Pelosi Jumps the Shark

[epicSocialism4tw]

Pelosi was briefed, but wasnt briefed because the CIA lies to everyone...

Nice excuse. This dingbat cant even figure out what happens in her own staff.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/pelosi-cia-lied.html

[Rigs11]

wait what? So according to you geniuses, bush gets a pass for starting the iraq war because he got shoddy intelligence, and yet now it is incomprihensible to you that the repub controlled CIA would have lied to a member of the Dem party?Besides what do you care, waterboarding is not torture anyways right?

[cutthemdown]

Pelosi lied more for her liberal friends then repubs. She is afraid if they know the truth they won't want her to be their leader.

The issue isn't really the waterboarding, it's whether or not a speaker of the house can lie to the other members about what she knew and when she knew it.

Hell if liberals don't care she lied why should I? In fact I'm glad she let it go on because we probably got good information out of it.

[Rigs11]

I could care less for pelosi, i wish she would fall off the face of the earth.My point was aimed at repubs claiming that there is no way the CIA would lie. The same ones that gave bush a pass by blaming faulty intelligence supplied by the CIA.

[cutthemdown]

I could care less for pelosi, i wish she would fall off the face of the earth.My point was aimed at repubs claiming that there is no way the CIA would lie. The same ones that gave bush a pass by blaming faulty intelligence supplied by the CIA.

Well quite a few other Senators have said they were at same briefings and distinctly remember that she was there, and was told about the waterboardings. A lot of people would have to be lying for Pelosi to not be.

Of course CIA will lie though, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. They are spies what do you expect from them? These guys ain't choir boys!!!

[El Guapo]

Pelosi is worthless.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well quite a few other Senators have said they were at same briefings and distinctly remember that she was there, and was told about the waterboardings. A lot of people would have to be lying for Pelosi to not be.

Of course CIA will lie though, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. They are spies what do you expect from them? These guys ain't choir boys!!!

The CIA supplies information.

What a politician chooses to do with it after receiving it is their own responsibility.

[Smiling Assassin27]

she's in deep now. leon panetta--that's right, obama's appointee has just thrown her under the bus. this dumb broad picked a fight knowing full well that she was a)lying and b) in a position of weakness despite being speaker of the house. no longer is it some Republicans and rank and file Dems that are refuting her, it's the Democratic administration. This SHOULD spell the end for this abomination of a congressperson, but I'm sure the media will downplay it and expect us all to be ignorant and happy.

using the 'well Bush did this and that' defense is immature and foolhardy, not to mention lazy. deal with the issue at hand--the Speaker of The House of the 'most ethical congress EVER' has just been caught in a lie in which she now condemns that which she previously approved.

I'm curious why MoveOn and Code Pink and all the other wack jobs are oddly silent. Anyone? Bueller? National Organization of Women? So what is she, Dems, incompetent or dishonest?

CIA director says Pelosi received the truth
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/15/09 02:19 PM [ET]
CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.

Panetta said that "ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was "misled" by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.

Panetta, President Obama's pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton's former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" according to CIA records.

"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication," Panetta said in the memo. "Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."

In the pep talk-style memo titled "Turning Down the Volume," Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi's remarks created.

"My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission," Panetta wrote. "We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country."

In what may be the most critical moment of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration and when she knew it.

At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.

For weeks, Pelosi had dodged questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as "torture" when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At least one lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi Friday to step down as Speaker.

At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn't push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn't co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.

"No letter could change the policy," she said on May 14 at a news conference. "It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part."

[Rigs11]

can the speaker get fired?Serious question.

[Garcia Bronco]

can the speaker get fired?Serious question.

I am sure the party could remove her, but the best way would be to have her state or district recall her, but that's dependent on the California State Constitution.

[frerottenextelway]

I believe Pelosi. Add in to what Bob Graham has jumped into say, and I'm pretty confident on the subject. I don't believe what was actually leaked to the WaPo conflicts with what Pelosi has said.

But how effing horrible and hypocritial is it from certain peeps to get in tizzy over Pelosi possibly knowing something she certainly didn't construct and what've been unable to leak anyways as it was classified, while letting those that did construct and implement those things off the hook. I don't know how some sleaze can look at themselves in the mirror.

[rastaman]

I am sure the party could remove her, but the best way would be to have her state or district recall her, but that's dependent on the California State Constitution.

Remove her for WHAT! Pelosi says she was told that waterboarding had been authorized as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” but was not told that water-boarding was already being used. I believe her.

Nancy Pelosi did not write any memo stating that waterboarding was legal. She did not authorize waterboarding. She did not perform waterboarding on anybody. As a member of Congress, she was prohibited from talking to anybody, even members of her staff, about what the CIA had told her. And even had she protested to the CIA, it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Nice try, however, the public ain't buying it! Republicans are trying to blame the whole torture scandal on Speaker Nancy Pelosi....get real.

So don’t be fooled. No matter how hard they try, there’s no way Republicans can blame Nancy Pelosi for torture. That blame belongs squarely and solely on Bush Justice Department attorneys who OK’d it, Bush CIA agents who carried it out — and with George Bush and Dick Cheney, who gave the orders.

Atty General Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, GW Bush, and several others all colluded together to commit war crimes and torture.

We need to have hearings on who ordered the TORTURE!!! What I believe the American public will find out is that the Bush Admin didn't torture to keep America safe, the Bush Admin tortured to get false confession to get the torture victims to lie that there was a conncection btwn Bin Laden and Saddam and 9-11 inorder to justify Bush & Cheney going into Iraq.

Bush tortured to justify the Iraq War

Bush tortured to protect Americans—well, not completely. According to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist, the Bush administration pushed hard on interrogators after no WMDs were found. They were desperate to find a link between Saddam and al Qaida. They never could.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

McClatchy: The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.

[Garcia Bronco]

Remove her for WHAT! Pelosi says she was told that waterboarding had been authorized as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” but was not told that water-boarding was already being used. I believe her.

Nancy Pelosi did not write any memo stating that waterboarding was legal. She did not authorize waterboarding. She did not perform waterboarding on anybody. As a member of Congress, she was prohibited from talking to anybody, even members of her staff, about what the CIA had told her. And even had she protested to the CIA, it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Nice try, however, the public ain't buying it! Republicans are trying to blame the whole torture scandal on Speaker Nancy Pelosi....get real.

So don’t be fooled. No matter how hard they try, there’s no way Republicans can blame Nancy Pelosi for torture. That blame belongs squarely and solely on Bush Justice Department attorneys who OK’d it, Bush CIA agents who carried it out — and with George Bush and Dick Cheney, who gave the orders.

Atty General Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, GW Bush, and several others all colluded together to commit war crimes and torture.

We need to have hearings on who ordered the TORTURE!!! What I believe the American public will find out is that the Bush Admin didn't torture to keep America safe, the Bush Admin tortured to get false confession to get the torture victims to lie that there was a conncection btwn Bin Laden and Saddam and 9-11 inorder to justify Bush & Cheney going into Iraq.

Bush tortured to justify the Iraq War

Bush tortured to protect Americans—well, not completely. According to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist, the Bush administration pushed hard on interrogators after no WMDs were found. They were desperate to find a link between Saddam and al Qaida. They never could.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

McClatchy: The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.


If it was illegal and she knew about it, she is just as guilty as a Congressmen as any one of our other leaders. You can't get around that no matter how you guild the lilly. I am sorry but this country has weak leadership and it doesn't matter which party we are talking about.

[rastaman]

If it was illegal and she knew about it, she is just as guilty as a Congressmen as any one of our other leaders. You can't get around that no matter how you guild the lilly. I am sorry but this country has weak leadership and it doesn't matter which party we are talking about.

Who was Pelosie going to TELL! As a member of Congress, she was prohibited from talking to anybody, even members of her staff, about what the CIA had told her.

So are you saying Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled, Gonzales, Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel ARE ALL GUILITY as well?

[Doggcow]

Mega Shark Vs. Palosi! Comming to a blockbuster near you!

[BroncoBuff]

This one is tough to figure ... on one hand, Pelosi looks to be worng, maybe even dishonest.

But on the other hand, former Florida senator Bob Graham - who meticulously takes notes on everything he does and everything that happens to him - has no record of a supposed CIA briefing of the Senate intelligence committee he headed, just a couple weeks after the alleged Pelosi briefing.

Many observers - some very credible - believe the CIA runs a shadow government. Oliver Stone seemed like a paranoid idiot when JFK came out, but what do we know? ???

[watermock]

Jackie Kennedy:

"THEY'VE killed the President".

[elsid13]

can the speaker get fired?Serious question.

That answer is "yes". While Congress works on seniority basis, the parties have a lot of control of who seat were. Problem is that Pelosi is a vindictive bitch that will go out of her way to punish people she feel made her look bad.

[elsid13]

This one is tough to figure ... on one hand, Pelosi looks to be worng, maybe even dishonest.

But on the other hand, former Florida senator Bob Graham - who meticulously takes notes on everything he does and everything that happens to him - has no record of a supposed CIA briefing of the Senate intelligence committee he headed, just a couple weeks after the alleged Pelosi briefing.

Many observers - some very credible - believe the CIA runs a shadow government. Oliver Stone seemed like a paranoid idiot when JFK came out, but what do we know? ???

Depending on the level of classified brief, notes are not allowed to be taken from the room, and one is not to discuss even if you were in the room for a briefing.

[BroncoBuff]

The sad part is that Republicans are saying "Pelosi knew! Pelosi knew!' as if that changes anything. It does not. Just because a Democrat knows something's happening doesn't automatically make it okay, not by a long shot. That's a sad way to approach this issue.

And Garcia .. no way, that is not right. Even if she did know what was happening ... that wouldn't make her guilty of anything. She wasn't Speaker until January 2007 ... but even then, she had no decision-making authority over national security or DOD actions.

[barryr]

Pelosi was caught lying to save her own ass and to make the idiots her support her really believe she is so outraged by "torture", but with typical liberals, since the ends justify the means, her lies are ok and excused. She did not raise any objections until she felt it would help her politically. So glad she and her fellow democrats have "changed" so much how things are done in DC.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The sad part is that Republicans are saying "Pelosi knew! Pelosi knew!' as if that changes anything. It does not. Just because a Democrat knows something's happening doesn't automatically make it okay, not by a long shot. That's a sad way to approach this issue.

And Garcia .. no way, that is not right. Even if she did know what was happening ... that wouldn't make her guilty of anything. She wasn't Speaker until January 2007 ... but even then, she had no decision-making authority over national security or DOD actions.

I doubt anyone really cares whether a Democrat thinks it is "right" or not.

What MATTERS is that she lied about it to try to save her political career, and she tried to throw the CIA under the bus in the process. What an idiot. How can people like this be elected to office...wait...San Francisco.

[BroncoBuff]

I doubt anyone really cares whether a Democrat thinks it is "right" or not.
What a bizarre, naive thing to say.


What MATTERS is that she lied about it to try to save her political career, and she tried to throw the CIA under the bus in the process. What an idiot. How can people like this be elected to office...wait...San Francisco.
We don't know yet whether she lied, though it does look bad for her.

You GOP-ers should really quit with the '3-Card Monty' routine, or 'Hide the Salami,' whatever game you're playing. What Pelosi knew or didn't know, or even if she lied about what she knew has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the torture question.

Like I said, "even as the Speaker, she still has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER over national security, CIA or DOD actions." Can't you read? :)

[cutthemdown]

What a bizarre, naive thing to say.



We don't know yet whether she lied, though it does look bad for her.

You GOP-ers should really quit with the '3-Card Monty' routine, or 'Hide the Salami,' whatever game you're playing. What Pelosi knew or didn't know, or even if she lied about what she knew has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the torture question.

Like I said, "even as the Speaker, she still has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER over national security, CIA or DOD actions." Can't you read? :)

As far as waterboarding goes I see no problem with that. To me that isn't torture. I don't have a problem with the country feeling oterwise, I can see and understand the merits on getting rid of it and not using aggressive techniques. IMO it should all be based on what gets you better information. That I can't answer because I have no idea. That would have to be up to a study that looked at the info got, comapared to what less got you.

Pelosi though has brought up an issue with her lying. She has shown she is more of reactor then a leader. When was was good for her she was all over it, when it wasn't she was anti-war, anti-torture. House Speaker should have more foresight then that, more leadership, but it's up to democrats to decide that, and then the voters.

[peacepipe]

I doubt anyone really cares whether a Democrat thinks it is "right" or not.

What MATTERS is that she lied about it to try to save her political career, and she tried to throw the CIA under the bus in the process. What an idiot. How can people like this be elected to office...wait...San Francisco.

This is a non-issue/distraction because it doesn't change the fact that war crimes were committed by the previous admin.

[BroncoBuff]

This is a non-issue/distraction because it doesn't change the fact that war crimes were committed by the previous admin.

Yep.

[watermock]

But war crimes were NOT commited by the same?

Dirrerence is,WE have them in confinement, our own would be dead.

[mhgaffney]

The CIA supplies information.

What a politician chooses to do with it after receiving it is their own responsibility.

This post by McSkillet and others on the thread demonstrate near total ignorance of the actual role of the CIA.

I am no friend of Pelosi. But in this situation Leon Panetta is a fool to defend the CIA. Indeed, the Panetta appointment by Obama was astonishing. Since when is a former press secretary qualified to head up the CIA?

This tells us it was not a serious appointment. He has no clue about the CIA.

For that mater -- neither does Pelosi -- nor anyone on Capitol Hill.

The Senate and House intelligence committees are a joke.They were set up back in the late 1970s to do oversight of the CIA. But as former committee member Slade Gordon put it (after resigning): "I never learned anything in committee I hadn't already read in the Washington Post.."

The common misperception is that the CIA exists to provide intelligence to the president. If that is true, then why did the CIA lie to LBJ in 1967 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Don't believe me? Check out Ray McGovern's analysis posted here:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html

In truth -- the CIA exists to look out for the interests of Wall Street. That is why the CIA was created. No doubt, this is why 6 out of the first 7 directors of CIA were Wall Street bankers or attorneys.

This explains why the CIA lied to LBJ in 1967. Wall Street wanted the Viet Nam War -- why? Simple. Because it was very profitable.

War is BIG business.

Needless to say - if a US president is at odds with Wall Street -- then the CIA will support Wall Street -- NOT the president. This helps to explain why JFK was murdered.

Wake up you clowns!

[BroncoBuff]

Nobody who knows anything about CIA refers to it as "the" CIA.

There is no "the" ;D

[BroncoBuff]

As a matter of fact, the same thing goes for Associated Press.

There's no "the" before Associated Press http://www.ap.org/

[rastaman]

This post by McSkillet and others on the thread demonstrate near total ignorance of the actual role of the CIA.

I am no friend of Pelosi. But in this situation Leon Panetta is a fool to defend the CIA. Indeed, the Panetta appointment by Obama was astonishing. Since when is a former press secretary qualified to head up the CIA?

This tells us it was not a serious appointment. He has no clue about the CIA.

For that mater -- neither does Pelosi -- nor anyone on Capitol Hill.

The Senate and House intelligence committees are a joke.They were set up back in the late 1970s to do oversight of the CIA. But as former committee member Slade Gordon put it (after resigning): "I never learned anything in committee I hadn't already read in the Washington Post.."

The common misperception is that the CIA exists to provide intelligence to the president. If that is true, then why did the CIA lie to LBJ in 1967 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Don't believe me? Check out Ray McGovern's analysis posted here:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html

In truth -- the CIA exists to look out for the interests of Wall Street. That is why the CIA was created. No doubt, this is why 6 out of the first 7 directors of CIA were Wall Street bankers or attorneys.

This explains why the CIA lied to LBJ in 1967. Wall Street wanted the Viet Nam War -- why? Simple. Because it was very profitable.

War is BIG business.

Needless to say - if a US president is at odds with Wall Street -- then the CIA will support Wall Street -- NOT the president. This helps to explain why JFK was murdered.

Wake up you clowns!

Great post.

This is all so silly and it is obvious what the Republican Party is trying to do. They want to take the focus off those who are directly involved in torture (water boarding). It's funny how the media is falling for it hook, line and sinker. The fact is Pelosi had no power at the time, and she committed no crime, whether she knew about it or not. Those who put a water-boarding policy in place and those who carried it out are the ones who broke the law (Geneva Convention).

Now think about this: Former President Bush, Carl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney first denied torturing prisoners, and then they said water-boarding is not torture, and now they are inadvertently admitting they tortured people by trying to imply Pelosi knew they was breaking the law.
Now the media is overlooking the guilty ones who confessed, in favor of discrediting someone who may or may not know what was going on. This is totally ridiculous. Pelosi did not commit a single war crime and she has a right to call anyone a liar if she believed it happened.

This is about taking the focus off the guilty. Carl Rove is a master at deception and redirecting the media"s attention away from the suspicious ones/Republicans, while at the same time creating diversions. The media need to put the focus back where it belong directly with those in charged- who misled, lied, tortured and committed war crimes.

[mhgaffney]

Rastaman nailed it:

This is about taking the focus off the guilty.

[barryr]

Oh, so now it's Bush made the CIA commit "war crimes?" Nice spinning by the liberal idiots. So when the CIA lies when a republican is in charge, it's that party's fault, but when done while a democrat is in charge, the CIA are the liars, the democrats are just poor innocent victims. Great reasoning going on here. Face it, the democrats you support had no problem with any of interrogation tactics used. Plus, there have been no successful attacks since 9/11 and there have been attempts, so something must be working. But the liberals would rather protect the rights of anybody and then react if an attack occurs. Yes, you people will protect us for sure. Idiots.

[Garcia Bronco]

Who was Pelosie going to TELL! As a member of Congress, she was prohibited from talking to anybody, even members of her staff, about what the CIA had told her.

So are you saying Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled, Gonzales, Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel ARE ALL GUILITY as well?


She could tell the public. There is no law that inhibits Congressmen from reporting the truth. If it was illegal then it was illegal. My guess is it wasn't actually illegal based on some number of technicalities. Just a political football.

[Garcia Bronco]

And Garcia .. no way, that is not right. Even if she did know what was happening ... that wouldn't make her guilty of anything. She wasn't Speaker until January 2007 ... but even then, she had no decision-making authority over national security or DOD actions.

Sure it does. It doesn't matter whether she was speaker or not. If she knew illegal actions took place then she and any other congressmen broke their oath of office. Again this is all based on the assumption that some illegal action has taken place to begin with.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[Rigs11]

Sure it does. It doesn't matter whether she was speaker or not. If she knew illegal actions took place then she and any other congressmen broke their oath of office. Again this is all based on the assumption that some illegal action has taken place to begin with.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
so wait you mean to tell me that bush and his cronies did not know torure was going on, but pelosi did?oh wait never mind, for bush simply claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture. If Pelosi said the same would you be Ok with it?

[Garcia Bronco]

so wait you mean to tell me that bush and his cronies did not know torure was going on, but pelosi did?oh wait never mind, for bush simply claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture. If Pelosi said the same would you be Ok with it?

Where the **** did I say that? Good gawd. I hold all these leaders to the same standard. My argument is nothing illegal actually happened. But if it is deemed illegal and Congressmen Pelosi new about it then she is just as guilty as the rest.

[Rigs11]

Where the **** did I say that? Good gawd. I hold all these leaders to the same standard. My argument is nothing illegal actually happened. But if it is deemed illegal and Congressmen Pelosi new about it then she is just as guilty as the rest.Sorry my question was aimed more as question to all posters on here.Fry em all then? Someone tell the repubs.

[barryr]

Now it'll be Bush made Pelosi lie or was it Cheney? Or was Pelosi not paying attention since too busy having her nails and hair done while in the meetings where this stuff was talked about?

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is a non-issue/distraction because it doesn't change the fact that war crimes were committed by the previous admin.

No. That's not even what the issue is about.

Pelosi is trying to distance herself from them on this issue, when in reality she was right there hand in hand with them.

[barryr]

No. That's not even what the issue is about.

Pelosi is trying to distance herself from them on this issue, when in reality she was right there hand in hand with them.

Exactly! The democrats decided to make this an issue and it bit them in the ass and now will do a quick tap dance to get this out of the news and pretend it never happened.

[Odysseus]

There is a current investigation by congress about previous CIA lying. The CIA is trying to settle things down because they know it's not in their interest or the nations to be in such a spot light.

Obama told Pelosi early on to leave the past in the past but she really was stupid not taking Obama's advice. Pelosi did not lie. She was just stupid. The reality is nothing is coming out unless a truth commission is established.

Things in Washington are so partisan right now. It's ridiculous.

[Odysseus]

Exactly! The democrats decided to make this an issue and it bit them in the ass and now will do a quick tap dance to get this out of the news and pretend it never happened.

I don't think this will be a quick tap dance. I think it will be ugly, clumsy and heavy handed. Leon Panetta is trying to neutralize this. We have a lot of important issue to focus on including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel and establishing peace in the Middle East. I cannot recall a more dangerous time in our history and yet we get so easily side tracked.

I think the Democrats need to elect a speaker who is not so partisan and who actually wants to create a more open dialog. Democrats need to broker some kind of peace with the Republican minority. They will need their vote, voices and understanding. That conversation has to start quickly. Democrats have to support Pelosi but IF the American public had it's way she would be fired.

[mhgaffney]

I'd have to disagree with Quiet Tiger,

The issue is a lot bigger than whether the CIA lied to Pelosi - and whether the CIA is guilty of using torture.

This agency has existed outside the Constitution since its creation in 1947-48. The closest we came to disclosure of the CIA's criminal activity was in the 1970s -- during the Church hearings in the Senate.

Since then there has been nothing -- no oversight by Congress. The US intelligence establishment is basically out of control. We need this torture investigation to expand in a number of directions -- esp 9/11.

The only way we will ever learn the truth about the alleged plot against America on 9/11 will be to have full disclosure of the CIA's covert ops in the pre 9/11 period.

We know that in 1998 Clinton authorized the CIA to do covert ops involving al Qaeda. This was after the bombings of US embassies in Africa. We also know that by 1999 the CIA was moving full speed ahead.

But we know nothing about the CIA operations because the agency has refused to disclose its budgetary data or any other records.

This is not a partisan issue. It's about the survival of our democracy --- which is now about extinct. We are an empire now -- almost no trace left of a republic.

The CIA has undermined our framework of Constitutional government. Whether we can restore it is an open question. It's very doubtful -- but IMO is still possible.

But it will never happen without a major house cleaning. Full disclosure.

[cutthemdown]

LOL you want full disclosure about an agency meant to find out other countries and groups secrets.

HMMMMMMMMM a secret organization being forced to give Gaff all the information he wants because he thinks 9-11 was an inside job.

Gaff you are paranoid. Get a grip and enjoy life a little more instead of wasting your time and talent on tales of secrets and evil plans. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be crazy?

[Odysseus]

mhgaffney,

Your core position seems to be anarchy. Do you realize this?

The Republicans who are threatening everything from secession (sadly initiated with a rebel yell) to opposition to any legislation in process. You do realize that you are aligned with the Far Right Republicans agenda for burning it down?

Do you seriously think in our current partisan environment those kinds of changes are practical, smart, or wise? This is an example of liberal short sighteness. Politics is a process. What is your process of getting there?

[mhgaffney]

Cut and Quiet,

You two are in denial. Along with many others on this board. Apparently you don't give a damn about the US Constitution -- the legal basis for our system of government.

I've posted the history numerous times - but obviously you don't care about the history, either.

I have yet to hear you express outrage that the House and Senate intelligence committees -- are completely dysfunctional -- unable to provide democratic oversight over the CIA.

It appears you have been seduced by the mythos of James Bond -- the hard drinking hard living sexed up inteligence agent who always arrives just in time to save the nation from oh so dangerous external enemies.

Evidently it never occurred to you that the Hollywood version of the CIA and MI6 is 100% fable -- a lie.

It never occurred to you that the REAL danger is not some foreign enemy -- but the intelligence community itself, which, as I have stated, is the instrument of Wall Street.

The Constitutional system as designed by the founding fathers was based on checks and balances -- to insure that no part of the government would be able to impose a tyranny on the nation.

Well, the checks and balances are long gone. The executive branch is now supreme. Former Pres. Bush actually mocked the Constitution -- called it "just a piece of paper" -- and he did so openly. But what did Bush have to fear? Certainly nothing from Congress, which is a shadow of its former self.

Indeed, most of Congress -- like the White House -- is now owned by Wall Street. Our nation is corrupt to the core. There are no honest institutions anymore in America. Every one has fallen under the sway of power.

Once upon a time things were very different. Back in the early 1960s we had a president who was prepared to fight for the greater good -- for the good of the ordinary citizen. Of course, I mean JFK. He wasn't perfect -- far from it. But he put the interests of the nation ABOVE the interests of the powerful few -- Wall Street. JFK believed that monetary policy was the prerogative of elected government officials -- not private bankers, i.e. the fed.

JFK actually ordered his Treasury secretary to print greenbacks -- US Treasury Notes -- which made the bankers at the fed insanely furious. How they hated JFK.

JFK was also the last US president who worked for nuclear disarmament -- and an end to the Cold War. No doubt , he was assassinated by the ruling elite -- for all of these reasons.

The CIA was the instrument of JFK's destruction.

Since JFK, every president has surrendered monetary policy to the federal reserve. No president since JFK has fought for the greater good -- and the ordinary citizen. None have worked for one peaceful world. I give Jimmy Carter a small amount of credit for negotiating the Camp David Accords. But while Carter was doing good things for Israel/Palestine with one hand, with the other he (his national security adviser Z. Brzezinski) was setting the stage for the destruction of Afghanistan. How? By arming radical Islam -- and by luring the Soviets into a trap.

That crazy policy backfired. Now the US - not Russia -- is stuck in a trap -- in Central Asia.

The CIA is crucial to all of this history. The agency is out of control. But so is the Pentagon.

America is pursuing the policy of empire -- even though we are bankrupt --- thanks to the same criminal banksters who wrested control over monetary policy in the 1960s and continued to expand their power, ever since.

Today we are witnessing the final stage of the destruction of the US as a republic.

My call for full disclosure must happen through the Constitutional framework. The CIA must be FULLY accountable to elected officials. I never stated or implied the CIA should be accountable to MHGaffney.

Get a clue. It is not about me.

And yes I AM paranoid. Any person who is not these days doesn't know what is happening. But I am in good company. Dewight Eisenhower warned the nation way back in 1960 -- in his final speech -- about the military industrial complex.

Harry Truman warbned the nation in 1963 -- when he openly adnmitted that he made a huge mistake by supporting the creation of the CIA in 1947-48.

All of this history has disappeared down a memory hole. Nonetheless , it is the actual history.

[Odysseus]

I think you need to get a clue my long lost Internet friend. Just because I don't wear a tin foil hat does not mean I cannot see what is around me.

Let's assume you are absolutely correct. You think that corruption somehow was created in thin air? What process would you advise using to get things worked out? The Constitution is held hostage to the political process or are you suggesting we completely abandon that? No? O.K. What is the other process that is granted in the Constitution that you are suggesting?

America is not pursuing a policy of empire. It IS an empire. It has been an empire a very long time. Read a book called Colossus by Niall Fergusson. The lacks a satisfactory conclusion or direction but concludes correctly that of what America really is.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uy23kBDD7WcC&dq=colossus&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=vIPurc08HB&sig=aEEZXjQBU1p_ufYLMMqr9QbNWpM&hl=en&ei=zCMSSpKRKJis8ATQx9ihBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPP15,M1

Let's assume the CIA lied, the secret government is in power and all the evil of the world are in all the places you say. What now? Shall we mobilize our angry army of the self righteous, empowered, wise and pure? Where are they? The sheep are sleeping. What is your plan to wake them? You plan on educating them? Talking them to death? Lighting up every sports forum online? How do you propose getting real full disclosure.

The floor is yours Don Quixote.

[Dudeskey]

A politician caught lying? This... is... HUGE!!!®

[mhgaffney]

Great Britain ruled the waves -- a global empire for 200 years -- but was bankrupted by WW II -- and had to let the colonies go.

Some argue that the UK retained its democracy ONLY because the Brits made a conscious decision to withdraw from their far flung empire.

America needs to make a similar decision -- as a people and as a nation.

The US pursues empire through 800 military bases world wide. Withdraw from most of those bases - -- bring the troops and the armaments home - and the empire will come to an end.

In our present bankrupt state -- we simply cannot afford to be waging wars half way around the world. Taliban or no Taliban.

Ideed, the argument that the Taliban is a nationl security threat to us is absurd. As I stated -- we are in Asia to limit Chinese influence.

The banksters, industrialists -- the US power elite -- made a decision many years ago to get rich by exploiting cheap Chinese labor. They proceeded to deconstruct US industry -- heavy industry first -- shipping it to China -- then light industry -- and finally consumer goods, computers etc

Millions of jobs were offshored to China. This generated incredible wealth for the power elite -- but it also created a huge problem. The banksters soon discovered that they had a tiger -- China -- by the tail.

They began to hedge their bets. What followed was another version of the Great Game of the 19th century -- jockeying for control of the flow of raw materials and energy resources to China - to try and limit the incredible industrial engine they had created. The power elite staged 9/11 as a pretext for an expanded US military presence world wide.

The US power elite partially succeeded. China pays a premium price for oil and gas -- and all of it must flow through the straight of Malacca in Indonesia. There are no overland pipelines into China from central Asia -- and the US presence is to make sure it stays this way.

But in the end -- the banksters can't have it both ways. No matter what we do -- China is destined sooner or later to become an industrial Superpower. Once China develops a sizeable middle class -- China will no longer be dependent on trade to the US. China will then sell Chinese made consumer goods to their own people. And **** America.

But it is a mistake to blame the Chinese. The problem is right here in America.

It is also likely that the US military presence in Asia will back fire and actually hasten the rise of China as an economic powerhouse. I believe this is already happening.

There is the further grave danger that Asia will explode in our face. Nuclear armed Pakistan is a powder keg. I suspect we face a major crisis ahead -- involving nukes.

Maybe it will take a world catastrophe for our countrymen to finally wake up and reject the phony arguments for empire.

How disingenuous of you to call me an anarchist -- for supporting the Constitution!!! It would be hilarious if the situation were not so grave.

How to make change? By persuading one person at a time until a vocal majority of Americans becomes an irresistible force. The most powerful force in all the world is an idea whose time has come.

[Odysseus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Rather than enter the food fight with you let me continue to muck up the waters.

I am a great believer in the laws of thermal dynamics. I did not create the rules nor do I advocate one rule more than another. It's kind of like gravity. What is shall be and what ain't ain't.

Good luck in your quest. I leave you to your mysteries.