Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 01/21/2009 7:00 am

Liz Smith: Nancy Pelosi, Buy a Clue!

Nancy Pelosi and President Obama © AP

“Far away there in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I may not reach them but I can look up and see their beauty and try to follow them.”

So wrote Louisa May Alcott.

——————————

Today is the first full day of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, and millions of people in this country and around the world are peering far into the horizon, hoping that aspirations for their county and themselves can be reached. You could power the state of Texas with the good-will energy that has swept the country. (Though maybe that’s not a good metaphor since Texas is still very much a red state.)

I hope people realize that President Obama is but a man, and the world won’t change in an instant. You see that today is like any other day, yes? (Although we are still emotionally hung over from yesterday’s historic event.)

Give him a chance. Change takes time. Republicans can’t be counted on to jump on board with all of Obama’s plans — though I sense relief that he hasn’t, you know, made Bill Ayres Secretary of Defense, or some equally crazy appointment that the right-wing blogs were predicting.

I’m more worried about the Democrats and their mumbling about taking members of the Bush administration — perhaps even the ex-president himself — to legal task for eight years of ineptitude and possibly worse. Please! Nancy Pelosi, buy a clue. When your president talks about turning the page, he doesn’t mean to have the country and media embroiled and obsessed with Bush and company for ages ahead.

I don’t want to see or hear or concern myself with anything Bush from now on. Leave them all to heaven. 

Or … wherever.

——————————

One more point. There’s lots of talk over the airwaves about how the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land proves “anybody can become president.” OK, it’s a big push forward, no doubt about it. But let’s wait on that sweeping judgment until there is a Jewish president, an atheist president, a gay president, an unmarried (modern-day) president, an Asian president, a Latino president, a Muslim president. And folks, let’s not forget — a woman president!

Oh, and I just love the praise we’re getting from abroad on America’s big step forward. I’ll take all that with a grain of salt until Britain, France, Italy, etc., elect a person of African descent to lead them.

Click here on this text to read my New York Post column.

110 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Diamond In The Rough
Roger……You posted this on the View blog this morning: “I do understand the history of our country….. but we can live tomorrow in context of our past…. How can we heal our past by continuing to pick at the scab?” Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Just wondering??
By Diamond In The Rough on 01/21/2009 6:53 pm
Libra Lady
I was just getting ready to post to disagree with roger, till I read your thread…so which statement am I suppose to comment on???? Not sure what the “View blog” is, but wth???? Is he trying to impress two different sites or what? I guess I will just take him with a grain of salt, that was my first opinion of him anyway. Thanks Diamond for posting this.
By Libra Lady on 01/21/2009 8:02 pm
Roger from Ohio
Diamond….. Im sure you know the difference, but Ill explain it to you anyway…… The comment that you quoted we were talking about racial divide…… things that happened a few decades ago. The comments about Bush, which you claim is being contradicting, are things that happened that happened a few weeks/months ago….. there hasnt been enough time for a scab.
By Roger from Ohio on 01/22/2009 12:40 am
deber B
Roger, just for you, I’ll try to get real. I’m sure I did make a comment about Clinton who was president over eight years ago. I probably made comments about Carter, Johnson and Nixon. What I didn’t do was bash their presidencies. Democrats seem to be very comfortable with their “parasitic frenzy” in their quest to make certain George Bush is destroyed because he made decisions they weren’t happy with. Living in the past has never served anyone well and will prevent real change for America. If democrats prefer to stay down in the mud on the Bush administration, it makes no difference to me if they are there one month or eight years.
By deber B on 01/22/2009 7:37 am
Libra Lady
You are making me laugh Marjorie…thanks for brightening my evening.
By Libra Lady on 01/21/2009 7:09 pm
Elisabeth S
so, marjorie, if someone handed you over to a foreign power that threw you into a prison, never charged you with a crime, but tortured you and kept you in that prison for 5 1/2 years, how would you feel about all those perpetrators? some of the prisoners at guantanamo have just that story. it is no wonder that it takes a courageous man like barack obama to break the cycle of wrongs.
By Elisabeth S on 01/21/2009 11:22 pm
Sally K
I am of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I was most vehemently opposed to Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon. In retrospect, I have come to the belief that President Ford was correct. As a country, we needed time to heal. On the other hand, I have known individuals who did years and years for crimes the which seem paltry, indeed, compared to those for which these people are suspected. Also, the previous adminsitration has proven, by its collective conduct, that they have no mercy in their hearts for anyone else. Why should they be shown mercy themselves? I’m really glad that I won’t have to make the decision.
By Sally K on 01/21/2009 10:46 am
Marjorie C.
Sally: Why should they be shown mercy themselves? Because we are bigger than them.
By Marjorie C. on 01/21/2009 11:28 am
Sally K
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you , Marjorie. Yes, you’re right, we are bigger than they are. Problem I have , however, is that accountability thing. I reared my children who are rearing their children to understand that they will be held accountable for their actions. I think that, while we are bigger people than they are, these people need to be held accountable in the same manner. My mother used to say, when I would complain about someone who looked as though he/she were getting away with something, ‘They’ll get theirs on Judgment Day.” And, my response was always the same, “Mother, I don’t give a rip about Judgment Day. I want them to get theirs in this life, and I WANT TO WATCH. Not pretty, but true.
By Sally K on 01/22/2009 11:00 am
John G
What kills me is Nancy shows no knowledge of what causes big swings in public sentiment. She’s had her mandate, and she’s going to run with it, and Republicans will have the majority and the presidency in 2012. It’s like Iraq: if Bush had not listened to Cheney, but just overwhelmingly wiped out the opposition (and summarily executed those folks who’re now going to be unleashed on the world from GITMO) and gotten the war over in a year or so, he’d have been a hero and Republicans would have the majority now (I’m not for Republicans, BTW). BUT NO! Cheney had to re-do Vietnam…
By John G on 01/21/2009 10:49 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe
We could certainly do worse than another 9/11 Commission. Among those Americans still enraged about the Bush years, there are also calls for truth and reconciliation commissions, war crimes trials and, in a petition movement on Obama’s transition Web site, a special prosecutor in the Patrick Fitzgerald mode. One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming president may support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and former Clinton administration official who last week was chosen to run the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. This is the same office where the Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his infamous memos justifying torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of such constitutional abuses. In articles for Slate last year, she wondered “where is the outrage, the public outcry” over a government that has acted lawlessly and that “does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human decency.” She asked, “How do we save our country’s honor, and our own?” The last is not a rhetorical question. While our new president indeed must move on and address the urgent crises that cannot wait, Bush administration malfeasance can’t be merely forgotten or finessed. A new Justice Department must enforce the law; Congress must press outstanding subpoenas to smoke out potential criminal activity; every legal effort must be made to stop what seems like a wholesale effort by the outgoing White House to withhold, hide and possibly destroy huge chunks of its electronic and paper trail. As Johnsen wrote last March, we must also “resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists.” As if to anticipate the current debate, she added that “we must avoid any temptation simply to move on,” because the national honor cannot be restored “without full disclosure.” She was talking about America regaining its international reputation in the aftermath of our government’s descent into the dark side of torture and “extraordinary rendition.” But I would add that we need full disclosure of the more prosaic governmental corruption of the Bush years, too, for pragmatic domestic reasons. To make the policy decisions ahead of us in the economic meltdown, we must know what went wrong along the way in the executive and legislative branches alike. Part of an opinion by Frank Rich
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 01/21/2009 10:51 am
%$#@* !@&*^!!
Phyllis, {…….In articles for Slate last year, she wondered “where is the outrage, the public outcry” over a government that has acted lawlessly and that “does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human decency.” She asked, “How do we save our country’s honor, and our own?”……} The answer to where is the outrage..public outcry….respect…the legal and moral bounds of human decency”….is on sites and in people who won’t be cowed by those who do not appreciate their responsibility as citizens of the world. Abu Graib, Gitmo, the illegal war all happened by design and were not ‘a response to the times’ and go back to before 2000, before GWB’s election, before 911, and when the illegal invasion was planned in writing and signed by the NeoCons: GWB adopted the 90 page PNAC document as a document for his ‘foreign policy’ the entire thing is outside our Constitution and can be obtained from: www.newamericancentury.org The NeoCon plan: 1. The lie of WMD and “unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf [and ] transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” In 2000, before 911, the NeoCons ennumerated how they would go into Iraq, establish permanent bases, and the real reasons were several. For geopolitical control of the Caspian Sea oil, to install puppet dictators in every country ringing the Caspian Sea {Bush Inc/Enron etc had a Trans-Afghanistan pipeline deal with the Tailban] and domination of the area for positioning to 3/4ths of the world’s resources and populations. Besides reading the PNAC Document the Know-Nothings could also read Chalmers Johnston’s “BlowBack Trilogy” and get a clue. It’s about the dangers [not to mention unConstitutionality] of US hegemony/global empire/militarism that creates more terrorism against the US, the loss of core democratic values at home, and the disaster for our economy that Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech. Bush Inc is the embodiment and realization of precisely what GENERAL Eisenhower warned of. Johnson’s trilogy: “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire” “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic” “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.” They could google the articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame on how September 11 was manipulated based on the NeoCon’s written plans that preceded GWB’s election. On September 12, 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were [and in fact they were mostly Saudis], Rumsfeld met with Richard “The Prince of Darkness” Perle and Wolfowitz, two of the Chief NeoCons, and started planning an immediate attack on Iraq. Colin Powell persuaded Bush that “public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible”. Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives. The PNAC documents proves that Bush and his senior cabinet members planned an attack on Iraq in 2000, even before he took power in January 2001. In their “Rebuilding American’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” members of GWB’s cabinet including Cheney/Rumsfeld had planned BEFORE the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region including installation of permanent Military Bases in Iraq “A peaceful settlement is not in our best interest in Iraq.” They stated they’d ignore international opinion, that UN was irrelevant, that the intention was permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, and eventual emergance as a full-fledged global empire. NeoCons signatures to the PNAC document: - Paul Wolfowitz, who because Deputy Defense Secretary. - John Bolton who became Undersecretary of State. - Stephen Cambone, who became head of the Pentagon’s Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. - Eliot Cohen, a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. - Devon Cross is a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. - I. Lewis Libby is Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. - Dov Zakheim, Comptroller for the Defense Department. -Dick Cheney , Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush -Zalmay Khalilzad -Richard Perle -Grover Norquist The PNAC stated that America had to dominate the world’s resources and as a pretext to start invading and occupying countries on their list they required “Some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor.” It was described by the NeoCons as “the opportunity of ages”. Many NeoCons in far-right groups and “think-tanks” like the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Coors Foundation, the Heritage Foundation and led by Grover Norquist hired and funded writers and handed them and Fox News Roger Ailes daily talking points and they acted like a megaphone across society to foment war, even knowing that Iraq had had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, and that Iraq had no WMD. The PNAC also called for: “transformation” of the U.S. military including with development of small nuclear warheads. The PNAC report stated that when Bush took power Iraq should be a target along with Iran and North Korea, and that US military presence and permanenet should be spread even further around the globe than in the 130 nations where U.S. troops are already deployed. With permanent military bases added in the Middle East [specially called for 14 in Iraq which are there now], in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia. The PNAC document was based on an earlier document drafted in 1992 by the Department of Defense under the direction of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz who were then Secretary of Defense and Defense Undersecretary for Policy. PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol, writer for the Weekly Standard. The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.” Paul Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush Administration in 2001. A “core mission” was for the U.S. military to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” It should also be noted that the many of the NeoCons were students of Leo Strauss, a Nazi, who believed in WAR as the organizing principle of the state; he did NOT believe in religion but in its use to control populations; he believed in a master race of entitled white men and that lying and secrecy was their right. He in fact believed in everything that the US Constitution is against….and the PNAC is little more than treason. Those who argue for this being ignored are arguing for the destruction of the US from within. What they did was treason and it needs to be spelled out and exposed.
By %$#@* !@&*^!! on 01/21/2009 6:34 pm
Elisabeth S
phyllis, we do need something like a truth and reconciliation commission. we need it to heal the country.
By Elisabeth S on 01/21/2009 11:28 pm
Jennifer Dooley
Liz, I so enjoy reading your “Straight from The Hip” posts. I have always had the most respect for “Straight Shooters”. Just tell it like it is from where you stand. Thank You for your Style. May The Good Vibrations Of Yesterday’s Events ignite a most wondrous and Banner Year..Enjoy… And Fellow wOwerws, notice that the Poles that some of us where passionately holding on to are moving to common, centered grounds. I LOve seeing this. We can come together and Heal and continue to Grow America into Her True Destiny, The Dream that She was borne to Be. Oh Happy Mardi Gras. The Season Of Unity….
By Jennifer Dooley on 01/21/2009 11:20 am
DeBúrca obj
So what you’re saying is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are above the rule of law? Hmm… and where does that rule stop?
By DeBúrca obj on 01/21/2009 11:45 am