I'm having a little trouble following the motivation behind the right's attack of Nancy Pelosi concerning whether she KNEW about waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. I'm just a simple country lawyer but it seems a tad confusing. If I'm writing a screenplay, I'd have to throw this plotline out because the motivation doesn't make any sense.
IF YOU belive that torture is wrong, (I do! I do!) then the idea that Nancy Pelosi knew about it and did nothing to stop it is troubling. But on the other hand, what should she have done? She couldn't speak out because it was a classified program, and if she registered a complaint internally than it seems unlikely that it would have stopped the program. Ultimately if you believe that torture is wrong, you're not going after Pelosi, you're going after whoever authorized torture.
IF YOU believe that torture is just fine, the only way to protect the country against its enemies, then you go after Pelosi not for keeping silent about it then but for speaking out against it now. And to be clear about it, you preface your statements with "To her credit, Pelosi kept quiet about the program at the time even though she had points to gain." I mean, obviously she would have, otherwise why exploit public opinion against torture now?
However, the critics of Pelosi are trying to have it both ways, stirring up hatred of Pelosi for supporting torture without mentioning that they're pro-torture as well.
(By the way, the concept of being pro-torture in itself is pretty interesting. Couldn't have seen THAT as a public relations option before Bush-Cheney! Just one more innovation of the previous administration, along with all the ways of ensuring that the buck never, EVER stops here.)
Well, be careful what you wish for - demanding that Nancy Pelosi reveal what she knew then can only lead to investigations. And any investigation of that situation is unlikely to come to the conclusion that hey, you gotta commit a few crimes during war time and whatever anyone did is cool, as long as they don't lie about what they knew afterward. More likely it would lead to war crimes trials, and ain't no one saying Nancy committed any.
Friday, May 15, 2009
How To Find Out What Nancy Pelosi Knew
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Bad grammar day so I deleted the other two but I WANTED to say this...
Now you are just being disingenuous.
#1- The right is not "pro-torture"
#2- The right is not mad she kept her mouth shut (until now)
#3- The US didn't torture.
#4- The POINT the right is making about Pelosi-nocchio is that she is a liar that is only using the "torture" issue as a political brick bat proving that she has no principles. For if she's all mad about torture NOW and wants Bush prosecuted WHY was she not for prosecution THEN!? Obviously it didn't bother her too much before! The woman is an unprincipled liar.
Worse part about this whole thing here is that YOU are purposefully being obtuse in order to make political hay. THAT seems to me to be just the sort of behavior you act as if you don't like.
We call that hypocrisy in my part of the country. How about yours?
... oh, wait. You are in California. I forgot.
As Emily Litella always said... Neeeeever mind.
If it ain't torture, Hannity should undergo a few sessions to prove it. Heck, you're a media figure; YOU volunteer. Settle this question once and for all, because I believe it's torture. Prove to me how harmless a half dozen waterboardings truly are.
So why are you angry at Pelosi for lying about it; or more importantly why aren't you grateful that she kept her mouth shut before?
I am grateful she kept her mouth shut. But I am angry that she STILL isn't keeping her mouth shut.
And that is the crux of the matter. She kept her mouth shut and that was good for America. But, apparently what is good for America suddenly no longer matters to her.
I have a simple question for Ms. Pelosi.
Why was she briefed on procedures that she thought were not being used?
In other words, if I showed you a method of tying a person between two semis pointed in opposite directions (think the movie "The Hitcher") with drivers in both cabs, with feet on the gas pedals, wouldn't you ask if we were doing that, or consider doing that?
Ms. Pelosi wants us to believe that she was told about waterboarding as a technique, yet never expected it to be used.
Then why were you shown it, Ms. Pelosi?
The problem I have with it (can't speak for the entire Right side) is that this woman is #3 in line for the Presidency. Her words and actions carry much more weight than 99% of others in Washington DC.
"I'm having a little trouble following the motivation behind the right's attack of Nancy Pelosi concerning whether she KNEW about waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques."
Perhaps you are confused by the idea that someone who espouses prosecuting supposed torturers was in fact a person who either tacitly approved the acts or actively endorsed them. To now condemn the very acts in which the Speaker once agreed with is blatant hypocrisy. It smacks even the most casual reader as blatantly disingenuous. It seems the Speaker is attempting to have it both ways. She endorsed 'torture' when it was politically expediant but now when it hangs like a Sword of Damocles above her, she changes position. It sounds suspiciously like a Bill of Attainder to revise history making such acts illegal for some participants but not accepting blame for her own role. That is what drives many people's anger over her stance.
Umm...what do you mean when you said she couldn't do anything about it at the time? She had the power to stop the EIT's then if she disagreed with what was going on. SHE DIDN'T ergo throw her on the pile to be prosecuted as well or wallow in hypocrisy.
I'll clarify:
This has absolutely nothing to do with interrogations (or "torture" if you must), it's a simple matter of lying.
The speaker of the house exists to serve us, the people. When a servant lies to you and can no longer be trusted they are to be dismissed. It's that simple.
What the left cannot says is:
I disagree with where the Bush Administration put the line. I'm glad we have now moved the line. Where's the healthcare bill, anyway?
The reason is really, really simple: No torture, no trials.
There's a legitimate discussion about our behavior as a nation buried in here, but if that discussion doesn't involve punishing members of the Bush Administration, the left simply sidesteps.
It HAS to be torture, not based on principle, but based on the pathological need to punish people the left hates.
I find it all fascinating.
I think one mighty good way to decide whether it's torture or an acceptable "enhanced interrogation technique" is whether we're willing to tolerate other countries doing it to our soldiers. So what do you guys think - were we wrong to prosecute the Japanese after World War II?
The idea that we should fire our politicians because we think they're lying... well let's put it this way, I'm no anarchist. I'm not prepared to do without government.
Piker you keep missing the point.
It's not about the definition of "torture", but how Pelosi lied about knowing what she knew when it became politically "okay" for her to do so.
And I'll agree that if we expect politicians not to lie, D.C. would be a ghost town, but can't we agree that we expect more from the person two heartbeats away from the White House?
The point you are missing is if you aren't already frothing with hate about Pelosi then this is not an issue.
So you are saying that you don't expect more from the person two heartbeats away?
I'm suuuuuuure you felt exactly the same about Newt, right?
Dude, you didn't feel that way about Cheney.
May I add that you are so worked up because you have read Nancy Pelosi's mind and you KNOW that she had no problem with waterboarding before and is lying about having a problem with it now.
Post a Comment