Republicans to Pelosi: Prove Your Case or Apologize to CIA

[Predicto]

Or neither.

No one asked you, assclown. :evilg:

I didn't want to turn this into a thread about me. But I am willing to bet that the real story on Pelosi and waterboarding is somewhere in the grey fuzzy middle. Of course I can not prove it, and the arguments will continue, which is fine. This may be her downfall.

I pretty much can prove, however, that Pelosi is not even close to being a "moron" and that only a hyperpartisan fool would believe that she is.

[Kilmer17]

This reminds me of the Al Gore moment-

"The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Im sure Pelosi knew what was happneing and was totally fine with it. And was totally fine using it against the GOP when that became convenient and a winner.

Now it's time for her to eat her own ****.

She's certainly not stupid. But that doesnt mean she's a decent person.

[Predicto]

Im sure Pelosi knew what was happneing and was totally fine with it. And was totally fine using it against the GOP when that became convenient and a winner.

I'm sure you believe it. I'm pretty sure you can't prove it. And I don't know what to think.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm sure you believe it. I'm pretty sure you can't prove it. And I don't know what to think.

I know you've admited to her being a master politician. I know she isn't stupid. I know she's backed herself into the corner by the much weaker and dying party. I know you'll vote her in again.

[Predicto]

I know you've admited to her being a master politician. I know she isn't stupid. I know she's backed herself into the corner by the much weaker and dying party. I know you'll vote her in again.

Like I said before, my other ballot option last time was Cindy Sheehan.

And the GOP may be weakened, but no one plays the "spin the story, change the subject" game like Karl Rove and Co. No one.

[Kilmer17]

Like I said before, my other ballot option last time was Cindy Sheehan.

And the GOP may be weakened, but no one plays the "spin the story, change the subject" game like Karl Rove and Co. No one.

That hurts P.

[ECU-ALUM]

I like that the GOP is trying to hold someone responsible for what they said....if the Dems and the GOP policed their own parties this well.

[Predicto]

That hurts P.

You are a worthy apprentice, but Rove is still the Sith Lord.

[Jumbo]

Or neither.

I think he's worse. I think he's the flouride in the water and the hammer & sickle in the toolshed. Wait. I have to go check some things.

[Mad Mike]

It is all perspective, Mike. I care deeply about this country's security, but I often vehemently disagree with you on how best to achieve that security.

Does that make me either a moron or truly evil?

I'm asking you because I know you will answer honestly. Some posters here will claim I'm both.

No. In that regard you and I simply disagree. But then you aren't lying to the american public about what you knew about waterboarding and when and throwing the CIA under the bus in the process.

You are consistent in your stance. She changes with the political wind.

“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

[Predicto]

No. In that regard you and I simply disagree. But then you aren't lying to the american public about what you knew about waterboarding and when and throwing the CIA under the bus in the process.

You are consistent in your stance. She changes with the political wind.

“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.” - Nancy Pelosi

You left out - "according to the information passed to me by the Bush Administration's intelligence people (since Congress doesn't have its own spies)."

More importantly, you left out - "And therefore we need to invade Iraq now, right away, no delay go go go go!!!!"

Those are two important differences between Pelosi and Bush.

Just like Pelosi, I knew that Saddam sucked, and was a deceitful pig and total scum and jerked around the weapons inspectors and killed his people and all that jazz.

Just like Pelosi, I also knew that rushing in to invade Iraq in March, 2003 was a huge arrogant error.

The two positions are not at all inconsistent, by me or by her.

As far as what the CIA told her and when, I really do not know. I know what some CIA guys claim, and I also know that members of Congress are not the only people capable of lying - CIA guys can do it too. I also know that sometimes both sides of any discussion hear and understand and remember different things.

Pelosi may be lying, but none of us were there and none of us really know (yet).

If Pelosi really wanted to throw the CIA dudes under the bus, she would be setting up war crimes investigations in Congress the way the Code Pink-ers want her to do. But she isn't doing that.

[Skin Deep]

Torture is a crime. Using it as a means to fabricate or possibly create evidence one needs to justify war is out and out blasphemy. Using legal appointees to draft memos that supposedly make certain tactics legal is also an extreme violation of American principles.

These are the claims and suggestions being asked about the former administration.

To think it's a smart idea for the GOP to be going after Pelosi so hard, solely based on the fact of whether she was briefed on this or not, doesn't jive. To me, it seems like the GOP will only be incriminating themselves in the long run, as they've actually premeditated and carried out the real heinous crimes. Was Pelosi really responsible for putting a stop to all of this? Was she even capable to do so? Is that the real problem we're concerned with?

So the Bush administration did do it, but Pelosi knew about it? Is that the consensus we're at now?

[Oldskool]

If Pelosi really wanted to throw the CIA dudes under the bus, she would be setting up war crimes investigations in Congress the way the Code Pink-ers want her to do. But she isn't doing that.

She's smarter than that and she knows that it would brand her as the 21st century version of Joe McCarthy.

Simply put, she's butt hurt because she got caught in a lie or at best was embarrassed that information like this went in one ear and out the other at a time when she had alot on her plate.

By lashing out and acting like a weasel on caffeine during her press conference, you are simply seeing a politician trying to tap dance her way out of the hole she dug herself into.

[Mordac]

CIA already being investigated by Congress

Here's today's article: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/lawmaker_cia_already_being_probed_for_misleading_c.php?ref=fpb

And here's the NYT story from last November (there's also a link in the TPM story): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/americas/21inquire.html?_r=2&ref=americas&pagewanted=print

Here's David Obey (D-WI), asking the CIA to correct its records of interrogations briefings he attended: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/19/another-democrat-says-cia_n_205173.html

Tell me again how Pelosi has sullied the good name of the CIA?

[Redskins Diehard]

Torture is a crime. Using it as a means to fabricate or possibly create evidence one needs to justify war is out and out blasphemy. Using legal appointees to draft memos that supposedly make certain tactics legal is also an extreme violation of American principles.

These are the claims and suggestions being asked about the former administration.

To think it's a smart idea for the GOP to be going after Pelosi so hard, solely based on the fact of whether she was briefed on this or not, doesn't jive. To me, it seems like the GOP will only be incriminating themselves in the long run, as they've actually premeditated and carried out the real heinous crimes. Was Pelosi really responsible for putting a stop to all of this? Was she even capable to do so? Is that the real problem we're concerned with?

So the Bush administration did do it, but Pelosi knew about it? Is that the consensus we're at now?

Doesn't seem like there is a consensus at all. I personally don't have a problem with her not trying to stop the program. I have a problem with her lying about what she knew and when she knew for purely political reasons. Maybe she didn't like it before but thought it was necessary. Has anyone on the right actually said that she should have stopped it? Or is that the way the left is framing the argument now?

I am not one of Rep Pelosi's constituents...you would have to ask one of them if they think it was her responsibility to do something.

[Reaganaut]

I have met her too, and I completely disagree.

It is true that she is a purely political animal and highly partisan, sometimes shrill, but she is smart as hell and very effective at the nuts and bolts of wielding congressional power and winning elections. She was the primary architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in the past few years (along with Chuck Shumer). She is an arm twister and a shmoozer and everything else political - and maybe even a liar in the present situation - but she is not stupid.

You don't get to be the first female Speaker of the House by luck. Everyone in that building owes her something.

As I recall, people used to say that Ronald Reagan wasn't smart because they mistook his folksy mannerism for a lack of intellectual depth. They were wrong. Pelosi is the same way. She acts like your grandma to your face, but is always working all the angles behind the scene.

I think she conned you.

Well well well. Predicto weighs in...

I thought it was Rahm Emmanuel who "engineered" the takeover of the House... or was it Howard Dean? I guess it's anyone you're trying to defend or trying to make look good at any particular moment.

She's a pure opportunist, so is Howard Dean. These politicians were back benchers until only the last several years. Political hacks for sure... how do Democrats ascend to leadership positions? By being hacks. It's not a particularly noble skill.

I stand by my impressions of Pelosi. Her ship is taking on water faster now that Obama is in office. It won't be that long now.

Oh, I'd love to hear a strong defense of Dan Rostenkowski... please? Pretty please? Then let's move on to Jim Wright...

[Skin Deep]

Doesn't seem like there is a consensus at all. I personally don't have a problem with her not trying to stop the program. I have a problem with her lying about what she knew and when she knew for purely political reasons. Maybe she didn't like it before but thought it was necessary. Has anyone on the right actually said that she should have stopped it? Or is that the way the left is framing the argument now?

I am not one of Rep Pelosi's constituents...you would have to ask one of them if they think it was her responsibility to do something.

I don't know how the left is framing anything. I'm trying to look at this truthfully and dignified, as an American. The real issue is not "who knew what on either side of the isle", it's with who "wanted these actions to take place, and for what reasons".

Whoever premeditated these tactics because they thought it would bring forth evidence that isn't even true, whoever allowed legal appointees to essentially re-write what is legal, to allow tactics to be "ok'd", those are the real possible crimes that need to be investigated, and where America could have been deceived.

Those are the true issues to be investigated. Not whether Pelosi knew something at one particular time or another. Because then it comes down to saying she did know....what was she supposed to do? Stop EVERYTHING herself? Of course it seems ludicrous and shows why this attack on her bears no fruit for the GOP, as they're the true offenders of the intent and the crime.

I don't get it.

[Predicto]

Well well well. Predicto weighs in...

I thought it was Rahm Emmanuel who "engineered" the takeover of the House... or was it Howard Dean? I guess it's anyone you're trying to defend or trying to make look good at any particular moment.

Well well well indeed.

Just for you, a nice long read from 2006.

So how did the San Francisco congresswoman, who even some Democrats said was too partisan, liberal and shrill to lead the party, take them to the majority?

The answer has as much to do with the tactical skills Pelosi developed as chair of the California Democratic Party in the early 1980s as her positions on policy matters such as the war, which now are regarded well within the mainstream of American politics.

Pelosi is a hands-on political operator who was personally involved in more than 60 congressional races through election day and continues to closely monitor seven races that still are not final, aides say....

Anger at Bush, at the war in Iraq and at the conduct of Republicans running Congress were critical components of the Democratic victory. Nevertheless, players from both parties credit Pelosi, along with Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, her choice to run the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for shrewdly harnessing those sentiments for Democratic gain.

"What Pelosi has been successful doing is channeling that anger and creating the environment in districts around the country to take advantage -- to have surfers poised on their surfboard to take advantage of the wave,'' said Jenny Backus, a Democratic party strategist and former campaign committee official.

Many Republicans grudgingly admit that Pelosi has been far more pragmatic than they first imagined, keeping her liberalism from becoming a central issue and staying away from conservative districts where her presence might have been used against Democratic candidates.

"She was very careful where she went, stayed out of the swing districts,'' said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "It was smart.''

Pelosi, who first won the leader's post in part because of her fundraising prowess, has raised roughly $110 million for Democratic candidates since becoming leader in November 2002, according to her staff....

As the election approached, Pelosi remained almost obsessively hands-on, flipping through an enormous binder that contained notes on every competitive race and staying in regular phone contact with candidates in 60 to 65 races, aides said.

As the opportunities increased for Democratic candidates, so did the demand for money.

"I've got more opportunity than I can afford,'' she said the final week of the campaign.

A week before the election, Pelosi attended an event in San Francisco with former President Bill Clinton that raised more than $2 million for the Democratic Party.

When the event ended, she spent two hours in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel on Market Street going over districts with Emanuel. They met again at 9 a.m. the next day for another lengthy session.

"It's the last thing she's doing when she goes to bed at night, and the first thing she does in the morning,'' said Wolff, Pelosi's political director. "She's very detail-oriented. If she doesn't know about it, it's not being done.''

Pelosi's legislative maneuvering with the House Democratic Caucus buttressed the political strategy, keeping Democrats united in their opposition to GOP bills to make moderate Republicans members "walk the plank'' with their party leaders.

Her efforts were cited by many members as infusing the party with a sense that they could win, something that had been missing in the 12 years since they became the minority party in the House.

By the mid-1990s, "there was the beginning of a belief that maybe this is a conservative country, maybe we are permanently marginalized,'' said Vic Fazio, a representative from Sacramento and the No. 3 Democrat in the House hierarchy when he retired in 1998.

Fazio credits Pelosi with being "the first leader in many years to tell members that if they wanted to be in the majority, they had to start hanging together.''

Pelosi's efforts have made her a lock to be named speaker-designee when the new Democratic Caucus gathers in Washington next week. The entire House will vote on the new speaker as its first order of business when it convenes Jan. 3.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/10/PELOSI.TMP&type=politics

I hope you enjoyed reading that. There are plenty more articles just like it out there that make it very clear that Pelosi led the Democratic takeover of the House. Google is your friend.

I originally took it at face value when you said that you had met Rep. Pelosi, but I am beginning to doubt your story. Oh well.

[Reaganaut]

Well well well indeed.

Just for you, a nice long read from 2006.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/10/PELOSI.TMP&type=politics

I hope you enjoyed reading that. There are plenty more articles just like it out there that make it very clear that Pelosi led the Democratic takeover of the House. Google is your friend.

I originally took it at face value when you said that you had met Rep. Pelosi, but I am beginning to doubt your story. Oh well.

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,520 for "nancy pelosi dingbat." (0.19 seconds) - I guess Google IS my friend after all...

You actually went to a search engine to look up a response to the joke I was making about Emmanuel and Dean? :doh: Lol.

These smarmy politicians are touted now as being geniuses the likes of which we haven't seen since Publius wrote the Federalist Papers. They have roughly the same acuity of people investing everything they owned in America Online stock in 1999 (and will suffer the same fate by the way.)

Architect of the takeover... lol. Political opportunism is not the same thing as being an architect. Nancy Pelosi couldn't smell Zeitgeist even if they were spraying it all over her house. So she kept a notebook... pure genius I tell you! God, if the Republicans had only KNOWN... Conflabbit!

By the way, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. You can kissmyss. Back in the 90's I met half the members of Congress at some function or other. Not a big deal if you live in this city, I can assure you. Speaking of inept Democrat female leaders, I was even less impressed with Patricia Schroeder who was purposely seated next to me at a luncheon while mischief makers watched laughing and covering their mouths from across the room. I'd rather spend the afternoon with Bin Laden than make small talk with that woman again.

(P.S. You will probably hit Google again and drop the bombshell that Publius isn't an actual person and that James Madison really wrote the Federalist Papers... you lonely schmuck. Google isn't your friend. In your case, it's only subtracting from your enlightenment. Say, is there enough room in Saddam's hidey hole so you can fit in there with the rest of your buddies? I'm sure we could get you wi-fi and cable down there.)

[btfoom]

I have met her too, and I completely disagree.

Nice. If you met her again, please ask her: “You’ve stated that waterboarding is torture, and that you knew the government was using waterboarding since 2002. Conspiracy to commit torture is a crime. If you are placed under citizen’s arrest for this crime, how would you plead? If you would plead ‘not guilty,’ please explain.”

It is true that she is a purely political animal and highly partisan, sometimes shrill, but she is smart as hell and very effective at the nuts and bolts of wielding congressional power and winning elections. She was the primary architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in the past few years (along with Chuck Shumer). She is an arm twister and a shmoozer and everything else political - and maybe even a liar in the present situation - but she is not stupid.

You don't get to be the first female Speaker of the House by luck. Everyone in that building owes her something.

As I recall, people used to say that Ronald Reagan wasn't smart because they mistook his folksy mannerism for a lack of intellectual depth. They were wrong. Pelosi is the same way. She acts like your grandma to your face, but is always working all the angles behind the scene.

I think she conned you.

Great, so you don't dispute that she lied (and she did) and just condone her actions because she is a politician that you like.

Given that (very subjective) reasoning, any politician is OK as long as they are "arm twisters and schmoozers". I didn't see this type of arguement when Bush was in office, or did you just come to this realization???

My guess is that the fact that Pelosi (D) has that nice (D) after her name and comes from your district doesn't affect your logical arguements at all, right??? :doh: :evilg:

[NoCalMike]

I think the main problem here is everyone is looking at this issue with their own political party's interest in hand.

It seems to me that members of BOTH political parties under the Bush Administration knew Torture was going on and either gave it a pass or kept silent on the issue.

I think they should be prosecuted. Every single last one of them. I can careless what party they belong to.

And anyone who believes torture is against the law should take this stance.

If we give these people a pass now, we are setting a precident for the present administration and future administrations that having the right lawyers that can write up memos claiming "torture" is simply "enhanced interrogation methods" can somehow absolve them of all wrong-doing and law-breaking on their parts.

There is no reason partisan bickering, but especially on THIS ISSUE. There should be no argument from either side.

How can liberals/conservatives/democrats/republicans/progressives/libertarians etc etc etc stand by and act like Torture is not a war crime?

An full blown investigation should be conducted to find out first, who ordered Torture, and secondly who knew about it and stood idly by.

[Reaganaut]

I think the main problem here is everyone is looking at this issue with their own political party's interest in hand.

Tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't personally take a blow torch to Mohammed Atta's nuts if you knew you could get those flight numbers. You'd be a hero on the level of GW at Valley Forge if you could have gotten that information. So, let's watch how far we go in condemning people trying to save lives here. This isn't Kuwait. These are brainwashed killers who would cut your head off with a machete tonight in bed. Story is General Pershing lined people like this up in front of a firing squad and had his troops dump their ammo in a bowl of pig's blood and reload. He'd let one of the terrorists go back to his Muslim brothers to tell the story... no more terrorism in the Philippines for fifty years. So, you'd be there with handcuffs for General Pershing I guess...

[btfoom]

I think the main problem here is everyone is looking at this issue with their own political party's interest in hand.

No, this thread is specifically about how Pelosi has continually changed her story (read - lied) about her knowledge of what happened. She even went so far as to accuse the CIA of lying directly to her, a charge that has been denied (with backing) by the CIA.

It has nothing to do with political party. If you want to debate whether Waterboarding or other methods are torture, that is for another thread.

In this thread, either Pelosi is right or not, case closed. All other arguements are window dressing or outright deflections!

[Skin Deep]

Tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't personally take a blow torch to Mohammed Atta's nuts if you knew you could get those flight numbers. So, let's watch how far we go in condemning people trying to save lives here. This isn't Kuwait. These are brainwashed killers man.

Does calling them brainwashed killers justify the actions we took and compromising our standards as Americans? You can put any label you want on anybody, but America stands for something. We need to display that in our actions towards the world, or our actions are self-defeating. If we are not better than our enemy, what incentive do we give our cause, and their recruits?

And please don't trivialize this to suggest that these techniques were needed to save American lives. A lot of the investigation will center on how much Cheney and Co. were trying to force the reality they wanted by hopefully obtaining beneficial, yet false, information (i.e. obtain a link between Iraq and AQ that could justify our actions). This is the last thing America needs in bettering our position in the world.

[NoCalMike]

Tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't personally take a blow torch to Mohammed Atta's nuts if you knew you could get those flight numbers. You'd be a hero on the level of GW at Valley Forge if you could have gotten that information. So, let's watch how far we go in condemning people trying to save lives here. This isn't Kuwait. These are brainwashed killers who would cut your head off with a machete tonight in bed. Story is General Pershing lined people like this up in front of a firing squad and had his troops dump their ammo in a bowl of pig's blood and reload. He'd let one of the terrorists go back to his Muslim brothers to tell the story... no more terrorism in the Philippines for fifty years. So, you'd be there with handcuffs for General Pershing I guess...

All you would get was false confessions.

If someone put a blowtorch to my nuts, I would repeat to them whatever the hell they wanted to hear, I'd even dress it up nicely for them, exaggerate however much they wanted.

And SO WOULD YOU.

There was no "information gotten" all they were after was a false confession on false connections between Iraq & Al Qaeda.

Bush Administration = FAIL.