I Think She Misremembers
May 15th 2009 14:10
I was going to rant today about Conservatives (I’m a Democrat), but Ms. Nancy Pelosi grabbed my attention by the throat and squeezed so hard, that I have to give her the attention she demands or die.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker (as she has been often referred to) stood before reporters and tried to read a statement denying any knowledge of waterboarding, the torture technique where one is strapped blindfolded to a plank with a towel over one’s mouth and water is poured on the towel, simulating a drowning experience, until February 2003; the CIA claimed that she was informed in September 2002. Who cares, you might think? What’s the difference between 2002 and five months later in 2003? Nothing except a possible lie, that’s all, and somebody is lying.
Ms. Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying saying the organization was “misleading the Congress of the United States.” Of course, if one believes Ms. Pelosi, then this wouldn’t be the first time that someone from the CIA, NSA, FBI, or any other black box organization mislead the Congress of the United States, would it? On the other hand, the CIA insists that it briefed Ms. Pelosi on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron). The CIA also said the representative Porter J. Goss of Florida was present at the briefing, so I assume he can confirm the CIA account.
Now for the question everyone is asking: if Ms. Pelosi was and is so opposed to the use of torture to gain information, then why didn’t she say anything when the CIA says she found out about waterboarding in 2002, or even when she says she found out, in 2003? Ms. Pelosi answered by saying that instead of speaking out against waterboarding, she was determined to elect a democratic congress and a democratic president. Very noble.
I much prefer Ms. Clinton. She admitted her support for the war in Iraq, admitted it was a mistake based on the best information she had at the time, but in hindsight, a mistake, and worked to rectify the mistake. Ms. Pelosi, on the other hand, stood at her news conference, fumbling with her prepared speech, trying not to mix up the pages, reading the same things over and over, as if trying to avoid a mistake. If she wasn't lying, why did she have to read a prepared speech? Why couldn't she just answer reporters' questions? If this gets really serious, and there is an investigation by a special prosecutor, she won't be able to read from a prepared speech. Maybe, like Bill Clinton who debated the definition of the word "it", she can find a way to debate the definition of the word "lie."
To paraphrase Roger Clemens, I think she misremembers.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker (as she has been often referred to) stood before reporters and tried to read a statement denying any knowledge of waterboarding, the torture technique where one is strapped blindfolded to a plank with a towel over one’s mouth and water is poured on the towel, simulating a drowning experience, until February 2003; the CIA claimed that she was informed in September 2002. Who cares, you might think? What’s the difference between 2002 and five months later in 2003? Nothing except a possible lie, that’s all, and somebody is lying.
Ms. Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying saying the organization was “misleading the Congress of the United States.” Of course, if one believes Ms. Pelosi, then this wouldn’t be the first time that someone from the CIA, NSA, FBI, or any other black box organization mislead the Congress of the United States, would it? On the other hand, the CIA insists that it briefed Ms. Pelosi on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron). The CIA also said the representative Porter J. Goss of Florida was present at the briefing, so I assume he can confirm the CIA account.
Now for the question everyone is asking: if Ms. Pelosi was and is so opposed to the use of torture to gain information, then why didn’t she say anything when the CIA says she found out about waterboarding in 2002, or even when she says she found out, in 2003? Ms. Pelosi answered by saying that instead of speaking out against waterboarding, she was determined to elect a democratic congress and a democratic president. Very noble.
I much prefer Ms. Clinton. She admitted her support for the war in Iraq, admitted it was a mistake based on the best information she had at the time, but in hindsight, a mistake, and worked to rectify the mistake. Ms. Pelosi, on the other hand, stood at her news conference, fumbling with her prepared speech, trying not to mix up the pages, reading the same things over and over, as if trying to avoid a mistake. If she wasn't lying, why did she have to read a prepared speech? Why couldn't she just answer reporters' questions? If this gets really serious, and there is an investigation by a special prosecutor, she won't be able to read from a prepared speech. Maybe, like Bill Clinton who debated the definition of the word "it", she can find a way to debate the definition of the word "lie."
To paraphrase Roger Clemens, I think she misremembers.
| 29 |
| Vote |
