Pelosi’s Oversight – In Her Own Words
By Mitch Berg
For those of you who think Nan Pelosi, despite her being speaker of the House and a longtime powerful figure in the Democratic Caucus, only dipped her toe into the torture issue?
Bon appetit! (it’s a video with audio).
May 14th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Watched it, carefully. As I have said many times, I do believe that Pelosi and Reid too for that matter KNEW about the waterboarding etc. Pelosi does not deny being briefed that these techniques had been approved by the Office of Legal Counsel – although for some reason she keeps referring to it incorrectly as the Office of Legislative Counsel.
The crux of this is did she know it was being used, or was that committee told that these were only techniques being considered or investigated for use. The law requires that the appropariate parts of congress be kept apprised of current activity by the executive branch on a number of intelligence issues. There have been other members of those committees who verify Pelosi’s story that they were not apprised of the actual use of torture, in violation of the law requiring they be informed of activity. Cheney himself in a recent interview asserted that the congress was informed about techniques but that he cannot say they were informed about them being implemented. So? There is nothing in this video to suggest otherwise. I was hoping for something further that would be proof one way or the other.
This video is just typical footage of the kind of gladhanding that one expects to see when any bill is being promoted for a vote. Given the Bush administration’s throwing Valerie Plame Wilson under the bus, and their documented efforts to prevent memos from circulating that were critical of the work by the Office of Legal Counsel, it’s not a big stretch to believe that congress wasn’t fully informed. Either way – get it ALL out in public, and let the chips fall where they may instead of us covering the backsides of politicians, regardless of their branch of government.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:13 am
If the Party of Scrubs *was* informed *before hand* and said nothing until now it makes them bigger scumbags than if they found out after the party had started.
And either way, the fact that the outrage was kept in a paper bag until the political opportunity to use it as a tool was ripe, well, that’s your Party of Scrubs ladies and gentlemen.
I must go wash my hands now.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
OK so for Pelosi & Reid we are going to hyper-analyze each & every word looking for some nuance of plausible deniabilty? How very moderate of you! When did you ever do this for a Republican?
May 14th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Mr. Shirt says:
“Mr. Shirt Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
OK so for Pelosi & Reid we are going to hyper-analyze each & every word looking for some nuance of plausible deniabilty? How very moderate of you! When did you ever do this for a Republican? ”
What part of I believe Pelosi and Reid both knew did you miss?
When did I ever analyze each and every word for a Republican? All the time, thank you Shirt. In particular, I have been paying quite close attention at the moment to the words of Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice on the topic, thank you for asking.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Dog Gone said:
“When did I ever analyze each and every word for a Republican”
You missed the whole point, I guess: “looking for some nuance of plausible deniabilty”.
Nobody missed the “knew” part, or the more massive part of the comment where you minced and deflected in favor of your favorite politicians.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Troy wrote:
>
Neither Reid or Pelosi are my favorite politicians Troy. NOT AT ALL. I’ve made it clear elsewhere in comments that I despise the pair of them.
What I’m watching for is who will blow it first, who will make the clear first mistake in what they say as they attempt to either perpetrate a cover up or to at the very least obscure information becoming public. The more that any of them talk – and Cheney is talking a LOT – the more likely an oops. That’s my focus.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Someone has it bad for former presnit Cheney, eh, dog?
Just can’t let go of that whole Plame fiasco either.
Moderate? You? 😆 😆 😆
May 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
K-rod says:
K-Rod Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Someone has it bad for former presnit Cheney, eh, dog?>>
Actually, I’m waiting to see Bush and Rumsfeld, among others, in the hot seat, far more so than Cheney.
>
I am nearly done with reading her bio, “Fair Game”. She is a very smart lady who dedicated a good portion of her adult life to intelligence work, apparently very competently, including her considerable expertise in tracking the supposed WMDs. Interesting evidence that Bush and crew deliberately misrepresented the intelligence to congress to get the Iraq war they wanted, but which was NOT justified by any factual evidence.
Smart gutsy woman, who put herself in harms way for her country. I think she deserves the same kind of consideration, loyalty, and respect as the members of the armed forces.
I am independent K-rod; you are the one who needs to categorize me as moderate or whatever.
Moderate? You?
May 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
And if you don’t believe her you could just ask her or read her book again, right? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Dog, your comments catagorize you as liberal. I am a Classical Liberal or libertarian conservative.
“I’m waiting to see Bush and Rumsfeld, among others, in the hot seat”
Chronic case of BDS is what you have, dog, I guess the heart worm pills didn’t help.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Dog gone
Troy is right, you missed my point, but I also see exactly why you thought I meant what you did. I know you pay attention, I’m not saying you are misinformed. I’m saying, despite your claim to be “moderate,” you are biased towards giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, while rarely offering such comfort to Republicans. That’s all
May 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I am nearly done with reading her bio, “Fair Game”.
What, already done with Michelle Obama: First Lady of Hope?
She is a very smart lady
I do like her work on Chinese human rights and her refusal to join other leftists in making excuses for the Tiananmen Square Massacre…
who dedicated a good portion of her adult life to intelligence work, apparently very competently,
“apparently” . . .
including her considerable expertise in tracking the supposed WMDs.
How could Pelosi have “tracked” something that was “supposed”?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Interesting evidence that Bush and crew deliberately misrepresented the intelligence to congress to get the Iraq war they wanted
Yep, so “interesting” that you lost it in the dryer with those socks . . .
but which was NOT justified by any factual evidence.
As opposed to “unfactual evidence”? Or would that be “counterfactual”?
Smart gutsy woman, who put herself in harms way for her country.
I bet she told you so herself . . .
I think she deserves the same kind of consideration, loyalty,
I think they’re supposed to follow our orders . . .
and respect as the members of the armed forces.
Sorry- simply procuring and flying on military aircraft does not automatically entitle one to “respect” and “consideration”.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
If cap and trade kicks in (I don’t believe it will) I think a nice stat to publicize would be how many old people had to turn their thermostat so Nancy could fly home on the weekends.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I am independent K-rod; you are the one who needs to categorize me as moderate or whatever.
Personally, I say you are a “moderate” (with quotes for a reason) because you yourself have declared that you are a moderate.
“Interesting evidence that Bush and crew deliberately misrepresented the intelligence to congress to get the Iraq war they wanted, but which was NOT justified by any factual evidence.”
And this proves my point above to a tee! The high & mighty Pelosi says “Bush lied people died” & you suck it up willingly. Apparently only slightly caring that she is an extremely biased source, with a lot of power to lose if the opposite is proven.
But when evidence is brought forth that she’s just another dirty, lying, greedy politician using her position to promote her own self interest, you listen carefully looking for some nuance of plausible deniabilty. Looking for the piece of info that will calibrate the situation to your worldview, rather than calibrating your worldview to reality.
I don’t care what party or non-party you are registered under, you are a leftist, not a moderate, and “independent” is just a label you have chosen to make yourself look like you are above categorization.