Newt Gingrich on Nancy Pelosi. (Audio at the link.)
UPDATE: CIA Director Leon Panetta attacks Pelosi:
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the C.I.A. was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.
Posts
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»Is it even possible to "dishonor Congress" anymore, what with the culture of corruption we've seen in action over the years? I'm not sure the Speaker calling the CIA liars even rises to an investigative offense anymore.
Just finished listening to this as you posted.
Newt sounds pretty angry and rightfully so. It's very clear that Nancy Pelosi is lying her face off (the one she had lifted just last week!) and her political career is going down in flames.
Thankfully she funneled some money to her husband as part of the "reinvestment" nee "rescue" nee "bailout". She'll never have to work again!
12:12 PM
I think the Speaker of the House shouldn't be speaking about National Security matters.
If this results in Nancy losing her next election, I'm all for it.
1. prove it.
2. Newt speaking on honor and honesty....ohhhhhboy.
3. I guess Newt wasn't born when Nixon was president??
"ahhhh sweetie, i know you have cancer and all that...but ya' see, i've got this new honeypie.....ya' understand where I'm coming from?
for chirstsakes, was Cheney too busy and Newt had to fill in?
ya'betcha.
Newt seems to be throwing out several arguments, so let's take them one by one:
I agree with Newt. When the CIA told Nancy Pelosi they were torturing suspects, why didn't she protest at the time? Her ability to protest lapsed.
I agree with Newt. When the CIA told Nancy Pelosi they were using "enhanced interrogation techniques," it was her duty to probe and find out what the hell they meant by that.
I agree with Newt. When the CIA told Nancy Pelosi that they were waterboarding suspects, it was her duty to research international law to find out if waterboarding was a forbidden torture technique.
I agree with Newt. The Bush administration consistently lied to Congress and to the American people, and it was Nancy Pelosi's duty to uncover the truth behind the lies.
That San Francisco liberal signed off on torture! If she just would have spoken up, we would have stopped!
Newt should get a pseudonym to write under and other than that disappear.
What I want to know is can the speaker of the house make a charge like that – that an agency lied to the congress and not have it lead to an investigation?
Nothing?
What’s the Justice Department for again?
Newt just joined the Roman Catholic church. So he's officially sorry for all his sins now.
Pelosi lied.
Her hair is dyed.
The truth's inside her Botox hide.
Gingrich tried to wound her side
but she just slides.
She slippery slides with wounded pride:
Bush lied!
That's her reprise.
An endless guise.
What I want to know is can the speaker of the house make a charge like that – that an agency lied to the congress and not have it lead to an investigation? The Speaker of House can and has lied like that.
Congresscritters are rarely held accountable for their harsh rhetoric.
Look at Murtha and the Haditha Marines. Has he taken back one word of the lies he told about them?
Pelosi has been lying since she took the office of speaker.
Remember all of her rhetoric about doig business in a new, open and bi-partisan manner.
Nancy's definition of bi-partisan? My way or the highway.
Former law student... newt confirmed that the bush admin lied
Well played FLS. Unfortunately, Newt never said the Bush administration lied. The nuance has eluded the Left again.
Just remember - it's never the crime, it's the cover-up. Had Pelosi come out and said, "yes, I was briefed on waterboarding and I said nothing because I thought it was the right thing to do at that time", she would not be in the morass that she's found herself in. She cannot say that though because her supporters will abandon her.
So, she's going to tie herself in knots trying to find a way out.
When is someone going to get control of the CIA?
Isn't it obvious that CIA plays off the various parties and branches of government against each other for its own interests?
Can Obama please clean house over there?
Oh. No big deal. *sigh*
To quote myself: "Nancy Pelosi is a weasel. A transparent weasel. So transparent you can see she's full of shit and has no guts."
And that's all I have to say about that.
1. prove it.
2. Newt speaking on honor and honesty....ohhhhhboy.
3. I guess Newt wasn't born when Nixon was president??
Prove what? There are two possibilities based on what she has said:
1. She knew the interrogation techniques had been approved for use and did nothing to stop it or to officially document her disapproval, then tried to make political hay about it after the fact.
2. She knew that the techniques were already being used, did nothing to stop it or officially document her disapproval, then tried to make political hay about it while lying about what she knew.
Does the evidence allow for any other interpretation? The only question is whether she is merely a hypocrite or a hypocrite and a liar. I think that was Newt's point.
Do his or Nixon's past transgressions mitigate Pelosi's conduct?
Please don't say that she was powerless to do anything about it before she started whining.
What puzzles me the most is that Pelosi thought the CIA was just going to sit back and take it. They know what they told her. Did she really think they weren't going to get that information out?
Original Mike: Probably not, but she believes that the majority of the voting public doesn't care. Is she right?
"Trivial Politicians"
In Congress! Aren't they all?
Pelosi could always use the "depends on what the word is, is" defense. That always works.
There is blood in the water.
Newt got tossed because he helped toss Wright.
Pelosi helped toss Newt.
Now Newt wants to make sure he gives Pelosi some of her medicine.
The GOP is in free fall.
Between Newt, constantly second guessing Obama on every front, from suggesting we literally shoot down the Korean missile last month to never engaging those with whom we disagree, the GOP is setting itself up for a loss of another 20+ seats in the 2010 election.
Then of course, you've got Dick Cheney, a man lugging around a 19% approval rating, showing up on every news show he can find, spouting the same mix of distortions, lies and fear mongering he can conjure up.
And if you think this is just a liberal's point of view you're dead wrong. Even his own party wants him to shut the fuck up and go away:
A National Journal poll of top GOP political insiders and strategists finds that Republicans believe former Vice President Dick Cheney has hurt the party since leaving office.
And of course you've always got the fat man, spewing forth with his daily racist and bigoted tirades that "entertain" his average 65 year old audience of "dittoheads."
I've asked the locals who the leader of the GOP is time and again...and nobody apparently knows or has the guts to even float a name.
As for throwing Pelosi under the bus, saying she was "dishonering Congress" by saying the CIA lied...maybe you should take the time to review a few other cases of them doing just that:
1. Richard Helms, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from 1966 to 1973 was the only director to have been convicted of lying to Congress over Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) undercover activities.
2. Barry Goldwater, A REPUBLICAN, who at the time was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, testified that the CIA LIED TO HIM about mining the harbors of Nicaragua.
Newt never said the Bush administration lied.
Can Newt not present a single coherent argument that would support a conclusion of Pelosi's perfidy? Is that too much to expect from a PhD in history?
All I heard was a bunch of emotional blather.
Pelosi has asked for ALL memos and correspondence be released.
Let's hide and watch...
Darcy: Alas, most of the public doesn't care, but if I were her I'd be much more concerned about her democratic rivals in the House.
Does the evidence allow for any other interpretation?
Did the CIA explain that they were torturing the suspects? Did they fully brief Pelosi? My impression was they relied on harmless sounding euphemisms, leaving out the unpleasant history of waterboarding.
Newt said it was Pelosi's duty to probe the CIA. Why?
The issue is what did Pelosi know and when did she know of necessary and completely legal interrogation techniques!
Wow! The Ging-grench hit her right between the eyes based on her being a serial liar about how we are fighting the ongoing war with Moslem Guerrila Forces. He seems to feel, as he always did, that the Speaker of the House is also a part of the Administration and should be called out for deliberate lies to the American people. Poor Pelossi. She has never had to tell the truth about a thing in her political career in Marin County and the Demonrat Party. It may be too late for her to claim political asylum in the USSR.
Considering the faith being shown the CIA...anybody care to explain this:
WASHINGTON — The CIA first asked top Bush administration officials for permission to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in May 2002, three months before the Justice Department approved the simulated drowning technique, according to a newly declassified narrative of legal advice Bush administration lawyers gave to CIA.
The damning criticism of Pelosi didn't start with Newt nor are the merits discounted by his participation. If you want to give her a pass because of Newt's past actions (or Nixon's @!@$) then you're intellectually bankrupt. Most people have reached a conclusion well before now, its not that complicated.
"Newt said it was Pelosi's duty to probe the CIA. Why?"
Exactly.
And how would she have done so?
A letter?
This is nothing more than another GOP smokescreen to detract for their ineptitude, the Bush administration and CIA's distortions and lies.
Right. The only people who tell the truth are Democratic "leaders" and Obama. Let's get that straight. Everyone else lies and has no credibility. Do not question this.
Simple.
Children: What do you mean why did Pelosi have the duty to question the CIA? She was on the oversight committee for the CIA. Don't you understand what that means? IT WAS HER DUTY TO PROBE AND TO ASK, particularly since she was the ranking member. That was why the CIA was briefing her and the other committee members.
Please, we know the usual refrain of "BusHitler" and "Bush lied, people died." Let's take the Left's German analogy one step further then: Pelosi knew, or had reason to know, what BusHitler and his minions were doing. Yet she stayed quiet, or purposefully did not ask, and now she lies about what she was told, or what she did not ask even though she had the authority and responsibility to do so. Hmm. Did those types of actions absolve Germans who knew of Hitler's crimes, and did nothing? It's your analogy, play it out....
Interesting blog article here for those who haven't followed the simple plan I mentioned above.
"Children: What do you mean why did Pelosi have the duty to question the CIA? She was on the oversight committee for the CIA."
Yeah. I make a point of ignoring Lucky, but I have to say, that was a real knee slapper.
Pelosi has asked for ALL memos and correspondence be released.
How courageous! Of course the material relating to her briefing has already been released. Could this be another red herring?
Did the CIA explain that they were torturing the suspects? Did they fully brief Pelosi? ....
Newt said it was Pelosi's duty to probe the CIA. Why?"
Pelosi does not contend that she was unaware of approval of waterboarding as an EIT. The issues are clearly stated in my post at 1:04. Do you disagree? On what basis?
Pelosi now claims to be an opponent of torture and was then ranking Dem on the Intel Committee and, since 2006, Speaker of the House. If it was not her duty to probe the CIA on this issue, what the hell was her duty? To whine to the news media?
The people in this thread who think they are defending Pelosi by attacking Gingrich, Bush, or any other Republican are seriously misinformed.
This guy has a good point -- the CIA, either because it is desperately frightened for its own future or because it is not particularly frightened by the Speaker, is fighting back with the truth. What a novel defense! Kudos to them.
As an aside, I notice that key Democrat politicians are finding themselves fighting back against conservatives who are not going to be running for office (e.g., Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney & good ol' Rush Limbaugh). Coincidence? Or is there a serious strategist behind the scenes? It reminds me of the Soviet Cold War strategy of forcing the US to fight against surrogates like the North Koreans and North Vietnamese (which worked a lot better for us when we forced them to deal with our surrogates in Afghanistan).
Will the honorable Speaker resign? Let me rephrase that: will the bitch resign? Her crazy eyed kisser says no.
"It's very clear that Nancy Pelosi is lying her face off"
True.
"and her political career is going down in flames."
Far from clear and most likely completely incorrect. Her party is not looking like it is going to lose power any time soon thanks to the ineptness of the GOP, and she's in a very safe district. On top of it, her grassroots love her despite and sometimes because of her lying.
She's going to be around for a long, long time, health permitting.
IT WAS HER DUTY TO PROBE AND TO ASK, particularly since she was the ranking member.
The CIA is not to be trusted, got it.
Pelosi does not contend that she was unaware of approval of waterboarding as an EIT. The issues are clearly stated in my post at 1:04. Do you disagree? On what basis?
Pelosi now claims to be an opponent of torture
Conservatives, you can't have it both ways. You argued (actually, Yoo argued) that waterboarding is not torture. You can't argue now that waterboarding is torture.
Nancy Pelosi's only fault, apparently, was not realizing the CIA was lying to her.
"When the CIA told Nancy Pelosi they were torturing suspects, why didn't she protest at the time? Her ability to protest lapsed."
Look folks, let's get something straight: If the CIA told Nancy Pelosi they were tortoring suspects, then Nancy Pelosi's obligation was to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to report a crime.
It is not her obligation to "protest." If the Speaker of the House of Representatives is aware of criminal action being conducted by the CIA, her obligation is to report those crimes to the proper authorities.
Nancy Pelosi was, by her own admission, complicit by her silence.
I, for one, don't believe that the CIA tortured anyone. But if they did, and they informed Nancy Pelosi of this fact, her obligation was clear.
Her obligation was the same obligation that a principal has if that principal discovers that a teacher is molesting a student.
The principal is required by law to call the fucking police.
Nancy Pelosi's obligation was no different.
Mark Twain had Pelosi nailed
Conservatives, you can't have it both ways. You argued (actually, Yoo argued) that waterboarding is not torture. You can't argue now that waterboarding is torture..
Actually, in this case we can have it both ways. There's nothing inconsistent about claiming that waterboarding is not torture, but when responding to Pelosi who is pushing to prosecute the previous Administration on the grounds that it is torture, pointing out that she knew of it all along and did nothing about it.
But if they did, and they informed Nancy Pelosi of this fact, her obligation was clear.
I doubt the CIA told Pelosi they were torturing suspects. But I don't understand how Pelosi could be at fault for not speaking up at the time, otherwise.
Again, Pelosi is being held responsible for not stopping the excesses of the Bush administration. Do Republicans really want the spotlight turned on the past eight years?
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the Newtster. Oh to be able to vote in Nancy's district.
Conservatives, you can't have it both ways..
Sure you can! We didn't torture and if we did torture it wasn't torture because Pelosi was probably briefed about it after we waterboarded a guy 80 times before we may have briefed her about it. Or something like that. And just because it was highly classified it doesn't mean she couldn't have run to the NYT where we would have called for her to be hung for treason.
Do Republicans really want the spotlight turned on the past eight years?Like it isn't already? I say bring it on. Start by releasing the memos Cheney is calling for. Let's let the people decide if they accept what the previous administration did in their attempt to prevent another attack.
All of this is in response to the democrats attempt at persecution of the previous administration. That's what make's this so delicious. To the extent that Pelosi is in hot water, she's the one who turned on the stove.
There's nothing inconsistent about claiming that waterboarding is not torture, but when responding to Pelosi who is pushing to prosecute the previous Administration on the grounds that it is torture, pointing out that she knew of it all along and did nothing about it.
Pelosi allegedly was notified about waterboarding by the CIA in the fall of 2002. The "waterboarding = torture" connection wasn't made until the "torture memo" scandal broke in 2005 at the earliest.
You know, if Pelosi had just had the stones to stand up in public for what she had done in private, she wouldn't be in this mess.
It's pretty obvious they didn't think waterboarding was torture when no one but them had heard of it, but then they believe they can turn around and buy cheap grace by blaming it all on the President when the actions become unpopular. Fie on her.
FLS, is your assertion that she only thought it was torture because someone else said it was? That she wasn't intelligent enough to make up her own mind?
I don't take your point, FLS. Pelosi need a memo for her to decide waterboarding is torture?
Big Mike said...
"This guy has a good point -- the CIA, either because it is desperately frightened for its own future or because it is not particularly frightened by the Speaker, is fighting back with the truth."
Prove it Mike. Prove it.
It's pretty obvious they didn't think waterboarding was torture when no one but them had heard of it, but then they believe they can turn around and buy cheap grace by blaming it all on the President when the actions become unpopular. Fie on her..
EXACTLY.
Damn Blogger's new formatting messed up the link.
Trying this again.
Check out Senator Kit Bond in response to Pelosi on MSNBC-
Video .
His point is-
Why would the CIA give briefings about something they intended not to do?.
[linked by centralcal @Maguires]
***......Look at these shiny keys. No, not over there, over here..... Their shiny aren't they.....keep looking over here....***
Scotter Libby went jail for lying to a grand jury.
Whoever lied to Pelosi should go to jail.
Would it be too much to pressume Pelosi knows who lied to her?
Notice Pelosi is not naming names... yet.
(pts.. maybe she dosent have any)
:-)
Why would the CIA give briefings about something they intended not to do?
While I agree that Pelosi is lying and putting her own interests ahead of the country's, the "why would something pointless and irrelevant be said in a Congressional hearing" defense is not a particularly strong one. :)
Why would the CIA give briefings about something they intended not to do?.
I saw that. Apparently Senator Kit Bond knew the CIA was torturing suspects and did nothing.
is your assertion that she only thought it was torture because someone else said it was? That she wasn't intelligent enough to make up her own mind?
Did the CIA tell Pelosi waterboarding was simulated drowning? Did the CIA tell Pelosi that, as Sen. Edward Kennedy said in 2006, that the US punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II"?
I don't think Pelosi knew what the hell waterboarding meant. It doesn't even sound like torture; it sounds like something you do behind a towboat on a lake in the summer.
FLS wrote: Pelosi allegedly was notified about waterboarding by the CIA in the fall of 2002.
"Allegedly?" "Allegedly?"
Pelosi has acknowledged that she was told about waterboarding! What exactly is your standard of proof?
You're starting to sound like that moron hdhouse with his "prove it" BS. Even if your some dumbass Kos kid here on assignment, you could argue with some integrity.
And if anyone would recognize drowning, it would be Teddy.
Try this on for size.
Pelosi is saying that a Clinton appointee – the then CIA director George Tennet – signed off on a lie to the congress.
There are so many holes on Pelosi's story you could fly the shuttle with the Hubble hooked up and have plenty of room to spare.
When I read the title quote I read it as to mean... what ever the Speaker of the House says becomes the truth.
What else does "can" mean?
Pelosi has acknowledged that she was told about waterboarding!
What was she told? What knowledge did she come away with from that briefing?
There are so many holes on Pelosi's story you could fly the shuttle with the Hubble hooked up and have plenty of room to spare.
This is certainly true. She has to get her story straight after seven years.
FLS wrote: I don't think Pelosi knew what the hell waterboarding meant.... [I]t sounds like something you do behind a towboat on a lake in the summer.....
But gee, this was a briefing about "enhanced interrogation techniques," not summer vacation. And Pelosi is the Speaker, third in line for the presidency, not some hayseed who just fell off the turnip truck.
I think she may be dumb as a rock; far to stupid to be in her present position. That probably wasn't the point you were trying to make though, was it?
I don't think Pelosi knew what the hell waterboarding meant.
LOL. Of all the lame excuses out there, this one is probably the most plausible.
Too bad she didn't pick this excuse a couple years ago and stick with it. No one believes her because her story keeps changing.
***......Look at these shiny keys. No, not over there, over here..... Their shiny aren't they.....keep looking over here....***.
Yea, where is Moveon.org when you need them ;)
I don't think Pelosi knew what the hell waterboarding meant. It doesn't even sound like torture; it sounds like something you do behind a towboat on a lake in the summer..
Stop digging, FLS.
Revenant-
Well....
I'm thinking by the time you reach the top members, the most senior members of the House, you'd better have your stuff together.
Kit Bond makes a second point-granted the CIA might not be the brightest of lights but why would they lie to a very senior member of the House?
The House which has a large say about their funding?
Pelosi and the other Democrats in the House would have plenty of leverage to-make them pay for that.
The guys I know they are constantly having to shuttle back and forth to DC-it's always about a scramble for funding.
"Big Mike said...
"This guy has a good point -- the CIA, either because it is desperately frightened for its own future or because it is not particularly frightened by the Speaker, is fighting back with the truth."
Prove it Mike. Prove it."
This stuff from the Agency would not have got out without Panetta's approval. Life-long Democrat becomes CIA tool in one short month?
Not likely. Yeh, sure. Keep flailing ,libs
Well can we at least get a law passed to bar Nancy Pelosi from giving yet another excuse as to why she didn't speak up about waterboarding???? I just want her to go away, forever.
"I don't think Pelosi knew what the hell waterboarding meant. It doesn't even sound like torture; it sounds like something you do behind a towboat on a lake in the summer."
In which case she had an obligation to ask for clarification.
Assuming she cared what the CIA was doing to prisoners or in any way took her job seriously on that committee.
Why is it that when someone has a (D) after their name they suddenly become powerless, no matter what office they hold? Are we supposed to believe that poor little Nancy Pelosi had no power to do anything even *before* she became Speaker?
It was the same with Murtha... he was helpless, powerless, no influence at all to oversee and ensure that what he'd heard about Haditha was faithfully investigated... so he had to take it to the press, to the public, to get that power behind him.
It was the same with Karpinski, the darling of the anti-war left, who was powerless, utterly, to oversee Abu Ghraib, even if it was her job to do so, scape-goated for something she had no power or responsibility for, and who, despite being a General (at the time) knew of (as she said *afterward*) of rapes and of deaths by dehydration of female soldiers because they were to afraid to drink water and have to pee at night and was helpless to do a thing about it.
Lem-
Good point- I think George Tenet is the longest serving director of the CIA in history or if not that recent history.
If they do appointments to the top positions like other bureaucracies Tenet had the most influence in who was hired, and promoted within the Central Intelligence Agency -I would think.
It's a likely probability that it is full of entrenched Democrat bureaucratic types.
I know what happened to Pelosi.
We have the video.
Just about the time they were going to tell her about waterboarding her phone rang and she had to leave the room take the call.
Yea, that’s it... That’s the ticket.
FLS-
Kit Bond says that the CIA is pretty good at doing briefings-
They come prepared with big poster boards and everything...and they even let you ask questions!
Lem: Or, she could use the "I drank too much iced tea, so I was in the bathroom" excuse. It worked for Gore.
The speaker is suffering from a very peculiar case of amnesia that is only triggered by the word waterboarding.
I think Althouse might be interested to learn this is a new scientific discovery ;)
In fact is so new the speaker is the only victim known to science.
Wow... listened to it.
Who did they have doing the interview? "What about our values?" He sounded shell-shocked.
Synova-
Check out the Kit Bond video at the link I left up thread.
Tell me what you think about it.
I only read the transcript of Gingrich-now I'm going to have to go listen to it.
FLS said: "...as Sen. Edward Kennedy said in 2006, that the US punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used..."
Ooo...don't go there. Mentioning Ted Kennnedy and (simulated) drowning in the same sentence. Minus 15 Loyal Liberal Points for you, FLS.
"Do Republicans really want the spotlight turned on the past eight years?"
You're goddamned right we do!
I'm a Republican, and I want every single criminal in the Congress to be arrested for all the crimes that were committed in the past 8 years, past 16 years, past 50 years, or any other time.
If the CIA tortured suspects, as Nancy Pelosi claims, then I want all the co-conspirators who were complicit in that crime arrested, starting with Nancy Fucking Pelosi.
Barack Obama has ordered our military to use Predator drones to kill people in Pakistan that he claims are terrorists - even though he knows women and children who are not terrorists will also be killed in these attacks.
This is an action the Congress has not authorized. We are not at war with Pakistan. The UN has not autorized the United States to make war on people living in Pakistan.
And that makes Barack Obama a war criminal. I want him arrested next.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner committed multiple counts of felony tax evasion while working for the World Bank. I'd like him to be arrested next.
Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson committed a crime when they forced nine CEO's of the nation's largest banks into a room, and held them there against their will until they signed documents granting the Federal government preferred shares in their banks. That's called kidnapping and grand theft.
I'd like them arrested too.
Employees of the Securities and Exchange commission routinely are trading stocks on insider information - a crime. I'd like every employee of the SEC trading in stocks with insider information of SEC activities to be arrested as well.
In short, to answer your query: Yes, I'd like for all these government officials to be investigated, arrested, tried and then jailed - regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
Let's start with Nancy Pelosi and work our way down the list.
Florida... That sounds like leadership words coming out of your mouth. You may be targeted as an ultra Right-Wing insane person and, God/Darwin forbid, a Christian Fundamentalist clinging to guns and religion. Welcome to the war. Our leader is up north in Alaska watching the Russians and the Democrats for now, but she may cross the rubi-yukon and be here in 2012.
Let's start with Nancy Pelosi and work our way down the list..
Sounds good to me, but wouldn't you want to start at the top?
Newt should get a pseudonym to write under and other than that disappear.
ooh, just like in Ender's Game!
FLS said...Sen. Edward Kennedy said in 2006, that the US punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II"The waterboarding's not what they were given hard labor for, FLS. Kennedy may be too stupid to know that, but you're not.
This is nothing more than another GOP smokescreen to detract for their ineptitude, the Bush administration and CIA's distortions and lies.For those of you rushing to defend Pelosi from her detractors... direct your outrage at the democrats in the Obama administration who have hung her out to dry.
I agree with Newt that we need a national debate regarding our use of extreme measures/torture. We can't go on like this.
The Kit Bond interview is a good one. Compared to Gingrich he's almost treating it like a joke although he talks quite a bit about the loss of confidence among intelligence employees.
He also mentions just how many of the intelligence committee members were briefed at any given time. I could listen again, but it sounds like Pelosi (as ranking Dem) was one of only four people who was in on the very first, highest level, briefings.
It's incomprehensible that if you're one of only four people in Congress who is getting briefed on the absolute most secret, most sensitive information... that you're not going to pay attention to what you are told, and what what you are being told means.
At the very end of the interview Bond remarks that there is no reason to give a briefing about what you're not going to do.
I'm of the opinion that it *is* reasonable to ask for legal opinions about options that haven't been decided upon, or even to ask open-ended questions about legality at the very front end of the decision making process. (We all know the scene in the movies where the leader asks for options and one of the lower people gives the unthinkable one which is then discarded.)
Others have disagreed and argued that even requesting legal clarification is the same as approval and promotion of all of it. If that's the case, logically, Pelosi accepting a briefing about possible interrogation techniques without so much as registering an objection counts as approval. (Because we've all (even Pelosi) seen that movie as well... the "powerless" underling registers disapproval in order to have it on file.)
It really doesn't make any logical sense that the CIA would clutter up a briefing talking about extraneous things. They *might* give a briefing and say something like, "We will *not* do this thing," or "We are *not* doing that thing," but it would be clear negatives... "They told us flat out that they were not..."
Since I commented on the Gingrich interviewer... those interviewing Bond clearly were drawing on pre-interview preparation and conversations and were prompting Bond to recall and relate some point he'd made during prep that they felt was important.
Personally, I prefer non-confrontational interviews where the journalists work to facilitate rather than frustrate the interviewee. More information is gained that way. (Which is different from "fluff" interviews where nothing important is discussed.)
knox-
I actually disagree with Newt on that one point.
He says he gets it as a "army brat" and then he thinks on the other hand that the safety of the troops is imperiled by the rest of it.
He ends up weakening his own argument.
You don't do all this moral introspection while the war is actually being escalated on yet another front-Pakistan.
Republicans have to be very damn careful about making the huge mistake that Democrats made appearing politically motivated.
You either think it's about the safety of the troops or it isn't and having a national debate just invites more out of Pandora's box.
Give the military a DAMN break.
They guys I know are getting HELLA sick of it.
Sounds good to me, but wouldn't you want to start at the top?Great point Garage. Obama it is!
Synova-
Thank you for your opinion and also making me listen to Gingrich-there was a lot more content on the audio and I don't know why I assumed the transcript covered it all.
I think Newt is flirting with having things both ways which is the very thing that sank the Democrats on this.
It's treacherous territory and the Republicans need to actually help Obama here-it's that important.
I don't know the best way for them to do that-but someone , some party needs to rise above this even if Obama does look motivated by other elements.
henhouse said...
1. prove it.
2. Newt speaking on honor and honesty....ohhhhhboy.
3. I guess Newt wasn't born when Nixon was president??.
============
First, Henhouse, it is completely irrelevant to Pelosi lying on national security that Senator this, or Congressman that, or President whomever 40-60 years ago lied.
=================
Second, Gingrich was born in 1943. Under a far better and more accomplished liar than Nixon - FDR - who was a master of deception in his political career and marriage.
Or for that matter, Truman, who was once as corrupt as they come and lies were part of his stock and trade in Missouri's Pendergrast Gang and getting kickbacks from the Kansas City Mob. We now know Eisenhower had his whoppers, as well..
And Nixon, pursued by powerful liberal Jews in the media and academia - out to get him for persecuting the innocent Alger Hiss and Rosenbergs and supporting tough measures against the progressive Soviet Union, did have his flaws exposed as part of his "necessary" destruction.
But Nixon, at his core, was a more honest character than JFK whose lies were covered up eagerly by media, and LBJ - described as a pathological liar who would only honor his word, most the time, when he formally did a handshake deal.
On matters of law and deceit, historians are reluctantly now saying what Nixon did pales compared to FDR, JFK, and LBJ's antics.
And lets not delve into the many "white lies" of Reagan. Or Bubba, of "what "is", really is, fame" other than to note Sen Bob Kerry's half admiring observation - "He's a liar, of course...An usually good one.."
knox-
The last part of my comment I'm not directing that at you..I'm directing that at the Newtster.
Oy!
Says David:
"That's her reprise.
An endless guise."
Yes but, the reader sighs,
The rhymes bad -- Jeez!
Sen. Edward Kennedy said in 2006, that the US punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II"?
The moral of this story is that you shouldn't expect accurate information from a drunk with brain cancer.
Has Chip Ahoy shown up with a photo-shop of Pelosi with a Pinocchio nose?
FLS - I agree with Newt. When the CIA told Nancy Pelosi that they were waterboarding suspects, it was her duty to research international law to find out if waterboarding was a forbidden torture technique.War does all sorts of funny things in "Violation of Sacred International Law".
1. Kill, maim, destroy property without trial.
2. Violate the UN Convention on Equal Rights for women by excluding from them the right and responsibility in most countries to bear arms and die like flies.
3. Violate both Sacred Geneva AND the Hague Conventions if you are prepared to nuke enemy cities if the enemy destroys several of yours in an attack. Yet we will do that to establish deterrance and keep our self-preservation odds as high as possible - just as Jefferson wrote we should..We aren't the Sanhedrin - all our laws and treaties are subserviant to the Will of the People. We don't exist simply to serve old Law unquestioningly.
4. War violates International Law on many other counts. The Law of The Seas may be discarded in wartime. What is done with targeting enemy infrastructure - electricity, bridges, water supply, food and medicine violates provisions of the Almighty "Human Rights Treaty" as surely as dealing with captured enemy does not follow "due legal process" clauses of diplomat and lawyer verbiage.
====================
The Democratic Left is playing a very dangerous game. It centers on denial that AQ, or some 58 other Jihadi organizations after us, after control of dangerous countries, already in control of some ---are anything but "common criminal suspects". And thus, it is the Democratic Left's job to protect their sacred rights to criminal due process..
The Jihadis themselves and more importantly, the larger Muslim community, don't think of them as criminals.
Anymore than the barbarians Rome faced, the original Islamic Horde, the Conquistadors, the Russian and Jewish Bolsheviks, ChoCommies, or the average SGT in the German Wehrmacht did.
At best, you have some barbarians who think the slaughter "went too far", a priest with the Conquistadors thinks they were "too abusive to the heathens", or Muslims conclude that the terrorists may be on Jihad and still granted Paradise based on pure motives..but they are on a misguided Jihad and other ways should be embraced.
If we win...and that is an if..we will follow what happens after most lethal movements are brought to heel. Few criminal trials of any. Just a few examples singled out.
Pelsoi stars as Captain Queeg in the Senate's verson of the Caine Mutiny...
(Captain Queeg removes the steel balls from her pocket and she spins them in her palm insistently as she speaks.)
Queeg: No, I, I don't see any need of that. Now that I recall, he might have said something about messboys and then again he might not -- I questioned so many men and Harding was not the most reliable officer.
Lt. Greenwald (Jose Ferrer): I'm afraid the defense has no other recourse than to produce Lt. Harding.
Queeg: Now there's no need for that. I know exactly what he'll tell you. Lies! He was no different than any officer in the wardroom -- they were all disloyal, I tried to run the ship properly by the book but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out that's all right let them take the tow line. Defective equipment no more no less, but they encouraged the crew to go around scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming and circles. And then old yellow stain. I was to blame for Lt. Merrick's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lt. Merrick was the perfect officer but not Captain Queeg.
Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist! And I'd have produced that key if they hadn't pulled Caine out of action! I-I-I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer and!......(realizes she has been ranting, babbling)
Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory if I've left anything out, why, just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them...one-by-one...
LOLLOLOLOLOLOL
I agree 100% with Florida (the poster, not the state.)
Pelsoi stars as Captain Queeg...Clink, clink, clink......
Pelosi on the Stand
Me and Nancy Pelosi want to waterboard Freder. Who knew?
This is a Democrat controlled CIA, not the George Bush CIA. Leon Panetta, a life long Democrat is its chief. An Obama nominee, he was confirmed by the senate in just one day of confirmation hearings. This is one major Democrat calling another major Democrat a liar.
Spin it lefties, spin it.
Lawgiver said...Leon Panetta wasn't running the CIA when this happened.
When they release the entire transcripts of the meetings Pelosi, Graham and others attended...then we'll know the whole truth.
Until then, this is just another smokescreen via the GOP because they have absolutely NO ideas and NO solutions.
Once again: "The CIA first asked top Bush administration officials for permission to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in May 2002, three months before the Justice Department approved the simulated drowning technique, according to a newly declassified narrative of legal advice Bush administration lawyers gave to CIA."
And you can bet your ass they got the permission, too.
In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency's records on these briefings "suspect."
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.
"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."
As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.
"What struck me...was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president...only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee.... Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn't brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."
The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.
Powell's Top Aide: Interrogations Approved Well Before The Justice Department Had Rendered Any Legal Opinion"
Garage and hdhouse remind me of Dan Rather and the Guard Memoes
HEY! EVERYONE LISTEN UP! EVEN IF WHAT SHE SAID IS NOT THE TRUTH,IT"S STILL THE TRUTH, SEE?!
BECAUSE I"M RIGHT, DAMMIT, AND BERNIE MADOFF AND THE REAL ISSUE IS CHENEY AND HOW CAN ENRON AND HOW CAN CHENEY BECAUSE IT"S TRUE AND
HEY!
OVER HERE!
Example of leftist thinking - Integrity only matters until it doesn't.
Is there no sense of decency, Garage? hd?
Hello?
Hellooooooooooo?
Assignment:
Please read everything by hdhouse and garage.
It will be lesson one in hypocrisy.
WASHINGTON — CIA records show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorist suspects, but the records do little to settle a dispute over whether she knew waterboarding had already been used against one prisoner by then
Leon Panetta wasn't running the CIA when this happened.
Well DUHHHHHH!
But he is now moron. You think he is covering for Bush?
Idiot.
This is so dumb. How can people possibly claim that the CIA did not lie under George Bush and Dick Cheney? (or most any other time).
Top staff from that CIA went to jail!
It's just childish to think the CIA is honest and truthful. Especially under the people who forced their own outcomes upon the intellgence process.
Porter Goss has also been in the thick of things, even though there was corruption under his watch from a close Lieutenant, Dusty Foggo.
Would Porter Goss lie to Nancy Pelosi? Ya think?
The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday.You mean referred to the Justice Department for Campaign Ethics Violations Senator Bob Graham?
Yup. That's the guy that liberals like to bank on.
Fuckin' idiots
"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication."
The author of Legacy of Ashes might beg to differ. Me, I don't really know who to believe in this regard.
Libertals don't really care who lies.
They just don't want YOU to know that they don't care.
So all the feigned caring about "Bush lied".
And when the person they revere is caught with her panties down in public?
Look over here!
Uh, Bob Graham:
Which Bob Graham?
This Bob Graham:
In 1985/86, when his daughter first entered college at the University of Florida, her grades were so bad that she could only get into college as a minority student. The problem, of course, was that she wasn't a minority. However, that didn't stop Bob Graham. He pulled a few strings and voila! She got in via an illegal (and unethical) way. Now, this was all very hush-hush unless you happened to work for the University of Florida at that time (and even then, this was only 'Need To Know'). Still, there is enough evidence there, and there were enough people that knew this, that I am amazed that Bob Graham has been able to keep it covered up for as long as he has. After all, it seems to be a stunning example of a lack of ethics.Of which the liberals don't really give a shit, but they want YOU to believe that they give a shit.
Their shit stinks 2x what yours does, but they've got the average yahoo fooled.
Not much longer.
"Did the CIA tell Pelosi waterboarding was simulated drowning?"
By your answering a question with a question, I take it you are of the mindset that when the CIA is briefing the powers that be on "enhanced interrogation methods", and the politician does not know what a term means, that it is a sign of intelligence to not ask? That it would be acceptable for her to not have asked?
Face it- you are defending Pelosi because you like her politics. If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be attacking. That makes you a partisan hack, nothing more and nothing less.
Pelosi was lying and still is lying-- but if you want to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she wasn't and isn't lying, then she was both unintelligent, insufficiently curious, and negligent in her responsibility towards understanding what she was being briefed in regards. Why you would think that is a decent line of defense is beyond me.
I think the Speaker of the House shouldn't be speaking about National Security matters.So, after people (previously?) from CIA release memos and accounts on national security matters creating a firestorm, she's supposed to just be quiet?
Same thing if she was told about torture?
And this yelling is about what, exactly? Upholding some myth that Bush's CIA told nothing but truths?
That's so naive it's infantile.
Gee, Dale, now you're going after anyone involved in this story who isn't after Pelosi's head.
Bob Graham called it right on a the invasion and occupation of Iraq, on the WMD scare and more.
It's the people who got it right who have the credibility in this debate. Not the people who lied to us about slam dunk WMD, chemical weapons labs and drones that can strike the US.
There's a pile of stinking lies around the Iraq invasion. Enough with the halo polishing.
You either think it's about the safety of the troops or it isn't and having a national debate just invites more out of Pandora's box.
Madawaskan, I understand where you're coming from. I wish everyone knew what the troops are up against.
But right now, too many Americans believe we can do without harsh interrogations and stay safe. We need to put it directly to them: Do you want to lose a city to a nuke, or do you want to allow the president to make the decision to torture when necessary?
Unfortunately, our "journalists" aren't furthering this dialogue. Just listen to the exchange on youtube, and you can tell the interviewer is totally out of his depth--he only knows one line on the torture debate.
Hearing this bullshit over and over convinces me that it doesn't do anyone--including our armed forces--any favors by acting like we're afraid to confront this issue. Frankly, right now we are letting the Leftists control the argument. And they are convincing people that if we torture, even very selectively, we are just as bad as the people we're fighting against. You and I know that's not true.
knox said..."But right now, too many Americans believe we can do without harsh interrogations and stay safe."
So you actually think that unless we torture people, we just won't be "safe?" No Geneva Convention, no rules of engagement or interrogation. Anything goes.
Based on the logic that if they do it, we should do it. Regardless of what we think of the people who do it, we're actually no better than they are.
Right?
And also based on that logic, any country or group we've engaged in combat has every right to the same.
Right?
Because if we're doing it, we really can't complain about them doing it.
Right?
Why would you want to lower America to the level of the very people we say are "evil?"
Oh dear it's delicious to see the house liberals twist themselves into knots after the way the believed everything and I mean EVERYTHING the "anonymous" CIA moles had to say during the Plame affair. Can't have it both ways now lefties. Is the CIA lying now or lying then? Are they only telling the truth when it reflects badly on the republicans?Please explain.
The real problem with most here is that they don't even think waterboarding is torture, which makes most of what is being thrown around moot.
Of course if any here were to actually BE waterboarded...I have a feeling that might nudge their opinion a tad.
*On that front; when is Sean Hannity going to be waterboarded for charity?
"knox said..."But right now, too many Americans believe we can do without harsh interrogations and stay safe."
So you actually think that unless we torture people, we just won't be "safe?" No Geneva Convention, no rules of engagement or interrogation. Anything goes.
Based on the logic that if they do it, we should do it. Regardless of what we think of the people who do it, we're actually no better than they are.
Right?"
If we could count on *them* doing only what we do... I think that would be fabulous.
If *they* lived up to our standards... I think that would be fabulous.
Several US soldiers would be alive today, if that was true. They wouldn't have been tortured to death, dismembered, beheaded or defiled. Thousands of civilians would be alive today if that was true.
The standard you seem so concerned that we might stoop down to is so unbelievably higher than the standards of our enemies that they hardly exist in the same realm.
I realize that bad things don't count when done by brown people from other countries, Jeremy, because they simply can't be held to human standards....
But trying to pretend that somehow we've got to keep the high ground or be "no better than they are" only shows your severe ignorance of the fact that we're ON the high ground. Firmly.
The real problem with most here is that they don't even think waterboarding is torture.
Hey moron,
The real problem you bozos have is who is lying, Pelosi or Panetta?
Synova - "But trying to pretend that somehow we've got to keep the high ground or be "no better than they are" only shows your severe ignorance of the fact that we're ON the high ground. Firmly."
So you don't think America is better than the terrorists we're fighting?
And you think it's silly to even "pretend that somehow we've got to keep the high ground?"
Is that really your main argument for engaging in the torture of other human beings?
Also...
I don't feel any moral compulsion to allow myself to be shot, just to prove that it's moral to shoot the enemy.
I feel no compulsion to allow myself to be locked up in prison for life, just to prove that it's moral to lock up a criminal.
And I feel no moral compulsion to allow myself to be water-boarded, just to prove that it's morally imperative to water-board a prisoner in order to save a city.
I find it utterly remarkable and laudable that with everything that was going on just after 9-11 and the very real fear and very real threat of follow-on attacks... that the most powerful nation in the world felt it necessary to water-board no more than three individuals.
In any other reality than the one inhabited by the moon-bat left... this would be an indication of extreme restraint.
knox-
All good points and just to add more to your side the war on terror by it's asymmetrical nature might never really end-so my point that we should wait-is probably-well-poop.
Although Pakistan, being strategically important for a multitude of reasons is scary right now-but it well could be-always something.
I still can't help but feel that going after this with Pelosi acting like the big boobie prize might lure Republicans into playing this too hard.
Obama really is doing what is best here, Pelosi's incompetence {and that's probably a generous term} might give them the "excuses" to again start up what ultimately is not best for the country.
Then there is this little interesting interchange today between Rep's. Lundgren (R) and Obama's Attorney General Holder [as reported by Connie Hair of Human Events]
Holder stated his view that waterboarding is torture.
Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding.
Well, Mr. Holder, which is it? Is it an intent crime or not?
"So you don't think America is better than the terrorists we're fighting?"
I do realize that I sometimes use odd grammatical constructions, Jeremy... but that reading is intentionally obtuse... at best.
Synova - "I find it utterly remarkable and laudable that with everything that was going on just after 9-11 and the very real fear and very real threat of follow-on attacks... that the most powerful nation in the world felt it necessary to water-board no more than three individuals."
And you base this on what we've been told...and you believe it?
You don't think any of those hauled off via renditions were tortured?
Do you also believe there are hidden WMD out there somewhere...that Saddam magically transported to another country?
How about the chemical wagons or the anthrax or that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
All you're doing is spouting the same right wing jingoistic bullshit that got us into this mess in the first place right after 9/11.
We attacked a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, neglected Osama Bin Laden, let the Saudi government slide (remember the 16 Saudis on the planes?)...and the wingnuts continue to throw out distortions and lies.
I'd also be fabulously delirious with Joy... JOY, even... if we could engage our enemies under the auspices of the Geneva Convention.
Granted... they'd have to put uniforms on, stop using hospitals and mosques as fire bases, stop killing children or civilians and hiding in the population, stop murdering and desecrating prisoners, and stop bombing civilian targets.
In which case, I doubt we'd be enemies.
Awful conundrum, that, eh?
knox-
And they are convincing people that if we torture, even very selectively, we are just as bad as the people we're fighting against..
I'm not sure they've attained that result yet- but given that they control so much of the media-then overtime you are right again-they'll turn the public around-just like they did eventually after 9/11.
I still think that the MSM "mediating" and pretending to conduct a "fair" debate will not resist twisting it in the worst light. {Good news never really sells.}
Having the debate out could possibly provide them with more fuel.
Quayle-
They really have been sitting on the benches-
Jeez it's the junior varsity team.
Synova-
Liberals cherry pick the Geneva conventions...
madawaskan said..."Liberals cherry pick the Geneva conventions..."
Provide an example.
The entire argument here, via the regular wingnuts, is that we do it because THEY do it.
It's a disgusting and thoroughly un-American argument...and you know it, too.
Just too gutless to admit it.
Oh for pities sake, Jeremy.
Are you now suggesting that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia?
And anyone at all is supposed to take you seriously? You don't argue seriously. The points you bring up are not brought up with any sort of purpose toward understanding or truthfulness... you bring them up for argument's sake only. Attack Saudi? Really? You think we ought to have done that?
And if you don't think we ought to have attacked Saudi Arabia, why is it legitimate to use as a criticism because those you hate *didn't* attack Saudi?
There is a *reason* that a good many people don't trust the left with anything related to national defense... it's moronic crap like going on about Saudi Arabia...
Or going on about Iraq as if nothing else happened because it's a distraction away from the "good" war in Afghanistan and the terrorists who were leaders and planners leading up to 9-11. Were the three men who were interrogated that way captured in Iraq?
Or by taking the repeated side trips to Iraq are you suggesting that Al Qaida and Afghanistan and nothing else even existed before 2003?
Pelosi was briefed in 2002.
"The entire argument here, via the regular wingnuts, is that we do it because THEY do it.
It's a disgusting and thoroughly un-American argument...and you know it, too.
Just too gutless to admit it."
If someone has made that argument, which I doubt, it's in error.
THEY don't do it. If we lived down to the behavior of our enemies we wouldn't be having a discussion about something as tame as water-boarding a very select few high-interest prisoners.
Seriously Jeremy... NO ONE is arguing that we behave by the standards of Al Qaida. No one is doing that or has done that.
Or do you have such blinders on that you really have no idea what THEY do?
Why the glaring double standard?
Having the debate out could possibly provide them with more fuel.
You're right. It is risky. Especially since we pretty much have to rely on republican politicians to argue the case. And they are no good at articulating just about any argument in a convincing way.
Newt is super smart but charisma-less. Rudy could do it, but where's he these days?
The most obvious "cherry picking" of the GC... ununiformed combatants are entitled to a field execution. That part is skipped.
All the parts about how the GC applies to those who fight without uniforms is skipped over.
All the parts about limits on how uniformed combatants must be treated are kept, and the fact that an essential element (uniforms) is missing is ignored.
In the audio clip Gingrich states that the GC does not apply to terrorists, and he is entirely right.
Moron says,
The entire argument here, via the regular wingnuts, is that we do it because THEY do it.
It's a disgusting and thoroughly un-American argument...and you know it, too.
Just too gutless to admit it.
No, this is about one of your beloved Democrats lying. And you're just too gutless to address it. What a pussy.
knox-
Ga! I am a huge Rudy fan-that guy well he had the gift of persuasion...
I begged a lot of people who had absentee ballots going to Florida to vote for them.
It was weird, I think he and McCain were splitting the national security vote, and then there was the trouble of the Republican primary set up itself.
Not too favorable to Rudy, and McCain spent every spare minute he had for eight years going to New Hampshire and South Carolina while working for a long time to cultivate Lindsey Graham.
Synova-
The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions-if memory serves me right- is what the Democrats were trying to do a run around here lately...
You right wing fools...you would march off a cliff if Newt lead you. Are you that desparate for a party leader that you hook into this clown?
So pathetic.
I'm waiting for some shred of proof here boys...you've all leaped but with no net...just what you want to believe and up jumps the devil Newt, a pig of a man at best, and you go off after him....
ya'betcha!
Bushman...That Caine Mutiny Court Marshall scene was perfect. FOX news needs to run that clip next to the Eminent Speaker's performance. Devastating.
Hdhouse... Good point about Newt. He was our local boy in the House in the 80's, and he is not easy to like. But even you have to admit that Newt has turned himself into a great communicator on TV. I bet you would like him if he was on your side.
Lawgiver said...Leon Panetta wasn't running the CIA when this happened.
Yes, the CIA was being run by a *different* Democratic appointee at the time -- George Tenet. :)
I strongly support water boarding.
@hdhouse, go read that last paragraph I wrote at 1:42.
Nobody is following Newt. He's making an obvious point -- Pelosi has set herself up. Either she believed waterboarding was akin to torture, or she did not.
If she did not, then that explains her failure to object to it, but it makes her look like a lying idiot for denouncing the practice after she assumed the Speakership, doesn't it?
On the other hand, like Morton's fork, if she did believe at the time that waterboarding was akin to torture, then she had an obligation to object. That's why they call it "Congressional oversight." Her failure to object makes her complicit.
So she's a lying fool or an ordinary liar. QED
And this yelling is about what, exactly? Upholding some myth that Bush's CIA told nothing but truths?
Yes, it is awkward for the Democrats to have that myth dispelled. The old story was that the White House politicized good CIA intelligence.
The older story is that the CIA plays politics.
I've always been a believer in the older story. Panetta's hurt feelings don't count for much in my book.
The problem with Pelosi isn't that she can't get straight with the CIA. It's that she can't get straight with herself.
" that Bush's CIA told nothing but truths? "
You see, this is where people look like idiots to most of the normal world.
Something like 98% of Bush's CIA is Obama's CIA.
That is the way it should be. They are, by and large, professionals in the intelligence profession. They aren't politicians. It is not about politics-- it is about our national interest.
May those who play politics with it continue to be hoisted on their own petard.
Nancy Pelosi may be able to hold her San Francisco district behind her, and thus stay in her House seat for the time being, but that doesn't mean that the Democratic majority in the House is going to keep her on as Speaker of that body after all the shit fully spatters in all directions off the rotating fan.
Pelosi is both going to hold her seat and hold the Speakership, until the Dems are out of the majority.
Then, they might not let her continue to be the minority leader in the house. But even then, I would not hold my breath.
I bet she will be the top ranking Democrat in the House until the day she retires (note- I did not say resigns).
Big Mike has set up the situation properly, but draws two wrong conclusions:
Nobody is following Newt. He's making an obvious point -- Pelosi has set herself up. Either she believed waterboarding was akin to torture, or she did not.
If she did not, then that explains her failure to object to it, but it makes her look like a lying idiot for denouncing the practice after she assumed the Speakership, doesn't it?
But we all learned a great deal about waterboarding between the Fall of 2002 and January 2007, namely that the world considered waterboarding to be torture. Like the vast majority of Americans, Pelosi could justifiably believe that the US would never torture captives. And in fact, these torture techniques (Torture-Lite, if you will) were described to her under the rubric "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."
So instead of appearing a lying idiot, she appears to be someone whose trust in the Executive Branch was betrayed, because the CIA did not explain to her that waterboarding was considered to be torture, by Kit Bond logic: surely she would have protested at the time; no good liberal could let the US torture even our worst enemies. So the CIA deliberately misled her.
On the other hand, like Morton's fork, if she did believe at the time that waterboarding was akin to torture, then she had an obligation to object. That's why they call it "Congressional oversight." Her failure to object makes her complicit.
Let's assume she knew waterboarding was a kind of torture. Everybody at the meeting joked about it and said, "Hey at least we don't pop their eyeballs out." What can one person do in the face of a unified opposition? Although Republicans think that Congressmen have superhuman powers, odds are that she would have been seen as a quixotic crusader, a nutball.
So waiting till she had considerable, nay Gingrichian levels of political power to right this wrong was merely prudent.
So she's a lying fool or an ordinary liar. QED
So she foolishly believed what the CIA told her, or she prudently waited till her team consolidated power.
Her party is not looking like it is going to lose power any time soon thanks to the ineptness of the GOP, and she's in a very safe district.
Most of you are completely misreading the situation here. This isn't a struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats. This is a struggle between two factions in the Democratic party - one headed by Pelosi and one headed by Obama.
When is someone going to get control of the CIA?
"control of the CIA" is exactly what you're seeing. Panetta doesn't know intelligence from a hole in the wall. The reason he's running the CIA is because Obama saw what the agency did to Bush and realized what a powerful political tool it could be if properly tamed. Panetta is there to be Obama's Beria.
Thirty days from now Pelosi isn't speaker any more. If she knows what's good for her she'll retire in 2010. Her #2, Murtha, is going to jail. Everyone else will adjust.
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." I think they all understand what that means.
But we all learned a great deal about waterboarding between the Fall of 2002 and January 2007, namely that the world considered waterboarding to be torture. Like the vast majority of Americans, Pelosi could justifiably believe that the US would never torture captives.Wait.
The office of the Speaker of the House is third in line to the presidency.
And that--both parts, but especially the part I put in bold--is the standard you're willing to apply--nay, advocating ought apply?
Pray tell, what are all those years of experience, all that seniority, all that supposed savvy, supposed to be FOR, then? If not to know more about the workings of all things political, bureacratic and governmental than the vast majority Americans--read: your average, every day fellow citizen not so immersed and ever so less privy?
FLS: You do realize, don't you, that your argument is the flip-side of an argument which you absolutely derided, and I daresy would deride, when applied to certain public figures with whom you disagree overall and whom you viscerally dislike?
Well, don't you?
Oh the incredible joy of watching our liberal contributors here twist in the wind on this issue!
The obfuscation! The pulling out all stops to change form this simple subject:
the character of the Speaker of the House has been exposed to be that (again) of someone baldly dishonest with the American people.
Either that bothers you as a person as someone with personal integrity or you excuse it, thus revealing for the world your own hypocrisy and world view that "honesty" is always relative to what the issue is at the moment.
Good luck with that. The vast majority of Americans aren't moral see-sawers like you - they may fail in their personal standards, but they don't excuse them the way liberals like to.
Granny Pelosi can't hide her lyin' eyes.
The odds of you guys holding the House in next years elections
Update: Phil Graham...4 "briefings" recorded and cited by the CIA and three of them didn't happen. He keeps a diary. Hey errors happen. Record keeping of meetings isn't an exact science.
MY POINT was Newt was the water carrier here. Newt. The POINT OF THE THREAD least you didn't read it was Newt's rant of Pelosi. It was NEWT'S overdrive on "most dispicable ever" that should get you all up in arms. Maybe, just maybe, the Pelosi briefing did or didn't happen the way either party says...time will figure that out...but Newt...as I said the pig of a man..leading the charge..should make us all want to cry for his "moral outrage" is such a sham-wierd piece of shit.
FLS: You do realize, don't you, that your argument is the flip-side of an argument which you absolutely derided, and I daresy would deride, when applied to certain public figures with whom you disagree overall and whom you viscerally dislike?
`
Well of course he does - he's highly intelligent. Heck IO've learned quite a bit from him, seriously.
But he plays to close to the dark side. C'mon fls - you don't have to hang with the people with the constantly shifting moral center and their close friends who don't have one at all. Leave the dark side. Stay away from the men behind the curtain.
I read it all, hdhouse, and there are multiple points spreading from the original, including some of yours.
Don't be so disingenuous--or, rather, do so if you like, but don't harbor under the delusion that onlookers, whether they comment or not, don't see it for what it is.
traditionalguy said...
Hdhouse... Good point about Newt. He was our local boy in the House.. I bet you would like him if he was on your side."
I can never get past him dumping a wife sick with cancer..that whole scene...never. That tells me more about the man or lack of manhood therein...and before the jackels here howl, yes JUST LIKE EDWARDS...
If you are a pig in one part of your life my hunch is that you are a pig in a lot of parts of your life and frankly I don't care what comes out of his mouth because he already has doomed himself in my eyes as a despicable son of a bitch.
That said (what you just wrote), hdhouse, what do you really think, in your heart of hearts, about Pelosi, and what standards ought apply?
hd,
I think you mean "Bob" Graham.
And I'm sorry, my friend, but I could care less what Newt thinks about this. One can always find someone despicable that supports the same things that your or I support.
So, take Newt out of the conversation here and all you're left with is this: Is Nancy Pelosi, the second in line in succession to the Presidency of the United States telling the truth about what she knew and when she knew it or not?
Becuase if she had just cone out and said that she was tols and maybe she should have thought differently at the time she would be okay with the majority of Americans, just like the Dems who during the election said that they regretted their vote for the Iraq war were "forgiven" in a sense.
But she isn't doing that, hd.
And that is a charcter issue. And she only get s so many of those before she becomes a "Newt" to the majority of Americans. She should have cut her losses before this point.
But, as all America can see on the nightly news - she can't.
And that's because - in my humble opinion - Nancy Pelosi has made too many deals with the devil in her Machavellian pact to do whatever it takes to justify her ends. And THAT is because - she has no true moral center.
Or, to separate it more abstractly, if that's better, the role of the Speaker of the House (whoever is serving therein), appropriate expectations thereof, and the standards you'd like to see apply, regardless?
reader,
glad to be part of your tag team here tonight.
What reader said.
If you are a pig in one part of your life my hunch is that you are a pig in a lot of parts of your life and frankly I don't care what comes out of his mouth because he already has doomed himself in my eyes as a despicable son of a bitch.`
Then Pelosi is sizzlin' in the pan right now and needs to be turned over before she burns.
Dale: With all due respect, I'd like FLS to answer that which you answered on his behalf on his/her own.
Cross-posting (almost typed crosstweeting, LOL at myself). Anyway, thanks, Dale.
I'm not sure you'll end up happy you wrote that, though.
Even limited time offers can be satisfying
I leave you with this:
What can one person do in the face of a unified opposition?
--former law student
What can one person do in the face of a unified opposition?
Situational ethics. Go figure.
/bumped from a prev thread:
"At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn't push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn't co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good. "No letter could change the policy," she said on May 14 at a news conference. "It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part."
See? "Torture is bad"... unless your Party doesn't have the Oval Office and a majority in Congress. Then its "not so" bad. At least not "bad" enough for to risk you political career over.
I keep telling you: the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cia-director-fires-back-at-pelosi-2009-05-15.html
Noonan doesn't always have game these days, but she nails Pelosi accurately back in Feb:
"One senses in a new way the disaster that is Nancy Pelosi. She was all right as leader of the opposition in the Bush era, opposition being joyful and she being by nature chipper. She is tough, experienced, and of course only two years ago she was a breakthrough figure, the first female speaker. But her public comments are often quite mad—we're losing 500 million jobs a month; here's some fresh insight on Catholic doctrine—and in a crisis demanding of creativity, depth and the long view, she seems more than ever a mere ward heeler, a hack, a pol. She's not big enough for the age, is she? She's not up to it."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123388255500354969.html
Stop digging, FLS.
No kidding. I find you to usually be a rational commenter, even though we rarely agree. But you're starting to sound like hdhouse or Jeremy.
Jeremy: We attacked a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11
Last month a tree fell on my neighbor's house, killing her child.
As we were clearing the fallen tree, we noticed that it was diseased. We had an expert come out and he verified that other trees in the area had the same disease. So we cut them down.
Then Jeremy came outside and complained that those trees had nothing to do with the child's death.
We mistook him for Saul Alinsky and shot him.
That's a disgusting display Pelosi being less than forthcoming about war crimes, eh reader iam.
garage mahal: Nice shot, but it's too easy, because I mostly let the misplaced go. Shocking, I know, but true.
Don't duck, address.
At a particular point in time (specifically, on 12/16/05, on my now sleeping blog--but it was later referenced here, in a response to Doyle, as I recall, and elsewhere, I think)I blogged:
But I have say that it has become clear to me that too many people in our government--including those in the White House--appear to be either unwilling, or incapable, of adopting a mindset that can effectively strike a balance between promoting security from outside threats and preserving the civil rights that make America what it is. Instead, they appear to push and push and push and push the envelope. To hand these types of people the cloak of secrecy and opacity is to also give them a loaded gun pointed at our most cherished freedoms.
And I, for one, no longer trust them not to shoot.
A codicil for you, garage mahal:
Screw off, you intellectual coward, you.
Know what's sad reader? One half of the population will go along with Bush and Cheney's dumbed down version, and the other half will go along with Obama's dumbed down version. And it appears you're dumbed down as the rest.
Bullshit.
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
OMG, some of you were still going at it in the wee hours of the morning?!? Please look up the word "life" in your Websters and then attempt to get one, please.
@FLS, thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. I'm not persuaded, but I suspect you thought that you only had an outside chance of persuading me. I'd rebut, but I think reader_iam already did a nice job. I'll just leave you with one thought. At that point in time Nancy Pelosi already had a great deal of clout, and was the leader of a considerable faction of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives, if not yet the leader of the entire Democrat caucus. She was not "one person ... in the face of unified opposition." And she would demonstrate that not long afterward by killing Bush's Social Security reform package (something that we're all about to start paying dearly for).
At that point in time Nancy Pelosi already had a great deal of clout, and was the leader of a considerable faction of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives, if not yet the leader of the entire Democrat caucus.
And if she supported what she was then briefed on, why did she let America get beat up in the world press without taking a stand? She was willing to let America get slimed as long as Bush was getting slimed too. Bitch.
When Botox Babylon is turned into a valley of glass, I hope Pelosi survives long enough to have her soul crushed by the death and suffering around her.
When Botox Babylon is turned into a valley of glass, I hope Pelosi survives long enough to have her soul crushed by the death and suffering around her.
Whoa. And here I was just wishing a few wrinkles her way.
reader -- I'm not smart enough to know what you're getting at. I do agree that Pelosi is too light weight/lacking in character for my taste to be President.
But I think the Republicans are making a big mistake, criticizing Pelosi for not stopping Republican iniquity. The more they pick at this, the stronger the push to expose this Republican iniquity.
I caught the Q and A section of the Commonwealth Club broadcast featuring Thomas Burgenthal of the International Court of Justice. He thought that Pelosi's culpability, if any, was small compared to that of Yoo, Bybee, Rice, Cheney, and Bush. Further, that bar discipline was unlikely to be sufficient in the case of Yoo and Bybee, and even impeaching Bybee was inadequate.
Burgenthal said the best way to handle Yoo, Bybee, et al. was criminal prosecution. Once in prison, the matters of impeachment and bar discipline would take care of themselves.
Thomas Burgenthal of the International Court of Justice
*snicker*
How odd that an official from a "Court of Justice" would recommend prosecution and prejudge the outcome without access to all the facts.
Oh well.
Jeremy,
"The real problem with most here is that they don't even think waterboarding is torture,"
Wow. Reality intruded onto your inner discussion for a moment. What did you think of the experience?
FLS,
"The more they pick at this, the stronger the push to expose this Republican iniquity."
Who's doing that? The only thing I see is complaining about Pelosi's (internal) hypocrisy.
Pelosi's hypocrisy about what? It's gotta come out:
What did she know about the crimes of the Bush Administration?
When did she know it?
She can turn state's evidence, become an unindicted co-conspirator, sing like a canary.
Pelosi's hypocrisy about what? What did she know about the crimes of the Bush Administration?
There were no crimes.
Pelosi's hypocrisy is about sliming the Bush admin for waterboarding while she approved of it in secret meetings.
Of course, you already knew that. I'm not falling for your feeble masquerade as an Insufferable Idiot. We both know you're smarter than that.
But I can't blame you for trying to be "the idiot with integrity" vice "the intellectual with zero credibility."
Pelosi's hypocrisy is about sliming the Bush admin for waterboarding while she approved of it in secret meetings.
So the Republican view is that Pelosi embraced torture in 2002, only to pretend to despise it in 2009.
Do you not see that you cannot smear Pelosi with the torture brush without leaving a bigger stain on the Bush administration?
Maybe she had a change of heart.
Maybe she got religion.
Maybe she fears going to her grave with this guilt on her conscience.
Raised Catholic, she surely knows that confession is good for the soul.
In effect, the Republicans are asserting that Pelosi drove away the getaway car.
Pelosi's saying, "Hey, I give my friends rides all the time."
The Republicans come back, saying, "No, we ROBBED the BANK. We KILLED a TELLER and a security GUARD. Now do you understand what Pelosi is guilty of?"
So we wait and see if Madame Speaker is telling the truth or lying. We will wait and see if the CIA has its notes right or wrong...and they have not been exactly on spot 100% so far so who is to say.
We don't have to wait however to toss Newt to the wolves because he seems to be blessed with some super human truth divining rod (no...not the one he used in his affairs and to bonk that last gal while his wife was battling cancer - "ooohhhh honey, after your next chemo treatment would you mind if the process server gave you some papers?") that has already done the ready-fire-aim you're guilty mantra.
Why do you let him speak for you? First its Rush then its this pig. I'm waiting for the conservatives to grow some balls and tell the shit that is leading the charge to go away...you HAVE TO have someone better.
"Do you not see that you cannot smear Pelosi with the torture brush without leaving a bigger stain on the Bush administration?"
Isn't it the other way around, FLS?
Isn't it Pelosi who is trying to smear the Bush administration, pushing for prosecutions?, doesn't *she* see that she can't do that without leaving a bigger stain on herself?
The fact is, that no matter how political considerations are pushing Democrats to please their constituency by pushing for investigations, prosecutions, (and closing the "horror" of Gitmo), in 2002 they were, themselves, willing accomplices.
Not powerless wieners who had to bide their time snipping from the side-lines until finally they found themselves in power... *willing* accomplices.
Because for those couple of years they understood that we had a very serious enemy and needed to respond with determination and force. Democrats willingly approved, willingly voted for war with Iraq.
Pelosi, in 2002, was making decisions from a 2002 mindset. Whatever the CIA was doing was fine with her.
Now she's letting herself be the face and voice of those demanding that 2002 be judged by 2009 sensibilities... and someone had the ever-living GALL to point out that by doing so, she is smearing HERSELF.
Do you not see that you cannot smear Pelosi with the torture brush without leaving a bigger stain on the Bush administration?
Pelosi is the one who says waterboarding is "torture", not Bush. And not me.
Post a Comment