In the wake of the misguided release of her committee’s one-sided, politically motivated report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques, Senator Dianne Feinstein is being forced to defend her actions; as well she should. If Feinstein’s self-righteous posturing and obvious rationalizing appear strained, it is probably because there is no defense for what she did. In fact, it is entirely appropriate to ask if releasing her report makes Feinstein a traitor. People who knowingly and willingly act in ways that benefit America’s enemies are labeled traitors. It is no stretch to suggest that releasing a highly sensitive report that could and should have been handled confidentially will benefit the terrorist organizations that seek to destroy America.
By releasing this report, Feinstein has forced the CIA to openly and publically defend itself and the techniques it has used for handling terrorists; issues that should be dealt with, if at all, in private. One thing is certain. Regardless of what one thinks about enhanced interrogation techniques, the CIA—unlike Senator Feinstein—at least has a legitimate defense for its actions. The agency did what it did to protect the American people. The functional question then becomes, why did Senator Feinstein do what she did? I delve into that question in this column, but first some background.
Here is how three former CIA Directors publically characterized the Feinstein report. George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that the report is a “one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America.” Frankly, these former CIA Directors were admirably reserved in their condemnation of Feinstein’s report, but in their defense a more accurate description of the report and its author would not have been printable in the Wall Street Journal.
Continued on PatriotUpdate