Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
I thought she was a zombie to begin with. Does anyone bother to defend her?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Nancy Pelosi Speakership Deathwatch
- Thread starter Brainster
- Start date
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
What power does a president have to "take to the woodshed" the Speaker of the House? It would have to be democrats in the House that do that. The president isn't a dictator.
She has made a serious charge if she claims the CIA lied to her, and that should absolutely be investigated.
My favorite thing is where she had to go back to her prepared statement to answer the question. She said something like "My statement was very clear" and then they fumbled to find the pages and then re-read what she had said.
I'm sorry, but that's a huge red flag. If someone is telling you what happened to them, honestly, they will just tell you, and not have to worry about whether they are contradicting themselves and so forth. That's how police and other interrogators catch liars, by trying to trip them up with questions in hopes they change their story. Someone who is being 100% honest will pass that test by being consistent in what he or she said. Even after periods of time between questioning. Because it's simply the truth.
Looking back through her prepared statement and re-reading parts of it to answer questions making sure she keeps "on message" with what the statement said, and that she doesn't contradict it in any way, or go outside of it in any way. It was very clear to me that she is not being fully honest here.
My favorite thing is where she had to go back to her prepared statement to answer the question. She said something like "My statement was very clear" and then they fumbled to find the pages and then re-read what she had said.
I'm sorry, but that's a huge red flag. If someone is telling you what happened to them, honestly, they will just tell you, and not have to worry about whether they are contradicting themselves and so forth. That's how police and other interrogators catch liars, by trying to trip them up with questions in hopes they change their story. Someone who is being 100% honest will pass that test by being consistent in what he or she said. Even after periods of time between questioning. Because it's simply the truth.
Looking back through her prepared statement and re-reading parts of it to answer questions making sure she keeps "on message" with what the statement said, and that she doesn't contradict it in any way, or go outside of it in any way. It was very clear to me that she is not being fully honest here.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
Too quick Brainster. Graham (a retired and respected Elephant) today said in testimony that the CIA lied to him as well. Linky. This thing has some legs as the GOP will try to keep the focus on Pelosi rather than on the fact of torture itself. But as the photo flap plays out and the investigations continue to stir up the Bush swamp, I think this will fade pretty rapidly. Could be wrong.
That said, I'm with Tricky. I'd be quite happy with Pelosi out of a job - although I'm not sure Hoyer is much better. In any case, can she take that useless limp rag Reid with her?
That said, I'm with Tricky. I'd be quite happy with Pelosi out of a job - although I'm not sure Hoyer is much better. In any case, can she take that useless limp rag Reid with her?
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,350
CNN poll from a week or so ago:
I couldn't find the internals to see if there is a strong Democrat disapprove/Republican approve breakdown, but it's not a leap to make that assumption. McCain is one of the very few Republicans I've heard who opposes waterboarding; I can't at the moment think of a big-name Democrat who thinks it was appropriate.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,397
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,350
Graham is not a Republican. He's another Democrat. But really your second paragraph is more to the point. I don't think Pelosi has a strong base of support within her own party. If it's perceived that this is a Republican/Democrat issue or a CIA/Democrat issue she may survive.
Demigorgon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 261
They would have to pry her speakership (is that a word?) from her cold dead hands. Only Hillary comes to mind when thinking of someone more power hungry.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
As the highest-ranking Dem (in terms of office held) he certainly has great power in the party.
This issue will not go away for Pelosi, especially if the Dems investigate the Bush admin. for criminal wrongdoing. No one in the CIA or the Bush admin. is going to cover up for Pelosi, if they're getting thrown off the cliff they're going to grab her and pull her down with them.
And frankly, anything less would look like a Soviet-style purge, where the real crime is being a member of the wrong faction.
The thing is, even if Pelosi is correct and the CIA lied to her about not waterboarding anyone at that point she still admits it was an option they felt was available to them. If she truly thinks it is illegal she had a duty, an obligation, to call them out on it. Secrecy laws don't protect illegal activity.
Last edited:
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,915
Nobody denies this is mild compared to other techniques. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it counts as torture, as opposed to just a rigorous interrogation technique.
Many democrats/liberals watch that show. I hardly think the ratings of 24 are a good measurement for support of waterboarding.
Last edited:
themusicteacher
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 708
Let's keep this in perspective, though.
1) She was not the SOTH in 2003
2) She had no standing to really do anything since she was part of the minority party; the GOP line to the Dems from Sep 12, 2001 to Jan 2007 was, "If you say anything that contradicts or even looks, sounds or smells like a criticism of this administration and it's policies, you are an unpatriotic, treasonous, monstrous, anti-American, terrorist-loving piece of trash so sit down and STFU."
3) If the briefing was labeled "classified" she was bound, by law, to say nothing publicly
4) What, you can't imagine an organization that makes it's living in covertness, deceit and obfuscation lying to a member of congress?
As someone mentioned before, this is a political problem not a legal one. She may have a tough time getting out from under this one but it may be time for her to get out. She and Harry Reid are too weak to lead so this may prove to be an opportunity for the Dems.
1) She was not the SOTH in 2003
2) She had no standing to really do anything since she was part of the minority party; the GOP line to the Dems from Sep 12, 2001 to Jan 2007 was, "If you say anything that contradicts or even looks, sounds or smells like a criticism of this administration and it's policies, you are an unpatriotic, treasonous, monstrous, anti-American, terrorist-loving piece of trash so sit down and STFU."
3) If the briefing was labeled "classified" she was bound, by law, to say nothing publicly
4) What, you can't imagine an organization that makes it's living in covertness, deceit and obfuscation lying to a member of congress?
As someone mentioned before, this is a political problem not a legal one. She may have a tough time getting out from under this one but it may be time for her to get out. She and Harry Reid are too weak to lead so this may prove to be an opportunity for the Dems.
Her predessor in the intelligence committee privatly objected. Republicans were still the majority in 2003. Pelosi could have objected without going public.
Pelosi is a politician. Politicians are know for being honest and open even when it makes them look bad.
themusicteacher
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 708
Well, private objections are one thing but they are moot; we (the geneal public) discuss them as if she should have or could have done something tangible. BushCo was going to do what they wanted to do and nothing the Dems could say or do was going to stop them. IMO, even if she could legally have gone public, let's remember that this was 2003 and there was still a lot of fresh anger over 9/11. While I think most American's are appalled by torture, they were still in a place, psychologically, that told them they should do whatever it takes to prevent another attack. It was an irrational place to be and it was feuled by GW saying, quite literally, "Be afraid."
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with your last statment so I'll assume you're not. I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking about the CIA in #4. It is not at all unconceivable that she, and the other members on the intelligence committee for that matter, could have been lied to by the CIA about the severity of the techniques. Further, politicians are not known for their openness and honesty if they think it will get them in trouble and knowing about torture while doing nothing about it is not likely to help you. Politicians are like the rest of us: they'll go to some pretty amazing lengths to save their jobs.
She is in a very precarious position, no doubt, as are other Congresspeople.
Pelosi's objections would not be moot. She was silent. Absolutly silent. Didn't write a memo in the know, didn't go to the Buish administration, didn't go the CIA , didn't threaten funding. She had options that did not require her to break the law.
. Thats a real bad assumption you made. You suggest intelligence people lie but failed to mention politicians also lie? Seriously?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
If in fact they DID lie to her, then she is in the clear. But that needs to be proven.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Except, of course - In her position, I would have found it ethically necessary to break the law.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The impression I am getting, is torutre aside,..and I think it was a stupid tactic...is that a great many people will start to think the the Dems are more interested in getting the Bush Administration then in defending the American people against terrorism.
Under the circumstances in which it was used? I'd guess that it is VERY politically popular within the GOP. And specifically with me. Keep in mind, it was not done indiscriminately to every al Qaeda person they captured, just specific people, with a goal of gathering specific info.
Fixed it for you.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I would not tar all the Dems with that brush. I think torture and "intense interrogation" techniques were pretty useless, but I don't think a massive investigation with political overtones would help anybody but Al Quida. It's not criticism of torture but that some Dems seem not to care about fighing Terrorism that concerns me.