Pelosi: three lies, you’re out?

May 11, 2009


This is getting laughable. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Leftist Fantasyland) has changed her story on what she knew about harsh interrogation techniques –including waterboarding– and when she knew it again:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday.

That’s excuse version number three. Ace can give you numbers one and two, along with a preview of the likely fourth. And Allahpundit utterly shreds the "I wanted to respect proper channels" lie by listing all the things she could have done, were she truly concerned about Abu Zubaydah’s health.

Late in the article is buried another gem:

An aide to former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) took issue Monday with the entry for a Feb. 4, 2003, briefing in which a Rockefeller staffer was reportedly told “how the water board was used.”

“We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document,” a Rockefeller spokeswoman said. He “has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program’s legality and effectiveness.”

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Pelosi was briefed, told The Washington Post’s PlumLine blog that he wasn’t told of waterboarding then, either — despite a Sept. 27, 2002, briefing entry indicating he was given details of Zubaydah’s interrogation.

“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” said Graham, adding: “Something as unexpected and dramatic as that would be the kind of thing that you would normally expect to recall even years later.”

"I cannot vouch…" "I do not recollect…" Jeez, guys, I watched the Watergate live hearings back in ’73, and I can tell you Haldeman, Dean, and Ehrlichman were a lot better liars. Now you’re trying to tell us that the CIA six to seven years ago falsified documents to show Democrats knew all about the interrogation techniques being used? The same intelligence agency large segments of which were cooperating with Democrats to undermine Bush Administration policy? To what end? To screw the agenda of a liberal Democrat president??

Yeah, right. Oh go on

Let’s face it. You guys knew all about what was going on and you approved; some of you wanted more.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

But then you and the administration thought you could make political hay out of this, whip up the mob against the Republicans and channel that anger into passage of your agenda: you wanted a witch hunt to cement your hold on power.

But instead you’ve discovered you opened Pandora’s Box, and you can’t close it. The Republicans are fighting back — they know what’s in the documents. And the CIA, which you tried to use as a whipping post, will be all too happy to make them available. They won’t go down alone.

You stupid, stupid fools. You initially did the right thing when you backed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, but then you put your party’s political interest ahead of the nation’s — and look where it’s got you. All you’ve done is again show the American people and the world at large that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. You can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of people who backed you in 2006 and 2008 are wondering what they bought into.

By 2010 and 2012, I bet they won’t be wondering anymore.

RELATED: Obama, Pelosi make enemies at the CIA. Sheer genius!


Wait! Porn isn’t a legitimate government expense? Says who?

May 11, 2009

British government officials have a bit of explaining to do after the Telegraph got their hands on and published information from a report that listed some of the odd things Her Majesty’s public servants expect to be reimbursed for, such as horse manure and porn for the hubby:

According to the details published by Britain’s Daily Telegraph, [Prime Minister Gordon] Brown paid his brother Andrew more than 6,500 pounds ($9,800) in two years for a maid the two shared when Brown was Britain’s Treasury chief. The newspaper declined to say how it had obtained expense claims from 13 ministers but promised to roll out more in the coming days.

Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith expensed two X-rated movies her husband watched, which she later repaid. Housing minister and former Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett claimed 600 pounds ($900) for hanging plant baskets. And former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott claimed 300 pounds ($450) over two years to fix broken toilet seats.

The list could also prove damaging to the opposition Conservatives—one Tory lawmaker expensed fertilizer used on his country house garden while a different lawmaker put in for cans of cat food.

Other expenses, categorized only by political party, included toilet seats, horse manure, wine rack, rat poison, pool maintenance, piano tuning, a chocolate Santa and a pizza cutter.

"I know people will be angry and it looks very bad," Harriet Harman, a Cabinet minister, told the BBC. "We recognize that … public confidence is dented and we want to restore respect for the House of Commons."

A good start toward rebuilding that confidence might be to buy your own dang rat poison, Harriet. (One hopes that wasn’t going into the Santa!)

It’s embarrassing revelations like these that spell the coming fall of a government. Not the big stuff. Not the bank failures, the skyrocketing taxes, or the inability of the Government to sell its own bonds, because its finances are so screwed up.

No, it’s the little things that finally cause the average voter to snap, to throw down their newspapers in disgust and shout "I have to scrimp and save and you’re wasting my money on horse manure?" That’s what causes them to say "enough is enough:" the everyday things they can easily comprehend, rather than the head-swirling confusion of international credit swaps and national tax policy. That the corruption is bipartisan only means that heads will roll on both sides of the aisle.

Dirty movies and pizza cutters – signs of the fall for the postmodern age.


No, really, who was on the plane?

May 11, 2009

I know this is getting uncomfortably close to the Fever Swamps of Doom, but the government’s explanations for that bizarre low-level flyover photo op over New York City a couple of weeks ago just aren’t adding up. I mean, over $330,000 to fly one of the President’s private jets (and his airborne command center in the event of emergency) plus two F-16s as escort — all to get new photos of Air Force 1 flying over the Statue of Liberty? A photo that could have been professionally Photoshopped in about 20 minutes?

Sure, the official in charge of the White House Military Office resigned, taking responsibility, but does anyone really believe that no one else in the White House knew what was being done with a plane as important as Air Force 1?

Something smells here. Time out

Ann Althouse smells something, too. She looks at the photograph the White House released –remember, this photo is the reason for that $330,000, panic-inducing flight– and finds the proffered explanation just not credible: the photo’s too amateurish, an F16 is the wrong kind of plane for the job, and it bears the hallmarks of Photoshopping. Post-facto CYA in action? Read Ann’s post and see what you think.

Meanwhile, I ask again, Who was on the plane? Thinking