Was there anyone in power from 2001 and on who didn’t approve of torture? Certainly, it seems, not Nancy Pelosi:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday.
The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.
You know what this reminds me of? John Kerry’s lame denial, back in the 2004 election, that just because he voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in ’03, didn’t mean he ever expected President Bush to use it. That’s like giving me a sixth icy cold martini, then being shocked, shocked to find me under your table.
You know an appropriate legislative channel for a legislator? Legislation.
Nancy Pelosi is exactly what she professes to be against: an ideologue.
You know what it reminds me of? John Belushi covering his mouth in Animal House.
Dude, only six martinis? I’m appalled.
J Foster beat me to it. Six martinis? Lightweight.
Not lame at all. Leftypigs are liars and hypocrites; they’ll say anything for a vote, a joint, or a hummer. For Bush to take them at their word was shocking indeed.
anything for a vote, a joint, or a hummer
Well, you got to admit hummers sure are nice. Will there be hummers in heaven? I sure can’t get one down here.
Well, there must be Oldsmobiles and Plymouths (and Packards and LaSalles), since all those divisions are dead…
Oh, that’s not what you meant?
Stephen, I have no love for Madame Defarge: she’s just the sort of Stalinist who thinks that she’s entitled to your salary as well as her inheritance.
Do we really want to play the Democrat “what-did-she-know-and-when-did-she-know-it” game?
First off, they’re better at it.
Second, it cedes the point that the previous administration did torture people.
The current administration is attempting to re-assure the American public of its dedication to national defense by wringing its hands over possible mistreatment of combatants caught on the battlefield out of uniform.
Let’s get out of the way and let them dig their own hole, shall we?
“…over possible mistreatment of combatants caught on the battlefield out of uniform.”
Where ‘combatants caught on the battlefield out of uniform’ generally = “caught up in semi-random sweeps’, or ‘bought for cash from bounty hunters who couldn’t believe their luck in getting gullible Americans to give them money for random schmucks.”
Go ahead and bring the Democratic politicians into this. They’re guilty of going along; Bush & Co is guilty of doing this.
I’m here because of one of Andrew Sullivan’s old links, to Glenn Reynolds. He cited a Vodka Pundit post (http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/005750.php#005750):
“What’s the difference between what a small but despicable group US soldiers did in Iraq and what Saddam (and every other Arab state) has been doing for decades?
In our case, the people who did this will spend most of the rest of their lives in Kansas making small rocks out of big rocks.
In every other case, they’d be promoted.
End of comparison.”
It doesn’t age too well – it didn’t turn into vodka, just vinegar.
Barry:
Great to see you here! Grab a drink and stay around a while. How’s Andrew Sullivan doing? Still outraged at being the only true conservative?
Last time I checked, the second set of perpetrators at Abu Grahib were…rotting in jail or enjoying their enfored retirements. No real change there. The first set, Saddam Hussein’s loveable scamps, are still at large…for now.
You’ll hear this again and again (and with much better wording) all over the blogosphere: there is a very real difference between rogue American troops abusing prisoners in their care and American agents employing harsh tactics, up to and including torture, in the cause of obtaining actionable intelligence in time of war. In the first case we’ve prosecuted and punished the guilty. In the second, we’re prepared to discuss what was done, what laws were broken, and what to do going forward.
What we’re not prepared to do, what the adults in the country are sick of, is easy finger-pointing, cheap political point-scoring, and hysterical skirt-gathering whenever the words “torture” or “interrogation” are mentioned. Tell Sully I’m “gobsmacked” that he still can’t figure that out.
Only six? Amateur!
Hoist with her own petar.