• 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!

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

And you're supporting a politician who was too stupid to ask? So she didn't know then, didn't ask, so couldn't be outraged, right?

Wow. And you know for certain she DIDN'T ask and was told, "We can't tell you because it's classified?"

Dude. You were THERE????
 
I realize that you don't understand the ideology behind holding someone accountable (I mean from your own party) but if she is guilty then how is that "cannibalizing their own"?

I realize you don't understand the ideology behind impugning good people trying to protect US citizens for purely hyper partisan political purposes.

However, I think it is purely willful denial.

;)
 
And you're supporting a politician who was too stupid to ask? So she didn't know then, didn't ask, so couldn't be outraged, right?

If we could not support stupid politicians, who could we support? The two words kinda belong together.

It's easy to look back after the fact and say she should have done things different, but as things stand now, this looks to be a lot less of an issue as it first appeared(which does disappoint me in a way, I thought maybe we could get a new speaker out of this).

On this subject overall though...how about we just blanket pardon/give immunity to every one involved, and then investigate and find out what happened without any stigma involved? Follow up with a new set of clearer rules about what we are allowed and not allowed to do to prisoners, and then move on and put this whole thing behind us.
 
If we could not support stupid politicians, who could we support? The two words kinda belong together.

It's easy to look back after the fact and say she should have done things different, but as things stand now, this looks to be a lot less of an issue as it first appeared(which does disappoint me in a way, I thought maybe we could get a new speaker out of this).

On this subject overall though...how about we just blanket pardon/give immunity to every one involved, and then investigate and find out what happened without any stigma involved? Follow up with a new set of clearer rules about what we are allowed and not allowed to do to prisoners, and then move on and put this whole thing behind us.

How funny that you continue to believe that this whole debate is regarding an effort to get at the truth behind interrogation methods and not some purely hyper partisan Democrat effort to merely impugn political opponents in the court of public opinion whose main crime was trying to protect the American people. :rofl
 
How funny that you continue to believe that this whole debate is regarding an effort to get at the truth behind interrogation methods and not some purely hyper partisan Democrat effort to merely impugn political opponents in the court of public opinion whose main crime was trying to protect the American people. :rofl

If you commit a crime, it's a crime -- no matter what reasons you had for committing the crime.
 
If you commit a crime, it's a crime -- no matter what reasons you had for committing the crime.

WHAT CRIME? The last time I looked, the Attorney General of the United States deemed that there were no crimes committed and no charges would be filed.

What is it with Liberals? They deliberately AVOID reality so they can wallow in hyper partisan denial?
 
If we could not support stupid politicians, who could we support? The two words kinda belong together.

It's easy to look back after the fact and say she should have done things different, but as things stand now, this looks to be a lot less of an issue as it first appeared(which does disappoint me in a way, I thought maybe we could get a new speaker out of this).

On this subject overall though...how about we just blanket pardon/give immunity to every one involved, and then investigate and find out what happened without any stigma involved? Follow up with a new set of clearer rules about what we are allowed and not allowed to do to prisoners, and then move on and put this whole thing behind us.

The whole problem is that what we are "allowed" to do to prisoners in order to save lives is constantly changing. There have been countless "clearer rules" over the years, yet we still have this debate. Who's to say that in 50 years, we won't look back and condemn the very act of imprisoning people captured on the battlefield as barbaric. Or, we could look back at the hoopla over water boarding and laugh about how silly it was.

We will never put the whole thing behind us.
 
How funny that you continue to believe that this whole debate is regarding an effort to get at the truth behind interrogation methods and not some purely hyper partisan Democrat effort to merely impugn political opponents in the court of public opinion whose main crime was trying to protect the American people. :rofl

You can prove this claim? I do not deny that democrat politicians pushing this might be politically motivated, but I do not know for fact one way or another. They might even have multiple motivations, both political and moral. Since you apparently know the whole truth, you certainly can provide the proof that what you claim is true.

I see a route to a better policy out of this, and think that should happen, without a lot of finger pointing. I also think we need to know for sure all that happened, so we can make informed decisions about what policy should be going forward.
 
The whole problem is that what we are "allowed" to do to prisoners in order to save lives is constantly changing. There have been countless "clearer rules" over the years, yet we still have this debate. Who's to say that in 50 years, we won't look back and condemn the very act of imprisoning people captured on the battlefield as barbaric. Or, we could look back at the hoopla over water boarding and laugh about how silly it was.

We will never put the whole thing behind us.

My concern is that there is an obvious lack of clarity in the rules, otherwise there would not be all this debate about the legality of what was done. Those who are tasked with implementing policy deserve some clarity, so that they can know, with confidence, that what they are doing is legal. In other words, we need to protect our soldiers and intelligence people from the rats in public office.
 
Pelosi lied and its documented. She needs to be removed form the speakership and thrown out of office.

Rockerfeller needs to face a vote of no confidence in the US senate. He will most likely beat it... but the act alone needs to occur.

People who engage in such overt smear campaigns while knowingly lying about what they knew to the this degree are not fit for office.
 
My concern is that there is an obvious lack of clarity in the rules, otherwise there would not be all this debate about the legality of what was done. Those who are tasked with implementing policy deserve some clarity, so that they can know, with confidence, that what they are doing is legal. In other words, we need to protect our soldiers and intelligence people from the rats in public office.
The "lack of clarity" is endemic to the situation--which is basically war.

It's called "the fog of war" for a damn good reason--war is at best an imprecise and muddled business. Decisions are made on the basis of imperfect knowledge and imperfect understanding. There is a great deal of guesswork in war. Thus it is the "art" of war and not the "science" of war.

We will not have "clarity" in the conduct of war--not today, and most assuredly not tomorrow. We should not be offended at the lack of clarity from yesterday.

The only real "war crime" is losing. Everything after that is a question of how much carnage can you stomach.
 
My concern is that there is an obvious lack of clarity in the rules, otherwise there would not be all this debate about the legality of what was done. Those who are tasked with implementing policy deserve some clarity, so that they can know, with confidence, that what they are doing is legal. In other words, we need to protect our soldiers and intelligence people from the rats in public office.

The rules change with time. That was the point I was making.

As for legal definitions, they obtained those from the DOJ and now Obama wants to crucify the DOJ lawyers for doing what lawyers do, providing opinions on the meaning of laws.
 
The "lack of clarity" is endemic to the situation--which is basically war.

It's called "the fog of war" for a damn good reason--war is at best an imprecise and muddled business. Decisions are made on the basis of imperfect knowledge and imperfect understanding. There is a great deal of guesswork in war. Thus it is the "art" of war and not the "science" of war.

We will not have "clarity" in the conduct of war--not today, and most assuredly not tomorrow. We should not be offended at the lack of clarity from yesterday.

The only real "war crime" is losing. Everything after that is a question of how much carnage can you stomach.

Absolute clarity is an obvious pipe dream, but better clarity is possible, and a worthwhile goal.
 
The rules change with time. That was the point I was making.

As for legal definitions, they obtained those from the DOJ and now Obama wants to crucify the DOJ lawyers for doing what lawyers do, providing opinions on the meaning of laws.

To the best of my knowledge, Obama has resisted any calls to prosecute any one over this.
 
As for legal definitions, they obtained those from the DOJ

nah... they got those from the law as well as the ethics rules that attorneys swear to uphold.

and now Obama wants to crucify the DOJ lawyers for doing what lawyers do, providing opinions on the meaning of laws.

nah again. Holder, not Obama, has a legal obligation as Attorney General to pursue and report those lawyers for breaking the law and for breaking their vow to uphold the law. Those lawyers did not simply "provide opinions". They sculpted advice and memos meant to advise their client that they could break the law when those lawyers knew very well that what they were saying was legal... was in fact very illegal.

If this was so cut and dry, as the right wingers are trying to portray, there wouldn't be so much lobbying going on to save their sorry asses.
 
Pelosi lied and its documented.

Prove it.

I have read nothing that states what you seem to assume was said to her. All the assumptions of what went on behind closed doors holds water like a steel sieve.
 
Prove she lied?

Read the thread.

...

Put it this way..
For years now she has been spewing the same rhetoric you have. Difference is the documented facts of the situation make it clear she was knowingly lying while doing it.

You have the blessing of nobody caring and your opinion being mostly irrelevant outside your lil box (iow you can lie..who cares?)..she doesn't get that.
She is the Speaker of the House! She is expected to uphold a standard of conduct. She didn't uphold it at all... in fact she destroyed it.
She has no business remaining speaker and little business remaining in office.
 
Last edited:
Re: CIA Says Pelosi Was briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'B

To be fair the Speaker is 69 years old and at that age dementia is a sad but real problem for many of that advanced age.
So let us revue her ever changing story so far. Paraphrasing her own words.
1. "Waterboarding yes I'm familiar with that it's like surfing, only behind a boat, isn't it".
2. "Enhanced Interrogations, of course, yes I'm always in favor of enhancement of any kind just look at my face & hair".
3. "Torture? Torture! When did that happen"?
4. "Are you saying that Waterboarding is some kind of torture? Oh My GOD no"!
5. "Oh a briefing by the CIA, on Enhanced Interrogations that included Waterboarding. No I never heard of it"
6. "You mean the briefing my aid attended? I was never told about that until just this minute, sorry"?
7. "Yes I 'concurred' with Rep. Jane Harman's 2003 letter protesting the use of Waterboarding. But I can't say for sure I knew what it was about at the time. I may have thought it meant they were taking prisoners to a local lake or something".
I may have some of the facts out of place and or context or even wrong, but cut me some slack I'm practicing to be as accurate as the Speaker and her defenders have been on this subject all along.



"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else".
Sir Winston Churchill
 
Last edited:
nah... they got those from the law as well as the ethics rules that attorneys swear to uphold.



nah again. Holder, not Obama, has a legal obligation as Attorney General to pursue and report those lawyers for breaking the law and for breaking their vow to uphold the law. Those lawyers did not simply "provide opinions". They sculpted advice and memos meant to advise their client that they could break the law when those lawyers knew very well that what they were saying was legal... was in fact very illegal.

If this was so cut and dry, as the right wingers are trying to portray, there wouldn't be so much lobbying going on to save their sorry asses.

All I can say to your partisan diatribe is have another swig. After that load of crap you must be thirsty.....


6hf1yed.jpg
 
Um, you somehow are confusing ONE member of the party from the house, the most extreme wing of the gov't, with that of the entire movement. Surely you can be honest with all of us an admit that you've seen democrats on here time and time again calling for her to be defeated or to resign. Tell me, how often does that happen on the other side of the fence?

BTW adding :rofl to your post doesn't give you any more credibility, and without proper use it just looks arrogant.




Isn't she the leader in the house? :rofl


(I added ":rofl" to my post because the Good Reverend IS rightfully so, arrogant. :mrgreen:)
 
Prove it.

I have read nothing that states what you seem to assume was said to her. All the assumptions of what went on behind closed doors holds water like a steel sieve.

For your reading pleasure:

But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally “approved by the president.”

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it.
Pelosi defense: couldn't object in '03 - Glenn Thrush and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

Pelosi is only concerned about her political future. Her "outrage" blows around in the wind of the most current popularity poll.
 
All I can say to your partisan diatribe is have another swig. After that load of crap you must be thirsty.....

nice argument :doh
 
Last edited:
For your reading pleasure:


Pelosi defense: couldn't object in '03 - Glenn Thrush and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

Pelosi is only concerned about her political future. Her "outrage" blows around in the wind of the most current popularity poll.

Sticking to the facts... "According to the Pelosi confidant". Seriously? Is this what you call a "fact"? You cannot show me, in all the links and documents and quotes, where it is stated that Pelosi was told water boarding was going to be used.

Now, as to common sense. It does seem that someone would have discussed that "they" were told of this with her. If so, this should explain her actions, to a rational person:

“She felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed,” said the person. Pelosi “never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a ‘no response’ from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done.”

BushCo didn't explain themselves to the Repubs. They damn sure wouldn't be held accountable to the Dems. This is a non issue, a distraction. If Pelosi has filed a report against Bush's torture plans what do you think would have happened? Nothing. Bush and Cheney didn't change their course... for anyone!

What is important here is "who" authorized the torture. Nothing else.

Cheney is getting nervous that his neck is going to be on the chopping block so, he's coming out doing his Colonel Nathan R. Jessip impersonation. "How dare you question the manner of the protection that I provide!" He's going down just like Jessip did. If not legally, then politically by being exposed as the person who forced Americans to torture prisoners.

Watch Cheney squirm. :mrgreen:
 
Isn't it fun to read the Kool Aid drinkers mindless drivel about Obama restoring honor that's a hoot. He's a joke even to the commies, dictators, and socialists who's rear ends he bends to kiss.
He will go down in history but as the US equivalent of Neville Chamberlain the worlds greatest appeaser until Obama came along.
He fits in well with Speaker Nasty Piglousy and Hairless Ried.
 
Back
Top Bottom