Thursday, May 14, 2009

They Lied about Waterboarding

Nancy Pelosi says that the CIA lied to her about the use of waterboarding. See and

The acid test is this: Will Pelosi file a criminal complaint against these people for lying to Congress? Or is her assertion a PR ploy without substance -- i.e., is Pelosi the liar or is she willing to go to the mat?

It is easy to lie to the press. There are no significant consequences. Lying under oath before a Congressional committee is a different matter altogether. You could go to jail. So one should not expect an employee of a government agency to place his employment, retirement, financial well-being and liberty in jeopardy by lying to Congress. On the other hand, politicians readily lie to the press because there are no consequences other than the occasional lapse in credibility -- if the politician values credibility in the first place.

Thus, the logic of the situation favors the government employee. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on Pelosi.

Shame, shame, shame, that she should go to the press to defend herself. Any respectable Congressperson who was lied to by a civil servant under oath should vigorously pursue an indictment -- crunch those who would lie to the people. So let's see -- will Pelosi seek an indictment, or is she posturing (lying) to deflect the truth: that she was aware of waterboarding and, in the context of the times, like everyone else in Washington, overlooked the ethical issues. These clowns are so stupid that they can't see that ethical issues are always contextual. You have principles and you have the contexts in which those principles are applied. Their stupidity will kill us all.

How far a government ought to go in defending its citizens against attack is another question which we shall explore later in this blog. It is not easy to parse morality, legality, defense obligation and necessity. Those who think that bright lines can be drawn are deluding themselves.

Let's not make light of these issues or politicize them. The Pelosis of the world are clueless and without a foundation in principles that would enable them to make judgments when faced with with real world situations. And judgments, applying principles in factual contexts are what counts.

I am getting very tired of Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's laughable attempts to justify their irrational positions. What's the point? No one believes them anyway. Both are "trivial politicians" (thanks for the apt description, Newt).

No comments: