The new Pelosi firestorm

You bunch of sorry apologists just do not want to face the truth.

She had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to speak up at the briefings and SHE was the one who decided NOT TO.

Then she tries to tell the world she was never briefed on what did occur which is a LIE.

I don't have any issue with believing that Pelosi knew, at least in general terms, what was going on. I also believe that Pelosi is, ok, let's say "shading the truth" in the current debate. I think the comparison to Clinton on the war vote is an apt one. She made a political decision to stay silent. But she is hardly the only one and the reaction to the discovery that Pelosi has a little knowledge dirt on her hands is completely overblown when there are politicians out there covered in muck.

Pelosi tells what I believe is a lie and people line up to run her out of town on a rail. The entire Bush administration (now mostly gone) and their allies in Congress (still mostly there) tell whopper after whopper and no one bats an eye.

Yeah, conservatives are making hearing about torture is worse than approving torture. Besides all that, it's more likely that the intelligence committee members may have been told to keep it a secret; like it was a "secret" tool used to get info from our prisoners.

When looked at it from the time we all learned about what they did to the prisoners at abu Garaib (with pictures), and only the lowly ranks got blamed for it, we know it's a very good possibility that nobody in the Bush administration who authorized torture got any of the blame.

Bush said "we don't torture."

What's wrong with this picture?

They should do a thorough investigation on this issue just to make conservatives pay for their crimes and to shut them up!

She accused the CIA of lying to her.

Why?

All this ding-bat had to say was I was told, I knew what was going on.

Why is she lying?

That is the issue of this post, not Bush.

So, try to stay on topic and explain why she is lying.

I agree with you - Pelosi probably knew more than she is saying now, though I highly doubt they told her the truth about what they were doing.

So, let's have an investigation, just as Pelosi keeps saying. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

She's lying because it is politically expedient to do so. She knows that her political enemies will fasten up0n any knowledge of hers as a distraction to their complicity. In this, Bush's allies still in power are key parts of the equation. By attacking her, they manuever her into a political position where she sees advantage in her current position.

Just as you rail against Pelosi while saying the Republican contributions are off-topic, so Pelosi sees advantage in attacking the CIA to protect her backside.

Still, as Cy suggested, let's investigate all of them and let the chips fall where they may.

If lying was a crime, all one needs to do is search Google with "Bush lies." LOL

I see. It is POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to lie. This has been an acceptable trait of the vast majority of politicians and the voters keep sending the same clowns back into office.

I concur with you that we should fulfill Pelosi's wish and get the "TRUTH SQUAD" going.

That's right; Bush lied so often, it's almost a miracle his nose didn't grow.

From bushlies.net:

The moron, Cicerone Imposter, references "bushlies" as a VALID SOURCE?

Only a cretin would attempt such a thing. Someone should inform Cicerone Imposter that there are many valid sources such as the New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today. His use 0f a garbage source such as "Bush lies" only hurts the left wing argument but shows that Cicerone Imposter is truly an imbecile.

Readers will note that in the Cicerone Imposter's reference, there is not one checkable fact. it is total bovine excrement.

Woiyo 9--And the funniest part of all of this is that OBAMA's Democratic designate, Leon Panetta, is now fighting with the original Stepford wife, Ms. Pelosi. Panetta holds that the lying Pelosi is damaging the CIA with her prevarications.

Now, some may think this is a good thing.

But, when the moral of the CIA is weakened they cannot do thier job and the nation will suffer.

Perhaps there is a solution. Obama has named so many of his buddies from Chicago as aides that he can send them to the Middle East as CIA agents.

They would certianly fit in.

Cyclops wrote:

I agree with you - Pelosi probably knew more than she is saying now, though I highly doubt they told her the truth about what they were doing.
**************************************************************

Another expert on the CIA and what they told Pelosi.

When can we expect your book on the CIA, Cyclops? You seem to know all about their covert operations.

You don't know that it is the rule that Democrats make statements and then back off of them.

Note:

View all of the statements made by leading Democrats and the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. These statements , of course, were made just after 9/11 when the Democrats wanted to cover their behinds:

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, Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. 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 group 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.
Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. 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 U.N. 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."

What are we missing here? Boehner wants to keep the Pelosi "hearing about torture" as the highest crime, while Bush has said "we don't torture." Who do we believe? Pelosi or Boehner-Bush?

The funniest part of all of this is that OBAMA's Democratic designate, Leon Panetta, is now fighting with the original Stepford wife, Ms. Pelosi. Panetta holds that the lying Pelosi is damaging the CIA with her prevarications.

Now, some may think this is a good thing.

But, when the moral of the CIA is weakened they cannot do thier job and the nation will suffer.

Perhaps there is a solution. Obama has named so many of his buddies from Chicago as aides that he can send them to the Middle East as CIA agents.

They would certainly fit in

Debra L A W wrote:

18 U.S.C. § 793.
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; . . .

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
*****************************************************

Is that why Sandy Berger( Clinton's lickspittle) was found guilty???

Hawkeye wrote:

Re: engineer (Post 3652542)
Quote:
I also think that Pelosi was informed in general terms about what went on and now is claiming complete ignorance instead of saying "I was told, I objected and I was in the minority and prevented by national security rules from saying anything."

she can't say that, because she did not object and others at the meeting will say publicly that she did not object. The problem that Dems have is that they were at the scene of the crime and did nothing to stop it. They can investigate now all they want, they will still hang with the GOP.

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

Absolutely on target!

So what is your point?

You support politicians who lie so long as they are democrats and agree with your particular point of view?

You think it is OK that if a Republican lies, it is OK for a Democrat to lie to "even the score"?

Are you that simple minded?

Show us where Pelosi lied? And I don't mean your conservative imagination. You know what evidence and proof means, don't you?

Nice try circle jerk.

"WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed on the use of harsh techniques for interrogating suspected terrorists, the CIA said in a newly released memo.

Documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicate Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 -- just before the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- about the use of EITs, an acronym for enhanced interrogation techniques, The Washington Post reported Thursday."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/07/CIA-Pelosi-briefed-on-use-of-techniques/UPI-54261241747183/

Go spin this , jerk!