Pelosi Contends She Was Tricked on 'Enhanced Interrogation' Techniques
 

May 16, 2009

Despite an emerging plethora of evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was present in congressional committee hearings where “enhanced interrogation” techniques like “waterboarding” were described and discussed, she continues to argue that she was misled by the CIA staffers who briefed congress.

“People are quick to jump to the conclusion that everybody knows what ‘waterboarding’ is, but this isn’t fair,” Pelosi contended. “To a California gal, it sounds a lot like ‘surfboarding’ or ‘boogie boarding’—two favorite recreational activities where I come from. Out of the blue I’m supposed to know waterboarding is torture?”

The Speaker called the use of the term waterboarding “a devious ploy by the Bush Administration to throw people like me off track. The term itself sounds kind of fun. If they had used something like branding irons or thumb screws in the enhanced interrogation I’d have probably caught on right away. So, if you’re looking for villains let’s get Bush and Chenney under investigation.”

Social Security Administration Dismisses Criticism of Its Handling of Stimulus

The revelation that thousands of “stimulus” checks mailed by the Social Security Administration were addressed to recipients who turned out to be dead failed to faze officials at the agency.

“Look, we can’t be expected to keep up with the alive or dead status of every person on our rolls, there just isn’t enough time,” said agency spokesman Barry Otiose.

Apprised of the fact that one recipient, Romolo Romonini, died 34 years ago, Otiose became defensive. “Well, I don’t know about that,” Otiose responded. “We cross checked our lists with lists of people who voted in the last election. So, as far as we know, he was alive last November.”

“Besides, what does it matter anyway,” Otiose added. “The point is to inject spending money into the economy. Why should we care who spends these checks as long as they are spent by someone?”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner essentially backed the Social Security Administration’s procedure. “While I can’t say we’re ecstatic about distributing funds to bogus recipients, Mr. Otiose is basically correct in that the key issue is getting this money into circulation,” Geithner insisted. “For what it’s worth, we could’ve achieved this important objective by throwing bundles of cash out the window of a moving car and achieved satisfactory results.”

Specter’s Proposed Compromise Pleases Neither Side

In an effort to avoid totally selling out his previous position in opposition to the so-called “card-check” bill (Employee Free Choice Act) that would authorize unions to represent workers without first having a secret ballot vote, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) has suggested a compromise that both proponents and opponents find unpalatable.

While Specter’s proposed amendment would not change the no-ballot provision of the bill, it would restrict a union’s persuasion efforts. Under the Specter amendment, threats against property would continue to be permitted, but threats against persons would be criminalized.

“We don’t want to totally inhibit the union’s opportunity to forcefully make its case on behalf of representation,” Specter said. “After all, vandalizing the property and threatening the well-being of union opponents are time-worn traditions of American labor-management relations. Asking unions to give up one and management to accept the other is a middle-of-the-road approach that I think we can all support.”

“Union violence and intimidation may be a time-worn tradition, but it has no place being explicitly sanctioned by the law,” said Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute, a business-backed nonprofit that opposes the legislation. “It is bad enough that law enforcement too often ‘looks the other way’ when unions break the law. Senator Specter’s ‘compromise’ legally endorses the coercion that will be the inevitable outcome of the passage of this bill.”

“We don’t admit nothing,” said a union spokesman speaking not-for-attribution. “We don’t like Specter’s insinuation. We don’t need his so-called compromise. This bill will pass without it. Specter will vote for it once we educate this former Republican on its importance to labor peace in this country.”

Left-Wing Journalists Demand Media Restructuring

At a summit on media matters, a group calling itself the “Free Press” is demanding that the government save the media from right-wing domination by establishing a $50-billion “Public Media Trust Fund.” This and other recommendations for the “reform” of freedom of the press are outlined in the organization’s newly released book Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age.

“Hemmed-in by the need to attract readers, listeners, viewers, and ad revenues, the great newspapers, radio stations and TV broadcasters of this nation are falling by the wayside,” declared the Free Press’s Josh Silver. “Upstart bloggers, bellowing talk radio ideologues, and rogue cable TV networks are fragmenting the market and exposing the country to exotic, immoderate, and nutty opinions. It is time for government to save the day and usher America back toward a consolidated frame of reference and a national consensus.”

Acting Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Michael Copps commended the Free Press for “its commitment to preserving a healthy and responsible media.” “The $400 million a year that the federal government invests in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is far short of what it will take to rescue the media from its downward spiral,” Copps argued. “The Free Press proposal to put reporters on the government payroll is a sound step toward freeing them from commercial pressures that could bias their reporting.”

Copps vowed that the FCC would “do its part to help wrest control of the media from an irresponsible right-wing cabal by insisting on a more diverse universe of ownership.” “Not only will the FCC be an agent of change by pushing for more minorities and women to assume ownership roles,” Copps promised. “But those who fail to live up to our definition of public interest obligations will not see their licenses renewed.”

Vivian Schiller, President of National Public Radio (NPR), brushed aside concerns that such heavy government involvement might, itself, be a source of bias. “We have no issues with the Obama Administration,” Schiller announced. “I can’t envision a situation in which they would feel the need to exert pressure on us to modify what we broadcast.”

Democratic Operative Warns against Underhanded Arguments on Health Care Bill

David Plouffe, a key player in Barack Obama’s successful campaign for the presidency, cautioned American voters to be wary of right-wing arguments against the President’s proposed health care legislation.

“Their contention that a government-run health care plan will infringe on free choice is a false argument,” Plouffe asserted. “As the President himself so astutely put it, the average American is ill-prepared to make informed health care choices. An uninformed choice is no choice at all. Attempts to secure this worthless option shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of universal and comprehensive coverage.”

“Doctors and government have the expertise to discern the best and most cost-effective treatments for those who are treatable,” Plouffe went on. “By eliminating ineffective therapies and concentrating resources on those who can be inexpensively helped, the President’s plan will ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. This collective goal must not be impeded by useless theories mired in out-of-date notions of individualism.”

President Orders Democrat to Drop His Senate Bid

President Barack Obama took the extraordinary step of calling would-be New York Democratic senatorial candidate Steve Israel and demanding that he discontinue his efforts to challenge appointee Kirsten Gillibrand in next year’s primary election. The President said his intervention in New York state politics was undertaken at the request of senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

“Frankly, I was stunned to hear the President’s voice on the other end of the line,” said Israel. “I was even more shocked to hear him tell me I had to drop out of the race. He apologized for ‘stepping on my constitutional rights,’ but said it is important that the Party show unity at this critical time in our history.”

“Aside from saying that the fact that my challenge to the person selected to fill the seat vacated by former New York Senator Hillary Clinton in itself signals disunity, the President suggested that my name could possibly create confusion among voters at a time when our nation’s relationship with the Israelis is under stress,” Israel continued. “Sure I’m disappointed, but when the boss of America gives you an order what choice do you have?”

There is no word yet as to whether the President has given similar orders to withdraw to other rumored candidates for the post—Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Carolyn Maloney, and Jose Serrano.