Who is right, Pelosi or Panetta?

[Jiro]

Another errors.

Do you want to say that it´s also very minor correction as well?

The article I posted is not :topic: but its about Nancy.

That´s why I doubt Panetta´s rebut in my first post #27...

And like what I responsed Reba´s post few hours ago that Nancy & Panetta remember differently.

so they got the title name wrong for Peter Gross.... :roll: Did you even read the article????? It's hardly about Pelosi!

 

[ASLGAL]

The comments on this issue have given me a chuckle.

If Pelousy were a Republican she would have already been tarred/feathered/and lost her seat.
She is one of the biggest liars and hypocrites in Congress. Hence the moniker "Princess Pelosi" not an endearment limited to one party at this point.

I do agree with Hear Again. It doesn't matter who is President, Accountability is Accountability. The Dems need to practice what they preach.

and SanFranNan says:
"Civility, Transparency, Bipartisanship"

I have to disagree Liebling. You were one of the loudest about GW, what did he know and when did he know it but now you say what Pelosi and the rest of the members knew doesn't matter. Why the BIG doublestandard?

the actual issue...did the U.S. engage in interrogation techniques that were illegal?

True. The answer is No.
Although Obama and the Dems thought they could use this situation to political advantage they have opened a can of imaginary worms that they themselves were active participants in.

 

[Jiro]

No,

The fact is: Pelsoi has no power to authoritze the torture and don´t torture anyone.

I'm educating you about how it works in our government. Since Pelosi is the ranking member in House Intelligence Committee and a 3rd in the line to the presidency, she has influences and voice to try to prevent the interrogation technique from happening. Dozens of ranking members signed off on it and allowed it to happen by allowing Bush Administration to LEGALLY authorize it.

FACT - Pelosi did not file ANY OFFICIAL OBJECTION to aggressive interrogation techniques when she was briefed about it.
FACT - Pelosi did NOTHING.

Please educate yourself on Speaker of the House. Since President Bush and Speaker of the House are of different parties - Pelosi is the highest-ranking Democrat with influence and power against Bush. She CAN try to block the interrogation technique if she puts her mind in it. Remember Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton? If Newt Gingrich can cockblock Clinton on certain policy, so can Pelosi. Sad fact is - Pelosi did NOTHING.

Now you see why I want Pelosi to get out? Apparently she does not know how to be Speaker of the House. She failed her job and she failed her duty as Speaker of the House. Get out and shut up!

The torture method was started before the Congress was briefed about them.

Re-read my post that the civillians who work for US Government, is not allow to spread out the "top secret" briefings to the public. Pelsoi did not break her rules for spread torture issues out to the public in 2003 because Bush was her boss.

You make no sense that Pespoi is one of Bush´s companians because she know about torture issues. The fact is the torture issues was decided by BUSH ADMINISTRATION, not Congress.

Yes it is about harsh interrogration because Nancy felt that she was being mislead by CIA. She only answered what she remember.

Bush made judgment based on faulty intelligence given to him. But you conveniently ignore that and you don't care and you want him to go to jail. Pelosi said she was misled by CIA but you tell her - "don't worry... it's ok, hon. Bush's a bad bad bad man."

interesting hypocrisy you have there........

 

[Jiro]

Pelsoi did not break her rules for spread torture issues out to the public in 2003 because Bush was her boss.

Just caught another error in your post. my my my... you have more errors than CIA!

Pelosi - Speaker of the House does not work for nor speak for Bush. Since Congress is dominated by Democrats... they choose one to be the Speaker. This seat has the power to oversee the legislation progress... meaning Pelosi has the floor and she can decide when the bill can come or not. That's why Bill Clinton had hard time with Newt Gingrich biting on his ass.

This seat also comes with several other important responsibilities. Some of them includes overseeing the committees regarding the wars and its process as well. And you're telling me Pelosi knows nothing about it? Apparently she's not doing her job. I guess she's been busy being a Princess flying around with a private jet at taxpayer's expense. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Your statements are FALSE. WRONG.
CORRECTION - The contents which were destroyed occurred under Bush Administration by different CIA Director named Hayden.

Thank you for prove my point.. The reason why I doubt Panetta´s rebuttal in my first post #27...

Hayden SHOULD rebut Nancy, not Panetta and please re-read my first post #27 what I thought about Nancy.

In case you didn't know, Panetta was nominated by Obama. Are you telling me that you believe Pelosi over Panetta - a man who Obama PERSONALLY picked? Are you telling me Obama picked a liar?

Of course I am well aware of this... The reason is why I doubt Panetta´s rebuttal.

Thank you for make me too easy to response your post.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Just caught another error in your post. my my my... you have more errors than CIA!

Pelosi - Speaker of the House does not work for nor speak for Bush. Since Congress is dominated by Democrats... they choose one to be the Speaker. This seat has the power to oversee the legislation progress... meaning Pelosi has the floor and she can decide when the bill can come or not. That's why Bill Clinton had hard time with Newt Gingrich biting on his ass.

This seat also comes with several other important responsibilities. Some of them includes overseeing the committees regarding the wars and its process as well. And you're telling me Pelosi knows nothing about it? Apparently she's not doing her job. I guess she's been busy being a Princess flying around with a private jet at taxpayer's expense. :roll:

For your correction: Pelsoi was not House Speaker during Bush Admin but Obama Admin.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

[

QUOTE=Jiro;1330708]I'm educating you about how it works in our government. Since Pelosi is the ranking member in House Intelligence Committee and a 3rd in the line to the presidency, she has influences and voice to try to prevent the interrogation technique from happening. Dozens of ranking members signed off on it and allowed it to happen by allowing Bush Administration to LEGALLY authorize it.

FACT - Pelosi did not file ANY OFFICIAL OBJECTION to aggressive interrogation techniques when she was briefed about it.
FACT - Pelosi did NOTHING. Please educate yourself on Speaker of the House. Since President Bush and Speaker of the House are of different parties - Pelosi is the highest-ranking Democrat with influence and power against Bush. She CAN try to block the interrogation technique if she puts her mind in it. Remember Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton? If Newt Gingrich can cockblock Clinton on certain policy, so can Pelosi. Sad fact is - Pelosi did NOTHING.

Now you see why I want Pelosi to get out? Apparently she does not know how to be Speaker of the House. She failed her job and she failed her duty as Speaker of the House. Get out and shut up!



Bush made judgment based on faulty intelligence given to him. But you conveniently ignore that and you don't care and you want him to go to jail. Pelosi said she was misled by CIA but you tell her - "don't worry... it's ok, hon. Bush's a bad bad bad man."

interesting hypocrisy you have there........

See? Thank you for prove my point why I doubt Panetta´s rebuttal.

Like what I say before that Nancy did nothing (not even authorize torture or torture anyone...) Leave her alone and focus on Bush Admin. for authorize torture, etc.

Again


Who hypocrisy ? Of course you because you cried for want her to resign and don´t bother to say anything about Bush Admin. but defend Bush Admin. and keep saying that "where is your proof, etc. etc. etc" The fact is I pointed out it´s Bush Admin who decided with torture issues.

Who hypocrisy?

 

[Jiro]

For your correction: Pelsoi was not House Speaker during Bush Admin but Obama Admin.

yes...... she..... is........

 

[Jiro]

See? Thank you for prove my point why I doubt Panetta´s rebuttal.

Like what I say before that Nancy did nothing (not even authorize torture or torture anyone...) Leave her alone and focus on Bush Admin. for authorize torture, etc.

Again


Who hypocrisy ? Of course you because you cried for want her to resign and don´t bother to say anything about Bush Admin. but defend Bush Admin. and keep saying that "where is your proof, etc. etc. etc" The fact is I pointed out it´s Bush Admin who decided with torture issues.

Who hypocrisy?

So you want somebody to do NOTHING when that person has power to do something about it? That disgusts me. Speaker of the House is in position to DO SOMETHING about it.... but Pelosi did nothing! You're praising her for doing nothing??????? Do you realize that Speaker of the House is the top-ranking seat for Democratic Party to criticize the President and to try to prevent him from authorizing the enhanced interrogation techniques? By ignoring - she allowed the aggressive interrogation to happen.

I'm deeply appalled by your way of thinking.

 

[deafskeptic]

The comments on this issue have given me a chuckle.

If Pelousy were a Republican she would have already been tarred/feathered/and lost her seat.
She is one of the biggest liars and hypocrites in Congress. Hence the moniker "Princess Pelosi" not an endearment limited to one party at this point.

I do agree with Hear Again. It doesn't matter who is President, Accountability is Accountability. The Dems need to practice what they preach.

If She had been Bush, nothing would have happened either. Now if either them were Bill Clinton, all hell would break loose if they sleep with the wrong person.

 

[Jiro]

If She had been Bush, nothing would have happened either. Now if either them were Bill Clinton, all hell would break loose if they sleep with the wrong person.

Richard Nixon

 

[deafskeptic]

Richard Nixon

Yes but that was 20 years ago. And he had to resign for good reason as evidence was overwhelmly against him. No one has been able to make a good case against Pelsoi.

Clinton did lie but since his lie concerned personal affairs rather than national security matters, Republicans were unable to impeach him. Personally, I think his affair warranted a divorce - not an impeachment.

Second, it's hypocritical. I'm sure a small number of Republicans (and Democrats) were having affairs as well and they wouldn't want to be thrown out of their office for it.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes but that was 20 years ago. And he had to resign for good reason as evidence was overwhelmly against him. No one has been able to make a good case against Pelsoi.

Clinton did lie but since his lie concerned personal affairs rather than national security matters, Republicans were unable to impeach him. Personally, I think his affair warranted a divorce - not an impeachment.

Second, it's hypocritical. I'm sure a small number of Republicans (and Democrats) were having affairs as well and they wouldn't want to be thrown out of their office for it.

 

[Hear Again]

If She had been Bush, nothing would have happened either. Now if either them were Bill Clinton, all hell would break loose if they sleep with the wrong person.

You can say that again.

 

[Jiro]

Yes but that was 20 years ago. And he had to resign for good reason as evidence was overwhelmly against him. No one has been able to make a good case against Pelsoi.

because the investigation on Pelosi just barely started at all and certain people are attempting to block it. Like I said - the further they dig, the darker it will get. I think Pelosi should just apologize and stfu (if she does not want to resign). It's best kept hush hush and just move on to repairing America.

Clinton did lie but since his lie concerned personal affairs rather than national security matters, Republicans were unable to impeach him. Personally, I think his affair warranted a divorce - not an impeachment.

Second, it's hypocritical. I'm sure a small number of Republicans (and Democrats) were having affairs as well and they wouldn't want to be thrown out of their office for it.

just like Elliot Spitzer, eh?

 

[deafskeptic]

because the investigation on Pelosi just barely started at all and certain people are attempting to block it.


just like Elliot Spitzer, eh?

I believe I have said that there's no good evidence against her and that I will revise my views if any should come up in an earlier post. I can refer you to my earlier post if you like. My position is neutral on this matter.

Now I have no idea about Elliot Spitzer.

 

[Jiro]

I believe I have said that there's no good evidence against her and that I will revise my views if any should come up in an earlier post. I can refer you to my earlier post if you like. My position is neutral on this matter.

You just missed my re-edit. sorry about that. But yes I understand your position. I already stated my position as well. I simply don't like her anymore as she's a hypocrite.

Now I have no idea about Elliot Spitzer.

ah... he's a good man. He was NY State Attorney General and just recently resigned as NY Governor because of call girl scandal (she's hot btw). He's Wall Street's worst nightmare. He was actually a very promising, rising Democratic star for Presidency.... I'd vote for him though. oh well......

 

[deafskeptic]

You just missed my re-edit. sorry about that. But yes I understand your position. I already stated my position as well. I simply don't like her anymore as she's a hypocrite.

Could you provide examples?

ah... he's a good man. He was NY State Attorney General and just recently resigned as NY Governor because of call girl scandal (she's hot btw). He's Wall Street's worst nightmare. He was actually a very promising, rising Democratic star for Presidency.... I'd vote for him though. oh well......

Ah.

 

[Jiro]

Could you provide examples?

For starter - her opening speech... she said all the right things that make our hearts melted.... and in the end - it was nothing but empty promises.

1. she preached about impeaching Bush (and later blocked effort to do so and continued to kiss Bush's ass till the end and then chastised him when Bush's no longer the President).
2. I'm also fed up with her empty threats - threatening to take Bush to court over Iraq war spending bill... which never happened or did anything about it. not a single bit.
3. tells the illegal immigrants to GTFO but does not want to enforce the laws against illegals
4. "She’s a hypocrite who uses traditional American values when it suits her, but who in reality loathes those values she currently claims to represent." -Conservative Futuristic
5. too many to list..... :roll:

 

[Cheri]

Like what I say before that Nancy did nothing (not even authorize torture or torture anyone...) Leave her alone and focus on Bush Admin. for authorize torture, etc.

She did do something wrong, she was told that waterboarding was being used in the year of 2003, and had said absolutely nothing about it, until now. That leaves more work for Obama to deal with, I almost felt sorry for him.

And I for one do not think waterboarding is torure, we waterboarded terrorists. I didn't realized that you feel sorry for terrorists. eeek!!

Who's right? Doesn't matter, who to believe? neither. I don't trust Panetta or Pelosi. End of the discussion.