Pelosi V6.0
-
This is becoming as funny as any sitcom on TV. According to USA Today[^], and Fox News TV, Pelosi who specifically said on Thursday that the CIA misled her and when a reporter asked her if she meant they had lied to her, confirmed that she did, is now saying, "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," Pelosi said in a statement released 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." I think she means that Karl Rove was holding a gun to the CIA briefer's wife's head, threatening to shoot her and waterboard the briefer's children unless he lied to Pelosi while telling the truth to Porter Goss who was also in the room. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I can't wait for Monday and 7.0
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Leave Nancy alone!!!! No one ever told her about the First Rule of Holes... Leave her alone! :((
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Leave Nancy alone!!!! No one ever told her about the First Rule of Holes... Leave her alone! :((
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Leave Nancy alone!!!! No one ever told her about the First Rule of Holes... Leave her alone!
Have you ever thought about making a video of yourself saying that and putting it on U-Tube - maybe bleach your hair first? ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Leave Nancy alone!!!! No one ever told her about the First Rule of Holes... Leave her alone!
Have you ever thought about making a video of yourself saying that and putting it on U-Tube - maybe bleach your hair first? ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Have you ever thought about making a video of yourself saying that and putting it on U-Tube
Yeah, but I was hoping that someone with more talent would do it for me...
Oakman wrote:
maybe bleach your hair first?
Fortunantly for me, my hair bleached itself.... the part that hasn't fallen out yet, that is... :sigh:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Have you ever thought about making a video of yourself saying that and putting it on U-Tube
Yeah, but I was hoping that someone with more talent would do it for me...
Oakman wrote:
maybe bleach your hair first?
Fortunantly for me, my hair bleached itself.... the part that hasn't fallen out yet, that is... :sigh:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, but I was hoping that someone with more talent would do it for me...
Give the Captain some Sativa and I'm sure he'd take on the task.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fortunantly for me, my hair bleached itself.... the part that hasn't fallen out yet, that is
I guess neither of us has Blago's hair. Luckily, we don't have his brains, either. . .or his troubles.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
modified on Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:52 AM
-
This is becoming as funny as any sitcom on TV. According to USA Today[^], and Fox News TV, Pelosi who specifically said on Thursday that the CIA misled her and when a reporter asked her if she meant they had lied to her, confirmed that she did, is now saying, "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," Pelosi said in a statement released 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." I think she means that Karl Rove was holding a gun to the CIA briefer's wife's head, threatening to shoot her and waterboard the briefer's children unless he lied to Pelosi while telling the truth to Porter Goss who was also in the room. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I can't wait for Monday and 7.0
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
It is curious to me how she got so far in politics; she isn't a very convincing liar. Maybe she is harboring some illusion that she has integrity and it rattled her to have it shown so blatantly that she has none. Much different than Bill Clinton...on one hand everyone knew he was a serial liar, but on the other you had to marvel at his delivery.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
This is becoming as funny as any sitcom on TV. According to USA Today[^], and Fox News TV, Pelosi who specifically said on Thursday that the CIA misled her and when a reporter asked her if she meant they had lied to her, confirmed that she did, is now saying, "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," Pelosi said in a statement released 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." I think she means that Karl Rove was holding a gun to the CIA briefer's wife's head, threatening to shoot her and waterboard the briefer's children unless he lied to Pelosi while telling the truth to Porter Goss who was also in the room. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I can't wait for Monday and 7.0
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Let's see now. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang instituted a policy of torture, in violation of the law and civilised standards. What did Pelosi, who neither ordered nor conducted nor advocated torture, do that warrants making her the focus of attention on this? Was it? A. She was told about it. No, that can't be her sin, even if true. B. She didn't violate the law requiring that the content of briefings be kept secret by making public what she was told. Well, a lefty might criticise her for that, but it was a minor transgression compared to those of other players and the non-lefties surely wouldn't think it a transgression at all. C. She didn't make a stern protest to the CIA/Bush. Yeah, like that would have made a difference. D. She knew waterboarding was taking place and subsequently denied knowing about it. Well we have it on the authority of Porter Goss that this is the case and, Goss being the straight shooter that he is, that about settles it for me. Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie? Pelosi has been pushing for a full investigation, which doesn't seem to fit but, heh, she's a flake so you can't read too much into that. So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here. And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...? Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things. And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
John Carson
-
Let's see now. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang instituted a policy of torture, in violation of the law and civilised standards. What did Pelosi, who neither ordered nor conducted nor advocated torture, do that warrants making her the focus of attention on this? Was it? A. She was told about it. No, that can't be her sin, even if true. B. She didn't violate the law requiring that the content of briefings be kept secret by making public what she was told. Well, a lefty might criticise her for that, but it was a minor transgression compared to those of other players and the non-lefties surely wouldn't think it a transgression at all. C. She didn't make a stern protest to the CIA/Bush. Yeah, like that would have made a difference. D. She knew waterboarding was taking place and subsequently denied knowing about it. Well we have it on the authority of Porter Goss that this is the case and, Goss being the straight shooter that he is, that about settles it for me. Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie? Pelosi has been pushing for a full investigation, which doesn't seem to fit but, heh, she's a flake so you can't read too much into that. So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here. And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...? Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things. And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Yeah, like that would have made a difference.
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side. She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
-
Let's see now. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang instituted a policy of torture, in violation of the law and civilised standards. What did Pelosi, who neither ordered nor conducted nor advocated torture, do that warrants making her the focus of attention on this? Was it? A. She was told about it. No, that can't be her sin, even if true. B. She didn't violate the law requiring that the content of briefings be kept secret by making public what she was told. Well, a lefty might criticise her for that, but it was a minor transgression compared to those of other players and the non-lefties surely wouldn't think it a transgression at all. C. She didn't make a stern protest to the CIA/Bush. Yeah, like that would have made a difference. D. She knew waterboarding was taking place and subsequently denied knowing about it. Well we have it on the authority of Porter Goss that this is the case and, Goss being the straight shooter that he is, that about settles it for me. Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie? Pelosi has been pushing for a full investigation, which doesn't seem to fit but, heh, she's a flake so you can't read too much into that. So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here. And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...? Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things. And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here.
Version 6
John Carson wrote:
And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...?
Because she is stupid enough to make herself be.
John Carson wrote:
And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
What are they "buying?" That back in 2002-2004 a lot of Democrats, including some very far left-wingers, knew about waterboarding and approved of it at least tacitly. Back then, George Bush and his administration had every reason to believe that the Congress, including Pelosi, was behind him on this issue. Now in a desperate attempt to get off the garbage scow before it sinks, the rats are pointing a finger at any and everybody else. The only guy I know for sure who was in Congress at the time and made public his absolute opposition to "enhanced interogation techniques" is a Republican named John McCain. No Democrat spoke nearly as fiercely as he did against these practices. So, if this has to be about parties rather than individuals, stop trying to whitewash the Dems - their hands are bloody, too. And that is what the public is buying, much as it might disappoint you they are not as partisan as you are. But then, they have skin in the game and you don't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Let's see now. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang instituted a policy of torture, in violation of the law and civilised standards. What did Pelosi, who neither ordered nor conducted nor advocated torture, do that warrants making her the focus of attention on this? Was it? A. She was told about it. No, that can't be her sin, even if true. B. She didn't violate the law requiring that the content of briefings be kept secret by making public what she was told. Well, a lefty might criticise her for that, but it was a minor transgression compared to those of other players and the non-lefties surely wouldn't think it a transgression at all. C. She didn't make a stern protest to the CIA/Bush. Yeah, like that would have made a difference. D. She knew waterboarding was taking place and subsequently denied knowing about it. Well we have it on the authority of Porter Goss that this is the case and, Goss being the straight shooter that he is, that about settles it for me. Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie? Pelosi has been pushing for a full investigation, which doesn't seem to fit but, heh, she's a flake so you can't read too much into that. So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here. And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...? Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things. And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
John Carson
Because, John, Pelosi has completely blew the lid off what this has been about from the very beginning - pure politics to regain power in D.C. You can keep up the mantra for as long as you like, the truth is that the Bush administration did everything it did with the, nearly complete, support of congress. Pelosi and company then used the very issues they were as culpable of as any republican to stab the republicans in the back with. And now you want to blame the republicans for 'misdirection' after they were so ruthlessly victimized by it? And when you really consider why Pelosi has been hung out on a limb, it is hardly the doing of Republicans. The Obama administration has been behind this from the beginning. Pelosi was the biggest threat the Obama administration faced in Washington D.C., now she has been reduced to a stammering, stuttering fool. She will be replaced by an administration toady so that the real work before us can move forward under a single guideing hand. And leave her alone.... :((
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Let's see now. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang instituted a policy of torture, in violation of the law and civilised standards. What did Pelosi, who neither ordered nor conducted nor advocated torture, do that warrants making her the focus of attention on this? Was it? A. She was told about it. No, that can't be her sin, even if true. B. She didn't violate the law requiring that the content of briefings be kept secret by making public what she was told. Well, a lefty might criticise her for that, but it was a minor transgression compared to those of other players and the non-lefties surely wouldn't think it a transgression at all. C. She didn't make a stern protest to the CIA/Bush. Yeah, like that would have made a difference. D. She knew waterboarding was taking place and subsequently denied knowing about it. Well we have it on the authority of Porter Goss that this is the case and, Goss being the straight shooter that he is, that about settles it for me. Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie? Pelosi has been pushing for a full investigation, which doesn't seem to fit but, heh, she's a flake so you can't read too much into that. So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here. And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...? Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things. And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
John Carson
Oh, and BTW...
John Carson wrote:
Plus the CIA guys say it is true and who ever heard of a spy telling a lie?
Plame.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Because, John, Pelosi has completely blew the lid off what this has been about from the very beginning - pure politics to regain power in D.C. You can keep up the mantra for as long as you like, the truth is that the Bush administration did everything it did with the, nearly complete, support of congress. Pelosi and company then used the very issues they were as culpable of as any republican to stab the republicans in the back with. And now you want to blame the republicans for 'misdirection' after they were so ruthlessly victimized by it? And when you really consider why Pelosi has been hung out on a limb, it is hardly the doing of Republicans. The Obama administration has been behind this from the beginning. Pelosi was the biggest threat the Obama administration faced in Washington D.C., now she has been reduced to a stammering, stuttering fool. She will be replaced by an administration toady so that the real work before us can move forward under a single guideing hand. And leave her alone.... :((
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Pelosi was the biggest threat the Obama administration faced in Washington D.C., now she has been reduced to a stammering, stuttering fool.
I've had the same thought. Is it a conspiracy theory to think that maybe she was the target way back when he first released the pictures?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Pelosi was the biggest threat the Obama administration faced in Washington D.C., now she has been reduced to a stammering, stuttering fool.
I've had the same thought. Is it a conspiracy theory to think that maybe she was the target way back when he first released the pictures?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Is it a conspiracy theory to think that maybe she was the target way back when he first released the pictures?
Well, yeah, but that don't mean it ain't true. What I find most convincing is Leon Panetta's contribution. He is as loyal a Clinton man as there is. You add a little Chicago gangsta rap to that, and I don't think our poor little San Francisco girl ever had much of a chance. Plus, is it really feasible to think that a party as cowed as the republicans are really have the leveredge to so effectively neuter a speaker of the house? I don't think so... And further, consider that all the damage this issue could possibly do to republicans has already been done, whats the advantage to continue to beat them with it? It had to be a more compelling target.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Is it a conspiracy theory to think that maybe she was the target way back when he first released the pictures?
Well, yeah, but that don't mean it ain't true. What I find most convincing is Leon Panetta's contribution. He is as loyal a Clinton man as there is. You add a little Chicago gangsta rap to that, and I don't think our poor little San Francisco girl ever had much of a chance. Plus, is it really feasible to think that a party as cowed as the republicans are really have the leveredge to so effectively neuter a speaker of the house? I don't think so... And further, consider that all the damage this issue could possibly do to republicans has already been done, whats the advantage to continue to beat them with it? It had to be a more compelling target.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He is as loyal a Clinton man as there is.
And if you'll remember, Pelosi started calling for Clinton to drop out very early on. Her choosing sides was one of the first nails in Hillary's coffin.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You add a little Chicago gangsta rap to that
You mean like Rohm who probably knows which of her buttons to push better than anyone else in Washington and who she probably still thinks of as her loyal lieutenant? We may someday find out he's been telling her to get out in front on this and have a press conference every other day. I think it's also telling that the Democratic leadership is so silent - not so much Hoyer who she opposed when he tried to move up to his position but Clyburn who has had his nose in her butt for years and Murtha who was her boy for Majority Leader. Or Larsen as Caucus Chair, or any of the Deputy Whips. . .I have this image of everyone in the House going around doing that nose flick that "the Sting" made famous.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Because, John, Pelosi has completely blew the lid off what this has been about from the very beginning - pure politics to regain power in D.C. You can keep up the mantra for as long as you like, the truth is that the Bush administration did everything it did with the, nearly complete, support of congress. Pelosi and company then used the very issues they were as culpable of as any republican to stab the republicans in the back with. And now you want to blame the republicans for 'misdirection' after they were so ruthlessly victimized by it? And when you really consider why Pelosi has been hung out on a limb, it is hardly the doing of Republicans. The Obama administration has been behind this from the beginning. Pelosi was the biggest threat the Obama administration faced in Washington D.C., now she has been reduced to a stammering, stuttering fool. She will be replaced by an administration toady so that the real work before us can move forward under a single guideing hand. And leave her alone.... :((
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the truth is that the Bush administration did everything it did with the, nearly complete, support of congress.
That is not the truth and it doesn't matter. With support or without it what he did is both criminal and completely immoral. He create a detention and torture apparatus in which hundreds, if not thousands were tortured. Over 100 died while in our custody - several dozen of those have been ruled homicides. We used torture in the manner that it has always been used, from the inquisition to the Soviet show trials of the '30's, to the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge. We did it to extract false confessions. We did it for the purely political purpose of justifying our invasion of Iraq. Let's have a full and open criminal investigation of what happened, who knew what and when. If that brings down Pelosi or any other Democrats, so be it. Of course it is the Republicans that have the most to lose, as a party, they have embraced torture and defend it to this day. They are, in fact, the Party of Torture.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the truth is that the Bush administration did everything it did with the, nearly complete, support of congress.
That is not the truth and it doesn't matter. With support or without it what he did is both criminal and completely immoral. He create a detention and torture apparatus in which hundreds, if not thousands were tortured. Over 100 died while in our custody - several dozen of those have been ruled homicides. We used torture in the manner that it has always been used, from the inquisition to the Soviet show trials of the '30's, to the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge. We did it to extract false confessions. We did it for the purely political purpose of justifying our invasion of Iraq. Let's have a full and open criminal investigation of what happened, who knew what and when. If that brings down Pelosi or any other Democrats, so be it. Of course it is the Republicans that have the most to lose, as a party, they have embraced torture and defend it to this day. They are, in fact, the Party of Torture.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is not the truth
Yeah it is.
oilFactotum wrote:
With support or without it what he did is both criminal and completely immoral.
So is what Lincoln did, and what FDR did, and what Wilson did, etc, etc...
oilFactotum wrote:
He create a detention and torture apparatus in which hundreds, if not thousands were tortured. Over 100 died while in our custody - several dozen of those have been ruled homicides.
lie,lie,lie...
oilFactotum wrote:
We used torture in the manner that it has always been used, from the inquisition to the Soviet show trials of the '30's, to the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge. We did it to extract false confessions. We did it for the purely political purpose of justifying our invasion of Iraq.
No we didn't. We selectively used extremely moderate techniques against a carefully selected and extremely small minority of key mass murderers in carefully managed and monitored situations.
oilFactotum wrote:
Let's have a full and open criminal investigation of what happened, who knew what and when.
Fine with me, but it ain't gonna happen. Your heros have already gotten all the political milage they needed with the help of wacko socialists such as yourself. Now they are going about dealing with the real reasons they wanted back into power and it has nothing to do with fulfiling your anti-conservative blood lust.
oilFactotum wrote:
They are, in fact, the Party of Torture.
blah,blah, blah... So what? The democrats are the party of brutal baby murder!!!! Do you care that human babies are tortured and murdered on a daily basis in your country?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
That is not the truth
Yeah it is.
oilFactotum wrote:
With support or without it what he did is both criminal and completely immoral.
So is what Lincoln did, and what FDR did, and what Wilson did, etc, etc...
oilFactotum wrote:
He create a detention and torture apparatus in which hundreds, if not thousands were tortured. Over 100 died while in our custody - several dozen of those have been ruled homicides.
lie,lie,lie...
oilFactotum wrote:
We used torture in the manner that it has always been used, from the inquisition to the Soviet show trials of the '30's, to the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge. We did it to extract false confessions. We did it for the purely political purpose of justifying our invasion of Iraq.
No we didn't. We selectively used extremely moderate techniques against a carefully selected and extremely small minority of key mass murderers in carefully managed and monitored situations.
oilFactotum wrote:
Let's have a full and open criminal investigation of what happened, who knew what and when.
Fine with me, but it ain't gonna happen. Your heros have already gotten all the political milage they needed with the help of wacko socialists such as yourself. Now they are going about dealing with the real reasons they wanted back into power and it has nothing to do with fulfiling your anti-conservative blood lust.
oilFactotum wrote:
They are, in fact, the Party of Torture.
blah,blah, blah... So what? The democrats are the party of brutal baby murder!!!! Do you care that human babies are tortured and murdered on a daily basis in your country?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah it is.
Prove it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So is what Lincoln did, and what FDR did, and what Wilson did
Even if this fantasy of yours was true, it changes nothing. What Bush did is criminal and immoral.
Stan Shannon wrote:
lie,lie,lie...
I can just see you scrunching your eyes shut, holding you hands over your ears and shouting. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
No we didn't. We selectively used extremely moderate techniques against a carefully selected and extremely small minority of key mass murderers in carefully managed and monitored situations.
You are living in a fantasy world to believe that. Again, even it were true, even that is criminal and immoral. And in both your version and mine, torture failed. Actually, in my version, they succeeded - they got plenty of false confessions.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fine with me
Glad to hear it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So what?
That says it all. X|
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you care that human babies are tortured and murdered on a daily basis in your country?
They aren't.
-
John Carson wrote:
Yeah, like that would have made a difference.
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side. She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
Rob Graham wrote:
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side.
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
Rob Graham wrote:
She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
If she was briefed, then the normal thing for a committed opponent of torture to do would have been to object, I agree. She is still a minor player in this. On the question of whether she was briefed, I have an open mind. Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed. Is it likely that the Senate committee wasn't briefed but the House committee was? Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse. Who knows. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363[^]
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
So let's accept it as fact that Nancy is offering some revisionist history here.
Version 6
John Carson wrote:
And this makes her the central story on the torture issue because...?
Because she is stupid enough to make herself be.
John Carson wrote:
And the "liberal media", in the first instance, and the public in the second buys it time and again.
What are they "buying?" That back in 2002-2004 a lot of Democrats, including some very far left-wingers, knew about waterboarding and approved of it at least tacitly. Back then, George Bush and his administration had every reason to believe that the Congress, including Pelosi, was behind him on this issue. Now in a desperate attempt to get off the garbage scow before it sinks, the rats are pointing a finger at any and everybody else. The only guy I know for sure who was in Congress at the time and made public his absolute opposition to "enhanced interogation techniques" is a Republican named John McCain. No Democrat spoke nearly as fiercely as he did against these practices. So, if this has to be about parties rather than individuals, stop trying to whitewash the Dems - their hands are bloody, too. And that is what the public is buying, much as it might disappoint you they are not as partisan as you are. But then, they have skin in the game and you don't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
What are they "buying?" That back in 2002-2004 a lot of Democrats, including some very far left-wingers, knew about waterboarding and approved of it at least tacitly. Back then, George Bush and his administration had every reason to believe that the Congress, including Pelosi, was behind him on this issue. Now in a desperate attempt to get off the garbage scow before it sinks, the rats are pointing a finger at any and everybody else. The only guy I know for sure who was in Congress at the time and made public his absolute opposition to "enhanced interogation techniques" is a Republican named John McCain. No Democrat spoke nearly as fiercely as he did against these practices. So, if this has to be about parties rather than individuals, stop trying to whitewash the Dems - their hands are bloody, too. And that is what the public is buying, much as it might disappoint you they are not as partisan as you are. But then, they have skin in the game and you don't.
Many liberals made plain their absolute opposition to torture. And it was Democrats, not Republicans, who led the push to pass legislation requiring that the Army Field Manual define the standard for treatment of detainees. Did some Democrats turn a blind eye to torture? Very likely, though the facts on briefings are murky (see my reply to Rob Graham). Many Democrats went along with a whole lot of stuff from Bush, from giving him authorisation for the Iraq War, to supporting the Patriot Act and giving Bush support over domestic spying. There is still a big difference between initiating and giving effect to policies, on the one hand, and failing to oppose policies on the other hand. It would be great if the Congress consisted entirely of strong-minded, highly principled people, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. In the meantime, accepting that the principled politician is the exception rather than the norm, I think that the active promoters of bad policy are the ones deserving of most attention. The way politics is played at the moment encourages the absolute minimum of accountability. Someone on one side does something wrong. They then immediately look around for someone on the other side who might have a less than perfect record. They then make an argument that both sides are to blame, so let's just drop the whole thing. The media and the public tend to buy it and there is no accountability. Whatever Pelosi is guilty of, let her pay the price
-
Oakman wrote:
What are they "buying?" That back in 2002-2004 a lot of Democrats, including some very far left-wingers, knew about waterboarding and approved of it at least tacitly. Back then, George Bush and his administration had every reason to believe that the Congress, including Pelosi, was behind him on this issue. Now in a desperate attempt to get off the garbage scow before it sinks, the rats are pointing a finger at any and everybody else. The only guy I know for sure who was in Congress at the time and made public his absolute opposition to "enhanced interogation techniques" is a Republican named John McCain. No Democrat spoke nearly as fiercely as he did against these practices. So, if this has to be about parties rather than individuals, stop trying to whitewash the Dems - their hands are bloody, too. And that is what the public is buying, much as it might disappoint you they are not as partisan as you are. But then, they have skin in the game and you don't.
Many liberals made plain their absolute opposition to torture. And it was Democrats, not Republicans, who led the push to pass legislation requiring that the Army Field Manual define the standard for treatment of detainees. Did some Democrats turn a blind eye to torture? Very likely, though the facts on briefings are murky (see my reply to Rob Graham). Many Democrats went along with a whole lot of stuff from Bush, from giving him authorisation for the Iraq War, to supporting the Patriot Act and giving Bush support over domestic spying. There is still a big difference between initiating and giving effect to policies, on the one hand, and failing to oppose policies on the other hand. It would be great if the Congress consisted entirely of strong-minded, highly principled people, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. In the meantime, accepting that the principled politician is the exception rather than the norm, I think that the active promoters of bad policy are the ones deserving of most attention. The way politics is played at the moment encourages the absolute minimum of accountability. Someone on one side does something wrong. They then immediately look around for someone on the other side who might have a less than perfect record. They then make an argument that both sides are to blame, so let's just drop the whole thing. The media and the public tend to buy it and there is no accountability. Whatever Pelosi is guilty of, let her pay the price
John Carson wrote:
And it was Democrats, not Republicans, who led the push to pass legislation requiring that the Army Field Manual define the standard for treatment of detainees.
Which is strange because the Army Field Manual I remember already defined those standards. :confused:
John Carson wrote:
Many Democrats went along with a whole lot of stuff from Bush, from giving him authorisation for the Iraq War, to supporting the Patriot Act and giving Bush support over domestic spying.
A lot of the country did. I was a time when we needed desperately to come together. There's no fault attached to having done so - or to later having decided that Bush went too far. What I view with great contempt is the acts of people like Pelosi who try to rewrite history by claiming that she never did what it is obvious she did, and now wish to conduct witch hunts aimed at people who she once supported.
John Carson wrote:
There is still a big difference between initiating and giving effect to policies, on the one hand, and failing to oppose policies on the other hand.
Sorry, but that isn't true. At least in this country. Accessories before and after the fact are considered guilty of the same crime. These niceties of motivation belong in church or college beer hall, not in a court of law.
John Carson wrote:
Whatever Pelosi is guilty of, let her pay the price for it
I think that's happening. As I said to Stan, it appears that her fellow Democrats are deserting her faster than the Republicans did Larry Craig - and with more reason, I suppose.
John Carson wrote:
They then immediately look around for someone on the other side who might have a less than perfect record.
As you say, that's the way politics is played. However, the Republicans did not reopen investigations into Clinton's malfeasance in spite of the fact that none of them had contributed to his getting blow jobs in the oval office or lying to a grand jury under oath. There is also a time to let bygones be bygones - which Pelosi and some of her equally rabid supporters seemed unwilling to do. The concept that what is sauce for the ganders (the Pres and the first in line of succession) is also sauce for the goose (the second in line) sets very appropriate. Y
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side.
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
Rob Graham wrote:
She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
If she was briefed, then the normal thing for a committed opponent of torture to do would have been to object, I agree. She is still a minor player in this. On the question of whether she was briefed, I have an open mind. Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed. Is it likely that the Senate committee wasn't briefed but the House committee was? Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse. Who knows. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
And, of course, She has never leaked information that she was not supposed to reveal? Even if she had felt bound by her oath (something I doubt) it is a matter of record that her protests to the CIA have stopped them from carrying out missions already under way. You suddenly seem strangely naive about the way American politics works.
John Carson wrote:
Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed.
I knew from the moment Corrazine (Now governor of NJ, then on the Intelligence Committee) went on TV (right after the pictures were released) to announce that he never - ever- knew, suspected or even considered that the CIA used waterboarding (even though no-one had asked him about it) that this issue would see a number of Senators and Congressmen lying through their teeth about what they knew and when they knew it.
John Carson wrote:
Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse.
The CIA is simply defending itself - something Pelosi did not count on. They have already let slip that they have detailed notes about what happened at the briefings in question. All that needs be done is the memos be declassified like the original pictures that started this firestorm were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin