To: lazarus, sarijoul, and others

From: The Obama administration and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

Panetta Says CIA Agents 'Truthfully' Briefed Pelosi

Quote :

"May 15 (Bloomberg) -- Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta disputed U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's charge that the CIA misled her about interrogation tactics, saying officers of the spy agency 'briefed truthfully' in 2002. In a message to CIA employees, Panetta cited a chart of congressional briefings that showed Pelosi was present for a Sept. 4, 2002, discussion of tactics used to interrogate suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah. '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,"' Panetta said."

Quote :

"A former member of Congress who like Pelosi is a California Democrat, Panetta told his CIA colleagues that, while 'there is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business,' the 'debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.' 'Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission,' Panetta urged. There was no immediate response from Pelosi's office to an e-mailed request for comment on Panetta's memo. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to say whether the White House agreed with Pelosi's charge. 'The best thing we can do is look forward,' Gibbs said. [LOL! They punted!"

Quote :

"House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer declined yesterday to support Pelosi's charge when asked about it on the House floor by Virginia Republican Eric Cantor. 'I certainly hope that's not the case,' Hoyer said. 'I don't draw that conclusion.'"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax..5s0JJ5rI&refer=home





I'm gonna throw this gavel into the gears of the Democratic Party 'cause I'm batshit!

http://tinyurl.com/pmjp4h

5/15/2009 5:56:01 PM

The woman is a huge moron. I also have no doubt she get reelected.

5/15/2009 9:32:35 PM

^ I agree with the former. But I wouldn't be so sure about the latter:

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

And Pelosi doesn't seem to be very popular here either.

5/15/2009 10:22:41 PM

^ The problem, of course, is that 60% of Americans don't live in Pelosi's district.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are fantastic pussies who would never, ever challenge her leadership.

5/15/2009 10:24:06 PM

^

Quote :

"The problem, of course, is that 60% of Americans don't live in Pelosi's district."

Unfavorability numbers as high as Pelosi's have a way of infectiously spreading--even as far as the Left Coast. While some congressional (it should be a lowercase c here, BTW) Democrats may be "pussies," as you put it, The Washington Post et al say otherwise about a possible challenge/reprimand:

Quote :

"Pelosi is not out of the woods. She could have saved herself some trouble by admitting earlier that she had been informed that the CIA was using waterboarding. By doing what she did yesterday, she has assured that she will remain a central character in the political fight that is raging. But whether by design or accident, she also succeeded in enlarging a controversy that is no longer a sideshow."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404240_2.html?sid=ST2009051404402

Also, the Panetta memo is a very big deal:



[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : Pelosi's under there somewhere--with the rest of 'em! ]

5/15/2009 10:37:02 PM

I would have a lot more respect for congressional democrats if they would get together and oust Pelosi as Speaker. They'd still be in control, but they would rid us of her.

5/16/2009 12:28:03 AM

yeah, they had a golden opportunity to replace her under normal rules before the 2008 session began, but I didn't even hear any discussion of the possibility in the press or from DC....
what a waste. Now to get rid of her will take all sorts of maneuvering and wrangling

5/16/2009 9:43:28 AM

She is a crazy bitch.

This is serious bizness

5/16/2009 11:15:09 AM

^^ 2009 session. whoops

5/16/2009 11:20:54 AM

As long as she has been in politics, I'm sure she has a ton of dirt on plenty of her fellow Democrats. She seems like the type of cunt person that wouldn't hesitate to do anything to stay in power.

5/16/2009 12:23:55 PM

and that's different from most other national politicians how?

5/16/2009 1:01:14 PM

you know, if San Francisco elected a rep that wasn't Pelosi, it's likely that the rep would be:

a) more liberal
b) gay
c) in support of single payer
d) be even more anti-war
e) an assortment of these

5/16/2009 1:45:49 PM

f) have even bigger breasts

5/16/2009 1:57:40 PM

so what is this all about now?

someone who is in favor of torture angry about someone lying about what they knew about the torture that they said they don't condone but in a round about way do by pretending to not know anything about it, meanwhile said torture is all wrapped up in one war started by faulty information and a neglected war that is about to ramp back up again and there's a huge shit storm about who knew what about what knew whom sometime around 2001 and then there was a cowboy and a basketball guy and somehow it's all the same thing, but different at the same time but noones actually doing any work because it's better to talk about what the other side is doing or not doing but then they flip-flop and start doing what the other side WAS doing and now everyone's somehow still angry?

something something howard zinn rush limbaugh american idol television cookie gumdrop bombs?

oh yeah, i forgot

too bad she's not as hot as sarah palin

5/16/2009 5:00:12 PM

</thread>

5/16/2009 8:07:43 PM

this will surely convince people to vote GOP in 2010

that is, unless they're advanced enough to be LIBERATRARIANSASASSSSAAARRRRRRRRR

[Edited on May 16, 2009 at 9:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2009 9:28:46 PM

I'm glad Pelosi supported water-boarding back then. Looks like it saved a lot of American lives.

She should just say that when terrorists make war on us, ugly things are gonna happen.
That's war.

Three cheers for the 2002 Pelosi!

5/16/2009 10:07:40 PM

republicans are trying really hard to make this stick because winning on an issue that has no relevance to anyone outside the washington dc circle jerk will somehow save the republican party???

way to learn nothing from the 2008 trouncing. I guess the strategy is to copy the democrats and whine and complain for 8-10 years until they can win back power by default. by default! It's a spineless strategy, but it's an easy one to execute.

And actual americans will be worse off because of it.

Newt gingrich from the 90s makes the rove/cheney/limbaugh fags running the party look like complete chimps

5/17/2009 2:27:15 AM

Quote :

"republicans are trying really hard to make this stick because winning on an issue that has no relevance to anyone outside the washington dc circle jerk will somehow save the republican party???"

...and now we've now come full-circle at last. Torture doesn't matter... as long as it's the Democrats not making a stink over it.

Bravo. We really can see where your principles lie, now.

5/17/2009 2:36:53 AM

Nice quip. Do you feel satisfied with yourself? Quips are all that are coming out of "republicans" these days

Whether or not pelosi supported torture means approximately fuck all to the US use of torture in the future. That's why this issue is not sticking. It has no bearing on future decision making, and that's why people who actually oppose torture (in that they really want it ended) aren't wasting their effort on crying over something that can't be changed.

(Which is why actual democrats are more upset over obama's actual decisions on torture and rendition, not this pelosi shit. But republicans won't talk about that because agreeing with obama doesn't allow them to smear the democrats)

In other words, your argument is completely fallacious -- but we already knew that as the whole point of the hubbub is just to smear the other party, not make a logical argument.

While mouthbreather republicans such as yourself are trying to make a useless hypocrisy attack on pelosi, the democrats are deciding on how liberal the policies they are about to put in place are going to be. The republican party is being left out of the debate because idiots who think like you have taken over.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 3:06 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2009 3:03:01 AM

Quote :

"While mouthbreather republicans such as yourself are trying to make a useless hypocrisy attack on pelosi, the democrats are deciding on how liberal the policies they are about to put in place are going to be. The republican party is being left out of the debate because idiots who think like you have taken over."

Hilarity. You're such an amazing jackass that you don't even realize that not only am I not anything close to a Republican, but I actually oppose torture. Far more than petty little partisan shits like you.

Thank you for demonstrating what a little small-minded partisan hack you really are, however. Far better than I could ever do myself.

No really, keep 'em coming. Show how much you really oppose torture on principle - the principle that one does so only when politically expedient, and engages in plenty of ass-covering for Team Blue otherwise.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 3:28 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2009 3:21:19 AM

Quote :

"something something howard zinn rush limbaugh american idol television cookie gumdrop bombs?"

marko

Weak sauce, man.

Quote :

"</thread>"

skokiaan

NOM, NOM, NOM!!!1 (THE Dreaded Double Rolly)

Why Pelosi's Hypocrisy Matters
By Charles Krauthammer

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Earlier this month, I wrote a column outlining two exceptions to the no-torture rule: the ticking time bomb scenario and its less extreme variant in which a high-value terrorist refuses to divulge crucial information that could save innocent lives. The column elicited protest and opposition that were, shall we say, spirited. And occasionally stupid. Dan Froomkin, writing for washingtonpost.com and echoing a common meme among my critics, asserted that 'the ticking time bomb scenario only exists in two places: On TV and in the dark fantasies of power-crazed and morally deficient authoritarians.' (He later helpfully suggested that my moral deficiencies derived from 'watching TV and fantasizing about being Jack Bauer.') On Oct. 9, 1994, Israeli Cpl. Nachshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car. He was interrogated with methods so brutal that they violated Israel's existing 1987 interrogation guidelines, which themselves were revoked in 1999 by the Israeli Supreme Court as unconscionably harsh. The Israeli prime minister who ordered, as we now say, this enhanced interrogation explained without apology: 'If we'd been so careful to follow the ('87) Landau Commission (guidelines), we would never have found out where Waxman was being held.' Who was that prime minister? Yitzhak Rabin, Nobel Peace laureate. (The fact that Waxman died in the rescue raid compounds the tragedy but changes nothing of Rabin's moral calculus.) That moral calculus is important. Even John McCain says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you 'do what you have to do.' The no-torture principle is not inviolable. One therefore has to think about what kind of transgressive interrogation might be permissible in the less pristine circumstance of the high-value terrorist who knows about less imminent attacks. (By the way, I've never seen five seconds of '24.') My column also pointed out the contemptible hypocrisy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is feigning outrage now about techniques that she knew about and did nothing to stop at the time. My critics say: So what if Pelosi is a hypocrite? Her behavior doesn't change the truth about torture. But it does. The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important. Our jurisprudence has the 'reasonable man' standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances. On the morality of waterboarding and other 'torture,' Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the existing circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted. Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider 'transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies' (i.e. those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals. So what happened? The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly re-elected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions -- our blindness to al-Qaeda's plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama's own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed 'high-value information' -- and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat. And they were right. You can believe that Pelosi and the whole American public underwent a radical transformation from moral normality to complicity with war criminality back to normality. Or you can believe that their personalities and moral compasses have remained steady throughout the years, but changes in circumstances (threat, knowledge, imminence) alter the moral calculus attached to any interrogation technique. You don't need a psychiatrist to tell you which of these theories is utterly fantastical."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/15/the_torture_debate_continued_96496.html

From the Obama administration:

Intel chief: Harsh techniques brought good info
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists. 'High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,' Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday."

BTW:

Quote :

"Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair's assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 'I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,' he wrote, 'but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

Far-left loons: BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!1

Rational people: But didn't Nancy Pelosi lie?

Far-left loons: SO WHAT?! WHO CARES?! FUCK BUSH! STFU, POOPYHEADED TORTURER!!!1

5/17/2009 4:19:07 AM

yet another example of an administration too concerned with getting elected than protecting the nation

5/17/2009 4:26:32 AM

^ Yes. And don't forget that under Chairman Obama rendition will continue, warrantless wiretaps will continue, military tribunals will take place, abused detainees' photos will not be released, and Guantanamo Bay remains open for business.

Change We Can Believe In



Obama: It's the new and improved Bush Lite!

5/17/2009 4:55:18 AM

lol

Quote :

"and then there was a cowboy and a basketball guy and somehow it's all the same thing, but different at the same time"

we're saying EXACTLY the same thing!!!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEE

C U WHEN YOU REPLY

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM. Reason : xoxoxo]

5/17/2009 10:05:48 AM

also let me dissect this for you:

Quote :

"something something howard zinn rush limbaugh american idol television cookie gumdrop bombs?"

something something
quote bombs, golo posts and conflicting media reports depending on the day and the source, dangerously close to "rabble rabble"

howard zinn
the idea that america loves to engage in imperialistic romps that trample social freedoms

limbaugh
the idea that america is justified in our actions in the best interest of our citizens

american idol
pop culture, distraction; also relates to "false gods" (could have just as easily used football, video games or DEAR LEADER)

television
a metaphor for "the cyclops," the beast that captures humans in order that they can be consumed

cookie
delicious, but when handled improperly, can crumble; a symbol of the republic

gumdrops
sweet treats, like arguments, one-upmanships and general verbal masturbation

bombs
nuclear warfare, fecal matter

i don't even know why you pay so much attention to some of these things if they mean so little

5/17/2009 10:29:34 AM

Just why lie about this shit? I mean seriously...its another Clinton denial hack. Pretty soon Pelosi will be debating what the word the means. Everyone knows that Washington was different in 2002, of course people were onboard for waterboarding then, 9/11 was still fresh and we wanted answers. Like someone said earlier, ugly shit happens sometimes.

It's the lying that everyone is pissed about, why lie. Pelosi is on a sinking ship.

5/17/2009 10:44:53 PM

^^ It seems that I simply misinterpreted your comments. Hey, it was late--or early.

5/18/2009 3:07:17 AM

^^exactly!

5/18/2009 12:52:50 PM

The Tortuous Logic of Nancy Pelosi
And her defenders

Quote :

"Even I – quintessentially cynical when it comes to politics and politicians – was shocked (shocked!) by the ease with which the Democratic talking heads and their blogger auxiliary took up the defense of Nancy Pelosi. Her obvious culpability in the unfolding story of how torture was legitimized in the eyes of seemingly reasonable people is such a challenge to supposedly anti-torture Democrats that one’s response to it represents a veritable litmus test of one’s honesty, integrity, and ideological consistency. It’s sad, but true, that not many alleged progressives with a public platform are earning a passing grade. As might be expected, the worst is MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann, who used to be a reasonable person – long ago and far away – but has, since the election, turned into the worst sort of party-lining hack and all-around hatchet-man, a kind of Bizarro World version of Sean Hannity. He led on Friday with the news of Pelosi’s growing vulnerability on this issue, repeating all of her talking points, which were no more convincing coming out of his mouth than they were coming out of hers. Indeed, Pelosi, after accusing the CIA of 'misleading' Congress, i.e., lying to her, backtracked, but not Olbermann. He tried to get frequent guest Jonathan Turley, a noted legal expert, to agree with his pro-Pelosi spin, but Turley wasn’t biting: he pointed out that even if what Pelosi is now saying is true – that she didn’t know anybody had been waterboarded, that this was going to be a future scenario – there is no record that she had any objections. She avers it was her job just to be notified, but, as Turley says, the point of notification is to act."

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/17/the-tortuous-logic-of-nancy-pelosi/

IMPORTANT:

Quote :

"Now, George [Stephanopoulos], it is important to point out that those who briefed Speaker Pelosi at that September briefing were career intelligence officers. These were not political operatives from the Bush administration."

--Jonathan Karl, ABC News (May 15, 2009)

http://tinyurl.com/qfzb8q

5/18/2009 7:46:56 PM

Quote :

"Pretty soon Pelosi will be debating what the word 'the' means."

exists x (P(x) and forall y[P(y) -> x = y])

5/18/2009 7:50:32 PM

5/21/2009 5:49:29 PM

pelosi is the newt of the democratic party

the left didnt like newt for obvious reasons

the right doesnt like pelosi for obvious reasons

5/21/2009 8:38:05 PM

i still want to know why the hell someone names their kid Newt... is it short for Newton? not like that is any better

5/21/2009 9:19:08 PM

EDITORIAL: Pelosi confronts justice
Laws apply to lawmakers, too

Quote :

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is working to buffer lawmakers from federal investigators. This is a bad idea. Special legal protections for politicians encourage unethical conduct."

Quote :

"Democrats facing scrutiny include the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, for his close ties to the defense lobby firm PMA Group, which is under federal investigation; House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York about a number of tax issues; Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois over his reported effort to persuade ousted Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich to appoint him to fill President Obama's former Senate seat; and Rep. Jane Harman of California, who reportedly was taped in 2005 by the National Security Agency purportedly agreeing to help seek leniency for two accused Israeli spies in exchange for help in lobbying her appointment to chair the House Intelligence Committee."

Quote :

"There is a long history of self-serving efforts to protect congressional privilege in the face of ethical scandals despite the clear limits set by the courts. The speaker's spokesman told us that negotiations with the Department of Justice are simply intended to clarify what is appropriate in terms of notifying members about searches and tapped conversations. 'Members can't expect sanctuary in their offices,' he added. We agree, but Mrs. Pelosi's effort makes it appear as if that is exactly what she is seeking. No deal should give lawmakers leniency from federal officers investigating corruption on Capitol Hill."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/pelosi-confronts-justice/

5/23/2009 7:29:51 PM

Washington Times editorial page

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM. Reason : sorry, had to post that even if sometimes they might be right. broken clocks and all.]

5/26/2009 2:42:32 PM

I don't know anyone, left or right, who actually likes Pelosi.

There's hundreds of other democrats who could do a better job than her, in the house.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 2:44:17 PM

Zombie Sam Rayburn for Speaker

5/26/2009 2:51:22 PM

I'm not sure if anyone has ever posted this (tried using the search), but I figured it would bring a little humor to this thread concerning Pelosi...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/lemon.html

5/26/2009 3:02:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure if anyone has ever posted this (tried using the search), but I figured it would bring a little humor to this thread concerning Pelosi... http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/lemon.html"

i just like posting this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQwj0EqOQJw

5/26/2009 3:08:54 PM

Okay, so we're pretty much all in agreement--a rare TSB occurrence--Pelosi blows. Can we agree that she should probably go before she hurts the Democratic Party even more or is that too far?

Look, I don't dislike all Democrats--I vote for a few (usually local/state) in every election. Hell, I even used to be a Democrat--I expect that some of you just fell out of your chairs!

I'll go one better: I voted for Bill Clinton--the first time. And I view it as one of the biggest mistakes I ever made in my life.

5/26/2009 6:37:13 PM

yes, we can agree with that, and if you search hard enough, you can find plenty of Democrats who were calling for her removal as early as mid-late 2007, and definitely between the 2008 and 2009 sessions

5/26/2009 10:19:05 PM

^ Yet, there Pelosi sits in her speaker's chair--right behind Joe "Rhetorical Flourishes" Biden in the line of succession to the presidency.

Wow. Absolutely terrifying.

5/27/2009 9:30:20 AM

well, she sat in the same place for 2 years behind George "misundestimated" Bush and Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney, so, yeah..... not much has changed I guess

5/27/2009 9:50:53 AM

^^ haha really?

So Pelosi is terrifying because she lied about her knowledge of torture. But Bush/Cheney weren't terrifying WHILE they were lying about torture?

5/27/2009 10:07:07 AM

^ It's not just that--not even close. The thought of this hyperactively blinking, stuttering, ridiculous creature being anywhere near the power of the presidency is absolutely frightening to me.

^^ Can I call Obama Barack "Orion"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvJ8avPzIOA

5/27/2009 10:10:40 AM

^Now you might understand what people were feeling when Sarah Palin was in contention to be 2nd in command.

5/27/2009 5:54:45 PM

^ Hey, I had and still have my problems with Palin, believe me--I had two tickets to choose from and I went down swinging with Palin et al. But I'd still take her over Pelosi any day of the week.

5/27/2009 6:12:03 PM

Quote :

"Hell, I even used to be a Democrat--I expect that some of you just fell out of your chairs!"

like this guy?

5/28/2009 1:42:34 PM

^ Not at all--please stop trolling. And two can play that game, you know:



FYI: Former KKK member Robert Byrd is still in the Democratic Party, but I don't see you protesting this.

5/28/2009 3:41:22 PM