Who is right, Pelosi or Panetta?

[Hear Again]

Yep. I still remember his name.

 

[Secretblend]

What I said to you is that I don't consider Wiki to be a valid source. If you choose to use it to support your arguments, that is your decision.

However, that does not mean I have to accept Wiki as fact.

Then why aren't ya saying that to Liebling or are you using double standard?

 

[Jiro]

Don´t twist my post... It´s me who correct your post because you claim that Pespoi was house speaker in 2003 and accuse Nancy for say nothing against Bush Admin.´s decision. I correct you that Nancy was not House Speaker during 2003 and explain you why Nancy has no power to say something to against Bush Admin.´s decision for torture method.

Exactly that Pelosi was never involved in Bush Admin. like what you claim in your several posts... She was elected to become House Speaker in 2007, not 2003. She only stated that she KNEW the torture issues was used in 2003 and did not involved in this issues.

Nancy explained what she know. She claimed that she and Congress were being mislead by CIA and Bush Admin. It´s not just torture issues but WMD as well.

Pelosi Acknowledges She Was Told of Waterboarding in 2003 - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Please show me the post where I said Pelosi was the Speaker of the House in 2003. You are gravely wrong on Pelosi's involvement in Bush Administration's affair. She served as ranking member of House Intelligence Committee that oversees Bush Administration's wars.

 

[Hear Again]

Isn't that cause you and others are scared to find out the actual truth?

Nope. It's because of the fact that the allegations being discussed in this thread have yet to be substantiated. Therefore, doing an Internet search would be a waste of my time.

 

[Hear Again]

Then why aren't ya saying that to Liebling or are you using double standard?

Nope. I'm not using double standard at all. I choose not to flame Liebling for fear of getting banned.

Like I said, I respect Liebling's knowledge of politics which far exceeds that of many Americans I know.

 

[Secretblend]

Nope. It's because of the fact that the allegations being discussed in this thread have yet to be substantiated. Therefore, doing an Internet search would be a waste of my time.

:roll:

 

[Jiro]

Very true. She definitely knows WAY more than me! I'm still trying to remember the name of our vice president.... We have one of those, right?

our VP's name is.......

** it's a pix of GWB making dumbfounded face, scratching his head

 

[deafskeptic]

Ins't that cause you and others are scared to find out the actual truth?

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.

A CIA inspector general's report from May 2004 that is set to be declassified by the Obama White House will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances with effective results.

On Monday, the Washington Post reported the impending release of a May 7, 2004 IG report that, the paper added, would show that in several circumstances the techniques used to interrogate terrorist suspects "appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture" and did not produce desired results. It is difficult, the report will conclude, "to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks."

A fury of speculation ensued among a host of reporter-bloggers, who viewed the forthcoming information as the strongest proof to date that proclamations of waterboarding's usefulness were overblown.

But there is no need to wait for the report's declassification. Information from its pages was already made public in the footnotes of the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by Steven Bradbury in 2005 and released by the current administration less than one month ago.

And the conclusion seems pretty clear: Not only did interrogators, for a period of time, use waterboarding that was deemed by U.S. officials to be more frequent and intense than was medically safe, it did so to apparently limited results.

As the Huffington Post reported back in mid-April, on a footnote on Page 41 of the Bradbury memo, it is written that "Agency interrogator" had "in some cases" used the waterboard in a manner different than the way "used in the [the Marine Corps' Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape] SERE training."

"The difference was in the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed," read the footnote, citing the IG report. "At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose."

Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"

The important things to take away from the footnote seem clear: for a period of time interrogators were using the waterboard with a "frequency and cumulative use" that had to be toned down. Moreover, they were doing it in a way that was determined to not be "efficacious."

The officials tasked with crafting and implementing the interrogation methods adjusted the techniques to fit within the legal parameters set forth by the Bush Department of Justice. But for a period of time, they were operating in excess and outside those bounds.

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

 

[Hear Again]

** it's a pix of GWB making dumbfounded face, scratching his head

 

[Hear Again]

:roll:

Why the eyeroll?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Please show me the post where I said Pelosi was the Speaker of the House in 2003. You are gravely wrong on Pelosi's involvement in Bush Administration's affair. She served as ranking member of House Intelligence Committee that oversees Bush Administration's wars.

The fact is we talked about 2003, not 2007 since the thread is about 2003, not 2007.

I am not going to prove you anything because I did quoted most of your posts since #180 to correct you that Nancy was not House Speaker during Bush Admin. where torture method was started in 2003 but Dem. leader. You suddenly changed and "correct" me after saw the link, I provided that Nancy was Dem. leader from 2003 to 2007. Nancy is House Speaker for one year during Bush Admin. before Obama took office over in January 2009.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

You are gravely wrong on Pelosi's involvement in Bush Administration's affair. She served as ranking member of House Intelligence Committee that oversees Bush Administration's wars.

No, I never say or suggest anything about Pelosi´s involvement issues but you.

Have a look on my response post on your own post.

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


You said first time about Nancy served as ranking member of House Intelligence since I provided you the link one hour ago. Please go back and have good look on your own posts.

 

[Cheri]

I believe Palosi on one thing, about CIA and the Bush administration, how they mislead people all the time, including the Congress and American people. I already knew Bush was truly a horrible President, I never had trusted him.

If she was told that waterboarding was not being used during 2002, then later finding out that they did used waterboarding, why didn't she step up and speak out at that time? This is what I don't understand about Palsoi. They can't impeachment Bush now since he is no longer the President, it's bit too late to do anything about it. Once again, The Republicans wins. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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

Hayden should rebut Nancy, not Panetta.

Nice try

In case you didn't know, Panetta was nominated by Obama.

Of course I know... What´s your point?

Are you telling me that you believe Pelosi over Panetta

It has nothing do with beleive which one. Re-read my post# 27.

- a man who Obama PERSONALLY picked? Are you telling me Obama picked a liar?

Huh? :scratch: Sorry, your post make no sense.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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

wow Your post prove itself that you fail to use your common sense.

 

[jillio]

Why do you keep asking us for evidence when the investigation barely started? The ironic thing is that.... she called for truth finding investigation... and the preliminary finding shows that the report contradicted to her statements.

My best guess is that the investigation will be buried because it will implicate more Democrats. oh well. it's a dirty dirty business out there.

For the same reason that you keep pronouncing her "guilty" of something when the investigation has barely started. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I believe Palosi on one thing, about CIA and the Bush administration, how they mislead people all the time, including the Congress and American people. I already knew Bush was truly a horrible President, I never had trusted him.

If she was told that waterboarding was not being used during 2002, then later finding out that they did used waterboarding, why didn't she step up and speak out at that time? This is what I don't understand about Palsoi. They can't impeachment Bush now since he is no longer the President, it's bit too late to do anything about it. Once again, The Republicans wins. :roll:

Nancy found out in 2008 that´s not what she thought in 2003. Accord my link in my post #27 that CIA agents destory many memos, tapes, etc where they torture victims and provided again in my post #150 and #176 about CIA´s inaccuray, missing list, etc. She answered someone´s question what and how she knew in 2003, etc. for a first time last week.

The people who work for US Government, do not allow to spread any information "TOP SECRET" out to the public unless they get permited. Nancy answered any question to the public is allow by Obama administration. Obama also released CIA´s memos to the public what and how they did to victims.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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?

Very simple is:

It doesn´t mean that they involve because they knew. :roll: It´s Bush Admin. who made the decision for form of torture method, not Congress. Accord link, I provide in my post #176 that Congress were being mislead by CIA and Bush Admin.

 

[Jiro]

I believe Palosi on one thing, about CIA and the Bush administration, how they mislead people all the time, including the Congress and American people. I already knew Bush was truly a horrible President, I never had trusted him.

If she was told that waterboarding was not being used during 2002, then later finding out that they did used waterboarding, why didn't she step up and speak out at that time? This is what I don't understand about Palsoi. They can't impeachment Bush now since he is no longer the President, it's bit too late to do anything about it. Once again, The Republicans wins. :roll:

Your last few sentences - because Pelosi blocked the impeachment process. Kucinich kept bringing up about impeachment. The chief obstruction to this whole farce was Pelosi. I'm very surprised that Pelosi kept quiet about Plame Scandal and decided not to get Dick Cheney out of office.

Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

The fact is Nancy is not House Speaker in 2003. Sure, Nancy can say anything what she wants but she has no power to make decision alone because many Demoracts and Republician leaders vote for or against something. Depend on how high % vote.