No, no, no! Banjo isn't scared of the dark. He's quite at home there.
oliverckerr
The old banjo has returned
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--LordVadersonofloud
Since moving into the White House Obama has done far more for conservatives than he has for liberals.......as long as conservatives continue to attack him they will be attacking one of their own.
milkman57
Please expand your statement with examples of Obama's conservative agenda.
sonofloud
1. He increased the military budget, has not brought the troops home from Iraq, increased US military activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hasn't closed Quantanamo or the other torture sites.
2. He increased the amount of our tax revenue going to churches via the faith based initiative which is a direct violation of the first amendment.
3. He supports FISA and the kidnapping of citizens around the world to be held indefinitely.
4. He is lobbying the Supreme Court to reverse the decision which requires a lawyer to be present when defendants are questioned.
5. He is against equal rights for gays/lesbians by being against gay marriage.
6. He gave corrupt Wall Street corporations over $700 billion in corporate welfare.
7. He continues building coal plants which are one of the main causes of the destruction of this planet.
8. Most recently he revived the military tribunals.
That's just off the top of my head.
milkman57
1. The military budget has been decreased. Obama campaigned on a gradual pullout of Iraq and increased presence in Afghanistan. He has given a date within a year to close Guantánamo, not sure when he will close Quantanamo, if it is even open.
2. Not sure about this one. I just don't care, sorry.
3.FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was created by the democrats in 1978. It was amended in 2001 by congress, Obama supported the new FISA bill in the summer of 2008, before his nomination and well before the election. I not sure where he stands on the "kidnapping citizens around the world" provision.
3. What defendants?
4. He was against gay marriage before the election.
5. The 700 billion was approved before the election by congress and the Bush administration. Obama voted for it. There is still 135 billion left.
6. As far as I know Obama isn't building any coal plants. I don't believe he gave any promises about coal during the election.
7. Obama did revive military tribunals. What is your problem with that decision and your alternative.
You should be very happy if you voted for Obama. Many of the things you mentioned he promised to do during the election. There are no surprises there.
pattyann1
And no one is doing a better job of pushing the Nancy Pelosi story than Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. Much to the glee of progressives, today he took on the editor of the New Republic, Bob Shrum, Jim Clyburn and even Mark Penn on this issue, sarcasm & talk-overs on full display. Mika smiled, Pat Buchanan bubbled over with glee, and you can be sure, Joe will continue with his diatribe on his radio show. They will pillory Nancy right into a Truth Commission and the Republicans will be sorry they ever played this card, for the truth will set us free....Hypocrisy is not a crime and waterboarding used to push the war agemda forward is....(and Obama will continue to move his agenda forward for all Americans....amen!)
debbieqd
Succinct and to the point. Good post!
Tango121
We need to have an open investigation as to who knew what and when, no matter which party they were in at the time. Once all the information is in the open will know who's guilty and who is not.
sippewissett
Guilty of what? Knowledge of torture or execution of policy and practice of torture? There's a huge gulf in the level of "guilt" that we need to distribute appropriately.
It's clear from Cheney's round with the media that he was one of the architects of torture and that Bush simply "signed off" once DOJ lawyers made the case for it. Cheney and others were using torture to support the Bush agenda on defending the war. Watch the timeline on implementation of torture for proof.
You're always against the Obama administration in your postings, but you'd better prepare yourself for a long string of disclosures that taint the Bush administration.
Tango121
sippewissett I post against the Obama administration because they are in power and I stopped posting against the Bush administration when they left office. And as I stated above anyone who is guilty should be charged. If Bush and Cheney are guilty so is the people on the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Which Mrs. Pelosi was the ranking member? The Committee has oversight on the CIA In that position she could hold a closed meeting and place on the record any objections to the water boarding. If she had did that she would told the world during that press conference. That makes her guilty of an accessory after the fact under United State Code 18 which states "one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment."
dndobson
I seem to recall a whole of CIA hatred coming from the GOP not so long ago - that the agency was dysfunctional and disloyal (to Bush). Now they are defending the honor of the CIA against Pelosi? It is this kind of dishonesty that has lost them national party status.
Konchster
The CIA's motto is: Spyin is Lyin
People please remember these are the people who destroyed 98 video tapes that where ordered to be retained oops.
oliverckerr
CIA stands for Cash In Advance
debbieqd
And the same ones that provided the false intelligence on WMD that made the case for the war in Iraq.
jrjenki
If George Bush and his cronies are at least indicted for war crimes and crimes against savages maybe future presidents will stop and think. We should be friends with anyone who is willing to be nice to us and annilate anyone who is attacks us. Pretty simple foreign policy. We should not put troops on the ground and we should not take prisoners.
SIMIECOCOA
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUNISH A MAN WHO THOUGHT IN HIS MIND AND FELT IN HIS HEART HE WAS TAKING ALL THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO KEEP YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES SAFE FROM THESE TERRORISTS?
Progressive2
Because it's the law and 5000 of our people died(including my best friend) in a war of lies called Iraq.
like-mind
They weren't using these harsh methods to keep us safe - they were just claiming that.
All evidence from all sources within the CIA and Armed Forces shows the extreme interogations occured only to force a confession to a link between al Caida and Saddam Hussein, because this itself is the lie that was sold to the UN and the Nation as why the US needed to invade Iraq.
You aren't thinking for yourself - you are putting the complete faith in your Earthly leaders that you ought to reserve for your Heavenly Leader. Conservative leaders are simply Humans who use Holiness as fine clothing.
debbieqd
Because we're a country of laws?
spinozareader
AND DIDN'T HITLER THINK AND FEEL THAT HE WAS 'TAKING ALL THE APPROPRIATE STEPS' TO SAVE GERMANY??? IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR BUSHTO HAVE MEANT WELL WHEN IT CONCERNED SACRIFICING SO MANY LIVES ON TWO WAR FRONTS. (And now I will resume my usual, civilized manner of cyber discourse.)
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116jukejoint
Because certain acts were in violation of International Law and the Geneva Convention. The Bush Administration spent the lion's share of its existence in attempting to form a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As there was no Congressional Order for War, his failed attempts ultimately formed the basis of his "lies" to the American public for a unilateral war. In a World Court, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others would clearly be guilty of Crimes Against Humanity without further evidence to the contrary. A good sequel of "Star Trek" has more entertainment value in this supposed "perfect" world than such a scenario. America's politics were NOT without an enormous support, even though unlawful.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.