by: the Common Constitutionalist
So the Senate intelligence committee report on CIA “torture” practices has been released. The report is apparently 6300 pages and the summary is 600.
Out of all those pages the only thing we should take from the report is that America, at least under Republican control, is bad.
CNN reported that “The CIA’s harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees during the Bush era didn’t work, were more brutal than previously revealed and delivered no ‘ticking time bomb’ information that prevented an attack, according to an explosive Senate report released Tuesday.”
Well, there you go. It’s just as Rush Limbaugh said – America is the worst, according to Feinstein, the Democrats and the mainstream media. Apparently we need to just stop being so mean to the terrorists. After all, what have they ever done to us – other than blow up our buildings, kill our soldiers and citizens – shoot and behead us. Yeah – there is that.
Yet according to even Leon Panetta, the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” did in fact lead to the capture of many Al Qaeda operatives, and out of the thousands of terrorists captured, a grand total of three were waterboarded.
Those three were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri. I couldn’t think of three better candidates.
It’s interesting to note that the report was crafted not by Senator Feinstein or any member of the committee. It was written by unelected, unaccountable Democrat staffers who apparently never even interviewed any CIA officials, and assessments made by the staffers are refuted by classified information that is not included in this report.
But with all this theater being created about this report, one would think that the news of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” is something new and completely unknown to everyone, until now – including those on Capitol Hill.
Well, let’s hop in the Way-Back machine. We won’t have to go far – just back to 2009.
Does anyone remember this? Politifact, not exactly a right-wing publication, reported that the then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said when asked, that “she was never briefed. She said that on only one occasion had she received a CIA briefing on interrogation techniques, but that ‘we were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.’”
Yet “the CIA timeline states that on September 4, 2002, Pelosi and [Porter] Goss received a briefing on EIT’s (enhanced interrogation techniques) including use of EIT’s on (alleged Al Qaeda operative) Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EIT’s that had been employed.”
Politifact described it as a he said, she said conundrum. So who was telling the truth and who was lying – Pelosi or the CIA?
Well, if the CIA was lying about what they told Pelosi, why would they call her and Porter Goss out by name? Why not, as many politicians do (Obama is a master), just use the old strawman argument like “many people were told” or “a few select people were briefed,” etc.
You wouldn’t call out an actual member of Congress by name unless you knew your information was true and accurate. In other words, Pelosi was lying. Yes, I know – I’m stunned too.
Goss wrote in 2009 that they, Pelosi included “were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists; we understood what the CIA was doing; we gave the CIA our bipartisan support; we gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.”
Politifact then stated that “we normally would be reluctant to make a Truth-O-Meter ruling in a he said, she said situation, but in this case, the evidence goes beyond the competing accounts from Pelosi and Goss. We are persuaded by the CIA timeline, which the agency said is based on ‘an extensive review of (the CIA’s) electronic and hard copy files.”
They gave Pelosi’s statements a big fat “false” on their Truth-O-Meter.
So it’s easy to see that this is not some new revelation put forth by Feinstein and other Democrat hacks. It is what Rush stated it was two days ago. A chance to stir up as much trouble and chaos for the incoming Republicans as possible – and also an attempt to keep Jonathan Gruber and Obamacare off the front page.