Pelosi knew about interrogation methods, which confirms that she is a liar

(2009-05-15) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under scrutiny for her changing accounts of when she knew about the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, said today that she was not informed until late 2003 that Muslim terrorists had used passenger jets to kill thousands of people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

“One of my aides mentioned in passing that she had been to a CIA briefing months earlier about these techniques,” said Rep. Pelosi. “At the time, I thought the discussion was theoretical…that this was something that could happen. It wasn’t until October 2003 that I learned that these methods had actually been used on American soil.”

Crashing hijacked planes into buildings full of non-combatant civilians is one of several “enhanced immolation techniques” forbidden under U.S. and international law.

Rep. Pelosi, clearly rattled by reporters’ questions on the subject, first said she knew nothing about the 9/11 attacks, but later acknowledged that she was “too busy helping Democrats win a majority in Congress to get involved in the details of a matter that was being handled through appropriate channels.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3680

 

I can't believe this woman -- do you know what else she knew ?

 

she's gotta be one of the biggest b****es in politics.. cant she just resign or cant the CIA just take her out..

 

No vindication posts for Pelosi this week?

 

The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that she is the handmaiden of other Liberals, particularly the San Francisco type. I agree profoundly with Pelosi’s views on many questions, but if you believe that a Speaker's decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Speaker’s greatness is her contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Speaker Pelosi is now our greatest Speaker.

 

Ahem....

1) Listening to a Bush supporter complain about lying politicians is a 500 megaton atomic hypocrisy bomb. Given the situation, this hypocrisy is really just evidence of deflection on a grand scale, since our dear departed Dubya boldly lied about this very same topic. In 2005 he brazenly stated that "America does not condone torture" while concurrently his own DOJ was preparing an arsenal of poorly supported legal rationale to (theoretically) indemnify the administration from legal recourse for... (you guessed it) torture. It's high comedy to watch the republican base, faced with the obvious lies of Bush, now desperately try to play "pin the crime on Pelosi" - who, I should note, is a centrist that specifically took impeachment off the table in 2006, much to my chagrin. Furthermore, none of Pelosi's statements have yet to be proven false (to my knowledge - as others have astutely pointed it out, it looks bad for her, but that's been proven over the eight previous years to mean surprisingly little).

2) If we are going to lambast politicians for moral failures such as lying, I venture to state that we'll rapidly run out of politicians. That's not an excuse - just my consistently cynical POV; if Pelosi was given the opportunity to veto the Bush administration's intent to torture in the name of the United States of America and didn't, she should be forced out of office and sent to an international criminal court (bummer that the US has conveniently threatened it's way out of actually participating in said courts, but I digress). The point here is that the real issue is not so much one particular politicians' weaseling and/or lying, but the fact that the United States government was complicit to torture. EVERY politician associated should be held criminally liable - especially the Bush Junta appointees that authorized and enacted such an un-American modus operandi (yes, this includes Bush). As others have pointed out, I'm left unimpressed by the teabag movement because it's so obviously mere partisan whining. Much like the spending argument so easily dismantled, it's simply amazing that a crowd of disenfranchised republicans can brazenly state altruistic non-partisan catchphrases while demonizing democrats for activities that their own party happily took part in for the last eight years. It's even more ridiculous when one accounts for all the complaining about the media that is supposedly "misrepresenting them" instead of just acknowledging the almost comical bias they really do articulate.

 

how about now?

Pelosi Vindicated By House Intelligence Committee

 

Even if the CIA failed to comply with the congressional notification requirements in several instances, it does not automatically follow that it failed to do so in every instance. And nothing in this report supports Pelosi's previous assertions that she was not informed, or that she did not consent, to the use of enhanced interrogation methods.

But by all means, let's have a thorough investigation on this. Bring in the CIA officers and other officials who were involved in the meetings and put them under oath before a congressional subcommittee and let everyone hear what the answers are and see for themselves what has gone on with all this.

If Speaker of the House Pelosi is telling the truth about not being informed, what does she have to be afraid of?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, right?

Any chance we will see anything like this? Apparently not. Hmmmm.

 

If there were any actual credible evidence she knew, then yes it would make sense to investigate her.

Of course that would mean we were doing a real torture in the first place.

So, am I to gather by your post that you agree with investigating members of the Bush administration regarding their torture practices, including Yoo, Cheney, and possibly Bush?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, right?

 

I do not believe there is any debate about whether or not the U.S. used enhanced interrogation techniques.

If you are referring to Attorney General Holder's investigation of potential wrongdoing by CIA officers, those cases were previously investigated by career Justice Department officials. I believe there was at least one instance where wrongdoing was found, and those matters were handled as required by law.

As these issues were already investigated and resolved, this new investigation smacks loudly of a partisan politics. This is just an example of the smallest kind of vindictive politics at play right before our eyes.

But what is worse than all that is the chilling effect that this has already had on the United States intelligence apparatus. The people who make up the intelligence community within the CIA and elsewhere are apparently no longer primarily concerned with obtaining critical intelligence and protecting this country, they are concerned about covering their asses against some sort of internal retaliation by partisan politicians such as Barack Obama.

This series of actions is without precedent prior to the current administration of Barack Obama. President Obama has released information about our nation's interrogation techniques that has served the purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this country. And now he is pursuing investigations against CIA officers for partisan political purposes. Meanwhile, he is seeking to provide GITMO detainees with constitutional rights and transfers from GITMO to the US. Of course a number of former GITMO detainees have been also been transferred to the Bahamas and the Pacific island of Palau. If only President Obama had so much consideration for our national security professionals.

 

^ up early to be writing lengthy posts jorge.

 

I'm talking about investigating whether the use of and the rationale behind the use of those techniques were legal.

Obama is pursuing investigations because it is apparent that crimes were committed.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

Your TJ colors are shining when you pretend that Obama has more consideration for detainees than national security personnel.

 

'enhanced interrogation techniques' was a term invented by the previous administration - what they were doing is and has always been referred to as 'torture'. i suppose you also think the 'clean forests act' and the 'clean water act' were environmental-friendly measures. or the 'patriot act' was a huge advancement in civil liberties.

pelosi is bad b/c she knew about the interrogation methods, but yall want to give a pass to the very people who wrote and authorized them?

we already know for a fact that the bush administration had their legal team change the definition of torture to be anything short of death or organ failure, and even in those two cases if it was an 'accident' than it didnt count as torture. we know for a fact that rummy signed off on harsher interrogation measures that have been regarded as torture in international court and under american law.

george bush's lawyer john yoo argued that there is no law or treaty to prevent the president from having a child sexually tortured...

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

lyndie england and a bunch of untrained low-level military go to prison for doing what their superiors told them to do. the cia gets investigated for doing what the bush administration and the justice department advised them to do.

all of this stuff is just ignoring the root source of the crimes.