PDA

View Full Version : General Politics House rejects probe into Pelosi CIA claims


Donger
05-21-2009, 11:45 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98AOBGO0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.

The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the resolution.

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Pelosi told reporters this month that she had not been told that waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects, even though it had been. President Barack Obama and human rights groups have said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is torture.

"To have this charge out there and not have it resolved I think is damaging to our intelligence efforts, and certainly will have a chilling effect on our intelligence professionals around the world," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney also stepped into the debate.

In a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Cheney said Pelosi and other lawmakers had been briefed on the interrogation techniques on "numerous occasions."

"In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists," Cheney said.

Pelosi has asked the CIA to declassify information supporting her claims.

The CIA has sent lawmakers its notes and memos on 40 congressional briefings on the interrogation techniques. But that document has been found to include several errors.

CIA Director Leon Panetta acknowledged in a May 6 letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, that the CIA's list may not be completely accurate.

"In the end, you and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened," Panetta wrote.

Democrats also are pointing out that Republicans too have accused the CIA of misleading them on intelligence matters. Boehner himself called into question the soundness of the intelligence community when it determined in 2007 that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program.

Boehner told reporters on Thursday that it was an unfair comparison because he never accused the men and women of the intelligence community of misleading Congress.

mlyonsd
05-21-2009, 11:47 AM
As Gomer Pyle would say...."Supprise, supprise, supprise".

petegz28
05-21-2009, 11:55 AM
That bitch shouldbe thrown out on her botox

alpha_omega
05-21-2009, 11:56 AM
I find this statement a total joke.....


"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:57 AM
"Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies"

Great move by the democrats to help solidify their position on ethics....

petegz28
05-21-2009, 11:58 AM
"Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies"

Great move by the democrats to help solidify their position on ethics....

LMAO....you put Democrats and Ethics in the same sentence....ROFL

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 12:09 PM
Am I the only one who is getting sick and FUGGING TIRED of listening to this punk apologize for our country?

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 12:50 PM
Am I the only one who is getting sick and FUGGING TIRED of listening to this punk apologize for our country?

No. Actually his approval rating is about 40% if you take all the blacks (who are 99.9 in favor of his policies which obviously tells you it isn't his policies they approve of, it's his skin pigmentation) out of the poll.

KC native
05-21-2009, 01:13 PM
No. Actually his approval rating is about 40% if you take all the blacks (who are 99.9 in favor of his policies which obviously tells you it isn't his policies they approve of, it's his skin pigmentation) out of the poll.

Source?

Donger
05-21-2009, 01:17 PM
No. Actually his approval rating is about 40% if you take all the blacks (who are 99.9 in favor of his policies which obviously tells you it isn't his policies they approve of, it's his skin pigmentation) out of the poll.

49% of whites have a favorable impression. 80% of blacks have the same.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 01:20 PM
Eesh, I wouldn’t want any part in probing Pelosi either. :Lin:

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 01:23 PM
49% of whites have a favorable impression. 80% of blacks have the same.


Obviously skewered even though I think blacks have a higher approval rating of their co-pigmentation.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 02:25 PM
Democrats also are pointing out that Republicans too have accused the CIA of misleading them on intelligence matters. Boehner himself called into question the soundness of the intelligence community when it determined in 2007 that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program.

Boehner told reporters on Thursday that it was an unfair comparison because he never accused the men and women of the intelligence community of misleading Congress.

So Boehner agrees that in fact, the Bush Administration's CIA lied to Congress in the recent past.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-boehner-admits-cia-lied-pete-hoekstra

Blitzer: Last year the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely, an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash, the cover up he alleged involving the CIA, he said these words--"We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress". That's what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.

Boehner: Pete Hoekstra did say that. And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up. This is not, we’re talking about two different issues here. All the facts in this case are on the table and the truth is now known to all of... to everyone.

BLITZER: So, based on what you know on that case involving Hoekstra, the case he was interested in, do you agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?

Boehner: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does and the Inspector General did in fact do an investigation, produced a report and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims. And all we're trying to do here in both cases is to get to the bottom, get to the truth, and the truth is what we want here. And the fact is that CIA Director Panetta issued a very strong letter to Speaker Pelosi making it clear that in his opinion they did not mislead her or lie to her. And so I either want to see the documents or I'd like to see the Speaker apologize.

I wonder why he's not calling for another Inspector General investigation of the facts?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 02:27 PM
No. Actually his approval rating is about 40% if you take all the blacks (who are 99.9 in favor of his policies which obviously tells you it isn't his policies they approve of, it's his skin pigmentation) out of the poll.

Yes, just what we needed. Someone wanting to "take out all the blacks" when discussing public opinion.

WTF???

Donger
05-21-2009, 02:29 PM
So Boehner agrees that in fact, the Bush Administration's CIA lied to Congress in the recent past.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-boehner-admits-cia-lied-pete-hoekstra

Blitzer: Last year the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely, an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash, the cover up he alleged involving the CIA, he said these words--"We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress". That's what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.

Boehner: Pete Hoekstra did say that. And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up. This is not, we’re talking about two different issues here. All the facts in this case are on the table and the truth is now known to all of... to everyone.

BLITZER: So, based on what you know on that case involving Hoekstra, the case he was interested in, do you agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?

Boehner: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does and the Inspector General did in fact do an investigation, produced a report and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims. And all we're trying to do here in both cases is to get to the bottom, get to the truth, and the truth is what we want here. And the fact is that CIA Director Panetta issued a very strong letter to Speaker Pelosi making it clear that in his opinion they did not mislead her or lie to her. And so I either want to see the documents or I'd like to see the Speaker apologize.

I wonder why he's not calling for another Inspector General investigation of the facts?

There's a rather large difference between questioning their intel assessments and saying they are misleading/liars. But you knew that.

Are you disappointed that an investigation of Pelosi's accusation is not going to happen?

wild1
05-21-2009, 02:34 PM
This just boggles my mind: the current line of succession to President:

2. Joe Biden
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Robert Byrd
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Timothy Geithner

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 02:40 PM
There's a rather large difference between questioning their intel assessments and saying they are misleading/liars.

Uhm ... uh ... "We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress"

Now, what's that you were saying?

Donger
05-21-2009, 02:45 PM
Uhm ... uh ... "We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress"

Now, what's that you were saying?

Individual rogues and there was an investigation that showed these rogues lied:

"And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up."

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:01 PM
There's a rather large difference between questioning their intel assessments and saying they are misleading/liars. But you knew that.
You should read my post before responding to it. It had nothing to do with "intel assessments".

Boehner supported Hoekstra's claim that the CIA lied to Congress and admitted that it was ultimately proven true by an investigation by the Inspector General. I continue to wonder why he's not persuing an identical path in this case. IG seemed to be a reasonably non-politicized way to go last time. Maybe taking the politics out is now a problem for him.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:03 PM
... an investigation of Pelosi's accusation is not going to happen?

That sounds like a prediction rather than a fact. Why would you pose it as a fact in your question?

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:05 PM
You should read my post before responding to it. It had nothing to do with "intel assessments".

Boehner supported Hoekstra's claim that the CIA lied to Congress and admitted that it was ultimately proven true by an investigation by the Inspector General. I continue to wonder why he's not persuing an identical path in this case. IG seemed to be a reasonably non-politicized way to go last time. Maybe taking the politics out is now a problem for him.

I don't care if the investigation is done by the IG, as long as it is done.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:06 PM
That sounds like a prediction rather than a fact. Why would you pose it as a fact in your question?

It doesn't seem like the Democrats are going to allow, based on the vote.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:08 PM
Individual rogues and there was an investigation that showed these rogues lied:

"And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up."
And that is different from Pelosi's claim how? Reading comprehension skills might avail you here. At what point did Pelosi claim that the entirety of the CIA has conspired to lie to Congress and cover up? At the time Hoekstra made his comment, he did not specify that he was only talking about certain elements within the CIA, he brushed them as broadly as Pelosi has. It was only later that he qualified his statements that only parts of the CIA were involved in the coverup. Pelosi's "later" hasn't come yet, but you'd have to be pretty dense to read into her statement that she's accusing the entire CIA to a man, just as you'd have had to have been pretty dense to read that into Hoekstra's similar accusation.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:10 PM
And that is different from Pelosi's claim how? Reading comprehension skills might avail you here. At what point did Pelosi claim that the entirety of the CIA has conspired to lie to Congress and cover up? At the time Hoekstra made his comment, he did not specify that he was only talking about certain elements within the CIA, he brushed them as broadly as Pelosi has. It was only later that he qualified his statements that only parts of the CIA were involved in the coverup. Pelosi's "later" hasn't come yet, but you'd have to be pretty dense to read into her statement that she's accusing the entire CIA to a man, just as you'd have had to have been pretty dense to read that into Hoekstra's similar accusation.

Was Nancy referring to an individual with her accusation?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:11 PM
Individual rogues and there was an investigation that showed these rogues lied:

"And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/pelosi-reiterates-didnt-know-waterboarding-use/

"It's hard for me to imagine anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at his weekly news conference.

Apparently not that hard to imagine since...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-boehner-admits-cia-lied-pete-hoekstra

Blizter: ...do you agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?

Boehner: (Yes)... the Inspector General did in fact do an investigation, produced a report and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims (that the CIA lied to Congress)

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:11 PM
Was Nancy referring to an individual with her accusation?

Yes, the briefer.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:12 PM
It doesn't seem like the Democrats are going to allow, based on the vote.

Was this vote every possible way to have an investigation?

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:14 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/pelosi-reiterates-didnt-know-waterboarding-use/

"It's hard for me to imagine anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at his weekly news conference.

Apparently not that hard to imagine since...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-boehner-admits-cia-lied-pete-hoekstra

Blizter: ...do you agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?

Boehner: (Yes)... the Inspector General did in fact do an investigation, produced a report and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims (that the CIA lied to Congress)

Yep, and it turns out he's right (via investigation). The same should take place for Nancy's accusations.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't care if the investigation is done by the IG, as long as it is done.

Repubilcans seem to care.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Yes, the briefer.

Weird. I could have sworn she referred to them as "they" during her PC.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:16 PM
Repubilcans seem to care.

And?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:17 PM
Was Nancy referring to an individual with her accusation?
We don't know which persons she was specifically referring to. You don't either. And if the cover-up she alleges did happen, it's unlikely that she knows who the exact parties are, hence why she wants the details of those briefings declassified. Do you think that Hoekstra knew who the exact agents were who were who orchestrated the coverup when he made his broad accuasation?

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:17 PM
Was this vote every possible way to have an investigation?

It seems that a general investigation is still possible, so that's good.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Yep, and it turns out he's right (via investigation). The same should take place for Nancy's accusations.

So you agree that the feigned outrage at the mere suggestion that the CIA might lie to Congress is ridiculous, and that unfortunately, there is in fact a very real history to question the CIA's truthfulness to Congress, and that such dishonesty is unacceptable when found.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 03:20 PM
49% of whites have a favorable impression. 80% of blacks have the same.

So he's only off by 9%. Well, that's just, uhh, a whole lot.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:20 PM
We don't know which persons she was specifically referring to. You don't either. And if the cover-up she alleges did happen, it's unlikely that she knows who the exact parties are, hence why she wants the details of those briefings declassified. Do you think that Hoekstra knew who the exact agents were who were who orchestrated the coverup when he made his broad accuasation?

We don't know an awful lot, do we?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:20 PM
It seems that a general investigation is still possible, so that's good.

You appear to have been eager to transfer the political gamesmanship within Congress into claims of facts that are otherwise false. Not a good thing to allow yourself to be lead into doing.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 03:20 PM
Obviously skewered even though I think blacks have a higher approval rating of their co-pigmentation.

I see you're revealing your true colors.






pun intended, though it's still a sad statement.

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 03:21 PM
We don't know an awful lot, do we?

Of course we do. Bush lied, people died. /moonbat off

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 03:22 PM
This just boggles my mind: the current line of succession to President:

2. Joe Biden
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Robert Byrd
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Timothy Geithner

THEN GET ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY for the health of our elected President!





:p

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:22 PM
So you agree that the feigned outrage at the mere suggestion that the CIA might lie to Congress is ridiculous, and that unfortunately, there is in fact a very real history to question the CIA's truthfulness to Congress, and that such dishonesty is unacceptable when found.

If Nancy's accusations are correct, then absolutely their should be outrage.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:23 PM
Weird. I could have sworn she referred to them as "they" during her PC.

Let's see who delivered the briefing, maybe there were two briefers.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:23 PM
We don't know an awful lot, do we?
No we don't. Neither do you.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:24 PM
You appear to have been eager to transfer the political gamesmanship within Congress into claims of facts that are otherwise false. Not a good thing to allow yourself to be lead into doing.

Did the Democrats not vote to not allow the special investigation? And, yes, I'm well aware of the politics being played on both sides.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:24 PM
I see you're revealing your true colors.
He's a racist POS. I think everyone knows that.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:24 PM
No we don't. Neither do you.

Correct, neither do you.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:25 PM
Let's see who delivered the briefing, maybe there were two briefers.

It doesn't really matter, considering she was really talking about Bush, anyway. Wasn't that her defense?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:27 PM
Did the Democrats not vote to not allow the special investigation?
No. They voted not to form a bipartisan panel that would take the attention of senators and congressmen away from other issues to conduct the investigation. They didn't bar an investigation from avenues that would not represent a significant burden on congressional manpower, such as the hiring of an independent investigator, as if often the way such things are done.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:28 PM
No. They voted not to form a bipartisan panel that would take the attention of senators and congressmen away from other issues to conduct the investigation. They didn't bar an investigation from avenues that would not represent a significant burden on congressional manpower, such as the hiring of an independent investigator, as if often the way such things are done.

So, they did.

Calcountry
05-21-2009, 03:28 PM
THEN GET ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY for the health of our elected President!





:pIs Geithner 35 years old? No matter, that is just some dumb antiquated rule anyway.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:29 PM
If Nancy's accusations are correct, then absolutely their should be outrage.

Is it right for Repubilcans to pretend to be outraged at the mere suggestion by Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, when in fact there is a very real history demonstrating that the Bush CIA has recently lied to Congress? Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:29 PM
Correct, neither do you.
That's my point, none of us do. So none of us should be acting as if it is a foregone conclusion that she is lying, telling the truth or making a blanket accusation that is intended to impugn the entire agency. And only one of us is doing that, and it isn't me.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:31 PM
Is it right for Repubilcans to pretend to be outraged at the mere suggestion by Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, when in fact there is a very real history demonstrating that the Bush CIA has recently lied to Congress? Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?

Didn't she say that CIA lies to them (Congress) all the time? As in a systemic way?

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:31 PM
That's my point, none of us do. So none of us should be acting as if it is a foregone conclusion that she is lying, telling the truth or making a blanket accusation that is intended to impugn the entire agency. And only one of us is doing that, and it isn't me.

See above. Am I correct in that recollection?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:32 PM
So, they did.
No, they didn't. You asked if they voted not to allow the special investigation. They didn't close the door on the possibility of a special investigation. They simply voted that they aren't going to divert manpower for it, so someone else will have to provide that if they want a special investigation.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:34 PM
No, they didn't. You asked if they voted not to allow the special investigation. They didn't close the door on the possibility of a special investigation. They simply voted that they aren't going to divert manpower for it, so someone else will have to provide that if they want a special investigation.

And is that manpower available?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:39 PM
Didn't she say that CIA lies to them (Congress) all the time? As in a systemic way?
I don't know, did she say that? Do you have a link to her saying that? And even if she did, that doesn't necessarily mean she thinks there is an agency-wide conspiracy to lie to Congress. That's how people talk in America - using sweeping terms to catch their targets, if they either don't know the names of the exact targets, or if there are too many to list. It's the same as when we say that "Congress acted to block the closing of Guantanamo Bay." That doesn't mean that every member of Congress voted to keep it open. Although Pelosi's example is probably more akin to the way we often find ourselves impugning "the right," or "the left," or "libs," or "neocons," because we don't actually know exactly who or how many serve as our example, but we know that by using such sweeping terms we're going to catch the guilty in the net, and most rational people understand the tactic because they do it themselves routinely. It's the vernacular.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:40 PM
It doesn't really matter, considering she was really talking about Bush, anyway.
You should have said this to begin with.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:41 PM
And is that manpower available?
In a nation with a population in the hundreds of millions, what do you suppose are the chances that the manpower is available? It can be done without the senators and representatives having to be the investigators. Ask Clinton. Ask Cheney. Ask Scooter Libby. They'll tell ya.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:48 PM
Didn't she say that CIA lies to them (Congress) all the time? As in a systemic way?
She made a very clear assertion that the briefer(s) in the Sept 2002 meeting lied (mislead) her. The facts of that question stands on it's own.

She then appeared to make a less clear, broader assertion, but the subject of that assertion is less evident.

But whatever the answer to your questions, it doesn't change my questions.

Isn't it wrong for Repubilcans to pretend to be outraged at the mere suggestion by Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, when in fact there is a very real history demonstrating that the Bush CIA has recently lied to Congress? Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 03:51 PM
Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?
Especially since the CIA has already admitted that there are errors in the documents they have already turned over in this case.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 03:55 PM
Especially since the CIA has already admitted that there are errors in the documents they have already turned over in this case.

And Donger's friend on this story, Leon Panetta, refuses to stand by the claims in the CIA's paperwork he presented to Congress. That's the very Panetta that Donger has said he trusts on this issue.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:59 PM
I don't know, did she say that? Do you have a link to her saying that? And even if she did, that doesn't necessarily mean she thinks there is an agency-wide conspiracy to lie to Congress. That's how people talk in America - using sweeping terms to catch their targets, if they either don't know the names of the exact targets, or if there are too many to list. It's the same as when we say that "Congress acted to block the closing of Guantanamo Bay." That doesn't mean that every member of Congress voted to keep it open. Although Pelosi's example is probably more akin to the way we often find ourselves impugning "the right," or "the left," or "libs," or "neocons," because we don't actually know exactly who or how many serve as our example, but we know that by using such sweeping terms we're going to catch the guilty in the net, and most rational people understand the tactic because they do it themselves routinely. It's the vernacular.

I've looked for the exact quote, but haven't found it. Working and CP don't mix very well.

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:00 PM
Isn't it wrong for Repubilcans to pretend to be outraged at the mere suggestion by Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, when in fact there is a very real history demonstrating that the Bush CIA has recently lied to Congress? Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?

It's about as wrong as Democrats being outraged at EIT usage when they knew about it years ago.

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:01 PM
You should have said this to begin with.

Why? You don't buy that, do you?

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:03 PM
And Donger's friend on this story, Leon Panetta, refuses to stand by the claims in the CIA's paperwork he presented to Congress. That's the very Panetta that Donger has said he trusts on this issue.

In the end, Congress will have to decide if the information provided is accurate, yes.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 04:04 PM
It's about as wrong as Democrats being outraged at EIT usage when they knew about it years ago.
The question is whether they knew about it while it was being employed and before it was banned. Pelosi is saying they didn't. Some of you are saying she's lying about that. I'm saying that none of us know what was actually revealed to them and when, and that it is premature for anyone to say she's lying or that the CIA is lying without all the facts being on the table.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 04:42 PM
Why? You don't buy that, do you?

I have no idea what you believe, just what you say. You said it doesn't matter to you. You should have said that begin with.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 04:43 PM
It's about as wrong as Democrats being outraged at EIT usage when they knew about it years ago.

Ummm... no?

That's pretty much the opposite.

That there is no dispute about the practice of EIT doesn't mean that there is acceptance about the use of it, waterboarding in particular.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 04:45 PM
The question is whether they knew about it while it was being employed and before it was banned. Pelosi is saying they didn't. Some of you are saying she's lying about that. I'm saying that none of us know what was actually revealed to them and when, and that it is premature for anyone to say she's lying or that the CIA is lying without all the facts being on the table.

Actually, she said that they told her about their own internal legal authorization to use waterboarding, but that they never told her they were using it, and in fact promised to tell her before using it.

We don't know if that's true, however.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 05:17 PM
"Ask me no questions, I'll tell you know lies"

Great move by the democrats to help solidify their position on ethics....

ROFL That cracked me up!

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 05:19 PM
The question is whether they knew about it while it was being employed and before it was banned. Pelosi is saying they didn't. Some of you are saying she's lying about that. I'm saying that none of us know what was actually revealed to them and when, and that it is premature for anyone to say she's lying or that the CIA is lying without all the facts being on the table.
And you accused me of sounding like patteeu? You crack me up...plus you sound like Cheney, Bush and Clinton.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 05:19 PM
The question is whether they knew about it while it was being employed and before it was banned. Pelosi is saying they didn't. Some of you are saying she's lying about that. I'm saying that none of us know what was actually revealed to them and when, and that it is premature for anyone to say she's lying or that the CIA is lying without all the facts being on the table.
And you accused me of sounding like patteeu? You crack me up...plus you sound like Cheney, Bush and Clinton here. Or a typical politician.

Nightwish
05-21-2009, 05:34 PM
And you accused me of sounding like patteeu? You crack me up...plus you sound like Cheney, Bush and Clinton.
I sound like patteeu, Cheney, Bush and Clinton ... and you ... because I said that until all the facts are on the table, we can't say who is lying and who isn't? Wow, can you point to where patteeu, Cheney, Bush, Clinton ... or you ... have ever taken that particular tack? In fact, Bush and Cheney led us into a war by taking exactly the opposite approach. And you actually criticized me for refusing to predict what would happen with the economy without all the facts known. But by all means, if continuing your little hurt feelings tirade will make you feel better, don't let me stop you.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 06:30 AM
Yes, just what we needed. Someone wanting to "take out all the blacks" when discussing public opinion.

WTF???

Don't you find the disparity between Obama's black support and his white support interesting? We'd probably all be better off if we didn't keep statistics by race, but given that we do, don't results like these stand out?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 06:33 AM
There's a rather large difference between questioning their intel assessments and saying they are misleading/liars. But you knew that.

Are you disappointed that an investigation of Pelosi's accusation is not going to happen?

And beyond that, there's a huge difference between Hoekstra saying they're lying when they were, in fact, lying (and then exposing that lie through an investigation) versus Pelosi saying they're lying and then blocking the investigation that will either support her claim or show that she's the one doing the lying.

HonestChieffan
05-22-2009, 06:34 AM
Don't you find the disparity between Obama's black support and his white support interesting? We'd probably all be better off if we didn't keep statistics by race, but given that we do, don't results like these stand out?


You are in grave danger of being tossed into that ever growing list of folks who are labeled Racist by the Committee for Sanitized Posts. Save yourself before it is too late.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:02 AM
She made a very clear assertion that the briefer(s) in the Sept 2002 meeting lied (mislead) her. The facts of that question stands on it's own.

She then appeared to make a less clear, broader assertion, but the subject of that assertion is less evident.

But whatever the answer to your questions, it doesn't change my questions.

Isn't it wrong for Repubilcans to pretend to be outraged at the mere suggestion by Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, when in fact there is a very real history demonstrating that the Bush CIA has recently lied to Congress? Shouldn't her claims be taken more seriously than to attack her politically for making claims that could very well be true?

Is it wrong for democrats to pretend to be outraged by harsh interrogation techniques that leaders within their own party were repeatedly briefed on. Is it particularly wrong for those democrat leaders to pretend to be outraged? Is it wrong for Nancy Pelosi to pretend that she was misled when her story that she was briefed on the legality of harsh techniques but had no idea that they'd ever be used is so absurd?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:05 AM
The question is whether they knew about it while it was being employed and before it was banned. Pelosi is saying they didn't. Some of you are saying she's lying about that. I'm saying that none of us know what was actually revealed to them and when, and that it is premature for anyone to say she's lying or that the CIA is lying without all the facts being on the table.

She's not saying that. She's saying that she didn't know about the use of waterboarding until early 2003 after she had been replaced by Jane Harman on the intel committee.

jAZ
05-22-2009, 09:39 AM
Don't you find the disparity between Obama's black support and his white support interesting? We'd probably all be better off if we didn't keep statistics by race, but given that we do, don't results like these stand out?
I don't find it interesting at all. High support among blacks for Dems is not remotely unexpected. Gore polled 90% among blacks in 2000. Kerry had 88%. 95% for Obama. 5-7% seems like a pretty reasonable "first black president" boost. I bet a first woman gets the same thing. I'd wouldn't be suprised to learn that McCain's support among POWs was in the 80's.

So unless you find it ineresting that Obama has lost 15% among blacks at this point (assuming 80% is the accurate number)... it's just not interesting.

But my post isn't about "interesting".

Interesting is not a sufficient justification for what is implicit in Shitter's post. That in order to get to the real support figure, you have to disregard the black community entirely.

jAZ
05-22-2009, 09:53 AM
Is it wrong for democrats to pretend to be outraged by harsh interrogation techniques that leaders within their own party were repeatedly briefed on. Is it particularly wrong for those democrat leaders to pretend to be outraged?

I answered this already once. No, there is no dispute about the practice of EIT doesn't mean that there is acceptance about the use of it, waterboarding in particular.

Is it wrong for Nancy Pelosi to pretend that she was misled when her story that she was briefed on the legality of harsh techniques but had no idea that they'd ever be used is so absurd?
I don't know the truth of the matter, but it's not at all absurd to imagine that as part of an intelligence briefing, they were at some point told that certain techniques have been approved. And if they haven't been used yet, they wouldn't say that they had been.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 10:23 AM
I answered this already once. No, there is no dispute about the practice of EIT doesn't mean that there is acceptance about the use of it, waterboarding in particular.

It does with respect to those who were briefed, with the minor exception of Jane Harman who questioned the practice on non-legal grounds.

I don't know the truth of the matter, but it's not at all absurd to imagine that as part of an intelligence briefing, they were at some point told that certain techniques have been approved. And if they haven't been used yet, they wouldn't say that they had been.

Dodge.

http://thegrangeschool.net/blogs/sports/files/2009/03/dodgfeball.png

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:30 AM
Don't you find the disparity between Obama's black support and his white support interesting? We'd probably all be better off if we didn't keep statistics by race, but given that we do, don't results like these stand out?
No more interesting than the similar disparity with Bush.

Bearcat2005
05-22-2009, 10:31 AM
What do you expect, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

FishingRod
05-22-2009, 10:35 AM
Politicians and Spies claiming the other is dishonest. One does have to enjoy the irony.