RealClearPolitics - Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible
Charles is pretty easy on Pelosi, this is beneath contempt. It is another lesson in how the Statist mind works:
In 2007, she admitted that she was briefed BEFORE the methods were used:
Now she is "repeatably clear" that they were NOT told AFTER ... this is precisely like Slick Willie with "there is currently no ..." -- "that depends on what the meaning of is ... is":
Here is what Porter Goss says about the briefings:
So what are we to make of this? She was in the briefings where she was briefed on what they CIA was PLANNING to do, and did not object, and in fact at a minimum went along with folks asking if the CIA needed MORE support to carry this out!
So, when would one expect someone opposed to these methods a supervisory role to object? BEFORE they are carried out? or AFTER they are carried out?? If they objected AFTER, what kind of oversight is that? "Go ahead and get this information with my blessing, and even offer of added support, but after you get the information, let me denigrate the methods I approved and seek to impugn and even prosecute you for using them??"
How does that mange to rise to the standard of "contemptable"? This is beneath contept -- this is a lying weasel of the worst sort.
Charles is pretty easy on Pelosi, this is beneath contempt. It is another lesson in how the Statist mind works:
In 2007, she admitted that she was briefed BEFORE the methods were used:
In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."
Now she is "repeatably clear" that they were NOT told AFTER ... this is precisely like Slick Willie with "there is currently no ..." -- "that depends on what the meaning of is ... is":
"we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
Here is what Porter Goss says about the briefings:
Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."
So what are we to make of this? She was in the briefings where she was briefed on what they CIA was PLANNING to do, and did not object, and in fact at a minimum went along with folks asking if the CIA needed MORE support to carry this out!
So, when would one expect someone opposed to these methods a supervisory role to object? BEFORE they are carried out? or AFTER they are carried out?? If they objected AFTER, what kind of oversight is that? "Go ahead and get this information with my blessing, and even offer of added support, but after you get the information, let me denigrate the methods I approved and seek to impugn and even prosecute you for using them??"
How does that mange to rise to the standard of "contemptable"? This is beneath contept -- this is a lying weasel of the worst sort.
No comments:
Post a Comment