Posts Tagged ‘Zubaydah’

Why Fellow Liberal Panetta Forced To Call Pelosi A Liar

May 17, 2009

There has been some degree of speculation as to why Nancy Pelosi has engaged in this bizarre demagoguery which began with her demanding Bush officials be prosecuted for their waterboarding “torture” and has (with two or three versions of her story in-between) since morphed into a claim that the entire CIA is lying about the fact that she was fully briefed on the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” and accepted it.

It’s really not that much of a surprise that Nancy Pelosi would engage in such demagoguery.  After all, it worked to perfection during the last election, when Democrats were able to successfully lie and demagogue Republicans regarding blaming them for the financial collapse.

The difference was that then, Democrats, along with a dishonest and biased media propaganda machine, were demagoguing Republicans.  But when Barack Obama opened the gates of partisan hell by releasing only those memos that he intended to use to attack Republicans, a few Democrats like Nancy Pelosi got caught in the same net.  And when Nacy Pelosi was ultimately forced to either admit she was lying or apply her demagoguery to the CIA, she was likewise attacking even more liberals.

The thing about the CIA, as anyone smarter than Nancy Pelosi understands, is that there are an awful LOT of liberals at Langley:

One complaint often heard privately within law enforcement circles is that the Central Intelligence Agency over the years has morphed into a Liberal think tank rather than maintaining its role as a strategic and tactical intelligence agency. An even bigger concern is that the agency has become overly politicized and prone to leaking information to the mainstream news media in order to have an impact upon the political climate within the Beltway.

And liberals, as much as they love demagoguing, hate being the victims of demagoguery.  And so they tend to fight back.  And media propagandists are suddenly forced to choose which liberals they want to defend.

Doctrinaire career liberal Leon Panetta, for instance, was forced to choose between Nancy Pelosi and his agency.  And Panetta and many of the liberals in the CIA who have been leaking information to the media to hurt Republicans for years have their own media sources.

This isn’t like your standard political squabble, in which the mainstream media know immediately who to knee-jerk demagogue (Republicans) and who to knee-jerk defend (Democrats).

Pelosi foolishly thought her attack on the CIA could somehow be limited to “the Bush CIA.”  But there is no such thing: the overwhelming majority of CIA employees span administrations.  And Panetta and a few others aside, “the Bush CIA” is largely identical to “the Obama CIA.”

So I have a slightly different take than the typical “Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have taken on the CIA.”  Rather, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have exposed the liberals at the CIA to criticism in the course of her demagoguery.  Because they can demagogue right back.  AND GET ON THE NEWS!

CIA Chief Rebuts Pelosi on Briefings

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency’s chief fought back Friday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that the CIA “was misleading” Congress, issuing a memo defending the integrity of its employees and contradicting her assertion that she wasn’t told about the agency’s use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference Thursday that Congress was misled by the CIA in regards to questions about waterboarding.

Later in the day, Ms. Pelosi tried to defuse what has turned into an unusual open feud between Congress and the spy agency, with a statement praising the work of intelligence officers and redirecting her rhetorical fire toward the Bush administration.

Apart from the institutional contretemps, the matter has put Ms. Pelosi in conflict with CIA director Leon Panetta, a former colleague when both belonged to California’s Democratic congressional delegation.

“CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'” Mr. Panetta wrote in a memo to agency employees. He was referring to an alleged senior al Qaeda detainee in CIA custody in September 2002, when Ms. Pelosi attended a briefing in her capacity as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.  Other intelligence officials also contradicted Ms. Pelosi’s account of the briefing, saying her assertion that she wasn’t told waterboarding was in use at the time is wrong. “That’s 180 degrees different from what the CIA’s records show,” an intelligence official said.

For the record, the article states that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded “83 times.”  But that’s just another example of the mainstream media’s pro-Democrat and anti-Republican bias:

Pours, not waterboards.

A close look at a Red Cross report on the interrogations makes the numbers even clearer.

As the Red Cross noted: “The suffocation procedure was applied [to Abu Zubaydah] during five sessions of ill-treatment … in 2002. During each session, apart from one, the suffocation technique was applied once or twice; on one occasion it was applied three times.”

The total number of applications: between eight and 10 — not the 83 mentioned in the Times.

The media were selectively dense because they realized that if they took out “pours” and replaced the word with “times,” “183” would sound like a lot more than “8.”  And the higher number DID make Bush sound like a real rat bastard, after all.

If Nancy Pelosi were caught red-handed with $90,000 in FBI sting money hidden in her freezer, she would be completely safe.  After all, liberals would rush to her aid from all sides to defend her from conservative attacks and use the same sort of shenanigans that they came up with to transform “8” waterboardings into “183” waterboardings.

As it is, she committed the unpardonable sin of tarnishing other liberals.

Had that not happened, this whole “waterboarding” fiasco would have played out as the typical communist show trial.  But as soon as a few liberal CIA officials began to get dragged in, the whole thing turned into a bizarre new retelling of Arthur Miller’s “Crucible,” in which sordid liberal characters began to accuse other liberals of “waterboarding witchcraft” as a ploy to save themselves.