• commentary
  • MONDAY DECEMBER 10 2007 9:00 AM

Pelosi Is A Worthless, Compromised Piece Of Shit

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Bush, Torture, Illegal Wiretapping



Get Nancy Pelosi the fuck out of her leadership role as Speaker of the House. The woman is supposed to be battling George Bush on basic issues like torture, but she is totally complicit in the administration’s activities. She has known about them for a long, long time and to take any action would force her to reveal her acceptance of the administration's bullshit.


Two senior Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- were briefing on the CIA's program to use waterboarding on terror suspects in September 2002 and did not object.


Oh, good. She should really get to the bottom of the situation then. I mean, why wouldn't she want to expose the fact that she knew about illegal activities in 2002?

That was the year Nancy, Rep. Jane Harman, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. John Rockefeller IV, Rep. Porter Goss and Sen. Pat Roberts were told all about the CIA program to “wring vial information” out of suspects who didn’t want to give it up. They were given a virtual tour of detention sites and interrogation techniques. And Nancy said nothing. Being one of only a few Democrats who actually knew about the practice, one might come to the conclusion that she has no place being the leader of the House of Representatives because she is compromised on an act that was illegal under the Geneva Conventions.


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.


I’m not going to say that the Democrats asked the CIA to push harder. Goss eventually was put in charge of the CIA, so you can be pretty sure he was one of the two who wanted the prisoners to get staple enemas.

Only one Democrat objected to the torture: Jane Harmon, who was at that point the second ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Harmon sent a classified letter to the CIA to officially protest the program. She was not allowed to publicly discuss the program.


"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."


Harmon’s actions now shed light on a strange move by Nancy Pelosi when she took over as Speaker. Harmon was supposed to be picked to lead the House Intelligence Committee, but Pelosi gave the job to someone else. Considering Harmon was the only one who sent a letter to the CIA objecting, it is an interesting move by Pelosi.

This is not the first time Pelosi’s judgment has been questioned. When the New York Times exposed the administration’s illegal wiretapping programs, Alberto Gonzales let this little gem slip.


This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past--certain members of Congress--as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.


Hmm. “Certain members of Congress.” Considering Pelosi’s leadership role, it would be very surprising if she was not one of those who informed. She was part of the “Gang of Four.”

These circumstances make a good case for removing Pelosi from her leadership role. If she is unwilling to go after the administration because she does not want to expose her own complicity, then it is a major problem. With what is going on now, the person in charge needs to be clean on the issues.


I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.


- Nancy Pelosi

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

Comments
Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

DEC 10, 2007 10:21 PM

Ascanius said:

goatinamoat said:
Colinism said:
Your assuming that everything people say under torture is the absolute truth/QUOTE]
It's not about whether they tell what they may or may not have been responsible for. That information is almost beside the point in the prosecution of a war. It's about what new information can be had. It's about finding a bomb about to go off. It's about finding a hostage sitting in their own shit for the past X days. It's about taking action to right things; not about finding blame.



This is just so much bullshit. It really is. We're waterboarding people who have been in custody for years. What kind of imminent crisis is that meant to prevent? Many of these men never took up arms against the United States at all. Many of these men were turned over to the military by Pakistani border guards looking to pocket the bounty offered by the military at the expense of some foreigners fleeing the war in Afghanistan. Many of these men have been held for years without charge or opportunity of any kind to even have their combat status reviewed by a neutral finder of fact. The 'bomb about to go off' scenario is patent bullshit.

Read Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Rasul v Bush if you want to have the beginning of an idea of what you're talking about. If you can't be bothered then go to silliness and start a Jack Bauer appreciation thread because you're not engaging factual issues.

Note: links are to synopses, not full opinions of the court.



Some of these men were were just Canadian business men picked up at JKF for no apparent reason other than to be sent to Syria and tortured.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

DEC 10, 2007 10:56 PM

Chainlink said:

Some of these men were were just Canadian business men picked up at JKF for no apparent reason other than to be sent to Syria and tortured.



Yeah, but there weren't wearing uniforms. Are you not listening? If they don't have uniforms, it is totally cool.

_margot_

_margot_

Los Angeles, CA
December 2007

DEC 10, 2007 11:10 PM

FearTheReaper said:

Chainlink said:

Some of these men were were just Canadian business men picked up at JKF for no apparent reason other than to be sent to Syria and tortured.



Yeah, but there weren't wearing uniforms. Are you not listening? If they don't have uniforms, it is totally cool.



Exactly
uniforms=safe

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

DEC 11, 2007 12:24 AM

WilWheaton said:

maliceide said:
Some of these assholes being "tortured" may know about plans to kill you, your family, and everyone else who doesn't bow to them. Torture is a horrible thing, but not as bad as nukes going off in cities. Look up Pictures of children burned at Hiroshima. Some of these assholes being "tortured" are planning to do that same thing, on a bigger scale, all over the world. If they have to suffer a few seconds without air to stop that, then fuck them, they don't get air.



Hi there. "24" is a television show. It's a work of fiction, and while the idea that torturing someone to stop the bomb from going off with 3 seconds on the clock is compelling drama, it's complete bullshit in real life.

It's been documented and verified over and over again that torture doesn't work, doesn't result in actionable intelligence, and only serves to create more terrorists and more hatred of the United States.

We like to think of ourselves as The Good Guys. Guess what? As long as things like this are happening, we are not The Good Guys, and voters put the Democrats and Pelosi into the majority so that our government could take steps away from the disaster of Bush and the neo-cons, back toward being The Good Guys.

It's pretty fucking clear that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in both houses of congress have done fuckall to take those steps, and Democratic voters need to elect new congresscritters who will.

If that doesn't work, it's time for second American revolution.


Oh thank God someone pointed this out so I wouldn't have too... I would likely have been a lot less diplomatic about it as well.

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

DEC 11, 2007 12:25 AM

SirPsychoSexy said:
In fact any person with a mental capacity above a 4 year old may be thinking about engaging in acts of terrorism! I guess we just have to set up some camps and start torturing 5 billion people, right away, just to protect ourselves!
Our magic water-boarding torture terrormeter will filter out all the bad guys! It has a 100% positive rate!

Turns out, if you tie a witch to a stone and throw her into a lake and she drowns, she was a witch, and must have deserved it!


And if she doesn't drown, and floats back up to the top, she is totally a witch and you have to burn her at the stake!

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

DEC 11, 2007 12:32 AM

PatrickY said:
I propose that one of the litmus tests for calling a society civilized should be it's commitment to doing the right thing even if other's don't. After all, the "But dad, he did it first!" excuse stops being valid right about age 5.


Dunno about that; my 12-year-old still tries to use it...

Darcsaint

Darcsaint

Tampa, FL
June 2004

DEC 11, 2007 05:23 AM

goatinamoat said:
It's not about whether they tell what they may or may not have been responsible for. That information is almost beside the point in the prosecution of a war. It's about what new information can be had. It's about finding a bomb about to go off. It's about finding a hostage sitting in their own shit for the past X days. It's about taking action to right things; not about finding blame.



I'm not going to re-hash the moral issues with torture -- others have done that in this thread with much more eloquence. That said...

If there's new information, but it's utterly useless, then the entire argument for torture techniques vanishes. Interrogation is only useful inasmuch as it produces actionable intelligence, which torture does not. Arguments about "prosecuting a war" notwithstanding, the information is the point.

Or are you in favor of it just because "they're terrorists and they deserve it"?

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 11, 2007 05:47 AM

goatinamoat said:

maliceide said:
Some of these assholes being "tortured" may know about plans to kill you, your family, and everyone else who doesn't bow to them. Torture is a horrible thing, but not as bad as nukes going off in cities. Look up Pictures of children burned at Hiroshima. Some of these assholes being "tortured" are planning to do that same thing, on a bigger scale, all over the world. If they have to suffer a few seconds without air to stop that, then fuck them, they don't get air.


A breath of fresh air. No one likes torture. No one defends torture, per se. But when the choice is defending one's homeland against homicidal maniacs, horrible awful choices have to be made. Not enough people get this.

And I can't say it enough that torture is horrible and I don't know if it is completely forgiveable. But when faced against defending one's country vs. figuring how to lump enough rights on an unlicensed agent of war and giving him all the protections of a US Citizen...this either/or thinking is just crazy. If there is information to be had to prevent innocent deaths, then yes, I favor torture.



My brain just caved in from the sheer number of logical fallacies in this statement. Thanks a lot.

Seriously, have you just not been paying attention to either the news or the comments in this thread? I mean, it's one thing to have to repeat the same arguments across the boards, but it's one other to have to repeat the same ones in the exact same thread!

Then again, I am a masochist, so let's recap:
-Torture does not yield truthful statements
-Many of the people that are being tortured are innocent of any wrongdoing
-What truthful information we do get is either very dated, or not applicable to any future threat
-Using torture eliminates the idea that America is morally in the right
-Jack Bauer is not real
-Torture violates international treaties which America has signed and agreed to
-In fact, nothing on "24" is real.

You know what? The mere fact that you, and other pro-torture people, have let fear get to you so badly that such repugnant actions as torturing people, just to be sure, is okay with you tells me one thing: the terrorists have all ready won.

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 11, 2007 05:54 AM

goatinamoat said:
Colinism said:
Your assuming that everything people say under torture is the absolute truth/QUOTE]
It's not about whether they tell what they may or may not have been responsible for. That information is almost beside the point in the prosecution of a war. It's about what new information can be had. It's about finding a bomb about to go off. It's about finding a hostage sitting in their own shit for the past X days. It's about taking action to right things; not about finding blame.



Wait, what?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look closely at Colinism's statement again, it says:


Your assuming that everything people say under torture is the absolute truth



He's saying that any so-called "new information" to be gained is compromised by the fact that, even IF the person being tortured is a true terrorist, that he might be lying to the person who wants the information.

Why, would a terrorist do such a thing? Has he never seen "24"? Doesn't he know that if he's tortured, it's supposed to make him tell the truth? Oh, wait, no, he just doesn't want to be tortured, so he might just tell the torturer something that he wants to hear, DUH! Silly me, I was starting to sound like a certain Supreme Court Justice...

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

DEC 11, 2007 07:18 AM

KUNGFOO said:

Gillionaire said:
I desperately crave progress in our nations politics, but politicians do everything they can it seems to keep us stuck in this rut we're in. I makes me sad. frown



It's hard to say what exactly is the root cause of our current political reality, at least in terms of party representation. Unfortunately, the situation appears to be stuck in a fuzzy, nationalistic gray area.

I think I've been able to visualize it, (albeit quite simply) here:

zoom image



Sempi

Sempi

Novato, CA
February 2003

DEC 11, 2007 11:36 AM

Holden_Caulfield said:
It is unfortunate that we will have to deal with the blatant corruption of the Executive Branch until 2009, but the Democrats are simply biding their time before taking complete control on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, compliments of the voting public. Bush and Cheney should certainly be impeached, but impeaching them would probably put the Republicans in a better position to win more Congressional seats and perhaps even threaten future control of the White House.

Hopefully, the new Democratic President will be able to make some liberal appointments to the Supreme Court that will pass congressional muster.

The ultimate goal of Democratic control of all three branches of government is within reach if we stay the course and turn out in droves on Election Day.



You're kidding right? "Bidding their time?" What makes you think the NEO-cons are going to just step aside. They've got everything set up to declare Martial Law and prevent the Democrats from taking over all three branches. Anyone who has done any research on this knows it's coming. The year and two months I was away from here I spent doing as much research I could in order to find out just what the hell is going on in the country I spent just over ten years defending.

Secondly, what makes you think the NEO-liberals are going to be any different than their NEO-con brethren? Have we learned nothing from what transpired under the NEO-nazis before and during WWII? One holocaust survivor after another has said the same thing again and again, "What they are doing today in America, they did in Germany under Hitler." When are we going to wake up and see what's really going on here?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 11, 2007 12:20 PM

Sempi said:

Holden_Caulfield said:
It is unfortunate that we will have to deal with the blatant corruption of the Executive Branch until 2009, but the Democrats are simply biding their time before taking complete control on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, compliments of the voting public. Bush and Cheney should certainly be impeached, but impeaching them would probably put the Republicans in a better position to win more Congressional seats and perhaps even threaten future control of the White House.

Hopefully, the new Democratic President will be able to make some liberal appointments to the Supreme Court that will pass congressional muster.

The ultimate goal of Democratic control of all three branches of government is within reach if we stay the course and turn out in droves on Election Day.



You're kidding right? "Bidding their time?" What makes you think the NEO-cons are going to just step aside. They've got everything set up to declare Martial Law and prevent the Democrats from taking over all three branches. Anyone who has done any research on this knows it's coming. The year and two months I was away from here I spent doing as much research I could in order to find out just what the hell is going on in the country I spent just over ten years defending.

Secondly, what makes you think the NEO-liberals are going to be any different than their NEO-con brethren? Have we learned nothing from what transpired under the NEO-nazis before and during WWII? One holocaust survivor after another has said the same thing again and again, "What they are doing today in America, they did in Germany under Hitler." When are we going to wake up and see what's really going on here?



Sir, please put down the adjective before you hurt yourself.

zobops

zobops

New York, NY
August 2006

DEC 11, 2007 12:47 PM

what's with our gov co-opting the name 'gang of four?'

Skywisdom

Skywisdom

Portland, OR
December 2005

DEC 11, 2007 12:51 PM

Holden_Caulfield said:
It is unfortunate that we will have to deal with the blatant corruption of the Executive Branch until 2009, but the Democrats are simply biding their time before taking complete control on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, compliments of the voting public. Bush and Cheney should certainly be impeached, but impeaching them would probably put the Republicans in a better position to win more Congressional seats and perhaps even threaten future control of the White House.

Hopefully, the new Democratic President will be able to make some liberal appointments to the Supreme Court that will pass congressional muster.

The ultimate goal of Democratic control of all three branches of government is within reach if we stay the course and turn out in droves on Election Day.



You're amazingly optmistic for having the name Holden Caulfield. I'd like to believe you are right, and that a Democrat controlled congress will change things. I would really love to believe those things. I work for them.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

DEC 11, 2007 01:57 PM

wadebrigade said:
what's with our gov co-opting the name 'gang of four?'


That is a name that has been co-opted more than the band's (another co-opter!) sound.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

featured interviews