The Feinstein Report

As a parting shot, the Democrats decided to dust off an old playbook once agin and expose America in bad light in the name of transparency. Never missing an opportunity to make themselves feel “enlightened” at the expense of average Americans and this time, at the possible cost of patriotic military lives, Dem. Sen. Diane Feinstein has issued her $40 million report that has revealed absolutely nothing new regarding the CIA’s conduct in the direct aftermath of 9/11. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by publishing this report with the possible exception of settling a personal score for Feinstein which wouldn’t surprise me knowing the base level of childishness shared by all Democrats. Additionally, in an interview this morning ex-CIA Chief Michael Hayden confirmed that members of Congress including Feinstein were briefed all along the way on all methods of interrogation being used and at the time there were no objections. Only now, years after the fact and at a time when personal agendas can be served do the objections rise, although only on behalf of the Democrats, as every single GOP member of the committee abstained from contributing to this report. In fact, the GOP did issue their own minority report as did the CIA but strangely I am not hearing accounts of those reports at least in the liberal MSM. My personal opinion, shared by many others, is that water boarding is not torture. While it is an obviously brutal technique, and should only be used in extreme and rare instances, I believe that the circumstances surrounding the events of 9/11 did warrant such techniques and furthermore believe that the men and women of the CIA should be applauded for their efforts and not criticized by self serving, sanctimonious politicians or their sycophantic minions in the media.

The irony of course in this “search for the truth” effort on behalf of Democrats is deep and wide considering their lack of transparency on nearly every other major issue confronting the country, i.e.; the Fast & Furious program, the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, and of course the ACA. Speaking of the ACA, did everyone see Dr. Jonathan Gruber apologize for revealing the truth behind that program? Not surprisingly MSNBC, the publicity department of the Democrats spent approximately 40 minutes over two separate hours covering the Feinstein report this morning, and about 2 minutes at most covering the Gruber hearing. So what issue has the most impact on American lives? The partisan manipulation of the health care industry under the cloak of secrecy? Or the rough interrogation techniques of sub human murderers? And they wonder why they no longer control the Congress.

UPDATE: We are now in the third hour of Morning Joe on MSNBC and it is wall to wall coverage and analysis of the Feinstein report. Apparently, nothing else is going on in Washington. One liberal analyst anguished over the “humiliating” treatment of the sub human murderers, which reinforces my belief that media liberals, Progressives and/or Democrats (my apologies for the redundancies) should be ignored and excluded from future debate and decisions on governing this country.

15 thoughts on “The Feinstein Report

  1. Retired Spook December 10, 2014 / 1:11 pm

    Yeah, but according to her interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Senator Feinstein will “feel bad” if the release of this report results in the deaths of Americans. The funny headline of the morning was the one at Fox News that said (I’m paraphrasing) Jihadis vow revenge for torture.

    • Mark Moser December 10, 2014 / 3:56 pm

      If I were in charge, I’d have had them slowly feed feet first through a chipper shredder. In my opinion anything less barbaric just means they got off cheap. Too bad they aren’t as concerned with speaking truthfully to the American populace! If they had, then their opinions might still matter. Come on January 5!

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) December 11, 2014 / 12:05 pm

      Senator Feinstein will “feel bad”

      Isn’t that all that’s required for Liberals to atone?

      • Amazona December 13, 2014 / 10:24 am

        She didn’t say she would be sorry. She didn’t say it would make her regret her decision. Her offhand comment is really just a verbal shrug of indifference.

        She probably thinks the fates of Americans and those who help us (like the man abandoned by us after he gave us information needed to find Bin Laden) are all merely sacrifices for a noble cause. Which, of course, we recognize as the incremental assumption of government power over citizens and the inevitable subsequent loss of freedom that always results from that kind of control.

  2. Cluster December 12, 2014 / 8:44 am

    Day 4 of extensive analysis of the “Torture Report” on MSNBC. Today’s nugget – what and how much did Bush know? Coming from a media outlet that defends a current President who seems always unaware of events and who learns of many of them by reading the news. Ironic?

    The good news is that the Democrats are starting to rally behind a first term Senator and former faculty member of Harvard with very little private sector experience. Elizabeth Warren for POTUS! What could go wrong?

  3. Retired Spook December 12, 2014 / 10:55 am

    Ben Crystal has an excellent analysis of the Feinstein Report.

    • Cluster December 12, 2014 / 12:43 pm

      What a great article. The Democrats are currently littered with hypocrisy when it comes to transparency but that doesn’t shame them in the least and that point was nicely made by Ben:

      I’d find that more credible if they hadn’t spent the past six years telling Americans that we’re stupid racists for noticing all the other times federal employees — including the president — lied to us.

    • Amazona December 13, 2014 / 10:15 am

      I think Ben summed it all up very well:

      “What sort of people would deliberately try to bury a scandal the magnitude of Obamacare’s primary architect admitting to lawmakers that the very basis of Obama’s signature “achievement” is both a literal and figurative fraud? What sort of people would release a report compiled using methods that could make a Rolling Stone fact-checker shake his head, simply to distract their employers from noticing the president just violated the Constitution and his own oath of office again? What sort of people would move to gin up partisan fury on behalf of terrorists, while calling and treating law-abiding American citizens far worse? Now there’s a question that deserves an honest response.”

      I think we know “what sort of people”. The same sort that would callously foment racial discord and studiously fan it into full-blown hatred, for political gain. The sort that would, out of one side of its collective mouth, bleat about their love and compassion for Mexican people “who just want a better life” while funneling guns to drug cartels who used them to slaughter Mexican people. The sort that is outraged at observations of their subversion of the Constitution while supporting a president who is ignoring it.

  4. Retired Spook December 13, 2014 / 12:42 pm

    The same sort that would callously foment racial discord and studiously fan it into full-blown hatred, for political gain.

    Amazona, you and are are almost always on the same page, but I don’t see how a race war benefits Democrats as they stand to lose a substantial portion of their base. It may well be their end game, but it may also be one of those “be careful what you wish for” scenarios.

    • Cluster December 13, 2014 / 1:23 pm

      Racial strife continues to create victims and as long as there are victims to portray and someone else to blame, Democrats will have a constituency. They have been promising to help victims for over 50 years and while we all know their true intentions are suspect and their actual results are abysmal – it still hasn’t stopped their base from supporting them.

    • M. Noonan December 14, 2014 / 12:36 am

      Oh, they don’t want anything like that – they just want us intimidated and their base motivated. To them, it is an electoral calculus – they can’t run on their actual record, so they need a way to depress us and boost theirs. The more they shout “racist”, the more areas of debate which are off limits because who wants to debate when a mountain of hatred will drop on you? Meanwhile, the hate they spew keeps their crew on side and willing to vote. This, to me, is why it is so crucial for us to get into those areas…just talk to the people there and craft messages which will appeal to at least some of them. There is a vast difference in public perception when even 30% are on the other side.

    • Amazona December 14, 2014 / 11:25 am

      Cluster and Mark hit upon two of the reasons to stir up racial animus. The “Divide and Conquer” tactic has worked well for Dems. As long as they can keep people from thinking of themselves as Americans, and continuing to identify themselves as separate groups with identities completely unrelated to being American, with separate and different agendas, they can keep a voting bloc from being formed that is big enough and strong enough to defeat them. Once any voter has chosen to vote based on an issue rather than on government, all the Left has to do is link itself to that issue to get that vote—-as we see with issues such as gay “marriage” and abortion, global warming and SAVING THE PLANET.

      This is the more benign analysis. At the other end of the spectrum, nearing tinfoil-hat territory, is the speculation that a full-blown race war could result in martial law being declared and the 2016 election being put on hold. Remember, the RRL were trumpeting this scenario in 2007 and 2008, predicting that Bush would come up with some reason (undoubtedly related to terrorism) to declare martial law and postpone or even cancel the 2008 election, and this is the basis for projecting the same kind of malignant motivation now. The thing is, now there is more of a foundation for such paranoia (and yes, I do call it paranoia) because of the overt efforts of the Obama administration to set the stage for a race war. When you ask the obvious question of “WHY?” when looking at the actions of this administration, the possible responses run the gamut of reckless indulgence in personal animus regardless of the consequences at one end to the tinfoil-hat extreme of setting up a call for martial law to remain in power at the other. While I think the answer is somewhere in between, once you ask the question you pretty much have to consider every possible answer.

    • Amazona December 14, 2014 / 12:00 pm

      Spook, I am going to take your post literally—that is, that in a full-blown race war the Left would lose a significant number of its fighters, and thereby dilute its base. I don’t know if this is what you meant, but it could be taken that way—–“… I don’t see how a race war benefits Democrats as they stand to lose a substantial portion of their base”

      In a rational nation this might be true. But given the antics of the Complicit Agenda Media, we have to acknowledge that any race war would be fought not just on the streets, where the Left WOULD lose a substantial portion of its base, but in the hearts and minds of people not directly involved who would be treated to nonstop stories, complete with lurid photos and heartrending personal accounts, of the dastardly acts of white people. Just look at the press coverage of the conflict in Israel, the photos of wailing Palestinian women grieving for the loss of their baby boys, and the complete lack of information about the savagery and acts of violence of those boys. Look at the Photoshopped picture of smoke rising from an allegedly bombed out neighborhood. Look at the spin of headlines, such as the omission of the fact that Palestinians killed in Israel were killed during their attack on peaceful people at worship in their synagogue.

      And this kind of coverage would retain white voters who would be outraged at the atrocities described to them in loving detail, and pathetically eager to side with a race seen as victims, as we have seen in the white guilt support of Obama just because he is black, and the fears of being considered “racist” that have driven so many white people to act against their own self-interest in electing and re-electing an empty suit to the presidency and then refusing to consider any of the observations of his malfeasance in office.

      The sacrifice of a few thousand, or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of aggressors would be an acceptable price to pay for a long-range accomplishment of memories and oral accounts and history books detailing the atrocities committed by those defending against such aggressors. Remember, those who write the text books and history books, those who write the copy for TV “news” shows, control the reality of the future.

      We have an example in microcosm, in the raising to hero/sacrificial lamb status of teenaged thug and accused murderer Michael Brown. Multiply that by thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, and you have the white race slimed and damned for decades if not longer. It would make the vilification of Christopher Columbus pale by comparison.

      The Left has always had a good grasp of the Big Picture, and always engaged in long-range planning. And it has always been quite willing to sacrifice millions in its pursuit of those long-range goals.

      • Retired Spook December 14, 2014 / 12:18 pm

        I see your point. For the record, I’m not advocating a race war, just commenting on the fact that some on the Left seem to be trying to create one. And the fact that Conservatives haven’t allowed themselves to be goaded into doing something stupid speaks well for the character of Conservatives in general. Perhaps their motivation is as you describe — I hope we never have to find out.

      • Amazona December 14, 2014 / 12:34 pm

        One tiny example: The muting of the voice of Michael Brown’s stepfather screaming to a mob “Burn the bitch down!”

Comments are closed.