Know Nothing Nancy.

“So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading, that the CIA was misleading the Congress.”

-Nancy Pelosi May 14, 2009

With this comment, Speaker Pelosi went all-in in her war of words with the CIA. For her sake, she had better be telling the truth.

Now I do not claim to know whether she is being honest or not, but my gut and the evidence that has been presented, tell me that that is not the case.

During the press conference, where she uttered the above statement, she looked like a person that was clutching at any excuse that would shroud the truth. From the finger waving, stammering, wavering voice, nervous smile, meek attempts to escape the room and theatrical hand gestures, she seemed scared, cornered and desperate.

In addition, comments made by current CIA director Leon Panetta and Representative Porter Goss and the CIA briefings regarding the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that were recently made public certainly indicate that Pelosi was well aware of what the CIA was doing.

So for the sake of argument, let’s say she is lying, as I do think she is. Is this really the big deal that Congressional Republicans and Conservative commentators are making this out to be? After all, half-truths, fabrications and deceptions are as part of the American political system as baseball, apple pie and jazz are to the American culture.

I do think this is different though.

This is not some politician trying to spin their voting record on a politically sensitive topic. This is not an exaggerated claim by a politician that is trying to score cheap political points during an election cycle. What this is, is a member of Congress, the Speaker of the House to be specific, making fabricated statements regarding our intelligence community and how they have kept and are keeping us safe from a rogue enemy that specializes in terrorism. All of this, in a time of war.

So if this is really the case and Speaker Pelosi is lying, what should be done?

While I do not believe this is grounds for impeachment, I do think that Speaker Pelosi should be censured and have her position of Speaker of the House taken away from her if she is indeed lying.

While being censured is merely an administrative punishment, it would at least be in the Congressional records forever. I think this would act as, both, a just punishment and an effective deterrent to future elected officials that wish to lie regarding such intelligence issues.

Stripping her of her role as Speaker of the House is certainly a strict punishment, but if she is lying about the conduct of the CIA, I do not believe she should continue to serve as Speaker of the House… someone that is two heartbeats away from the presidency.

I know that this is harsh, but lying about sensitive intelligence information, denigrating the brave and effective intelligence professionals within our government, potentially alienating us from our allies and giving strategic and public relations ammo to our enemies are all incredibly egregious consequences of her reckless behavior.

Now, neither of these actions have any chance of actually happening. I realize that.

This current mini, and potentially epic-sized, scandal, does, however, present the Republican Party with the ability to show voters in 2010 yet another stark contrast between them and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal that is currently running things in Washington, this time on an issue where the Democrats are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion.

That could be the worst punishment Speaker Pelosi could possibly receive.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Waterboarding is vital to our security needs.

So it seems as though we’re back on the whole waterboarding issue once again.

After President Obama released some top-secret Bush-era memos (memos that gave the government's first full account of the CIA's use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods) he has now left the door open to prosecuting the people that devised the legal justifications for allowing such activities to take place. These people would most likely be Justice Department officials, not CIA personnel.

My question is, “Why”?

Why is the President of the United States open to prosecuting people that have succeeded in keeping this country safe from another terrorist attack(s)?

Isn’t he interested in preventing attacks that could kill untold numbers of Americans?

I would imagine that he is, so why would he make it more difficult for our intelligence community to stop such events?

Oh… some of you still do not believe that waterboarding and other “harsh” methods of interrogation work?

Well you would be sadly mistaken, as you have to look no further than the CIA’s comments to CBS News regarding waterboarding for proof of its effectiveness.

According to those comments, waterboarding, in particular, helped stop a 9/11-style attack that was planned for Los Angeles. CIA officials went on to say that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, planned to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles in 2005.

He only gave up this information after he was waterboarded.

Additionally, President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair stated, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country”.

But now you have many, including President Obama, claiming that we “lost our moral bearings” in these interrogations, rather than applauding our intelligence community for a job well done.

These people seem to think that our “harsh” interrogation methods that have been used (used in retaliation to a war declared on us, mind you) are somehow the moral equivalent to the deeds of the terrorists themselves.

I am sorry, but they are not and we are not sinking to the level of the terrorists by practicing such methods.

As military historian Victor Davis Hanson has said, when a country is at war (which we currently are) there is a level of barbarity that it needs to descend into in order to succeed. Our dissention into barbarity is marked by actions that can kill high numbers of people, treat prisoners cruelly and marginalize the rights of enemies. Those actions, when used to stop a greater amount of death and destruction, however, do not put us on the same moral plane as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or The Taliban as they would do far worse if they possessed the resources and opportunities to do so.

Take the example given above.

Is waterboarding harsh? Unquestionably.

Is it cruel? Most definitely.

Is it torture? You could make a case for it, as Christopher Hitchens once did.

While waterboarding is all of those things… it was also very necessary in this situation, as it was responsible for saving an untold number of American lives.

The expectations and limitations that the Left wants to place on our intelligence community are completely unrealistic. They seem to have this ridiculous post-facto notion that if our intelligence officials aren’t perfect, then they’re not good. That is pretty shabby treatment for the people that keep us safe. It is also rather dangerous, as it places needless barriers in the way of these people gaining valuable information about our enemies and their intentions.

Listen, I wish we could gain information by merely sitting down and reasoning with these people, but that is impossible. These people, the terrorists we are currently at war with, are not a rational group of people, therefore, they do not respond to rational forms of interrogation. They are willing to die for a cause that has been started and led by a number of murderous madmen. What would lead anyone to believe that these terrorists would respond to standard interrogational techniques?

That leads me to another question, what is going to happen when we do have a prisoner that has vital information and simply won’t talk?

That’s a question that President Obama needs to figure out as, literally, thousands of American lives could be riding on his answer.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Great Blog from USA Today

Have you ever heard a brilliant idea and instantly became mad, frustrated and disappointed for yourself for not thinking of it first?

Well, that’s how I feel about Marc Thiessen’s blog from yesterday’s USA Today.

It lists some proposed questions that he would like to see senators ask Leon Panetta, President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA.

Here are some of the best ones:

• Last year you wrote in the Washington Monthly that even if waterboarding could stop the next terrorist attack or suicide bomber, it should not be permitted. According to our intelligence community, waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques President Obama has banned helped stop a number of terrorist attacks, including a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles and a plot to fly passenger planes into Heathrow Airport and the Canary Wharf in London. Knowing these facts, do you still believe waterboarding should not be permitted under any circumstances? And if so, which of these attacks would you prefer had not been stopped?

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the mastermind of 9/11 — reportedly underwent waterboarding while in CIA custody. Since you believe waterboarding is torture, doesn't it follow that the evidence against Mohammed should be thrown out under the "exclusionary rule" and his case dismissed?

• Since 9/11, the CIA has successfully conducted targeted killings of senior al-Qaeda leaders by armed unmanned aerial vehicles. Will the CIA continue to use these tactics under your leadership? And if so, why is it acceptable for the CIA to conduct targeted killings of senior al-Qaeda leaders, but unacceptable to question senior al-Qaeda leaders using enhanced interrogation techniques?

• President Obama has pledged to intensify the hunt for al-Qaeda in Pakistan. If another senior al-Qaeda leader is captured, what will you do with him now that Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret prisons will be shuttered? What will you do when that terrorist — with intelligence on plots to attack America — refuses to talk? And if an attack that could have been prevented by enhanced interrogation techniques takes place, will you accept personal responsibility?

Please read the entire article, as it is an outstanding read.