Pelosi's Tortured Explanation

[Gan]

By Debra Saunders (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/debra_saunders/)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been pushing for a "truth commission" to investigate the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding -- until Republicans started shining the spotlight on Pelosi herself. Now she is not so adamant.

Spokesman Brendan Daly told me that Pelosi wants a truth commission, "but she still realizes the political reality" -- as in the opposition of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The rest of the reality may well be this: Pelosi knew that White House lawyers had sanctioned waterboarding in 2002 -- and did not protest.
According to the Senate Intelligence committee, the CIA briefed Pelosi, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah -- who was waterboarded -- in 2002.

The Washington Post reported in 2007 that the 2002 briefing provided Pelosi and company with a "virtual tour" of interrogation techniques. At the time of the story, a congressional source speaking for Pelosi, however, told the Post that Pelosi thought waterboarding was in the planning stages. The source admitted Pelosi did not object.

Who then is Pelosi to go after Bush lawyers for sanctioning waterboarding, which she now refers to as torture? This is what Pelosi told reporters last week: "We were not -- I repeat -- we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Yes, the Bush Office of Legal Counsel said the techniques "could be used," she explained, "but not that they would."

So Pelosi thought that just because the Bushies were sticking out their necks and authorizing the CIA's use of waterboarding, that did not mean the CIA would use it. And the Democrats called George W. Bush dim and ineffective?

Note that Pelosi used the term "enhanced interrogation methods" when referring to her CIA briefing. Not torture. On Tuesday, Pelosi added a twist to the story. She told CNN that the briefers "said they had a legal opinion they said they weren't going to use and when they did they would come back to Congress to report to us on that."

Daly added, "There's really not a whole lot you can do when you're being briefed" and you're a member of the minority. Then what is the point of having a bipartisan intelligence committee? Why not just buy a rubber stamp? Porter Goss, the House Intelligence Committee chairman in 2002 who went on to become director of the CIA has a different recollection. As he wrote in the Washington Post, he, Pelosi and the ranking Senate Intelligence Committee members were briefed extensively, "understood what the CIA was doing," and "gave the CIA our bipartisan support." Goss was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were actually to be employed."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, has called on the director of national intelligence to release complete CIA briefing documents -- including information as to who attended and what was said, so that Americans will know what congressional leaders like Pelosi knew. Daly told me that Pelosi supports that effort, as she generally believes in transparency.

Good riddance to a "truth commission." It's pretty sickening to think some Democrats have been poised to investigate and possibly prosecute those who sanctioned waterboarding in 2002. Yet when Pelosi knew the White House was pushing it, she did not try to move heaven and earth to make sure it never happened.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/30/pelosis_tortured_explanation_96262.html
As cross posted on RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com).

[Warriorbird]

Nancy Pelosi ran the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice.

Who knew?

[Parkbandit]

Oops?

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html

[Gan]

You know that feeling when you wish you could go back in time and...?

This has turned into a real pandoras box for Nancy.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

You know that feeling when you wish you could go back in time and...?

This has turned into a real pandoras box for Nancy.

:lol:


http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/george-bush-and-nancy-pelosi.jpg

[radamanthys]

http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/george-bush-and-nancy-pelosi.jpg

SURPRISE PROSTATE EXAM!

[Stanley Burrell]

We need political threads full of anti-Obama/liberal rhetoric.

This is exactly what I would want to hear in real life. All. The. Time. 24/7. 365. 3.1415927. 10-4.

Ffffffffffffffff.

[radamanthys]

We need political threads full of anti-Obama/liberal rhetoric.

This is exactly what I would want to hear in real life. All. The. Time. 24/7. 365. 3.1415927. 10-4.

Ffffffffffffffff.

It may be posted by a Republican, but the matter is pissing off liberals, too. I mean... she was instrumental in starting this crap. You know, being there and approving it and all.

[Warriorbird]

Pissing off the fictional liberals that get cited on conservative blogs or Alan Colmes?

[radamanthys]

Pissing off the fictional liberals that get cited on conservative blogs or Alan Colmes?

You're saying that it's perfectly ok when Pelosi does it, but it's not ok in any other sense?

Not every liberal is a hypocrite.

[Ravenstorm]

I mean... she was instrumental in starting this crap. You know, being there and approving it and all.

Maybe. (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/)

I want to see an independent investigation made of people with no ties to anyone who might be implicated. And if Pelosi had any hand in authorizing this - as opposed to being told it's happening and it's going to happen no matter what she says or does - then she needs to be slapped down hard and have charges filed against her. So should anyone who had a hand in authorizing it. Those who carried it out are a less clear matter.

[Parkbandit]

You're saying that it's perfectly ok when Pelosi does it, but it's not ok in any other sense?

Welcome to political debates with Warriorbird 101.


Not every liberal is a hypocrite.

Source?

[Parkbandit]

Maybe. (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/)

I want to see an independent investigation made of people with no ties to anyone who might be implicated. And if Pelosi had any hand in authorizing this - as opposed to being told it's happening and it's going to happen no matter what she says or does - then she needs to be slapped down hard and have charges filed against her. So should anyone who had a hand in authorizing it. Those who carried it out are a less clear matter.

She needs to be slapped down hard because she lied or because she supported waterboarding a known piece of human shit to the point he talked and American lives were supposedly saved?

And those who carried it out are already immune to political theatrical lynchings... sorry.

[TheEschaton]

Hi, I think WB's only assertion is that Pelosi couldn't authorize these actions, as she was merely the ranking Democrat on the committee, not the Justice department or the Bush Administration.

There is a big difference between being briefed on something, and authorizing it. If she authorized it, she should be punished for it. If she was told about it, she's guilty of sitting idly by - pretty reprehensible, yes, but not as reprehensible as those people who actually authorized it. If she was told about it in a briefing and forgot about it because she's a relatively busy woman, she's guilty of not being completely alert to her liberal, progressive conscience.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

There is a big difference between being briefed on something, and authorizing it.
Congress has an important role in oversight. Pelosi was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

I can completely absolve her of any guilt (in my own mind) if she can prove she spoke to Goss, Bush, Cheney, and the minority and majority leaders of the House expressing her complete disapproval of any of the methods brought to her attention during the briefings.


If she was told about it in a briefing and forgot about it because she's a relatively busy woman, she's guilty of not being completely alert to her liberal, progressive conscience.
Are you suggesting she merely "forgot" about a briefing dealing with water boarding, bashing heads into walls, placing insects into boxes (and all the other methods) being used on people we believed were directly/indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans?

If so you have a lower opinion of her mental abilities then do I.

[TheEschaton]

From Sept of 2002, when the issue only came up last year? Sure.

[Mabus]

From Sept of 2002, when the issue only came up last year? Sure.
I am guessing this is in response to my question of whether you believe Pelosi could have simple forgotten about the briefing, as nothing was quoted above it.

So...
... thousands of US citizens die in a horrendous terrorist attack. We, as a country, send our intelligence services out to interrogate high level captives.

The administration comes in to inform you, as you are the ranking member of the committee on intelligence matters. They talk about all of the methods they are using, and ones they feel will be legal for them to use. They describe methods that if are not "torture" clearly border on it.

Your concern for the safety of the citizens trumps your usual liberal leanings, as while the methods are ghastly you know that they may be needed to stop thousands of more deaths. Someone in the room asks if they feel they need any additional authority (I have seen reports where Pelosi was the one that asked this, but it seems unsubstantiated).

And you believe she could have just "forgot".

Incredible.

[TheEschaton]

I never said I believed she forgot. As usual, you have projected on me and all other liberals your most paranoid belief of what we could possibly hold to be true. I tend to think she sat by and said nothing, partly out of fear for her constituents/U.S. citizens, and did not follow her better judgment.

But forgetting is not out of the question, or the realm of possibility. After all, Condi forgot about a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S." a few months before he actually did.

C WUT I DONE THAR?

[Methais]

You liberals need to stop being in denial. Pelosi got caught in a lie. Deal with it.

[Ravenstorm]

She needs to be slapped down hard because she lied or because she supported waterboarding a known piece of human shit to the point he talked and American lives were supposedly saved?

Yes. But unless that committee had the authority to say 'No, you're not allowed to do that.' (which they didn't) no one on it bears any responsibility for it happening, be they a Democrat or Republican.

Now if she lied about knowing, par for the course. A politician telling the truth? That's like a Pope supporting birth control. But if she supported it that should be shouted from coast to coast and she should be censured, chastised and voted out. Same goes for all of them.

[Mabus]

I never said I believed she forgot.
You may not believe it, but you most certainly implied the possibility of it as part of the debate.

Here:

If she was told about it in a briefing and forgot about it because she's a relatively busy woman, she's guilty of not being completely alert to her liberal, progressive conscience.



As usual, you have projected on me and all other liberals your most paranoid belief of what we could possibly hold to be true.
You have the wrong guy.

If you look through posts on the subject I have said that water boarding is torture, and that it is illegal by ratified treaties.

Prosecute everyone involved, just like we did for war crimes by our enemies in WWII. Those that were complicate in the war crime , like Pelosi, should swing from the gallows (not literally) as well.

I do believe that there could be instances where an individual could receive a pardon for torture, like the "ticking time bomb" scenarios. These interrogations were not one of them.

I tend to think she sat by and said nothing, partly out of fear for her constituents/U.S. citizens, and did not follow her better judgment.
I think it was a few things, but as with yours it is speculation. I do believe that the mind set after 9/11 called for swift retribution, and damn the torpedoes. We wanted to make sure it would not happen again, and that is understandable.

I also believe that she did not want to seem weak on terrorism before an election and eventual rise to be the Speaker of the House. Yes, I believe part of it was a political calculation come back to finally bite her on the ass.


But forgetting is not out of the question, or the realm of possibility.
How did Reagan say it? "There you go again!"

If she "forgot" a meeting of such import she should not only not be Speaker, but should quit smoking the pot available in her district and seek a professional medical diagnosis of her current mental faculties.


After all, Condi forgot about a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S." a few months before he actually did.
And I raised an uproar when that memo surfaced. I stated then, as I still believe, that GW broke his oath by failing to defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I was no fan of GW, and did not vote for him in either 2000 or 2004.


C WUT I DONE THAR?
Made yourself look rather silly?

Trying to tie me to the Bush administration because Pelosi knew about the torture, and did nothing about it, is certainly not a tactic about which to feel pride.

[TheEschaton]

Wait, I know I was gone for a few months, but is this the same Mabus? The same frothing at the mouth Republican, who now allegedly did NOT vote for the Republican candidate in 2000 and 2004?

I voted for Ron Paul in the last election, then.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

Wait, I know I was gone for a few months, but is this the same Mabus? The same frothing at the mouth Republican, who now allegedly did NOT vote for the Republican candidate in 2000 and 2004?

I voted for Ron Paul in the last election, then.

-TheE-
I have been a small "l" libertarian for decades.

I did vote for McCain. The last GOP presdential candidate I voted for previous to that was Reagan in 1980.

So hardly a "frothing at the mouth Republican".

[Warriorbird]

So why the Obama hate instead of Clinton hate? Not all of us forget the oh, 800-1000 anti Obama posts.

[Methais]

Because Obama is black. Duh.

[Mabus]

So why the Obama hate instead of Clinton hate? Not all of us forget the oh, 800-1000 anti Obama posts.
What does this have to do with the subject of Pelosi and torture?

If you want answers to which policies I disagree with the current administration, and which reasons I had for voting against him, review the relevant posts. This isn't the thread for it.

[Mabus]

Because Obama is black. Duh.
That must have been why I voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 in the primaries, which he won in my district.

Because he is not black.

Race of the candidate does not factor in to my political views.

If Pelosi was an Australian Aborigine I would still be posting the same about her.

[Methais]

That must have been why I voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 in the primaries, which he won in my district.

Because he is not black.

Race of the candidate does not factor in to my political views.

If Pelosi was an Australian Aborigine I would still be posting the same about her.

Apparently your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. I'll make sure to use italics next time.

[Mabus]

Apparently your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. I'll make sure to use italics next time.
Italics, a smilie-wink (after the statement) or the [/sarcasm] tag (again, after the statement) seem the forms most accepted here on these forums.

From your previous posts I was wondering why the statement that is usually reserved for the more ignorant Obama supporters ("You didn't vote for him? You are a racist!"), but without verbal tone or facial/body cues text can be easily misinterpreted.

You have my apology.

[Kembal]

While I'd like to know exactly what Pelosi knew and when did she know it (I'm not taking those CIA memos as proof just yet, considering the CIA career establishment has a vested interest in making sure all the blame does not fall on them), I think the controversy actually obscures the real issue: Why did only two congressional officals get briefed? Should more have been briefed? Should have they have a senior aide in the room who's more versed in these matters than they are so they know exactly what's being reported to them and they can ask more informed questions?

Intelligence oversight is broken, and has been broken for a while. While there's no way there can be real-time oversight (and that would be more harmful than helpful), the current system is nowhere close to good enough.

[Parkbandit]

The Comedy Tour continues...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday.

The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?

Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.

But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally “approved by the president.”

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it.

Pelosi and Harman, sometimes bitter rivals, have still not discussed the controversy since it broke three weeks ago, according to Democratic insiders.

Sheehy has not responded to several calls and e-mails seeking comment on what he told Pelosi during this period. But the Pelosi confidant — who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity — insisted that Pelosi did all that she could have done.

“She felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed,” said the person. Pelosi “never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a ‘no response’ from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done.”

Republicans aren’t buying it.

“If Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?” asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee. “If she was so upset, why did she let someone else raise objections?”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22401.html

[Gan]

comedy gold

[Hulkein]

Pelosi is a fraud and waterboarding has helped immensely in thwarting further attacks on US soil.

/thread

[Parkbandit]

I couldn't script this shit any better. Now, then entire CIA and Bush Administration r liars!! My favorite part was her having to re-read her statement instead of just recollecting it from memory.

__________________________

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090514/D9865AJO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in the method's use.

"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.

"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.

The House's top Democrat made her comments at a news conference where she was peppered with questions about her knowledge of a technique she and others have called torture. Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Pelosi and other Democrats knew waterboarding was in use but made no attempt to protest.

Pelosi's comments Thursday were her most pointed yet on the topic of what she learned about waterboarding.

In a written response issued moments after Pelosi spoke, an official at the CIA neither disputed nor accepted the California Democrat's statements.

Instead, George Little, head of the CIA office of public affairs, said it would be up to Congress to determine whether notes made by agency personnel at the time they briefed lawmakers were accurate. He said the notes could be made available at the CIA "for staff review."

House Republican Leader John Boehner dismissed Pelosi's account.

"When you look at the number of briefings that the Speaker was in and other Democrat members of the House and Senate, it's pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were," said the Ohio lawmaker. "They were well aware that they had been used, and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways."

Despite Boehner's comments, CIA records show Pelosi attended only one briefing - the one in the fall of 2002 where she says she was told that waterboarding had not been used. A chart released by the CIA detailing its briefings for lawmakers is vague on what transpired at that session. It says Pelosi and the top Intelligence Committee Republican, then-Rep. Porter J. Goss of Florida, were given a "description of the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed," without further details.

The chart specifically notes a discussion of waterboarding in 13 briefings between February 2003 and March 2009, most attended by Democrats as well as Republicans.

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. While President Barack Obama has banned waterboarding, calling it torture, he has been notably cool toward an independent inquiry that might distract attention from his domestic agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also has expressed opposition, as have congressional Republicans.

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration's actions.

"They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us," she said.

Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job - the Congress part," Pelosi said.

When Pelosi first addressed the question in late April, she said only that those present at her 2002 briefing were not told that the practice had been employed.

"We were not - I repeat, were not - told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.

Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.

On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.

[Warriorbird]

Standard playbook. Figure out an opposing target and make them stand out individually as 'the ultimate evil' to dodge blame.

Pity making Obama out to be the Antichrist couldn't win an election.

Kinda boring, really.

[Parkbandit]

Standard playbook. Figure out an opposing target and make them stand out individually as 'the ultimate evil' to dodge blame.

Pity making Obama out to be the Antichrist couldn't win an election.

Kinda boring, really.

WTF!?

So you believe Pelosi and her 4-5 different accounts.. because that is the only thing we're actually talking about in this thread. If you want to talk about Obama's election win, I'm certain there are numerous threads for you to bump up.

Here's the synopsis.. since it's painfully obvious it's above your head: The Democrats, lead by Pelosi, maintain that waterboarding is considered torture and that it is wrong.. even in times of war and even at the expense of American lives. This is not the same opinion that most Americans have.. nor is it the same opinion that is held by the Bush administration.

[Fallen]

I would imagine his point is that even if Pelossi is a hyprocritical idiot that doesn't absolve the Bush administration from blame.

Note: I don't care. I say waterboard all those fucks if they have information we believe to be valuable.

[Warriorbird]

I would imagine his point is that even if Pelossi is a hyprocritical idiot that doesn't absolve the Bush administration from blame.

Pretty much this. I think she's been a trainwreck as Speaker of the House.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty much this. I think she's been a trainwreck as Speaker of the House.

Nice try...

This thread isn't about Bush or if water boarding is torture or if torture wasn't necessary to prevent another 9-11 style attack.

This thread was about Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy regarding water boarding and her constantly changing stories regarding her involvement.

This was the very first post where you actually addressed Nancy Pelosi.

So, like I said.. nice try.

[Parkbandit]

Someone who has to read a statement to recount the past tends to make me not believe they are telling the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxE33lfTi_Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebreitbart%2Etv%2Fhtml%2F33 9163%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

[Gan]

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.

On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.

My two favorite parts.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

My two favorite parts.

:lol:

Yea.. the CIA loves it when people accuse it of lying to them...

Panetta's note was sent to reporters via the CIA press office. Here's the key graph:

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."


Ooooops? Nancy should have stuck with her favorite: "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!"

I HOPE that this puts an end to her political career. At the very least, her current position should be stripped from her.

But we know it won't....

[Stanley Burrell]

How can the House Speaker claim to have missed something like this? I feel like Pelosi, especially with her Syrian sympathy move shortly after being appointed, would be squawking about this if she had an iota of an idea to mention this beyond the constantly recycled rhetoric we hear.

1. Asleep.

2. Lying.

3. Information actually withheld from her to the point of complete ignorance to the matter.

4. All of the above.

[radamanthys]

You know, the Chinese method of killing their incompetent/asshole bureaucrats is looking more and more appealing.

[Mabus]

Panetta's note was sent to reporters via the CIA press office. Here's the key graph:

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

And this from an Obama appointee...

She looks like an idiot.

[Methais]

You know, the Chinese method of killing their incompetent/asshole bureaucrats is looking more and more appealing.

We'd have like 4 people left in the government if that were the case. And 4 is being generous.

[Clove]

Nancy Pelosi ran the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice.

Who knew?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2677206060_e12c595563.jpg

The rest of the reality may well be this: Pelosi knew that White House lawyers had sanctioned waterboarding in 2002 -- and did not protest.

[Clove]

C WUT I DONE THAR?Yeah, made an ass out of yourself. That excuse wasn't acceptable to Democrats when it was a Republican, but now it is because it's Pelosi?

[Ravenstorm]

Yea.. the CIA loves it when people accuse it of lying to them...

Panetta's note was sent to reporters via the CIA press office. Here's the key graph:

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."


Ooooops? Nancy should have stuck with her favorite: "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!"

I HOPE that this puts an end to her political career. At the very least, her current position should be stripped from her.

But we know it won't....


CIA admits lying to Congress for 8 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html)


The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed “significant actions” from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

Gee, who could believe it?

[Bhuryn]

Pelosi is an opportunistic rat, who knew? Seriously? Is this news to anyone?

[Rocktar]

Let me fix this for you...



And this from an Obama appointee...

She IS an idiot.

There, all better.

[Parkbandit]

CIA admits lying to Congress for 8 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html)



Gee, who could believe it?

So your "proof" that Pelosi isn't a lying cunt is that a Democrat CIA director told 8 Democrats that the CIA lied all throughout the Bush years? And this comes from the NYTimes?

Let's just pretend for a moment that the tables were turned... that I post a story that a Republican Director told 8 Republicans that the CIA lied all throughout the Clinton years and Fox News was reporting this... How hard would you be laughing at me right now?

Probably not as much as I'm laughing at you right now.. considering you bumped a 2 month old thread for it.

[Androidpk]

So PB, you're saying if the current CIA director was a Republican this latest announcement would not have come out? Or would have mattered more?

[radamanthys]

It's an excellent political move. Blame someone who's not accountable.

Pelosi wields political power. The CIA guy is a political appointment. He can look good and indemnify pelosi at the same time. It's far too convenient.

[Parkbandit]

So PB, you're saying if the current CIA director was a Republican this latest announcement would not have come out? Or would have mattered more?

I'm saying it's a bit too convenient that a Democratic appointee is defending a Democratic Speaker of the House... especially after he originally stated that the CIA doesn't mislead Congress. If the current CIA director was somehow a non-Democrat, then perhaps he/she wouldn't have the pressure applied to him/her as it seems to have been brought to bear in this case.

[Androidpk]

Sure it is convenient, and it certainly indemnifies her, I don't think it makes Panetta look good at all though, nor the CIA. Makes them look like they have
their own agenda.

Oh wait.... :D

[Gan]

I always find it funny when one politician says another is lying. I'd like to see more detail to what their definition of lying is, and what was 'lied' about before everyone gets carried away in another Bush impeachment/War bandwagon.

[Parkbandit]

Sure it is convenient, and it certainly indemnifies her, I don't think it makes Panetta look good at all though, nor the CIA. Makes them look like they have
their own agenda.

Oh wait.... :D

How is Panetta looking bad? He blamed it all on Bush! He's pretending to be this guy, riding into town on a white stallion to save the day!

Panetta is clean.. Pelosi is clean.. and only Bush is evil. Win/Win/Win in the Liberal Fantasy Land!!

[Stanley Burrell]

Pelosi obviously exposed the identity of a covert team of Panetta's family-related CIA agents. Who couldn't find a nuclear link to T. Boone Pickens' newly-established windfarms and WMD smuggling.

This whole thing makes me wonder how much shit is going on behind the backs of other people who are doing things behind the backs of more-other people who are doing things behind the backs of people ... without backs.

The invertebrate revolution of the cheated lobster people is nigh.

[Warriorbird]

Stan.... you need to play a lot of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)

the non collectable version.

[Stanley Burrell]

You could patsy so many innocents in Rome just by being a member of the Church and screaming "Illuminatis!" It makes me horny.

Angels & Demons was B-ish, imho, nothing to write home about.

[4a6c1]

So Raven is ClydeR??

I am so confused about my sexuality right now....

:no:

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[radamanthys]

So Raven is ClydeR??

I am so confused about my sexuality right now....

:no:

So.... you're not really a gay man?

[Keller]

There, all better.

P.e.r.i.o.d.s.a.r.e.y.o.u.r.f.r.i.e.n.d.!

[Rocktar]

And you need to pull the stick out of your ass. Gods above, negative rep because you don't like my use of punctuation? You are a cyber stalker and I am going to e-mail the FBI about you, right after I get done laughing so hard I am about to pee over your stupidity. You quote a passage, commenting about my supposed lack of punctuation where, guess what, I USE PUNCTUATION! Epic fail, get a life dude.

PS, spelling, grammar AND punctuation all checked by MS Word 2003.

[Back]

And you need to pull the stick out of your ass. Gods above, negative rep because you don't like my use of punctuation? You are a cyber stalker and I am going to e-mail the FBI about you, right after I get done laughing so hard I am about to pee over your stupidity. You quote a passage, commenting about my supposed lack of punctuation where, guess what, I USE PUNCTUATION! Epic fail, get a life dude.

PS, spelling, grammar AND punctuation all checked by MS Word 2003.

ROFL!

PS. Did I use punctuation correctly?

PPS. This is a good case for parenting.

[4a6c1]

So.... you're not really a gay man?

Fuck it. I'm going to live with the apes.

[Parkbandit]

BTW: If the CIA has been lying to Congress since 2001, I would expect charges to be filed pretty damn quickly since that is against the law.