- the CIA kept something from her so she was bad at oversight and couldn't command the authority of being told about something that clearly she should have been told, or:
- she was told and didn't call the Bush administration out for torture.
I think there's a third possibility no one is bringing up. Isn't it possible that she was told about water boarding, but didn't say anything because she approved of it? What if she was convinced that it was necessary and within the bounds of lawful interrogation?
2 comments:
The Pelosi-CIA thing is *so* May -- I mean, it's pre-Sotomayor!
Seriously, I think the last possibility would be the most legitimate criticism because in that case there would be a serious inconsistency between her public positions and her private opinion, since she has always been a critic of torture, publicly.
I think you have mis-framed the conservative critcism, though; they view this as a perjury trap of sorts: she *claims* she was never told about torture, but we have *evidence* that she was told, so she's a liar and can't be trusted.
I've always found it strange that the conservatives chose to purse this line of attack, since the obvious response is "Well, this is a serious charge, let's investigate torture and see who knew about it and when they knew about it."
The wonder if the third is not suggested because it would be tough to convince conservative loyalist that an uber lefty like Pelosi supported such tough action. It is the most damning of the scenarios.
For me it is so easy to believe that she didn't have the moral fortitude to sacrifice her political career over the issue--particularly when it would have changed nothing--that I don't really consider the others as being likely.
Post a Comment