The good thing about this attack on Pelosi is they had to admit to torture or the attack is meaningless. No torture ... nothing for Pelosi to know about. So, let's get the investigations and prosecutions started.
On May 17, 3:03 am, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow, this is exactly what i said the Torture Apologists would > do, try to involve as many people as possible with the belief > that if all are guilty, none are. > > The problem with this childish premise, is it is ignoring the fact > that > partial knowledge of a crime after the crime has been committed, > is not the same as planning and conspiring and then committing the > crime. > > Also to say that Cheney a proven liar, whose lies are directly > responsible > for American deaths has more credibility than the speaker is a joke. > > The CIA claim already has holes in it, the CIA has now admitted. > The CIA claimed to have had 4 meetings to inform congressional > leaders about the torture policy, when challenged that 3 of the 4 > dates > never occurred, the CIA admitted their mistake and backed off the > claim. > > Makes you wonder how many other things the CIA got wrong.... > > On May 16, 5:40 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...- > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
