Monday, May 18, 2009

OPINION / ANALYSIS / Obama & Pelosi

As we read more and more accounts of the so called torture at Guantanamo we read were Nancy Pelosi was by all news reports and accounts. Supposedly and by all accounts taken back, shocked and surprised as to what's been happening there, and she took great pleasure in telling everyone so. She made special efforts to do so. Now it turns out that perhaps and most likely not she wasn't so shocked and surprised after all. I believe what she was doing and saying is called the Washington two step. In other words talking out the both sides of her mouth at the same time or whenever it is convenient for her to do so. When she was told soon after 9/11 that some of the prisoners there had been deprived of sleep and "water boarded" she did not object to or think of these things, at that time as torture, but now to her it is torture and unspeakable that we as a country would do such a thing. Like everyone else back in those terrible and frightening days, she was terrified, as everyone else in this country was that 9/11 was merely leading up to something that was going to be really big and terrifying, and another (even bigger) act of terror was going to happen in this country. Thanks to Bush, and his use of water boarding, it never happened again although the acts of violence was in the planning and carrying out stages. Thank goodness for a leader that stood tall to the task of keeping this country safe. I did not agree with Bush on everything and never will. But he was right on target with this. We are, after eight years still safe. We did not have to maim, cut limbs. Starve to death, or do anything that caused pain. I hope that under King Obama's rule we are still safe. What are his plans to keep us safe? Kissing up and apologizing to the terrorist. Is that what you are going to do OH fearless leader?

Torture as a obvious and clear issue looked pretty mouth-watering to Democrats only a couple of days ago. Who but Republicans or conservatives would like to driving burning splinters under the fingernails of the innocent or cutting their limbs off? This is the agenda the democrats and liberals want to put out and want you to think. Torture bad, Democrats good, Republicans bad for country, democrats good for country. Barack Obama expressed strong disapproval of the harsh questioning of the Islamic terrorists and made it the showpiece of his campaign, promising to treat the terrorist suspects with love, kind understanding and apologies. Now that he's actually the man in charge he still is great with the apologies, but he doesn't want to talk about torture because he, too, will probably have to resort to what the democrats call torture eventually, that is if he wants to keep our country safe. I guess that is what he wants to do. Maybe he already has and will we ever know if he has used any of these so called torture options? The president's friends in Congress, on the other hand, have continued to display their good intentions with arrogance and ceremony in the well-known liberal's game of "politics". Who knew so many of our liberal congress persons were such examples of unbending righteousness? That is meant to be a joke so you can laugh if you want to But, as we all know, a rigid desirable quality, sometimes disappear and dissolves under intense heat. Nancy Pelosi has told so many account of what was going on at Guantanamo, and when she knew it, that all we know now is that she can't keep her stories straight. In plain words we all understand: SHE LIED" and did the Washington two step She must be reading them from a book of fiction. Worried and upset to the point of panic, she cried out and insisted Monday that the CIA lied to her. It is more like she lied to the American people. She said: "My statement is clear, and let me read it again. Uh, I'm sorry. I have to find the page ... When, um, when, when my staff person - I'm sorry, the page is out of order ..." So Ms. Pelosi said none of the members who served with her on the House Intelligence Committee support her amazing statement of brainwashing. Other congressional contemporaries, trying to defend her, have had to make clear their clarifications about what they said about her imaginative stories. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, first said that maybe Congress should look into who knew what, and when, and get a straight story: "The facts need to come out." He is right if they are the true facts. The facts that we know that kept our country safe. The problem is you have trouble getting most "TRUE" facts from liberals. Their facts usually come with a spin on them!

But Ms. Pelosi, embarrassed by what "the facts" said about her, called Mr. Hoyer in for a spanking. The pain in the seat of his pants was harder on him than it was on the ants in her pants. He had his aides to do his explaining. When he said "the facts need to come out," he didn't mean all the facts, just the facts that could be spun against the Republicans, to make them look bad, and to make the democrats look good. - "not about what leading Democrats were told about the legal justification and use of controversial interrogation techniques." It is such a shame that we can't be just Americans instead of Democrats and Republicans. The country would be so much better off.

Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attempted to defend the speaker with the argument that what someone said seven years ago must be measured against the temperature and events of the times in the wake of 9/11, when nearly everyone was terrified of a "second wave" of attacks. But Democrats have to be careful with this line of argument, lest they arouse the question about just why there has been no "second wave." Could it be because someone named George Bush did what was necessary, even introducing vicious terrorists to good bathing hygiene, to prevent that "second wave"? Even the most partisan of Democrats are sometimes capable of lapsing into good sense. Here's Chuck Schumer, the highly partisan senator from New York, talking about "torture" at a Senate hearing: "I'd like to interject a note of balance here ... I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is that most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say: 'Do what you have to do.' "

Nobody's having more fun watching Nancy Pelosi squirm than the ants she has in her pants. The liberal queen of Capitol Hill was shocked by what's been going on at Guantanamo, and reveled in telling everyone so. Now it turns out that maybe she wasn't so shocked after all, because she knew it all along. When she was told soon after 9/11 that some of the prisoners there had been deprived of sleep and "water boarded" she did not object. Like everyone else back in the day, she was terrified that 9/11 was merely a prelude to something really, really bad. Torture ( as they call it) as a surefire issue looked appealing to congressional Democrats only the day before yesterday. Who but Republicans would consider driving burning splinters under the fingernails of the blameless? Torture bad, Democrats good. Barack Obama made unkind questioning of the Islamic terrorists the showpiece of his run for election, promising to treat terrorist suspects with love, understanding and apologies. Now that he's actually the man in charge he still gives with the apologies, wanting to release all the prisoners being held there, but he doesn't want to talk about torture because he, too, will probably have to use that option eventually. Who knows maybe he already has. The president's friends in Congress, on the other hand, have continued to display their good intentions with arrogance and in grand style, in the familiar liberal's game of, "Torture is wrong and it is Bush's fault." Who knew so many of our congresspersons were such stainless examples of unbending integrity? But rigid virtue, alas, sometimes dissolves under heat of the truth coming out.

The speaker has told so many versions of what she knew about what was going on at Guantanamo, and when she knew it, that all we know now is that she can't keep her stories straight. It is one thing one day and something else the next day. To the point of being very upset, she insisted last Monday that the CIA had not told her the truth. She said, "My statement is clear, and let me read it again. Uh, I'm sorry. I have to find the page ... When, um, when, when my staff person - I'm sorry, the page is out of order."
None of the members who served with her on the House Intelligence Committee support Ms Pelosi's incredible claim of brainwashing. Other congressional Members, trying to defend her, have had to explain their clarifications about what they said about her creative stories. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic majority leader, first said that maybe Congress should look into who knew what, and when, and get a straight story: He said that the facts need to come out." Even from the speaker. But then the leader of the House, humiliated by what "the facts" said about her, called Mr. Hoyer in for a slap on the butt. The pain in the seat of his pants was harder on him than it was on the ants in Pelosi's pants. When he said "the facts need to come out," he didn't mean all the facts, just the facts that could be spun around and used against the Republicans. Not at all about what leading Democrats were told about the legal justification and use of controversial interrogation techniques." Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attempted to defend the speaker with the argument that what someone said seven years ago must be measured against the temperature of the times in the wake of 9/11, when nearly everyone was terrified of a "second wave" of attacks. But Democrats have to be careful with this kind of argument, lest they stir up people's thinking about just why there has been no "second wave." Could it be because someone named George Bush did what was needed, even introducing violent terrorists to good bathing practices, to stop that "second wave"?

Even the most partisan of Democrats are sometimes capable of a lapse of good sense. Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, talking about "torture" at a Senate hearing: "I'd like to interject a note of balance here If we knew there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off and killed thousands, my guess is that most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say: 'Do what you have to do. " And guess what: THE MAN IS RIGHT! And guess what else: "Bush was right in his approach to getting information from the terrorist. We are safe today because of it and no one can deny that. How soon the liberals forget the carnage, murder, destruction and the loss of life that happen on 9-11. And it was caused and planned by people just like the ones in Gitmo who would cut your heads off in a second or torture you until your own mother could not recognize you. And we are now turning them lose in the world to do it again. Thank you King Obama and Princesses Pelosi for your humanity and efforts on behalf of these killers.
Post a Comment