Should Pelosi Resign…

Some Recent Comments… 

Pathetic - The ditz of the House, excuse me, Speaker of the House is caught Red Handed lying to the American People and still a gaggle of left wingers can't bring themselves to say the obvious--she's unfit for her office.

And it was not just any lie, but rather the prop, one of them anyway, she has used to prop her sanctimonious self stiff, on what is now apparent, her hypocritical pedestal. Well now, said pedestal, at the tolling of the bell, has turned the glitzy pedestal into her own hard pike.

And what’s truly astonishing is watching so many put paid on said pike so as to rest there with her.

Jon

-----

She will never do it, unless forced.

Gingrich "made an error" accepting money for a speech and they lambasted him and he was finished, when he simply could have paid the money back unlike the dems who steal documents, lie forget to pay taxes, etc...

Peeelousy will just continue to say she didn't do it and obfuscate the truth.

Nee

-----

Hmmm… Should she resign when the executive officers responsible did not?
No.

Should she initiate an investigation that will look into the policy of torture and who ordered it and who knew what and when be willing to face censure, expulsion or a trial if indicted?
Yes.

Dread

-----

Pelosi's days are numbered… At this point, her ever-changing, ever-contradicting story is an embarrassment to the Congress and her party. Republicans don't need to make her a distraction; she's doing that all by herself.

Pearl

-----

Pelosi's Problem:

There are only 4 explanations of what happened visa-a-vie Pelosi and the CIA:

1. She was asleep during the briefings
2. She has forgotten what she was told
3. She is simply lying
4. The CIA is lying.

If it is (1), then she needs to get more rest, or some NoDoz.

If it is (2), then she needs to be tested for Alzheimer's right away and get on medication

If it is (3) she needs to resign immediately before she becomes the story

IF it is (4), then show me the memo that says "Ha, Ha, we made it all up."

I suspect it is (3) but will give her the benefit and will go with (2), so she should get on medication ASAP. (Plus maybe get off of what she is on… looked at her eyes lately?)  And since she is third inline for the presidency, she should resign immediately, because that position should not be held by a mentally deficient person, not firing on 4-cylinders! (An sorry, no offense to Alzheimer's patients, just her).

The Daily Llama

----

What version of her story are we up to?

Angie

----

Nancy Pelosi doesn't know who the real enemy is!

Nancy with the one track mind is confused about who our enemies are?! She thinks her Party are the angel (Dem), victims, abused by the devil Republicans! Doubtful, the delusive Pelosi will be held accountable for her trashing the CIA; the lib/Dems hold most of the cards. Course, the CIA itself can help nudge her out and the Dems will throw her under the bus if it benefits them!

But really, what were Americans thinking to make it so easy for a one-sided Party rule? Absolute power corrupts and politicians are self-serving enough!

Vicky

-----

Nancy will be gone now!

She attacked the CIA; she lied about them; and she wants to put them in prison with LIES. Do you really think they aren’t going to destroy her now? They know stuff and can find out stuff! And even if OBAMA doesn’t let them, they will do it anyway and laugh in her face as she’s lead off to jail. What an arrogant ignorant Representative California saddled us with. She is insane and typical of the far left! The truth seems to elude them completely.

Douglas

-----

In the ‘great quote of the day’, today:

Senator Kit Bond - (R) Missouri said, that “In a CIA briefing, they don't tell ‘ya' what methods ‘they are not going to use".

And as ‘Nancy "Bugs" Reid’ stated today, “Resign, break the glass ceiling!”, Nancy.

Personally, I hope she can weather this, I mean this dope, has set the standard for incompetence. Her and the other dope, Harry Pelosi, that is! Keep them front and center, the faces of the incompetent, abortion party.

Connie

-----

Nancy Pelosi should resign from her position, obviously she lied and ..... You can bash all you want but what Newt says is true even if you hate him.

CNN – CNNPolitics.com

-----

Gingrich:   Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich today offered a blistering critique of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of oversight on harsh interrogation tactics, in a major escalation of partisan attacks being aimed at Pelosi.

In an interview with ABC News Radio’s Marcus Wilson, Gingrich, R-Ga., said Pelosi, D-Calif., “has lied to the House” in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.

"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal.  I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.

He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest.  Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”

Pelosi yesterday accused the CIA of giving her “inaccurate and incomplete information” on the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics by the Bush administration, saying that CIA officials are guilty of “misleading the Congress of the United States.”

Her recollection is contradicted by an intelligence report sent to Congress last week, which said Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques “that had been employed” in September 2002.

Gingrich also says that playing politics around anti-terror techniques could “get a lot of people killed.”

“This is really, really dangerous, and it is going to get a lot of people killed, if we don’t call a halt to it.”

To listen to ABC News Radio's full interview with Gingrich, click HERE.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

Krauthammer: Pelosi 'Now at War With CIA... and They Will Destroy Her'

Glenn Thrush – Politico:  Panetta to CIA employees:  We told Pelosi the truth

 Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

CIA denies Cheney request to declassify memos

Did harsh interrogation tactics produce life-saving intelligence?

WASHINGTON - The CIA says it has denied a request by former Vice President Dick Cheney to declassify secret internal government memos that detail whether valuable intelligence was gained from the use of harsh interrogation techniques under the Bush administration.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said Thursday that the request was turned down because the documents are the subject of pending litigation — making them not subject to declassification.

"For that reason — and that reason only — CIA did not accept Mr. Cheney's request for a Mandatory Declassification Review," said Gimigliano.

"The Agency simply followed the Executive Order. This request was handled in accordance with normal practice by CIA professionals with long experience in information management and release. It was for them a straightforward issue."

Cheney says the documents show that the tactics prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives, contrary to the Obama administration's criticism of the Bush-era policies.

Cheney had made his request on March 31.

NBC's Pete Williams and The Associated Press contributed to this report. -  NBC News and news services

updated 2:11 p.m. PT, Thurs., May 14, 2009

Related Articles:

• The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"
  

Pelosi, the CIA, and the Dems’ dangerous blame game

Pelosi, the CIA, and the Dems’ dangerous blame game

Photoshop credit: David Johnson

(Special Spineless Edition… is a compliment)

We had dueling press conferences this morning with Nancy Pelosi accusing the Bush CIA of lying to her about waterboarding and House GOP leader John Boehner defending the integrity of the briefers.

Pelosi had a particularly frozen look on her face throughout her presser as she repeated the “Bush lied about Iraq” mantra to justify her own inaction:

“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration’s actions.

“They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don’t want that focus on them, so they try to turn the focus on us,” she said.

Projection: It’s what’s for breakfast.

If Pelosi were so incensed about how the CIA misled her, why wasn’t this her response to news of the 2002 briefing a week ago?

Blink, blink.

Pelosi issued a renewed call for a “truth commission.”

Boehner’s response: “Let’s put it all on the table.”

Other Dems (including Harry Reid, who opposes the “truth commission” as, um, a distraction) aren’t happy about where this dangerous blame game might take them.

William Jacobson analyzes the Dems’ lack of a waterboarding exit strategy and concludes:

Here’s my prediction of what will happen if Democrats push the investigation to the bitter end causing damage to national security, a political death match with the CIA, and Democrat-on-Democrat finger pointing:

Steny Hoyer, Speaker; Jane Harman, Majority Leader; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the House sub-committee on fresh water fisheries; Republicans, unexpected gains in 2010 mid-term elections.

The Democrats wished hard for an investigation into waterboarding and other interrogation methods. They may have wished too hard, because they are about to get what they wished for, with no way out.

By Michelle Malkin

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Pelosi Vehemently Challenges CIA’s Account of Briefings To Her on Waterboarding; Agency “Lied to Congress” « Peace and Freedom Promises
2. Torture Interrogations: Democrat Hypocrisy Grows… | NEOAVATARA
3. Let’s see – if Obama is Spock, then Bush is Captain Kirk « Jim Blazsik
4. Nancy Pelosi exposed as a war criminal! 5-14-09 now Pelosi accuses the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
5. CIA Enhanced Interrogation Technique Memos Requested By Cheney Will Not Be Made Public « Peace and Freedom Promises
6. Karl Rove: Is Pelosi an accomplice to “torture”? « Sister Toldjah
7. If Nancy Pelosi Could Tell the Truth « Teh Resistance Blog
8. Gazzer’s Gabfest » You don’t spit into the wind…
9. Pelosi Derails Obama Agenda; Obama Needs To Ask Her To Resign « Peace and Freedom Promises
10. Which Will Be Bigger — SMACKDOWN: Obama vs ACLU – or – SMACKDOWN TWO: Pelosi vs CIA? « Quick Daily Hits (Politics and Such)
11. Nancy Does Not Have A Laughing Face « Around The Sphere
12. OK, take NO PRISONERS! « Get Clued
13. nancy pelosi’s pants on fire | Blatherings Blog
14. Another CFOYT Hypocrisy: “Captured Forever On YouTube” - Sen. Schumer on Terrorist EITs « Frugal Café Blog Zone
15. Bent Notes » Blog Archive » Demagoguery and moral preening can bring you bad karma
16. Maggie's Notebook
17. Aside: Pelosi, the CIA, and the Dems’ dangerous blame game » Pirate’s Cove
18. Pelosi claims CIA “misled” her « Nuke’s

Trackback URL

Wow… Is Queen Nancy up to her 5th version of her waterboarding story now?  And now she is calling the CIA liars?  When you watch her demeanor at the press conference… there is no doubt, it says it all…

And this is the women (person) who is 3rd in line for the presidency?!?… WOW! 

What is the the little children’s saying?, “L__r, L__r, Pants on Fire…

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:

Nancy Pelosi Lied About Enhanced Interrogations - Is Anyone Surprised?

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

On Torture And War Criminals

Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'

The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"

Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos

Nancy Pelosi, Air Diva

Pelosi Backs Talk Radio Regulations 

Pelosi: “Enforcing Immigration Laws In The US Is Un-American” - With Video

Obama Team: Yes to Interrogation Memos, No to 'Flyover' Pictures

Amazing… Flyover photos that scared New Yorkers and cost the American taxpayer $328,000+ are classified now, but Interrogation Memos that could harm our troops, hamper future terrorist interrogation, and thereby could endanger all Americans are declassified and released…  As quoted in the New York Times, “The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.”  HMMMM…???  M~

Barack Obama and his team in Washington sure have a strange way of promoting full disclosure, openness, and transparency in government. Give them an opportunity to trash the previous administration and those who worked for our national security, and they are all for it. But, ask them to come forward with pictures and a full explanation of a so-called public relations assignment, and they clam up.

In a pathetic display of both arrogance and indifference to America's safety and peace of mind, we see in two events everything we need to know about Obama. Just look at how differently he and his team handled the release of CIA interrogation memos and how they are handling the non-release of photos taken during their flyover photo op in New York City.

As many of you know, Obama decided last month to release previously classified memos which detail the interrogation techniques used in questioning terrorists. (Yes, I still use the word "terrorist" at GOPUSA.) The release of these memos was stunning in that it serves absolutely no useful purpose other than to make America less safe and to allow Obama to continue his message that America is bad.

I discussed the memos at length in my post Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?, and I came to one conclusion: It was strongly believed that certain high-ranking terrorists knew of another large-scale terror plot against the United States. Traditional interrogation methods were unsuccessful against these three terrorists, so they (and only they) were subjected to waterboarding. The result was that they produced information on a plot to fly at least one airliner into a building in Los Angeles. This plot, known as the Second Wave, would have certainly resulted in the loss of hundreds or thousands of American lives.

However, Obama apparently feels differently. He could have stated his case and his opinions without releasing the memos, but instead of just making a point, he'd rather see American security jeopardized and the careers and private lives of those involved suffer.

As noted in an AP story running on GOPUSA, although the attorneys responsible for approving the interrogation techniques used to obtain the information on the Second Wave will not face criminal charges, they will likely face professional sanctions.

Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers ... to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.

The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.

Now, let's contrast these actions with the Obama team's handling of the idiotic and suspicious "flyover" that was approved in which the 747 used as Air Force One and a few F-16s flew ridiculously close to buildings in Manhattan... causing a panic. Under the pretense of a "photo op," the aircraft flew close enough to send a chilling reminder to people of the events of September 11, 2001.

In case you missed the video: 

YouTube - Air Force One Flyin Low Over New York Caused Panic HD

Apparently, the photo-op cost the American taxpayers $328,835. The administration was looking for a good pic of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background. However, as FOXNews.com reports, the general public was not warned in advance, even though it is obvious that this could cause a panic.

Now, the White House is saying it will not release the photos taken during the flyover. When asked about the photos during Tuesday's White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs, first tried to joke about it, saying, "I've watched CNN -- I didn’t notice a lack of archival material from that flight."

When pressed about the photos taken from inside the aircraft, Gibbs responding by adding, "I don't know where those are." The White House spends over $300k on photos, and not only will they not release them to the public, but they don't know where the photos are? What is going on here?

In the New York Post story referenced by FOXNews.com, an Obama aide told the paper, "We have no plans to release them." The report added: "The photos have not technically been 'classified,' a White House aide said, but they are being kept from public view."

So, this is the way the Obama administration works: Release secret interrogation memos but withhold wasteful taxpayer-funded promotional pictures. Can someone please explain that one to me?

Source:  The Loft – Posted by Bobby Eberle – May 6, 2009

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power –  by Ask Marion

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees. Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve. “None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said. See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle  “This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax. “There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage. “In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques. “We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration. “They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information. “So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country. “Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America. “The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.” Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques. “I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said. “Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country. “This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way. “There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth. “And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience. “We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. “We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.” Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them. “That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed. “People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.” Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened. “That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.” Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m. By: Jim Meyers See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3661156 Source:  Newsmax Related Resources: On Torture And War Criminals Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates' The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth" Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos U.S. Presidential Libraries Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim

On Torture and War Criminals

Jon Stewart says Truman was a ‘War Criminal’ because he ordered the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.  Forget that it saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who didn’t have to die during a land invasion of Japan.  America killed it’s enemies, and now that’s wrong.  Apparently...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

As Allah notes, “Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism." Like what you see?

For the record, during the debates, both Obama and Hillary listed Truman as among their most admired Presidents.  Who knew that Obama condoned war crimes?

But now that Obama and the liberal Democratic Congress have opened the door to the notion that like a Banana Republic the United States should retroactively judge and prosecute former leaders and administrations instead of being the shining example that we have always been of  the smooth and perfect transfer of power after a civilized election… people like Jon Stewart think it is acceptable to judge and disparage a former wartime president that has always been praised by his peers and for generations since, for his courage and decisiveness at a time when we needed it:

Cliff May was a guest on the Daily Show and posed a series of interesting questions to host Jon Stewart regarding interrogation, war and war crimes.  It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman's use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal "yes." He's certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it's a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration's war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman's decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as "criminal." And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

See Video:  Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

“Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all ‘this tool’ can do is point a finger and mumble ‘yes’ in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not.”

As always, it is hard to tell whether Stewart's clown nose is off or on, but it appeared to be off at that moment -- that is, he was giving a serious answer, not one intended to get laughs.

The rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.

I don't believe that President Truman was a "war criminal" and the rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.  You can bet that neither Jon Stewart’s mindless comment nor the clip will make it to the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

Torture? No. Except...

WASHINGTON -- Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

By: Charles Krauthammer - a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Related Articles:

• Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'
  
• The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"
  
• Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos
  
• U.S. Presidential Libraries

Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'

Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...

Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Tens of thousands of our troops were waterboarded over the past three decades as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.

---

by Ann Coulter - Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and Author including:  High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Obama's Anti American Foreign Policy

Quote: Apparently, here's the deal: If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten. But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won't get the right time of day.

Obama's Anti American Foreign Policy

Consider how our enemies are being treated: Fidel Castro's Cuba? The travel restrictions will be lifted and, doubtless, soon the embargo will be repealed. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? Despite the proof of political imprisonment, repression of liberties, confiscation of newspapers, and electoral violence and fraud, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells Chavez that "ideology is so yesterday," and Obama give Chavez a "yo bro" handshake. Vladimir Putin's Russia? It invaded Georgia, but who's counting? We are "resetting" the relationship. Hamas? $900 million of foreign aid, channeled through the UNRWA, a United Nations front filled with Hamas operatives. Iran? No need to stop uranium enrichment -- the United States will begin endless talks while Tehran nears nuclear capacity. And our friends? Israel? Vice President Biden warns against military action to stop Iran from getting the bomb. And Defense Secretary Gates joins the chorus. The administration pressures Israel to buy into the two-state solution, requiring it to recognize a Palestinian state dominated by Hamas and dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The last time Israel ceded territory to the Palestinians, they used the land for new rocket launching pads. Britain? Obama returned the Churchill bust and humiliated Prime Minister Gordon Brown by giving a gift of some DVDs on his visit. Colombia? While President Uribe battles those who want to send drugs into our country and faces a military buildup from neighboring Venezuela, Obama won't submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate. And, within the United States, we free the Guantanamo terrorists while we investigate and potentially prosecute those who interrogated them in an effort to protect us all from their planned mayhem. What a great time to be our enemy! What a terrible time to be our friend! Oblivious to the record of terror attacks thwarted by enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama opens the door to prosecuting -- criminally -- those who authorized them. Does he not realize that there would be no Brooklyn Bridge -- and ten thousand people would have died in the waters of the East River -- if we had not waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? After the National Security Administration picked up mentions of the "Brooklyn Bridge" in its warrantless wiretaps, it alerted New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to the possibility of a terror attack against the bridge. Kelly flooded the bridge with cops and commissioned an engineering study to determine how one could bring down the bridge, plunging ten thousand people into the East River during rush hour.  The study said it was impossible to blow the bridge up -- one would have been discovered -- but that a terrorist could sever the cable holding it aloft with a torch. It would take weeks, but the terrorists could work, undetected, in a vacant building that housed the cables under the bridge. The traffic noises would mask their efforts, and the building was not patrolled or even visited by anyone.  The terrorist noted the cops on the bridge and sent a message, intercepted by the NSA, that it was "too hot on the Brooklyn Bridge." But it was not until we waterboarded Mohammed that we learned the identity of the al-Qaida operative -- Lyman Farris. On learning his name, the New York Police raided his Brooklyn apartment. Chillingly, they found the equipment he would need to bring down the bridge and an engineering diagram (akin to that which Kelly had ordered) identifying where they would have to stand to cut the cables.  Does Obama really want to prosecute the anti-terror investigators who saved thousands by waterboarding Mohammed and learning this information? Yes, he damn well does! Related Articles:  THE ANTI-SUCCESS PRESIDENCY The Humbling of a Superpower Krauthammer and Panel on Barack's Recent South American Trips Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"

Critics of the CIA program are desperate to convince Americans that no valuable information came from the interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other senior terrorists.  They know that if our citizens learn the details of how enhanced interrogations stopped terrorist plots, most would support the CIA program.  A recent Pew poll showed that 71% of Americans believe that there are circumstances under which torture (not just enhanced interrogations, but actual torture) is justifiable to get information from captured terrorists.

This is why Timothy Noah of Slate (with Andrew Sullivan cheerleading him on his blog) is at such pains to debunk the story of the West Coast plot.

This was a KSM plot for a “Second Wave” attack using East Asian operatives to use shoe-bombs to hijack an airplane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.  Noah states in a blog post that this plot was never realistic.  Here is his rationale:

The first reason to be skeptical that this planned attack could have been carried out successfully is that, as I've noted before, attacking buildings by flying planes into them didn't remain a viable al-Qaida strategy even through Sept. 11, 2001. Thanks to cell phones, passengers on United Flight 93 were able to learn that al-Qaida was using planes as missiles and crashed the plane before it could hit its target. There was no way future passengers on any flight would let a terrorist who killed the pilot and took the controls fly wherever he pleased.

Really?  Planes were off the table after 9/11?  That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line.  Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution).  Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”

In his post, Noah calls the West Coast plot “Thiessen’s claim” and Anderw Sullivan calls it“Thiessen’s LA Tower Canard.”   What these two fail to appreciate is that the story of how enhanced interrogation broke up the West Coast plot is not my story — it is the official position of the intelligence community.

In my Washington Post piece, I was citing the very documents which President Obama released, which quote the CIA saying that interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ to ‘use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”  The memo released by Obama goes on the explain that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ”

Again, those are not my words.  That is the position of our intelligence community.

And not just in the released memos.  In his September 2006 speech revealing the existence of the CIA program, President Bush described specifically how the interrogation of KSM led to the capture of the key operatives in this attack.  This was the most carefully vetted speech in presidential history — reviewed by all the key players from the individuals who ran the program all the way up to the director of national intelligence, who personally attested to the accuracy of the speech in a memo to the president.  And just last week on Fox News, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he went back and checked with the agency as to the accuracy of that speech and reported:  “We stand by our story.”

In numerous subsequent speeches, President Bush said that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program.   Each of those speeches was carefully reviewed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — and each time the DNI provided the White House with a classified memo stating that the contents of the speech was accurate and did not compromise sources and methods.  So the Director of National Intelligence has repeatedly affirmed the accuracy of the statement that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program.  And Noah himself acknowledges in his post a CIA spokesman affirmed the accuracy of the story.

So bottom line: The intelligence community says it is so.

In his blog, Noah cites the fact that Fran Townsend, the Bush administration’s homeland-security adviser, told reporters in a February 2006 press briefing that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was arrested February of 2002.  This, Noah points out, is before KSM came into CIA custody and underwent enhanced interrogation.  He also notes Townsend said that after the cell leader’s capture other cell members “believed” that the plot was not going forward.

I hate to break it to Noah, but this does not refute the fact that KSM’s interrogation disrupted the West Coast plot.  

It is true that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was detained in February 2002.  According press accounts, his name was Marsan bin Arshad. What is also demonstrably true is that the captured terrorist did not lead us to the members of the cell tasked with carrying out the West Coast plot. Indeed, when KSM was captured 13 months later — in March of 2003 — almost all of the key operatives in the plot were still at large and operating with impunity.

This is what happened next:

·     *   In March of 2003, the CIA captured another key operative in the West Coast plot — a terrorist named Majid Khan.

·     *   When KSM was captured later that same month, he knew that Khan was in CIA custody — and assumed that Khan had given us the details of the West Coast plot.

·     *   KSM refused to provide any information about active plots, telling his interrogators: “Soon you will find out.”

·     *   After undergoing enhanced-interrogation techniques, KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a terrorist named Hambali — the leader of al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate Jemmah Islamiyah and KSM’s partner in developing the West Coast plot.

·     *   CIA officers then confronted Khan with this information from KSM.  Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair.  He provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative — which led to the capture of Zubair in June 2003.

·     *   Zubair then provided information that led to the capture of Hambali in August 2003, along with another key operative, a JI terrorist named Bashir bin Lep (aka “Lillie”).

·     *   Told of Hambali's capture, KSM then identified Hambali's younger brother Rusman Gunawan (aka "Gun Gun") as Hambali's conduit for communications with al-Qaeda, and the leader of the JI cell that was to carry out the West Coast plot.  This information led to the capture of “Gun Gun” in September 2003 in Pakistan.

·     *   Hambali's brother then gave us information that led to a cell of 17 JI operatives — the Guraba Cell — that was going to carry out the West Coast plot.

All of these operatives were captured because of information gained from the interrogation of KSM using enhanced interrogation techniques.

To buy Noah’s argument that the plot was over before KSM’s capture, you would have to accept that premise that if Zubair … and Hambali … and Lillie … and Gun Gun … and the 17-member Guraba cell were all left at large and unmolested, they would not have eventually carried out the West Coast plot.

This flies in the face of logic — and the official position of the intelligence community.  And it is contrary to everything we know about the way al-Qaeda operates.  If we have learned anything from recent history, it is that once al-Qaeda develops a plot for a major attack, it never gives up until that attack has been carried out.  Al-Qaeda’s modus operandi is to continue going after the same target time and time again until they succeed.

In 1993, al-Qaeda tried to blow up the World Trade Center, and failed.  In 2001, al-Qaeda finished the job.

In 1995, KSM hatched the “Bojinka Plot” to hijack multiple passenger planes and blow them up over the Pacific.  The plot failed — and so al-Qaeda tried it again over the Atlantic in 2006.

From this experience, Noah takes the lesson that because one al-Qaeda cell leader in the West Coast plot was captured, al-Qaeda just gave up.  Indeed, he claims, they not only gave up on the Library Tower, after 9/11 they decided they would never try to fly a plane into a building again.  But in the same briefing Noah cites, Fran Townsend says that “the intelligence tells us that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed began to initiate [the attack on the Library Tower] in October 2001” — a month after 9/11.  She also states that “KSM, himself, trained the leader of the cell in late 2001 or early 2002 in the shoe bomb technique” — again after the 9/11 attacks.

The fact is Noah and Sullivan’s claims are absurd.  But put aside the West Coast plot off for a moment.  What about all the other plots that were stopped as a result of enhanced interrogations?

Here are some facts: On Fox News last weekend, General Hayden declared that after enhanced interrogation techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah “he gave up … information that led to the arrest of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh.”  Bin al-Shibh was KSM’s right-hand-man, and a key 9/11 plotter.  At the time of his arrest, Bin al-Shibh was in the midst of planning a 9/11-style attack on Britain, in which al-Qaeda operatives would hijack planes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport.  According his CIA biography, “as of his capture, Bin al-Shibh had identified four operatives for the operation.”

Enhanced interrogations also helped us capture an al-Qaeda terrorist named Ammar al-Baluchi.  Ammar had prepared Jose Padilla for his plot to blow up apartment buildings in America (which was foiled thanks to information from Abu Zubaydah), and was the one who had sent Majid Khan to deliver the $50,000 to Zubair for the West Coast plot.  According to Ammar’s CIA biography, “From late 2002, Ammar began plotting to carry out simultaneous attacks in Karachi against the U.S. Consulate, Western residences, and Westerners at the local airport…. He was within days of completing preparations for the Karachi plot when he was captured.”

These are just a few of the plots that were broken up because of information gained from CIA interrogations.  According to the intelligence community, terrorists held in CIA custody also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti using an explosive laden water tanker.  They provided information the helped us uncover al-Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.  And according to the memos released by the Obama administration “intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda.”

General Hayden calls these facts an “inconvenient truth.”  He put it this way in his Fox News interview: “Most people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say: I don’t want my country doing this – which is a purely honorable position – and they didn’t work anyway.  That back half of the sentence isn’t true.  The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer.  It really did work.”

Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.”

And even Obama’s director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, said in a letter to the intelligence community on April 16, 2009: “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.”

So you can believe Hayden, Tenet, McConnell, and Blair … or Tim Noah and Andrew Sullivan. 

By Marc Thiessen

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Stories:

• Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos