Intel officer: CIA is being ‘disingenuous’ about congressional briefings.
Intel officer: CIA is being ‘disingenuous’ about congressional briefings.
After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that the CIA’s briefing notes were wrong to claim she had been told about the use of waterboarding in 2002, former Sen. Bob Graham came forward to say that the CIA’s notes on briefings he attended were also factually inaccurate. Now, a former intelligence official who participated in congressional briefings told Talking Points Memo that the CIA was being “disingenuous” in referring to “enhanced interrogation techniques” in memos about 2002 and 2003 briefings, because the term was not formulated until 2006:
Almost every briefing described in the document — including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that’s directly at issue — refers to “EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn’t used until at least 2006.
That’s not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.” In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn’t until 2006 that — amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration — the EIT program was formalized, and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were properly defined and given a name.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
screw this crap! let’s put it to a VOTE!
May 19th, 2009 at 7:01 pmUh-oh… C4P’s not gonna like this… it means he’s gotta come up with some new ways to smear Nancy Pelosi…
aw, that’s no problem for our troll. C4P can come up with ways to smear Nancy Pelosi even in a drunken stupor. It’s not like they have to be factual… or even credible.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:03 pmthe CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.”
– - Hold on here. Is this story saying the CIA, a secret intelligence gathering agency who is tasked “through counterintelligence, we prevent our opponents from obtaining secret information, and in some cases, we spread disinformation to confuse them” could be actually lying to someone?
Shocking, no really, shocking.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:07 pmNice try slandering the Speaker Republicans!
May 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pmI was surprised to learn that the agency erroneously listed an appropriations staffer as being in a key briefing on September 19, 2006, when in fact he was not.
So if I understand this correctly, not only are Obey, Pelosi, Rockefeller and Graham stating that the CIA is being disengenuous [lying], but we should absolutely believe the CIA above these officials. Why the hell is Panetta trying so hard to cover for the CIA when he WAS NOT there during that stated time frame? Just because he’s there now is no excuse for him to try to cover up for the R’s! What’s his problem?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:16 pmI think you gotta trust Nancy on this one. Let’s keep this one real.
there’s gotta be a BuschCo faction in the CIA that needs to “go” like a planters wart’s gotta go.
Nancy needs protection and the truth must be uncovered – i bet it’s like a snake pit full of centipedes under there.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pm@5 MadasHelinVA Says:
Ya he better play straight now.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:21 pmI’m not a big fan of Pelosi, but we are supposed to believe the CIA? These clowns cooked the intel for bushes white house, so he could go to war in Iraq, and we are supposed to take their word about the briefings they gave congress? I’ll believe that when pigs can fly.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmTP, this is irrelevent.
Whether or not Pelosi was briefed when the CIA claims isn’t the issue. The issue is that she, by her own admission, knew about waterboarding in early 2003 when Harman wrote her letter.
Focusing on the briefings and distracting from Pelosi’s culpability is disingenuous of TP.
Yeah, bush is no doubt guilty as hell, but spinning this to appear that Pelosi ‘didn’t know’ is pure bullsh¡t.
Not worthy of TP.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmYou would think that these asshats would at least do a cursory review of the actual facts before they start with this he said/she said crap. I guess when you’re in the CYA mode nothing else matters, especially the facts.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pmraise yer hand if you think this might be the result of the “burrows” and moles the bush administration put in as they were leaving office.
[stjack furtively raises his hand.]
May 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pmDon’t you love how the Repugs can trash the CIA(i.e. Iraq intellegence) and when Pelosi states the CIA misled her, she should resign? And for the record, the country is pretty much split on who to beleieve. Sad, huh.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pmhanshiro, I suspect that TP’s focus is on the desperate right-wing attempt to poison the well of investigations by trying to put Pelosi in the line of fire, thus causing Dems to keep their powder dry.
It’s pretty clear that any culpability Nancy Pelosi has for any war crimes is minimal at best. But I would be willing to let her face whatever sanction she’s got coming if it would move the whole investigation forward to where it belongs — the Bush White House.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pmTP,
This anonymous intel officer may have a credibility problem of his own.
This is from an ABCNews.com article published Nov 18, 2005.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
This would seem to call into question his assertion that the term wasn’t used until 2006. Now, I suppose he might have meant to say 2005, but who knows?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm@9 hanshiro the antlion Says:
Yeah, bush is no doubt guilty as hell, but spinning this to appear that Pelosi ‘didn’t know’ is pure bullsh¡t.
Not worthy of TP.
Didn’t know what again exactly?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pmWell, looks like the Rethuglican plot to put blame on Pelosi has backfired. Looks like Boehner was either very naive or a bad liar when he said that he couldn’t imagine the CIA lying. Bring on the investigations and prosecutions. Let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee more Rethuglicans will be caught in a lie than Democrats.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pmi don’t think this will give a pause to the continuing onslaught against Pelosi – as if she were making the illegal policy.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:39 pmApe-Man Says:
I think you gotta trust Nancy on this one. Let’s keep this one real.
there’s gotta be a BuschCo faction in the CIA that needs to “go” like a planters wart’s gotta go.
—
ya beat me to it.
MadasHelinVA Says:
Why the hell is Panetta trying so hard to cover for the CIA when he WAS NOT there during that stated time frame?
—
i dont think he is. didn’t he say it will be up to congress to decide the true facts? his statement was that congress was briefed truthfully. he didn’t say that congress was told that the cia had just finished waterboarding abu zubayda 83 times, and he didn’t say congress was briefed “fully”. so i think he’s leaving a big door open on that question.
hanshiro the antlion Says:
The issue is that she, by her own admission, knew about waterboarding in early 2003 when Harman wrote her letter.
—
you’re conflating the argument and missing the point. it’s not whether she “knew about waterboarding,” which she does admit, it’s whether she was told that they were actually using it on people.
either way, you’re right that it’s irrelevant to whether war crimes happened, and who’s responsible for that (even if nancy pelosi knew they had just waterboarded abu zubayda 83 times, i don’t think she could be prosecuted for that, or for not calling the new york times and telling them everything). it is relevant, however, to the fact that the smear campaign against pelosi is ridiculous and without foundation, and to the fact that there are apparently still cia officials who are willing to falsify documents for the bush administration (did we ever figure out who forged the yellowcake memo?).
angels81 Says:
I’ll believe that when pigs can fly.
—
Didn’t you hear? “Swine flu.” It’s all over the news! heehehe
May 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pm13. ralph the wonder locust Says: hanshiro, I suspect that TP’s focus is on the desperate right-wing attempt to poison the well of investigations by trying to put Pelosi in the line of fire, thus causing Dems to keep their powder dry.
She well should be in the line of fire, just not because of the republicans.
She knew about the waterboarding.
It’s pretty clear that any culpability Nancy Pelosi has for any war crimes is minimal at best.
Minimal? She knew in early 2003. She raised no objections, even though she is willfully lying about her helplessness.
So, she knew and knew early. She didn’t do squat. Who cares what the republicans think? She is complicit in this insanity. It amazing that so many people here are glossing over her refusal to do anything and, lemming-like, rush to her defense.
She is a liar. She lied about her knowledge and lied about her “helplessness.” If some republican were pulling this crap, or some republican site were spinning as hard as TP we would crucify them!
Pelosi KNEW! She needs to step down.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:42 pmWayne, and were supposed to believe the CIA, when its been proven they have lied about intel on the Iraq war?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
This would seem to call into question his assertion that the term wasn’t used until 2006. Now, I suppose he might have meant to say 2005, but who knows?
—
i was wondering about that myself. is the term used in the torture memos from 2003?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pmPanetta is there to support CIA morale which was shattered over the past 8 years, so I don’t pay much mind to what he says about what happened in the early Bush years.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmI think we need the CIA, and I was furious that Bush&Co gave up Valerie Plame for political reasons, but we have to accept the facts too.
The CIA does not have a lot of credibility now, since it has been learned that Tenet gave Bush what he wanted to hear and received the Medal of Freedom for it.
Hey Marie,
In a way I hope that the Rethugs continue their onslaught if it’ll lead to the investigation and prosecution of the Bush Crime Family. It may be their funeral.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmhormiga brava chavez Says:
Well, looks like the Rethuglican plot to put blame on Pelosi has backfired. Looks like Boehner was either very naive or a bad liar when he said that he couldn’t imagine the CIA lying.
—
plus, he came out and said the cia was lying to him in 2006, didn’t he? they played the clip on ubermann’s show the other day.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmWhy is this even a topic of conversation? BushCo tortured. They have admitted it, and there’s a paper trail. It’s against the law, and we have put people (Japanese soldiers) to death for using it against us.
Who TF cares about congressional briefings?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pmI hope we all live to see the day when Bush&Co are tried, convicted and sentenced to pay for what they did – not only to other human beings, but to America.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmAnyone deluded enough to think the CIA would not lie to a member of congress is crazy.
That idiot Boehner who is asking for Pelosi’s head, and said the CIA would never lie to them is a hypocrite. In 2007 when they were speaking about Iran having no nuclear weapons, this Boehner claimed not to take the CIA’s word for it. Now since it is the other party, he is claiming the CIA would not lie. Well you can’t have it one way for a Republican and another when it is a Democrat.
All this crap about who lied and who did not, is smoke. The real issue is the illegal torture. And the Rep. are still trying to distract from that fact. And that Newt is calling for Pelosi to resign and be kicked out of congress is the worst of all. This man who lost his position because of serious ethics violations, is now calling for her head. What a short memory he has. Again it is smoke.
The CIA is in the business of lying. Not only to other parts of the world but to us. This is what they do. We need them but let’s not pretend they are boy scouts. The problem is we want them to do their job, but we don’t want to know what it takes to get it done. I draw the line at torture.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:50 pmhanshiro, I would say that “knowing about” war crimes and doing nothing imparts minimal culpability when compared to those who designed, justified and executed those war crimes.
If Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld et. al. can be prosecuted, I have no problem with Nancy going down for her minimal complicity. But that’s not what the Right has in mind. they want Nancy to take the fall just like they got the poor shlubs at Abu Graib to take the fall for the higher ups. It worked for them before, and they’re determined to make it work again.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pmHanshiro,
There’s a difference between being briefed on torture and actually giving the order to torture. The CIA and the Rethugs have NOT produced one iota of proof that Pelosi knew about detainees being waterboarded/tortured, so why should she have to step down? The CIA needs to produce evidence that Pelosi was complicit. So far, the CIA looks like a bunch of liars.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pmPelosi is not squeaky clean on this issue, but I’ll believe her before I believe the CIA.
Exhibit A: Bob Graham’s notebooks. And WMD.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pmSlightly off-topic, but does anyone else think if Bob Graham had been VP in 2000…all of this (i.e., torture, Iraq, recession, what have you…) would be irrelevant?
Granted, the guy is a little quirky, but he sure as hell would’ve carried FL by a large enough margin to make any attempt by Bush et.al. to steal it seem waaaaay more blatant. I’m talking Turkmenistan-level vote fraud.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pmSo… the Republicans want Nancy Pelosi to Step Down???
They better be careful what they wish for.
Attacking San Francisco LIBERAL Nancy Pelosi is the Best Fund Raising Gimmick they got.
And Who takes dictation at these “Briefings”?? The best notes so far are from Bob Graham!
May 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm28. ralph the wonder locust Says: hanshiro, I would say that “knowing about” war crimes and doing nothing imparts minimal culpability when compared to those who designed, justified and executed those war crimes.
Ralph, that’s technically called a fallacy.
You don’t justify or excuse culpability by citing as bad or worse. Nancy is culpable too! That’s what you aren’t getting. This isn’t an either/or scenario ‘cuz she happens to be a dem.
I don’t want someone of so little conscience that she would stand by and knowingly allow torture. That’s truly craven and cowardly.
It goes without saying that bush should sit in Gitmo next to Cheney, et. al. But this defense of an unconscionable Pelosi is staggering.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:01 pm29. hormiga brava chavez Says: The CIA and the Rethugs have NOT produced one iota of proof that Pelosi knew about detainees being waterboarded/tortured, so why should she have to step down?
#19 ‘mano, in her own words!
She knew. She also lied about her being “helpless” to intervene. She is lying her a$$ off to save her political career at the expense of the detainees who were tortured.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pmEnnuidivine,
Gore DID carry Florida. Unfortunately, he lost the Black Vote.
Clarence Thomas
May 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pmhanshiro, how the hell do you know she is lying? With everything the CIA has lied about when it comes to the Iraq war, why would you take their word for anything? The CIA is in the buisness of lying, and they have lied to congress before. Until someone can prove one way or another as to who is telling the truth, its a stretch to say Polesi is lying. And don’t get me wrong, I’m know fan of Pelosi.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm(From Greenwald:)
More from Greenwald:
Pelosi is lying. She wasn’t “helpless.”
May 19th, 2009 at 8:17 pmOK. So, the CIA, whose responsibility is covert operations presumably involving paperwork and documents, state secrets, etc.
If we cannot believe their record keeping, then how can we believe anything that they report? Did all the competent people leave when Bush came into office — or were pushed out, like Valerie Plame?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pm36.angels81 Says: hanshiro, how the hell do you know she is lying? With everything the CIA has lied about when it comes to the Iraq war, why would you take their word for anything?
Because “Pelosi insists she was never specifically briefed by the CIA about waterboarding,” yet she was indeed aware of it in early 2003 as her WaPo quote and approval of Harman’s letter attest. Pelosi is playing semantics by claiming the briefings didn’t inform her, but glossing over/denying the fact that she knew about the technique being used.
In polite terms, she is being ‘disingenuous.’ In real terms, she is lying by distraction and omission.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pmGreenwald is dead ass wrong. These where top secret classified briefings. Senators and congress people are bound by law not to leak or make public anything they are told in these briefings. The whistle blower law does not apply. That is the reason Obeys aide was turnend away from the one briefing.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pmGee shocker. The CIA still can’t tell the truth. We saw this coming. Pretty soon the answer from the CIA will be, “Ummmm, we can’t find any files dated August 2002. Sorry! Thank you and good night!”.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pm41. republicans hate facts Says: Cite the statutes behind your OPINION or STFU.
Just did, Braindead, with links, expertise and attributions. Blow me.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:24 pmNancy Pelosi is telling the truth and after the republicans push hard for an investigation into her, she’ll be proven correct. How embarrassing for the republicans who acted all tough and crap in this matter!
May 19th, 2009 at 8:25 pmAccording to Polesi, the CIA told her they had not used waterboarding as of yet. The question comes down to who you believe, the CIA who has a record of lying to congress about the war or Polesi. Until I see the smoking gun, the CIA has nothing to stand on.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:26 pmLet’s see….the CIA destroyed torture videos, they most likely have destroyed tons of documents, and years ago under Dick Cheney’s orders, the CIA added names to briefings to cover their arses!
It’s all making sense now.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:26 pmWhat were the republican Chairmen of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees doing back in 2001/2002/2003 concerning torture (besides gathering snakes and speaking in tongues)?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm43. angels81 Says: Greenwald is dead ass wrong.
Yes, a Constitutional lawyer is wrong. uh huh. And your degree is in….?
These where top secret classified briefings. Senators and congress people are bound by law not to leak or make public anything they are told in these briefings. The whistle blower law does not apply. That is the reason Obeys aide was turnend away from the one briefing.
Yeah, uh huh, rationalize with uninformed reasoning. I see my informed sources are no match for your emotionally faulty, knee-jerk logic. What was I thinking?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pm50. republicans hate facts Says: Those are OPINION PAGES, not STATUTES. Blow yourself. I’m sure it’s the only action YOU’LL GET f*KKKing lunatic!
Greenwald cites statutes, or didn’t you read…of course, what was I thinking, you never think before you type…or research your stupidity.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:32 pmGreenwald is a pundit you idiot. Just because he has a degree doesn’t make him right. People who sit outside and tell people on the inside what they can and cannot do is really easy for them, because if their right of wrong it doesn’t matter.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:36 pm54. angels81 Says: Greenwald is a pundit you idiot.
He is also a Constitutional lawyer, which makes him a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than some brainless twit poster whose entire empty-headed repertoire consists of “Nuh-uh!”
May 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pmWell I, for one, can’t think of any single documented instance where the CIA has ever distributed false information.
Right Tinkerbell ?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:41 pmAnd I, for one, can’t think of a single documented instance where the reichtwing has engaged in character assasination.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:42 pmhanshiro, Constitutional lawyers get their facts wrong all the time in court. Greenwald is a pundit who expresses his opinion about what someone in congress can and cannot do, having never been in congress himself. His opinion carriers about as much weight as any other pundit.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:44 pmBush had a ton of lawyers come up with waterboarding is not torture. So much for all that law degree shit.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm58. angels81 Says: hanshiro, Constitutional lawyers get their facts wrong all the time in court.
Ah, but a know-nothing, no source, half-butt dilettante is gonna traipse in and proclaim authoritatively because they don’t like what they read, not because it isn’t true or informed.
Keep dreaming…
May 19th, 2009 at 8:50 pm59. angels81 Says: Bush had a ton of lawyers come up with waterboarding is not torture. So much for all that law degree shit.
Yes, that ruthless logic that clearly explains why Greenwald is a respected source and you’re a…ppffft….who really cares?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:53 pmhanshiro, chill out guy. getting all bent out of shape with the name calling. You are starting to sound like another rightwing troll.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:55 pmWhat credibility will the CIA have now, Cheney not only made the US “less safe”, Cheney totally destroyed the credibility of the CIA, who would believe anything that comes from the CIA now?
Cheney still has not provided an answer on “valuable information” was received?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:56 pmGod hanshiro, do you worship on the altar of a lawyer? I deal with lawyers everyday, and I can tell you they don’t have all the answers.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:58 pm62. angels81 Says: hanshiro, chill out guy. getting all bent out of shape with the name calling. You are starting to sound like another rightwing troll.
Let’s see who started the name calling…..who….
Greenwald is a pundit you idiot.
Oh yeah. btw, KMA.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:00 pm64.angels81 Says: God hanshiro, do you worship on the altar of a lawyer? I deal with lawyers everyday, and I can tell you they don’t have all the answers.
You keep typing, but your reasoning stinks just as strong. Either refute the points with something of substance or STFU. I’m not interested in your uninformed speculation or your cheesy defense of Pelosi, who is complicit in allowing torture and….
Wait a minute…Nancy? Is that you…?
May 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pmhanshiro, I think your post on #52 kind of started the shit.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm67.angels81 Says: hanshiro, I think your post on #52 kind of started the shit.
I labeled your logic and reasoning, you called names. English not your strong suit?
May 19th, 2009 at 9:05 pmHanshiro, please link were the whistleblower law covers national sercurity briefings, and top secret info? If you read what I posted that was my point.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pmCan someone please provide a link to the document/briefing proving that Nancy Pelosi was told by the CIA that Abu Zabayduh had already been waterboarded 83 times prior to meeting with her and the same document showing that the CIA demanded Nancy start the investigations into their illegal actions/war crimes, because they were out of control and needed someone to stop them?
Thank you. I look forward to reading it.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:08 pm69.angels81 Says: Hanshiro, please link were the whistleblower law covers national sercurity briefings, and top secret info? If you read what I posted that was my point.
Then read what I posted. Links are supplied.
Oh, and the next time you call someone an idiot, don’t be moronic enough to then turnaround and ask them for favors.
FO.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:08 pmhanshiro, you are a idiot.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:11 pm70. KayInMaine Says: Can someone please provide a link to the document/briefing proving that Nancy Pelosi was told by the CIA that Abu Zabayduh had already been waterboarded 83 times prior to meeting with her and the same document showing that the CIA demanded Nancy start the investigations into their illegal actions/war crimes, because they were out of control and needed someone to stop them?
Nope.
But if you look at the WaPo quote on #19 you’ll notice that Peloi was aware of the practice in early 2003, knew Harman was objecting to it, knew why Harman was objecting to it, yet, to date, her not produced one speck of evidence to show any objection whatsoever.
She knew. She sat on her hands. People died.
She needs to go.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:12 pmI’m “sure” the CIA said the following to Nancy in 2002:
“Hi Nancy! Just so you know, we’ve been waterboarding prisoners to get false information to justify an attack on Iraq at the order of Dick Cheney. In fact, one prisoner we’ve waterboarded 83 times just for the hell of it! We love committing war crimes, Nancy! But don’t tell anyone. If this gets out, Dick Cheney will go to prison because he’s the one who keeps telling us to waterboard and torture anyone we want and he’s even gone so far as to request pictures & videos of the sessions! By the way, we’ve destroyed that evidence. Thanks Nancy for listening! Remember! No war crimes committed and everything we’ve done so far is legal! Thank you and good night!”
but they didn’t say this to Nancy…
May 19th, 2009 at 9:14 pm“Ummmmm, here’s an outline of techniques that are legal *cough* according to Bush’s attorneys. We’re not *cough* waterboarding anyone. Trust us. *cough* We’re honest people who love humans and respect them with all our hearts. We don’t torture Nancy and haven’t at all. Not even once! *coughing & gagging on phlem*”
WHO CONTROLLED THE HOUSE, THE SENATE, AND THE WHITE HOUSE AT THAT TIME AND ALSO CHAIRED ALL THE COMMITTEES TOO? Oh that’s right! THE REPUBLICANS! Nancy could not hold a press conference in front of the American people or on the floor of the House (even as the Minority leader!) TO GIVE OUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION! Neither could the republicans, actually. But! The republicans could have done something (investigations/hearings!) but didn’t.
Blaming Nancy for the Bush Regime torture policy is like blaming the republicans for Bill Clinton getting a blow job from an intern!
May 19th, 2009 at 9:18 pmSo what you’re saying is Nancy said to George Bush, “here’s what you gotta do. You gotta torture people before we invade to get them to admit to things they didn’t do but admit to stuff that will help us get into an illegal war and occupation of Iraq to steal the oil! Yeah, yeah, and when you kill hundreds of thousands of people, I’ll take the blame for it! Hell, I’ll take the blame for the torturing of prisoners 183 times because I love you Georg Bush (and Dicky too!)!”.
You’re phucking nuts, but you know that, because you’re blaming Nancy and not blaming the republicans who are completely to blame along with Bush, Cheney, their attorneys, and those contractors/CIA members who tortured people!
May 19th, 2009 at 9:21 pmIf I remember, wasn’t the repugs in control of congress in 2002, and Polesi was what?, just another democratic congress person that nobody gave a shit about. Harmon fired off her letter and that got us what? Democrats had zero power in the house in 2002, and anything they said or did was ignored by the repugs. The fix was in, in 2002 and it didn’t matter what any Democrat thought.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:22 pmIt appears GITMO prisoners are still being tortured:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Guantanamo-Prisoners-STILL-by-George-Washington-090519-5.html
WHAT WILL THE MINORITY PARTY (the republicans of today!) DO ABOUT THIS, SINCE THEY’RE BLAMING NANCY PELOSI (who was in the minority party from 2000-2006!) FOR THE TORTURING OF PRISONERS BACK IN 2002/2003?
May 19th, 2009 at 9:24 pm75.KayInMaine Says: WHO CONTROLLED THE HOUSE, THE SENATE, AND THE WHITE HOUSE AT THAT TIME AND ALSO CHAIRED ALL THE COMMITTEES TOO? Oh that’s right! THE REPUBLICANS!
Knock that capslock sh¡t off, Kay. Doesn’t matter if they controlled everything, it would not stop Pelosi from registering dissent about the program, nor, as Greenwald pointed out, would it stop a closed-door session.
She did none of these things. If you knew torture was occuring, it is part of your oath and commitment to the Constitution to object and continue to object through every means at your disposal. She did not.
In fact, here’s a little timeline for you to consider:
Harman’s letter was dated: February 10, 2003
Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — said to be the mastermind of the September 11 attacks — 183 times in March 2003, the memo said.
If Pelosi had spoken up, it’s possible she could have forestalled or even prevented that episode. 183 times.
Back off the shouting, capitalizing doesn’t make you look more informed, it just means you have no sources.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pmNancy was a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2002, but then lost that position after the November 2002 election. She became the House Minority Leader after that until she became the Speaker of the House in January 2007 after the Democrats kicked the republicans arses in the 2006 mid-term election.
Denny Hastert (republican) was the Speaker of the House in 2002 when the torture briefings were happening. He did nothing. He did not order the republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to investigate or hold hearings.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:28 pmDenny Hastert (republican) was the Speaker of the House in 2002 when the torture briefings were happening. He did nothing. He did not order the republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to investigate or hold hearings.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:28 pmBlaming Pelosi is the only thing the rethugs have. They hope the public will jump on the bandwagon and we will have another Bill Clinton moment, that way all the rats can hide.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pmDenny Hastert should be in prison for allowing his republican American Taliban members to torture anyone! Off with his head!
May 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pmIn 2002 the Democrats couldn’t have gotten a closed-door sesion if their life depended on it. They were shut out of everything, and anyone who wants to go back and look at how rethugs ran the house, feel free. I remember in 2002 when Democrats tried to have a hearing on the Iraq war, they couldn’t even hold it in a chamber in the house. It ended up in the basement across the street.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:34 pm76. KayInMaine Says: You’re phucking nuts, but you know that, because you’re blaming Nancy and not blaming the republicans who are completely to blame along with Bush, Cheney, their attorneys, and those contractors/CIA members who tortured people!
Shut up, Kay.
I’m blaming people who were supposed to champion the good guys, who made specific promises to end this crap. Instead, we get “impeachment off the table,” and “We can’t end the war yet…”
It’s pointless to blame republicans since it’d be preaching to the choir here, but when TP or the posters here start defending one of the people who betrayed and lied about waterboarding, then the truth is more important than party bias. Always. I’m not here to protect the complicit, republican or democrat.
There is, however, something worse about a representative who lies to her constituents, and I’ve provided informed sources and information to back up my position. You and several others, on the other hand, haven’t provided sh¡t, so don’t preach to me until you grow some courtesy and provide 1/10 the sources and information to support your tired-@ssed overly-emotional, biased rationalizations.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:37 pmExactly Angels81! The Democrats (or anyone else for that matter!) were not allowed to even talk about Iraq on the floor of the House when the republicans ruled it. They couldn’t bring amendments to the floor or pieces of legislation either. It was disgusting to watch. It’s half the reason why I despise the republic party today. They suck! And still do.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:38 pm87.KayInMaine Says: Exactly Angels81! The Democrats (or anyone else for that matter!) were not allowed to even talk about Iraq on the floor of the House when…heehaw…heehaw…
How stupid are you, Kay? Somehow that bars Pelosi from registering objections? From using the limits of her office to call attention and oversight to a Constitutional violation?
She could even bother to write a f#@king letter??!? There’s no evidence she even attempted anything.
Jesus, but you’re thick.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:42 pmInstead of linking to a WaPo article as your proof, PLEASE LINK TO A CIA DOCUMENT! You can’t. In fact, the documents that have been released aren’t clear. Nancy Pelosi IS CALLING FOR A TRUTH COMMISSION AND AN INVESTIGATION, because she stands by her word. I believe she’s telling the truth, because as of right now, the CIA continues to get EVERYTHING WRONG:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/19/the-cias-comedy-of-briefing-list-errors/
(same subject as this TP thread) Here’s journalist March Wheeler’s timeline from the FDL link:
I mean, really, you’re blaming Nancy and siding with the republicans on this? The CIA hasn’t even provided a coherent briefings list! None of it is accurate!
I will believe Nancy Pelosi over Bush & Cheney’s CIA any day of the week.
Pelosi has not lied and until the CIA can prove that, then she is innocent until proven guilty dumba$$!
May 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pmIt’s amazing how GOP-like people react when they don’t like what they read, regardless of the fact that it’s sourced and contains compelling facts and information, links and recognized expertise. Especially where it concerns the rule of law and clarity of information. Some people really don’t want to consider the blatant conclusion so they waste time attacking the (correct) messenger.
I’m surprised how quickly the knives came out without one scintilla of sources refuting the points cited.
How disappointing.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:44 pmAccording to Hansiro, Americans are guilty until proven innocent. Nice. Too much George & Dickey over the past 8 years? Appears so!
And you’re a phucking a&&hole. How’s that?
May 19th, 2009 at 9:45 pmfrom another thread… would still like an answer…
help!
i’m confused – watching ed schultz, david ignacius on -
when nancy said the CIA was misleading her and congress,
wasn’t she talking about the BUSH/TENET CIA???
now, it’s about how she offended the PANETTA CIA?
arg!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30031533/
May 19th, 2009 at 9:46 pmsee: Pelosi’s case strengthens?
May 19: Author David Ignatius discusses whether another discrepancy in the CIA’s briefing records vindicate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
89. KayInMaine Says:
Kay, I can honestly say you’re about the stupidest poster here.
I’m not arguing CIA documents. I’m not siding with anyone. The facts are clear and thankfully for you: simple.
Pelosi, by her own admission, knew of waterboarding as early as February of 2003. She did nothing.
People died.
Now she’s spinning and misdirecting about CIA briefings, which are irrelevent to the sources and information I’ve posted. Pelosi knew conclusively when Harman wrote her letter.
See how simple that was? Even enough for you…
May 19th, 2009 at 9:49 pmHanshiro,
Do you have any evidence that Nancy Pelosi knew anything?!
Do you have any evidence that the CIA told Pelosi that detainees were being waterboarded?
We don’t even know for certain who was at these “briefings.”
Now, I’m all for investigating the Democratic and Republican Party to bring out those who are responsible – but this is BS.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:49 pmPelosi did not have the power to give any orders. The focus needs to remain on Bush and Cheney.
94.hormiga brava chavez Says: Hanshiro,Do you have any evidence that Nancy Pelosi knew anything?!
You asked me the same exact question on #34, which I answered. What is wrong with you?
Don’t ask me to chew your intellectual food for you, look at the numerous links I’ve bothered to provide upthread. You’ll find them easily since they are the only few links to sources that anyone here bothered to post.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:53 pmAnd the wingnuts and trollz say but, but, but, Nancy Pelosi….
May 19th, 2009 at 9:55 pmPelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding and had objected in a letter to the CIA’s top counsel.
“It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred,” Pelosi said in the Dec. 9, 2007, statement.
I’ve read this statement several times from the source, and there are a few things it doesn’t affirmative state:
1. That the CIA, at the time of the official notification, were NOT telling them that Zubaidah had already been waterboarded.
2. A close reading of the text reveals only that they had revealed their intent to waterboard Zubaidah, and that an aide to Pelosi had been present at the meeting.
3. Pelosi’s “at that time” statement affirms that she knew (through Harmon) of the CIA’s announced intent to waterboard Zubaidah, not that he had already been waterboarded.
Greenwald’s piece starts from the proposition that Pelosi’s statement was an admission of knowledge of the actual act itself (waterboarding Zubaidah), not simply the CIA’s announced intention. In this, he appears to have misread the WAPO piece (stranger things have happened), and so, begins from a faulty premise. Nowhere in the article did I see an affirmative statement that Pelosi knew, and objected specifically, regarding the torture that had already occurred, only the objection to the stated intetion of waterboarding Zubaidah.
And lest we forget, this occurred in the lead-up to the ‘02 midterms, when Nancy’s electoral plate was overflowing, and her later recollection might be a little disjointed, from the political pressures she was under at the time.
But if evidence surfaces that positively shows she knew that Zubaidah was being tortured and she then said nothing, I say throw her out.
And now I will head for a spot on the ceiling, so the ferocious ant lion doesn’t try to sting me, or whatever it is they do…
May 19th, 2009 at 9:56 pmFunny….Hanshiro says he/she has the evidence, but yet, the CIA hasn’t released the document where it explains Nancy was shown videos of the waterboardings, knew of the 83 waterboardings of Zabaydah, and how Nancy was orgasmic with excitement that the Geneva Convention was thrown out the door and war crimes were being committed!
By the way, how come Nancy voted against the use of force against Iraq? Oh that’s right! SHE DIDN’T TRUST THE BULLCRAP EVIDENCE SHE WAS FED ABOUT IRAQ! The CIA and the Bush Regime were lying & deceiving everyone, but yet, the only person Hanshiro wants to bring down is Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the republic party.
You’re pathetic.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:01 pmProducing a WaPo link is not evidence either.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:01 pmHanshiro,
Producing ‘opinions’ from Greenwald is not evidence. It’s like saying what they could’ve done – not what actually happened or what information was actually given during the briefing(s).
May 19th, 2009 at 10:01 pmhanshiro, you really are a f**king troll. Now you are smearing and name calling KayInMaine because she doesn’t buy your bullshit either. Go back to redstate were you will be loved.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:02 pmHanshiro’s no troll, just passionate about the issue.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:04 pmbarfly, when he smears, belittles and starts namecalling other posters because they don’t agree with him, he’s a f**king troll in my book.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:06 pmBut if Hanshiro wants to debate the WAPO article writer’s phrasing, use of unnamed source to corroborate an unproven fact, and possible intent, I’m open to it.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pmOr perhaps Hanshiro would like to discuss the apparent cognitive dysfunction of mine, that he so insightfully suggested earlier?
May 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pmOr perhaps Hanshiro might admit he himself didn’t really read the WAPO article all that closely, because it seemed to confirm a preconception of his.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:15 pm97.barfly Says: 3. Pelosi’s “at that time” statement affirms that she knew (through Harmon) of the CIA’s announced intent to waterboard Zubaidah, not that he had already been waterboarded.
Please link to the source that states ‘announced intent.’
Also Pelosi’s quote clearly indicates use, not ‘intended use.’
It also says Harman wrote the letter because she learned of the waterboarding, not the ‘intent’ to waterboard. To protest the use implies use, not ‘intent to use.’
He read it as printed I concur that it indicates the usage I’ve cited above. Your supposition hinges on Greenwald making a mistake by your interpretation; not printed or implied by the quote or by the language, a notion that is not supported by your rationale.
Pelosi did not object, that is part of my complaint.
And lest we forget, this occurred in the lead-up to the ‘02 midterms, when Nancy’s electoral plate was overflowing, and her later recollection might be a little disjointed, from the political pressures she was under at the time.
This is irrelevent, hearsay and frankly hints of rationalization to steer to a biased conclusion. I’m going by what I’ve researched and what’s printed in the links.
But if evidence surfaces that positively shows she knew that Zubaidah was being tortured and she then said nothing, I say throw her out.
She, by her own quote, knew waterboarding was being used. Your adding a caveat of knowing names or subjects of waterboarding as a qualification of complicity is a bit of a stretch.
And now I will head for a spot on the ceiling, so the ferocious ant lion doesn’t try to sting me, or whatever it is they do…
Nah, I appreciate the care with which you’ve reviewed this. You’re the first; I don’t agree with your conclusion, but I trust your introspection and credibility.
Thanks.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pm103. angels81 Says: barfly, when he smears, belittles and starts namecalling other posters because they don’t agree with him, he’s a f**king troll in my book.
You started the namecalling, sweets.
Now you’ve lied about that, too.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:20 pmThe question is not what Nancy Pelosi knew of if she lied. the question is did the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States break the law by ordering waterboarding which violated United States law as well as International law. Once we answer that, we will know what Nancy knew.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm102. barfly Says: Hanshiro’s no troll, just passionate about the issue.
Thanks for that, too. It’s tiresome for uninformed people to scream “Troll!” when someone else reveals their shortcomings on an issue.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pmhanshiro the antlion Says:
——————————————————————————–
102. barfly Says: Hanshiro’s no troll, just passionate about the issue.
Thanks for that, too. It’s tiresome for uninformed people to scream “Troll!” when someone else reveals their shortcomings on an issue.
==============================================================
Defending tired troll talking points and ignoring the crimes of the Bush Crime Family sounds ver trollish to me…just saying.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pmSome days Hanshiro and StateoftheDivision just can’t help but expose themselves for what they truly are, faux progressives.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:27 pmhanshiro, If I started the name calling, then why didn’t you just confine it to me? Your the asshat who has smeared and name called eveyone who hasn’t agreed with you. Why did you go after KayInMaine? If you are not a troll, like barfly say’s, you sure have been acting like one.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:30 pm111.kasinca Says: Defending tired troll talking points and ignoring the crimes of the Bush Crime Family sounds ver trollish to me…just saying.
You know, I’m sick to death of hearing that asinine rationalization. If I protest an issue, is there now demanded some litany of accompanying highlights I’m duty-bound to mention so others will nod their heads approvingly?
I can point out chapter and verse of issues that regularly go unmentioned, yet it is no indication of concern or lack thereof, just an avid desire to stay on the subject.
Grow up. Just sayin’…
May 19th, 2009 at 10:31 pm113.angels81 Says: hanshiro, If I started the name calling, then why didn’t you just confine it to me?
I did. I didn’t call you anything in posts addressed to someone else…
Your the asshat who has smeared and name called eveyone who hasn’t agreed with you.
You’ll notice it happens when they go after me first, like you did. It is absolutely rare, if ever, that I start namecalling. I give enough rope first…
Why did you go after KayInMaine?
She started it. Shouting, then calling me “phucking nuts.”
Now if you’re through drilling me instead of doing your own legwork…oh, haven’t gotten an apology for your namecalling either.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:36 pmhanshiro, and you won’t.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:38 pmTPM has a correction about the year.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
116.angels81 Says: hanshiro, and you won’t.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you…
May 19th, 2009 at 10:41 pmNancy Pelosi has to be telling the truth.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:44 pmTo protest the use implies use, not ‘intent to use.’
You’re inferring it that way, but the statement could could have been made about either proposed waterboarding, or already-performed waterboarding; it’s ambiguous at best. That’s why Greenwald’s piece isn’t so hot: he’s relying on an ambiguously-worded article to base his criticisms of Pelosi, with an unnamed source (a fact that Greenwald doesn’t normally miss), who “corroborates” an unproven fact: that Pelosi knew specifically from her aide, right after the briefing that Zubaidah had already been tortured.
It doesn’t say it, no matter how you parse it.
Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding and had objected in a letter to the CIA’s top counsel.
That also could be the article writer’s shorthand, for “learned of the intent to waterboard.” They do have a limit to column size.
Also ambiguous at best. But you’re determined to read it to mean something specific.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:44 pm120. barfly Says:
You’re inferring it that way, but the statement could could have been made about either proposed waterboarding, or already-performed waterboarding; it’s ambiguous at best.
To put it more simply, then: it pointedly does not say ‘intent’ anywhere. My interpretation, as printed, is the stronger claim. “To protest the use.”
That also could be the article writer’s shorthand, for “learned of the intent to waterboard.” They do have a limit to column size.
You speculate on what could have been or the author’s unprinted intent, I post on what it says. If you are opening up any and all sources to what the writer may or may not have intended rather than what is printed, then there are no sources that can’t be immediately impeached and rejected out-of-hand based on claims of what the viewer claims the author intended.
In other words, it would be a mess to attempt that practice.
I could simply claim that Pelosi’s intent was that she knew and is lying when she says, “I wasn’t briefed.” Extreme example, but you get the idea. Your attempt is a fallacious exercise.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pmIt also says Harman wrote the letter because she learned of the waterboarding,
Which could also be shorthand for “…learned of the intended waterboarding…”
I mostly respect Greenwald, but this take is slanted, and larded with innuendo.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:54 pmto protest the use of such techniques,
Could be either a proactive statement, or a reactive statement, meaning, it’s ambiguous wording leaves the door open for interpretation, and Greenwald went with one, but the other is equally valid, considering the obvious ambiguity.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:58 pm122.barfly Says:
It also says Harman wrote the letter because she learned of the waterboarding,
Which could also be shorthand for “…learned of the intended waterboarding…”
I mostly respect Greenwald, but this take is slanted, and larded with innuendo.
Nothing like a fluffy generality to screw a logical dialogue. That’s technically a fallacy too, BF, by trying to dismiss a source with baseless generalities which, I’m certain, you have absolutely no sources or examples to support.
*ding* Thanks for playing…
May 19th, 2009 at 10:59 pmYou speculate on what could have been or the author’s unprinted intent, I post on what it says.
And I posted on what it doesn’t say. Are you basing all your assertions, and your attitude, on this lone article? I’d love to see corroboration from another source, then I’ll shut up.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:01 pm*ding* Thanks for playing…
Ouch.
Your attempt at showing me your Joe College debating skills, seems kind of weak, given the fact you’re basing your whole argument on a single article, using unnamed sources.
Adios.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pmIt doesn’t matter what/who/why/where/ Pelosi knew or not.
The cia picking and choosing who is allowed to attend a cia meetings is more than strange. Rushing people about makes their actions suspect.
Another thing that peeved me are the unexplained code words the cia used (EIT) and getting back to-ya responses when asked what exactly do they mean? (I know there’s more)
The cia’s behavior is evidential materials, more than worthy of an investigation. The raw silliness of it all is amazing.
Get caught with a tree and yo ass is gone. Where is the fairness for the real people?
teabaggers embrace the bags, dumbasses.
It’s worse than we’d imagined, folks.
BTW — President Obama can’t do everything in 100 days or 200 days. He has a little less than 4 yrs to do the best he can. At every corner chimpy left road blocks.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:09 pmOMG. I usually enjoy reading these posts. For the most part, they are intelligent; and I am impressed with the level of intellect and knowledge displayed. But hanshiro is killing my buzz and giving me a headache. Dude, you clearly need to cut way back on the caffeine or you need to get some, or both. Get out of the bunker once in a while.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:13 pmPelosi should be held accountable for her oversight inaction in the torture policy of the Cheney/Bush administration. The high standing principles that have come to the surface in this matter are refreshing. The Republicans have finally found their moral compass and these high standards are a good sign that the torture policy will get a correct and dignified public airing. With the Pelosi collusion in the torture policy settled, the real investigations can begin into the formulation, and execution of this policy. I am counting on the Republicans to exercise the same diligence in the second phase of the investigation.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:17 pmThe public will be watching eagerly.
Haven’t read all the posts, but it seems to me that this whole thing is about attempting to shift blame – it’s a diversion. The cons just can’t seem to understand that the American people have awoken. Their tactics just create more interest in what happened and who knew what and when. The people must have the truth – after all – all these people work for us.
I sense the investigations are coming soon. And that’s a good thing.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:23 pmWasn’t there friction between the fbi, cia and chimpy/buckshot admin. back then?
May 19th, 2009 at 11:29 pm126. barfly Says: Your attempt at showing me your Joe College debating skills, seems kind of weak, given the fact you’re basing your whole argument on a single article, using unnamed sources.
Um, not quite. I would be showing debating skills if, and only if you had provided anything resembling a rebuttal. You pointedly have not. While my article includes a direct quote from Pelosi, which is all that is required to show her acquaintance with the subject in question, you, BF have provided no refutation, no counter-sources, nothing on the scale of what I’ve produced, sourced and linked to.
Like the other Pelosi-heads, the most you’ve offered up is rationalizing and “Nuh-uh.”
Come back when you have anything that counters my information, like something that shows Pelosi didn’t acknowledge torture in 2003.
The evidence is all in my favor since you’ve provided bupkis, and nowhere have my sources been conclusively or even incidentally impeached. That’s the difference in showing proof, as I’ve done here, and debating, which not one poster here has managed to do.
Not one.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:40 pmIt looks like the wheels are starting to come off. Here it appears that the CIA has doctored the records in an effort to make themselves look good. Panetta needs to take names and hold those accountable for doctoring the records. Panetta did say when the CIA record was release that some of the data was a reinactment but this goes well beyond what is acceptable. This crap will not stop until heads roll and accountability is established. Panetta owes the Congress an apology.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:53 pmBashing Pelosi is just what the Rethugs were hoping for. Don’t blame the the perpetrators blame the folks that heard rumors of it. Stupid.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:25 am.
NO EXCUSES!!!
America deserves THE TRUTH, and to date, America is seeing a lot of fingers pointing.
FACT: TORTURE HAPPENED!
QUESTION: WHEN DID TORTURE BECOME LEGAL?
Either America IS a Nation of Laws OR a Nation of followers.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:47 am.
If Pelosi had a problem in 2007 when she became Speaker, with the FACT that Bush/Cheney ordered TORTURE, then taking accountability “OFF THE TABLE” served a purpose; Partisan gains.
If she didn’t have a problem in 2007, when she took accountability “OFF THE TABLE” then that serves a different purpose; Allegiance to a president.
But in the long run, this serves to distract from the greater FACT; WAR CRIMES WERE COMMITTED!
I really don’t care who’s the liar, I care that the Rule of Law be upheld.
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
ORDER A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. Take this monkey off your back.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:52 amWhile I think there is something Pelosi should have done I dont want to fall for the tactic the GOP continually uses. They KNOW they reflexivly protect their own and that the left WILL go after theirs if they think they were wrong. Some want to prove to the world SO much they are fair they go after their side MORE than the other side. So when the GOP guys are in trouble they search around and try to toss a Dem SOMEWHERE under the bus. No matter WHAT Pelosi knew her culpability for the policy of torture PALES in comparison of the Bush administration. Her jaywalking should be looked at the Bush Administrations FELONIES are a higher priority and we shouldnt let Pelosi take our eye off the ball. Do the investigation and make it as thorough as possible get EVERYONE involved and make hold them accountable according to their culpability
May 20th, 2009 at 12:57 amDidn’t get through all the posts yet, but:
What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’? Because, regardless of links to articles about what was said, there is no proof of the allegations against (impeachment is off the table) Pelosi.
And why is this being framed as Pelosi’s responsibility alone? Want her on the list, then fine, but present a complete list of those who you believe were in the know and demand exactly the same for them, at the same time you are attacking Pelosi. What is dishonest is to focus on Pelosi as if she were the only person to have (supposedly) known clearly about torture occuring and yet did nothing. If Pelosi knew this, then there are a lot of others who would have known the same or more. So — you want to level these accusations at Pelosi, then level the same accusations at every other person who could or must have had the same or more information. otherwise, you are just participating in a witch-hunt distraction.
Furthermore, is the point that she aquiesed to torture as government sanctioned policy (please see paragraph above about ‘the list’ that you should be persuing), or is it that she is lying. I am hearing both, though mostly what I am hearing is that “Pelosi is lying”. O.k. — again, hold that standard across the board — apply it to every other politcian who appears to be lying about something, and demand the same measures of punishment. The accusation itself seems a bit blurry here.
And perhaps some are willing to go these measures, holding everyone culpable of whatever the angle is, but I am not hearing it at all. All i am hearing is “Get Pelosi”, but the reasons to “get” her apply to an awful lot of others — and they should be on your list then. Any other approach is a partisan attack (no matter how much you want to cry that it is not).
May 20th, 2009 at 7:22 am142. EugeneDebs Says: No matter WHAT Pelosi knew her culpability for the policy of torture PALES in comparison of the Bush administration.
*sigh*
It’s called “Tu Quoque” and it’s amazing how many people try to minimize negligence by citing other examples from an opposition source.
Example:
“He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel.”
Yeah, bush should have been put away long ago for his entire incompetent and sadistic carnival. The problem I have is that our side didn’t put their legislative foot down. From a NYT article:
I agree with this. There was a much larger issue here than Pelosi’s career, and every Senator and Representative risks ‘political suicide’ by taking the job and defending the Constitution.
The idea that Pelosi can produce no objections, after taking impeachment off the table and making myriad excuses for not pushing for investigations is absolutely infuriating. I don’t expect sane behavior from any republican, but there is something far worse about betrayal by someone who claims to be on my side, then gives bush and his clowns every-single-thing-they-want.
Something stinks to high heaven here, particularly since the dem leadershi(t), the president and the congress, after making all these promises that all they needed was to get into power then they’d put a stop to all this, are dithering and not putting a stop to all this.
We’ve been had.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:46 amAnd while I may be alone here, I disagree with the notion that you have to cite outside sources in order to present a debate of merit. That is not true. You can debate without offering sources.
Furhtermore, if you demand outside sources as evidence to support your position in debate, then you must consider the validity of the source. The source itself must cite specific and veirfiable facts as well, and its sources must be able to be considered. It is easy to find biased sources for just about anything. The KKK could argue their position and offer a variety of sources that support them… but you have to consider the bias and slant of the source.
And one source does not create a strong base to support a conclusion. One does not go into a science lab and perform one experiment to establish evidence to prove a hypothesis.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:48 am145.CageyCretin Says: And while I may be alone here, I disagree with the notion that you have to cite outside sources in order to present a debate of merit. That is not true. You can debate without offering sources.
This is simply to reduce flawed rationalizations. Basically, I can, through rationale alone tie up any argument you make. Citing expert experience or credible sources adds authority, or at least validity rather than people making crap up and claiming it gospel.
The KKK could argue their position and offer a variety of sources that support them… but you have to consider the bias and slant of the source.
That’s where logical fallacy comes in. It isn’t difficult to impeach a surce if you can point out fallacies involved in the conclusion or specious reasoning. Documentation is far harder to dismiss than a sophistic presentation.
In other words, yeah, you have to do homework and show how you arrived at your conclusion. If I can cut it to ribbons through other or stronger documentation, as say, Jon Stewart does regularly with the republicans, then my argument is deemed more valid.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:56 am145. CageyCretin Says: And one source does not create a strong base to support a conclusion. One does not go into a science lab and perform one experiment to establish evidence to prove a hypothesis.
It’s not just a ’source,’ but a direct quote. In order to reject the premise, it needs to be shown to be either wrong or distorted. Not one person who went after me even attempted to present anything credible. Just carped and whined.
My respect for several posters here has found new limits…
May 20th, 2009 at 7:59 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
142. EugeneDebs Says: No matter WHAT Pelosi knew her culpability for the policy of torture PALES in comparison of the Bush administration.
It’s called “Tu Quoque” and it’s amazing how many people try to minimize negligence by citing other examples from an opposition source.
Tu quoque is “two wrongs do not make a right”. But ED does not seem to be presenting that as an argument: ED (and many others) are saying that Pelosi does not have the same measure of culpability as others in government at the time. If she knew that torture was actually occurring (and it is not a fact that she did — it is still just acusation) she is culpable, however there is a larger list of people who are more culpable. The person who stands by and watches a murder happen while they could have called for help has some accountability, but not the same degree of accountability as the perpetrator or the person who hired the perpetrator.
As the Pelosi-hunters seem to be trying to frame this, the witness who did not call 911 is the one who needs to be front and center in the trial. That is just not right. This matter needs to be approached from the top down (just like trickle economics) — as those who ordered and sanctioned torture as official policy are brought in, those who abided will also be swept up.
I want to see all of the culpable parties tried and the guilty punished, but justly. I believe there was upper level administration knowledge and orders involving torture, but I do not insist that those who I believe are responsible are thrown in jail before having a fair trial. Demanding that Pelosi take any action that is punative based on these accusations is the opposite of justice — it is demanding a punishment without a fair trial. (and for the record, I really dislike Pelosi, but not as much as I dislike Reid).
May 20th, 2009 at 8:08 am148.CageyCretin Says: Tu quoque is “two wrongs do not make a right”
More specifically, it means one does not dismiss crimes out of hypocrisy or even identical behavior. Both are still crimes.
Citing Clinton’s behavior as a way to minimize or justify bush’s is the fallacy. That’s not ‘two wrongs making a right.’
ED (and many others) are saying that Pelosi does not have the same measure of culpability as others in government at the time. If she knew that torture was actually occurring (and it is not a fact that she did — it is still just acusation) she is culpable, however there is a larger list of people who are more culpable.
I don’t know who “ED” is but, for me, Pelosi is being held to a different standard because she sold herself as the police that would restore the rule of law. She also cited caveats to her acting in that capacity; those caveats were fulfilled in 2006 and again in 2008. We are halfway through 2009 and there haven’t been any investigations or prosecutions.
If a policeman knowingly allows a murderer to escape, which is the greater violation? (It goes without saying that the murderer should be jailed,) but the policeman is trained and elected to know better, but offers up rationale and excuses for their conduct.
That they know better, swear an oath, then violate both is a circumstance for particular focus.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am148. CageyCretin Says: As the Pelosi-hunters seem to be trying to frame this, the witness who did not call 911 is the one who needs to be front and center in the trial.
This is specious reasoning. Pelosi is not some hapless bystander. If you change “witness” to “policeman,” the entire scenario takes on a vastly different tone; and no mistake, as cited above, Pelosi campaigned on restoration of the Constitution and rule of law.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:22 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
Sources only have the value of their credibility. I am not denying the value of citing evidence in debate. But, as we see a lot here, one can easily cite “evidence” that comes from sources who have agendas, and are offering misinformed ‘evidence’ or even outright lies. You have a quote, and I do not deny the quote as it stands.
But, as I said, the debate is a little blurry (is it “she lied” or is it “she knew about torture” — though if the first is true, I believe the second must also be true in this instance), and I do not hear calls for others to receive equal treatment (and, actually, I would love to). Where’s the list of all the people who knew about these same things, because the Democrat Pelosi certianly knew far less than any republican. But not in the media nor in here have I seen a list of the others who knew of torture, and calls for them to be trated similarly.
So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying? But if she is lying, then her lie is “I was never briefed about torture”, and the truth to that lie would be, “Yes, you were briefed about torture”. Torture is illegal. Being briefed about it as policy means that someone ordered it, someone prepared the briefing, others were in attendance at that briefing — in other words, there is a list of people who had the same or more knowledge. I am 100% behind going after every single one of them… but not JUST one: they all need to be held accountable to the measure of culpability that they each possess.
And is there not, then, an admission that torture occurred and was government sponsored? Pelosi would be liable for not informing the proper people (and the MAY have been someone she could have gone to with this Top Secret information concerning national security in those days and that political atmosphere, and if there was then she is guilty of not reporting what she should have), but so would a list of others — how long is that list I do not know. And then, more importantly, there would be those who actually ordered the torture.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:24 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
148.CageyCretin Says: Tu quoque is “two wrongs do not make a right”
…That’s not ‘two wrongs making a right.’
Yes, that is the essence of Tu Quoque (you can’t reasonably argue that “He did it, so I can do it.”, but the basic idea you get. We are not at odds on that.
I don’t know who “ED” is
That would have been EugeneDebs (My bad — should have typed it out).
but, for me, Pelosi is being held to a different standard because she sold herself as the police that would restore the rule of law.
O.k. First off — since when have we held every (or ANY) politician to strict standards of what they ran on? We don’t. We haven’t. Pelosi should not be held to any different standard than we expect anyone in her position to be held to, regardless of what she ran on. The standard should be the same for everyone. Period. She may have sold herself as a “policewoman” (in some eyes, anyway), but that is not what she is — she is not in charge of the FBI, CIA, nor on any police force. That is just not true.
If a policeman knowingly allows a murderer to escape, which is the greater violation? (It goes without saying that the murderer should be jailed,) but the policeman is trained and elected to know better, but offers up rationale and excuses for their conduct.
The analogy is not justified. Pelosi was not a policewoman now or then, and back then she was not in a position of oversight authority on the matters that she was being briefed or not briefed on. Thus, she was not a policewoman. Did she (if she knew) and every other person who knew about torture back then have a responsibility to do something? Yes, but what extents they could have gone to are questionable. I still don’t have information on who else knew or would have known (if the CIA is not lying), nor do I know off hand where a whistleblower could have gone with that Top Secret information at that time (not saying i nothing should have been done — obviously something should have been done).
And your analogy also offers that the murderer should be jailed and it goes without saying…. but in this debate, that is not the case at all. The attacks are purely against Pelosi — I have not heard any that add on a list of other names who are just as or more culpable, and said list must exist. Pelosi was not the emperess, and really had no real power back then.
That they know better, swear an oath, then violate both is a circumstance for particular focus.
Agreed, but that goes government wide. This is a time for a broad sweep, not nitpicking at a person here and there. Invesigate fully, and punish appropriately every single individual who violated American law, international law, and the oaths to uphold the constitution.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:40 am151.CageyCretin Says: Sources only have the value of their credibility.
Not quite. I would say that even if the source is not credible, the information can still be correct. The National Enquirer manages to pull that occasionally…
I am not denying the value of citing evidence in debate. But, as we see a lot here, one can easily cite “evidence” that comes from sources who have agendas, and are offering misinformed ‘evidence’ or even outright lies. You have a quote, and I do not deny the quote as it stands.
So far, no one has bothered to offer any substantive counter to any of the information I’ve presented. Just hysterical indignation. That ain’t progressive, but merely partisan.
Where’s the list of all the people who knew about these same things, because the Democrat Pelosi certianly knew far less than any republican.
It is not germane to the question at hand. Easily, this thread could be larded with attempts to include every aspect of a particular subject. That would only lose the specific focus of a specific subject. Constantly trolls traipse onto the threads and proclaim, “How come you haven’t denounced so-and-so along with your criticism?” Well, because there are not enough pixels in the world to cover everyone’s prefernces. So we stick to the focus of the debate. Pelosi’s knowledge of torture.
That we don’t harp on what everyone already knows, that bush should be in irons, doesn’t and shouldn’t compromise the main point, though several posters want to use that ridiculous aspect as some sort of validation of sockpuppet/troll/disingenuousness.
So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying?
She has already made a statement that is, according to several credible sources, demonstrably false; that she was “powerless.” She may have been unwilling to commit to risking political suicide to protect the Constitution, which she swore to protect, but according to legal experts like Law Professor Michael Froomkin and Constitutional litigator Glenn Greenwald, she had options to act.
(Notwithstanding her curious declaration that she was powerless, yet she claims she didn’t know anything. That’s akin to saying, “I didn’t kill anyone, and besides the statute of limitations has run out anyway.”)
May 20th, 2009 at 8:44 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
This is specious reasoning. Pelosi is not some hapless bystander. If you change “witness” to “policeman,” the entire scenario takes on a vastly different tone; and no mistake, as cited above, Pelosi campaigned on restoration of the Constitution and rule of law.
Again, I disagree mildly here. Pelosi was not a policewoman in any sense. She was not in charge of oversight. However, if she knew of torture she is guilty of not having come forward, BUT there are others who knew, and it is more important that those who ordered the torture are brought to justice. Otherwise, to stay with your policewoman example, you are trying the policewoman for not acting when she saw a murder, but allowing the murderer to roam the streets free. You need to arrest and try the murderer FIRST, then go after the policewoman.
Cart before the horse here.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:44 am152.CageyCretin Says: O.k. First off — since when have we held every (or ANY) politician to strict standards of what they ran on?
When it comes to torturing people, I somehow believe it carries a far greater standard than “I did not have sex with that woman,” yet, they impeached for that. Deaths are not a broken campaign promise.
She may have sold herself as a “policewoman” (in some eyes, anyway), but that is not what she is — she is not in charge of the FBI, CIA, nor on any police force. That is just not true.
It is absolutely true. She could have brought this issue to the fore, as a ranking democrat, as cited in the article on #144. She had options that she didn’t exercise for fear, as is emerging, that she would risk her political career. You’ve not rebutted that information, just rejected it. That is not a valid argument.
The analogy is not justified. Pelosi was not a policewoman now or then, and back then she was not in a position of oversight authority on the matters that she was being briefed or not briefed on.
This is wrong. She was brought into the briefing specifically for the point of oversight. See my links to Greenwald’s article upthread. Again, you’ve simply rationalized and dismissed without evidence or rebuttal.
Agreed, but that goes government wide. This is a time for a broad sweep, not nitpicking at a person here and there.
I agree, but in the interest of properly exploring this subject, Pelosi, the question of anyone else’s involvement is either moot or irrelevent.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:55 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
151.CageyCretin Says: Sources only have the value of their credibility.
Not quite. I would say that even if the source is not credible, the information can still be correct. The National Enquirer manages to pull that occasionally…
Certainly. But the question would remain as to whether they got it accurate and in context. But faiur enough. not worth any more discussion, really.
So far, no one has bothered to offer any substantive counter to any of the information I’ve presented. Just hysterical indignation. That ain’t progressive, but merely partisan.
At this point I have lost what information is supposed to be countered.
Where’s the list of all the people who knew about these same things, because the Democrat Pelosi certianly knew far less than any republican.
It is not germane to the question at hand. …. So we stick to the focus of the debate. Pelosi’s knowledge of torture.
that is VERY germane to the question at hand, really. It is inextrictably tied into it. “Pelosi’s knowledge of torture” cannot exist without torture. So, has the US officially admitted to torturing prisoners? Yes, I get that we have a thread and its topic, but Peolsi did not aiuthrize torture, and I don’t see anyone trying to argue that. So… who did? and before Pelosi CAN be damned for knowing about torture and not doing anything, there has to BE torture, and thus someone who ordered id (because tied in with that is that it was part of top secret briefings she and others recieved, and thus it was government sanctioned). The argument you present DOES want to ignore the authorizing forces, and to ignore that there were people who created and delivered the briefings and other elected officials (the “policemen” of our scenerio, as it were, then) who were briefed. To continue our police/murder metaphor — it was NOT just that one policewoman standing there watching the murder: it was whole group of policepeople doing that. They ALL need to go down, and go down together since it is the exact same crime we are talking about.
That we don’t harp on what everyone already knows, that bush should be in irons
But that is NOT the valid point to this argument. The point is, who was the authorizing force? You want to punish one person for a crime that has not been admitted or taken to a court. We do NOT have any legal “The US government tortured” at this time, and until we do it is impossible for anyone at all to have lied about knowing about torture since, legally, it didn’t happen. You CAN’T go after Pelosi for “what she knew about torture” UNTIL you affirm government sanctioned torture and at least begin prosecutional investigations.
So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying?
She has already made a statement that is, according to several credible sources, demonstrably false; that she was “powerless.” She may have been unwilling to commit to risking political suicide to protect the Constitution, which she swore to protect, but according to legal experts like Law Professor Michael Froomkin and Constitutional litigator Glenn Greenwald, she had options to act.(Notwithstanding her curious declaration that she was powerless, yet she claims she didn’t know anything. That’s akin to saying, “I didn’t kill anyone, and besides the statute of limitations has run out anyway.”)
So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying, or is it that she is lying about being powerless? Again… so far, there was no crime (torture). Until there IS a crime (torture) she cannot be held responsible for not reporting it.
The torture investigations cannot begin with Pelosi. She is not that important.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:03 amHere is a salient bit by Greenwald (there are hyperlinks in the original that I recommend):
May 20th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Wow, Hanshiro has such anger about Nancy Pelosi. I suspect she reminds him of his mother, or maybe some woman who broke his heart. That is the only way to explain his insane attacks and obsession with this subject. He probably has her picture taped all over the walls of his Taxi Driver-like apartment.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:05 am156.CageyCretin Says: At this point I have lost what information is supposed to be countered.
Heh, long thread, but basically the idea that Pelosi was “powerless” or that Pelosi didn’t know about torture in 2003. I’ve supported my position through several credible sources and, again, was met with hysterical indignation or worse, addled and partisan rationale.
that is VERY germane to the question at hand,
It’s not, because that has been established and would only waste the dialogue on tangents. The question we’re concerned with here is did one of the people elected to serve progressive/dem/Constitutional interests, violate their oath for partisan gain/enabling the torturers?
The point is, who was the authorizing force?
That is a tangent. Again, that is not the nugget we’re concerned with here. That aspect has been discussed on other threads that were not titled, “Intel officer: CIA is being ‘disingenuous’ about congressional briefings. ”
Until there IS a crime (torture) she cannot be held responsible for not reporting it. The torture investigations cannot begin with Pelosi. She is not that important.
Not quite, We know for a fact torture was committed. People were beaten to death. Your claim, that we don’t have any convictions yet, doesn’t protect Pelosi from being held responsible if she was aware or claims “powerlessness.”
I don’t need to know who set off the fireworks in the munitions plant to hold accountable the fireman who munched doughnuts while watching it burn…
May 20th, 2009 at 9:17 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
152.CageyCretin Says: O.k. First off — since when have we held every (or ANY) politician to strict standards of what they ran on?
When it comes to torturing people, I somehow believe it carries a far greater standard than “I did not have sex with that woman,” yet, they impeached for that. Deaths are not a broken campaign promise.
O.k. Now you’re not staying with our discussion. You claimed that she ran on a platform of ‘policewoman-type”, and that, because of that, she should be held MORE to that standard thaqn anyone else. You said that just a few posts up there. I say, no — we don’t and never have effectively held any politician to their runnign platforms — certainly not as precedent for prosecution. I don’t recall Clinton (you brought him up, not me) running on a platform of “Oral sex is not sex.” I just don’t recall that speech…. perhaps you have a source?
She may have sold herself as a “policewoman” (in some eyes, anyway), but that is not what she is — she is not in charge of the FBI, CIA, nor on any police force. That is just not true.
It is absolutely true. She could have brought this issue to the fore, as a ranking democrat, as cited in the article on #144. She had options that she didn’t exercise for fear, as is emerging, that she would risk her political career. You’ve not rebutted that information, just rejected it. That is not a valid argument.
again. Are you claiming that pelosi was the only person involved in this? That she was the ONLY “policeperson” in that room? There was a group effort to anyhting that occurred in these matters, and if you pick one person out of the group you are letting the others go free. How many “policepeople” were in that room?
The analogy is not justified. Pelosi was not a policewoman now or then, and back then she was not in a position of oversight authority on the matters that she was being briefed or not briefed on.
This is wrong. She was brought into the briefing specifically for the point of oversight. See my links to Greenwald’s article upthread. Again, you’ve simply rationalized and dismissed without evidence or rebuttal.
No. I am not rationalizing. Nor am I just dismissing you out of hand. Little touchy, are we? The article is one piece of information, and one quote that you rely on. Are you claiming that Pelosi was the only person brought in for the purposes of oversight? That is what is implied here.
Agreed, but that goes government wide. This is a time for a broad sweep, not nitpicking at a person here and there.
I agree, but in the interest of properly exploring this subject, Pelosi, the question of anyone else’s involvement is either moot or irrelevent.
Again, it certainly is not. Everyone involved is just as important. Why is Pelosi MORE important than the other people in that room that were briefed with whatever it was they were briefed with? The accuracy of the CIA is in question, so there is still no definitive proof that Peolsi and the rest of the room knew about torture. And, again, it has to have been torture (of the illegal kind, not just EIT) for Pelosi to HAVE any measure of culpability, but since there is no illegal governmetn sanctioned torture yet, going after Pelosi like this is purely a partisan witch hunt and distraction.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:17 am158. hyacinthgirl Says:
See CageyCretin? This is the abject stupidity to which I was referring. No counter, no rebuttal, no source, just a terminally partisan ‘Deliverance’ mentality armed with nothing more than rocks from behind the dumpster of her keyboard.
…is that banjo music I hear?
May 20th, 2009 at 9:22 amNot quite, We know for a fact torture was committed. People were beaten to death. Your claim, that we don’t have any convictions yet, doesn’t protect Pelosi from being held responsible if she was aware or claims “powerlessness.”
I don’t need to know who set off the fireworks in the munitions plant to hold accountable the fireman who munched doughnuts while watching it burn…
Innacurrate analogy. The police one is far more appropriate.
We agreet hat torture was committed. We know that some prisoners were tortured. We do NOT “know for a fact” that torture was approved at the government level, and was included in these briefings. That is not a nugget of knowledge that we have as a fact with evidence. If we did, then more than one politician would be already awaiting trial for breaking federal and international laws.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:23 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
——————————————————————————–
158. hyacinthgirl Says:
See CageyCretin? This is the abject stupidity to which I was referring. No counter, no rebuttal, no source, just a terminally partisan ‘Deliverance’ mentality armed with nothing more than rocks from behind the dumpster of her keyboard.
…is that banjo music I hear?
Wow. I was very civil, and no insults not name calling. I see the common response to one who has only one position, and probably politically motivated.
Intelligent, informative debate does not require sources. Period.
And after that little childish post, I see that it is a waste of my time to have a discussion with you. I had thought otherwise, but obviously I was mistaken.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:31 amIf you have to be reminded NOT to trust the CIA, you might be a redne- er, Republican.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:33 am160.CageyCretin Says: O.k. Now you’re not staying with our discussion. You claimed that she ran on a platform of ‘policewoman-type”, and that, because of that, she should be held MORE to that standard thaqn anyone else.
She should be held to the standard that she swore to, unquestionably. If she betrayed that trust, after promising the opposite, it compounds the nature of her betrayal in my opinion.
again. Are you claiming that pelosi was the only person involved in this? That she was the ONLY “policeperson” in that room?
We are discussing Pelosi. Any other dems who did not act, as Greenwald has already pointed out in the article and link I posted, needs to be replaced.
(This is why I post articles and run out of patience when people ask me the same questions that show they didn’t bother to read the article where the questions that they ask would be answered.)
#37. It gets old that people who claim to have an interest don’t read the information posted and sourced, then want me to spoon feed it through repetition in post after post.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:35 am163. CageyCretin Says: And after that little childish post, I see that it is a waste of my time to have a discussion with you. I had thought otherwise, but obviously I was mistaken.
As you wish, The post was specifically directed at the unwarranted attack on #158. If you wish to extend that to our discussion, that’s your business.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:40 am163. CageyCretin Says: Intelligent, informative debate does not require sources. Period.
As you have produced none, I’ll take that declaration with the grain it deserves.
It is incumbent on a participant to explain his position and cite sources upon which his conclusion is based. In a debate or even a term paper, this is a courtesy and a requirement.
I’ve yet to see anyone extend that requirement, outside of my position.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:44 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
I apologize for misreading your post (I’m having a bad to worse to worser day PLUS unlimited distractions…. grrrrrrr).
However, I would prefer we remain civil.
I do not post links. Citing sources is more than a courtesey in an essay or research paper, but this blog is neither. Sources to back up one’s position may or may not be useful (depends on the source), but a discussion does not require sources. If we were having this discussion at the bar (which we could very well have, being in the same bar of course) sources would not be offered nor expected. Of course, we have that luxury here. I am not refuting the basic idea that there needs to be investigations and that guilty need to be prosecuted. I think that we both agree. But extending that desire to other people who were as or more culpable in the exact same crime IS a valid point in any discussion in this matter. Picking out Pelosi is simply a partisan or partisan-appearing attack, and it ignores that there were others who had the same or more responsibility.
But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture. That is my primary point. And that cannot be the case without other people being tried for the crime of authorizing torutre. And I don’t need citations to hold or present that point.
Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered? Seriously a question (becasue since I do not post links, i try to avoid arguing such that I need a source — I prefer the discussion itself, and appreciate those of you who DO offer links. Thank you.).
Again, I sincerely apologize for misreading that post — bad day, lots of distractions on top of it all.
Have a cookie.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:27 amYeah, either that or he has the irrational hate of a Republican.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:11 amCageyCretin, I don’t think you’re the only one having a bad day. :=)
May 20th, 2009 at 11:19 amMissed the fall of the berlin Wall
Missed the iraqi Invasion.
Missed on WMD’s
Failed to predict North Korea’s Nuke Program
Considering the fact that this organization has missed every major event that involves national Security I think disbanding this worse than useless Organization would benefit us all!
May 20th, 2009 at 11:22 am168. CageyCretin Says: Sources to back up one’s position may or may not be useful (depends on the source)
CC, I can prove to you that a dedicated debater, not held to any sources or proof standard, can tie you in knots.
but a discussion does not require sources.
Nor does it resolve anything, like arguing about whose religion is more pious. With subjects in the political sphere, basing on evidence is key to clearing up misconceptions and mis-conclusions. It also tends to reduce verbiage.
But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture.
The treaties we signed established compulsory investigations to immediately look into torture allegations (hyperlinks in original):
We know that torture was committed, but the ruling party has yet to begin investigations. In fact, Obama himself has gone to great pains to cover for bush’s crimes in both state secrets case and telecom immunity.
Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered?
Yes. For one, your refutation of Pelosi’s obligation of oversight. You claim she wasn’t briefed to provide oversight, but don’t state why bother briefing her, or any other democrat at all if not for oversight? Nor do you cite where you drew this conclusion.
You must understand, for you to make any substantive statement concerning the situation, you must have gathered it from somewhere. To simply say , as you did, “We do NOT “know for a fact” that torture was approved at the government level.” is certainly based on something you read and believed.
It is also wrong. We do know for a fact that it was authorized using faulty legal reasoning:
Again, supporting my position with sources demonstrates and makes accessible information that will trump assumption or inaccurate assertions made in the best of faith. It’s part of persuasion to show the genesis of my position. And it’s a courtesy and requirement in every debate.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:40 am169.Doodlebug Shayne Says:
It’s fitting, that name. You’re a real pill…
May 20th, 2009 at 11:46 amhanshiro the antlion Says:
CC, I can prove to you that a dedicated debater, not held to any sources or proof standard, can tie you in knots.
No need. I know that is possible, particularly if that is the debater’s goal. That is not my goal, and I would hope that you do not think it is. I’m not trying to be clever and tricky — I have an opinion, and I am presenting it in the best manner I can at this time. My computer blows up into tiny bits when I do any of a dozen things, and moves at the speed of a lithium soaked turtle. Finding sources and linking them would take me so much time that I would have no time to present my arguments because of that. Sorry that it bothers you so much. Really. However, you have a qualifier — “not held to any sources or proof standard“. I agree — one cannot simply say just anything: but logic and reason are standards to be held to in debate or discussion, and many ‘facts’ are givens. Had I claimed that Pelosi said such-and-such… then it would be reasonable to want to know where I got that from. I’m presenting pretty much my opinions. If that is not structured enough for you, I can do little about it.
but a discussion does not require sources.
Nor does it resolve anything, like arguing about whose religion is more pious. With subjects in the political sphere, basing on evidence is key to clearing up misconceptions and mis-conclusions. It also tends to reduce verbiage.
The less words used, actually, the more likely there will be mis-communication. Bumper-sticker slogans are cute, but they really are not the stuff of debate and discussion. Bringing evidence dpends entirely upon what the subject is you are discussing and how you are discussing it. And there is also mutual agreement that comes into play. I do not disagree that we tortured, and that it was ordered from the top levels of the Bush administration. Neither do you. So, if I say, “We tortured prisoners on orders from our government” I would not need to offer links to outside sources to prove what I say to you. I would have to for someone who did not believe that, or rather, it would bolster the statement, assuming the other person accepted the sources offered as legitimate or accurate.
But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture.
The treaties we signed established compulsory investigations to immediately look into torture allegations (hyperlinks in original):…..We know that torture was committed, but the ruling party has yet to begin investigations. In fact, Obama himself has gone to great pains to cover for bush’s crimes in both state secrets case and telecom immunity.
O.k. Here is where we agree, but are on different … I don’t know what. Yes — we should be investigating the torture to the fullest and prosecuting all involved. But we are not doing so — therefore, as much as we KNOW it happened, it did not legally happen yet. Note that some of the republics are wanting Pelosi to step down for not trusting the CIA, and not bringing in the torture… because she can’t be tagged for “torture knowledge” until our law accepts that there was torture, which, of course, will mean a lot of other people winding up in the hot water.
Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered?
Yes. For one, your refutation of Pelosi’s obligation of oversight. You claim she wasn’t briefed to provide oversight, but don’t state why bother briefing her, or any other democrat at all if not for oversight? Nor do you cite where you drew this conclusion.
I cannot offer you citations, and I am sorry. And there is no one source that this perception was arrived at. I can’t send you to some columnist or pundit who told me that and so I believe it. The accumulation of knowledge is not often a single-source item. However, I will claim (without a source) that the committee that she was a member of who was briefed was not an actionable committee — it was allowed to exist by the unitary executive in hopes of quelling dissent (what did said committee accomplish, ever?). The Bush Administration did not want to brief anybody on anything that they did. That committe had no teeth whatsoever. Now, you DID reframe what I have said into “Pelosi’s obligation for oversight”, which is being a little clever with your argument. I never claimed that Pelosi did not have an obligation — nor that ANYONE who knew of the torture had no obligation. But with what is a list of people responsible, to only select one is dishonest — drag the whole list of ‘em out and I’m right up front with you. Dragging ANY single individual out of the grooup who are all EQUALLY responsible is, well, looking for someone to throw under the bus to save the rest. I want them ALL to be punished. every human being who knew that torture was being ordered by our government and failed to report it is guilty of aquiescence.
You must understand, for you to make any substantive statement concerning the situation, you must have gathered it from somewhere.
Every single thing that we know we acquired from somewhere. Inability to demonstrate that knowledge does not automatically disqualify knowledge, nor intelligence. YES, there are many situations where a source is necessary, and those are all instances where the listener will think (or say) “prove it”. However, I regualrly see others wanting proof for things that have or need no proof.
And that is a pretty high level of requirement for most discussion. I concur that specifics require examples (and that is what you did — you brought in a citation and based your argument off of that). But I strongly disagree with you that in every and all instances one must present sources and citations, or offer no opinion. One’s experiences in life accumulate to create one’s knowledge, and the mind does not always note it’s sources. For my part, I take issue with those who only use one or two sources for their information on a subject (e.g., and specifically, the Limbots and their ilk — NOT specifically a single argument, such as you present here… for clarity).
I do not agree that I cannot offer a substansive opinion based only on my experiences in life and my intellect. Is it as persuasive as an argument listing a dozen respected and qualified sources pretty much not. However, i am not really all that intent on being persuasive: I am offering my opinions and my thoughts on the topics. If that is insufficient for you to find them of any value, then you are wasting your time discussing anything at all with me. I can’t imagine that your position on sources is so narrow, but it may be.
I enjoyed our discussion.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pmI always thought Nancy was right on this. After the “Yellow Cake, Slam Dunk on WMD’S and the silience after the outing of Valerie Plame”, I have zero respect for George Bush’s CIA. Leon Penetta is talking about President Obama’s CIA in his response to Nancy, not Dick Cheney’s CIA.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm