Pelosi says CIA, Bush administration lied to her about interrogations, WMD
By David Neiwert Thursday May 14, 2009 9:05am
Nancy Pelosi rebuts the right-wing frothing accusing her of knowing about waterboarding after having been briefed on it by the Bush White House:
WASHINGTON - Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in its use.
"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.
Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.
Oh, the wingnuts will go crazy. But Pelosi is certainly more credible about this than Dick Cheney or John "Orange Man" Boehner.
Login or Register to post comments.
Pelosi is useless. She's useless on bringing investigations of war crimes, useless on pressing the administration to drop torture, useless to enable oversight. She deserves to be run out of San Francisco.
Please promote Henry Waxman.
Says the CIA are experts at overthrowing foreign goverments so she better not mess with them.I think Pelosi is telling the truth and she may force an investigation,We should give her our support
I won't forgive Pelosi for blocking any sort of substantive impeachment investigation & I'll admit that her stiff mannerisms & frozen smile annoy me.
That said, Pelosi is a pretty consistent liberal voter who was deliberately hamstrung by Bush/Cheney's cynical & malicious use of national security classifications. I have no doubt that the Bush Administration was deliberately using classified briefings as a way of entrapping anyone who opposed their criminality.
Pelosi voted against the illegal Iraq War & for that she gets more leeway with me than a lot of her colleagues.
Again with the impeachment!!! This is a stupid argument to make and shows you really don't understand what impeachment is and what is needed for a CONVICTION.
The Senate would have blocked a conviction so impeachment was useless. No ifs-ands-or buts about it!!! Impeachm,ent would have done nothing good for the Dems or for the country for that matter because the republic theocrats in the senate would have not voted to convict. The dems did not have the votes to convict PERIOD so indictment was useless!!!
Which Republicans would have voted not to convict? Especially after the information disclosed in the hearings.
Oh, that's right, there never were any hearings. No testimony was taken; no investigation conducted. There never was a chance to motivate public opinion.
They never even tried.
The only real question is whether it was complicity or collaboration.
Which republicans would have voted to convict??? It doesn't matter how many hearings and how much dirt was put out there because you would have needed a super majority to convict. There were easily 33 stalwart Bush republicans and blue dog dems STILL in the senate. The dems --- and the USA --- needed 67 votes to convict. List off 67 senators you could GUARANTEE to vote for conviction.
The point is that by a trial or investigation you can bring to light the illegal actions of the previous administration, effectively showing the public what happened and painting Bush as the war criminal he is. If no republicans voted with it, it doesn't matter. If anything the public would think that those republicans who voted against impeachment were complicit in the war crimes or were an actual player in the events. Either way it leaves a very bad taste in voters mouths' regarding the republican party, as it should.
not if you can't get the evidence. Bush held the evidence not the congress.
Impeaching Bush would have looked petty to the majority of the US and would have made the Dems look vindictive. It's stupid to indict if there is NO way to convict. Its stupid.
I can't stress this enough either, BUSH held the memos and the info NOT Pelosi.
The congress has to trust the President is giving them the info. Do you trust Bush???
no the congress doesn't have to trust bush to give them the information. its why we have checks and balances in our government. if one branch is abusing their power then another branch is supposed to step forward and do something about it. and let me ask you this, how petty would impeachment trials have looked now?
Why?
And why does Congress have to trust the President? If they do, that kind of throws the whole "checks and balances" thing out the window.
Who has the evidence today??? Who has the evidence of wrong doing bu the Bush admin today --- this minute??? Congress??? NO.
You people will continue to push the boulder up hill forever if you don't stop to learn HOW the government ACTUALLY works.
?
this person gets nothing and is tied up in a world of "what ifs" and speculating on hypotheticals that will never happen. And then railing with great fervor at anyone who won't go along w/ his/her poorly informed pie-in-the-sky bullshit.
I think 'subpoena' is well beyond his/her ken.
How long has Conyers been trying to get Rove on the stand to answer questions about the dismissal of the fired US Attorneys? How much stalling do you need to see to believe that Bushco couldn't or wouldn't have done the same regarding a case where it was not only possible that Bush and Cheney might have been bounced from office, but also possibly faced the gallows?
Issuing subpoenas and getting those subpoenas enforced are two different things.
because it was not done. And there are enforcement procedures in place, one of them being arrest and jailing for contempt.
They were never used. And it seems they never would have BEEN used, due to the apparent temerity of the Democratic Party as a whole.
...to find someone in contempt of Congress. There's an appeal to the Supreme Court (in this case the same court that appointed Bush POTUS).
Let's say that the SCOTUS does the unexpected and rules to uphold the contempt finding. The subpoenaed party then takes the stand. Do you expect the witnesses in this case to be forthcoming? Do you expect a Bushco insider to have a crisis of conscience akin to John Dean's? Or would you expect testimony like that of Goodling, Samson and Gonzalez, whose memories failed them during their testimony? How about the witnesses invoking their 5th Amendment rights?
I'm sorry, m_k, but it's naive to think that Congress could get to the bottom of any of the Bushco scandals based on testimony from subpoenaed witnesses. To make any case against that administration would have required witnesses with inside information who were completely willing to offer their testimony voluntarily, and I don't seem to recall any of that type of witness emerging from the bowels of the Bushco administration.
I should make my opinion clear on Dean, too, because I'm not so convinced that he really had a crisis of conscience, because I'm still pretty sure that the only reason he testified was that it became crystal clear to him that he was being set up as the fall guy. 30+ years of active rehabilitation of his character tends to lead us to forget what was really happening in the '70's.
had people that were also scapegoat worthy. But no one went looking for them.
but no one tried it. So we have no idea what would have happened, had the Democrats done the job, or attempted to do it. They didn't even try. It was "Oh well. They won't cooperate. Let's move on." This is why we're stagnating right now. Where would the human race be, if it was in our nature not to try, or die trying? Probably in caves, hoping we can figure out how to do that 'fire' thing again.
One of the huge problems here is these people are now a special class of their own. Pelosi has much much more in common with her Thug cronies than she does with most everyone who voted for her. And it's not just Pelosi. It's all of them, with the exception of maybe a couple. We have a ruling class which is not in touch with the populace.
In a country that is populated with a load of gasbags that pontificate from upon high, I suppose expecting them to fulfill the minimum requirements of their cushy jobs with generous retirement and full medical benefits which they deny us, is too much to ask.
I believe kucinich introduced articles of impeachment and it was voted down easily...
"Fuck. We aren't even going to consider it."
I think it was probably approached in the same way as building an invention. Someone might come up with a plausible method of building a widget-making machine, where they're 60% sure that the machine will work. Building the machine may cost millions of dollars, but in the end, there's a 40% chance of failure. Instead of spending millions of dollars, maybe you go back to the drawing board and figure out how to build a different machine, or you wait until there's a way to make the original, unproven machine for a much lower cost.
BTW, from Balloon Juice, this:
"Before you get too harsh on Pelosi, you might want to check this out:"
Pelosi came right out the day she was made leader and declared that impeachment wott. If not that soon, close. That has the appearance of "Fuck. We aren't even going to consider it".
And that is very interesting at Balloon Juice, but my judgment is based on the accumulation of activity, not one act.
She hadn't even thought about impeachment up until the very second she was elected to the Speaker's podium. C'mon, think this through. Pelosi had to have weighed out all of the advantages and disadvantages involved, and talked it through with those who nominated her for the post as well as those whose votes she was courting. Remember, we're talking about someone who did not support Bushco's war in Iraq, unlike Steny Hoyer, her opponent for the Speaker role.
Gotta go. Wings/Ducks game 7 starts shortly. Do me a favor and root for the Wings, huh? xoxoxo :D
But I aint conceding teh other...so there was a whole cabal of them that decided impeachment wott, and she was just the mouthpiece. They are each as bad as the other.
What if the Wings determined they hadn't a prayer against the Ducks, so instead of putting the effort into it, decided this playoff game wasn't even worth trying?
:)
With each new comment, you demonstrate that it is you who doesn't understand our Constitution & tripartite form of government.
I would be more than happy to match my knowledge of governance, history and jurisprudence against yours - care to wager something? It'll be the easiest bet I ever win & I won't need nearly as many question marks & exclamation points as you seem to. Yelling is no substitute for critical thinking skills.
Oh, and the shouting tone & mistake-filled nature of your posts doesn't exactly inspire those who disagree with you to change their minds. Phrases like, "you people," are so obnoxious as to be laughable.
actually ANY reflection would be an improvement.
So, that state of things in America, is not upholding the law, but who has more votes in the Senate??? Looks like.
Thats what they said the week before the Senate Republicans
walked into Nixon's office telling him to resign.
the republicans today aren't like the republicans of Nixon's era.
Seriously, what is the rush? It's not like we're gonna forget the crimes the Bush Admin have committed. We can fix this government/economy/society first and then convict these war criminals.
Lindy Graham is on fauxnews now saying let's move on and forget about they are all guilty so let's forget it
And the economy ran into the ground was done to distract us from prosecutions and investigations while barkrupting the world so the next president couldn't do anything
just stop with any kind of conspiracy bs. The economy tanking was NOT a PREMEDITATED distraction but just a result of irresponsible, unregulated, economic Bush policies. And stop assuming dems = reps when they're clearly different UGH
seen it coming? (The economy)Oh yeah and they did all in their power to head it off I guess,Right?
that doesn't mean however that they don't need to bare any responsibility for it failing. The issue here is they believed there was no price to pay for their unregulated and irresponsible spending and economic policies. They thought they could pour money into their corporate friends and not mess the whole global economy up and stay in power but they were wrong. They WILL pay but will Dick Cheney behind bars (as much as that image pleases me) fix the economy?? no. The solution is to learn from mistakes and address that the Bush Admin (as well as HW Bush and Regan Admin) all got it wrong and we are gonna go back to fiscal responsibility. THEN, we can throw his sorry ass in jail? Ya feel me?
and Clinton policies...Rubin worked for Clinton!
This goes back further than just the past 8 years, it's more like 20 yrs of policy and continues even now with the Dems new Messiah (aka Obama).
Obama going after corporate off shore accounts should already prove that he's nothing like his predecessors from the last two decades. Also, Clinton left us a surplus so i think that should give him some points. Don't get it twisted...
so if you are using 'canard' incorrectly, I'll draw the conclusion that you don't understand what impeachment is. It doesn't matter if you think there would have been no conviction. Impeachment is a severe censure in the case of no conviction. See, Clinton, Wm J.
because many here are deliberately lying to themselves when they say impeachment would have brought evidence forward. Bush holds the evidence. The congress cannot arrest the Bush admin for not complying to a subpoena. The courts would have to step in and any court action would have been years in the making.
Cannard was the correct term and I'm sorry you couldn't see that some people are telling themselves distorted stories about how government works. I fully understand the balance of power between the three branches and I know who holds which powers.
The congress request info from the exec branch. It's up to the courts to intercede to resolve the power dispute between the branches and I GUARANTEE the courts would still be working on this issue today.
Impeachment was off the table for some good reasons.
1) No evidence
2) It would have taken years and years to get the evidence.
3) The dems would have looked petty in the process.
You still can't manage to merely spell the word, "canard," properly, let alone comprehend its meaning.
Before you accuse others of self-deception and failures of comprehension, you really may want to do a little reading. At a minimum, try some proof-reading.
I'd address the points you've attempted to make, but it's clear you have your fingers stuck in your ears while you repeat your discredited talking points.
'cannard' myself, but it does not appear to be a real word. I thought he would have caught on when I spelled it correctly, but alsa no. Proof our time here has been pretty much a waste.
I wonder how he KNOWS there was "No evidence." I don't know that. Do you Fantod? After he states there was no evidence, he continues with "It would have taken years and years to get the evidence." How so? If there is no evidence, how would they find any, even in years.
And the pièce de résistance -- "The dems would have looked petty in the process." For doing their job. Can't have a pack of assholes looking 'petty' now, can we?
You know HOW they would have LOOKED petty? Through Thug Smears, and the willingness of a public made up of halfwits willing to drink that shit up.
Looking petty and being petty are 2 entirely different things. I'm sure our little pal here isn't sharp enough to discern the diff.
http://crooksandliars.com/comment/permalink/1...
I'm arguing a valid point --- not impeaching was the right choice --- so I'm a spammer? Please.
http://crooksandliars.com/comment/permalink/1...
Rexhunter. He posted the support shit at least twice. If you'd clicked my link, you'd have seen that I was replying to rexhunter on the other time he said it.
Yeah, this was not a good moment for progressives, but it was a good moment for the right wing. At best she comes off as being incompetent and gullible ("they lied to me!") and the right wing can just run the 'partisan politics' charge right into the ground. She's got the demeanor of someone who is hiding something, whether she is or not.
Can not stand Pelosi ,, but the republicans are still in a different league to them self..
Do you wish to Cut your nose off the spike your face..
Republicans love this type of talk...They are looking for a means to divide the democrats even more...
H... you want to condemn some one , lets put Obama back on the side of the democrat party instead of kissing the republican's a... while protecting Bush's criminal administration , giving our tax money to this Global Empire , and not renegotiating the free trade bill like he promise.. His campaign promises were just lies and BS.. If Obama would shut his mouth and let the process of investigating and prosecuting Bush and his criminal administration then the republicans would not have a leg to stand on...
And if there are democrats involved in the criminal crimes then so be it....
I agree 100%. The only question is whether it's dithering incompetence or cold-blooded maneuvering to just maintain a concrete status quo...
I'll always trust the person who doesn't hide behind the 5th amendment, the troops, 9-11, we can't handle the fucking truth, whatever.
Chuy!
They're all ass-covering, lying, mendacious, venal fucking slags.
A-men to THAT! Now you've told the truth, start dissin' 'em
two sides of the same coin
exactly
... to her credibility. You know, when you sleep with dogs... don't be surprised when you wake up full of fleas.
Or puppies.
You're talking about Rahm, right??
Arf.
But the commentors who continue to pimp this Democrat=Republican culpability shit after the last eight years are essentially giving Bush and company a pass. This over-focus on Pelosi is a distraction and a right wing ploy.
I'm with you on that one. This appears to be a GOP distraction technique at work. Even if she did know about it that in and of itself does not absolve Bush and Co., the 'commander-in-chief' at the time, of any wrongdoings, etc. This is just an 'all eyes on Pelosi' thing to divert attention away from the actual criminal nature of what happened. But I also agree Pelosi is an idiot (though after the last couple of months I'm starting to realize they all are, Democrats and Republicans alike.
agreed but the wingnuts HATE powerful, smart women so this will drive them nuts and we're just waiting for the one thing that puts them over the edge
to learn nancy "impeachment is off the table" pelosi is lying.
... does Nancy have to hear the word waterboarding to understand, fine, she was lied to, but that her obligation is to investigate and hold the executive branch accountable?
It's not like this shit just popped up after January 20.
these people were complacent for 8 yrs, voting for everything put before them. NOT 1 OF THEM DID THEIR FUCKING JOB. Republicans/Democrats... all fucking traitors (ok, sans Kucinich/Paul who were always against). We are facing an economic collapse beacuse those fucks allegiance lies with those bankers that donate the millions of dollars to their campaign's, not the people. We are now about to jump into another war. Why? Are they a threat to our country? Gen. Patreus can't even give a straight answer if the supposed terrorists are there anymore. we have essentially lost all of our rights via [insert unConstitutional bill] that both sides voted for.
and you people fight over partisan bullshit like it matters.
for 8 years you people faught and bickered about everything bush was doing and bla bla bla. (i was one of them)
now, Obama (and Dems) are essentially doing the same shit, but it's ok.
i need to find an independent site.
thought it is nice to see the ppl that run the site are noticing the line is blurred.
Oh, the wingnuts will go crazy. But Pelosi is certainly more credible about this than Dick Cheney or Jim "Orange Man" Boehner.
I despise Cheney and Boehner, but what makes Pelosi more credible?
Besides party affiliation? Please tell me.
"It's hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress."
yeah right, either he is too naive to be in government or he is a LIAR and should not be in government.
Credibility? We should not depend on credibility instead there should be transparency! Let's have some investigation and find out who is credible!
we'd have Dick Cheney to thank for getting the ball rolling on torture investigations?
Thanks, Unka Dick!
Happens to everyone soon or later.
and fly them to Abu Ghraib or Bagram .
Yep. That's good Republican strategery.
Well Dick Cheney is a grandfather, so I guess we should just stop picking on him.
What a dumb argument.
.
I swear, sometimes I wonder about this blog. The commenters here will defend the Democrats to no end, and then end up sounding like complete [Deleted. Site Monitor] when they do it.
but it's looking at the big picture. If you're willing to fall for this distraction, place the focus on nancy pelosi instead of those ACTIVELY acting in deceit (aka Bush lawyers and Admin) then you sir are a Grade A [Deleted. Site Monitor] that will find yourself in another Bush era because you were unwilling to compromise with an ally like Pelosi
And I hope it ALL comes out. I want to SUE those bastards (Bush criminals) for ruining my life.
What does this post mean? Are you sexist or just joking? Does her
being a grandmother make her weaker or less suitable for her job?
Please explain!
Duh.
you never know!
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/05/13/u...
what the conservative wingnuts don't understand is that, when it all comes out, we liberals don't care if it was Democrats or Republicans that may have been complicit.....WE WANT THEM GONE IF THEY KNEW OR SIGNED OFF ON THIS TRAVESTY. Even my own Senator - Rockefeller - has been named as one who may have known.....well hell, even tho I have always voted FOR the guy, if he had ANYTHING to do with this black mark on our values as a nation HE NEEDS TO GO!!
They use this whole "who knew what and when" game to discourage us liberals from getting "our" folks in the sh1t.....
BUT...
if it can be shown that she was involved in the formulation, authorization, direct approval of and/or carrying out illegal interrogation policy then she should suffer the consequences.
The sooner we get this out of the political arena and into the legal arena the better.
are swinging from the chandeliers wearing lamps shade hats on all the great economic news!
You're a master of the non-sequitor.
She is about as trustworthy as karl rove.
.
...David, that's John, not Jim, and his last name is spelled "Boner." I believe (I haven't seen it) he's got the best tanned dick in the entire Congress. He makes us proud to be Americans.
Nancy took impeachment off the table, saying there was "no evidence whatsoever" that the Bush Administration engaged in any wrongdoing.
She doesn't get to NOW claim that she was lied to.
You know, Nancy, maybe, just maybe, if you had ALLOWED impeachment investigations to proceed, you would have found out about these lies earlier.
This isn't a partisan issue. If Pelosi knew, she belongs in prison with the rest of them.
I say that as someone who has voted for Pelosi multiple times, but never again.
Emptywheel's been all over this for weeks. Her latest:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/...
I sometimes wonder why the staff on this page often act like a bunch of yes-men/women when it comes to Democratic leadership. If any pol from either party is acting thuggish, then the people who are acting properly should prosecute, censure, or whatever those people who aren't playing nicely. Nobody deserves a pass as a function of political party.
You are as credible as the Bush admin.
she is on top of business.
http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/wp-content/upl...
Lots of people knew a lot of things and didn't do anything. Does that exonerate criminal acts? Don't think so. Another right wing strawman argument to deflect from their crimes. Along with the "ticking time bomb" and others.
Would it be legal to kill one's neighbor if it were the only way to keep him from contacting space aliens bent on enslaving mankind? Well, hell yes, he saved the human race! And look, no space alien attacks!
... I spoke to the mothership just the other night. Our invasion plans are proceeding according to plan.
/snark
I killed my neighbor, there's no way...I should have tortured him first!
You might've gleaned valuable information that could've prevented this invasion.
... you prevented the Talithan Armada from launching a successful attack. Thanks for taking care of them for us ... you have the undying gratitude of the people of Zubeneshamali.
The only way for someone to contradict what she's saying is by going under oath and testifying that they did in fact learn of plans to waterboard (torture). Who's going to do this? The repubs would not only have to admit that they knew about it but that the Bush administration/CIA came to them and told them of their plans to torture, thereby incriminating Bush et al.
Sure, Nancy would go down, but that's just icing on the cake.
The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, primarily from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued at $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress.
Independently wealthy politicians may be the best bet in a world without term limits. They might not be as tempted to engage in pay for play political tactics.
How is slavery to wealth independent?
Let's get this into a legal arena. Investigate. Get the facts and proceed from there.
Lots of people knew a lot of things and didn't do anything. Does that exonerate criminal acts?
No.
Obviously.
But it DOES implicate those who knew and did nothing.
The CIA Denies Cheney Request To Release Documents On Interrogations!
Whoo-haaaaah!
Wow. Hard to believe that the bought and paid for CIA lied for the corrupt Bush administration.
Remember, we found out how dysfunctional the CIA was and how the FBI & CIA, rather than working together, were constantly fighting each other.
Nothing's changed.
in a DEMOCRACY...when an Administration's time in office is over the representatives of the prior Administration move on. They do not comment on the policies of the present Administration.
They are PRIVATE citizens. They no longer serve the government and the interests of their Administration are no longer relevant.
DICK Cheney is such a megalomaniac, he still believes that he has the divine right to influence, formulate and direct policy for this country.
He really needs to just STFU and go home.
with everything except the last sentence. Let him stay front and center, keep stirring the pot. It's just amazing. He's doing the Republican Party no favors AND he's tightening the noose around his own neck (so to speak).
He's helping to slowly chisel the 22%ers down to 21 . . 20 . .
but it's always better to have evil out there and exposed rather than hiding in the shadows.
The Bush administration and right-wing noise machine tries to pin the whole torture debacle on your shoulders, and you don't feel enough of a vindictive streak to investigate?
You either have the patience of a saint, or are a blatant cover-up. Guess which one I'm picking.
I can't imagine anyone, whether Republicans or lefties (or Republicans disguised as lefties), crying, "The fix is in," and, "Conflict of interest," if Pelosi herself called for an investigation.
That responsibility should fall to a committee chair. Which committee, I'm not sure.
and has been a power establishment player her entire life had no clue as to what was going on and what goes on?
OtaY whatever
I knew the invasion of Iraq was bs, even said at the time that there would prolly be infighting amongst the different factions. I knew the chimp was lying when he said he wanted to wait on the weapons inspectors before deciding anything.
I figured they'd start a torture regime soon and figured the chimp was lying when he said we didn't torture.
When the chimp claimed he wasn't wiretapping Americans I just thought of the Carnivore program started by Clinton and how that was bs as well.
IF she really is that stupid, then maybe her sentence should be 10 smacks on the head a day for a couple of months.
Those words destroyed any credibility she ever had.
I say let her go she doing great right now
Not on this planet. I agree with DD21.
how can we trust any 'evidence' she personally may have to give.
It's a case of "where you lying then, or are you lying now? With the immediate "Impeachment is off the table" meme of hers from 2006 that really deflated the country and Democratic party supporters and people who had hoped for REAL changes then. We instead got more of the same. So she lied then. And I suspect she's lying now.
And even if she's doing okay now, doesn't excuse her from transgressions. She did not investigate Bush; she protected him. Why, I wonder.
But for now at least she is creating a big stink about it which can only help in finally getting some justice.
Would you rather the media just be quite about the whole thing (torture and murder) for now?Because I'm sure they would rather the country not hear anything else about it,And forget it
I would "rather the media just be quite [sic] about the whole thing (torture and murder) for now?"
What is with people? Are some of you incapable of not reading a bunch of shit into comments that aren't anywhere near on the mind of the poster? In fact, your query is about 180 degrees from my stance on the matter, as you would know, if you've bothered to read any of my comments on this site.
And lying to the American Public is not against the law. Why would she be prosecuted for it?
"Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding."
..and you did NOTHING! Oh wait, you took impeachment off the table. WEll, I'm sorry Ms. Pelosi, you admitted you knew about the torture, regardless of what you were told by the CIA, you admitted finding out about the waterboarding and did nothing..Let the Prosecutions begin!
i will continue to side with pelosi until there's absolute proof otherwise. i have always felt that the BUSH people the cia and fbi would try to spread the blame. i don't believe pelosi knew everything. the BUSH/cheney people made it look like she was told along with a few other dems. i don't believe it. BUSH/cheney didn't want to risk not be able to do the "enhanced interrogation" their way.
Remember the old days...? Ah...good times, good times.
Pelosi officially opposes the interrogation technique of waterboarding.[97] In one hour-long 2002 briefing, while Pelosi was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was told about enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding authorized for a captured terrorist, Abu Zubaydah.[98][99][100] After the briefing, Pelosi said she "was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal."[101] Two unnamed former Bush Administration officials say that the briefing was detailed and graphic, and at the time she didn't raise substantial objections[102]. One unnamed U.S. official present during the early briefings said, "In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to September 11 and people were still in a panic. But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"[102]
And ANYONE who authorized the use of ILLEGAL interrogation techniques should be prosecuted.
ANYONE!
Clear?
In any conspiracy, some offenders are more culpable than others. Only a few people from our Government could authorize torture. We're trying to kill a snake by going after it's tail. That method helped us capture major torturer Lynndie England.
Evet?
..panicked? Really, maybe they shouldn't have been leaders of the greatest democracy of the world then. Maybe that's why they turned us from a nation of laws into a nation of torturers!
Which part? This:
Or this:
she didn't create the policy, she didn't enact the policy.
Is she somehow complicit, sure...but that doesn't diminish the fact or exonerate anyone in the Adminstration that concocted this plan, justified it, or enacted it. It doesn't exonerate a President, or VP or Secretary of Defense who have all the power because the buck stops with them.
Notice that the very first question by reporters to Pelosi is -- aren't YOU also complicit? They immediately let Bush and Cheney off the hook -- again -- and want to go after Pelosi. And she has to spell it out for them what she was told and what it means.
She has to spell it out for the press that the real issue is the Bush administration misleading the Congress. Sickening.
'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"
If anyone is really interested in protecting 'The People' - we should be waterboarding Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, and lots of others who've been 'torturing' Us for decades.
that most of the posters here aren't prosecutors.
I would just plead guilty.
manipulation) politicians continue to employ more then anything. Just be HONEST!
"Yes I overlooked, ignored the obvious to protect us from another 911 attack now if you can't handle that I'm sorry!"
Just say it
For the repugs or anyone else to prove Nancy's lying, they have to prove the guilt of the administration and any repugs that were also briefed. If Nancy goes down, there will be LOTS of pols going down as well as Bushites . . all good.
Like it or not the paper trail tells the truth. Nancy and other Democrats folded and followed the orders and direction of the Bush Administration. Only a few stood up and spoke out against the criminal acts. Some were just silent and didn't vote. But remember Pelosi was working to be Speaker of the House and she needed friends in the Republican Party and one way was to suck up to Dick Cheney the real President. Feinstein is sitting in a corner with hopes her misdeeds are spoken about. Reid is to deep in the mess as he's on the campaign trail to save Dick Cheney. People only look to the pass to get the answers. Pelosi was so scared of Dick Cheney she had her first meeting after getting the job as Speaker and came out with the now famous words " the Impeachment is off the table we should just pray for President Bush". Pelosi made the deal with the Devil to get what she wanted and now comes the cost. Nancy Pelosi knew about the illegal torture and did nothing nor said anything about it. Now it's out in the public Nancy is lying to save her job as others will do also.
like dumb sheep while Lord Bush told them what was going to happen, why, when, where, how and they were either with us or against us.
if you look at the long list of persons who are 'no longer with us' after not following the Bush family directives over the past number of decades, it's not hard to understand why folks like Pelosi 'go along to get along'.
Pelosi is more safe now because it is all out in the news,So we should give her our support
about Bush right after 9/11.
That worked out well, didn't it?
Have you seen the paper trail? It's admittedly based on the "best recollections" of CIA agents. And it shows that they briefed Pelosi on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in general in '02; it's much later where the CIA notes that they briefed others (not Pelosi) on waterboarding specifically.
Why would she need the support of the Republicans to become the Speaker of the House? The vote for the post was made by the Democratic majority of the House.
In pdf. form.
Here's Greg Sargent's take:
and it's a SAD reality. nobody makes Speaker by stepping on toes.
"Pelosi was so scared of Dick Cheney she had her first meeting after getting the job as Speaker and came out with the now famous words " the Impeachment is off the table we should just pray for President Bush"."
Was it the same thing that Pres. Obama was told? : 'Give us a free pass on torture or we'll torture you!' 'You have to torture, its in the Constitution now!' What did he say and why didn't she come out against torture when she realized it was torture? Don't be an apologist for Ms. "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi; this nightmare could've ended in 2006 if she didn't take impeachment off the table or spoken up earlier.
"I am Satan."
My lord, i did not recognize you in the flesh.
I remember it vividly. At the very moment she took the podium to speak, somebody came on my I/M and said, "Still tough"?
don't make PROMISES YOU CAN'T KEEP!
for your previous post at 10:47?
...moot anyway. If there isn't enough evidence already out there to assign a special prosecutor by now, there never will be.
As long as cowards inhabit the key positions of power, nothing is going to happen to the criminals, whoever they may be, in Washington.
Appoint a Special Prosecutor and investigate. If not, the whole country is moot.
Login or Register to post comments.