Pelosi Accuses CIA of 'Misleading' Congress on Waterboarding

she is a top shelf political operative, great leader not so much.

A top shelf political operative, but for what country?

Actually, I think there are elements of the CIA that have become politicized. Example, the Valerie Plame case. We had the head of the CIA claim WMD was a slam dunk in Iraq, and Bush and Congress both acted upon that belief. I understand that even Plame herself admitted in her book that she feared WMD could be used on our soldiers when they entered Iraq. We know the CIA began doing more intelligence by satellite than by actual on the ground intelligence, and I think the agency has failed. And I believe Joseph Wilson was a tool of elements in the CIA to discredit Bush, to cover the agency's own serious failures.

However, in regard to enhanced interrogation techniques, it makes no sense that Pelosi could remain as ignorant as she claims to have been. It defies logic. To suggest Pelosi is immune to lying is also a very big tall tale to swallow. And proof of this is the very fact that if she actually believes she was lied to, she not only could, but actually she has the absolute obligation to bring forth the evidence. After all, we cannot have an agency that routinely lies to us.

Instead, Pelosi seems to be content to let this all be swept under the rug and chalked up as a dustup, another routine or unfortunate happening as she continues to act as if she is all fine with forgetting it.

In my opinion, its about time the Democrats are discredited on many fronts in regard to Bush policies. For the last 8 years, they have gotten away with spinning all of this stuff, and it is beginning not to work. Closing Gitmo without a plan was total nonsense, amateurish, stupid, lack of leadership, and some politicians are now demanding a plan before voting on funding. That is just one example of many examples.

In a good post,Okie wrote:


Actually, I think there are elements of the CIA that have become politicized. Example, the Valerie Plame case. We had the head of the CIA claim WMD was a slam dunk in Iraq, and Bush and Congress both acted upon that belief. I understand that even Plame herself admitted in her book that she feared WMD could be used on our soldiers when they entered Iraq. We know the CIA began doing more intelligence by satellite than by actual on the ground intelligence, and I think the agency has failed. And I believe Joseph Wilson was a tool of elements in the CIA to discredit Bush, to cover the agency's own serious failures.
********************************************************

Certainly, and what do you think leading Democrats said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein, WMD's and Iraqi intentions ?

In a good post,Okie wrote:


Actually, I think there are elements of the CIA that have become politicized. Example, the Valerie Plame case. We had the head of the CIA claim WMD was a slam dunk in Iraq, and Bush and Congress both acted upon that belief. I understand that even Plame herself admitted in her book that she feared WMD could be used on our soldiers when they entered Iraq. We know the CIA began doing more intelligence by satellite than by actual on the ground intelligence, and I think the agency has failed. And I believe Joseph Wilson was a tool of elements in the CIA to discredit Bush, to cover the agency's own serious failures.
********************************************************

Certainly, and what do you think leading Democrats said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein, WMD's and Iraqi intentions ?


Note QUOTES FROM THE LEADING DEMOCRATS AT THE TIME---

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. 1


But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:


Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President


to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:


There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:


Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:


We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:


Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force"if necessary"to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.


Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. 2

I am hopeful that history will yet correct the record, that all of the pathetic spinning by the liberal press and by Democrats to demagogue Bush, will be set straight again. Hatred for Bush is no longer working as well, because he is no longer president, and slowly people are waking up to the Democrats hypocrisy, Pelosi a great example. I notice Pelosi's troubles are no longer front page news however, so she will skate, which is typical of these people. She must have had too many friends and too much ammunition to use behind the scenes against Emanuel, etc. etc. etc.

"New poll results are devastating for Obama's Gitmo plan
I've gotten a look inside the Gallup poll numbers showing that a majority of Americans oppose shutting down the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The numbers are stunning. They show a strong and virtually across-the-board rejection of President Obama's proposal to close the prison.

Overall, 65 percent of those surveyed oppose shutting Gitmo, versus 32 percent who say it should be closed. According to the poll's internal numbers, large majorities of men oppose closing the prison, large majorities of women oppose it, large majorities of white people oppose it, large majorities of non-white people oppose it, people with graduate degrees oppose it, and people who didn't finish high school oppose it. Pretty much everybody."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-poll-results-are-devastating-for-Obamas-Gitmo-plan-46734382.html

My comment, why close something that is working as well as it can, and it is exactly where it should be, offshore and isolated from our population. It makes no sense to move these people stateside, that is insanity and people know it. Besides, Obama never had a feasible alternative and still doesn't. Dumb, dumb, dumb, and dumber.

Good research --Okie. Isn't it interesting that people like Cyclops, Jag from Chicago and Parados can yammer yammer and almost never gather evidence or documentation to buttress their arguments? To add to your excellent Gallup Information, here is a poll concerning GM from Rasmussen Reports-=

61% Say Ford More Likely To Survive Than GM or Chrysler
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
Most Americans think the Ford Motor Company, the one Big Three automaker who won’t be run by the federal government, has the best chance of staying in business, but they also suspect the government won’t make it easy.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Americans say Ford is the Big Three auto company which has the best chance of surviving and becoming profitable again, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 17% give General Motors the edge, and only five percent (5%) say Chrysler is the company most likely to survive and profit.

Investors are even more bullish on Ford. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say that company has the best chance of returning to profitability.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans, 54% of Democrats and 64% of adults not affiliated with either party agree.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all Americans say they are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not take bailout funding from the government. Twelve percent (12%) say they are less likely to do so, and 33% say the bailouts will have no impact on their car-buying decisions.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans and 60% of unaffiliateds are more likely to buy a Ford, compared to 37% of Democrats. Sixty-one percent (61%) of those who work for a private company share that view versus 44% of government workers.

While Chrysler is already going through a government-supervised bankruptcy to stay in business and GM is likely to follow by Monday, just 25% of Americans say they would buy a car from a bankrupt automaker.

But 58% of Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that the government as the majority owner of GM and Chrysler will pass laws and regulations giving those companies an unfair advantage over Ford. Thirty-four percent (34%) say it is Very Likely. These numbers are unchanged from a month ago, although the GM bankruptcy now seems even more likely.

Twenty-three percent (23%) say it’s not very likely that the government will give an unfair advantage to GM and Chrysler, and six percent (6%) say it’s not at all likely to happen.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans say the government is likely to give GM and Chrysler an edge over Ford. Democrats and unaffiliateds are less skeptical, but majorities of both groups suspect that the government is likely to handicap Ford.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of investors believe the government is at least somewhat likely to help GM and Chrysler to have an unfair advantage over their rival.

Only 18% of Americans think the United Auto Workers union and the federal government will do a good job running Chrysler and General Motors.

Voters have consistently for months opposed taxpayer-backed bailouts for the troubled auto companies, although the Political Class has strongly disagreed. That’s because most voters say GM or Chrysler is at least somewhat likely to go out of business over the next few years.

***************************************************************

After Obama sees those percentages, he is likely to stock up on his supply of Imodium!

The auto business pobably belongs on another thread, but as long as the government owns GM, I will never again buy another GM product. And I wonder how many other people agree? How will this affect sales? But Obama will not sit still and allow people not to buy from his company, will he? That would be personally insulting I am sure.

Who will buy a GM product? Obama and his minions have decreed that the new automobiles must be smaller and meet or exceed the CAFE standards. Since Obama's children are probably driven to school each day by the secret service and since Obama lived in the ghetto where the children attend schools three or four blocks away from their homes, he does not know that MILLIONS OF AMERICAN MOTHERS WHO HAVE TWO, THREE OR FOUR CHILDREN AND DRIVE THEM EACH DAY TO SCHOOL OR AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITIES

WILL

NOT

DRIVE THEM IN A TIN CAN. These parents want a large automobile that is strong enough to withstand the occasional crash!

Not to be-labor this subject here, but on a serious note, it was in fact the government mandated safety standards for hauling children around in cars, specifically the standards for car seats, that caused the explosion of SUV demand and sales. Yet, we hear little about this. I have a neice that has to drive two cars to transport her family legally on long trips to see relatives. No lie. Two large SUV's that guzzle about 12 to 15 mpg economy EACH. Because of government rules and regulations, then they turn around and blame the car companies for doing this, then they take over the company and plan to build cars that nobody will probably buy ......unless they give monstrous tax breaks, which they most likely will I am sure. After all, Obama could probably not stand to be embarrassed that bad and allow his Obamamobiles not to be purchased.

I think he has a hard on for her...

Boehner Keeps Pressure on Pelosi for CIA Accusation

A great link-H2O man- thanks--

House Minority Leader John Boehner on Thursday stepped up his calls for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to come clean after she accused the CIA of lying to Congress about Bush-era interrogation techniques employed on terror suspects.

"She's made this outrageous claim," he said, asserting that it has undermined the ability of intelligence officials to keep America safe. Pelosi, he said, "believes that it's just all going to go away. Well, just trust me: It's not going to go away."

Boehner and fellow Republicans have vowed to keep the pressure on Pelosi to explain herself ever since she lobbed the accusation last month, insisting that she needs to either back it up with evidence or apologize.

"It's been three weeks since I asked Speaker Pelosi to back up her allegations that the CIA lied to her or purposely misled her," Boehner said at a news conference. "Allowing this to hang out there is unconscionable."
*****************************************************************

H2O man-- Your comment about the hard-on--I don't think so--Boehner knows Pelosi is from SAN FRANCISCO.

maybe boner should try his crying routine.

No, You don't understand, Dont Tread, H2o said he had a hard on for Pelosi, that is the same as a "boner".