Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Pelosi: Lying works for Democrats

Embattled Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Three things are now clear about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments about what she knew and when she knew it concerning the CIA’s use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs), including water-boarding:

First, it is no longer possible to doubt that Pelosi knew as of September 4, 2002 that the CIA included water-boarding among its tools for interrogating high-value terrorists like al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.

Second, there are additional documents in CIA and congressional records that will remove any remaining doubt that Pelosi knew water-boarding and other EITs were being used and that further deadly terrorist attacks were thereby prevented from taking place in this country.

[Third], the vast majority of Americans know the nation must first be preserved if the Constitution is to be protected.
-- Examiner Editorial (see source)
Calling Nancy Pelosi a liar is of no consequence. And calling Pelosi a liar while being supported with CIA documentation and evidence that she knew about waterboarding has the same affect as calling a dog, Canis lupus familiaris or Canis lupus domesticus one simply receives the same response. Well duh!

Democrats expect Democrats to lie. Oh they dress it up a bit they call it being nuanced à la mode de Al Gore or John Kerry. Or they may call it well thought out answers like Mr. Obama is credited with giving. But whether it’s Obama, Gore, Kerry or Pelosi Democrats consider everyone else stupid enough to con, as you know, lying to someone is the ultimate insult to the person(s) that is being lied to intelligence.

And that is the point isn’t it, Democrats in political office don’t think the rest of us are really that smart or they wouldn’t constantly and continually bald face lie to us.
"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."—Nancy Pelosi
So why did Nancy Pelosi go to Baghdad on a unusual surprise visit instead of being here in the United States answering questions about why she lied about not knowing anything about waterboarding and why did she lie about not being briefed on the tactic of waterboarding before it was used.

Oh I guess I answered my own questions didn’t I? It‘s highly unusual for a Congresswomen to make a surprise trip to a war zone for no apparent reason unless that Congresswomen is blatantly attempting to change the discussion and duck questions back at home about lies she’s told about her knowledge of waterboarding!

What Ms. Pelosi was engaging in is a little maneuver called redirecting the news cycle. You see a little “surprise visit to Baghdad ” is a trick intend to have your focus redirected from the fact that Ms. Pelosi was caught in bald face lies about “enhanced interrogation techniques” or waterboarding and naturally the media fell for it.

Her actions were to have the public focused on her “lone efforts” to fix the Middle East instead of the coming controversy over Democrats in Congress, herself included, who were also briefed and approved of waterboarding at the time that it was instituted, meaning that any investigation of Bush officials who approved these torture techniques would have to include Democrats who also knew of them and approved also.
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.—Paul Kane (see source)
Pelosi’s assertions, that she didn’t know, contradicts a recently released White House and Senate committee reports that cited CIA records to claim that senior members of Congress in both parties were briefed on the waterboarding, which had already been done to detainee Abu Zubaydah. (see report)

So who are we to believe the White House, the CIA or Nancy Pelosi? Here’s Nancy Pelosi answering reporter’s rare questions, of a Democrat, regarding the inconsistencies in her statements about not knowing about waterboarding. Notice how Pelosi first attempts to shut the reporter down by attempting to divert the conversion. Unsuccessful in that attempt Pelosi proceeds with a 10 minute opaque statement meant to Octopus ink her way out of danger by a black cloud of nonsensical blame Bush denials.(see 10:57min video)

Democrats have gotten themselves in quite a pickle. By calling for the prosecution of the Bush administration for using torture techniques they’ve exposed themselves as approving of those very same techniques when it was politically acceptable to do so. Following radio and television pundit Glenn Beck explains. (see 5:50min. video)

The deception and finger pointing of Democrats is astonishing especially when Democrats continued to demand of President Bush that they be considered an equal power with the presidency in the final 2 years of the Bush administration. Attempting to be bi-partisan the Bush administration acquiesced to Democrat’s demands and included them in on intelligence, waterboarding was just one such instance.

To say now that Democrats didn’t know anything about torture being used is an outright bald face lie. But hey, lying is working for the Democrats.

Right Congresswomen Pelosi?


  1. Well stated. My only criticism would be, to call Pelosi a "liar", not a "lair".

  2. Thanks. Duly noted. A thorn by any other name pricks as sharply.

  3. Anonymous9:41 PM

    Nancy Pelosi should be commended for her loyal undying support of George Bush'es policy of coercive interogation. Why she wants to backpeddle now for the sake od political expediency is beyond me!

    If an Arab terrorist cannot be made to tell the secrets of terrorist operations that threaten th lives of innocent, isn't that putting too high a price on the rights of terrorists, with that price being paid in blood? If there is to be bloodshed, let it be of the type resulting from a certain surgical operation which deprives terrorists of the ability to enjoy their virgins in paradise.

    As per Nancy's heavenly reward, lt it be 72 virgin studs who were terrorists in this life.