Now, considering the humiliation sandwich that Nancy Pelosi was being force fed last week when I wrote my previous diary (“Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down”), I thought surely she had hit rock-bottom and couldn’t possibly sink any lower–however, I was oh so very wrong. A few days after I wrote the above diary, Speaker Pelosi gave her infamous press conference where, throughout the first half, she was utterly incoherent–
Then, in the second half of her press conference, Speaker Pelosi ACTUALLY ACCUSED THE CIA OF LYING TO CONGRESS!
Now, at the risk of our own Caleb Howe (formerly known as absentee) calling me a cliche’, I must say that I, literally, felt embarrassed for her. I mean, I could feel myself squirming in my seat and my cheeks getting warm as I watched that train wreck of a press conference. Furthermore, after watching Speaker Pelosi prevaricate in the above videos, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for this woman to hit rock-bottom, because she appears to have no sense of shame, but I digress.
“It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress,” Panetta said in a message meant to shore up employees of his agency, which is at the center of a relentless political firestorm over Bush policies and the Iraq war. “Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [terrorism suspect] Abu Zubaida, describing the ‘enhanced techniques that had been employed.”
I think that John Dickerson made a really good point in his excellent column (be sure to Digg it) when he stated that, “The reason this new attack on the CIA is such a bold and perhaps very bad idea is that the CIA is very good at these battles”. Furthermore, I think that Dickerson really hit it out of the park in regard to why Pelosi put herself, as well as the Obama Administration, in such a pickle by taking on the CIA in such a ham-fisted fashion when he wrote the following–
The escalating mess is exactly why President Obama didn’t want a thorough look into the question of torture. Fights like these distract from his effort to get politicians to focus on other matters, and the arguments potentially weaken his party by either undermining its high-road position on torture or making leading Democrats look unsteady, as Pelosi looked during her halting and jittery press conference. As one former senior Bush official put it, “Their real political problem [with investigating torture] is when they look back, they will find many of their own there. This sh*t storm will leave everyone stinky. Or might just leave their side in deeper doo-doo for the worst political sin: hypocrisy.”
At some point the president may be asked what his view of the Pelosi matter is. It’s a tricky spot. He doesn’t want to get in the middle of a he said/she said debate. If he defends Pelosi, he alienates the CIA. That relationship is already tender because Obama released Bush-era torture memos against the wishes of the CIA, whose agents participated in the torture. On the other hand, if Obama defends the CIA, he undermines his leader in the House and angers her liberal supporters.
On a side note, Mark Steyn has recently written a fantastic column in which he explains with perfect clarity exactly why Nancy Pelosi is so contemptible with her prevarications about what she did and didn’t know in regard to enhanced interrogation techniques. Steyn points out, in so many words, that Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi pretty much have the same views on waterboarding, but that Vice President Cheney has the cojones to man-up and tell people what he really thinks. Furthermore, Dick Cheney has the courage to stick to his convictions–unlike Nancy Pelosi who calls the brave men and women of the CIA “liars”. Mark Steyn further elaborates on these points in two excerpts from his column that I have pasted below. First, Steyn writes the following–
Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding?
He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent.
Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding?
No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naïveté) soul. Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly believe about waterboarding?
Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back when, over six years ago.
Then, Mark Steyn further states the following about the Pelosi drama–
Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the Speaker’s fellow San Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08 or ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”
Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush-Cheney-Rummy war crime.
Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her colleague’s behavior. The alternative – that Speaker Pelosi is a contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security – is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she supported all those years ago. But it’s OK to hold Cheney or some no-name Justice Department backroom boy to account?
Well, sure. It’s the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack doesn’t mean it, so that’s okay, whereas Carrie does, so that’s a hate crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of national security. Nancy doesn’t, because to her it’s about the shifting breezes of political viability.
[By the way, if any of you are interested, Jennifer Rubin has recently written an awesome blog where she points out how the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the MSM never saw Dick Cheney coming when he was touring the Sunday talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. They were so obsessed with Cheney’s unpopularity and President Obama’s charisma, that they forgot one very important point–that Cheney had the truth on his side. Here is an excerpt from Rubin’s blog that really says it all–
In this obsession over Cheney’s unpopularity the mainstream media and the Obama administration share a common and debilitating fault: an preoccupation with personality and polling data. It makes not one wit of difference that someone not running for office has a current popularity rating of 20% — if what he is saying is deadly accurate and central to a key policy debate. The media and the administration somehow believed Cheney was irrelevant because they, not he, are hung up on irrelevant data points and are largely immune to arguments on the merits.
The media is obsessed with who the “leader” of the minority party is and who the “frontrunner for 2012? is. How bizarrely out of touch are they? Well, no more so than the Obama team which spent weeks tying the GOP to Rush Limbaugh while they created a disastrous stimulus package and frittered away a trillion dollars.
The administration and the media jointly overlooked the power of Cheney’s message which was based on a set of facts over which he has complete mastery (and which they were either indifferent to or ignorant of). So they now sit slack-jawed while Cheney has largely pinned the Obama team to the mat.]
So, in conclusion, not only is Nancy Pelosi officially a laughing stock (even in Democratic circles), but she’s also an untrustworthy prevaricator (and that’s putting it nicely–“liar” would be more accurate) who refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes–instead she pathetically and desperately tries to pass the buck to our brave men and women in the CIA. I almost feel sorry for her. (ALMOST being the operative word. Anyway, my Dad always says that it’s hard to take pleasure in watching people self-destruct or get what they deserve.) However, not only is Nancy Pelosi an untrustworthy hypocrite, she’s also a loose cannon who should not be in a position that gives her such power and influence over our national security–especially since the CIA doesn’t have any confidence in her.
In closing, I will leave you with a poem by Mike Huckabee that says all that needs to be said about why Nancy Pelosi needs to resign as Speaker of the House–it is funny, it is concise and it echoes my sentiments exactly. I hope that for the good of our national security, Nancy Pelosi will heed his advice. Take it away Governor!Click here for Fox News Mike Huckabee video.
Update: Steve Foley of The Minority Report has just put up an excellent column with a video in it of Nancy Pelosi’s latest press conference. In her press conference, Speaker Pelosi not only refuses to recant her statement about the CIA lying (or apologize to the CIA), but she also refuses to even take any more questions regarding the matter. Unbelievable.
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Donald Trump released a statement on Facebook responding to Lindsey Graham’s refusal to endorse him. Let me just tell you, it’s super unifying and respectful, as you might imagine. Read the full statement below: “I fully understand why Lindsey Graham cannot support me. If I got beaten as badly as I beat him, and all the other candidates he endorsed, | Read More »
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Well, anyone who thought that everyone would fall right in line behind Trump after he won the nomination was pretty much dead wrong. Thus far the names that have come out and said explicitly that they would not endorse Trump, or that they were not willing to endorse Trump yet, have run roughly equal to those who have not | Read More »