Whatever the specifics of exactly what was and wasn't said during the September 2002 CIA briefing that Nancy Pelosi received about enhanced interrogation techniques, it seems clear that she was given enough information to conclude that we either had already conducted waterboarding and other harsh techniques, or that we very well might in the near future.

So the more important question, which seems to be getting less attention today, is what Pelosi did in response. And the short answer appears to be: very little.

The briefing was first reported by the Washington Post in December 2007, which revealed that lawmakers including Pelosi were given "a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."

And Porter Goss, who attended that same briefing as the intelligence committee chair -- and admittedly isn't exactly an honest broker here -- told the paper: "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
...
Here's the larger point: Whatever we end up finding out about the specifics of what was and wasn't said in that briefing, it already seems clear that Pelosi didn't do all that she could have. Of course, that's not an argument -- as some Republican torture supporters seem to think -- against a full investigation into how these techniques were developed and approved. In fact, it's yet another good reason why such a probe is exactly what we need.

dajafi wrote:Pelosi knew about torture, did nothing

Whatever the specifics of exactly what was and wasn't said during the September 2002 CIA briefing that Nancy Pelosi received about enhanced interrogation techniques, it seems clear that she was given enough information to conclude that we either had already conducted waterboarding and other harsh techniques, or that we very well might in the near future.

So the more important question, which seems to be getting less attention today, is what Pelosi did in response. And the short answer appears to be: very little.

The briefing was first reported by the Washington Post in December 2007, which revealed that lawmakers including Pelosi were given "a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."

And Porter Goss, who attended that same briefing as the intelligence committee chair -- and admittedly isn't exactly an honest broker here -- told the paper: "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
...
Here's the larger point: Whatever we end up finding out about the specifics of what was and wasn't said in that briefing, it already seems clear that Pelosi didn't do all that she could have. Of course, that's not an argument -- as some Republican torture supporters seem to think -- against a full investigation into how these techniques were developed and approved. In fact, it's yet another good reason why such a probe is exactly what we need.

Damn right.

TenuredVulture wrote:And it's also why there won't be investigation. Not that anyone really cares.

dajafi wrote:Probably true. In the end, they're about self-preservation. But we don't have to like that, or reward them for it. I'm done giving money or other support to any Democrat who was wrong on this.

Not that this matters either, but at least I can feel very slightly better about it.

Meet Stormy Daniels. Or, if your workplace is a bit prudish, meet her here. Ms. Daniels is a self-made businesswoman, has a hugely successful career in film, and has won awards as a director and screenwriter. She may or may not be running for Senate from Louisiana next year — she's currently on a "listening tour" of the state — but there's certainly a concerted group of believers encouraging her to do so.

Oh, and she's a porn star.

kruker wrote:Stormy Daniels for Senate

Meet Stormy Daniels. Or, if your workplace is a bit prudish, meet her here. Ms. Daniels is a self-made businesswoman, has a hugely successful career in film, and has won awards as a director and screenwriter. She may or may not be running for Senate from Louisiana next year — she's currently on a "listening tour" of the state — but there's certainly a concerted group of believers encouraging her to do so.

Oh, and she's a porn star.

A New Kemp Could Remake GOP

THE TAKE | Senator's legacy highlights importance of Republicans who challenge party status quo.

Dan Balz

Werthless wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:On Topic:

Alan Wolfe in TNR wrote:The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy. To me, perhaps because so little of the means of production lies under my control, this is a remarkably uninteresting subject. I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique. Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.

Link

The distinction between the classical liberal and the modern liberal is important, and I don't think the distinction should be lost. The pursuits of any high-minded intellectual, which he is attributing solely to liberals, has always been for the a system that enables man to flourish in its humanity. It's simply a matter of defining humanity. Classical liberals called themselves liberals because of their solution... freedom from government 3rd party interference allows man to thrive economically. They figured that the most effective and thus most moral path to widespread prosperity was freedom of men to pursue their economic goals relatively inhibited. The modern liberal masquerades under the name of liberal falsely, in my opinion, because they arrive at a different solution to the problem. You're not liberal because you seek the furtherance of humanity and prosperity; you're liberal because of the solution you arrive at. Marxists cannot call themselves liberal because they seek widespread prosperity; they need to be defined by their solution. No classical liberal would pride himself on his dedication to fixing the problems of the free market, as many modern liberals are wont to do.

It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

With the goal of the "flourishing of humanity," the classical liberal decided the best system was one of freedom (the root of liberal). The modern liberal, as he concedes, arrives at a new solution for the age-old problem of how humanity best flourishes. A new solution/outlook/philosophy deserves a new name.

I often get the feeling that modern liberalism seeks to refrain from excess, which is viewed as a greedy, grotesque distortion of humanity. By excess, I mean excess profits, excess inequality, excess market share, excess homogeneity, etc. These excesses are considered morally "wrong" by some modern liberals, while the a classical liberal would only care to concern himself with how they were achieved and the resulting prosperity achieved. Maybe I'll call modern liberals "moderates."

I guess I don't view the modern liberal, as embodied in Democratic policy proposals, as a classical liberal in the Adam Smith mold. I don't really understand his unstated logic.

jerseyhoya wrote:1) Texas's Travel commercials advertise it as "Texas: It's like a whole other country"

2) Bunning said again that he's running.

Retire. Please.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:1) Texas's Travel commercials advertise it as "Texas: It's like a whole other country"

2) Bunning said again that he's running.

Retire. Please.

Bunning is classic senility/Alzheimers. He reminds me of my father in law. The diminishment of brain power is replaced by an increase in stubborness and an unwillingness to accept advice from anyone. The dementia also causes outbursts. The fallback approach becomes just do exactly what you've been doing, don't change anything, while working harder to disguise the mental impairment. In other words, don't expect Bunning to voluntarily withdraw unless he has absolutely no other choice. The likely outcome is a primary in which his opponent exposes his mental deficiencies. Six years removed from a campaign in which he had to be sheltered, because anything he said dug a deeper hole, I don't expect his campaign to be a pretty sight. But, he will always have his perfect game.

TenuredVulture wrote:Paranoia is also common.

td11 wrote:that was a pretty hysterical speech by el presidente, eh?

Squire wrote:I am of the view that they should just cancel the Correspondents dinner. It really doesn't matter which party is in control of the White House, the comedian says something that offends somebody and then you have this whole made-up brouhaha about the President laughing and therefore endorsing it. It's really stupid. You *know* there is going to be a silly controversy coming out of the event every year. Waste of time.