More 'Memo' Fallout

I want to avoid using the term 'torture' as much as possible because I think it's conceding the premise, which I do not. But, there is even more fallout on this whole declassified memo thing that bears repeating.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before a House panel yesterday, and she tried to dodge the question and get in a dig at Dick Cheney at the same time:

I'm glad that Rep. Rohrbacher refused to play her game. For a longer clip of the entire conversation, go here. It's quite informative. Clinton essentially says that Congress didn't know what was going on, and that any foul play is Bush's fault.

That's especially interesting given that Congressional leadership knew all about the interrogations years ago:

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

If you're a long-time reader of this blog, you've seen this information before. Allow me to take you back to December of 2007:

The Democrats are attempting to score political points by accusing the Bush administration of destroying some CIA videotapes of 'harsh' interrogations of terrorists to cover up misdeeds. Unfortunately for them, there is an astounding amount of hypocrisy involved with that. Here's why.

In September of 2004, several members of Congress were secretly briefed on a new CIA program designed to get information out of terrorists. One of them was none other than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. One of the techniques demonstrated was ... drum roll please ... waterboarding. Guess what the reaction of these four Congresspeople was? They asked if it would be 'tough enough' to get the information they needed.

Hm, that's really not the story they're telling now, is it?

But wait, it gets better (as it usually does with these Democrats). In the years after September of 2004, the CIA gave key legislators 30 private briefings which included waterboarding and other 'harsh' methods of interrogation. Only one objection was ever raised.

Well, golly gee whiz willickers. How. About. That.

The Democrats knew exactly what was going on, and not only did they approve, but they wondered if waterboarding was 'tough enough' to work adequately? It's amazing how the political winds shift directions, isn't it?

It is because of all this that Obama is stuck. He can't come out fully against this 'torture' because he knows it works, his party was in on it, and that we need these measures to gain critical intelligence from captured terrorists. On the other hand, it's an issue that the Democrats have twisted into a dagger against the Republicans and George W. Bush, and he can't stand to let go of that, either.

The end result is that the Obama administration looks weak, confused, and muddled. If you ask me, that's their normal state of being, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, Hot Air offers this:

...let me add my two cents in calling it a nuclear bombshell in how it incinerates the left’s bad-faith “torture” calculus — or rather, non-calculus. They’re unwilling to concede that there’s any moral choice to be made here because, when push comes to shove, they’re unwilling to say flatly that they’d risk American lives so that Abu Zubaydah doesn’t have to spend time in a box with a caterpillar or whatever. That’s why the Times buried the Blair story today and that’s why Hillary’s lip service about getting everything out in the open, in reply to a question about Cheney claiming that abuses were corrected, is so stunningly disingenuous. The very last thing The One wants is getting everything out in the open about how waterboarding or belly slaps prevented attacks because that means an honest debate on the subject, which in turn leaves him caught between the nutroots and a whole lot of swing voters. The beauty of the Blair story is that, for the very first time, they’ve got someone saying torture works whom they can’t dismiss as “unreliable.” Like I say, nuclear bombshell.

Is it just me, or is national security (and especially nuclear weapons) an area in which political games really shouldn't be played?

Speaking of nuclear bombshells, this argument is becoming more relevant with each passing day.

This morning, Taliban units took control of the Buner region of Pakistan, bringing their burgeoning insurgency within 60 miles of the capital city of Islamabad. The government called the advance a breach of a recently signed peace agreement.

The Taliban advance should be causing high Richter-scale reactions inside the Obama White House. Counterterrorism officials have long warned that al Qaeda is desperate to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is in play if the Taliban insurgency should unseat the government of Asif Ali Zadari.

Of course, the use of a nuke by the Taliban would mean certain annihilation for Pakistan, because countries with their own nukes, such as Israel and India, would massively retaliate. But the radicals running Pakistan might not care. If they see themselves as the ultimate martyrs, they might relish meeting Allah in paradise.

And that is precisely the problem we face. Unfortunately, the liberal Democrats running the show right now -- especially Barack Obama -- seem oblivious to the danger of suicidal maniacs with nukes. If that's not the case, then why is he aggressively cutting the defense budget, ending our air superiority program, shutting down our missile defense shield, and pledging to disarm America?

Watch this. It could have global ramifications, and I fear they will not be good.

There's my two cents.