On May 8, 2009, at 2:41 PM, David P. Henderson wrote: > Did you read the actual document? Not that I'm a fan of Pelosi (she's > a twit), but her name only appears once in 10 pages and that is the > very first briefing way back in 2002 when the Dems were in the > minority and other than "description of the particular EITs that had > been used" there are no details on what actual information she and > congressman Goss received.
The summary says. “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.” and we know they waterboarded Abu Zubaydah... So, according to her, she was briefed on either what they were not doing (but could) about someone that they had ALREADY waterboarded (they lied? wtf? why would they keeps notes about a lie about a lie?) or she was told what they were doing (later?) and didn't dare tell them to stop. There is really no reason at all to doubt the CIA's account, unless she has contradictory notes taken at the same time. I think the left should apply no less than the same standards of evidence as in the Valerie Plame affair and demand an independent prosecutor to look into who knew what and when based on the available evidence. If they really think it was a war crime, then her silence was criminal and a violation of her oath of office. Let's put her and the CIA agents under oath and see what happens. > > > I for one do not doubt that in the hysteria that followed 9/11 and > the rampant trampling on the US Constitution by the Bush > Administration, Bush and company would have seized on the opportunity > question the Dem leadership's loyalty and even declare any breaches > of secrecy as treason. I wonder when the left will give up using Bush as an excuse for everything. I'm pretty sure "Bush scared me" isn't a viable defense for failing to honor her oath of office. If you are right then it's really worse than that because she either allowed, or at least keep quiet about, torture in order to get re- elected. Nice. We need more people with that strength of character, two heart beats away from being President. Or, if you believe her, she didn't have the guts to object to a briefing describing legal authorization to commit a war crime because they weren't doing it "YET" Also nice. (add your own $GODWIN reference here..) This was her oath.. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." Odd that knowing that the CIA was "planning" a war crime didn't bother her even a wee bit until the press got a hold of it. In truth, they all went along when they thought it was politically safe to do so and that no one would find out. My take is that she was all for it THEN but when it became evident that the left was going to make support for waterboarding a major issue in the election, and the news papers were all over it, All of them (reid, rangle etc.) figured that they could safely *fake* some moral outrage and not be called on it because there were no records.. I bet it never crossed their minds that someone from the CIA just might be taking notes on what was said at each meeting. I see the left is still yelling for an investigation. Let's do it! It's got to be run by an independent though since congress is up to their ears in it themselves. I just hope they don't mind seeing their senior leadership go down with the ship. (this will happen when pigs fly) As far as I can tell this is Bush's position and what they want to investigate.. "Yeah, I ordered it. So what? My lawyers said it was legal, we told Congress regularly what we were doing and no one objected. Actually, some even asked us to do it harder." Pelosi's and the rest of the gang's position is something like "The CIA took notes WHEN it happened, but there is a disclaimer that some of the notes depended on recollection, so they might not be exact." 'Therefore, the ones that are wrong are the ones about ME and, since I have a mind like a steel trap, and they are merely CIA agents trained in observation and reporting, my version is obviously the correct one.' "I did but I didn't inhale" comes to mind. Her apologist's cling to the disclaimer that someone didn't actually *record* (they hope) the meeting, so their notes *might* not be exact. Therefore her story is the one to be believed? Really? Nancy's is either a liar or a coward... (or both I guess) "Morally bankrupt hypocrite" fits nicely too. =c= Menken.. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
