Comment E-mail Print Bio Archives

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I have seen in my lifetime...She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes...She dishonors the Congress by her behavior." -- Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich

Well, well, well...it would seem that Nancy Pelosi has outed herself as a liar...a disingenuous, political opportunist, hell-bent on making sure that her ideology is placed above the importance of honesty and good government. It is stunning that the White House and the Democrat leadership haven't counseled her to limit her media liability. With each session at the podium, Pelosi either changes her story, creates another firestorm or both. Had she been a Republican her resignation would have already been filed.

I find it incredible that the high-judge executioner of the neo-Marxist movement -- especially where the Bush Administration is concerned, and to a lesser extent where the Republican Party is concerned -- would so profoundly destroy what little credibility she had before achieving her ideological agenda; the complete reshaping of our system of government from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy.

A few things we should make sure are on the record...

The definition of "torture" is in dispute. The Left believes listening to a recording of Whitney Houston singing "I Will Always Love You" repeatedly and at noxiously loud levels is considered torture. Taste-wise, I would have to agree. But when this action is employed against people who kill innocent civilians and then gloat about it, when this act is employed against people who literally saw the heads off of living human beings in the name of an aggressive, totalitarian and oppressive ideology and to install fear in the public, it is not torture, it is a tactic.

The standard by which the United States Supreme Court and the Bush Administration defined "torture" is anchored in the notion that an act would have to "shock the conscience of the court." Given that the Bush Administration lawyers were asked to draft interrogation guidelines for individuals who they believed had information on imminent terrorist attacks on the American citizenry -- attacks that could, by reason of the attacks of September 11, kill thousands of innocent Americans -- one could successfully argue that "simulated drowning", or waterboarding, would be a reasonable tactic to use in extracting information. Let's face it, only the most fragile of individuals -- and terrorists are not, by definition, fragile, either in body or mind -- would be "permanently scarred" from a waterboarding session, a session where doctors are present and time limits are placed on the procedure. Worse things happen between teenagers at the public pool when they dunk one-another's heads under water.

The anti-war Left insists that the actions of the Bush Administration went against the Geneva Conventions. Whether this is true or not -- and this is wide-open for debate -- the Geneva Conventions did not and do not apply to terrorists or their organizations for the simple fact that they are not uniformed (a requirement of the Geneva Conventions), they target civilians (an action that removes them from Geneva Conventions protection) and they hide among civilians, mainly women and children, when executing violence and when hiding their movements (actions that simply make them cowardly but which remove them from Geneva Conventions protection because they endanger civilians to an unreasonable level). So, the Geneva Conventions and its vague reference to torture -- "...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment..." --excludes terrorists from its protection.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2