Monday, December 10, 2007
PROFESSOR EMERITUS PETE BAGNOLO
DEMS OUTED ON TORTURE OKAY IN 2002
Water Boarding was featured along with various other methods of torture according to at least two government officials. A few years later, the Democrats acted as though these barbarous techniques, which they later condemned as torture, were news to them.
Between the moment the Democrats began to view, publicly, the practice as brutal, and back to that meeting five years ago, only one objection was ever raised and who made that objection, I was unable to discover. The officials in attendance at these briefings, claim that, quite the contrary to their present position, the two congress people present requested that the CIA to get tougher on the prisoners. CIA Director Michael Hayden claims that he informed Congressional oversight members of “all aspects of the detention and interrogation program…
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,"an unnamed U.S. official who witnessed the meeting said.
Congressional Members of both the Democratic and Republican parties later leaped upon waterboarding as one of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism program.
Why the CIA destroyed the videotape of an interrogation of one of the detainees on which they perpetrated waterboarding 2005 in the face of advice from the White House officials and the “Justice Department,” otherwise remains a mystery. Now both parties are claiming that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup of nefarious practices, unknown to congressional overseers.
The truth, it seems, is that the CIA gave key legislative overseers more than two dozen private briefings, some of including descriptions of waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods. A bevy of U.S. officials were given detailed information over a period of months between 2002 and 2003, and only one congressperson ever formally objected to the techniques, after the initial briefing, witnesses said.
Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter identified the lawmakers with oversight controls and they included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, John D. Rockefeller IV Dem-West Virginia, Representative Jane Harman, and Senator Pat Roberts (Repub. Kansas), Senator Bob Graham (Dem-Florida.) as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (Repub.- Florida.)
Oddly, various lawmakers' were in wide disarray over the details they were given, with little agreement on just what and how technical the briefings were in those early meetings. However, most officials present at the meetings described their reaction as quiet acceptance, if not straight-out support. Representative Porter J. Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004, and following that served as CIA director from 2004 – 2006, said,
"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,”adding,
"And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
Now, when recently the rest of the democratic congress began to attack the interrogation techniques as “Torture,” absent was any notable outcry from the offices of the Representative of District 8, Nancy Pelosi. The more the other Democrats attacked, the more she did not cry out in unison with them. Why was that? More importantly if the others had been informed, why would they place her in Jeopardy?
Could it possibly have been, because they knew nothing about it?
Why would the rest of the congressmen and women make such an outcry, if they knew Mrs. Pelosi was a part of, and signed onto the Republican position?
Now let us backtrack to Monday 13 November 2006 when incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment was, “off the table.”
Given all that has happened since GW Bush took office, why would she say such a thing? Some people believe it is because although there are more Democrats than Republicans in office, there are fewer Liberals than there are Conservatives in office, so the votes are lacking. Others say that she wants to show the Republicans that the Democrats are not out for vengeance. As far as the former is concerned, the votes may well be lacking, but the only way to find that out is to do a straw poll. If the case is in fact the latter, she ought to be impeached for stupidity. Some say that attempting to impeach without a clear majority, would not only be foolish and a loss, it would stir up sympathy for Bush-enough sympathy to invoke backlash and blow the 2008 election back to the Republicans.
However, with this week’s news it would appear that there may be a fourth possibility-fear and culpability.
What charges would be brought in an impeachment cause? Most talk has been about War Crimes. However, the most apparent thing is that Bush lied to America and the world about the reasons for the war, and War Crimes is only the frosting on a bitterly distasteful, cake. The problem is that many people did not believe Bush and wrote to congress about their desire to see more evidence and what they heard and saw on TV from all the administration’s witnesses, had the rank odor of foul play. I was among those who saw and heard nothing that rang true and was not too shy to call and write to congress about my feelings.
While some of my friends did believe that Bush was correct, many agreed with me, instead, but were not as certain as they said I appeared to be, nor as animated about the matter. They were right, I was sure-I didn’t think Powell and Cheney and Bush and the rest of the Neo-cons were wrong-I knew that they were wrong! Correction I did not believe they were wrong. As in mistaken, I believed they were liars, criminals, murderers and thieves.
Back to Nancy Pelosi. Someone once said, never send a little boy to do a man’s job, but I say, never send a little girl to do a woman’s, or a man’s job!
However, Nancy Pelosi is not merely a little girl doing a grown up’s job, she is a dishonest little girl doing a grown up’s job. She has the age and the physical structure of a grown up woman, but neither the courage, the morality, the honesty, nor the honor, to be a grown-up, adult, human being. She is neither Bush’s superior, as almost all of us are, nor his equal, she is just a frightened, smug, arrogant and not very wise or smart little girls in Big Girl’s clothes.
She is almost as guilty as he is, maybe she is worse than he is, because if he is a war Criminal then so is she, for she knew-Yes, she knew about the torture and did nothing to stop it and less to even apprise her fellow congress people.
If GW Bush is fair game for impeachment, then so is she, more so because we knew all along that he was culpable, but she disguised herself as one of us -
therefore while Bush merely betrayed his nation, the people who supported and voted for him, she betrayed her nation and her own supporters, and disguised herself as one of those who was against a war criminal, against a person a person who committed high crimes and misdemeanors. In short, she was also a war criminal and a traitor, but she is also a hypocrite and should be recalled, and then charged with war crimes as well.
And that, as another veteran, Forrest Gump, once said, “And that is all I have to say about that!’
What do you have to say about that?
Good night and God Bless.