Quote :

"We were not, I repeat--re-not [sic]--told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

--Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeyWkdFLc04

Memo Says Pelosi Knew About Use of Harsh Tactics

Quote :

"Intelligence officials released documents yesterday saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda suspects, seeming to contradict her repeated statements that she was never told the techniques were actually being used."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050704217.html

1. Is anybody even surprised that Pelosi's a liar?

2. Where's the outrage?

3. How is this woman speaker?

5/14/2009 1:42:48 AM

2. Right here. Plenty of other posters that vote for Democrats, too.

Why the fuck do people make the assumption that this shit doesn't piss us off? Of course it does.

5/14/2009 1:46:31 AM

You know a politician has fucked up when the mainstream media actually manages to catch them in a direct contradictory lie.

Quote :

"1. Is anybody even surprised that Pelosi's a liar?"

I thought we'd known this for quite a long time actually... this particular lie just happens to be bigger. And worse.

Quote :

"2. Where's the outrage?"

I'm assuming you're referring to liberal outrage here... I for one have always hated Pelosi, and I'm not a liberal anyway.

Quote :

"3. How is this woman speaker?"

Terrible, but I don't see why it matters that she's a woman. Both sexes have fairly equal capacity to be dishonest partisan hacks.

5/14/2009 1:53:08 AM

^^ I didn't assume anything. I merely noted that I haven't observed much outrage--or much of any significant commentary--concerning what appears to be a blatant and politically expedient lie by a Democrat who happens to be third in the line of succession to the presidency.

I have my suspicions--and I could be wrong about this--that if a conservative had done such a thing, there would be a lot more mad howling here. I happen to think this incident is a big deal and that Pelosi should not be given a pass--I also think she's just a ridiculous creature in general, but that's another story.

^

Quote :

"I thought we'd known this for quite a long time actually... this particular lie just happens to be bigger. And worse."

Okay--agreed. But have you posted your latter position before?

Quote :

"I'm assuming you're referring to liberal outrage here... I for one have always hated Pelosi, and I'm not a liberal anyway."

Yes.

Quote :

"Terrible, but I don't see why it matters that she's a woman. Both sexes have fairly equal capacity to be dishonest partisan hacks."

True. It wasn't my intention to emphasize Pelosi's sex.

How's this?

Quote :

"3. How is this woman person speaker?"

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM. Reason : ^]

5/14/2009 1:55:47 AM

Quote :

"I happen to think this incident is a big deal and that Pelosi should not be given a pass"

I agree completely, but what would/could happen to her anyway, besides just lower approval ratings (congress already has approval ratings in the tank anyway, last I checked) and some negative media attention? It's not like she's going to get thrown out of office for it... in fact she'll probably even get re-elected next term out of simple name recognition and natural incumbent advantages.

Quote :

"But have you posted your latter position before?"

Not sure what part of my statement you are referring to as the latter position. Clarify?

Quote :

"How's this? "3. How is this woman person speaker?""

Much improved, thank you.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:15 AM. Reason : good night.]

5/14/2009 2:04:05 AM

Quote :

"Why the fuck do people make the assumption that this shit doesn't piss us off? Of course it does."

Because you'll still line up to vote for these assholes no matter what?

Your outrage rings a little hollow when it's nice and consequence-free.

(And this comes from someone who is plenty goddamned upset over this kind of crap.)

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 2:12:53 AM

^^

Quote :

"but what would/could happen to her anyway"

Censure now and loss of the next election.

Quote :

"this particular lie just happens to be bigger. And worse."

This part. Have you posted about Pelosi's big lie here? If not, why not? And if not, it kind of proves my point about the lack of outrage (I realize that you say you're not a liberal, though).

Quote :

"Much improved, thank you."

You're welcome.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 2:15:03 AM

Quote :

"Have you posted about Pelosi's big lie here? If not, why not?"

No.
Mainly because there's not been a Pelosi-specific thread in which to post it until now, and I don't usually make threads in TSB.

In my specific case, it's not so much a matter lack of outrage vs outrage... it's more a matter of apathy (due mainly to lack of faith in the system, not intellectual laziness like many other apathetic people) vs something that bothers me enough to care.
This incident bothers me enough to care about it. This woman person stupid cunt deserves to be in office even less than an average politician.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:23 AM. Reason : good night for real this time]

5/14/2009 2:21:28 AM

1) Not at all.

2) Eh. They were briefed on it in Sept 2002 long before it was a hot button issue. Obviously they didn't have much cause to pitch a hissy fit about it then so they didn't pay much attention to it. Now that it's become an issue she could have either jumped on the anti-torture pro-prosecution bandwagon with her constituents and hoped that no one called her out, or she could have continued to keep her mouth shut. She picked the wrong one.

3) Vaginas are the new trump card in appointments.

5/14/2009 2:55:07 AM

^ Concerning 2, yeah, but why would Pelosi come out with the BJ Clinton-style slam dunk statement claiming she was "re-not" told about waterboarding and other interrogation techniques when evidence existed (and I'm sure she knew this) that she was in fact briefed? It boggles the mind.

5/14/2009 3:07:45 AM

It's always funny, as soon as you tell a Conservative you don't like something a Democrat is doing, they ask where the outrage is. Ever wonder, maybe that whole outrage thing rather that reserved and levelheaded disagreement is part of the reason your part fell off the cliff?

I've spoken of this before, I lean left socially and in some ways fiscally, but I try nearly every week to tune in to some sort of right wing media, either FNC, Boortz, or Savage, and I can't get through all the hate, anger, and loud talking to get any sort of message I might be able to identify with.

5/14/2009 7:02:31 AM

1. no

2. i don't get outraged at much. i guess i'm a little po'ed that she lied about knowing about the torture techniques. but mostly just because it's stupid. i don't blame her for not doing anything about it at the time ('02) her hands were tied because it was a classified briefing. she could have gone out on a limb back then i suppose. but she could have easily been prosecuted for exposing classified info.

3. do you see the sort of contentious votes in the house that you do in the senate? that's why.

5/14/2009 10:07:42 AM

Quote :

"Because you'll still line up to vote for these assholes no matter what? Your outrage rings a little hollow when it's nice and consequence-free. (And this comes from someone who is plenty goddamned upset over this kind of crap.)"

When the alternative is a Republican what do you expect me to do?

"Boy these democrats have a bad record on this shit. I guess I should vote in a pseudo-fascist chucklefuck who supports creationism."

5/14/2009 12:01:46 PM

Do you honestly believe that going straight up into the general election and marking the straight-party ticket is really your only option? Really?

Then perhaps we'd all be better served if you'd just stay home on election day.

Really - you have options. Primaries, or, god forbid, third party candidates. Or if that doesn't suit you, you still don't have to vote for these particular assholes. Skip the line on the ballot; or better yet for the rest of us, just stay home.

But no. Your binary thought process is if you don't line up in dutiful fashion and support the torture supporters, some torture supporters who also have a hard-on for Jesus might be elected.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : Honestly.]

5/14/2009 12:03:59 PM

did you see the "when" in his statement?

also, who here had the choice to vote for or against pelosi anyway?

5/14/2009 12:07:48 PM

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe that going straight up into the general election and marking the straight-party ticket is really your only option? Really?"

No it's not, and it's also not what I do. But I also have no option to vote for or against Pelosi, so I don't understand why you're pissed at me for "lining up to vote for her every time." As far as other corrupt Democrats go, the other option is a corrupt Republican who doesn't even PRETEND to share my values. If there was a viable, ACTUAL leftist party in this country I'd vote for that instead (except for, of course, important federal elections where I'd be forced to vote strategically).

Quote :

"Then perhaps we'd all be better served if you'd just stay home on election day."

Fuck you, it's mine to spend as I see fit. I do use it to vote for third parties in elections where I don't think strategic voting would matter. Either way, my vote counts for epsilon in these and "we're" not served any better whether I go in or stay home. My vote = my utility.

Quote :

"Really - you have options. Primaries, or, god forbid, third party candidates. Or if that doesn't suit you, you still don't have to vote for these particular assholes. But no. Your binary thought process is if you don't line up in dutiful fashion and support the torture supporters, some torture supporters who also have a hard-on for Jesus might be elected. Fan-fucking-tastic."

You should be pissed at the system, not at me. You're telling me (and all people who think like me) to remove ourselves from the system altogether, removing any reflection of our preferences. It becomes in the best interest of our opponents, then (who actually DO support the shitty candidates from the main 2 parties on the ballot) to remain in a coalition and vote their guys in. It's weakly dominated for me to do so. You're asking me to do something that makes no fucking sense.

5/14/2009 12:08:21 PM

Quote :

"Your binary thought process"

Wait, is this directed at Str8Foolish or hooksaw?

5/14/2009 12:09:13 PM

GETCHER CHE GUEVARA TSHIRTS HERE!

$19.99 plus tax!

5/14/2009 12:09:21 PM

Quote :

"did you see the "when" in his statement?"

You are hardly in a position to tell anyone about omitting the word "when." Or shall we go back to a prior recent thread, where you yourself seem to have difficulty understadning this term?

Quote :

"No it's not, and it's also not what I do. But I also have no option to vote for or against Pelosi, so I don't understand why you're pissed at me for "lining up to vote for her every time.""

Substitute Pelosi for "other torture-supporting Democrat." Genius.

The fact is, you'll cheerfully line up to support them, no reservations at all. Let's just be honest about it for once.

Quote :

"As far as other corrupt Democrats go, the other option is a corrupt Republican who doesn't even PRETEND to share my values. If there was a viable, ACTUAL leftist party in this country I'd vote for that instead (except for, of course, important federal elections where I'd be forced to vote strategically)."

Oh please. Here we go. Somebody's got a gun to your head, now. Impossible to vote in the primaries. And if you don't vote for the torturers, one of the other torturers may get in!

The fact is, it really doesn't fucking matter what the Democrats do - because your "strategic" voting will always consist of supporting the incumbent Democrat, no matter what they do. Because the barbarians must be kept at bay. Spare us all the hand-wringing drama, already; obviously supporting those who would gleefully sanction torture doesn't seem to cost you much sleep at night.

Quote :

"Fuck you, it's mine to spend as I see fit. I do use it to vote for third parties in elections where I don't think strategic voting would matter. Either way, my vote counts for epsilon in these and "we're" not served any better whether I go in or stay home. My vote = my utility."

And your utility is best spent supporting torturers, as long as they don't get their rocks off for Jesus. Bravo, you must feel awesome about yourself. I'm sure glad you're around to provide us with this service.

Quote :

"You should be pissed at the system, not at me. You're telling me (and all people who think like me) to remove ourselves from the system altogether, removing any reflection of our preferences. It becomes in the best interest of our opponents, then (who actually DO support the shitty candidates from the main 2 parties on the ballot) to remain in a coalition and vote their guys in. It's weakly dominated for me to do so. You're asking me to do something that makes no fucking sense."

Actually I'm telling you to either can the feigned outrage or do something about it. But instead you'd simply rather whine about how you have "no choice," despite the existence of primaries and alternatives.

So please - spare us. You support torturers just as much as the next Republican does. The only difference is that one of the two of you is honest about it.

5/14/2009 12:17:39 PM

Quote :

"You are hardly in a position to tell anyone about omitting the word "when." Or shall we go back to a prior recent thread, where you yourself seem to have difficulty understadning this term?"

i have no idea what you're talking about. i don't exactly commit my comments here to memory.

5/14/2009 12:21:10 PM

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : whatever.]

5/14/2009 12:23:45 PM

Quote :

"Substitute Pelosi for "other torture-supporting Democrat." Genius. The fact is, you'll cheerfully line up to support them, no reservations at all. Let's just be honest about it for once."

I resent strategically voting for the democrats, actually. I'd much prefer an actual leftist party. But this is America.

Quote :

"Oh please. Here we go. Somebody's got a gun to your head, now. Impossible to vote in the primaries. And if you don't vote for the torturers, one of the other torturers may get in! The fact is, it really doesn't fucking matter what the Democrats do - because your "strategic" voting will always consist of supporting the incumbent Democrat, no matter what they do. Because the barbarians must be kept at bay. Spare us all the hand-wringing drama, already; obviously supporting those who would gleefully sanction torture doesn't seem to cost you much sleep at night."

It bothers me, but the alternative is to break rank and hope everybody else breaks with me to my new preference. Otherwise it simply ensures that Republicans get elected. It's pretty clear that's a shitload worse for human rights violations, foreign entanglements, brown people killing, etc.

Quote :

"And your utility is best spent supporting torturers, as long as they don't get their rocks off for Jesus. Bravo, you must feel awesome about yourself. I'm sure glad you're around to provide us with this service."

That's not the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat. But don't let reality stand in the way of your histrionic temper tantrum!

Quote :

"Actually I'm telling you to either can the feigned outrage or do something about it. But instead you'd simply rather whine about how you have "no choice," despite the existence of primaries and alternatives. So please - spare us. You support torturers just as much as the next Republican does. The only difference is that one of the two of you is honest about it."

Yeah let me do something about it.

*has no capital*

Wellp.

5/14/2009 12:26:19 PM

Quote :

"I resent strategically voting for the democrats, actually. I'd much prefer an actual leftist party. But this is America."

Oh bullshit. You resent it so much that the alternatives are completely unthinkable to you. Primaries? Nope. Third parties? Nope.

Yeah, you resent it so much, obviously.

Quote :

"It bothers me, but the alternative is to break rank and hope everybody else breaks with me to my new preference. Otherwise it simply ensures that Republicans get elected. It's pretty clear that's a shitload worse for human rights violations, foreign entanglements, brown people killing, etc."

And so continuing to sanction torturers is bound to bring about change. It just has to!

Quote :

"That's not the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat. But don't let reality stand in the way of your histrionic temper tantrum!"

Only if you won't drop your feigned outrage. Seriously, don't let me stop you - by all means, continue to beat your breast and wail as to how much you hate torture and then gleefully vote for those who sanction it. As long as there's universal healthcare! and a lack of Bible-thumping, you're totally there,

Quote :

"Yeah let me do something about it. *has no capital* Wellp."

I failed to realize only those with political capital could vote in our primaries. Or support other candidates. Or simply not vote for torturers.

My how Civics class has lead me astray!

5/14/2009 12:30:38 PM

Quote :

"Oh bullshit. You resent it so much that the alternatives are completely unthinkable to you. Primaries? Nope. Third parties? Nope. Yeah, you resent it so much, obviously."

Why do you assume I don't vote in primaries and never vote for third parties?

Quote :

"And so continuing to sanction torturers is bound to bring about change. It just has to!"

When not doing so is effectively casting a vote for worse torturers, what do you want?

Quote :

"Only if you won't drop your feigned outrage. Seriously, don't let me stop you - by all means, continue to beat your breast and wail as to how much you hate torture and then gleefully vote for those who sanction it. As long as there's universal healthcare! and a lack of Bible-thumping, you're totally there,"

lol. "Gleefully". You must be terrible to converse with in real life.

Quote :

"I failed to realize only those with political capital could vote in our primaries. Or support other candidates. Or simply not vote for torturers. My how Civics class has lead me astray!"

It probably has if you're getting so worked up over an arbitrarily small percentage of the vote.

5/14/2009 12:38:08 PM

Don't blame me, I vote Libertarian

5/14/2009 12:47:46 PM

yospos, bitch

5/14/2009 12:53:04 PM

Quote :

"Why do you assume I don't vote in primaries and never vote for third parties?"

Are you actually going to tell me that you vote against national office Democrats in primaries and third parties, after all of your hair shirt theatrics about strategic voting?

Again, a little honesty here is all that this is really about. You're not going to vote against a Democrat when it's actually "important" (read: anybody who has influence over policies of torture). I know this, you know this. How about providing us with a refreshing little bit of candor - for once?

Quote :

"When not doing so is effectively casting a vote for worse torturers, what do you want?"

Oh those Diebold tricksters - however did I not realize that not voting for the Democrat really is a tallied vote for the Republicans!

Seriously, spare us the theatrics already. You vote to support torturers every time. You feign outrage over torture. One of these has to go.

Quote :

"lol. "Gleefully". You must be terrible to converse with in real life."

As I am sure sanctimonious pricks like you are, who get upset over things they won't lift a finger to stop.

Quote :

"It probably has if you're getting so worked up over an arbitrarily small percentage of the vote."

You know what? I actually give a shit about things like torture. Your actions belie the fact that you obviously do not. Given the unlikeliness of you ever changing your voting behaviors, how about instead treating us to a refreshing bit of honesty, instead?

For instance - torture is okay - so long as it's the Democrats authorizing it.

There, now doesn't that feel better?

5/14/2009 12:54:59 PM

Ok, but seriously, how is this not an argument against the ballot system we have over all else if you don't want to support people like her or the GOP? Vote all you want for the Lolbertarians or Greens of National Socialist Workers Party but under the current system you might as well be a) voting for whatever major party stands to benefit from your splitting the vote or b) just going in the voting booth, taking a dump on the ballot, and leaving.

5/14/2009 12:55:10 PM

Let's see...

I could (1) spend a bunch of time illustrating how DOCTOR STEVE CHAOS is at best wrong and at worse an idiot. Naturally, he won't benefit from this but will continue to froth at the mouth no mater what I do.

Or:

(2) Go outside and enjoy the day with this book.

Have fun working up an ulcer you fucking loon.

5/14/2009 12:57:58 PM

^^You'd hardly find me arguing the superiority of our current system. But what exactly is your alternative, exactly? loltorture?

No, seriously, if you actually hate torture, then what the fuck do you propose? Let's hear it then. I've already laid out several solutions - including working through the primary system. But you obviously think all of these ideas are terrible, so I'd love to hear your solutions.

^ Hey jackass, die in a fire. Seriously, no one would miss you around here.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ^]

5/14/2009 12:58:33 PM

Working through the primary system is what we already do, but when it comes down to the election, I don't give a fuck b/c my representative didn't vote for this shit casue he's awesome and my senate choice was useless b/c it's Tennessee. In other words I'm vindicated.

Laters

Quote :

"^ Hey jackass, die in a fire. Seriously, no one would miss you around here. "

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:01:16 PM

^ You're seriously going to call me smug over that jackass? Whatever, dude.

5/14/2009 1:09:58 PM

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and a prime example of why democracy doesn't work.

As to fixing the ballot system, we could institute some form of ranked voting system to make votes for third parties seem like less of a waste. The practical problems with this are that 1) you'd have to get it through your local state governement which is currently owned by the 2 major parties and 2) most americans are probably too stupid to understand it.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : a]

5/14/2009 1:18:00 PM

Quote :

"QUESTION: You say that Mr. Sheehy did tell you, your staff did tell you. PELOSI: He informed me that the briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could—that was all that he was required to do. We’re not in a setting—we weren’t in—I’m no longer the ranking member on intelligence. He just informed me and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter, the ranking member of the—of the Intelligence Committee. So my statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again. I’m sorry. I have to find the page. I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was that the briefing—in the briefing was that it was not being employed. A moment later, she said the following: QUESTION: ... Sheehy did not tell you that the—he was informed that they were actually using the techniques? PELOSI: No, he did say that. He said that the—the committee chair and ranking member and appropriate staff had been briefed that these techniques were now being used. They—that’s all I was informed, that they were being used and that a letter was sent. And that is a complete—my responsibility—it’s different. I’m no longer the ranking member. Appropriately, the ranking member sent the letter."

from earlier today.

5/14/2009 2:53:26 PM

Are my eyes deceiving me? Hooksaw is back?

5/14/2009 4:28:34 PM

^ he is... it's one of the things he has in common with herpes.

5/14/2009 10:52:12 PM

I think this thread demands someone posting the poster of the elephant humping the donkey than the donkey humping the elephant

GOP and DEMS same fucking difference.

5/14/2009 11:43:31 PM

Quote :

" but I don't see why it matters that she's a woman"

I don't see where he said anything implying that.

Quote :

"Much improved, thank you."

Caving to comprehension-challenged PC policing when there was nothing wrong with the original statement is an improvement?



break, break:

Pelosi is a walking disaster. I'm not exactly sure who likes her...nobody, as far as I can discern. Somehoworother, she's managed to hold on to the Speaker position.


break, break:

Voting for a major party candidate whom you mostly agree with even when there's a 3rd party candidate slightly closer to your views CAN still be a reasonable decision, just like "wasting" a vote on a 3rd party candidate can be reasonable if neither of the major party candidates are even in the ballpark is perfectly reasonable.

Of course, I generally find myself totally politically homeless. The Dems are almost without fail everything that I despise, politically. Most of the Republicans are pretty terrible, too, although I do find some that range from decent to good, and I vote for them. Libertarians are generally far too extreme--if they'd run some more moderate, pragmatic candidates, I'd vote for them more often (although I do vote for them sometimes as it is).

It isn't uncommon for me to just abstain from voting in my races (even big ones, like President or Senator). If there's a spot for a write-in, I've been known to write in "No confidence". I think in the last election, I picked a candidate for MAYBE half of the races (mostly GOP, I think one Dem, and a couple of Libertarians), and just abstained for the rest.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 12:21 AM. Reason : asdf]

5/15/2009 12:13:47 AM

i bet every democrat other than pelosi is like "wtf man, seriously"

5/15/2009 12:21:16 AM

So, did these CIA documents say that Pelosi was told explicitly that waterboarding was being used? Because every report I've seen only says that she was told that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used. You cannot simply assume that that includes waterboarding.

And anyone who thinks that the CIA- the same agency that destroyed video tapes of these very same interrogations to avoid prosecution- would be above lying to a congressman is a bit naive.

5/15/2009 6:34:59 AM

Haven't read the thread, I just heard something on the way in to work this morning. Basically:

Quote :

"Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA. "They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree."

Wow. I thought she had more political tact than that... or maybe I'm the only one that thinks that the Speaker of the House shouldn't issue statements that completely undercut the CIA. Or maybe if someone in that position didn't call down that agency who would? Or if they mislead you all the time why haven't you spent some time getting the agency under control. I'm confused - lack of sleep - but calling them out now just looks like a CYA move.

EDIT: The other interesting tidbit in all this... if she was briefed and lied about it, why didn't they bust her in the lie right then and there? Why wait all these months? That also makes it look like a politically motivated attack on Pelosi (feels dirty for defending her).

Can't trust any of these clowns.

EDIT2: The news story I read this morning looked like she only attended one briefing (of of many that were held) where they may or may not have discussed the use of water boarding. It also said that there were many briefings that were held that did discuss the practice and that many Democrats and Republicans were in attendance. You'd think that one of the Democrats in one of those meetings would have informed their Speaker, but I don't know the nature of the supposed lie they caught her in:

"The CIA never briefed me" vs "I had no knowledge"

Of course the latter would be impossible to prove.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 8:33 AM. Reason : -]

5/15/2009 8:23:30 AM

there was incident with pelosi's republican counterpart (i believe) where the CIA claimed that they had briefed him on interrogations on 4 separate occasions and 2 or 3 of those meetings never happened. so i wouldn't put it past the CIA to just make shit up.

she also didn't keep her ranking committee membership for that long after the initial practice was briefed in 2002 because she became house minority leader after gephardt resigned in '02. so it would make sense that she didn't go to many of the briefings.


[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2009 10:25:19 AM

Quote :

"Can't trust any of these clowns."

5/15/2009 10:29:25 AM

^^ You just can't stop yourself from defending Pelosi, can you? In contrast, I honestly think she may be suffering from some form of dementia. Just look at Pelosi's recent rambling news conference--it reminds me of the Captain Queeg breakdown scene from The Caine Mutiny:

http://tinyurl.com/q9byyx

Sweet Jesus.

In any event, Pelosi is wildly unpopular--even among fellow Democrats. And someone of her sort ain't going to help the party come Election Day.

Quote :

"Sixty percent (60%) of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. A growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorablility_ratings/congressional_favorability_ratings

5/15/2009 12:47:17 PM

i'm not a huge fan of pelosi to be honest. but this is obviously just an attempt to obfuscate what the real issue is. the worst that pelosi may have done is been privy to information about torture and not raised a (possibly illegal) stink about it.

there are far worse actors involved in this whole controversy. and honestly if there was a truth commission or hearings or whatever and it ruined pelosi's career (along with many others on both sides of the aisle) i'd be perfectly cool with that. i want to see justice done here. but i recognize a sideshow for what it is.

5/15/2009 1:09:56 PM

^ Nice MoveOn/HuffPo/DNC talking points. If this situation is a "sideshow," then it's one of Pelosi's own making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w

5/15/2009 1:13:21 PM

it is partially of her making. it's also nowhere near as important as the torture itself.

5/15/2009 1:14:55 PM

^ 1. Potential lying by a setting speaker is not important?

2. Pelosi has accused the CIA of a crime (misleading Congress)--where's the investigation?

3. The Bush administration had opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel indicating that the techniques in question were not "torture."

And the witch hunt that some--like you--want is having a chilling effect on our nation's intelligence gatherers. As a result, we are less safe than we were--despite the blather you and others will undoubtedly reply with.

5/15/2009 1:25:32 PM

i fucking hope it's having a chilling effect on torturing people.

and you don't seem to understand the difference between "nowhere near as important" and "not important"

america torturing its detainees is on a whole other plane from a congressperson lying to try to cover her ass.

5/15/2009 1:39:35 PM

Quote :

"3. The Bush administration had opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel indicating that the techniques in question were not "torture." "

Yeah, they had legal memos that said exactly what they wanted them to say. Memos from some White House-appointed lawyer don't make the thing legal.

5/15/2009 2:28:27 PM