Who is right, Pelosi or Panetta?

[Texan Guy]

Pelosi is a pure bitch, period.

 

[deafskeptic]

Pelosi is a pure bitch, period.

The same can be said for a lot of Rebuplicans (bastards/bitches) but that doesn't make them guilty of anything. Nor does it make Pelosi guilty of anything as there doesn't seem to be good evidence pointing to Pelosi. I'll revise my opinion if evidence should come up.

 

[Jiro]

Pelosi is a pure bitch, period.

hell no. Ann Coulter is. wait I think she's a she-male.

 

[deafskeptic]

You can say that again.

The reason why I said what I did about people like myself who are middle of the road is because we share the values of Democrats and Republicans alike as opposed to embracing the values of one or the other.

As do I. Many may be surprised to find I have some fairly conservative views on the death penalty. However, I also think think the death sentence should be meted only in rare cases where people died unusally cruel deaths or some other factors pertaining to the murderer and the victim. Jeffery Dahmer comes to mind. I think he should have gotten the death penalty.

 

[jillio]

so if one has a knowledge of it but continue to work.... should that person continue to work for that company?

again - as for that embezzler who no longer works for that company - it's up to prosecutor to prosecute them or not. I say same for Attorney General. Funny how he's hesitating on it.

Stop trying to divert the topic.:roll:

 

[Jiro]

Stop trying to divert the topic.:roll:

huh? My post is in response to your post. In case you didn't know - it's referring to Pelosi.

 

[jillio]

your last 2 posts contradicted with your first post. How did you know Pelosi has not? The investigation didn't even finished! Did you have a copy of preliminary report or something?

It isn't a contradiction at all. But good try. I said no one has come up with anything YET. Please read carefully.

 

[jillio]

huh? My post is in response to your post. In case you didn't know - it's referring to Pelosi.

I was providing an analogy, not a topic for discussion.

 

[Jiro]

I was providing an analogy, not a topic for discussion.

I, too. In your post - your analogy was referring to Bush. My analogy was referring to Pelosi thus I'm on topic. Anyway... moving on

 

[jillio]

I, too. In your post - your analogy was referring to Bush. My analogy was referring to Pelosi thus I'm on topic. Anyway... moving on

No, my analogy was referring to an embezzler. You are the one that referred to Bush, as in he shouldn't be prosecuted because he is no longer in office.

 

[Jiro]

It isn't a contradiction at all. But good try. I said no one has come up with anything YET. Please read carefully.

really? that's not what you said.

Where exactly did I say NOTHING? Have you read Pelosi's statement regarding the sequence of events?

And no one knew as much as they have learned since the release of the memos that were kept secret by the previous administration.

And, you need to keep in mind, also, that the investigation is still being conducted. Any action prior to the completion of the investigation would be premature. It would be the result of acting from an emotional perspective rather than a well informed and logical perspective.

Bush was proven to be lying by virtue of the memos that have been released. Pelosi has not.

Sounds like you're pretty sure of her role in this matter. I thought you're going to sit and wait until the investigation is completed.

Again, Pelosi has stated that she was provided inacurrate and purposely deceptive information by the CIA. Any "involvement", as you call it, was based on that innacurrate and purposely deceptive information. These interrogation techniques had already been used prior to her knowledge.

that's odd.... in the first place - she stated that she denied any knowledge of enhanced interrogation techniques.

 

[Jiro]

No, my analogy was referring to an embezzler. You are the one that referred to Bush, as in he shouldn't be prosecuted because he is no longer in office.

Reread my post in response to your analogy. About your last sentence - that's not what I said. Do not put the words in my mouth. I said that is up to Attorney General to prosecute him or not - as stated by Obama.

Exactly. If someone embezzles money from a company, the embezzlement does not go away simply because they no longer work for that company.:roll:

You're referring to Bush. This thread is about Pelosi, not Bush... hence my reply to your analogy

so if one has a knowledge of it but continue to work.... should that person continue to work for that company?

again - as for that embezzler who no longer works for that company - it's up to prosecutor to prosecute them or not. I say same for Attorney General. Funny how he's hesitating on it.

I'm referring to Pelosi. Bush was a grave concern for me while he was the President. Now he is no longer a concern for me because he is not in any position to affect anything. Pelosi is. That is my concern. Pelosi - shut up and get out!

 

[jillio]

Reread my post in response to your analogy. About your last sentence - that's not what I said. Do not put the words in my mouth. I said that is up to Attorney General to prosecute him or not - as stated by Obama.

Yes, Obama has stated that he would defer to the Attorney General to make that decision. You said he is no longer a concern because he is no longer in office. However, his actions while in office should be a concern to all given the impact they have had on this country.
You're referring to Bush. This thread is about Pelosi, not Bush... hence my reply to your analogy

Where exactly do you see Bush's name anywhere in my post? My reference was to a situation, not a person.

I'm referring to Pelosi. Bush was a grave concern for me while he was the President. Now he is no longer a concern for me because he is not in any position to affect anything. Pelosi is. That is my concern. Pelosi - shut up and get out!

Unfortuantely, the impact Bush has had on foreign relations will impact this country for many, many years to come.

 

[jillio]

really? that's not what you said.





Sounds like you're pretty sure of her role in this matter. I thought you're going to sit and wait until the investigation is completed.


that's odd.... in the first place - she stated that she denied any knowledge of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Go back and read the posts in succession, Jiro. It is very clear what I am saying, and what I intended. The only reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it. No one else appeared to have any difficulty understanding it.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, Obama has stated that he would defer to the Attorney General to make that decision. You said he is no longer a concern because he is no longer in office. However, his actions while in office should be a concern to all given the impact they have had on this country.

Yes. But this is about Pelosi and her mess. She needs to resign before she becomes a liability for Obama. Hear Again disagrees so we'll just agree to disagree. I only have a simple question for Obama since he's demanding an investigation - is it worth it? - hence the last sentence of my post #39

Where exactly do you see Bush's name anywhere in my post? My reference was to a situation, not a person.

Any intelligence mind can piece them together on who you're referring to. Your post was in response to Hear Again's post which was in response to my post about Bush.

Unfortuantely, the impact Bush has had on foreign relations will impact this country for many, many years to come.

yes but this is about Pelosi and her mess. Pelosi contributed to this mess. She's the ranking Democrat who sits in House Intelligence Committee. The blood is on her hands..... "I did not know!" is not an acceptable answer. Reminds you of Third Reich, eh? Pelosi - shut up and get out.

 

[SoS]

This thread lost its stream and become a blaming game.

 

[jillio]

Yes. But this is about Pelosi and her mess. She needs to resign before she becomes a liability for Obama. Hear Again disagrees so we'll just agree to disagree. I only have a simple question for Obama since he's demanding an investigation - is it worth it? - hence the last sentence of my post #39


Any intelligence mind can piece them together on who you're referring to. Your post was in response to Hear Again's post which was in response to my post about Bush.

No, any suspicious mind looking for something that isn't there can come to that conclusion. I was referring to a situation, not a person.
yes but this is about Pelosi and her mess. Pelosi contributed to this mess. She's the ranking Democrat who sits in House Intelligence Committee. The blood is on her hands..... "I did not know!" is not an acceptable answer. Reminds you of Third Reich, eh? Pelosi - shut up and get out.

We do not know if Pelosi contributed to this mess, nor do we know the full spectrum on any involvement she may have had. The investigation has not been completed. And the only thing even remotely close to the Third Reich would be the CIA failing to provide full disclosure, and Bush's authorization of illegal acts.

 

[Beowulf]

I haven't been paying any attention to this whole affair, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the CIA lied to or misled Pelosi. I recall that Bush Sr. was Director of the CIA and as far as I know, the Agency still has a hardon over "plausible deniability."

 

[jillio]

This thread lost its stream and become a blaming game.

The whole intent of the OP was a blaming game.

 

[Jiro]

The whole intent of the OP was a blaming game.

wrong. OP asked to us all - If Panetta is right, should Pelosi apologize, resign, or both?

I say RESIGN - not ENTIRELY because of her accusation. I'm not satisfied with her. She did not deliver and promised what she preached in her opening speech as the first female Speaker of House.