Waterboard Pelosi by whozit

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tries-to-backpedal-on-cia-c
riticism-2009-05-16.html

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
She's lying, we know she's lying. How do we get her to tell the truth, waterboarding! Pull out her finger nails! Burn her with cigarettes!......opps, I'm enjoying this too much, maybe the ACLU is right?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employee
s_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

See how easy it is, Whozit? You've already gone from defending torture of "terrorists" to loudly and gladly endorsing it for your political enemies. Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the slippery slope, and why torture is NEVER okay.

Me, I detest Pelosi. But in the interest of chasing the truth and getting to the bottom of all this, I really hope Obama will declassify ALL of the memos, the briefing notes, and everything related to this whole mess. If the ensuing shitstorm takes Pelosi down with Cheney and Bush, so be it.

And yes, it WILL inflame the Muslim world, UNLESS you hold up the pictures and memos and say clearly, "This is an abomination; this is a horror. Never again." In that fashion, you'd actually make some inroads into an actual dialog between the two sides.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:27 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
She's lying, we know she's lying. How do we get her to tell the truth, waterboarding! Pull out her finger nails! Burn her with cigarettes!......opps, I'm enjoying this too much, maybe the ACLU is right?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employee
s_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

See how easy it is, Whozit? You've already gone from defending torture of "terrorists" to loudly and gladly endorsing it for your political enemies. Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the slippery slope, and why torture is NEVER okay.

Me, I detest Pelosi. But in the interest of chasing the truth and getting to the bottom of all this, I really hope Obama will declassify ALL of the memos, the briefing notes, and everything related to this whole mess. If the ensuing shitstorm takes Pelosi down with Cheney and Bush, so be it.

And yes, it WILL inflame the Muslim world, UNLESS you hold up the pictures and memos and say clearly, "This is an abomination; this is a horror. Never again." In that fashion, you'd actually make some inroads into an actual dialog between the two sides.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Cheney wants more memos released, the fact is Spearker Botox has been caught in a lie, Cheney has not. SO BEAT HER WITH A SACK OF ORANGES!! AHHAHAHAHAHA!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:12 AM

WHOZIT

Looks like waterboarding her worked, NOW BEAT HER WITH THE SACK OF ORANGES!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 5:47 AM

HERO

Did anyone consider how HOT it is in Cuba...sure, waterboarding was really bad...but maybe it was also just a little refreshing.

I'm just sayin...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 8:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah, because your airways need to be cooled down with an infusion of water while the rest of you stays hot and dry. I'll recommend it be done to you. Let us know how you like it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:19 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Waterboard Pelosi?
We don't do that any more, remember? Civilized people have concurred that it's a form of torture. Besides, how could anyone want to cause unpleasantness to this fine lady:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:48 PM

Ruh-Roh...

Looks like someone is backing Pelosi's story, and the CIA has just been caught red-handed lying about the briefings...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363

Quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused the CIA of misleading her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding during the Bush administration.

Now her fellow Democrat, former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, is also disputing the CIA's version of the briefings that he received at the time. Graham was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, while Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

How Many Briefings?

Graham is known as a meticulous note-taker and has maintained a daily log that fills hundreds of spiral notebooks, which now reside at the University of Florida Library of Florida History.

"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."

Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held."

Of course, it should also be noted that Pelosi wasn't in charge of ANYTHING in 2002, when these briefings did - or in at least 3 of 4 times, DID NOT - take place; she was on the House Intelligence Committee, but being part of the out-of-power party, she chaired no committee.

Another "Senator Graham" - Lindsey, from South Carolina - has called for Congress to investigate everything having to do with the briefings, to see exactly who was briefed, and on what. I couldn't agree with him more. And while we're doing that investigation, let's see what the chairs and ALL the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed on, too, shall we?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:55 AM

By the way, it should be noted that I *loathe* and detest Pelosi. If she were to suddenly find herself ousted from the Speaker's position, I would do my Snoopy dance.

That said, if we're going to oust her, can we at least do it on legitimate grounds?

I still say we follow this thing ALL THE WAY - let's see where it goes, where the truth takes us, and if we have to hang them all, so be it. :)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:55 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Only way I see clear to having enough friggin rope is legalising hemp.

Cause you'd need a DAMN lot of rope - you do know that if you go poking your nose down the rabbit hole of horror that is the alphabet boys stock n trade, you only have three options, yes ?

A slap on the wrist, and shovel it back under the table like the Pike and Church committees did.

All the way to the bottom, which I do NOT reccommend as it would destroy our society, this is not an exaggeration nor hyperbole, papa bush wasn't kidding when he made that "chase us down the street and lynch us" comment.

Or, and I have as of late been favoring this, the Isengard treatment - don't bother diving down that rabbit hole, fill the fucker up and pave it over, and whoevers down there doing dark deeds even those nominally 'in charge' of them aren't allowed to *know* about, much less protest, despite being forced to finance them ?
Fuck em, let em drown - it's no more than they deserve.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Mike

It's exactly the same as Barney Frank being 'responsible' for the banking crisis. Sure Pelosi is a git, but she wasn't responsible for torturing anyone.

Why is SHE the story, again ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:10 AM

JONGSSTRAW

She's the "story" because she keeps lying about the events.......5 different versions:

...I was never briefed
...I was only partially briefed
...I was briefed, but not explained to
...Bush misled me
...CIA lied to me

It's the last statement that's hurting her, and I think Obama is laughing his ass off because he wants her gone anyhow. She's a constant distraction with her flubs and stupidity. Panetta, however, did the right and honorable thing defending the CIA, although I don't know the real reasons why. Perhaps he doesn't want to get whacked one day by one of his operatives. Anyhow, lying to Congress is a crime, so either Pelosi puts up or shuts up about the CIA. On the other hand, I'd like to see her "continue" this story for as long as possible. Full disclosure? Absolutely! Obama should release ALL the documents, not just those that are politically favorable. All the players, all the briefings, all the actions, and all the results of the actions. I doubt the Dems have the stomach for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Who cares ? Only partisan hacks.

The real news is that the US tortured - as policy - and lied to the American public about it. That's Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.

Compared to that, Pelosi isn't even a footnote.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:33 AM

JONGSSTRAW

That's the point....that it wasn't totally a Bush/Cheney thing. Many Dems in Congress were part of the security briefings. Now they fake repugnance at the actions. Sorry, can't have it both ways. If Bush was misled by bad legal opinions to proceed with bad things, then so was Pelosi and other high-ranking Dems. They're all linked together now. The whole thing is horseshit anyway. Time to move on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Senator says CIA admitted making up dates of torture briefings

John Byrne
Raw Story
Friday, May 15, 2009

The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, says that the Central Intelligence Agency told him that they had briefed him on the Bush administration’s torture techniques on two dates he was never briefed.

What’s more, the now-retired Florida senator told a New York radio host Thursday that the CIA admitted that they’d gotten the dates wrong."

Now, one of the things that makes this interesting is that Bob Graham has OCD. He, well, obsessively, documents everything. His story backs up Pelosi's.

But, to the point: did she WRITE the policy ? VOTE on it ? IMPLEMENT it ?

Then --- why do you care ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:57 AM

I'm with Jong that ALL the memos and whatnot need to be released at this point.

My whole problem with it is that the Democrats wailed about this being a horrible, criminal act. If the Democrats on the committee were breifed and they had a problem with it THEN they should have said some thing THEN. Pelosi, though not in charge of the committee, was the ranking Democrat on the committee. And if she said nothing THEN, well . . . what is it you always say, Rue? Something about silence?

Add to all of this that she keeps changing her story. That makes everything even more suspicious.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Add to all of this that she keeps changing her story."

So what ?

Did Bush keep changing his story about why he wanted Iraq attacked ? Yes. Did The Bush administration lie about torture ? Yes. Is Cheney bringing up shifting stories about the why, when and possible benefits of torture ? HELL yes.

And are YOU mad about any of that ?

No.

Because you're a partisan hack, too.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:05 AM

Enough with the name calling. Sheesh. Or at least you can call me that if you admit to being one as well. I dare ya. Admit it.

Cheney is at least calling for ALL of the memos to be released.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was going to take that out.

But WHY aren't you upset about the fact that the Bush administration kept shifting it's reasons to invade Iraq and it's stance on torture ? WHY are you not upset about the actual torture ?

Can you answer that ?

I'd be really curious. Because I think it all comes down to ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:46 AM

I always saw the "shifting reasons" for being in Iraq as simply a change in tactics based on the actual situation. Now I know there's all this talk about Bush needing an excuse to go into Iraq, that it's what he planned all along, etc. etc. But the way I looked at it is that there were reports from two other intelligence agencies about Saddam having WMD. After 9/11 Bush, IMHO, needed to make a stand against any possible (yes, I know you'll jump all over that word) threat. I had seen and heard the 1999 ABC news report about Saddam and OBL having meetings, so there was (again, IMHO) a connection there. And yes I know about the committee report that said otherwise, but who ya gonna beleive? Me? The report that came out BEFORE any of the controversy. Add to all of that the 17 or 19 or however many UN resolutions against Iraq that Saddam basically ignored. Sig points out the UNMOVIC report that said there were no WMD's but I saw in it a whole butt-load of things that Saddam STILL hadn't done or accounted for since the LAST committee was there. There were too many unknowns and suspicious activity in my mind that made the attack on the country the right move. And I thinkt he majority of the Iraqi people are grateful we did. Once it was apparent that there WERE no actual WMD's then, yes of course, tactics need to change from attack and depose to something else. Again, in my own mind, if there was no terrorist connection with Iraq, then why did terrorist orgainizations suddenly show up and start fighting our troops? And I'd much rather the fight be over there than on U.S. soil. That may sound harsh, but that's how I feel.

For torture, I said it in another thread that it's something I struggle with, but more often than not I see it as a necessary evil. I don't approach it lightly. Extreme torture like the Rack, Iron Maiden, thumb screws, etc. Those are horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Waterboarding, making people uncomfortable, putting them in a room with a bug, etc. is acceptable to a degree. Is that opinion subject to change? Of course. Would I like for it to be done to me? Of course not (unless it was in a learning type environment). But then again, I never have and don't plan on blowing up a bus full of innocent people or planting IED's in a crowded marketplace. The people we're talking about at Gitmo are terrorists. They have been a part of those types of things with no remorse whatsoever. So if they have to be made uncomfortable to get information out of them, then go for it. And don't jump all over me because Chucky Schumer said the same thing a few years ago.

You asked . . . I answered . . . You probably don't like the responses and I expect you to pick them apart, but really... everything you'll say has been said before in other threads and I don't think, at this point in time, that you'll change my mind. But at least I'm being honest. A little misguided? Possibly. But aren't we all to a certain extent? Are YOU willing to admit that?

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm not going to say I'm misguided when I don't think it's true.

I was right about WMDs - not after the fact, but since before Bush launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq.

And, if torture is not an overwhleming issue for you when it comes to the Bush administration - why is it an major issue when it comes to Pelosi ?

You haven't led to to believe that it still isn't all about ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:18 AM

Again . . . I'm upset with Pelosi because she is changing her story. Jongs post above says it all. Which one is it, Nancy? If the memos show that she WAS briefed and WAS told about the enhanced interrogation . . . she should have said she was against it THEN. IF, and yes I'm saying a big IF no matter which way you look at it, the memos say she WAS informed and she either agreed to it or said nothing AGAINST it . . . she has no room to talk. Yes she was not the chair of the committee, not the party in power. But the RANKING Democrat ON the committee still has a modicum of influence, donthca think? Lord knows Harry Reid was mouthy enough even when he wasn't in power (leader of the minority party, but still had a LOT to say).

Not partisan, IMHO. Everyone should be upset with Pelosi if she was breifed, especially you since she said nothing against it at the time of the supposed (for now) breifings. Silence is constant, as you say.

**Edited to add:
She says she was misled by Bush and the CIA . . . well as the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. She should be extremely embarassed about this no matter which way you slice it.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:26 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
She's lying, we know she's lying. How do we get her to tell the truth, waterboarding! Pull out her finger nails! Burn her with cigarettes!......opps, I'm enjoying this too much, maybe the ACLU is right?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employee
s_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

See how easy it is, Whozit? You've already gone from defending torture of "terrorists" to loudly and gladly endorsing it for your political enemies. Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the slippery slope, and why torture is NEVER okay.

And how unsurpising that Zit-tard doesn't even grasp what you're saying.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:29 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Why is SHE the story, again ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Because the righties know they're loosing the torture debate, so, time to distract!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well Rip

It is partisan.

If it was SO important to be able to torture that you think it was OK for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al to get a pass on lying --- then it was important enough for Pelosi to get a pass on lying. Or the other way around. ONE standard --- for both parties.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Again . . . I'm upset with Pelosi because she is changing her story. Jongs post above says it all. Which one is it, Nancy? If the memos show that she WAS briefed and WAS told about the enhanced interrogation . . . she should have said she was against it THEN. IF, and yes I'm saying a big IF no matter which way you look at it, the memos say she WAS informed and she either agreed to it or said nothing AGAINST it . . . she has no room to talk. Yes she was not the chair of the committee, not the party in power. But the RANKING Democrat ON the committee still has a modicum of influence, donthca think? Lord knows Harry Reid was mouthy enough even when he wasn't in power (leader of the minority party, but still had a LOT to say).

Not partisan, IMHO. Everyone should be upset with Pelosi if she was breifed, especially you since she said nothing against it at the time of the supposed (for now) breifings. Silence is constant, as you say.

**Edited to add:
She says she was misled by Bush and the CIA . . . well as the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. She should be extremely embarassed about this no matter which way you slice it.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

One thing you keep missing, at least from my understanding of how these briefings go:

The CIA is required to tell the Congress, at some point, WHAT they're doing. They are not required to ask permission. The people being briefed are given clearance to be briefed on Top Secret classified material, so they are forbidden to talk about it with others (reporters, you and me, etc.). The CIA tells them what they're going to do, and they can't tell anyone else. Does that sound like transparency?

Now IF - and I repeat IF - Pelosi and all the Republicans on the panel were briefed... What COULD they have done about it? Stamped their feet? Held their breath until they turned blue?

Also, Rip, I notice you have a very large problem with Pelosi's story changing, but have been quick to make excuses for the previous administration's constantly changing raison du jour for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Why are you willing to give them the benefit of a doubt you WON'T extend to Pelosi?

Just curious.

Also, I'm in favor of disclosing EVERYTHING - but certainly not because Cheney wants it done. He was quick to claim "executive privilege" for whatever HE wanted to classify or release, yet he'd take that privilege away from the actual "executive", the President. Interesting.

Edited to add:

You say IF it turns out she was briefed then she has no room to talk, and other have strongly implied that she'll be in some kind of deep trouble, whether political trouble or legal trouble. So let's suppose it goes the other way: IF, and yes I said IF, it turns out that she WASN'T briefed or informed that the CIA was torturing prisoners on the President's orders, do you then support holding the CIA and the Bush Administration criminally responsible for their crimes?

Note I said "IF"...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The CIA is required to tell the Congress, at some point, WHAT they're doing.

A. Not that they usually do, mind you.

B. When they bother, 95% of it is lies and the other 5% vague generalities that could mean anything.

C. What exactly, could anyone DO about it anyway, since there's quite literally, short of an all out SWAT raid on Langley, which WOULD probably provoke a shooting incident, nothing whatever that can be done to bring them to heel.
You forbid them, they ignore you.
You cancel the program, they continue it in secret.
You file charges, they laugh in your face.
Send a subpeano, they ignore it.
Shitcan their budget, they just steal it.

So what, exactly, would folks have us DO other than maybe drop a couple 2000lb LGBs on their HQ, or paint the walls with a couple of their people as an example of the ONLY kind of "consequence" that type understands ?

Y'all folk miss the point because it somehow escapes you that NO ONE has any control over them, and hasn't since 1949.

I swear, when Cord Meyer finally capped it I was tempted to go hammer in a stake myself... to make SURE, you know ?

Now, if you got any ideas on how exactly, to throw a leash on those alphabet goons without causing some serious bloodshed, I'd sure like to hear it - cause I damn sure don't.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:57 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Why is SHE the story, again ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Because the righties know they're loosing the torture debate, so, time to distract!

You might want to check the latest polls. They show that the majority of Americans favor the use of enhanced interrogation methods on terrorists.

The only reason Pelosi's lying is an issue is that it shows that Dems were all for Waterboarding right after 911, they only got indignant about it when Obama's campaign decided to run against it. The Republicans are only pointing out her hypocrisy because they want to further erode confidence in her for the next election. They know that the issue of Torture isn't important to the majority of Americans and won't be a factor in the next election.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In other words, they are hypocritically hammering on a non-issue for partisan purposes, and hoping the American public is too stupid to figure it out.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:21 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If it was SO important to be able to torture that you think it was OK for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al to get a pass on lying --- then it was important enough for Pelosi to get a pass on lying. Or the other way around. ONE standard --- for both parties.

If you are so vocal about the changing stories from the Bush administration, why let the Dems off so easily.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Good question.

When I see the repubicans being held to the same standard as Pelosi is, then I will hold her to the same standard I hold the repubicans to.

But since the hypocrites are driving the debate, I feel no compelling need to do so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:45 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When I see the repubicans being held to the same standard as Pelosi is, then I will hold her to the same standard I hold the repubicans to.

I did not realize the Republicans played such a vital role in establishing who you are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I work by tit-for-tat game theory.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:55 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In other words, they are hypocritically hammering on a non-issue for partisan purposes, and hoping the American public is too stupid to figure it out.

I fail to see the hypocrisy in highlighting the fact that someone on the other side of an issue actually supports your position, but is lying about it for reasons unknown. I do agree though that this is pure partisan politics. For once the Republicans are playing politics with an issue that is dwarfed by concern over the economy and that the Dems won't be able to turn against them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Skeptical analysts at mediamatters.org wrote the perfect headline: "What did President Pelosi know, and when did she know it?" To House Republicans and drumbeaters like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, that's the big question. Not whether CIA interrogators under the orders of the Bush White House violated all norms of civilized behavior frantically trying to prove one of Dick Cheney's most cherished delusions: nonexistent links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, used to justify invading Iraq.

Not, that is, whether agents of the U.S. government used Stalinist techniques for Stalinist ends: to secure "confessions" supporting decisions previously made for ideological reasons. But whether or not CIA briefers told a minority congresswoman in September 2002 that captured al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah had already been waterboarded 82 times at Guantánamo.

Pelosi's attackers cite an allegedly dispositive rebuke by President Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta. Viewed with even minimal skepticism, however, Panetta's remarks look like a carefully lawyered nondenial denial.

"Let me be clear," Panetta said. "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values." The day a CIA director of either party admits otherwise will be a memorable one indeed. Panetta also stated that "contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah."

Of course there's truth, and then there's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The last two we haven't yet seen. Panetta carefully neglects to affirm the accuracy of said records. As, in fairness, he probably cannot. Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, longtime intelligence committee chairman, says he was shown CIA documents listing four torture briefings he'd supposedly received. Three of the dates conflicted with his own meticulous diaries. The agency admitted error.

You can tell the media thinks they've got Pelosi on the run, however, because they've already begun improving the story. Both the New York Times and Washington Post, Bob Somerby points out, ran same-day stories stating that Pelosi admitted "for the first time" last week learning of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding in 2003, making her look evasive. In fact, a press release stating that has been featured on Pelosi's Web site since December 2007. When a Democrat's in the cross hairs, such errors are rarely corrected."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
The CIA is required to tell the Congress, at some point, WHAT they're doing.

A. Not that they usually do, mind you.

B. When they bother, 95% of it is lies and the other 5% vague generalities that could mean anything.

C. What exactly, could anyone DO about it anyway, since there's quite literally, short of an all out SWAT raid on Langley, which WOULD probably provoke a shooting incident, nothing whatever that can be done to bring them to heel.
You forbid them, they ignore you.
You cancel the program, they continue it in secret.
You file charges, they laugh in your face.
Send a subpeano, they ignore it.
Shitcan their budget, they just steal it.

Bingo. That was pretty much what I was driving at.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that Bob Graham was able to actually catch the fuckers in an outright lie, and they ALL BUT ADMITTED IT! Hell, I figured they'd dummy up some of his notebooks to back up their story, but they didn't. Color me shocked.

'Course, if some unfortunate and tragic accident should befall the former Senator, I'm sure the Alphabet Squad would have noooooo idea how THAT happened, eh?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:11 AM

One of the points I'm trying to make with this whole thing is that IF she was told about it she should have voiced her opposition to it FOR THE RECORD. It doesn't matter if she was in charge or not or whether her actions at the time would have actually accomplished anything. Rue continuously points out that if we stay silent when something objectionable is going on then we, by our silence, are agreeing with those actions by default. The CIA would at least have a record of her saying she disapproved and NONE of this would be an issue. She's wasting everyone's time by changing her story so many times. THAT'S what I have an issue with. Pick one story and stick to yer guns Nancy! Grow some cajones!

SO! If she was breifed and said nothing in private then, yet tells the world NOW she was against the proceedures from the outset . . . ????? Rue, isn't this hypocrisy?

To answer all your other questions . . . Yes! If criminal actions are involved, then everyone should be held accountable. As I've said, however, I don't see the adminstration going into Iraq on bad intel the same thing as lying. And once they're in Iraq, they had a job to finish up and terrorists to get rid of (GASP! Shocker!) who miraculously appeared in a country that supposedly had NO connection to terrorism. Hmmmmm.

If you ask me, Obama is the one playing partisan politics by releasing only SOME of the memos that only show the previous administration in a bad light, but not others that may shed some OTHER light onto the situation. Why? Hmmmmm.

I know where Kwicko stands, he's always fair with me. But Rue? You're just as partisan as the worst of them, you just won't admit it. I've admited my faults and the faults of the party I suppport. I admit I'm a little biased. I make no bones about that. It's obvious where you stand, yet when I call you to task on your own signature, you skirt the subject. IF, Pelosi was briefed and said nothing at the time she was silent and hence agreed with the actions. Yes, or no?

It will be interesting to see where this goes. But, yes release ALL of the memos, call each person to task. I'm willing to say that. Are you?

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Because the righties know they're loosing the torture debate, so, time to distract!

The most important part of this story is NOT Pelosi. Its always been the other Congressmen and Senators.

These were committees. That means more then Nancy Pelosi.

In all the years since 9/11, the folks on these intellegence committees have never and are not now coming out to support the Speaker's position. In other words, the folks who KNOW are not talking. Why? Because they knew both what was going on and the tangible benefits.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I say they all need to come clean, but again, you run into the problem of politicians knowing what the alphabet goons will DO to them if they push the envelope too hard.

Speakin of which, any of y'all know what an Arclight is ?

That's when they get a buncha heavy bombers, wing to wing and unload in a strip about a mile long and as wide as there are bombers in the sortie - everything in the zone is reduced to a fine powder, NOTHING survives.

Looks about like this.

Now understand I wholeheartedly and rabidly APPROVE of doing that to Langley, and Quantico, without warning, or considering potential collateral or casualties, and despite the expense, as the cheapest and cleanest possible solution of the threat that our own alphabet agencies present to our nation, our people, and our security.

And I want you to think long and hard on why someone as humanist as I would consider something *that* awful as the least of the potential evils, wrap your mind around what it would take to make *that* look like an errand of mercy to someone like me.

When no one in our government has the authority, OR the ability, to tell them "no!" and make it stick, who's really in charge then, folks ?

Given what happened to the last guy who tried, that being Kennedy when he shitcanned Northwoods and canned Lemnitzer - you really think that had nothing to do with it ?

From the same dickheads who brought you cointelpro, northwoods, pbsuccess, mockingbird, mkultra, and all those other wonderful things that offered no benefit and plenty of damage to the fabric of our society for no reason better than political power and gain ?

Do the math folks, the REAL threat to america rests dead center on our so-called 'protectors'.

-Frem
"The gravest threat to our national security...
is our National Security."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:06 AM

Quote:
"Hero" wrote:

In all the years since 9/11, the folks on these intellegence committees have never and are not now coming out to support the Speaker's position. In other words, the folks who KNOW are not talking. Why? Because they knew both what was going on and the tangible benefits.

You're either lying, or spinning, or woefully uninformed. If you'd been paying the least bit of attention, you'd realize by now that former Senator (and former CHAIRMAN of the Senate Intelligence Committee) AND Senator Jay Rockefeller have both backed up Pelosi's version of events to one extent or another. And really, you SHOULD know who Rockefeller is, since he's from your home state...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:08 AM