Re: In 2003 aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used

[Guest guest]

Some Democrats are also now saying that they knew about these enhanced methods, but one had to consider the times. 9/11 had just happened and they were willing to accept that because of the recent tragedy. However, as little as two years later, many were suddenly against those same methods because the time had passed.

A fine example of situational ethics. Because there was an attack on US soil, they were willing to go along with enhanced methods, probably because their constituency was at the time. Later, probably when their constituencies changed their minds because we hadn't been attacked again a year later (which naturally meant we were no longer under threat), they turned against those methods.

The question is this: if we are attacked again, will they change their minds and go back to allowing enhanced methods? Would another 9/11 change their minds or maybe a spate of suicide bombings on the subway systems like in the UK and Spain?

The next question is: which is more moral: roughing up a terrorist to get information that stops an attack, or being nice to the terrorist and letting American citizens be killed and maimed?

(These are rhetorical questions.)

In a message dated 5/13/2009 12:05:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

As much as Democrats would like to pretend they didn't know anything about what the Bush administration was doing as far as water torture goes, everyone knew they DID know.

Now the news comes out. Hopefully Pelosi will admit she is a liar and resign and we will be shut of this insipid woman/liar.

Administrator Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings!