Pelosi lies about opposition to "torture" [Archive]

mjs

May-12-09, 09:17 PM

Gistok

May-12-09, 11:55 PM

This just in.... looks like some folks have finally admitted that torture was administered under the Bush administration... otherwise why bring it up?? :eek:

Flanders

May-13-09, 01:33 AM

This just in; Documentation that Nancy Pelosi was briefed, more than once, on the status of enhanced interrogation techniques (torture as she now refers to it) but did and said nothing to oppose it dating from 9/02 have surfaced.

Egg on the face? Or worse...an illustration of the lack of a moral compass and corruption?

You are posing this as a question?

Must be due to the fact that you didn't bother to include a link to an unbiased source, but then we should know by now that your compelling arguments and rational thought should suffice.

Mikeg

May-13-09, 04:11 PM

Jon Stewart ridiculed Ms. Pelosi last night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227326&title=waffle-house) on "The Daily Show" for her waffling and shifting explanations about what she knew about the CIA use of waterboarding and when she knew it:

According to Stewart, she has “basically gone from ‘I definitely was not told’ to ‘I was told but they used an auxiliary verb with a slightly more passive mood.”

The fact that Ms. Pelosi has managed to turn this molehill into a mountain is a testament to her incompetence. She wanted to "play politics" with this issue and instead it is exploding in her face. Is she really the best leader the House Democrats can find?

Big Dog

May-13-09, 04:19 PM

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies, like the war etc. You lost, get over it.

Detroitej72

May-13-09, 05:15 PM

This just in.... looks like some folks have finally admitted that torture was administered under the Bush administration... otherwise why bring it up?? :eek:

All too true.

Since Bats started this thread, I guess he finally believes that torture occurred under Bush's watch. With this thread, he has effectively ceded a loose on all the previous threads where he defended Bush and torture.

Congratulation Bats, welcome to the correct side of the argument regarding torture, we knew you'd come around. :cool:

Mikeg

May-13-09, 05:20 PM

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies, like the war etc. You lost, get over it. If you had read my comment closely, you would have noticed that I indicated her lie is turning "this molehill into a mountain", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you perhaps just glossed over that. However, I will not acquiesce to the "get over it" comment. As we heard so often from President Bush's critics, "dissent is patriotic" and I've every right to state my opinion. I do not have to quietly accept incompetence from any elected leader, regardless of their party affiliation.

From the shallowness of your response, I would have to conclude that you are either unwilling or unable to offer any defense of Speaker Pelosi's leadership.

jams

May-13-09, 05:25 PM

Yeppers, it will be fun to watch the convolutions to reconcile the Pelosi accusations and his assertion waterboarding is not torture.

Big Dog

May-13-09, 06:29 PM

Yep, Even pimples dry up after awhile.

Lorax

May-13-09, 07:59 PM

Yep, Even pimples dry up after awhile.

Not on Limbaugh's chapped ass. :eek:

Lferg

May-14-09, 06:36 AM

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/nancy-pelosi/cia-documents-claim-speaker-pelosi-was-told-about-/

Big Dog

May-14-09, 07:37 AM

I'll say it again, "her lie is peanuts, compared to the lies of the Bush administrations". You lost the election and are microbitching now.

mjs

May-14-09, 11:32 AM

But its the same lie! They are supposed to be protecting the Constitution and representing the American people. Not only do I want to not torture fellow humans, I want a government that opposes those that do and follows the laws they write. Torture and the secret rule of law opposes freedom and democracy. We need to stop talking Democrats versus Republican and talk folks of character versus weasels, honesty versus deceit, freedom versus torture. I wanted Bush out for this kind of crap and now I want her out for exactly the same reasons.

What would she have done if the CIA had told her they were killing random American citizens to keep terrorism funding high? Nothing I can do, someone else termed it as classified? Her first loyalty is supposed to be to the American people and the Constitution she swore to uphold.

Islandman

May-14-09, 12:29 PM

microbitching

Awesome! Locking this one in the vault for later use. :)

rb336

May-14-09, 02:21 PM

yep, microbitching is too damn good not to use

Big Dog

May-14-09, 03:01 PM

This just in on yahoo news. Pelosi didn't lie. She was misled by the Bush administration.

mjs

May-14-09, 03:54 PM

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies.

I'll say it again, "her lie is peanuts. . ."

This just in on yahoo news. Pelosi didn't lie.

They absolutely unequivocally did not tell me about the torture.- Old Pelosi Paraphrase

This just in, they did tell me in specific detail about how they believed it was in their power to do it and how they would do everything in their power to stop terrorism. However, I am a politician and I'm not used to working with people that say what they mean. Besides, I thought it would only cause trouble if I threatened that if they did do it, I'd enforce our treaties and laws. As everyone knows, I never liked to challenge statements from the Bush Administration.- New Pelosi Paraphrase

Do you work for Pelosi's PR team? Watch Mikeg's link to the Daily Show.

mjs

May-14-09, 04:22 PM

Man, having this contoversy in the news right now might take the spotlight off of Obama's push to bring meaningful reform to the credit card companies. I know that's the last thing the bankers wanted to see when they gave Pelosi that half a million dollars. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00007360&newMem=N&recs=20

mjs

May-14-09, 06:38 PM

“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. http://www.freep.com/article/20090514/NEWS15/90514076

I can't more emphatically disagree. I fail to see how a letter from the House Intelligence Committee threatening to treat the methods as crimes wouldn't have been every bit as effective as when the President did it. Furthermore, not only can Congress write letters, they can actually write things called laws. She could have even written a law that clarified these specific methods were torture without revealing anything she was told in the meetings. It would have removed every bit of ambiguity as to whether the methods were torture and what would happen to people that used or conspired to use these methods. That would have meant that it would have been easier to jail those that lie to her about using the methods and that the White House memos would have been made useless.

One could even argue the Constitution says her job as a Congress woman is to pass laws rather than getting Democrats elected at all costs. Her job as a member of the House Intelligence Committee was to act as a check on the President's use of the intelligence community. That's its only purpose! Not to have them "notify" her to satisfy her curiosity. Saddam had already claimed the job of bringing a party to power through the approval of torture.

Big Dog

May-14-09, 06:41 PM

Mikeg, Your side lost. How does feel to know you've got at least another 7 and 1/2 more years or better to go. Stop the microbitching and get over it.

jiminnm

May-14-09, 06:51 PM

Mikeg, Your side lost. How does feel to know you've got at least another 7 and 1/2 more years or better to go. Stop the microbitching and get over it.

You're right. It's now the Dems' turn to equivocate and lie.

Lorax

May-14-09, 07:01 PM

Pelosi didn't lie. Period.

This is just another witch hunt by the Repugnican Reich.

They lost, and are about to see heavy duty indictments against Cheney, (hopefully his hateful daughter as well), Gonzales, and the Torture Attorneys.

They though they had an easy target in Pelosi- they have another thing coming.

Mikeg

May-14-09, 08:17 PM

Today at 08:37 AM Big Dog wrote: I'll say it again, "her lie is peanuts, compared to the lies of the Bush administrations". You lost the election and are microbitching now.
Today @ 07:41 PM, Big Dog wrote: Mikeg, Your side lost. How does feel to know you've got at least another 7 and 1/2 more years or better to go. Stop the microbitching and get over it.Your ought to get some professional help for your stuttering problem.

At least you admitted that she lied. However, the real issue here is Pelosi's ability to effectively lead the House Democrats going forward and whether she can get results. I'll say it again, it's obvious that you are either unwilling or unable to offer any defense of Speaker Pelosi's leadership.

Your side lost in the previous elections and that didn't stop your side from incessantly bitching about the issues of the day and making disrespectful remarks about the President. I have stated my case without getting emotional or telling anyone to shut up. So what makes you think that I shouldn't have the right to respectfully criticize a national elected leader?

ccbatson

May-14-09, 09:35 PM

This one is blowing up in their faces, and the implications are bigger than just Pelosi....congress...ALL OF CONGRESS had this information. Those that went on to behave, or flat out say things that gave the opposite impression were lying, and are now covering it up...all for political purposes. Meaning? They agreed with the techniques (by not objecting), and then point a finger at their political opponents for doing the right thing (as they had done, but believed nobody would find out). Watergate was nothing next to this.

mjs

May-14-09, 10:06 PM

Pelosi didn't lie. Period.

This is just another witch hunt by the Republican Reich.

They lost, and are about to see heavy duty indictments against Cheney, (hopefully his hateful daughter as well), Gonzales, and the Torture Attorneys.

They though they had an easy target in Pelosi- they have another thing coming.

You need to understand that both sides understand that she's never going to lose her seat and Cheney will never be indicted because they'd go down together. She's won 11 elections by 75% or more and outspends her opponents by over 4 to 1. Republicans know that the only way to remove Pelosi is in cuffs and that won't happen without Bush folks in cuffs and Dems know that a damaged Speaker of the House will lose more seats than a further damaged ex-President will gain. Hell, none of them are even going to have the moral fortitude to get a bill to the floor that could prevent a recurrence. Why do you think the Bush Administration even told Pelosi? Mutually assured destruction.

ccbatson

May-14-09, 10:07 PM

I wouldn't be so sure about the security of her seat. It is very possible that Obama will throw her under the bus.

Lorax

May-15-09, 09:42 AM

You need to understand that both sides understand that she's never going to lose her seat and Cheney will never be indicted because they'd go down together. She's won 11 elections by 75% or more and outspends her opponents by over 4 to 1. Republicans know that the only way to remove Pelosi is in cuffs and that won't happen without Bush folks in cuffs and Dems know that a damaged Speaker of the House will lose more seats than a further damaged ex-President will gain. Hell, none of them are even going to have the moral fortitude to get a bill to the floor that could prevent a recurrence. Why do you think the Bush Administration even told Pelosi? Mutually assured destruction.

I understand your premise, and originally though as much, too, however, as of now, I believe her when she says she was not made aware of whether or not the techniques were actually being used, only proposed. Bob Graham, former Florida senator has agreed with her, and backed her up publicly, since he was in on these meetings.

Remember, at the time, Pelosi was a ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, though was not made privy to the NSA briefs on the subject, which the White House controlled. Furthermore, she was sworn to secrecy on the content of what she was privy to, and had a fiduciary responsibility to not share this information.

Jane Harmon stepped in to write a brief for the committee stating their objection to any use of such techniques, which legally indemnified the group.

Should she have recused herself, in hindsight, certainly, she should have.

None of this should obscure the fact that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, and any attempts to co-opt democrats is ridiculous, the republicans were in charge, and had a republican controlled congress, and highly partisan justice department, the blame is finally theirs.

Lorax

May-15-09, 10:07 AM

Isn't it time for her to hang up her broom and call it a a done deal? I mean the criminality of our representitives is so in your face and blatant .
They break the law every day and smile in our faces as if they are above it.

I would agree if it was true. However, your wrong about this. I guess you championed the removal of the Bush Crime Family as well when they were out there destroying the country?

rb336

May-15-09, 11:31 AM

I suppose you were right there along with good Ol'Nan when she was being briefed eh?.

She has asked them to release the transcripts of her briefings

And no, I was not championing the removel of the Bush CrimeFamily because there is no such thing .
Maybe you should thank him for being safe all these years instead of your ilk constantly trying to tear down the very people that keep you and yours safe .

you mean those people who ignored a May 2001 briefing book called "Target: America" outlining various Al Qeada threats, who later said "who could have imagined someone using a jet as a weapon" (Condi) even though that was outlined in the briefing, and the cover had a drawing of the towers with a jet heading towards them?

how, exactly, did they keep us safe?

oh, yeah -- the info they got from an al qeada leader during torture that allegedly stopped a terrorist attack in LA. oops -- that thwarted attack was in 2002, the guy the bushies claim to have tortured the info out of -- captured in 2003

mjs

May-15-09, 12:52 PM

Lorax, I agree that none of this should obscure what Bush has done and that it may not have been implemented if a Democrat were in office- Almost certainly not if that Democrat were Obama. However, the Dems are now in charge. What are they waiting on before they amended the law on torture to specifically include the tactics used? I'm mostly con viced they won't ever be authorized by Obama, not at all convinced that an agent that uses them anyway would face charges, and absolutely baffled as to why they'd leave the question of their use open to future administrations. Its not like its the first time we've mistreated folks in time of war- Japanese detention camps.

The CIA honorably did their job when they asked two branches of government if the methods could be used. One said do it or quit, then said if you do it, you might as well quit. The other is still leaving them out to dry. The Dems in Congress owe the CIA an answer better than not today, maybe tomorrow, but don't count on us protecting you if you're ordered to do it.

mjs

May-15-09, 01:20 PM

Maybe you should thank him for being safe all these years instead of your ilk constantly trying to tear down the very people that keep you and yours safe and able to constantly talk trash about those that keep you in that trash talking mode.

Say, I ride public buses for years and never fear and then one bus driver runs a bus into a gas station and kills most everyone on board. If that bus driver blames it on yelling kids, a problem every bus driver faces, and then fixes those kids and others like them by gagging, handcuffing, and chaining them to the floor, did his tactics make him a life saver or did his terrible bus driving skills make him a killer? Wow, since 9/11, Bush has managed to keep us as safe from terrorism as every single one of his predecessors. Well, I mean except for those killed in the 9/11 attack when those that work for him dropped the ball and those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush did not start an Iraq war but he did finish it thank you.

I'm so relieved that our troops are back home now that Bush finished the war in Iraq. What! They're still there and still dying? But, I've heard the the war is finished!

If you are referring to torture, well that does not apply either because these monsters were cannot even be deemed enemy combatants because they represent no sovereign nation at all so the Geneva Convention is out of the window on that one.

For crying out loud, no matter how many times you refute it, I'll say it again, the Geneva Convention itself says that every foreign citizen is covered in one category or another. And once again, torture is also a crime under US statutes. That is why Cheney wants you to say its not torture. Come on, follow the company line.

Flanders

May-15-09, 01:42 PM

Thats another reason why the Obama administration wants to let the public know about the torture but doesn't want to focus on it especially now. He knows that Dems were involved in at least being aware of it and not doing anything The political blowback would not help getting his agenda passed.

How much traction would the Dem minority in Congress gained in the US, had they attempted to blow the whistle on the Bush administration and try to put a stop to the "advanced interrogation techniques" being used by the US military on captured detainees, with the events of 9/11 still so fresh in everyone's psyche, and the invasion of Afghanistan just begun and the invasion of Iraq yet to begin?

They would have been of course accused of being unpatriotic and sympathetic to the "enemy" but to a far greater degree than they still are to this day. With 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, the fanatic terrorist elements of the Islamic faith have an unlimited pool of human resources to recruit from. Unless the US were to begin a systematic and vastly ramped up genocide of Muslims, as was done to native North, Central, and South Americans for 500 years, there is absolutely no chance of "victory" in the war on terrorism...ever.

Conservatives proclaim that the war on terror is defending our freedoms, but there is another and far more formidable and ominous enemy that is a much bigger threat to our freedoms, communist China, whose own "freedoms" are indirectly being defended and who has greatly benefited as well by the blood being shed by our troops and from the vast sums of money being borrowed from them and spent to support and finance it, and their troops have not even suffered a paper cut as a result, nor have they assisted in providing any military support, in the Middle East, while importing oil from Iran, who is their largest supplier, while the US biggest supplier of oil is Canada.

Bobl

May-15-09, 04:37 PM

I am not a supporter of Ms Pelosi, and wish she would just go away, for many reasons. What baffles me is why the same people who criticize her for "not doing anything" about the use of torture ( or "enhanced interrogation techniques") are the same, in many cases, who supported and still support the administration of chickenhawks who were responsible for it. Kind of a straw man debate. If Ms Pelosi is to be condemned when she could do nothing other than speak out, why no condemnation of those who could have stopped it, or never let it happen?

Big Dog

May-15-09, 08:01 PM

Flanders, You are 100% right in your above post. She could not have even brought it up. It may have affected the November election severly. Why is she being made a scapegoat instead of the ones who ordered it and carried it out.

Bigb23

May-15-09, 08:15 PM

Let's see, she was presented a synopsis, by the administration at the time, which we now know was minimized by 100 times, and the Republicans still do not want a review ? You can't have it both ways. Either a full review, and all aspects, or drop it now, and start over.

And please Dick Cheney, you are allowed more than ever now, on you're take on the failing of the Obama administration, of all times.

W.

1KielsonDrive

May-15-09, 08:44 PM

#1. Let's have a complete and independent investigation of the torture, it's instigators and they're 'legal' justifications. As that's happening we can find out who knew what. If Pelosi and others are caught up in it, so be it. But let's not put the cart before the horse. INVESTIGATE TORTURE NOW!

ccbatson

May-15-09, 08:50 PM

Libs...slow down a bit in your knee jerk rush to defend this dirty political manoeuvring on the part of Pelosi. In short order, you will see the Democrats lining up against her as they are currently keeping mum on the subject. Remember also that "congress" was briefed so lots of liberals are knee deep in this mess along with her.

The current CIA director (a Clintonite) shot her down today.

1KielsonDrive

May-15-09, 08:54 PM

The problem with my previous statement is this: An investigation of torture will end up just like the 9/11 Commission Investigation - co-opted and sold out. Zelikow was put on board the 9/11 Commisssion as Director to undermine the investigation and make sure no 'blame' was assigned - just find out what happened, not who screwed up. I'm going to rob a bank tommorrow. I'm hoping for a trial that'll investigate a robbery and not assign blame. I'll then go off quietly in the evening with my ill gotten gains.

ccbatson

May-15-09, 09:03 PM

The issue of torture is not the focus here...Pelosi (as an example of liberal corruption) is.

1KielsonDrive

May-15-09, 09:12 PM

Well CC, you're still alive. I think we may have common ground (oohhh, noooooooo!). The dems ARE up to their knees in it. Regardless, this is a ploy by right wing-nut jobs to deflect attention from the fact they created, instigated and rationalized torture. Now the demicans have to own up to the fact that they looked the other way. Much like they did in the build up to war in Iraq. It's called ENABLING. You know - drunk wife goes out and totals the car. Husband saw her leaving with the keys, knew she was drunk, and ignored her departure. Now, demicans will snipe and point fingers at each other. Republicrats won't do that, they'll just stand up, lie, and point fingers at everyone else, much like they've been doing for decades.

ccbatson

May-15-09, 09:15 PM

Worse than that, reports that the questions asked by Democrats during those briefings basically centered on the issue of whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques could be taken further. Lots of classified material regarding the actual intelligence gained by waterboarding (proving it effective) and who knew, and said what and when is being withheld by....??? Obama of course.....Hmmmm.

1KielsonDrive

May-15-09, 09:20 PM

I would've expected nothing less of you CC. It's not the crime, it's the lie told after the fact ( I didn't do it, even if I was there, they saw me do it, and they didn't squeal on me. But I'm gonna squeal on them and blame them for it now). Hmmmm. Typical neo-con response. I have to admit, I admire you (just a little bit) for your honesty and devious circular logic.

ccbatson

May-15-09, 09:23 PM

First...it isn't a crime...second, IF it were a crime, the Dems are just as guilty.

mjs

May-15-09, 10:42 PM

Kielson, I agree full heartedly on everything you've said except the use of the term squealing. For one thing, I despise that word because it makes it sound like a witness or whistle blower is weak and dishonorable. They're anything but. Second, if a cop witnesses a crime and says or does something, its not squealing. The House Intelligence Committee is the cop. The cop looking the other way is just as bad and its never been a defense to a crime. Anyone that thinks Pelosi didn't do her job as a cop can't do it without admitting that a crime occurred.

ccbatson

May-16-09, 10:15 AM

It was erroneously (well, not really an error, the libs did it on purpose) categorized as torture while they (Dems) all clandestinely (or so they thought) were in favor of the practice.

Lorax

May-16-09, 10:21 AM

I suppose you were right there along with good Ol'Nan when she was being briefed eh?

And no, I was not championing the removel of the Bush CrimeFamily because there is no such thing .
Maybe you should thank him for being safe all these years instead of your ilk constantly trying to tear down the very people that keep you and yours safe and able to constantly talk trash about those that keep you in that trash talking mode.

Finally, I am not aware of any crimes committed by Bush or his administration.
If you are referring to the war in Iraq well, check your facts. We have not left since the first Gulf War and Saddam kept threatening us by shooting at our people doing fly-overs in the North and South safe zones.
So,hence, Bush did not start an Iraq war but he did finish it thank you.

If you are referring to torture, well that does not apply either because these monsters were cannot even be deemed enemy combatants because they represent no sovereign nation at all so the Geneva Convention is out of the window on that one.

But I will give Obama one thing. He seems to be learning the right way and that is COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE FIRST.

Not France , not Mexico, not South America, Not Europe, not Canada but AMERICA and the people that live here.

Pleasure doing business with you.

Typical smug response from a Bush Crime Family apologist.

I could take the time to knock down each and every one of your arguments, but it's been done by me and other ad nauseum.

Suffice to say, we are LESS safe now, have opened Iraq to recruiting Al Quaeda, when they were NOT there under Hussein, and oh, don't forget, 9/11 happened under Tush's watch, since he felt the need to go on vacation rather than read his PDB in August, which Condi Rice was grilled before congress on, and stated that there was an imminent threat from Bin Laden, and mentioned planes, and the WTC as targets. Which proves that Clinton's CIA was doing their jobs well, Tush just allowed it to happen. He needs to be imprisoned for murder.

Richard Clarke also was telling anyone who would listen that Osama was job 1 months before 9/11 and was summarily fired by Tush.

It was more important to co-opt the telecommunications comapanies in Feb 01 by forcing them to data-mine all Americans phone calls, as well as all internet correspondence.

The plan BEFORE Tush took office was to invade Iraq at any cost. And, no we were not there before the invasion/occupation.

Tush had to close the Bin Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia after 9/11, which was the reason we were attacked on 9/11 in the first place. It's also why the WTC was attacked in 93 as well.

You need to do these things to redeem your sanity:

Turn off Brush Lintball
Stop drinking the KoolAid
Start walking upright.

I have a great salve I offer to reformed repugnicans which works great on the knuckles they've been dragging around for years now.

ccbatson

May-16-09, 10:25 AM

Less safe? Any terrorist attacks on US soil since 911? Saddam still threatening his neighbors, Israel, and the US? Taliban still controlling Afghanistan unopposed?

Lorax

May-16-09, 10:31 AM

Wow, you can read.

Yes, LESS SAFE.

Iraq, the war of choice, is now training ground #1 for terror.

9/11 happened under Tush's watch- why is that so hard to understand about that? :confused:

Tush's nincompoopery left us vulnerable, worse yet, they let it happen. Where were the fighter jets? Funny how our nation's capital and New York City did not have ONE fighter jet within 40 MILES. And just on that day. Makes you think. Well, at least those of us who can read, and think for themselves.

Mikeg

May-16-09, 10:32 AM

On May 15 at 10:42 AM, Lorax wrote:
Jane Harmon stepped in to write a brief for the committee stating their objection to any use of such techniques, which legally indemnified the group.Perhaps you ought to read Rep. Jane Harman's letter instead of simply spreading Speaker Pelosi's misleading information. You can read it here (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15164/representative_jane_harmans_letter_to_cia_general_ counsel_muller.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Fpublica tion_list%3Fgroupby%3D3%26id%3D255%26filter%3D2003 ), along with the reply she received from the CIA's General Consul. Rep. Harman only expressed an objection to the proposed destruction of the CIA's videotape of Abu Zubaydah that was made following his capture. Despite Pelosi's claims, nowhere in her letter did Harman raise any objections to the use of any enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

Also in her letter, Rep. Harman inquired as to whether the enhanced interrogation techniques being used by the CIA had been authorized and approved by the President. At the time she wrote the letter, Harman was the ranking Democrat member of the House Intelligence Committee and as noted on the May 14th posting by "mjs", their job is "to act as a check on the President's use of the intelligence community". Rep. Harman has consistently demonstrated that she knows her responsibilities and acted accordingly in the best interests of not only her own constituents but the country as a whole. I wish I could say the same about Rep. Pelosi.

ccbatson

May-16-09, 10:33 AM

Training for what? To be shut down and destroyed by superior force?

mjs

May-16-09, 11:53 AM

Less safe? Any terrorist attacks on US soil since 911? Saddam still threatening his neighbors, Israel, and the US? Taliban still controlling Afghanistan unopposed?

If a bully wants to pick on a kid, is he going to take the bus across town anad go to his house or wait for the kid at school? Why kill Americans abroad when you can kill them where you have the home field advantage? What I'd like to see is for the number of Americans killed by terrorists to return to the pre-Bush era.

I recall that Saddam was able to threathen his neighbors, Israel, and the US because a Republican Administration gave him the most weapons in the area. I also recall the Taliban rise to power occured because a Republican Administration ensured that they had the most US weapons in the area after the US left a power vacuum in Afghanistan.

Of course, to be fair, much like enhanced interrogation techniques, these compromises were made out of the military necessity that existed at that short blip in time. No slippery slope here and no need to ever ever think of the long term consequences of our actions. A torture inquiry could last as much as a full eighth of one President's Administration and destroy the careers of as many as six or seven people. Its just not worth it even if it better defines what Americans are willing to accept from thier representatives.

Big Dog

May-16-09, 11:55 AM

Mikeg, Your picking flyshit again with your loser rhetoric. Yada-Yada-Yada. Got anything better? Get over it.

Mikeg

May-16-09, 12:59 PM

CNN Political Ticker, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/15/pelosi-responds-to-panetta-comments/) May 15, 2009:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded Friday to CIA Director Leon Panetta's public disagreement with her charge that she was misled by the agency on the use of waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques. "We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people," she said in a statement issued by her office. "My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.
"What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward."
Translation:

"Whoops, did I say the CIA lied to me? I really meant to say that the Bush administration conspired to keep me in the dark. Now let's move along, there's nothing to see here except my focus as we move forward!"

Lorax

May-16-09, 07:37 PM

Gee, I apologize for making ONE typo. My grammar and syntax is far cleaner that most people on this thread.

More to the point, you're full of shyt.

Oh, another typo!:eek:

Please, please call me out on it!

Miss Jane indemnified the entire committee by her statement. Bob Graham, and others who were present have backed up Speaker Pelosi. This is just another stupid "gotcha" moment from the Repugnican Reich (this is not a typo).

Speaker Pelosi has called for ALL CIA documents pertaining to this be exposed, and will testify under oath if necessary as to the contents of the meeting- however this is still classified information, and will need to be declassified first. Good luck on that one. If it is declassified, it will be kept from the media, and only admissable in a closed court session due to the sensitive nature of what was said during these meetings. And rightly so.

Dick Cheney REALLY must want jail time over this, he won't shut up.

Lorax

May-16-09, 08:07 PM

Iraq was not a war of choice. As I originally stated we never left Iraq since the UAE called us in to protect Kuwait from the Hussein Crime Family.
I also stated that Saddam kept lobbing missiles at our planes patrolling. He also paid Palestinian terrorists to kill innocents.
Iraq was nothing more than a smart move to centralize our power in the region while we fight these animals on their own land instead of allowing them opportunities to strike us here .
You should at least thank Bush for that. Otherwise you probably would not be on here talking trash but rather vaporized in a dust cloud had those animals had their way.

Now Obama is finally seeing the light and Im glad he is going to continue with Bush's policies on fighting these animals.

P.S. you want to blame someone for 9-11? Look to tricky dick Bill.

He did let Osama go. He also arranged for the release of Mohammed Atta in an Israeli / Palstinian prisoner swap.

Way to go Mr. President. Now you have earned my respect. Showing that you care about America and her people first .

You are so wrong on so many levels.

I guess you didn't read my previous entry, as it is the fact of what happened, your reading of the "facts" are incorrect. And you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Hussein was OUR creation, specifically Reagan and Don Rumsfeld. They sold him the weapons he did have, however, there were no WMD, no matter how you try and spin it.

Hussein was contained, and it was working nicely, thank you very much.

Now Iraq is a training ground for terrorists, thanks to the Bush Crime Family destabilizing the country by ousting Hussein. These people are no more democratically inclined than a dead flashlight battery.

Iraq will end up with another tin-horn dictator, because that is what will work in such a socially backward, politically primitive part of the world. I'm certain Obama is working in finding the right secular strongman dictator right now.

Being that Iraq was a secular country under Hussein, he did not tolerate Islamic extremists in his country, and butchered them when they crossed his borders. Containment of Hussein was the logical way to go forward, not cause an endless war with thousands of dead American soliders asked to die in vain.

Oh, and by the way, it was a perfect opportunity to steal the oil, which is what happened. When you create chaos, you can steal effectively, and so big oil had a friend in George Tush.

mjs

May-17-09, 08:11 AM

Just because Clinton dropped the ball on getting Obama, doesn't mean Bush gets a free pass on 9/11. One person can't cause problems that big. Tom Clancy, one of America's most read authors, wrote a book where a foriegner wipes out the majority of our governemnt by running a large commercial passenger plane into the Capitol Dome during a State of the Union. Yet, the Executive branch creates no plan for such a scenario and FBI counter terrorism never thinks to keep an eye on what suspected terrorists are learning to fly.

I agree with Lorax that we had contained Hussein for the most part and we should have left it at that. The issue was that Bush's Administration wanted him contained and submissive because they feared his boldness and verbal opposition was going to become contagious. However, its disengenious to say Hussein didn't have WMDs. The guy certainly had WMDs at one point, had the knowledge to redevelop them if desired, and had proven he'd use them on anyone other than Americans. They might still be buried out there in the sand somewhere like the jets we found. Trying to find them in a desert nation is literally like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28631

Lorax

May-17-09, 09:09 AM

Clinton did not drop the ball on getting Bin Laden.

Interesting how the repugnican creation of Hussein in the 80's, the politically crafted, unfinished gulf war by another repugnican president, and the failure of today's invasion/occupation by yet another repugnican president is somehow Clinton's mistake.

Typical right wing pass the blame game.

Clinton jailed the blind sheik after the 93 WTC bombing, and developed the intelligence which told the true story of why these freaks want us dead.

Read your history and you'll learn that the entire gulf war was a set-up of Hussein for eventually stealing the oil, getting the Bin Sultan Air Base opened, and settling old political scores.

Hussein agressively invaded Kuwait, we needed to step in, but not before George Tush 41 had CIA intelligence photos doctored to show Hussein's war matriel massing on the borders of Saudi Arabia, which was not the case, only to scare the Saudi's into allowing us to build the Bin Sultan Air Base, which as you know is what we really won in the gulf war.

The Tushies were hoping to get a military stronghold in Saudi Arabia, against the Saudi's wishes and beliefs, and stupidly insisted it be built close to what they consider their holy lands.

This so infuriated Bin Laden, a Saudi religious extremist, that he masterminded the 93 WTC attack.

Clinton developed the intelligence through visionaries like Richard Clarke to hand over to the Tushies in Jan 2001 which stated that getting Bin Laden was job #1, which was ignored completely, since the Tushies had every intention of invading Iraq, long before Georgieboy stole the election. They saw a great excuse in the making by ingnoring Bin Laden.

The Tushies criminally ignored the evidence of the PDB of August, 2001 assembled by the Clinton intelligence people, most of which were still in office at that time, and was even titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and included details of the hijackers whereabouts, including here in Florida, their activities, and the use of planes as a delivery system, and specifically mentioned the WTC as a likely target.

What more do we need to know about the Bush Crime Family's negligence in allowing this to happen in the first place?

Couple this with the purposeful lack of fighter jets anywhere near DC or NY on the morning of 9/11, a direct violation of standard military readiness practice, and you have a conspiracy to kill Americans for an excuse to go to war.

Many still don't believe there is any evidence that the plane over Shanksville, PA wasn't really shot down by military jets at the order of Dick Cheney.

Naturally Bin Laden won, since he's still out there as the "boogey man", held up by repugnicans as a symbol, better alive than dead in their minds. Tush even was on air stating "Bin Laden, I, I, just don't spend that much time on him..."

Oh, and we were forced to close the Bin Sultan Air Base, which is what Bin Laden wanted in the first place.

Add to all of this Tushie's ingoring the political situation in Pakistan, not recognizing Hezbollah as the elected political party in Lebanon, the continued sabre rattling of Iran, and you have what we got, which is a failed foreign policy, and a much more dangerous, unstable world as a result of the cavalier, criminal actions of the Bush Crime Family.

I say open the CIA documents pertaining to torture, another crime, and air this whole thing out. Indictments, convictions, prison time for Bush, Cheney on down. No more blaming low-level reservists who are the ones that ended up in prison over Abu Grahib.

Investigations, convictions, prison time- This is the most patriotic thing Obama can do to put a period on this horridly fascist paragraph in American history.

And the good news for repugnicans is that Tush has great promise for a new career doing recruitment posters for Al Quaeda.

mjs

May-17-09, 05:02 PM

Lorax, your venomous renaming of everything is so profuse that it makes your arguments hard to understand and undermines your ability to persuade. The man's name is George Bush of the Republican party and freaks is a little dramatic. It can make the people you debate feel closed off to your arguments rather than open to them. Look, as a true believer of First Amendment principles, I talk politics because I want to persuade others or be persuaded by them. I care most that everyone, especially myself, leaves better informed. I can be swayed with facts and sources, but not with blank accusations of set-ups, unproven conspiracies, misleading intelligence to allies, and stolen elections.

Your hate for Bush is so intense it blinds you from even doing a sanity check on how your conspiracy theories fit together. We didn't have jets at the air bases in Maryland and Virginia, yet we shot down a plane 150 miles outside of DC? The people that took it down were heros, but Bush lied about undermining his own plan because despite running his campaign on being a 9/11 hero, he didn't want to be a 9/11 hero in this instance?

Clinton had chances to say take out the mastermind of the first WTC attack and he didn't. This is not a opinion. Its a government documented fact so uncontroverted I'll find any legitimate liberal source of your choosing to confirm it. I personally try to get most news from more objective sources like BBC, CBC, or PBS, but I often check with the entertainers to see if they can disprove it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article562390.ece
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline4.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

ccbatson

May-17-09, 06:01 PM

Clinton?? talking about the Bush administration is already moot and out of context with this topic, but Clinton?

Remember that prior to 911, the level of threat posed by radical muslims/Al Qaeda was not what it is post 911.

Lorax

May-17-09, 07:11 PM

I do source my stories from places like the BBC, FTSE, NYT, and other mainstream sources, and take exception with the characterization of my blind hatred for Bush & Cheney.

If you, like me and millions of Americans, had the same clear minded, open observation of what really happened leading up to the point we now find ourselve in, you would have a different perspective.

The idea of collateral damage to the tune of hundreds of lives in order to take out Bin Laden in the late 90's, was the right decision by Clinton at the time. He left the Bushes with all they needed to get Bin Laden with the intelligence assembled by Richard Clarke, and the Bushes chose to ignore it. That is an indisputable fact.

I use the rhetoric to make the point that the fools who lied us into war, illegally wiretapped us prior to 9/11, and all the things mentioned in my previous post, need the outrage focused on them with the same voracity the repugnicans witch hunted Clinton over Monica Lewinsky.

If the tables were turned, the repugnicans would pull every dirty trick in the book to discredit, bugger up, or generally malign any democrat in a similar position. They are the masters at it.

There is no crime in pointing out the frauds and felonies of the Bush administration, or using strong language to describe it, it's my writing style, and that's not going to change.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to taking my point of view, the majority of America feels the way I do, and the facts of what happened back me up. The voters agreed, and proved it last November by relegating the repugnican party to the dust bin of history.

1KielsonDrive

May-17-09, 09:57 PM

mjs, I partially agree with your definition of 'squealing'. I don't think it applies to my post. Of course, I'm being cynical and sarcastic, not to mention what most everyone here at DY knows - I'm a f*#^+ng commie, pinko, faggot. Waaaaaay to the left and proud of it. .

1KielsonDrive

May-17-09, 10:10 PM

We need to keep the correct focus here - torture, which did happen and was conceived, instigated and rationalized by the last administration, MUST be investigated and never happen again. Bush and his corporate pals did it! There's no getting around that. They MUST pay the price. A full investigation must take place and no matter who's caught up in the investigation, republicrat and demican alike, they must pay the price. Refer to my previous comments about the 9/11 Commission. The people involved in all of this are the political monarchs of our country. They'll be investigated and go home to the ranch. Not one of the political monarchy will pay any price for their involvement. But you better believe they'll find more subordinates to scapegoat and convict.

mjs

May-17-09, 11:05 PM

Lorax, if the majority of Americans were clear minded, open, and observant, Bush and Pelosi would have feared the repercussions of allowing torture, Bush wouldn't have been able to trick an almost unamimous majority into a war with Iraq, and other countries would have more respect for us.

ccbatson, the level of threat posed by radical muslims was the highest ever in the months preceding 9/11. Read chapter 8 of the 9/11 Report entitled "The Sytem was Blinking Red".

Lorax

May-17-09, 11:40 PM

MJS, the problem with your premise is you believe Bush & Cheney are rational, fearful people, who had the best intentions for America. They did not. They have shown us the worst in human nature, campaigning as "compassionate conservatives" when there is nothing compassionate or conservative about them. Just as there was no majority or any morals in the Moral Majority.

Cheney, however is fearful now that he's out of power, and clamoring for an audience who will hear it his way. He's contradicted himself, thrown Bush under the bus, Colin Powell as well. There is no making a silk purse out of that sow's ear.

This rogue's gallery of fascist crooks have acted with impunity since before the election in 2000. There was a plan already drawn up, a contingency to go into Iraq, should they win the election. All of this was planned, right down to the idea of letting years worth of intelligence go unused, allowing 9/11 to happen.

As far as any torture memos/meetings are concerned, Pelosi had nothing more to do with this than Mickey Mouse.

People forget she was a ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, as was Jane Harman and Bob Graham, who have backed her assertions up, and not privy to closed-door discussions on whether or not such tactics were actually employed, or going to be employed. In reality they were already being used, even before Pelosi sat in on the first meeting.

The CIA also got the dates wrong when they said they briefed Bob Graham, and corrected themselves after the fact. The CIA has a problem with congress, and historically has operated largely as a shadow government, with high ranking civil servants often retaining their positions for life, much like J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI had done as it's director for 50 years.

Where were the repugnicans in all of this? They keep browbeating Pelosi, so what about the ranking repugnicans who were in the bag for torture? They were the ones with the classified information. Why aren't you yelling for Rumsfeld's head? Wolfowitz? the Torture Attorneys? Condi Rice?Cheney? Ashcroft? All were culpable, and all should be tried on war crimes.

The EU courts have been the only international legal body with the balls to investigate this, and the Downing Street Memos are the next component of this to be investigated by The Hague, which are the written memos between Bush and Blair on how to fix the policy around the pre-determined intent to invade Iraq.

This is fascism, pure and simple. Cheney and the Torture Attorneys have been told not to travel to any EU member nation until this is straightened out, since there is a good chance they'll be arrested on war crimes.

What a shame our justice department can't dispense justice as easily.

I know it's hard to believe the worst of our government, that even our own citizens are potentially at risk to the vagaries of a despotic leader. But I have learned over many years not to trust idealogues. Extremism is something we don't want to believe our elected officials are capable of, but we really went down that road with the Bush Crime Family.

Just listen to Michelle Bachmann, Kit Bond, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Heather Wilson, or any number of right wing fringe lunatics who really haven't a clue as to what the American people think, and don't care. They spout the most socially retarded drivel one can imagine, and have branded themselves a sideshow of largely uneducated, socially inept sycophants.

Bush even believes that the fossil record was placed on earth by the 'devil' to confuse man into believing in evolution. Only an abject idiot believes in religious rot like this.

When I heard this, I nearly fell off my chair. This was a year or so into his first term. I knew we were in trouble after the Supreme Court's appointment of bush as president, which in itself was illegal. Even the briefs mentioned Gore v. Bush was not to be ever used as precendent, and was a one-off decision, never to have any future implications.

Unfortunately for us, the effects of that decision will be with us for several more generations.

ccbatson

May-18-09, 12:01 AM

MJS...that threat level is logical hindsight...not possible in foresight.

mjs

May-18-09, 12:43 AM

The intelligence analysis reports and volume of intel flowing in at the time contradict that claim: "Bin Laden Attacks May be Imminent", "Bin Laden and Associates Making Near-Term Threats", "Bin Laden Threats are Real" and an August 6th Presidential Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". The chapter name is from a Tenet quote summarizing the situation as experienced prior to the attack. The 9/11 Report is long, but the chapter isn't. Its available at your library and an excellent read.

Lorax

May-18-09, 12:50 AM

No, actually they don't contradict.

Ask Richard Clarke- and read his book as well. He was, after all, the one in charge.

I may recommed John Dean's books of late:

Conscience of a Conservative, Broken Government, and Worse Than Watergate.

mjs

May-18-09, 12:56 AM

Lorax, my premise was that when people go off half cocked repeating you're either against us or your for us, lets kill them all, turn the middle east into a parking lot, freaks, towel heads, and numerous other racial epithets, the weaker politicians are going to do something we regret.

Lorax

May-18-09, 12:59 AM

I couldn't agree more. So what's the point?

What you're describing is the kind of rhetoric from Bush followers, and ideed, Bush's own cowboy diplomacy. :eek:

mjs

May-18-09, 01:04 AM

I haven't read Clarke's book yet so correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that he disapproved of how Bush responded to the threat of Al Queada, not that an Al Queda attack was a suprise to the intelligence community. He may have even been arguing that the intelligence resources were too underfunded to learn of the details of a specific attack in time. We had all the pieces of the puzzle in time, we just didn't have enough resources to put the puzzle together prior to 9/11/01.

mjs

May-18-09, 01:06 AM

What Bush rhetoric? I said Clinton missed an opportunity to kill UBL and Bush missed an opportunity to foil his plans.

My point is that the overwhelming majority was saying it. Not just conservatives. I was there. I remember thinking, isn't there any opposition to this?

mjs

May-18-09, 01:31 AM

I was looking for a source to prove the war in Iraq was a bipartisan, but actually found proof I was wrong. 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution. Kerry's whole double-talking I voted against it before I voted for it because we were tricked misled me. And Bush's high mark approval rating were already slipping at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2002-237
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Lorax

May-18-09, 09:27 AM

Actually Clinton didn't "miss" an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, he had the opportunity, and chose not to kill hundreds of other people in the process. The collateral damage would have been too great. It was the correct decision at the time.

In hindsight since 9/11 we see it as a missed opportunity, rather like those who voted for Bush, and not Gore also missed their opportunity. Knowing what we know now, no sane person would have voted for Bush/Cheney in the first place.

Lorax

May-18-09, 09:44 AM

Also, what your stated sources probably don't tell you, is that war was declared by Bush/Cheney on their say-so alone.

Congress was not allowed to declare war, for the first time in our history due to Bush's so-called Patriot Act, which allows the executive to declare war on his intelligence alone, with only a vote of "authorization" from congress necessary.

What the vote that Kerry is slammed for really did was only give the executive the "authority" to declare war under the supposed "temporary" measures put in place by the Patriot Act, which among other things allows for rendering "enemy combatants" to black-site prisons in places like Angola, where "detainees", not prisoners in the usual sense of the word are denied basic rights like an attorney, visitation, and were subjected to torture as we now know.

Wiretapping without court orders (going through the FISA court was the norm for nearly 30 years, and denial of requests was rare) was also a chief tenent of the act, which as we now know was done with impunity as early as Feb. 01, when the Bush Crime Family was wiretapping political enemies as a matter of course, and was data-mining the conversations and computer keystrokes of all Americans, which they have stored in several data collection centers across the country today.

The redrawing of the constitution along the lines of an Imperial President is antithetical to the original intent of the founding fathers. It in itself was allowed by a majority republican congress, and done with impunity. There is nothing about any of this that was legal, as the signing statements Bush added to all bills that crossed his desk and were signed, attest to.

These signing statments were used by Bush more than all presidents combined, and basicially attempt to indemnify his inner circle from being prosecuted from crimes once they leave office.

As I write this, CNN just reported that the republican majority Supreme Court has stopped several lawsuits in their tracks attempting to sue Bush administration officials in civil cases brought against specifically John Ashcroft and several others, by Americans of Arabic descent who were quarantined in a Brooklyn prison after 9/11.

Just another partisan example of how repugnicans have stacked the deck against justice in this country.

mjs

May-18-09, 12:13 PM

If, for the sake of argument, the collateral damage would have been that high, I respect your view, but still disagree with it. Intelligence had already tied him to more than just financing of Aden, Somalia, Manila, other worldwide attack plans, and plans to obtain nuclear material. I think it was Frontline that cited top Clinton sources that said Clinton feared killing Bin Laden in the middle of his impeachment mess because his enemies would say he was just creating a distraction.

As a former defense attorney, I couldn't agree with you more on the myriad of problems that should have been obvious from the Patriot Act's inception. I was hoping the Supreme Court would step in as tempers simmered.

Detroitej72

May-18-09, 05:37 PM

And no, I was not championing the removel of the Bush CrimeFamily because there is no such thing .
Maybe you should thank him for being safe all these years instead of your ilk constantly trying to tear down the very people that keep you and yours safe and able to constantly talk trash about those that keep you in that trash talking mode.

This is the funniest comment made so far by the right. Maybe you guys should thank Clinton for keeping us safe during his term. Unlike Bush and 911, Clinton actually caught the terrorists under his watch, see the first WTC bombing and that right wing radical Timmy McVie.

I still would like to hear more about Bush Sr. dinning with BinLadin's family members on the morning of September 11, though I'm sure Rush, Hannitey, and the righties wont be bringing us that story any time soon.

Lorax

May-18-09, 07:26 PM

I am unaware of any Clinton aides throwing him under the bus for not going through with killing Bin Laden, especially in light of the Lewinsky bullcrap. If there had been a democratically controlled congress at the time, the Lewinsky affair wouldn't have been more than a blip on the horizon. I think Clinton would have welcomed a distraction, but killing hunderds of people would be a crass measure, rather like Bush and his bloodlust.

Repugnicans were hot and heavy with the witch hunt, hiring partisan hack Kenny Starr to do the dirty work.

Time to revisit some of these low-down tactics, turning tables on Big Dick Cheney and his merry band of thieves.

What's gratifying in all of this is the fact that the frauds & felonies of Bush/Cheney, torture, wiretapping, illegal war, stolen elections, voter fraud, evangelical extremism, all represent their legacy, and there's no getting away from it.

Any encyclopedic entry on the past 8 years of terror will have more paragraphs with asterisks than paragraphs of accomplishments. :)

President Sekou

May-18-09, 08:23 PM

I wonder if this whole torture thing actually worked? If it did and it saved hundreds if not thousands of lives would any of you have a differing opinion on the issue? I mean if 9/11 could have been prevented by torturing the shit out of someone you wouldn't do it? I would.

However I imagine this issue will be the new abortion of this era, always debated, never agreed upon, and will continue to happen.

As for Pelosi, yeah idiot move on her part. I love when a hypocrite is exposed especially one as self righteous as this hippie ......... who has been wagging her finger for years at the very thing she knew about. She should definitely be removed as speaker and there should definitely be an investigation as to how deep the hypocrisy goes.

Lorax

May-18-09, 08:40 PM

This is only another Repugnican witch hunt- Pelosi had nothing to do with torture, in fact the Tushies were torturing people months before Pelosi was in on any meetings.

And she was NOT made aware that torture was, or had been used. Period. Where are you people getting your information? Others who were in on briefings by the White House including Bob Graham and Jane Harman back up Pelosi's statements.

There is no smoking gun here, only more deflection by the fathers of lies, the Bush Crime Family.

mjs

May-18-09, 09:45 PM

She was aware of their definition of torture and I hope someone in that position can follow basic logic.

Major Premise: Executive Branch officials state they will do everything in their power to fight terrorism.
Minor Premise: Executive Branch officials state they believe enhanced interrogation is in their power.
Conclusion: Executive Branch officials will fight terrorism with enhanced interrogation.

If she wanted to avoid the conclusion, she had to attack the premise by drafting a law clearly stating that the enhanced interrogation methods are not within Executive power. She didn't do it then and still refuses to do it now still leaving the men and women of our intelligence services between a rock and a hard place.

ccbatson

May-18-09, 09:50 PM

As to whether the interrogation techniques work...CIA documents answering that very question will not be released by Obama.

Detroitej72

May-18-09, 10:00 PM

As to whether the interrogation techniques work...CIA documents answering that very question will not be released by Obama.

Regarding the clown who was water boarded 184 times, I would like to know what information they got on the 184th time that he failed to tell them on the first 183 times.:confused:

ccbatson

May-18-09, 10:02 PM

Ask Obama to release the information then.

Detroitej72

May-18-09, 10:05 PM

Ask Obama to release the information then.

As Chaney said while he was the sitting VP, Its classified, for our protection.

Lorax

May-18-09, 10:13 PM

Sadly, the naysayers on this thread just refuse to accept fact.

Pelosi DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING more than the republicans who were in on the same meetings.

How about going after them first, since they were in control of our government during this time.

Obviously it's more fun to be a partisan hack.

O.K., I'll type the next line in boldface so some of you can better read it:

TORTURE WAS GOING ON MONTHS BEFORE PELOSI WAS PART OF ANY BRIEFING. BUSH'S OWN PEOPLE CONFIRMED THIS.

Pelosi was informed that the Tushies felt they had legal language to carry out 'enhanced interrogation' and would notify those who were briefed IF AND WHEN SUCH TACTICS WOULD BE USED.

And that was the end of it. No confirmation that they had or would employ these tactics. Naturally, they already had employed torture, so in effect, they lied to all the people briefed, including repugnicans.

This story has no traction, and is a clear distraction created by the fascist right to bring down someone who has been labeled by neocon talk radio as "suffering from botox withdrawl" and "too fashionable for her own good" and "part of the lunatic hippie left wing" and "a San Francisco liberal".

And repugnicans want to be taken seriously?

I've said it a thousand times, and you still believe what Lush Bimbo and Hannity the Manatee has to say about it.

Stop drinking the Tush flavored KoolAid, OK?

mjs

May-18-09, 10:17 PM

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Ben Franklin.

I can at least respect the opposition if the argument is simply whether we should pass a law to allow torture it if it gets results, but saying that the exec honestly thought the methods were legit or that Pelosi had no inkling of their intent is another story.

Detroitej72

May-18-09, 10:21 PM

Obviously it's more fun to be a partisan hack.

This story has no traction, and is a clear distraction created by the fascist right to bring down someone who has been labeled by neocon talk radio as "suffering from botox withdrawl" and "too fashionable for her own good" and "part of the lunatic hippie left wing" and "a San Francisco liberal".

The neo-con mouthpieces need something to offer their zombie audiences. When they have nothing, name calling will satisfy their ditto heads who care little for facts.

ccbatson

May-18-09, 10:23 PM

Only the first 2 are personal attacks (albeit true), the last 2 descriptions refer to her actions (and also true)...completely fair game

Lorax

May-18-09, 10:26 PM

Lorax

May-18-09, 10:28 PM

Only the first 2 are personal attacks (albeit true), the last 2 descriptions refer to her actions (and also true)...completely fair game

Oh, there's more where that came from. Pelosi has been raked over the coals by Lush Bimbo for being female, among other things.

In the final analysis, this is another republican freak show distraction without traction.

ccbatson

May-18-09, 10:30 PM

I haven't heard Rush recently, and I doubt you are characterizing his words accurately...what did he say and in what context?

Lorax

May-18-09, 10:43 PM

Don't doubt me, the info was played yes, in Lushies own voice on Keith Olbermann's show tonight.

Old Lushbo was saying something derrogatory about her being a woman, it was in the background. It will play again at 1am if you are interested in getting a little late night catechism. :eek:

mjs

May-19-09, 11:29 AM

There is no passing of any laws regarding torture. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and even though Alberto VonGonzo thought the Geneva Conventions were 'quaint' and antiquated, they are international law which we signed on to.

As a nation, we prosecuted and executed Japanese officers after WWII for torturing our POW's, thus establishing legal precedent for torture being illegal.

There is no question, as all experts in the field of interrogations say, the info obtained from torture is unreliable, and has never been proven to be effective, whereas bringing around prisoners through other means were nearly always effective.

All very excellent rationale for why we should not legalize torture, but none of it stops Congress from passing a law making it legal like some want them to. The Constitution is the only thing that can limit what laws can say, not treaties. Congress would be insane to make it legal thus revoking our agreement to the Geneva Convention, but I wouldn't say its outside of Congressional power. I would say it's outside of the Exec power to do it without a change in the law.

jiminnm

May-19-09, 12:54 PM

All very excellent rationale for why we should not legalize torture, but none of it stops Congress from passing a law making it legal like some want them to. The Constitution is the only thing that can limit what laws can say, not treaties. Congress would be insane to make it legal thus revoking our agreement to the Geneva Convention, but I wouldn't say its outside of Congressional power. I would say it's outside of the Exec power to do it without a change in the law.

This is not correct. Treaties are second only to the Constitution in legal authority. If a treaty is appropriately authorized that contains terms contrary to existing law, the law is overridden. If a law is passed that is contrary to an existing treaty, action must be taken to revise the treaty or the law is invalid.

rb336

May-19-09, 01:47 PM

The left backed these policies just as much as the right did and in all honesty, they were %100 correct in doing so.
At least the right cares about America's safety and not our appearance. But hey, in this pc world we live in I guess we must keep up appearances eh?

god, do you ever listen to anything but right-wing hacks? no, the left did not and does not support torture. Torture has done nothing but supply fake "intelligence" that allowed cheney and the bushies to send 1000s of our kids to die in Iraq and to act as a giant PR campaign driving people to sign up with extremist groups.

If the right in general, and the bushies in particular, really cared about safety and security, they wouldn't have tossed out the "Target America" report as merely a product of the Clinton admin, and they would have acted on it, probably preventing 9/11

Flanders

May-19-09, 04:02 PM

god, do you ever listen to anything but right-wing hacks? no, the left did not and does not support torture. Torture has done nothing but supply fake "intelligence" that allowed cheney and the bushies to send 1000s of our kids to die in Iraq and to act as a giant PR campaign driving people to sign up with extremist groups.

If the right in general, and the bushies in particular, really cared about safety and security, they wouldn't have tossed out the "Target America" report as merely a product of the Clinton admin, and they would have acted on it, probably preventing 9/11

The RW considers anyone who is indirectly or directly in opposition to their core principles to be the enemy, and the "safety and security" rhetoric that they expouse is included, because the more the government spends to ensure their safety and security, the less that there will be available to fund for domestic programs on infrastructure and social programs. Warning about the threat of terrorism.accomplishes more than just one RW goal. The more instability in the world, the better for their domestic agenda.

mjs

May-19-09, 07:13 PM

If a law is passed that is contrary to an existing treaty, action must be taken to revise the treaty or the law is invalid.

If you want to convince anyone, please provide a source.

The left backed these policies just as much as the right did and in all honesty, they were 100% correct in doing so.
Our nation and our peoples safety is at stake and whatever it takes to preserve her safety and ours is just . Not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the majority.

Some reputable polls say you're right: "In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

Some reputable polls say you're wrong: "Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks." http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/polls/torture_poll_040527.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/index.html

All I'm saying is lets write a bill and put it to a vote to really find out. I'll argue against torture, but live with what the majority decides. I won't live with an illegitimate decision by a few people decided in some secret back room regardless of whether they're democrats, republicans, or republicrats.

ccbatson

May-19-09, 10:57 PM

Most recently, Holder is shown on tape as describing torture and that water boarding isn't it...for once, he is correct.

Lorax

May-19-09, 11:50 PM

I see the repugnicans on this thread are choking on their own rationalizations.

If Tush/Cheney or the repugnicans really wanted to keep us "safe" they wouldn't have allowed 9/11 to happen on their watch in the first place. Sorry, ladies, no spinning that one.

Torture is illegal, repugnicans engaged in it. Period.

And as we all know, Nancy Pelosi was not involved, or complicit in any of it.

Even just today, the CIA is admitting flaws in their timelines as to who was informed of what, and when.

Even as reported on cable tonight, the term "enhanced interrogation" wasn't even coined until long after White House briefings where Pelosi was present.

This is important, since the CIA is claiming this as the lead term used as the tipping point in describing what their operatives were doing was torture. They claim Pelosi was told that "enhanced interrogation" was being used, when this term wasn't even in use officially at the time. Again, CIA lying to congress.

This combined with the CIA being incorrect as to the timeline when Bob Graham and Jane Harman were briefed, shows that Bush's CIA under George Tenent was grasping at ways to co-opt Democrats in their little torture scheme, and sorry guys, this amounts to a fart in church.

Redford Kid

May-20-09, 12:33 AM

The CIA putting up a false front,telling lies to Congress.........this is unusual? LOL

jams

May-20-09, 12:41 AM

OK
"Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Constitutional_law

Lorax

May-20-09, 12:49 AM

Hey Jams, guess you've just sent Batts into a fit of apoplexy!:eek:

mjs

May-20-09, 12:53 AM

Each side will continue to make its cause to the public with passion and conviction, but surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
- President of the United States, Barack Obama.

mjs

May-20-09, 01:16 AM

You can't just use part of the Supremacy clause out of context. The paragraph states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Its says that the US Constitution, federal law, and US Treaties trump State Constitutions and State laws. Even in State Courts. It defined the new government as a Federalist government rather than a Confederacy like the one it was replacing.

mjs

May-20-09, 01:43 AM

I found it. Like I had said, the US Supreme Court says the last one rules. "A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."- The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 (1870).

mjs

May-20-09, 02:03 AM

Even as reported on cable tonight, the term "enhanced interrogation" wasn't even coined until long after White House briefings where Pelosi was present.

This is important, since the CIA is claiming this as the lead term used as the tipping point in describing what their operatives were doing was torture. They claim Pelosi was told that "enhanced interrogation" was being used, when this term wasn't even in use officially at the time. Again, CIA lying to congress.

Seriously? If you said that you talked with a friend about "Comerica Park" in early 1998, are you a liar because the name wasn't even choosen until December 1998? She confirms that they told her about the legal opinions regardless of what they called them on that specific date.

rb336

May-20-09, 07:41 AM

why is this even an issue? even if they told her they were going to hook electrodes up to you-know-where, what could she do about it? she has no authority over it and those who are briefed HAVE to sign non-disclusure agreements

Lorax

May-20-09, 08:51 AM

Seriously? If you said that you talked with a friend about "Comerica Park" in early 1998, are you a liar because the name wasn't even choosen until December 1998? She confirms that they told her about the legal opinions regardless of what they called them on that specific date.

Yes, seriously. What's not to understand? You're comparing a ball park to a specific description of torture? Geez.

Yes, she confirms she was told about legal opinions, which the Tushies thought they would have at some future date regarding the use of certain interrogation tactics.

They also said the democratic minority would be informed, kept in the loop, if you will, if and when such tactics would be used.

They were used months before any meeting/briefing Pelosi had, so all of this is just another episode of repugnican freak show theatre.

The words "enhanced interrogation" were not used, as the CIA asserts they were. They are the ones lying here.

There is nothing but bungled timelines, wording, and what one above poster mentions is correct, Pelosi was in no position to do anything more than sign on to Jane Harman's letter of protest against using such tactics, when they came out much later in her briefing.

Again, I ask any repugnican out there to find me some outrage from repugnicans who were briefed on this- they were in the position to do something about it at the time, since it was their president who authorized it. Pelosi was not.

mjs

May-20-09, 11:20 AM

Pelosi was in no position to do anything more than sign on to Jane Harman's letter of protest against using such tactics, when they came out much later in her briefing.

This is our entire disagreement! Everything else is irrelevant fluff. Since I've seen no letters of protest prior to February 2003, I'm fine with calling that the date Pelosi learned that the enhanced interrogation memorandums existed. That is the date legislation should have been drafted. If I were a Judge, I'd say the methods are torture, but the memos themselves are proof that other Judges might disagree. I suspect this ambiguity is a factor in why Obama has not asked for criminal action against anyone.

Legislatures most often respond to this type of scenario with a more detailed law. For example, if I were a Judge, I'd say killing someone while you're driving drunk qualifies as a reckless driving killing with a 15 year sentence, but other Judges might disagree. Consequently, the legislature removed the ambiguity by passing a law making killing someone while driving drunk have all the same consequences as the previous reckless driving law had done. This did not say they felt that prior drunk driving killings didn't qualify as reckless driving killings. I say again, write a clarifying law so future generations don't have to debate what qualifies as torture and CIA isn't put in the middle once again.

Again, I ask any Republican out there to find me some outrage from Republicans who were briefed on this- they were in the position to do something about it at the time, since it was their president who authorized it. Pelosi was not.

Even though I'm an independent, I'll still answer this. Everyone that believed the Bush memos were an inaccurate interpretation of the law should have been working on a new law to remove the ambiguity. If someone believed they were accurate, there was no purpose in doing anything.

Legislative writes the laws, Executive decides how laws effect policy, Judicial settles the disagreements, and CIA follows Executive policy. The CIA is powerless to tell the President he's misunderstanding the law; they can only tell Congress of the interpretation so Congress can sort out it. CIA did its job in telling the Intelligence Subcommittee of the legal opinions. Legislative then asked CIA to do the Executive's job and CIA correctly responded by stating that its a question for the Executive. At that point, Legislative neither clarified the law for CIA nor approached Executive. Stuck between an order from from their boss and an ambiguity from a small group of people in a branch of government not their boss, CIA continued to do their Constitutional duties by following the policy that Executive stated was legal.

Lorax

May-20-09, 06:39 PM

Detroitej72

May-20-09, 08:10 PM

mjs

May-20-09, 08:37 PM

Yeah, but just because the executive says it's legal, doesn't make it so. The problem is you had an entire government, justice department included, which was co-opted by Bush cronies.

Justice is suppose to be independent, as is the CIA.

Justice proved their partianship in the firing of attorneys for political purposes, and Gonzales with his torture memos.

I'm 100% in agreement, even with using the term "cronie", but not with the term "independant". Justice and CIA are part of the Executive and serve at Presdiential discretion. As you allude in the next sentence, "nonpartisan" is a more accurate expectation.

Lorax

May-20-09, 10:25 PM

Anyone else find it funny that Newt is going around on TV and saying Nancy should step down because she can't be trusted? This is the same Newt who made it his mission to persecute Clinton for marriage infidelity, all the while he was having an extramarital affair of his own.

I seem to recall him leaving in disgrace, another fallen right wing hero, victim of his own hypocrisy.

Yeah, it was certainly hysterical! Newt Gingrinch the eternal hypocrite!

He not only was forced out of the speaker's position due to the hypocritical affair, when he's witch hunting Clinton, but he had to pay 300,000.00 bucks in an ethics lawsuit as well.

This guy's the definition of a corrupt politician, who by the way, has no job, and represents no one.

1KielsonDrive

May-21-09, 12:38 AM

#1. Investigate the crime - Torture. #2. Prosecute the people involved. It's that simple. Torture is a crime and must be prosecuted. Whoever gets caught up in the investigation and prosecution, must go to jail. In the Bushie's right wing-nut neo-con world, they should be detained AND tortured indefinitely until confessing, and then executed.

Big Dog

May-21-09, 04:44 AM

Did Pelosi order the waterboarding or try to make it legal?

jams

May-21-09, 08:08 AM

Is she still in office? I think its about time to start a protest to have her removed.

She is not mentally fit to hold that high an office and certainly not fit to lead this nation.
So move to her district, and start a petition.

ccbatson

May-21-09, 09:25 AM

A former oppressed citizen of where Freeofaletall?

Your experience and insight is invaluable to those of us facing similar oppression in the future from the new American radical left Marxists now in power. Please provide said insight as much as possible...and Thank you.

Lorax

May-21-09, 09:48 AM

We just threw the Fascist Repugnicans under the bus in November, we're not going back to an elitist society built only for the super-rich, let's declare war on the middle class crowd.

If you people escaped to Michigan as a refuge from your perception of socialism, you probably made a BIG MISTAKE- you needed to move to TexASS, where your kind is better tolerated.

They're seeking to secede from the US, which is a great idea, perhaps you can all rally around Generalissimo Tush and live your fantasy of endless war and open slavery of the people. Sounds like fascist heaven!

ccbatson

May-21-09, 09:59 AM

You have no idea what Fascism is, or means, do you? it is OK, we will not jump on you too badly. Read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" for a eye opening experience.

Lorax

May-21-09, 10:28 AM

Jonah Goldberg??!! You've got to be kidding, right. LOL!!:eek:

This book was discredited by dozens in the media and book reviewers as well.

Just another well-publicized stack of batcrap, greased along the skids by Evil Uncle Rupert's money. ;)

Goldberg is a regular contributor to Faux News, which says it all.

There is no such thing as "Liberal Fascism" what a joke!

Let's see, today must be Fascist Flavored KoolAid day!

Drink up, mindless automatons! :eek:

ccbatson

May-21-09, 10:29 AM

Same old liberal ploy...erroneously discredit the messenger when you can't cope with or argue against the message. Don't be a sheep, read the book...what are you afraid of?

Until you do, you can't argue in favor or opposition to it.

Lorax

May-21-09, 10:35 AM

I did read the book, O'Batty one.

While sitting down at Border's coffee shop here in Miami- I wasn't about to actually pay for it!

And your old line about attacking the messenger, well, the messenger is only a mouthpiece for the larger evil at work here, and not only has his premise been discredited, but there are factual errors galore in this piece of bird cage-liner.

Go look it up. Independent reviews are everywhere.

ccbatson

May-21-09, 10:36 AM

OK then...let's hear some substantive arguments against the existance of liberal fascism in America today...from you.

Lorax

May-21-09, 10:49 AM

To start with, the last 8 years of death, destruction, pillaging the national treasury, terrorist attacks on our soil, all the doings of the Bush Crime Family writ large.

The expansion of our national debt, from people who are suppose to be conservatives to world record highs.

Certainly I'll agree the repugnican party, which only yesterday voted to label Obama and the democrats as "socialists", are the true fascists in this scenario, based on their 8 year reign of terror.

What's most disturbing, is that repugnicans were going to use as the defense of the Bush Crime Family, the notion that you really can't impeach someone who wasn't elected in the first place!

Repugnican operatives were going to say bush was the appointed president of the country, which he was, which therefore gave him special powers as our first Imperial President.

And then he couldn't be removed through the usual process as well. This is why Pelosi said impeachment was off the table when she became speaker in 06, since it would have been a lengthy legal distraction, and she felt that congress could impede his fascist agenda better than an impeachment trial would have done.

And through all of this, you really think there is such a thing as 'liberal fascism?' I don't think so.

Lorax

May-21-09, 08:01 PM

Freeof Aletall, you should celebrate any liberal who wants to keep American grown Taliban like the Bush Crime Family from shredding our constitution, which I would suggest you read before defending the closest thing we've come to a fascist dictatorship.

Lorax

May-21-09, 08:28 PM

Three thousand Americans would still be around had George Tush read his PDB in August of 2001.

They allowed 9/11 to happen to advance their fascist agenda. They are killers as much as the terrorists are.

You really need to wake up and realize you've been fooled by the garbage you see and read in the fascist media.

They did not keep us safe- 9/11 happened on their watch.

Real Americans don't destroy the constitution to advance ANY policy. It is treason, and punishable by hanging.

The Bush Crime Family is to blame for this, and the republican congress complied. The military commissions act or "Patriot Act" stripped us of our rights, including the one you hold so dear, the freedom of speech.

I did not blog using this language during the Bush Regime. I, like fellow bloggers I know would have had our computers seized, and been imprisoned, as were many of the people I know.

So don't lecture me on free speech, not when any of us can be arrested, imprisoned, and rendered to a black site prison somewhere overseas, and never be heard from again, as has happened to thousands of Americans.

Lorax

May-21-09, 08:52 PM

Typical smug reply from someone who just doesn't get it.

You're blogging out of your league, buddy.

oladub

May-21-09, 08:57 PM

Lorax, I don't understand. Now that you have used the word Constitution (capital 'C') for the first time, please explain why Senator Obama voted to reinstate the Patriot Act (Patriot Act II), supported Bush's wiretapping bill, and then, as President, strengthened President Bush's wiretapping bill. How was Obama supporting the Constitution when he did the same things that you insist made Bush a fascist.

Get a grip Lorax. I criticized Bush when he was President but "they" didn't come and seize my computer. I think it was because there was too much wind being generated around my house by all the black heicopters hovering overhead.

Lorax

May-21-09, 09:59 PM

Me get a grip?

Since when have I been a KoolAid drinker for Obama?

Did I ever say I supported his voting record on these issues?

No.

Obama is no progressive, in case you haven't heard.

He is more in line with republicans of 40 years ago, what the current neocons look to as their visionary leaders such as Goldwater, Reagan, Nixon.

Obama has no intention in stripping away the expanded executive powers created by the Bush Administration. I certainly am more comfortable with Obama having Imperial Powers than I would be with the repugnican reich under Bush/Cheney, but really don't think we need so much power concentrated in one branch of government. One day another fascist like Bush will return to power, and then we're really in trouble.

He may not use them, or use them when necessary, but this is the danger the republicans put us in when they rubber-stamped Bush's endless power grab. All presidents going forward will have the same powers.

Once rights are granted, they are seldom taken away- only in California's prop 8, because, afterall, we should keep boys from kissing in public, it may bring down western civilization as we know it! :eek:

mjs

May-21-09, 10:09 PM

Reagan and Nixon? Really? The same Reagan that said Government is not the answer, government is the problem?

Detroitej72

May-21-09, 10:21 PM

You have to give credit to Bush and all his neo-con chickenhawks who never served in the military. They have succeeded in convincing their loyal ditto heads zombies that they kept us safe, while the worst terrorist attack happened under their watch.

Hey Bush lovers, why wont you tell us more about the close warm personal friendship between the Bush and Bin Ladin family, oh wait, that will destroy your false claims about safety.

Detroitej72

May-21-09, 10:29 PM

Reagan and Nixon? Really? The same Reagan that said Government is not the answer, government is the problem?

The same Reagan who ignored his own words by spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the government, albeit for his own conservative causes.

mjs

May-21-09, 10:47 PM

Touche. Well played Detroitrej72.

Lorax

May-22-09, 10:51 AM

MJS, Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican. His particular brand of republican wouldn't pass muster with today's neocons.

40 years ago, as I mentioned, Reagan, Goldwater, Nixon and their ilk were more in line with Obama than the right would like, and are afraid to admit, since they need a new boogey man to rally against.

Nixon talked to China, sort of like Obama wanting to talke with Iran

Nixon also birthed the EPA, which is a very left-wing position to take.

Reagan headed the SAG (screen actors guild) and was governor of California when liberalism was all the rage, and was considered republican lite, not the hardliner he was considered in the 80's, which compared to the neocon fruitcakes we have now, he'd be considered so far to the left, he'd be wearing a dress (don't tell Giuliani).

mjs

May-22-09, 11:20 AM

rb336

May-22-09, 03:25 PM

Yes and no

no because the reps are still on the path of economic destruction of the labor and middle classes on which ronnie set them years ago, yes because, while religious, ronnie still kept the extremists from having a lot of influence

ccbatson

May-22-09, 05:27 PM

You are mixing definitions up.

Neo cons are statist conservatives where their bad qualities resemble liberal collectivism...a very bad thing.

A Republican is not necessarily conservative.

Conservatism is the best term to use when seeking the ideology where preserving constitutionally limited government and holding individual liberty as the highest value.

Lorax

May-22-09, 06:10 PM

So, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was wrong when he recently said that "The republicans owe its moorings to . . . Ronald Reagan" and then went on to quote Reagan?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=228016&title=Republicans-Look-Forward-&-James-Harrison

Michael Steele is about as stupid as it gets. They worship Reagan when Reagan would have thrown most of them in prison.

I am no Reagan fan, in fact he's probably one of the worst presidents we've ever had for myriad reasons.

But his brand of conservative is a far cry from the freakshow presided over by Michael Steele, the guy put in office so the right can say: "hey, we've got a black guy over here, too!"

mjs

May-22-09, 06:58 PM

Thrown them in prison? The President during the Iran Contra Scandal? I'll give you credit for one thing; you're certainly entertaining.

Lorax

May-22-09, 07:42 PM

You obviously missed the point.:(

ccbatson

May-23-09, 03:27 PM

Actually, Steele is fairly Reaganesque...a bit softer than ideal, but pretty solid for the most part. Even Reagan could have been stronger...but nobody is perfect.

Lorax

May-23-09, 10:41 PM

Reaganesque? You've really fallen off the turnip truck.

Steele is DUMB. Reagan wasn't the brightest bulb in the box either, but at least he could handle a speech.

Steele is the token black man for the Repugnican Reich. Check the polls of whether the black voting population considers Steele one of their own. He fails miserably, and represents no one.

Hey, folks, look over here, we have a black man, too!

4real

May-24-09, 10:02 AM

ccbatson

May-24-09, 04:22 PM

Welcome 4real...please stick around, we need more conservatives.

rb336

May-26-09, 08:12 AM

I can appreciate how Bats likes someone to come up with such dazzling stuners as "FineSlime"

really speaks to their intellectual accumen

torture is torture, whether it is three people or three thousand, or the three hundred million of us who endurred eight years of Bush.

If we are holding OUR way of life out there as an example of a better way, torture isn't exactly a good way to present ourselves

mjs

May-26-09, 09:09 AM

Assuming the terrorists are intermixed with the general population, I wonder if the prison system will be worse for the terrorists. I know child molesters don't do well in prison. I can't imagine what a skin head would do to a muslim that kills women and children and shouts his hate for America. Also not sure what a peace loving muslim would do to help them besides maybe helping them to actually understand the religion.

4Real, I welcome all viewpoints in making the market place of ideas work. With that said, like I've said to many others, your arguments will be more convincing to the more neutral people in the audience if you attack the message rather than the messenger and avoid name calling. Let the other side appear to be the extremists. Besides, you don't want to let the words or actions of others lower the standards you impose on yourself. If its not free from outside influence, its not character.

ejames01

May-26-09, 10:11 AM

What have they done to harm any Jewish people or the U.S. for that matter?

Don't worry. They will find a good home along with the brainwashed Farakhan muslims.
After all, they both want the destruction of Jews ad the U.S.

Flanders

May-26-09, 03:49 PM

THREE islamo freaks were waterboarded under a doctors watch.
Pelosi and a few other democrat maggots knew all about it.
At least they didn't praise allah then chop their heads off like the islamos do to americans.

Now, President Social Worker and Diane FineSlime, wants to close club gitmo and bring the terrorists here were they can recruit more murderers in prison to hate American and then be let out to fuck up your neighborhood.

RW extremists or Islamic extremists....many similarities, few differences...:rolleyes:

The US is not supposed to stoop to torture methods, thus emboldening countries like Russia and or China, France, Italy, Germany ect... to justify their OWN METHODS of torture..(oops.."enhanced" interrogation methods) and indefinite detainment of those that THEY can proclaim to be terrorists who THEY can pronounce as undeserving for treatment as POWs. The US is one of the few nations in the world who has loudly and boldly opposed for decades any mistreatment/torture of any kind by any country of those captured during wars, conflicts, and/or riots or insurrections by their own citizens.

Detroitej72

May-26-09, 05:43 PM

THREE islamo freaks were waterboarded under a doctors watch.
Pelosi and a few other democrat maggots knew all about it.
At least they didn't praise allah then chop their heads off like the islamos do to americans.

I think whats lost in this message, is that 4real has acknowledged that his dear leader Bush used torture.

But then he takes a cue from right wing wackos, and trys to shift the focus to who on the Dem's side may have known about it. This shows his obvious contradiction on his own views, as he is forced to admit his side did wrong in order to slam the opposition.

mjs

May-26-09, 06:14 PM

Detroitrej72, I've noticed the same thing. The Republicans can't bash Pelosi without bashing Bush and the Democrats have a hard time bashing Bush without acknowledging they didn't and still haven't acted on permanently stopping it. Glad I'm Independent and am free to bash them both. Everyone needs to remember the independents and third parties the next time they hit the polls and never ever vote straight ticket.

Detroitej72

May-26-09, 07:55 PM

Well said, Mjs.

ccbatson

May-26-09, 08:03 PM

There is nothing to bash Bush for here. Pelosi however contradicts herself and accuse the CIA of crimes without a shred of evidence

mjs

May-26-09, 08:28 PM

Thanks Detroitej72, but I think batts reinforces the point better than anyone can.

Detroitej72

May-26-09, 08:32 PM

There is nothing to bash Bush for here. Pelosi however contradicts herself and accuse the CIA of crimes without a shred of evidence

I guess you missed the folks who supported her on this time-line.

Besides, I am one slightly left of center person who thinks we need new leadership in the House of Reps. Pelosi is too weak of a leader for me.

While we're at it, we need to get rid of Harry Reid. The man faints at the slightest suggestion of the word filibuster, Democrats need a stronger leader to keep the right wing Reich in check.

ccbatson

May-26-09, 08:34 PM

Check your premises libs ....it isn't torture.

Detroitej72

May-26-09, 08:40 PM

Check your premises libs ....it isn't torture.

That great messiah Chaney has spoken, and ditto heads have parroted the quotes. Therefore a technique that the U.S. Government once declared as torture, is no longer true.

Thank God we don't have an activist vice president anymore!

ccbatson

May-26-09, 08:59 PM

Don't you mean Eric Holder?

mjs

July-08-09, 09:41 PM

You would think the Dems would want to let this go especially if hey have to deal with the CIA in the future. Why wait a month and half to send a five sentence letter?

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_letter_to_panetta.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24722.html

gibran

July-09-09, 02:46 PM

Check your premises libs ....it isn't torture.

I have looked into the mirror and the evil isn't around me it is me...something Dick could say...

There is no soil on this earth that hasn't been soaked with blood of innocents or the tears of the oppressed, however we as a nation at this juncture should not be the ones perpetuating violation of humanity as it should exist...or even exists in international laws...

yes we are up against an evil of unfathomable resolve and tactics, but why give the rest of the populations an indication we are above the laws that we help write.

ccbatson

July-09-09, 04:14 PM

This prescription of yours applies well to law abiding citizens as free individuals, not enemy combatants.

Detroitej72

July-09-09, 06:46 PM

Cheney sure is acting like an enemy combatant, since he is trying to undermined the Obama Administration's efforts in the War on Terror.

Detroitej72

July-09-09, 06:49 PM

BTW, anybody on the right notice that Leon Panetta seems to have vindicated Pelosi today?

mjs

July-09-09, 08:17 PM

All I see is an intelligence director trying to stay out of a partisan circus. Pelosi is as destructive to long term Democrat control as Bush was to long term Republican control. Panetta has worked for two Democratic Presidents and 2001-2004 CIA Director Tenet was appointed by Clinton. I figure she wants to replace Obama, but does she know what party she is supposed to be making look bad?

Republicans on the panel dispute that reading of the director’s comments. They say the meeting was more narrowly focused on one operation.

What’s not in dispute is that Panetta set up the June meetings with the full intelligence panels at his own initiative to correct a lapse in disclosure.

“Panetta didn’t say that the agency misled Congress,” says an official familiar with the matter.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/09/pelosi-panetta-in-new-duel-over-cia-misleading-congress/