Pelosi lies about opposition to "torture"

[ccbatson]

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]

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]

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

[mjs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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, 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]

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

[mjs]

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]

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

[Mikeg]

CNN Political Ticker, 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]

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!

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]

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]

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/news....aspx?id=28631

[Lorax]

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]

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/new...icle562390.ece
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secr...timeline4.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

[ccbatson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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