Trump says CIA pick Haspel 'under fire because she was too tough on terror'

Feb 2007
11,339
9,627
In my mind
No, CaptainTwitter-Chones, people do not object to Haspel because she was "too tough on terror".

They object because she oversaw a despicable, immoral, disgusting episode of our war on terror, namely the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA, which many consider torture.

In what I think could best be described as another early morning tirade by an insecure and stupid person, the president tweets about some folks actually not liking Haspel's morality, and in doing so he notes that she is a woman, so that also should mean something.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/06/trump-cia-nominee-gina-haspel-withdraw-torture-washington-post

Donald Trump has expressed support for his nominee to lead the CIA, who offered to withdraw amid concerns that a debate over the past use of interrogation techniques now classified as torture would tarnish her reputation and that of the agency.







On Monday morning, Trump tweeted: “My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists.


“Think of that, in these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want OUT because she is too tough on terror. Win Gina!”

Two senior administration officials confirmed Haspel’s offer to withdraw. Haspel, one official said, was wary of suffering the same fate as failed veterans affairs nominee Ronny Jackson – an episode which enraged Trump – and of dredging up the CIA’s troubled past. She took over last month as acting CIA director after Mike Pompeo became secretary of state.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
33,530
28,189
Kansas
Haspel needs to be confirmed. She is a far superior replacement compared to Pompeo. Any Democrats who vote her down are engaging in the rankest hypocrisy; they did nothing to hold Bush to account when they took control of Congress in 2007, and they did nothing to hold Bush or any of his now-private-citizen torturers in 2009 and 2010. The muck is freely spread all around D.C., as is most often the case with basically everything the CIA has engaged in for the last 50 years.

It was not a good time for the U.S. We should've done more about it when it happened. But scapegoating an honorable, career spy, cutting her off from leadership of the agency she's devoted her life to, doesn't make any sense — especially when we all know what Trump's response to a rejection will be. He'll just reach into his bag of cronies and put in someone who is just an unqualified hack with no public skeletons, and the CIA will be worse off for it.

Confirm Haspel. #RESIST doesn't apply here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,247
46,598
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Besides, he would just come up with someone else who approves of torture. I agree, it should have been handled far differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
33,530
28,189
Kansas
Besides, he would just come up with someone else who approves of torture. I agree, it should have been handled far differently.
There's decent evidence that Haspel recognizes the torture program was a mistake which didn't even produce significant actionable intelligence.

If she is voted down, Trump will get angry and do something like tap a crony in Congress, and not a Rhodes Scholar this time (Pompeo has many faults, but objectively obvious idiocy isn't one).

Someone who will not only affirm the torture program, but state during their testimony that it should be restarted, which Haspel will not. And then Fox News will get involved...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
93,529
59,990
becoming more and more
Haspel needs to be confirmed. She is a far superior replacement compared to Pompeo. Any Democrats who vote her down are engaging in the rankest hypocrisy; they did nothing to hold Bush to account when they took control of Congress in 2007, and they did nothing to hold Bush or any of his now-private-citizen torturers in 2009 and 2010. The muck is freely spread all around D.C., as is most often the case with basically everything the CIA has engaged in for the last 50 years.

It was not a good time for the U.S. We should've done more about it when it happened. But scapegoating an honorable, career spy, cutting her off from leadership of the agency she's devoted her life to, doesn't make any sense — especially when we all know what Trump's response to a rejection will be. He'll just reach into his bag of cronies and put in someone who is just an unqualified hack with no public skeletons, and the CIA will be worse off for it.

Confirm Haspel. #RESIST doesn't apply here.
agreed. Trump should just stfu and let her explain her positions herself. He's not helping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
93,529
59,990
becoming more and more
hard to figure out much because the details are classified. And for good reason.
But, she seems like she should be confirmed. I do really get sick of the partisan grandstanding by both parties during confirmation hearings.
 
Jul 2014
38,922
33,911
Border Fence
Haspel was a good CIA soldier. She did not question her orders. AG Gonzales said torture and she did.

She is perfect pick. Just another mindless drone ready not to question.



Obama failed to clean house. He should have asked people like Haspel for a loyalty oath. A loyalty oath to the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2014
50,208
51,518
United States
hard to figure out much because the details are classified. And for good reason.
But, she seems like she should be confirmed. I do really get sick of the partisan grandstanding by both parties during confirmation hearings.

I see nothing to gain by opposing her nomination. If she is rejected, it's not as if a better candidate will be chosen. Sometimes, it's best to simply acquiesce and cut your losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2014
38,922
33,911
Border Fence
hard to figure out much because the details are classified. And for good reason.
But, she seems like she should be confirmed. I do really get sick of the partisan grandstanding by both parties during confirmation hearings.
Just because her participation at that black ops site may be classified does not mean people in Congress are not privy to that information. It maybe not possible to be spoken about in an open hearing, but that does not mean her actions can't be know to Congress or used to make their decision.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
108,057
99,829
Most Insidious
I understand the reluctance of some to vote for her. One of the upsides to Pompeo was his coming out as being against the torture program. With Halpin having run such operations, having her serve in a leadership role under a president who has not only come out in favor of the torture this country perpetrated but who has also said we should go further, could be concerning.

She is completely qualified and experienced though and having a lifer elevated to that role is much better than watching the president bring in another swamp dweller.

It's definitely inbounds to ask her what she would do if the president demanded we torture someone again. Would she "just follow orders" or would she push back? That answer might go a long way in convincing those who may be on the fence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person