Tina Smith vs. Gina Haspel
Just minutes ago, Tina Smith announced via this tweet that she won’t vote to confirm Gina Haspel as the next CIA Director. In the tweet, Smith said “I’ve been clear since the start. I will vote NO on Gina Haspel. We cannot have someone lead the CIA who has involvement with torture on her resume. That Bush-era legacy is not something to be proud of.”
Sen. Smith’s after-the-fact quarterbacking is insulting. After 9/11, everyone was certain there’d be another terrorist attack. There wasn’t another terrorist attack because the Bush 43 CIA discovered the intelligence that took out entire terrorist networks. That happened only because of the enhanced interrogation techniques employed right after 9/11.
Smith’s faux moral preening is sickening. If she wants to argue whether ‘torture’ is effective, that’s one thing. Arguing that it’s immoral to torture a terrorist to gain information that disrupts an entire network of terrorists tells me that Smith puts a higher priority on moral preening than on doing whatever is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. People with that attitude are foolish. They shouldn’t be U.S. senators.
I’ve been clear since the start. I will vote NO on Gina Haspel. We cannot have someone lead the CIA who has involvement with torture on her resume. That Bush-era legacy is not something to be proud of.
— Tina Smith (@TinaSmithMN) May 16, 2018
At the time that these techniques were used, they were perfectly legal. The ‘torture law’ didn’t get enacted until years later. Apparently, Tina Smith thinks it’s ok to punish a person for doing things that were perfectly legal at the time they were done.
Further, Smith apparently hasn’t considered whether Gina Haspel is qualified for the job. Unlike Smith, Haspel was on the front lines taking out terrorist networks and keeping America safe. After helping Walter Mondale lose to Norm Coleman in 2002, Tina Smith went to work for “Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.” Wow. Talk about fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. Simply put, Tina Smith isn’t qualified to render an opinion on fighting terrorists. She’s a community activist. She isn’t a policy wonk by any stretch of the imagination. She’s a policy lightweight.
On the other hand, she’s perfectly suited to do what Chuck Schumer orders her to do. That seems to be the only thing she’s skilled at.