Who is telling the truth - Pelosi or the CIA?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in a long time I am proud of someone--Leon Panetta. I actually feel a little bit better about the government because I realize it must have been dificult for him to not act partisian. I have never doubted the CIA and always doubt politicians..all politicians and even though he was one and is a political appointee..I feel as though he is telling the truth and is going to do right for us no matter who is going to get pissed off by the truth.

I hate to disabuse you of your respect for Panetta, but you really need to take a serious look at his statement rather than simply believe what has been spun to you. The statement really added nothing to the debate. He said it is not the CIA's policy to mislead Congress. You know, it is not my policy to oversleep in the morning, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen on occasion. He said that it is up to Congress to determine the veracity of the CIA documents and we already know that they were wrong in the case of former-Senator Graham.

Frankly, Panetta's statement was a text-book example of political weasel words.

Totally agree, Panetta's statement is a classic in misdirection - Jeff, we rarely agree but I'm with you here.

The part that I cannot reconcile is that there are 3 accounts of the 2002 briefing - the CIA's and Porter Goss's both say the use of "enhanced interrogation" was described - and Nancy says no way, never happened. That stretches credibility. Frankly, she would better serve herself by just shutting up (which it seems she is doing this week). Her problem is that she has drunk so deeply of the revisionist Kool-Aid that she doesn't realize she is living in a glass house.

[Anonymous]

Pelosi is lying and the way she is being protected by her fellow Democrats is sad. The Democrats are currently at their political peak, nowhere to go but down. Pelosi is hastening their fall by her obvious machinations.

[Anonymous]

Given Panetta's success, even though he is new to the Agency, at making most listeners think he said something he didn't -- and we have the statement readily available to see that this is exactly what happened -- why is it so hard to imagine that whatever they "told" Pelosi was worded in such a way that she thought she was being told something else?

In any case, whatever sins of omission were committed by the bystanders who did not stop the perpetrators, it was the perpetrators who actually committed whatever offenses occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given Panetta's success, even though he is new to the Agency, at making most listeners think he said something he didn't -- and we have the statement readily available to see that this is exactly what happened -- why is it so hard to imagine that whatever they "told" Pelosi was worded in such a way that she thought she was being told something else?

In any case, whatever sins of omission were committed by the bystanders who did not stop the perpetrators, it was the perpetrators who actually committed whatever offenses occurred.

Still, the question right now is , is Pelosi lying. I vote yes, she is.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Still, the question right now is , is Pelosi lying. I vote yes, she is.

If a politician's lips are moving, I'm normally willing to bet even odds that he/she is lying. But, as more evidence is made available, it is really looking like Pelosi is not lying. The CIA apparently has very poor record-keeping.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still, the question right now is , is Pelosi lying. I vote yes, she is.

If a politician's lips are moving, I'm normally willing to bet even odds that he/she is lying. But, as more evidence is made available, it is really looking like Pelosi is not lying. The CIA apparently has very poor record-keeping.

Seriously, you believe Pelosi is not lying what a joke. Did you not see her press conference, I could not even watch it was so bad. If it was a Republican would you offer the same free pass you are giving Pelosi?

Polls show that between 70-80% of the US population think she is lying. But yet you give her the benefit of the doubt as you always do with the Dems but not so much with Republicans. You have no credibility.

What about Pelosi's recordkeeping - would you also consider that to be poor and if so why do you not say so.

Politicians never stop talking unless they have something to hide. If Pelosi was not lying she would be out in front of every camera detailing how she had been lied to by the CIA and proving it with documents. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat then it is usually a rat.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Seriously, you believe Pelosi is not lying what a joke. Did you not see her press conference, I could not even watch it was so bad. If it was a Republican would you offer the same free pass you are giving Pelosi?

I'm not judging on a press conference performance, but rather on the basis of the evidence that has been made available. That includes;

1) other members of Congress pointing out false information contained in the memos (for instance, the memos actually said that Representative Porter Goss was briefed -- he was in fact head of the CIA at the time, not a Congressman);

2) The fact that Porter Goss who originally started the attacks on Pelosi, now refuses to confirm that she was told that waterboardings had already taken place;

3) The fact that the memos repeatedly use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" despite that that term was not used at the time of Pelosi's briefing.

Anonymous wrote:
Polls show that between 70-80% of the US population think she is lying. But yet you give her the benefit of the doubt as you always do with the Dems but not so much with Republicans. You have no credibility.

Fox polls I presume. Rasmussen shows that 43% believe Pelosi was misled while 41% don't think so.

See the poll here.

Also, it's not my credibility that is the issue. Rather it is the CIA's.

Anonymous wrote:
What about Pelosi's recordkeeping - would you also consider that to be poor and if so why do you not say so.

Her records seem to be in order. Can you provide an example demonstrating otherwise?

Anonymous wrote:
Politicians never stop talking unless they have something to hide. If Pelosi was not lying she would be out in front of every camera detailing how she had been lied to by the CIA and proving it with documents. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat then it is usually a rat.

Pelosi has called for a truth commission to investigate the entire issue of torture and who knew what when. Do you support that? Do the Republicans? If not, that smells a lot like a rat.

[Anonymous]

I would like to actual care put into deciding what 'torture' is beyond Obama's personal distaste; I would also like to see the full waterboarding memos released. Then I'd like to see an actual examination of who knew what when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Polls show that between 70-80% of the US population think she is lying. But yet you give her the benefit of the doubt as you always do with the Dems but not so much with Republicans. You have no credibility.

Oh yeah I always base my decisions about what is right and true on polling data.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

other members of Congress pointing out false information contained in the memos (for instance, the memos actually said that Representative Porter Goss was briefed -- he was in fact head of the CIA at the time, not a Congressman);

The briefing in question occurred in September 2002 - Porter Goss did not become CIA director until August 2004.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The briefing in question occurred in September 2002 - Porter Goss did not become CIA director until August 2004.

Both true, but not relevant. The memos reported about more than one briefing:

"The CIA chart also shows former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss attended a March 8, 2005, briefing as a member of Congress. However, Goss was at that time the director of the CIA. He took that job in November 2004."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/05/more_errors_in_cia_interrogation_briefing_list.php

[Anonymous]

Pelosi disremembered the facts. :p

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pelosi disremembered the facts. :p

There are no verifiable "facts", only notes taken by parties that had agendas. My guess is that she was "told" in a way that ensured she did not realize what she was being told, but I suppose it is also possible that she was told but did not "hear"; maybe a combination -- kind of a don't ask,don't tell.

[Anonymous]

Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama Making "Tough Calls"; What Was Bush Doing?

I continue to be amazed by the tap-dancing performance of the President's supporters as they watch him validate and continue many of the policies of the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Ter..whoops Overseas Contingency Operations.

The favorite new line is "we got stuck with Bush's policies, and there really aren't any good alternatives." Just what makes these folks think the Bush folks had better alternatives? Obama and his team get to make their decisions after 7.5 years of no attacks underwritten by the courageous actions of the Bush team to husband national resources to fight an implacable foe. Bush made his while the reality of attack was still a daily story and the possibility of future attack loomed large.

(...Iraq war began in 2003, GTMO opened for biz in early 2002, housing prisoners taken in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Pelosi's briefing on Waterboarding was before Iraq war...the list goes on....)

--commentary from "The Conservative Wahoo (.com) "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama Making "Tough Calls"; What Was Bush Doing?

I continue to be amazed by the tap-dancing performance of the President's supporters as they watch him validate and continue many of the policies of the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Ter..whoops Overseas Contingency Operations.

The favorite new line is "we got stuck with Bush's policies, and there really aren't any good alternatives." Just what makes these folks think the Bush folks had better alternatives? Obama and his team get to make their decisions after 7.5 years of no attacks underwritten by the courageous actions of the Bush team to husband national resources to fight an implacable foe. Bush made his while the reality of attack was still a daily story and the possibility of future attack loomed large.

(...Iraq war began in 2003, GTMO opened for biz in early 2002, housing prisoners taken in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Pelosi's briefing on Waterboarding was before Iraq war...the list goes on....)

--commentary from "The Conservative Wahoo (.com) "

You had me until you got to the apology for Bush. Obama's tap-dancing is indeed contemptible. (Which is why I finally joined the ACLU. I figured a lot of people would stop donating once Bush was gone but I think we still have a lot to worry about with the current administration.) But Bush wasn't courageous so much as he was stupid and misused our national resources in a way that increased the number of enemies we have. He made things more dangerous for us, a fact I remember every day when I take the metro to work. If Bush had been smarter he never would have gotten us into Iraq but he was in such a damn hurry that he brainwashed the country into thinking that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

And where is that "implacable foe," by the way??? Still alive and still operating in Pakistan. Gee, would have been nice if Bush had been able to catch and execute the guy who was actually responsible for 9/11 instead of that idiot Saddam.