• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner Keeps Pressure on Pelosi for CIA Accusation

Scorpion89

Banned
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Boehner Keeps Pressure on Pelosi for CIA Accusation - Political News - FOXNews.com

House Minority Leader John Boehner refused Thursday to let Speaker Nancy Pelosi off the hook for accusing the CIA of lying to Congress about Bush-era interrogation techniques employed on terror suspects.

"She's made this outrageous claim," he said, asserting that it has undermined the ability of intelligence officials to keep America safe. "And believes that it's just all going to go away. Well, just trust me: It's not going to go away."

Good for him she needs to either to show the proof if not then she needs to resign.
 
The CIA does lie. That is nothing new. Pelosi is not alone in stating the CIA is incorrect in who it briefed and what it told them. Since when was the CIA the ultimate source of truth?
 
The CIA does lie. That is nothing new. Pelosi is not alone in stating the CIA is incorrect in who it briefed and what it told them. Since when was the CIA the ultimate source of truth?

Really so you do understand that it's a Federal Law if the CIA/ DoD/FBI/NSC/NSA lie to Congress. Trust me on this one if any of us every leid to congress we would feel the full effect of Congress on us.


Have you ever sat in a Congressinal Briefing I have and I can tell you this it's rather straight to the point with no punchs pulled by the Congress Men/Women.

Mo the CIA didn't lie and they have the paperwork and records along with the other members of congress who were also in these briefing backing them up.
 
Good for him she needs to either to show the proof if not then she needs to resign.

There is no proof on either side. It is "my word against your word", and both sides are suspect in this. CIA records are reportedly wrong for at least 3 congressmen other than Pelosi on briefings they gave. You are not going to get enough to seriously go after anyone in this. Boehner is just going for political points.
 
Well, gosh . . . I wonder who has the bigger incentive to lie here? Why would Panetta contradict Pelosi if it weren't true?
 
Well, gosh . . . I wonder who has the bigger incentive to lie here? Why would Panetta contradict Pelosi if it weren't true?

I am not accusing Panetta of lying. The records are questionable.
 
The CIA does lie. That is nothing new. Pelosi is not alone in stating the CIA is incorrect in who it briefed and what it told them. Since when was the CIA the ultimate source of truth?
If you do not trust the CIA, what agency do you propose replace the CIA?
 
The CIA does lie. That is nothing new. Pelosi is not alone in stating the CIA is incorrect in who it briefed and what it told them. Since when was the CIA the ultimate source of truth?

Really then why don't you and Nancy PROVE IT in a COURT OF LAW.

Oh yeah..because you and her will go to jail for falsely accusing the CIA of lying.


Pelosi needs to be removed as Speaker of the House. Her remaining in that position is horrible.


Oh and go Boehner..Pelosi accused the CIA of lying which is a crime. If she does not step down I hope this turns into a court case because it will not only destroy her but it will destroy YEARS of Far Left rhetoric.

Biggest fear the left has in this entire thing is that Pelosi has trapped herself into a position in which their rhetoric over the years will be challenged and shows t be made up.
 
Well, gosh . . . I wonder who has the bigger incentive to lie here? Why would Panetta contradict Pelosi if it weren't true?

Well Speaker Pelosi is the one who made the statement and up to toady she has yet to produce any real hard material to prove her case.

Personally I would love to see someone from the CIA take her to court and make her prove the case.

Oh and on a side note Speaker Pelosie likes to send one of her aids to allot of Pentagon/CIA/NSA/NSC briefings, we had two of her aids yesterday at a briefing on a subject she should have been at.
 
I think I was unclear.

All of the incentive for lying here is Pelosi's. It does nothing for Panetta OR for the CIA to drag her through the mud if it isn't true. In fact, it's against Panetta's partisan interest and against the CIA's institutional interest to contradict her on this.
 
Well, gosh . . . I wonder who has the bigger incentive to lie here? Why would Panetta contradict Pelosi if it weren't true?


Panetta was not head of CIA at the time, and he has no direct knowledge of who was briefed or what they were told.
 
Really so you do understand that it's a Federal Law if the CIA/ DoD/FBI/NSC/NSA lie to Congress. Trust me on this one if any of us every leid to congress we would feel the full effect of Congress on us.


UNDERNEWS: A SHORT HISTORY OF CIA LIES TO CONGRESS

In 1973, CIA director Richard Helms deceived the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, refusing to acknowledge the role of the CIA in overthrowing the elected government in Chile. Helms falsely testified that the CIA had not passed money to the opposition movement in Chile, and a grand jury was called to see if Helms should be indicted for perjury.

In 1977, the Justice Department brought a lesser charge against Helms, who pleaded nolo contendere; he was fined $2,000 and given a suspended two-year prison sentence. Helms went from the courthouse to the CIA where he was given a hero's welcome and a gift of $2,000 to cover the fine. It was one of the saddest experiences in my 24 years at CIA.

In the new Ford administration, Secretary of State Kissinger, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and White House chief of staff Cheney orchestrated phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola.

The CIA lied to Senator Dick Clark, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who was a critic of the Agency's illegal collaborations with the government of South Africa against Angola and Mozambique. Agency briefers exaggerated the classification of their materials so that Senate and House members could not publicize this information. Agency shields of secrecy and falsehood were extremely effective.

In the 1980s, CIA director William Casey and his deputy, Bob Gates, consistently lied to the congressional oversight committees about their knowledge of Iran-contra. Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) believed that Casey and Gates were running a disinformation campaign against the Senate intelligence committee. Casey even managed to alienate Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a pro-intelligence, conservative senator who typically walked through barbed wire for the CIA. . .

Throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, Aldrich Ames performed as the most destructive traitor in the history of the CIA, but CIA directors Gates, William Webster, and Jim Woolsey failed to inform the congressional oversight committees of the serious counter-intelligence problems that had been created.

In the late 1980s, the CIA concealed from the Congress that Saddam Hussein was diverting U.S. farm credits through an Atlanta bank to pay for nuclear technology and sophisticated weapons. The chairman of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) and Representative Dan Glickman (D-KS) respectively, were furious with the deception tactics of CIA briefers.

The greatest CIA disinformation campaign in the congress took place in 2002-2003, when CIA director George Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, consistently lied about Iraqi training for al Qaeda members on chemical and biological weapons as well as the existence of mobile labs to manufacture such weapons. . .

More recently, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, documented the dissembling of the CIA to cover-up the Agency's involvement in a drug interdiction program in Peru that led to the loss of innocent lives. Hoekstra accused CIA director Tenet with misleading the Congress. . .
 
Panetta was not head of CIA at the time, and he has no direct knowledge of who was briefed or what they were told.

Taking this at face value (and it's not like there aren't records), that's even MORE reason for him not to contradict her, sport. :doh
 

BS from a BS Mag. wonder why no one from the CIA was charged with a crime hmm because the CIA doesn't Lie to Congress, yes they mislead and re-direct in open discussion but in closed dorr session they don't lie and I'm telling you from someone who has sat in on briefings with CIA Operational folks.

I'm also telling you as someone who has in the past had to give some Sen. and Congress Folks Briefings we don't lie to Congress, you do understand the fined and time you would do correct. Also we all are required to sign a document that basically states that we will not keep information or mislead Congress.

But then again I guess you must know more then us who do this for a living correct.
 
Taking this at face value (and it's not like there aren't records), that's even MORE reason for him not to contradict her, sport. :doh

Yes it is because he has had the chance to sit down and read ll the reports and records and would have come forward if the Bush ran CIA actually lied.
 
The one thing I found interesting in the story is everytine a reporter ask her a question this subject she try's to re-direct or change the subject. I for one would like every White House reporter ask her the question on one day a week.
 
Taking this at face value (and it's not like there aren't records), that's even MORE reason for him not to contradict her, sport. :doh

He is going by the records, but since this has started, the records accuracy is being questioned. Source: FactCheck.org: Pelosi's Tortured Denials

Former Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat who in September 2002 served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with the Huffington Post that prior to the release of the memo, the CIA initially told him that CIA records indicated he'd been briefed four times on torture policies. Graham, however, has rather famously chronicled pretty much every aspect of his life (right down to, say, what he puts in his pockets each day) since his first run for governor of Florida in 1977. Graham checked his notebooks and discovered that, in fact, he was briefed only once, on Sept. 27, 2002. Graham said he informed CIA officials of the discrepancy, telling NPR that after the agency reviewed its records "they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates."
 
He is going by the records, but since this has started, the records accuracy is being questioned. Source: FactCheck.org: Pelosi's Tortured Denials

There's been plenty of time for them to make the same determination re: Pelosi.

The point is, Panetta has NO reason to say Pelosi was at a meeting when she wasn't; Pelosi has EVERY reason to say she wasn't when she was. She IS the less credible one here.

And neither Pelosi nor Panetta is my peep, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Things just stack against Pelosi.
 
There's been plenty of time for them to make the same determination re: Pelosi.

The point is, Panetta has NO reason to say Pelosi was at a meeting when she wasn't; Pelosi has EVERY reason to say she wasn't when she was. She IS the less credible one here.

And neither Pelosi nor Panetta is my peep, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Things just stack against Pelosi.

Panetta is much more credible than Pelosi, and I would like nothing better than to send Pelosi home in disgrace. I hate dishonest politicains, and I hate dishonest democrats more than most since they make the rest of us democrats look bad. However, since Panetta is basing his information from records that are recorded after the fact, and are questionable, it is impossible to prove that Pelosi is lying. I think she is lying, but we cannot prove it, so she stays.
 
Harshaw said:
The point is, Panetta has NO reason to say Pelosi was at a meeting when she wasn't; Pelosi has EVERY reason to say she wasn't when she was.
Pelosi never said she wasn't at a meeting.
 
Panetta was not head of CIA at the time, and he has no direct knowledge of who was briefed or what they were told.
Then why is he speaking out on the matter?
 
Then why is he speaking out on the matter?

He is giving what is on the CIA records of the meetings. Standing up for his people is a positive trait.
 
Back
Top Bottom