May 15, 2009

"I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters."

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime... She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

Newt Gingrich on Nancy Pelosi. (Audio at the link.)

UPDATE: CIA Director Leon Panetta attacks Pelosi:
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the C.I.A. was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

204 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204
Eric said...

So the Republican view is that Pelosi embraced torture in 2002, only to pretend to despise it in 2009.

You're getting closer but you know that's not the problem. You're grasping at partisan straws here. The Bush administration never did and still doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Whether or not you agree with them they've been solidly consistent.

Pelosi 1) doesn't believe it's torture either, but was perfectly willing to pretend she does for political advantage or 2) embraced torture in 2002, only to pretend to despise it in 2009.

I don't see any other interpretation, and I don't see how the Repblicans come off worse here. If that was the case I doubt Cheney would be pushing for the release of documents.

Fen said...

Well said Eric.

Cliff notes: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe she had a change of heart."

Pelosi isn't claiming that she had a change of heart. She's claiming that all along, she's opposed what she describes as torture.

What the CIA is saying is that, in point of fact, Ms. Pelosi was not all along opposed to what she is now describing as torture.

The left doesn't want to debate whether waterboarding is torture. They want to claim that there is no debate.

Republicans are saying then that if there won't be a debate on whether waterboarding then let's find out who among those who wish no debate were for it, or acquiesced in its use, or stood silently by.

Pelosi is clearly in that group, and wishes not to be.

Just as Hillary Clinton was an avid supporter of the war against Iraq until it became politically inconvenient; and then she was a hapless rube tricked by that evil Bushco.

All of this is a distraction, however, from the real crimes.

The real war crime is that President Barack Obama is ordering the killing of people living in Pakistan with Predator drones, knowing that women and children will be innocent victims of such attacks; without even a single vote of the Congress.

And so while you have this stupid debate on what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, Barack Obama is wracking up one hell of a body count consisting of innocent Pakistani women and children, upon whom no war has been declared.

He's the real war criminal and if you vote for him knowing he's doing this, then you're no better than a war criminal yourself.

Birkel said...

former law student,

Did they only teach you to argue using false dilemmas when you were in law school?
And did they not teach you how to argue in the alternative?

I'll give you an example:
1) Waterboarding is not torture.
2) But if waterboarding is torture then
A) Nancy Pelosi had a responsibility to...
i)
ii)
B) Nancy Pelosi...
i)
ii)

You do understand how to follow such nuance, right?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204   Newer› Newest»