The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

JSpencer — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:47:59 -0000

Looks like the moonbats have taken over this formerly balanced blog. Nancy got caught lying red-handed and only you froth-mouthed libtards either cannot or refuse to comprehend this basic fact. - daveinboca

Looks like the only one here frothing is you Dave. Get a grip.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

JSpencer — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:47:59 -0000

Looks like the only one here frothing is you Dave. Get a grip.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

SteveK — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:18:41 -0000

GreenDreams said: "Say, Jazz, you might want to add to your TMV news flash: spies lie..."

It seems that Jazz has gone on to a new post without time to reply to the points and questions you have raised... Not worth his time I guess.

IMO his non-reply speaks volumes.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

SteveK — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:18:41 -0000

GreenDreams said: "Say, Jazz, you might want to add to your TMV news flash: spies lie..."

It seems that Jazz has gone on to a new post without taking the time to reply to the points and questions you have raised... Not worth his time it seems.

Jazz, your non-reply speaks volumes.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

GreenDreams — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:31:36 -0000

Say, Jazz, you might want to add to your TMV news flash: spies lie. I was pretty surprised too by your statement about Pelosi "packing her bags". Maybe she is trying to walk a public approval tight rope of defending herself weakly, then more strongly, then retreating for fear of being branded &#39soft on terror&#39 for impugning the integrity of the mighty CIA. But you know, we have legislators who have actually committed crimes; not just made some accusations against bureaucrats. Full stop.

Now, you refer to "paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread)."

Is it slander to say the CIA is wrong about their briefings? Let&#39s see. The CIA said they briefed Congress "repeatedly." Bob Graham said oh yeah? What dates? They specifically said they had briefed Graham 4 times. Oops. Bob Graham is a notorious note taker and his notes are in the U of FL library. Three of the four briefings never took place. The CIA lied. Or at the least, the CIA was wrong. Now THEY&#39RE backtracking; all the way back. They say "Graham is correct." Should they "pack their bags" and leave in shame? Maybe they were lying, maybe they were just shabby record keepers. But there is no doubt they were WRONG.

And what about that Panetta disclaimer? He pushes back on Pelosi, saying the CIA stands by their version. *Then* he repeats the very lawyerly disclaimer that they&#39re not sure of their version. Remember? "This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened." The "notes" her refers to, we now know, were compiled years later, and may well be mistaken, as they surely were in Graham&#39s case.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:34:25 -0000

My only point was that the first source you quoted characterized any questions towards the Speakers statements and actions as being "hypocritical and disingenuous attacks."

First of all, that is not quite what the source (Think Progress) said. Here is the exact quote again:

For weeks, conservatives have been launching hypocritical and disingenuous attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) regarding her level of knowledge of the Bush administration’s torture program.

"Launching hypocritical and disingenuous attacks," and "characterizing any question towards the Speaker&#39s statements and actions AS attacks" do not mean the same thing.

And the first phrasing is accurate.

Sure, I&#39m positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn&#39t mean that the Speakers actions are above question.

I don&#39t believe anyone has said that the Speaker&#39s actions are above question. But the attention that is being paid to how much Pelosi knew and when she knew it and what she should have done, compared with the attention being paid to the actual war crimes that people are arguing over how much she knew, is truly bizarre. At least it is if you assume that most people think war crimes should be prosecuted.

I&#39m glad you&#39re not going so far as to say that Pelosi broke the law, because, with the information we have now, there is really no basis for anyone to think that. And I can&#39t understand why Pelosi and her colleagues falling down on their oversight duties, as reprehensible as that might be (assuming they had a meaningful choice, which is a large assumption), overshadows and is so much more horrifying and contemptible than actually coming up with that list of torture techniques and slicing and dicing the law to try and make it fit what they wanted to do.

She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.

I&#39m sorry, Jazz, but that is extraordinarily bizarre. Truly. I have never been a Nancy Pelosi fan, but how anyone can characterize her behavior as "disgraceful" and say she should "pack her bags and leave" is beyond me when many of the same people who actually authorized and justified torture are still employed by the C.I.A.; when Jay Bybee is a federal judge one level below the Supreme Court; when John Yoo is a professor of constitutional law at one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, AND has been given a monthly column at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

There&#39s something really wrong with that, and I think you should think about it.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

DaGoat — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:12:51 -0000

Steve, that&#39s because the voices on the right -- come to that, the right in general -- is NOT reality-based. Their thinking and their arguments are not based on what is factual, true, or possible given objective reality.

Kathy, it&#39s dismissive and partisan attitudes like yours that gives me hope that fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility can eventually recover. Did you even listen to Obama today? Is that whole "common ground" thing just BS as far as the left is concerned?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

Jazz — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:09:48 -0000

You can investigate torture policies AND investigate whether or not the Speaker of the House was lying about it and then tarring the CIA with her accusations.

Of course you can, so let&#39s have at it.

Then we probably don&#39t disagree as much as the rest of our readers here in the comments seem to believe. I wasn&#39t being sarcastic when I said investigations in to torture, extraordinary actions, et. al. can and should go forward. My only point was that the first source you quoted characterized any questions towards the Speakers statements and actions as being "hypocritical and disingenuous attacks."

Sure, I&#39m positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn&#39t mean that the Speakers actions are above question. I&#39m not even going so far as to say Pelosi broke the law here. But I have watched a string of video appearances by her on the subject ( on the oh so conservative MSNBC no less) clearly showing how her story has changed and even reversed itself.

Now, if that was the extent of it, then all we would be dealing with would be a politician lying to the public. I know... I know. Coming up next on TMV News, Scientist reveal that oceans are wet. I wouldn&#39t lose much sleep over it. But the accusations against the CIA and the paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread) were more than a bridge too far. That was really crappy. Not illegal, but it should be politically poisonous to do that. And by the way, for those of you defending, check the Sunday show circuit. Pelosi is already trying to walk back from those accusations, saying she didn&#39t mean to say the CIA, blah blah blah. Make that story number seven out of her on this one.

She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:58:23 -0000

After five voices from the right, not a single one has noticed (let alone addressed) the elephant in the room:
"She did nothing about it because she signed an agreement not to disclose anything she learned in the briefings..."

Steve, that&#39s because the voices on the right -- come to that, the right in general -- is NOT reality-based. Their thinking and their arguments are not based on what is factual, true, or possible given objective reality.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:52:20 -0000

The whole reason congress is briefed on what the CIA is doing is so they can cut off funding if they disagree.

In the instance of the CIA&#39s torture program, however, Congress as a whole was not briefed. Only key members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed. That&#39s just a handful of people. Actually, maybe less than a handful.

No one needs to disclose anything. It’s all done behind closed door.

jwest, are you out of your mind? Congress cuts off funding for a program and no one knows that it happened, or which program was defunded, or why?

Do something that congress doesn’t like and the money stops. This is how our government works.

Um, but jwest, Congress has to know that the something is happening before they can dislike it. Congress was not briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Maybe five or six members of Congress were briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Those five or six people were bound by law not to reveal or discuss what was said in those briefings, to anyone who was not in the briefings. "Anyone who was not in the briefings" includes all those other members of Congress who were not briefed.

How do you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman would have cut off funding for the CIA&#39s interrogation program by themselves, without telling anyone else in Congress why they wanted to do so?

I honestly and truly do not understand what is the confusion about this point. What is it you don&#39t understand?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:51:25 -0000

Dems are trying to abdicate any and all responsibilities for things they knew and at the least did not contest.

Nancy Pelosi has called for a Truth Commission. Other Democrats have also called for investigations. Liberals and Democrats both inside and outside Congress have said they are willing to go wherever the facts lead. I have seen many liberal or left-leaning bloggers state outright that they are perfectly fine with holding Pelosi and other congressional Democrats responsible if an investigation shows they were complicit in torture. I have not seen any Republicans, in Congress or in the blogosphere, say they want everyone who planned, justified, and ran the torture program to be held responsible.

I think it&#39s Republicans who are trying to avoid responsibility, not Democrats.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:42:53 -0000

Nancy got caught lying red-handed ...

So? What does that have to do with the criminality of torture?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

GreenDreams — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:31:36 -0000

Now, you refer to "paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread)."

Is it slander to say the CIA is wrong about their briefings? Let's see. The CIA said they briefed Congress "repeatedly." Bob Graham said oh yeah? What dates? They specifically said they had briefed Graham 4 times. Oops. Bob Graham is a notorious note taker and his notes are in the U of FL library. Three of the four briefings never took place. The CIA lied. Or at the least, the CIA was wrong. Now THEY'RE backtracking; all the way back. They say "Graham is correct." Should they "pack their bags" and leave in shame? Maybe they were lying, maybe they were just shabby record keepers. But there is no doubt they were WRONG.

And what about that Panetta disclaimer? He pushes back on Pelosi, saying the CIA stands by their version. *Then* he repeats the very lawyerly disclaimer that they're not sure of their version. Remember? "This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."

The "notes" he refers to, we now know, were compiled years later, and may well be mistaken, as they surely were in Graham's case.

Oh, by the way, one week after the CIA claims it told Pelosi about waterboarding (Graham backs her claim that it was never mentioned), the CIA gave their NIE claiming certainty about WMD. Again, whether the CIA was lying or spectacularly incompetent, they were WRONG. And that lie or incompetence led us to war. I really don't see how you get all indignant now about someone "slandering" the CIA.

Yes, let's investigate. All of it.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:26:25 -0000

If she got a full briefing and kept her mouth shut then how can she know accuse cia or military of criminal activity?

I don&#39t know what you mean by "full briefing," but regardless of what she was told or not told in the briefing, it doesn&#39t affect the criminality of the acts themselves.

We need to see the CIA&#39s notes of those meetings -- but if they contradict what Pelosi has said, that still doesn&#39t prove anything, because Pelosi was not permitted to take notes during the meeting. None of the members of Congress who were briefed were allowed to take notes. The briefers did not want them to have records of what was said, to be able to compare their notes or talk to anyone else about them. So if only one side is allowed to take notes, and there&#39s a contradiction or an inconsistency, by what measure of fairness do we give the benefit of the doubt to the side that forbade the other side to take notes?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:09:17 -0000

You can investigate torture policies AND investigate whether or not the Speaker of the House was lying about it and then tarring the CIA with her accusations.

Of course you can, so let&#39s have at it.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:34:25 -0000

My only point was that the first source you quoted characterized any questions towards the Speakers statements and actions as being "hypocritical and disingenuous attacks."

First of all, that is not quite what the source (Think Progress) said. Here is the exact quote again:

For weeks, conservatives have been launching hypocritical and disingenuous attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) regarding her level of knowledge of the Bush administration’s torture program.

"Launching hypocritical and disingenuous attacks," and "characterizing any question towards the Speaker's statements and actions AS attacks" do not mean the same thing.

And the first phrasing is accurate.

Sure, I'm positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn't mean that the Speakers actions are above question.

I don't believe anyone has said that the Speaker's actions are above question. But the attention that is being paid to how much Pelosi knew and when she knew it and what she should have done, compared with the attention being paid to the actual war crimes that people are arguing over how much she knew, is truly bizarre. At least it is if you assume that most people think war crimes should be prosecuted.

I'm glad you're not going so far as to say that Pelosi broke the law, because, with the information we have now, there is really no basis for anyone to think that. And I can't understand why Pelosi and her colleagues falling down on their oversight duties, as reprehensible as that might be (assuming they had a meaningful choice, which is a large assumption), overshadows and is so much more horrifying and contemptible than actually coming up with that list of torture techniques and slicing and dicing the law to try and make it fit what they wanted to do.

She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.

I'm sorry, Jazz, but that is extraordinarily bizarre. Truly. I have never been a Nancy Pelosi fan, but how anyone can characterize her behavior as "disgraceful" and say she should "pack her bags and leave" is beyond me when many of the same people who actually authorized and justified torture are still employed by the C.I.A.; when Jay Bybee is a federal judge one level below the Supreme Court; when John Yoo is a professor of constitutional law at one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, AND has been given a monthly column at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

There's something really wrong with that, and I think you should think about it.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

$199537 — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:12:51 -0000

Steve, that's because the voices on the right -- come to that, the right in general -- is NOT reality-based. Their thinking and their arguments are not based on what is factual, true, or possible given objective reality.

Kathy, it's dismissive and partisan attitudes like yours that gives me hope that fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility can eventually recover. Did you even listen to Obama today? Is that whole "common ground" thing just BS as far as the left is concerned?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

Jazz — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:09:48 -0000

You can investigate torture policies AND investigate whether or not the Speaker of the House was lying about it and then tarring the CIA with her accusations.

Of course you can, so let's have at it.

Then we probably don't disagree as much as the rest of our readers here in the comments seem to believe. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said investigations in to torture, extraordinary actions, et. al. can and should go forward. My only point was that the first source you quoted characterized any questions towards the Speakers statements and actions as being "hypocritical and disingenuous attacks."

Sure, I'm positive that many Republicans would welcome some distraction, but it doesn't mean that the Speakers actions are above question. I'm not even going so far as to say Pelosi broke the law here. But I have watched a string of video appearances by her on the subject ( on the oh so conservative MSNBC no less) clearly showing how her story has changed and even reversed itself.

Now, if that was the extent of it, then all we would be dealing with would be a politician lying to the public. I know... I know. Coming up next on TMV News, Scientist reveal that oceans are wet. I wouldn't lose much sleep over it. But the accusations against the CIA and the paper thin excuses for those slanders (which a couple of our more liberal readers have picked up on and tried to use in this thread) were more than a bridge too far. That was really crappy. Not illegal, but it should be politically poisonous to do that. And by the way, for those of you defending, check the Sunday show circuit. Pelosi is already trying to walk back from those accusations, saying she didn't mean to say the CIA, blah blah blah. Make that story number seven out of her on this one.

She should pack her bags and leave. Her behavior in this affair has been disgraceful, all for the sake of winning a couple inches of turf in the political battleground.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

joeaudio — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:53:51 -0000

jwest,

" what good is congress?"

I often wonder about that. The Founders designed a beautiful system, but we are often poorly represented by those in Congress, whose greed and lust for power is more important to them than serving the Constitution or the people they are supposed to represent.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

GreenDreams — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:16:18 -0000

Back at you AR. Look at the Abu Ghraib photos again. Depraved, sadistic, sick sick sick. You&#39re one of those who has defended that kind of perversion, so I&#39m not surprised by your comment.

I love this country, a country that stands against sadism and depravity and torture and has fought valiantly for the international laws requiring decency in treatment of prisoners.

You apparently do not stand against those things and now defend the same twisted tactics for which we have prosecuted others.

Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope Obama succeeds in assuring that she is never ordered to do those things, and that those who ordered them in the past are punished as a warning to others that even in the treatment of our enemies, we have morals, ethics and the rule of law. America is made up mostly of decent people. Those things are not decent.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:58:23 -0000

After five voices from the right, not a single one has noticed (let alone addressed) the elephant in the room:
"She did nothing about it because she signed an agreement not to disclose anything she learned in the briefings..."

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

AustinRoth — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:56:52 -0000

GD - go fuck yourself.

My daughter joined the Navy less than a month ago. She did not join to learn "outright sadism and depravity", nor to become "sadistic sex offenders" - she joined to serve her county honorably, a country she loves, and you obviously hate.

What is sad and pathetic is America-haters such as yourself spilling your vileness towards people, our Armed Services members, who have more honor, patriotism, and true valor than sick little pricks like yourself ever did have, or ever will.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

kathykattenburg — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:52:20 -0000

The whole reason congress is briefed on what the CIA is doing is so they can cut off funding if they disagree.

In the instance of the CIA's torture program, however, Congress as a whole was not briefed. Only key members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed. That's just a handful of people. Actually, maybe less than a handful.

No one needs to disclose anything. It’s all done behind closed door.

jwest, are you out of your mind? Congress cuts off funding for a program and no one knows that it happened, or which program was defunded, or why?

Do something that congress doesn’t like and the money stops. This is how our government works.

Um, but jwest, Congress has to know that the something is happening before they can decide they don't like it. Congress was not briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Maybe five or six members of Congress were briefed about CIA interrogations policy. Those five or six people were bound by law not to reveal or discuss what was said in those briefings, to anyone who was not in the briefings. "Anyone who was not in the briefings" includes all those other members of Congress who were not briefed.

How do you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman would have cut off funding for the CIA's interrogation program by themselves, without telling anyone else in Congress why they wanted to do so?

I honestly and truly do not understand what is the confusion about this point. What is it you don't understand?

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

GreenDreams — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:32:29 -0000

What a sad time for this country. Military service was once an honorable undertaking and a positive career builder for young people. Look at it now. Soldiers trained to and ordered to humiliate and degrade teen soldiers (yes, 15 year olds!), naked, cold and alone, chained, urinated and defecated on, beaten and nearly drowned. I would NEVER allow or encourage my child or any other to aspire to join a service that would lead them into outright sadism and depravity. Parents, keep them out of the military now. It can turn them into the next generation of sadistic sex offenders. Now how sad is that?

None of the Pelosi distractions mean anything to me. Neither she nor any other legislator had any role in DECIDING or ORDERING that misconduct. And jwest, cutting off funding for the CIA is NOT a viable way for the opposition party to stop these practices, even if they could have done so, which they could not, especially without disclosing the reasons why. It&#39s also completely lame to suggest Pelosi or others should have broken national security laws by disclosing the content of top secret briefings. And CS, we have no knowledge whether or not Pelosi "refused" to sign Harman&#39s letter.

So what I&#39m reading here from the right is they excuse the depravity that their team inserted into military service but want Dem legislators investigated for not breaking federal law to try to stop it.

As for the CIA lying, it&#39s already proven. They claimed to have "repeatedly" briefed Pelosi and others. Not true. Provably not true. Yes, let&#39s investigate. Let&#39s prosecute. Let a court decide if there&#39s sufficient evidence to indict and if so, to convict. That&#39s how American law works.

Re: Faux News Reveals True Motivation Behind Attacks on Pelosi

EEllis — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:31:58 -0000

SteveK
It doesn&#39t have to happen because we know it could. Pelosi starts to raise hell and say she is going to raise hell if they do this and then they don&#39t do it because they are afraid to piss off a powerful member of congress. They only approved the use of waterboarding on three people. The idea that they wouldn&#39t do without it if Pelosi raised hell is debatable. The idea that Pelosi was worried that so close to 9/11 she wouldn&#39t get reelected if she was soft on terrorist is very likely. If she got a full briefing and kept her mouth shut then how can she know accuse cia or military of criminal activity? I mean lawyers said ok, congress knew and said nothing, if it was that clear cut then something is wrong. If not then Nancy shouldn&#39t of got up on a soapbox.