Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
10:51 PM on 04/23/2009
LexMosher's probation officer must be waterboarding the little Tro//.
10:39 PM on 04/23/2009
If you want to know the truth, put her under oath with the rest of these jokers.

I bet you get a lot of . . . I don't recall type answers.

"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
edit my micro-bio
10:45 PM on 04/23/2009
"techniques described" Not used, described.
10:48 PM on 04/23/2009
And that means what? Pelosi wasn't paying attention, didn't understand while keeping her mouth shut or is covering her tracks now? She knows these were secret meetings and the specific details cannot be released.

Did you miss the "no objections were raised" part?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:50 PM on 04/23/2009
"virtual tour"?

What is that?
edit my micro-bio
10:56 PM on 04/23/2009
It means they were just told, maybe with computer graphics, of the plans to use the procedure. No actual physical demonstration or real use on a person.
10:36 PM on 04/23/2009 it went something like this:

"We've been told we can legally waterboard."
"I see..."
"But we're not saying we will."
"But we may; and if we do, we'll certainly tell you about it."
"Hmmm...well, that's good enough for me!"

12:26 AM on 04/24/2009
It's the same way they asked for authorization to go to war with Iraq as a last resort.

Then promptly went to war.
09:54 PM on 04/23/2009
Nancy, I do belive you, but my question is, why did you take these creeps at face value?` You did not do your homework or follow up with questions. This is not like you. For pete's sake, just release everything and get it out in the open. The pandora's box has been opened.
10:17 PM on 04/23/2009
If you believe her, I have a bridge to sell you.
edit my micro-bio
10:23 PM on 04/23/2009
Meaning-you have no real argument and are resorting to cliche' ????
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
09:52 PM on 04/23/2009
Republicans drape themselves over this 800-lb. gorilla:

BushCo committed war crimes (torture) in order to commit a war crime (attacking and occupying a sovereign nation).

TheWhiteHouse torture program was created to find an excuse to attack, invade and occupy Iraq. TheWhiteHouse expressed interest in torture in December2001. Development of the torture program began in April, 2002. The war in Iraq began March 19, 2003.

The interrogators/torturers say the purpose of their inquisition was to find a link between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Saddam.

That means that Bush knew that he had no case to go to war in Iraq, thus, the frenzied drumbeat to war, the trumped-up propaganda campaign about WMD, "mushroom cloud", creating an atmosphere where careful examination of what was known versus what was merely suspected got you branded unpatriotic and a traitor.

With no link between 9/11 and Saddam and the start date for the war looming (no later than March, everything was in place & ready to go, summer heat looming), Bush went ahead because he was sure WMD would be found, and he could point to that as the justification. When no WMD, no nuclear, no nothing turned up, Bush continued what had never stopped: Torturing, this time of Iraqis swept up in dragnets, to find a link to 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Rachel Maddow and Ron Suskind explain it all.

Part 1:

Part 2:
10:02 PM on 04/23/2009
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration struggled to quell persistent Democratic demands for a potentially explosive probe of harsh Bush administration detainee interrogations Thursday, abruptly declaring opposition to an independent commission.
10:24 PM on 04/23/2009

These techniques were vetted, Congress (i.e. the American People) was consulted, the courts (through the Attorney General) was consulted... they are not pleasant but are not torture (see Russia, Iran, North Korea for details on this one)

THERE IS NO TORTURE!! The "T" word is being thrown around by the Left because the 'shine' is currently starting to come off Obama and Obama is bending to the pressure on the left...

If you think Obama and Ole Nancy are not 100% Politics than there's nothing to say... just sit back and watch the hole go deeper.................
10:34 PM on 04/23/2009
Some of us know what the "shine" reference is code for you
11:00 PM on 04/23/2009
Klavern meeting commences in 5..4..3..2..1
09:50 PM on 04/23/2009
Dick Cheney is running from one Fake News show to the next. As ex President defacto, I'm sure he was in on these meetings. What say the Grim Reaper.
09:50 PM on 04/23/2009
Put her under oath. Then it will be "I don't recall the Bush administration"...

She lies.
11:01 PM on 04/23/2009
you just can't believe anything republicans say anymore, they lied one to many times..didn't they?
11:17 PM on 04/23/2009
Yes, Democrats are always playing by the rules . . . especially on taxes :)

Once you learn career politicians are all the same no matter the party, the better off you'll be.
09:50 PM on 04/23/2009
You're a liar Nancy.
09:44 PM on 04/23/2009
Washington is all about semantic. Does anybody remember Clinton say "I did not have sex with that woman". He easily rattled off that lie because his definition of sex was not including oral sex. When asked about torture, it depends on your definition. I can tell you this without a doubt. Frats do much worse. Much worse. Nobody is shutting them down, are they?

I think the liberal left that is putting excessive pressure on Obama is not doing him any favors . This week alone he is faced with a worsening condition in Pakistan that may become a crisis. Korea is thumbing their nose at him as is Iran. Then we got the pirates that are another concern. Then we have GM shutting down their plants, and Chrysler filing Chap 11. Meanwhile the unemployment rate is actually around 15 percent if you consider all the people that lost their jobs, are no longer collecting, or took a part-time job, or two jobs, etc. If that isn't bad enough now it seem that the Fed and Treasury forced the hand of BoA to buy Merrill knowing the balance sheet was not accurate. The lawsuits, criminal charges will be forthcoming. Oh yea, the dead soul at Freddie. Do I need to go on? Obama said to look forward and those that put him office are stabbing him in the back. Nice work.
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
10:09 PM on 04/23/2009
Fraternities do worse than what was done in our names to innocent people, never charged, caught in dragnets?

Kid, do yourself a favor and read the reports and the memos. Or if you don't have the attention span, these 4 short video clips you need to see to understand this:

Expert (Military Interrogator) to Rachel: "The Torture Program Was Designed To Extract FALSE Information":

The Torture Program That The White House Designed Even Did It Wrong According To Torture Experts:

The Purpose of the Torture Was To Find A Justification For The War in Iraq (& How The FBI's Effective & Legal Techniques for Getting Actionable Intelligence Was Shut Out):

How We Know That The Torture Came On Orders From The Very Top, And Not "A Few Bad Apples":
10:31 PM on 04/23/2009
The topic is torture, who approved it who knew about it. You should start your own blog and you can make each of your many concerns topics of different threads.
Condemnation w/o investigation is hgt of ignorance
09:39 PM on 04/23/2009
I tend to give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt, but if facts show otherwise, then she is toast! The reason being is the Bush administration rarely, if ever, told the truth either by omission, spin or falsehoods.

The point about this subject is not whether someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their name or whether torture provided actionable intelligence or whether terrorists could be trained to resist interrogation techniques (they could, but the longer a person resists, the more intense the pain which increases the incentive to provide false information), but they've been banned anyhow.

The partisan narrative frame is false. The "it works" is also false. Let's not allow the debate to be framed in those terms. Torture is a moral, humanitarian and legal issue. It was a boon to al-Qaeda recruitment thus adverse to our national security and detrimental to our image.

So we need to determine whether the architects of the interrogation programme broke the law and should be prosecuted. That is what this is about.

We don't know whether Pelosi is being truthful, but I take her word over the Bush loyalists any day. But more importantly, let's not get distracted by the false narratives being set up. We need to maintain focus on the real issues and what is at stake. IMHO
09:33 PM on 04/23/2009
A simple solution would be for any Republicans in on the briefing to step up and confirm or deny. Jon Corzine who was on the Senate Intel Committee in 2002 says they were in a briefing that never mention or described waterboarding. He says the first time he ever heard the term was in the newspapers.
09:25 PM on 04/23/2009
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]

GWB was in the Twilight Zone when his first year in office.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:30 PM on 04/23/2009
I don't think so. They did the same thing in Iraq. Arm both sides.
09:32 PM on 04/23/2009
Arm both sides? WTF are you talking about?
09:10 PM on 04/23/2009
It doesn't matter at all if the torture was effective or not! The ends don't justify the means, ever! We are not trying to criminalize policy either, unless policy directly resulted in unlawful acts. Illegal is illegal period, we can't cherry pick. The just "following Orders" defense was debunked a long time ago. I can't rob a bank, then tell the judge " your honor, I think we should just look forward", looking back is " retribution" Crimes are crimes. We must stop engaging in the false argument of judging the validity of policy based on the results. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, regardless of how it turns out, torture is wrong, regardless of what was gained.
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
09:05 PM on 04/23/2009
Pelosi is hostage to corporations as are most people in Congress, but I believe Bush did not give Congress the full story on waterboarding.

He told everyone "We do not torture." We heard it.
09:12 PM on 04/23/2009
My point exactly. They were given the broad strokes.
09:26 PM on 04/23/2009
Who cares what you believe? I mean, ok... interesting but who cares? Evidence, proof before you just spew out "I think that person is evil..."

We don't torture and we have not tortured (have there been military people in a time of war in the past that have stepped over the line or way over the line? Sure, that's war and one of the reasons why we hate it.)

But to say the White House tortured some one... ordered a "Code Red", Wooo... that's not a casual thing and requires proof, not feelings and 'has to be's', proof.
One love, one heart...
08:59 PM on 04/23/2009
lib�er�al (lbr-l, lbrl)
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded

con�ser�va�tive (kn-s�"rv-tv)
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style

I'd rather be the first one...
09:01 PM on 04/23/2009
Conservative: Someone who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Liberal: Someone with their feet planted firmly in the air.