So put her on the list of defendants........ I have NO problem. Try and convict them.
Just make sure that list is lead by georgie girl and little dick. On May 16, 3:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > [Q] - Uh-oh. Nancy Pelosi’s performance at her press conference re > waterboarding has raised, according to the Washington Post, “troubling > new questions about the Speaker’s credibility.” The dreaded T-word: > “troubling.” > > I doubt it will “trouble” the media for long, or at least not to the > extent of bringing the Pelosi speakership to a sudden end — and > needless to say I’m all in favor of Nancy remaining the face of > congressional Democrats until November 2010. But her inconsistent > statements do suggest a useful way of looking at America’s tortured > “torture” debate: > > Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding? > > He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it > now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the > books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes > gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a > demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use > should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent. > > Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding? > > No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in > the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naivete) soul. > Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing > thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly > believe about waterboarding? > > Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back > when, over six years ago. > > Does she oppose it? According to Speaker Pelosi, yes. In her varying > accounts, she’s (a) accused the CIA of consciously “misleading the > Congress of the United States” as to what they were doing; (b) > admitted to having been briefed that waterboarding was in the playbook > but that “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or > any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used”; (c) > belatedly conceded that she’d known back in February 2003 that > waterboarding was being used but had been apprised of the fact by “a > member of my staff.” As she said on Thursday, instead of doing > anything about it, she decided to focus on getting more Democrats > elected to the House. > > It’s worth noting that, by most if not all of her multiple accounts, > Nancy Pelosi is as guilty of torture as anybody else. That’s not an > airy rhetorical flourish but a statement of law. As National Review’s > Andy McCarthy points out, under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant > statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same > penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed > that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being > used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her neck in it as > whoever it was who was actually sticking it to poor old Abu Zubaydah > and the other blameless lads. > > That is, if you believe waterboarding is “torture.” > > I don’t believe it’s torture. Nor does Dick Cheney. But Nancy Pelosi > does. Or so she has said, latterly. > > Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the speaker’s fellow San > Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s > self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” > said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08, or > ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about > a second wave of attacks.” > > Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable > in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the > country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was > no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the > explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush- > Cheney-Rummy war crime. > > Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her > colleague’s behavior. The alternative — that Speaker Pelosi is a > contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most > destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security — > is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no > reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she > supported all those years ago. But it’s okay to hold Cheney or some no- > name Justice Department backroom boy to account? > > Well, sure. It’s the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie > Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay > marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack > doesn’t mean it, so that’s okay, whereas Carrie does, so that’s a hate > crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is > Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of > national security. Nancy doesn’t, because to her it’s about the > shifting breezes of political viability. > > But it does make you wonder whether a superpower with this kind of > leadership class should really be going to war at all. Over at the New > York Times, the elderly schoolgirl Maureen Dowd riffed off Cheney’s > defense of waterboarding and argued that, no matter when the next > terrorist attack comes, the former vice president would be the one > primarily responsible. He is, she said, “a force multiplier for > Muslims who hate America.” - Mark > Steynhttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQ5ZTA3NDE2NjE3YTEyNjY3ZjJlNzQ2... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
