creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Roger Simon
Roger Simon
10 Feb 2012
Mitt Romney Is Dazed and Confused

You never want to let them see how much it hurts. You get hit by a pitch, you don't rub the spot. You get … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Newt Driven by “Personal Hatred”

Some men grow in office, and others just swell. Sam Rayburn said it, and Newt Gingrich proves it. During his … Read More.

3 Feb 2012
A Low Road Through a Weak Field

The road is low, the field is weak, and the future is bleak. Just three things to consider after yet another primary. 1.… Read More.

Pelosi Bewildered, but Unbothered

Share Comment

Nancy Pelosi was brainwashed. It was not difficult. They did not even have to rinse and repeat.

In September 2002, Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, was the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee and was told by the CIA that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were being used on detainees suspected of terrorism.

Pelosi says that the CIA told her that waterboarding was not being used, however.

Later, Pelosi learned that waterboarding was indeed being used and now says that "those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information."

OK, fine. The CIA — gasp! — fibbed, and she fell for it.

To me, that is not the real question, however. To me, the real question is what on earth Pelosi thought the CIA meant when it said it was using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees.

Did Pelosi think the CIA was sending these men to bed without dinner? Or not letting them watch "American Idol"? Or cutting down their PlayStation time to just one hour a night — and only after they had finished their homework?

Or did Pelosi not think at all about what "enhanced interrogation techniques" really meant? Sometimes it is easier not to think. Sometimes it is easier to avert one's eyes, close one's ears and shut one's mind.

Unfortunately for Pelosi, one of her colleagues (and detested rivals) did find out what the CIA was doing. Just five months after Pelosi says she was misled, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., was told by the CIA at a briefing that it was using waterboarding. One of Pelosi's aides was also at that briefing and told Pelosi.

Harman quickly sent a letter of complaint to the CIA, but Pelosi did not.

"No letter could change the policy," Pelosi recently sniffed.

So what was Pelosi's solution? What trees did she plant? "It was clear we had to change the leadership of the Congress and the White House," Pelosi said. "That was my job."

And what a comfort that must have been to men who were being strapped face up to boards, being tipped backward and having water forced down their throats.

Leon Panetta, a longtime Democrat who is now director of the CIA, says that "contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully."

In other words, Panetta says Pelosi was told the truth about waterboarding and did nothing about it five months before she says she learned the truth about waterboarding and did nothing about it.

(And why would the CIA go to the trouble of lying to Pelosi in September 2002 and just five months later freely admit to Harman what it was doing?)

The Republicans are jumping up and down over all this.

And Pelosi made matters worse by conducting a disastrous news conference last week at which a reporter asked her if she wished she had done more to object to waterboarding and she said, "No, no, no, no, no, no."

Six no's is a lot, considering the correct answer should be: "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes."

But because Pelosi now is being attacked by Republicans, many Democrats feel the need to rally around her. Some point out that CIA records are often not complete and cannot be taken as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Gee, no kidding. These guys are, after all, professional spies. I am very glad they are on our side, but they deal in stuff like secret codes, disappearing ink, forged documents and fake evidence. (George W. Bush is still kicking himself for not having them fake a few weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.)

So why would anybody believe utterly and completely what the CIA was saying? Except for Nancy Pelosi, that is.

Nancy Pelosi was baffled and bewildered by the CIA. Unfortunately, she was also unbothered.

Now Pelosi wants a "truth commission" to get to the bottom of things, though President Barack Obama is not thrilled with the idea, knowing that such a commission will reveal not only Republican wrongdoing but also Democratic complicity with wrongdoing.

Democratic analyst Bob Shrum wrote a defense of Pelosi a few days ago in which he stated, "As much as a politician can be, she's prone to telling the truth."

And as much as a veteran journalist as I am, I am still sometimes prone to wanting to laugh out loud.

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009, CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
What is truth? If it is full, complete disclosure of every aspect of a situation that is reported to a committee of Congress, then the truth probably never gets told. Instead, they get the condensed version which is washed, spun, and dried. After all, when you deal with covert operations where lives depend on secrets being kept it is generally a good idea to be as taciturn as possible. Perhaps some believe that Nancy Pelosi should have picked up on the nuance of what she was told and questioned until she dragged the truth out in the open, but that is not a realistic expectation. Congress has to assume that those who work for us and report to them are the good guys and take most of what they are told at face value. When wrong is done and the truth withheld, it is not the fault of any member of Congress for not catching the wrongdoer any more than it is the fault of the police when a crime is committed on the street. Wrongdoers are caught and punished after the deed comes to light.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Paul M. Petkovsek
Fri May 22, 2009 4:25 AM
OK Roger, one more time. If Saddam "had NO weapons of mass destruction", what exactly did he use to kill thousands of Iranians and Kurds?? Kool-Aid?? Rid-A-Bug?? Get serious. What amazes me is how people like you can tell the same lies year after year with a straight face. Saddam WAS working on NBC's, and had stockpiles of poison gas. He was working just as hard on nuclear weapons development as Iran is today but in the interest of helping return your precious Dems to power you lie and lie again. And you wonder why the liberal media is collapsing ? We are tired of the partisanship and the one-sided views you present. Go away.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Terry
Fri May 22, 2009 8:27 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Roger Simon
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

23 Apr 2010 Dole in the Shadow of Nixon

18 Nov 2011 Deep in the White House Weeds

16 Jan 2009 What If I Didn't Pay Taxes?