Thursday, July 9, 2009

CIA and Pelosi

Gasp! The CIA might have been misleading?

I honestly don't understand Panetta's take/behavior on this. I understand that he represents the CIA, but does he have to deny something less-than-professional/good (or even potentially illegal) happened years before he ran the organization?

I don't doubt for a second that Pelosi was briefed. What I do doubt is what they actually said to her. I wouldn't expect them to give a detailed description of everything they are doing, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they left out almost all (if not all) details about what exactly "enhanced interrogations" entailed. My guess is that antiseptic briefings were given because the CIA reps were talking to dolts like Pelosi. I have no idea, obviously, but when talking to vacant executives like Pelosi, that's what I do--keep it simple, with lots of cliches and buzzwords, then leave.

So shame on the CIA if they didn't explain things more fully, but shame on Pelosi (and the other members of Congress) for not getting more details early on and trying to do something to stop it. The term, and the subject, of 'enhanced interrogations' has been around for quite sometime in the public, but I don't remember her speaking out against them. (Nor did I see her or many the Ds do anything to stop the suspension of Habeus Corpus).

Sad to see that her new-found outrage is really more based upon potentially being busted vs. being against the legally sanctioned torture of human beings. Even more sad...she far outclasses Harry Reid (but who doesn't?).