The Washington Post, long a champion of more strong women in positions of power, has editorialized against the confirmation of Gina Haspel, one of the strongest women in the lower-48, as CIA chief. The reason the Post gives for its thumbs down on La Haspel, a competent and respected spook for 33 years, is that she was, by Post standards, unduly harsh in trying to get useful information out of al-Qaeda terrorists, and that the secret prison for detained terrorists she oversaw in Thailand was severely lacking in amenities.
Haspel has said that as CIA head she would not allow her agency to engage in the interrogation tactics that have been put off the table for their harshness, even if ordered to do so. But these assurances were not enough for the exquisite sensitivities at the Post, or for Democrat senators who are loath to confirm anyone, obviously qualified as Haspel is or no, nominated by Donald Trump.
According to the Post editorial, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat (is this the same as the most rank Democrat?) on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not satisfied with Haspel’s assurances and wants her to “more clearly repudiate” what the Post calls this “dark chapter in her past.” It’s not clear what it would take to satisfy Warner. I doubt self-flagellation on the Capitol steps would do it for him.
As for the Post, this demonstrates they are not as in favor of strong women as we have been led to believe.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.