Who is right, Pelosi or Panetta?

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
No. It's quite time consuming to do the searches so when a person accuses someone of something, they better be able to back it up and not everyone has the time to search out the stuff. Besides, some posters make accusations and hope others will take them as gospel.

I've been trying to search websites for prelimary findings regarding Pelosi and all I can come up with via google are blogs rather news sources like Washington Post, BBC or even the National Enquirer. I did find something on MSNBC but it's in video format.. so I have no idea what they're saying.

This is what I came up with and it doesn't seem to be about Pelosi. Source is Huffington Post.


With a report like this, it's possible that Pelosi was being lied to. We shall see if that's true or not.
Click to expand...


Thank you for post the link here and I´m not surprise about this.
 
Jiro said:
yea like you blame it all on Bush :roll:
Click to expand...


The important facts is:

Who authorize the torture?

Why did they order TORTURE ?

Does torture violate the Geneva conventions?

Who is the responsible for torture?


Please answer all the questions.


 
Jiro said:
yea like you blame it all on Bush :roll:
Click to expand...

I blame Bush because he is the one who executed the order to go into Iraq. Without that order, Congress wouldn't have had any reason to approve the war.

You, on the other hand, place all of the blame on Pelosi because she "sucks" at her position. That's logical. :roll:
 
Hear Again said:
I blame Bush because he is the one who executed the order to go into Iraq. Without that order, Congress wouldn't have had any reason to approve the war.
Click to expand...

You've just proven to me you have no idea how government works.
 
Liebling:-))) said:


AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Who is right, Pelosi or Panetta?
Click to expand...

wrong.... wrong..... wrong.....

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush
House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush

The 251-166 margin of the vote, held on a roll call Wednesday, saw all 227 Democrats—including Kucinich and his lone co-sponsor, Robert Wexler of Florida—joined by 24 Republicans move to dispose of the resolution. Voting against were 166 Republicans, who sought to force a debate on impeachment for the purpose of embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership.

After Kucinich introduced the measure Monday and spent more than four hours reading the entire text into the Congressional Record, House Republicans utilized a parliamentary provision to force the clerk of the House to read the text out loud all over again on Tuesday, consuming another four hours and keeping the House in session until after midnight. The purpose was to rub the Democrats’ noses in their own refusal to take action to back up their occasional bursts of anti-Bush demagogy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

A public vote in the House of Representatives would, however, find a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress siding with Bush against the sentiments of their own constituents. The Democratic leadership seeks to block any vote to conceal as much as possible their role as the last line of defense for the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds. They are well aware that the adoption of an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial, would deal a major blow against the White House as an institution and undermine the legitimacy of all Bush’s actions as “commander-in-chief,” especially in the war in Iraq.

It would also inevitably raise the question of who in Congress was complicit with Bush’s criminal conduct over the past seven years—tarring Democrats as well as Republicans, since a majority of Senate Democrats and a large number of House Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Many other actions listed in Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were given near-unanimous support by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

The House Republicans voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, one month after they had lost seats in a congressional election dominated by the furor over Clinton’s lying about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Ignoring the clear message of the election, as well as opinion polls showing popular opposition to impeachment, the House Republicans utilized their narrow majority to put the president on trial before the Senate.

The Democrats regained control of the House in November 2006, in an election dominated by popular hostility to the war in Iraq and to the Bush presidency. Conyers and other Democrats had demanded impeachment hearings when they were in the minority and could not do anything about it. As soon as they became the majority, they abruptly dropped the issue and declared they would have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
Again...... Corrections



1. This thread is about Pelosi and Panetta... which is 2009, not 2003.
Click to expand...

Correction is: This thread is about 2003, Pelosi claimed last week that she felt being mislead by CIA in 2003 and Panetta rebutted Pelosi last week.

2. If this is about 2003, then why is Pelosi being mentioned in here? It should be Hastert.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that´s what I told you in my previous posts that Hastert should rebut Pelosi, not Panetta since he knows more than Panetta becusue he was present in 2003, not Panetta.

3. Pelosi was under Bush Administration for 2 years, not 1 year.
Click to expand...

She was elected in January 2007 and re-elected in January 2009.

Thank you for correction.

4. I changed NOTHING on my part after seeing your post and I FURTHER corrected your posts because you continue to misunderstand. Please get it right this time on your next post.
Click to expand...

Nope, we can see from your posts that you tried to misinterpret our posts because you don´t want to admit that you are wrong but want to prove us that you are winner. It is likely circle debate with you because you ignore most of our posts to prove yourself that you are winner. I know that I am not alone who say this to you. This debate threads are not about contest to be winner but share the exchange of view debate.
Click to expand...
 
Hear Again said:
I think it has more to do with the fact that Republicans love to hate Pelosi.
Click to expand...
Have I ever mentioned "hate?" I don't hate anyone in the current administration, including Speaker Pelosi. Criticism is not "hate."

I certainly hope that the Republicans aren't basing their actions on any feelings of hate.

At the same time, I hope that no politicians base their actions on any warm fuzzy feelings either.
 
Jiro said:
There was a tribunal court at Gitmo Camp set up for that under Bush Administration to determine if the alleged terrorists are terrorists or not. Obama suspended it. Blame him for not adhering with due process law.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Supreme court hold that the Bush administration lacked the power to proceed because of volations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Common article 3 in 2006 in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case? If so, I can see why Obama closed it down.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Nope, we can see from your posts that you tried to misinterpret our posts because you don´t want to admit that you are wrong but want to prove us that you are winner. It is likely circle debate with you because you ignore most of our posts to prove yourself that you are winner. I know that I am not alone who say this to you. This debate threads are not about contest to be winner but share the exchange of view debate.
Click to expand...

Contest to be a winner????? No..... No..... It's because I have a duty to provide information by offering OTHER side of the view and to correct your posts. You're finger-pointing at Bush. I have to show you that when you do that, you are also finger-pointing at dozen other people because they allowed this to happen as well. If you want to hold Bush accountable, then hold dozen other people accountable. I already explained to you why Democratic Party doesn't want to.

Our government has 3 branches with check-and-balance system. The legislative branch enabled Bush Administration to do what they did. Bush cannot possibly do this alone.
 
Jiro said:
They were released because of war tribunal court set up by Bush Administration. More can be released if Obama didn't suspend the trial.


But...... Obama suspended the trial. How is that fair and justice?


Obama suspended the trial. Because of that, the suspects are being held in prison LONGER now. We've already explained to you why it takes time to investigate and find out if the alleged terrorists are real or not in other thread.
Click to expand...

Go and re-read many links in several lock Gitmo threads yourself because I choose to not repeat to debate this with you here to aviod to have another banned like you and I did in one of lock Gitmo threads few months ago...
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
How does she know that the information she received was "purposely deceptive?"
 
Reba said:
Have I ever mentioned "hate?" I don't hate anyone in the current administration, including Speaker Pelosi.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Republicans as a whole -- not you specifically.
 
Impeach of Bush is extremely difficult, it require 2/3 from house of rep and senators to approve, 67 out of 100 from senators.
 
Hear Again said:
But your political views lean more on the Republican side than the Democratic side. :)
Click to expand...
So? If the Republicans ever catch up with me I might consider joining them. Otherwise, no thanks.

The time for a third national party may be at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top