The Bitch in Chief
x
x
Newt Gingrich is uniquely qualified to address the impact of Nancy Pelosi’s blatantly false claims that the CIA lied to her. Not only does Gingrich understand the responsibilities of the Speaker of the House having served in that capacity from 1995-1999, but further he is a brilliant historian and constitutional expert who has substantial insight on the operation and function of the Federal Government. Sure, some Democrats would certainly assert his remarks are politically motivated, but who has something at stake in defending Ms. Pelosi’s treachery?
“To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives ... that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House,” the Georgia This is not like an average member, this is not some back-bencher who's allowed to, you know, say dumb things, This person, the speaker of the House, has access to the nation's secrets.”
Gingrich offered these comments both in an interview on ABC radio but made similar comments on Fox News. The horrible reality is that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to be President. If something were to happen to both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Pelosi would become President. If there is any reality that should send chills of horror into every American’s consciousness, this should.
Nancy Pelosi has amassed her political power not on the basis on her intellect or understanding of the functions of the American government. She has made her political fortune through the blind and selfish pursuit of blind power viciously cutting the throat of all adversaries and single-mindedly playing devil-take-care partisan politics where the general good is of no consequence only that her side wins. Whether it’s misrepresenting the issues or resorting to overboard character assassinations of her opponents, few figures in American politics have shown the greed and zeal exhibited by the current Speaker of the House.
Totally lacking in any of Nancy Pelosi’s behavior is any sense of statesmanship, maturity, and balanced leadership. It’s her agenda at all costs, period where the ends always justify the means even if it means lying about the CIA.
Be clear on the importance of our intelligence gathering operations and what’s at stake should they fail. After the Church commission gutted the agency’s real human intelligence gathering capacity in the wake of perceived abuses during the Vietnam era, the CIA was castrated unable to get the kind of timely information that could well have prevented the 9/11 attacks. While the CIA was doing what it needed to do, going the extra mile to the extent its resources would allow to investigate the 9/11 attacks and provide intelligence to conduct the war on terror, and for this activity, Ms. Pelosi has turned on them like a rabid bitch.
The situation with Nancy Pelosi has gone far beyond the time for polite debate. Every responsible person in Washington must first attack her vicious unjustified lies, then set the record straight and finally make sure she is removed from the Speaker’s seat as she has disqualified herself through almost treasonous comments about her government she is sworn to serve.
The public has a dreadful and distorted view of the intelligence operation as influenced by the pop culture view of the CIA and other agencies like the NSA where they are portrayed as wicked villains constantly hatching wicked plots and engaged in all kinds of bizarre conspiracies in many action movies and television series. Seldom is the CIA ever portrayed as having a constructive roll. In the world of Hollywood, the plot generally focuses on some lone wolf, some whistle blower who is the true hero doing everything he or she can in the face of the evil agencies and bureaucracies to save mankind.
The CIA does have its internal politics to be sure, but the agency is staffed with thousands of dedicated professionals with the highest level of responsibilities having to work with extremely sensitive material that could imperil our country’s safety in the hands of the wrong adversaries. 43% of the public surveyed in a recent pole were either very inclined or somewhat inclined to support Ms. Pelosi’s contentions while 41% were supportive of the CIA. The results largely fell along party lines. One has to wonder how the “Blackhawk Down” and Oliver Stone type mentality is more influential in our pop culture drenched world where the line between entertainment and reality is ever more blurred by the media empire, the entertainment companies that run both entertainment programming and the news from their warped Hollywood ultra left point of view.
While the media overwhelmingly tilts left, nothing reigns more supreme than a good story that hits the jackpot regardless of whose fortune is pillaged for the sake of advertising revenue and higher ratings. By in large, the true story of the CIA is overwhelmingly boring, but throw in some juicy conspiracy theories and let the vile lies of Ms. Pelosi enter into the picture, the story becomes spicier. Assertively dealing with the world’s worst terrorist detainees is not as dramatic as the assertion that from the White House down orders were given to viciously torture prisoners portrayed as sympathetic victims of these evil bureaucracies.
We need to accept that our intelligence agencies are working to protect us. We need to likewise realize that the key figures detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base are sworn to destroy us. Our intelligence and defense leaders are hard at work dealing with the scum of the earth to help keep another 9/11 attack from ever occurring again.
Surely at some level, Nancy Pelosi knows this, but her neurotic constantly on edge mean spirited self-centered power hungry vindictive personality blinds her from accepting the truth where she’ll say anything to support her vicious agenda.
Nancy Pelosi’s behavior cannot go unchallenged.
“To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives ... that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House,” the Georgia This is not like an average member, this is not some back-bencher who's allowed to, you know, say dumb things, This person, the speaker of the House, has access to the nation's secrets.”
Gingrich offered these comments both in an interview on ABC radio but made similar comments on Fox News. The horrible reality is that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to be President. If something were to happen to both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Pelosi would become President. If there is any reality that should send chills of horror into every American’s consciousness, this should.
Nancy Pelosi has amassed her political power not on the basis on her intellect or understanding of the functions of the American government. She has made her political fortune through the blind and selfish pursuit of blind power viciously cutting the throat of all adversaries and single-mindedly playing devil-take-care partisan politics where the general good is of no consequence only that her side wins. Whether it’s misrepresenting the issues or resorting to overboard character assassinations of her opponents, few figures in American politics have shown the greed and zeal exhibited by the current Speaker of the House.
Totally lacking in any of Nancy Pelosi’s behavior is any sense of statesmanship, maturity, and balanced leadership. It’s her agenda at all costs, period where the ends always justify the means even if it means lying about the CIA.
Be clear on the importance of our intelligence gathering operations and what’s at stake should they fail. After the Church commission gutted the agency’s real human intelligence gathering capacity in the wake of perceived abuses during the Vietnam era, the CIA was castrated unable to get the kind of timely information that could well have prevented the 9/11 attacks. While the CIA was doing what it needed to do, going the extra mile to the extent its resources would allow to investigate the 9/11 attacks and provide intelligence to conduct the war on terror, and for this activity, Ms. Pelosi has turned on them like a rabid bitch.
The situation with Nancy Pelosi has gone far beyond the time for polite debate. Every responsible person in Washington must first attack her vicious unjustified lies, then set the record straight and finally make sure she is removed from the Speaker’s seat as she has disqualified herself through almost treasonous comments about her government she is sworn to serve.
The public has a dreadful and distorted view of the intelligence operation as influenced by the pop culture view of the CIA and other agencies like the NSA where they are portrayed as wicked villains constantly hatching wicked plots and engaged in all kinds of bizarre conspiracies in many action movies and television series. Seldom is the CIA ever portrayed as having a constructive roll. In the world of Hollywood, the plot generally focuses on some lone wolf, some whistle blower who is the true hero doing everything he or she can in the face of the evil agencies and bureaucracies to save mankind.
The CIA does have its internal politics to be sure, but the agency is staffed with thousands of dedicated professionals with the highest level of responsibilities having to work with extremely sensitive material that could imperil our country’s safety in the hands of the wrong adversaries. 43% of the public surveyed in a recent pole were either very inclined or somewhat inclined to support Ms. Pelosi’s contentions while 41% were supportive of the CIA. The results largely fell along party lines. One has to wonder how the “Blackhawk Down” and Oliver Stone type mentality is more influential in our pop culture drenched world where the line between entertainment and reality is ever more blurred by the media empire, the entertainment companies that run both entertainment programming and the news from their warped Hollywood ultra left point of view.
While the media overwhelmingly tilts left, nothing reigns more supreme than a good story that hits the jackpot regardless of whose fortune is pillaged for the sake of advertising revenue and higher ratings. By in large, the true story of the CIA is overwhelmingly boring, but throw in some juicy conspiracy theories and let the vile lies of Ms. Pelosi enter into the picture, the story becomes spicier. Assertively dealing with the world’s worst terrorist detainees is not as dramatic as the assertion that from the White House down orders were given to viciously torture prisoners portrayed as sympathetic victims of these evil bureaucracies.
We need to accept that our intelligence agencies are working to protect us. We need to likewise realize that the key figures detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base are sworn to destroy us. Our intelligence and defense leaders are hard at work dealing with the scum of the earth to help keep another 9/11 attack from ever occurring again.
Surely at some level, Nancy Pelosi knows this, but her neurotic constantly on edge mean spirited self-centered power hungry vindictive personality blinds her from accepting the truth where she’ll say anything to support her vicious agenda.
Nancy Pelosi’s behavior cannot go unchallenged.
12 comments:
You know, it's strange. All you unhinged right-wingers are calling on Nancy Pelosi to resign, but nobody wants there to be a commission to establish the truth (or lack thereof) to the torture charges. Did America torture? Were Bush and Cheney complicit in ordering torture? How many laws were broken, and how many people need to go to jail?
I really don't care whether Pelosi resigns or not. I just want a bipartisan commission to look into the charges, and find out the truth. (You remember, "the whole truth and nothing but the truth.") Once we know that, if it turns out that Pelosi was complicit, she can face the same charges as the rest of them.
And incidentally, "why would the CIA lie?" Hell, same question goes for Pelosi. One of them did a bad thing and doesn't want to admit it. Either Pelosi lied and was briefed, or Panetta lied and she wasn't. Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere between.
And remember, the CIA is one of the groups who would probably be complicit if a full torture investigation were to take place. So maybe they're a little more motivated to lie, if you think about it. (On top of which, other people, like Bob Graham, are coming forward with evidence that the CIA's record keeping might just be a little questionable.)
(And incidentally, Newt Gingrich? Mr "Family Values"? The guy who divorced his wife while she was lying in the hospital recovering from cancer? Good role model you've got there, pal.)
But here's where you're slipping away from reality. You can't say "Pelosi KNEW! She's GUILTY!" without admitting "OK, Bush and Cheney broke the law and need to go to jail." Pick a position here, big fella.
You know, it's strange. All you unhinged right-wingers are calling on Nancy Pelosi to resign, but nobody wants there to be a commission to establish the truth (or lack thereof) to the torture charges. Did America torture? Were Bush and Cheney complicit in ordering torture? How many laws were broken, and how many people need to go to jail?
I really don't care whether Pelosi resigns or not. I just want a bipartisan commission to look into the charges, and find out the truth. (You remember, "the whole truth and nothing but the truth.") Once we know that, if it turns out that Pelosi was complicit, she can face the same charges as the rest of them.
And incidentally, "why would the CIA lie?" Hell, same question goes for Pelosi. One of them did a bad thing and doesn't want to admit it. Either Pelosi lied and was briefed, or Panetta lied and she wasn't. Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere between.
And remember, the CIA is one of the groups who would probably be complicit if a full torture investigation were to take place. So maybe they're a little more motivated to lie, if you think about it. (On top of which, other people, like Bob Graham, are coming forward with evidence that the CIA's record keeping might just be a little questionable.)
(And incidentally, Newt Gingrich? Mr "Family Values"? The guy who divorced his wife while she was lying in the hospital recovering from cancer? Good role model you've got there, pal.)
But here's where you're slipping away from reality. You can't say "Pelosi KNEW! She's GUILTY!" without admitting "OK, Bush and Cheney broke the law and need to go to jail." Pick a position here, big fella.
We don't believe any truth commission to determine what we already know.
Terrorists can not be dealt with using politeness and civility. What disturbs us most is that so much emphasis has focused on what steps were taken to deal with these thugs and not the behavior they are responsible for or the cruel, horrific ways they treat others as in sawing off a conscious person's head, as in Daniel Pearl's murder.
Nancy Pelosi is an elected official from California. So far we believe it's up to those voters whether she should retain her seat in the House. We do believe she has proven herself unfit for being Speaker of the House.
Viewing what actions the CIA approved for dealing with terror detainees, each episode has been documented with substantial detail of what was carried out and who approved it. Our officials have to consider protecting our safety when dealing with the decision makers and front line conspirators who could stage another 9/11. We care about the on-going grief and suffering of all the families whose lives were torn to pieces by the 9/11 attacks, those who died or are permanently disabled. and families broken by kids If making some thug like Sheik Mohammed temporarily feel like his is drowning, so what? We've gotten first hand accounts of reporters who volunteered to be waterboarded and military special ops personnel who underwent the procedure. It might be torture, but if it leads to saving everyday Americans and does no permanent harm to its subjects, BRING IT ON!!!
Newt Gingrich's marital situation is a private matter. What happened did not involve his conduct on House of Representative's time nor did he engage in any inappropriate behavior with his peers or subordinates whereas Bill Clinton preyed upon an intern in the workplace.
On the surface, Newt Gingrich's leaving his first wife seems like calloused behavior, but it is a private matter. We do not know all the dynamics of what led to his breakup with the former Miss Jackie Battley, the severity of the cancer from which she was recovering, or what on-going issues the marriage faced. It was a marriage he entered when he was 19 years old to an older woman, his former teacher.
We'd be putting ourselves in very difficult situations if we consider every instance where a public official has violated his or her marriage vows in assessing their worthiness as elected leaders.
We can speak of Mr. Gingrich's current marriage to Callista Bisek and some of the fine work they have created together including an insightful series on the influence of God and religion on our founding fathers.
In offering some defense and some explanation of Mr. Gingrich's personal life, we also point out that we are disturbed that it is such a typical technique of the left to dig up the dirt on their opponents, focus on that, and attempt to use that to discredit their opponents rather than dealing with the specific issues under consideration, offering defense of their positions, and refuting their opponents with facts, historical precedence, and logic.
The issue is the Speaker of the House refuses to account honestly of what knowledge she had at what point regarding interrogation methods of terrorist detainees. It is clear she was presented with this information in the past, and if she found such procedures objectionable she did not raise them at the time. Rather than acknowledging she changed her point of view or didn't realize the gravity of what she was considering at the time, she has chosen to insist the CIA lied to her, a position that members of her own party do not support.
The CIA performs a vital function in the defense and security of our nation. Her bad mouthing them and attacking their integrity has no positive results but only shows her to be the mean spirited, highly partisan, temperamental dangerous figure she truly is.
Whether one respects Newt Gingrich or not, or doesn't like how he has conducted his private life, his assessment is dead on correct.
How strange. Judging by the artificial outrage you pulled up in this column (where you were whining about the fake "War on Christmas), I assumed that you were a Christian. Imagine my surprise. I suppose it just goes to show that you shouldn't make assumptions.
Because even the worst hypocrite would have a hard time saying that Jesus, himself tortured and then nailed to a cross, would support the torture of prisoners.
However, having assumed that you have no moral compass, I find it interesting that you then suggest that we are allowed to torture terrorists because they have committed horrible crimes. Should we also cut off the hands of thieves? You follow shari'a law? Well, salaam aleichem, my Islamic friend.
Here's where you're wrong, though. Torture does not work. The victim only tells you whatever he thinks you want to hear to stop the pain. There's nothing to make him tell the truth - he just wants you to agree with him and stop drowning him, or pulling out his teeth, or whatever.
That's why, in 1998, Qin Yanhong, a Chinese villager, confessed to the rape and murder of a woman he'd never met. Because he was tortured.
Further, there were no "ticking time bombs" -- as former State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson and McClatchey News have confirmed, torture was conducted to extract false evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was ordered by Dick Cheney and George Bush just as it was during the Spanish Inquisition, to force political compliance. That's why we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times, after he'd already spilled his guts using more conventional, moral methods.
And the evidence of Gingrich's private life does have some bearing here - it shows that he, like you, have a very limited moral compass from our Western point of view.
Oh, and incidentally, as time goes on, more and more people are coming forward to question the CIA's record keeping. Congressman David Obey revealed that the memo revealed that the memo names an appropriations committee aide as present at one briefing when the aide recalls being told he was not cleared to stay there. So he's joining Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham in questioning the accuracy of the CIA memos.
For example, according to the CIA, Congressman Porter Goss got a briefing on March 8, 2005, even though he was not only no longer a congressman at the time, he was the director of the CIA.So maybe when you're done generating artificial outrage over this issue as well, you can join the rest of us back in the real world.
I will attempt to respond to this critique point by point.
Issue #1: “false outrage” I assure you there is nothing false about my outrage. I am genuinely outraged at Ms. Pelosi’s conduct as I would if a Republican would go off the deep end like that.
Issue#2: Assume me to be Christian/War on Christmas. My faith is a private matter. I do defend the Christian faith against unreasonable attacks, mostly from the left and Islam. “The War on Christmas” is a discussion for another day, not relevant here. I don’t presume to know what Jesus would do about the “War on Terror.”
Issue#3: Moral compass. This is not the place for me to expound my moral creed. Taking every measure possible to save American lives in the context of an unprovoked war is morally sound with me. There’s a huge difference between common criminals in the context of the criminal justice system and acts of genocide. I would argue our criminal justice system has gone too soft on crime, a discussion for a future blog.
Issue#4: Torture does not work. It depends how it is used. In the examples under consideration here it did. Leads were provided and followed up upon which yielded active plots that were thwarted. Our officials did not resort to random torture. They utilized a series of escalating methods up to waterboarding. This is the “last resort” option that should only be used when specifically approved in extreme national security instances by the President himself. We have the “Jack Bauer” scenario which raises some interesting, “heat of the moment,” considerations where maybe such behavior is outlawed but can be pardoned if all the facts are known, but that’s a real tough one.
Issue#5: The CIA, given their mission and the extent to which their hands are tied, many of these restraints are justified, they do a good job. There might be some instances of bad record keeping. They did not engage in any conspiracy to mislead congress and in fact worked in close consultation with congress on terror issues as they needed to go to them to ask for more weapons to do their job effectively.
Issue#6: Newt Gingrich, I would hate to conduct a systematic investigation of all elected officials who’ve had extramarital affairs, or for that matter, perhaps some of my best friends. All that would be gained is an ocean of hurt to what end. Newt Gingrich never responded to why he left public service. It could be a lot of reasons. On political and historical issues I find his insights remarkably on target, perhaps a little doctrinaire on some issues where I’d be more flexible, but I respect him tremendously.
Issue#7: Porter Goss, not sure what the point is if he was CIA director at the time. As far as real world is concerned, I stand where I stand on terra firma. It’s all too real to me.
Well, to follow your lead:
Issue 1 - Not being a mind-reader, I can't truly say whether your outrage is feigned or not. But I find it fascinating that you wish to express your indignation about Nancy Pelosi possibly (but not definitely) lying, but you seem to approve of the Bush White House committing the much more heinous crime of torture and lying about it for a significant period. Please explain, as it gives the strong appearance of hypocrisy.
Issue 2 - WWJT? (Who Would Jesus Torture?)
Issue 3 - "Taking every measure possible to save American lives in the context of an unprovoked war is morally sound with me." Well, regardless of whether it is moral to be immoral, it's just a shame that this issue doesn't involve the saving of American lives. As I said, the waterboarding of KSH took place after he'd delivered all the intelligence value that he had. It was specifically for the purpose of fabricating a link between Iraq and al Qaeda - and doesn't the phrase "183 times in one month" raise a few red flags regarding the efficacy of this procedure?
Issue 4 - no, torture does not work, as has been documented http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/fbi-interrogator-tor.html">extensively. Sadly, unhinged right-wingers don't want to hear that, whether they're told by military or intelligence experts.
In fact, torture demonstrably makes Americans less safe. For evidence, let's look at a related issue: Obama's recent decision to not release detainee abuse photos, as it would inflame tensions in the Middle East and put our military members at risk. Follow that line of logic through for a moment: because Americans tortured prisoners, our troops are put in more danger. If your focus, as you say, is protecting Americans, it becomes obvious that one good way to do so is by not torturing our prisoners.
Issue 5 - "There might be some instances of bad (CIA) record keeping." Well, unfortunately, the CIA is claiming to have records of having briefed Nancy Pelosi, and she is disputing it. As there is ample evidence that the CIA records are riddled with errors, perhaps those same records aren't the best evidence that she was told anything (as this lefty blogger amply demonstrates).
Issue 5 - while Gingrich does have a strong grasp of history, part of the reason he lost his position as Speaker was that the American people began to see what a petty, small-minded man he was, with his fixation on bringing down Clinton and his "government shutdown" (as Tom Delay put it, "He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One").
Issue 6 - Porter Goss - if the CIA can't figure out that their own director isn't a Congressman getting briefed, those records need help.
To simplify this: I’m not sure I want or need to respond to all these issues. There are two main issues at stake in this discussion, Nancy Pelosi’s conduct and when and if some forms of torture are justified.
Issue #1, yes torture is a terrible thing, so is killing people. I am totally comfortable with permitting torture as the absolute last resort surely the terrorists attacks of 9/ 11provoked. If I shot you, that would be murder, and I’d be subject to the highest punishment allowed by law. If I shot 100 Taliban warriors, I might win a medal. Context is everything. This is not a black and white issue.I do not want to ban the President from having extraordinary methods at his disposal in extraordinary situations always mindful of the lessons learned from Vietnam how Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon abused power to what end?
What would Jesus do? I’ll leave that to Christians to debate. It's not my turf. The Bible is used to justify the worst forms of militant homophobia for instance. I have my feelings on Christianity and my relationship with my Creator. It’s too far-reaching and too nuanced to discuss here. What’s your religion? How much does it guide your life? I'm curious.Is there a moral authority that guides your argmuments? Labels like “Christian,” “Liberal,” “Conservative,” or “Facist” to critique someone’s position makes it easy to dismiss them as out of hand.
Torture should never be used as a matter of course. Specific, carefully prescribed methods which can create a temporary sense of extreme discomfort and distress that do not permanently harm the subject, used as a last resort measure approved by the commander in chief could be justified. Torture is an emotionally charged term that we think of as used by Nazis or ARAB EXTREMISTS. I support President Bush and all that went into making those decisions. I’m satisfied he acted properly.
Nancy Pelosi’s statements contradict those of others in the same meetings. Are all of them liars? Furthermore, consider current CIA director, Leon Pinneta’s response to this issues.
The legislative branch absolutely MUST keep our intelligence operations on a tight leash and keep them under constant scrutiny. However, for her to only assert theylied to her on interrogation methods and that they lie all the time is dangerous for the person third in line to be President to make. For her to have been in the loop on this issue and to do a 180 now the way she has with so many conflicting statements, is simply irresponsible, at very least.
She had so many acceptible options.What if she said, “I was aware of the decisions and did not object to them at the time. That was in the heat of the moment, but later, I believed those actions wrong, and it is my job as an elected leader to make sure we are never put in this position again.” Wow, that would be real leadership. Wise leaders change their mind. It’s so easy to scream, FLIP-FLOP or waffling. There’s changing one’s position as a matter of political opportunism. There’s changing as a matter of growth, changing situations, and further reflection.
I’m won't convince you on Newt Gingrich’s authority. You’re using issues apart from his assertions on this issue to discredit him. Do you apply the same standards to Bill Clinton’s behavior, for instance? I think his misbehavior as not the same as Newt’s. I am saying this from a Christian point of view. there One Jesus quote is prudent, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
I’d love to hold all our leaders to higher moral standards and as good roll models. Jimmy Carter might have been one of the most morally pure figures in American politics, but he was also a very ineffective President.
I really don't know what you're trying to argue, except that "torture is a family value."
You say that we shouldn't hold Newt Gingrich to a higher standard, but then argue that Pelosi should be held to a higher standard.
(Hey, did you see Newtie on Good Morning America? If you're going to call Pelosi a liar, I think you've just put yourself into that "higher standard" field. And by the way, do you see what's wrong with the statement "My third wife converted me to Catholicism"?)
I've shown you military and intelligence experts saying that torture is bad. I've given you examples of torture not working. I've given you logic. What does it take to prove it.
Torture is a family value?
What?
I realize the concept of "family values" is a matter of scorn by some members of the liberal mindset. We can debate your concepts of family values versus mine, but that's off topic here.
My issue, plain and simple is, I support waterboarding and some other cohersive methods as the LAST RESORT only when approved by the President himself. I support the decisions the President and his subordinates made under the most extraordinary of circumstances. I also believe the evidence I have seen that their efforts were effective. I've been following this topic from the beginning. As such, I'm not going to reconstruct a bibliography for the sake of this debate. If I simply need to stand on I respect the judgment of President Bush and his advisors, I feel they acted responsibly.
The second issue is Nancy Pelosi. Can she be the only person who's right and everyone else including President Obama's own CIA director be wrong? She is third in line to the Presidency. The evidence is clear she was informed what interogation methods were in use. It's perfectly okay she might have felt it was not a big issue at the time but has changed her mind on further reflection. Situations change, people learn new things. Their views change. Had she taken an approach to say "If I knew then what i know now..." Her statements are not consistent. Her body language and demeanor lacked confidence and surely was not convincing. I will make no apologies for being blunt, I am at odds with her political positions, her leadership style, and her unprofessional behavior. For asserting that the CIA lied and insinuated they do it all the time disqualifies her as Speaker of the House. She's the accuser. The burder of proof is hers.
Your final assertion about Newt Gingrich confuses me. Why should it matter that he converted from being Protestant to Roman Catholic? In my little world, I know folks who are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Unitarian, fascinated with Eastern religions like Zen, or spiritually independent. Not too many folks I know are atheists or agnostics. Those who were have at least come to terms their is some kind of higher power, a Creator. Some folks explicitly try to follow the teachings of a given faith. Others are more philosophical or act from a more ethical not a spiritual framework. I learn from them all.
In discussing Pelosi as a liar, I am not making this a moral judgment. Nancy is a liar. She sinned. She's going to hell. I am discussing that as one of the highest officials in Washington she is making false accusations about the conduct of the CIA. That behavior is irresponsible and dangerous. The CIA performs countless valuable services to protect our country no matter how badly they are portrayed in thriller novels and movies. It's tough, valuable work. She has cast the whole agency in disrepute which is grossly unfair to thousands of wonderful, highly professional good people who work there. SHAME ON HER.
OK, fine. You support torture, despite all the evidence against it. We'll ignore that this brings your entire moral fiber into question. This is America, and you're allowed to enjoy your S&M films as much as Cheney does.
Let me just point out, though, that after all the lies, all the WMD's that didn't exist, all the terrorist camps that Saddam wasn't running, Bush and company were left with only one reason for having invaded Iraq. "Saddam was a tyrant. He tortured and killed his own people!" Think about it for a while.
As another man once put it, torture is the very antithesis of freedom. The key dynamics are not truth, security or patriotism. They are power, dehumanization and sadism. As Rear Admiral John Hutson observed, "torture is the method of choice of the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough."
As for Newtie, my issue with him has to do with the fact that he really has no business casting the first stone. The man is a small-minded egotist, who paid a $300,000 fine for ethics violations after he lied to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (if you'll recall, in the 90's, he was using tax-exempt organizations for political purposes). If you're going to hold other people to higher standards, you damned well better live up to them yourself.
And my comment on his conversion has nothing to do with his religion, merely the circumstances around it. Are you saying that you don't see the irony in the statement "My third wife converted me to Catholicism"?
But then again, you seem somewhat immune to irony, or you wouldn't have been able to type the following words. "I am not making this a moral judgment. Nancy is a liar. She sinned. She's going to hell."
Yup. Absolutely right. No moral judgment there.
But let's move past that. Let's look at the rest of that statement. "she is making false accusations about the conduct of the CIA. That behavior is irresponsible and dangerous... She has cast the whole agency in disrepute which is grossly unfair to thousands of wonderful, highly professional good people who work there. SHAME ON HER."
(Huh. "Shame." Isn't that a moral judgment too?)
This is the latest GOP talking point, and it's fascinatingly fungible. "We must absolutely always support our CIA! They're fine, upstanding warriors doing valuable work!" Then they turn their backs and mumble "...until I disagree with them."
Newtie, for example, went along with all his brethren when the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate came out and said that maybe we shouldn't invade Iran. As he said in front of CPAC:
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran can only be understood as a bureaucratic coup d’état, deliberately designed to undermine the policies of the United States, on behalf of some weird goal.That's our CIA he's talking about, plotting a coup against the President! He was making false accusations about the conduct of the CIA. That behavior is irresponsible and dangerous. He cast the whole agency in disrepute which is grossly unfair to thousands of wonderful, highly professional good people who work there. SHAME ON HIM!
So maybe, just maybe, there's little more here than a standard GOP smear-and-run attack. Did Pelosi lie? Always possible. Is it the over-arching act of treason that you're trying to make it out as? Not so much.
So “Casablanca” and “Animal House” are S&M flicks? I detest the whole S&M thing. I’d presume Mr. Cheney does too. Okay, you're busted - logical fallacy - poisoning the well.
The torture debate is WAY out of context. The media soaked us with images of Abu Ghraib where some punk soldiers randomly humiliated and tortured detainees. Those responsible were charged and hopefully punished severely for such abuse. The “torture” I support was used against the most significant detainees: Sheik Mohammed and the two others with intelligence value. Why anyone would get so high-minded about playing nice with a person who has the blood of 3000 Americans on his hands.
It’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback on late 2001 through 2002ignoring the intensity of what our leaders were tasked with doing and the urgency of their every move. The mindset was avoid another attack at all costs. Methods used three times compared to Abu Ghraib or Saddam Hussein's gang don’t add up. You wouldn’t equate urban gang murders to the use of arms by our military, would you?
I won't debate about the intelligence about WMD’s used as the primary reason for invading Iraq if it leads to the assumption that President Bush had a prior motives to invade Iraq looking for anything he could find to justify that action. Leading up to that decision, the world’s intelligence accepted Iraq had an active WMD program. President Clinton’s administration acted as if it supposed they did too. The lesson learned is how much decisions made in the 1970’s from the Church commission’s work castrated our intelligence forces from getting high quality, real-time intelligence effectively. We might have only found small amounts of WMD materials, but we sure found plenty of mass graves with bodies that had been severely mutilated. If you’re willing to simply argue “torture” is “torture,” there’s a world of difference between saturating a suspect’s nostrils with water to hacking off someone’s limbs or cutting out his tongue. The media hasn’t shown us the mutilated Iraq civilians tortured and disfigured by Hussein.
On Newt Gingrich, we’ll separate your ad hominem attacks versus his specific insights on Ms. Pelosi’s conduct. He took responsibility for the misappropriation of campaign funds. I remember thinking those charges somewhat arbitrary and harsh at the time. You can tarnish Gingrich all you like; his insight into Ms. Pelosi’s conduct is valid. That issue does not invalidate the specific what Gingrich AND MANY OTHERS report, evidence suggests Pelosi lied. I have made no insinuation whether she sinned or is going to hell. You continue to pump things into this debate that are not a part of this on discussion on two things: policy considerations, and the behavior of the current Speaker of the House.
I'm not interested in Gingrich converting to Catholicism. That’s his business. I stay out of other’s religious beliefs unless they think blowing themselves up will earn them a bevy of nubile virgins in the after life. Whether Ms. Pelosi is a sinner or going to hell is not my issue to discuss.
You’re begging the question… “We must always support the CIA….” What’s with that? We should recognize they play a valuable role protecting our national interests and that most people who work there are highly professional people. We should also maintain a skeptic’s eye because they can make mistakes and become politicized. Take things issue by issue, event by event. My overall concern is do they have the tools to do their job? Are they subject to appropriate oversight?
You take specific points to build assertions beyond this discussion. My contention is the Speaker of the House who cannot give a straight answer about what information she was provided by the CIA, responds by calling them liars and then suggests they lie all the time is acting inappropriately for a person of such a vital position in government. This disqualifies her as speaker of the House but if the folks in San Francisco want her as their congresswoman that’s their call.
Post a Comment