• commentary
  • MONDAY DECEMBER 10 2007 9:00 AM

Pelosi Is A Worthless, Compromised Piece Of Shit



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

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next

Comments
BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

DEC 11, 2007 11:08 PM

We just won the internet. The rest of you, clear out.

_margot_

_margot_

Los Angeles, CA
December 2007

DEC 11, 2007 11:15 PM

BlastProcessing said:
We just won the internet. The rest of you, clear out.



Seriously,politics and make outs. We win.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

DEC 12, 2007 12:47 PM

Ascanius said:

PointBlank said:

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.


...

zoom image



That totally looks like a frame from "Reservoir Dogs II"

Ascanius

Ascanius

USA
October 2006

DEC 12, 2007 03:11 PM

SirPsychoSexy said:

Ascanius said:

PointBlank said:

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.


...

zoom image



That totally looks like a frame from "Reservoir Dogs II"



SPOILERS! (Click to view)
It ends the same way.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

DEC 13, 2007 10:15 PM

There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention which protect our people as well was our enemies but I bet most people don't know there hasn't actually been a scientific study in the last 40 years on our interrogation techniques. It has been suggested this might account for the major recent interrogation abuses.

"Since there had been little or no development of sustained capacity for interrogation practice, training, or research within intelligence or military communities in the post-Soviet period, many interrogators were forced to 'make it up' on the fly," wrote Robert A. Fein, chairman of the study, published by the National Defense Intelligence College. "This shortfall in advanced, research-based interrogation methods at a time of intense pressure from operational commanders to produce actionable intelligence from high-value targets may have contributed significantly to the unfortunate cases of abuse that have recently come to light."

goatinamoat

goatinamoat

New York, NY
March 2006

DEC 14, 2007 08:52 AM

malkav11 said:
Hell, we aren't even torturing people who verifiably happened to know people who happened to know people who were involved in any terrorist attacks.


You mean like khalid sheikh mohammad? No, we have been waterboarding only gentle loving flower children.

goatinamoat

goatinamoat

New York, NY
March 2006

DEC 14, 2007 08:55 AM

hadees said:
There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention


Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

DEC 14, 2007 09:00 AM

goatinamoat said:

malkav11 said:
Hell, we aren't even torturing people who verifiably happened to know people who happened to know people who were involved in any terrorist attacks.


You mean like the actual terrorist whom we nevertheless got no actionable intelligence from despite the fact that confessed to planning every terrorist act against Christendom since 1993? No, we have been waterboarding only gentle loving flower children.


Fixed.

And you're severely deluding yourself if you think only the guilty are tortured.

Not that it fucking matters, anyway. If you torture, you're evil. That's it. It doesn't fucking matter why, or who.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

DEC 14, 2007 09:27 AM

goatinamoat said:

hadees said:
There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention


Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example



The United States of America: Hey, at least we don't behead people.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

DEC 14, 2007 11:40 AM

goatinamoat said:

hadees said:
There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention

Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example





Yes, well, thank God all of our future wars will only be fought against jihadists.


surreal surreal surreal surreal surreal surreal

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

DEC 14, 2007 12:06 PM

KUNGFOO said:

goatinamoat said:

hadees said:
There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention


Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example



The United States of America: Hey, at least we don't behead people.



Okay, I know I shouldn't be laughing.

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 14, 2007 01:43 PM

goatinamoat said:
Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example



Brain...caving...IN!!!

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

DEC 14, 2007 03:11 PM

KUNGFOO said:

goatinamoat said:

hadees said:
There are lots of good reasons not to torture like being inhuman and violating the Geneva convention


Agreed. But when it comes down to preventing future tragedies, it's a hard call. But I also don't think anything we do in terms of how we treat prisoners will affect how jihadists treat our own prisoners. Situations like Daniel Pearl, for example


The United States of America: Hey, at least we don't behead people.


That's pretty good. I think I still prefer America: If You Don't Like Your Freedom, We'll Shoot You In The Head a little better, though.

goatinamoat

goatinamoat

New York, NY
March 2006

DEC 15, 2007 02:22 AM


I am thinking you would like this better "America: Do what you like to us. We have gone so soft we are willing to be wiped off the map by anyone with a backbone."

goatinamoat

goatinamoat

New York, NY
March 2006

DEC 15, 2007 02:24 AM

joker_ said:

The United States of America: Hey, at least we don't behead people.


]
No, we have people who would rather we just rollover regardless of what others do to us.

No spoiler needed.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next