Know What’s Apparently Dangerous To Democracy? Partisan Debate Over CIA Report

The Washington Post’s Charles Lane is Very Upset that people might have differing views on the 100% Democrat Party written CIA torture report. But, then, Leftists are usually often always Very Upset over people taking a differing view. What they want is a monologue

Why the partisan debate over CIA oversight is so dangerous

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s sickening report about the torture of terrorism suspects by CIA officers and contractors, with its revelations about “rectal feeding” and prolonged sleep deprivation, should trouble the conscience of every American.

I love when Leftists tell me how I’m supposed to feel

Yet what’s potentially most dangerous to this country’s democratic future is not so much that these abuses occurred, which was already well established, but that congressional oversight of the CIA, and public discussion of it, should be developing along the same partisan political lines that quickly form around every other issue in today’s polarized Washington.

Interesting. What Lane means is that you had best come around to the Democrat position

Thus does the United States approach a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies an intelligence community that sees itself as the whipping boy of one political party and protected favorite of another — to the latter of which it owes reciprocal obligations.

I wonder if he regrets that paragraph, because that’s essentially what is happening. What is not noted is that the GOP is not necessarily protecting the CIA, which we acknowledge has issues, and surely went too far, from criticism and change, but, that this occurred almost a decade in the past, and there was no need for Democrats to release this report, which is simply scolding, abusive, offers no ideas to correct the issues, attempts to diminish America, and puts our people in harms way.

Lane actually seems to take issue with Democrats as well as Republicans

Today, partisanship reigns in Washington. For Democrats, it’s not enough to expose the CIA’s tactics, correctly, as inhumane and cruel; these tactics must also be condemned, much more controversially, as providing no intelligence that couldn’t have been gotten otherwise. For Republicans, by contrast, it’s all about exaggerating the benefits of “enhanced interrogation” and playing down the costs, moral and practical.

So, whose view should we all take?

Those who would argue for a more nuanced view have no true spokesman in Washington, unless you count President Obama. He has banned “enhanced interrogation” and supported release of the Senate committee’ s report (after insisting on redactions), but he eschewed prosecution of the officers involved and defended the CIA and its director, John Brennan, in general terms — while refusing to weigh in directly on whether the agency’s methods, objectionable as they were, helped thwart terrorist plots.

It is interesting to note that Lane made the statement about partisan debate being dangerous, but never actually backed it up later in the op-ed. He takes a stab at showing what the political positions are, but, I guess he just assumes that Liberals will immediately agree with his position that debate is dangerous.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend