Should Pelosi get a pass?

Can anyone please explain what this is about ?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, one of the leaders of the Democratic party in Congress, was given a disputed amount of information concerning whether or not the Bush administration was, or was going to, torture terrorist suspects back in 2003 or 4. Now the CIA is saying she had a lot of info and she says she had nearly none. Classic he said she said.
 
I guess a pass from the purge that is going to come when all warcrimes are prosecuted and all the high and mighty are thrown down from their lofty thrones into the mud.

That pass.

So after being briefed and then objecting to the use of waterboarding.
Your are then a hypocrite and war criminal because you didnt resign ? were complicit ? didnt object loudly enough ? Should have tried to pass a law banning torture ? ..... oh wait


It seems that classic Bush administration only telling what it wanted.
specificly that EIT employed were legal and withheld information which contridicted its own policy.

/shugs After McCain pass hes anti torture law Bush was quite happy to use a signing statement effectively nullifying the law.
maybe if the Right pushes hard enough we may even get a congressional investigation into torture. Obama iam sure remains flexable over these matters.

Media outlets have repeatedly reported on the recently released CIA document detailing briefings members of Congress and staff received about harsh interrogation techniques, including what and when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other congressional Democrats knew about those techniques, but have largely ignored whether members were told there was significant disagreement within the administration regarding the legality and efficacy of these techniques. The issue is crucial to assessing whether congressional Democrats consented to the methods, as prominent Republicans and media conservatives claim. In the absence of full information, there can be no consent, a point the media have largely ignored in their coverage of the issue. If, as the evidence suggests, Congress was not told that experts within the administration strongly disputed the legality and efficacy of the methods, then the alleged failure on the part of members of Congress to object is irrelevant, and culpability for their alleged failure to respond lies with those who denied them information crucial to making a judgment about whether the administration was acting in the best interest of the nation.

Pelosi stated that Congress was not provided with "contrary opinions within the Executive Branch [that] concluded that these [enhanced] interrogation techniques were not legal."

Those who dissented include legal experts from the FBI and military who contested the Justice Department's determination that these EITs were legal; FBI and CIA counterintelligence experts who had reportedly expressed opposition to, and disputed the effectiveness of, the methods

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905150037
 

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, one of the leaders of the Democratic party in Congress, was given a disputed amount of information concerning whether or not the Bush administration was, or was going to, torture terrorist suspects back in 2003 or 4. Now the CIA is saying she had a lot of info and she says she had nearly none. Classic he said she said.
Thanks.

We all know that the CIA has proved itself to be woefully untrustworthy during the times of the Bush administration, especially (in this case) considering that Mrs Pelosi was not part of the President's party at that time, thus was not automatically viewed as OK by them. Take that into acount when assessing Mrs Pelosi's level iof information. Reading the Washington post article, I've noticed that she states that she was misled, and not "not-informed". She's not denying the CIA informed her, she states that the CIA gave her confusing or incorrect information. (See the similarity with the first "justification" of the Iraq-war; incorrect information from the CIA to Bush about (later proven incorrect) posession of WMD.

OTOH politicians lie. Period. And therefore they are not trustworhty on their words. Which means we as citizens need to be sceptic.

Taking everything into consideration, the only sane conclusion can be that Mrs Pelosi was informed (because that was obliged) by the CIA, but in such a way that would ensure that the Bush administration had their ways at the time; in other words vaguely or multi-interpretable. of course, with hindsight, Mrs Pelosi should have demanded more clarity, but frankly I doubt the CIA is willing to provide sufficient clarity, even to senators/congesmembers - isn't the goal of the CIA to create, discover and keep secrets ?

In all, the question "Should Pelosi get a pass?" should be answered with: "only when we know (and proven beyond reasonable doubt), what Mrs Pelosi was told can we decide on whether she should get a pass or not".
 
Which argues in favor of a point I saw a commentator on tv say tonight, and she should have just owned up to knowing, apologized, and said there was nothing she could have done. Or admitted to handling it wrong.

As it stands, if she loses out now, loses her power or office, even goes to prison, truth is not all that many people, even among the Democratic base, is going to care all that much.

So toss her in. Sink or swim. Don't care either way.
 
I guess a pass from the purge that is going to come when all warcrimes are prosecuted and all the high and mighty are thrown down from their lofty thrones into the mud.
Other than bad judgment and, at worst, a public lie, what law do you think she broke?

I'm glad you've come around to the idea that all the Bush-era war criminals should be prosecuted. Good for you.
 
When the politicians themselves become the targets like Sept.11 there no doubt they were for torture.(whatever the cost) Now that it has been 7+ years since the attack they are going back into their "self-righteous" mode.
 
Other than bad judgment and, at worst, a public lie, what law do you think she broke?

I'm glad you've come around to the idea that all the Bush-era war criminals should be prosecuted. Good for you.

Oh you mistake my comment. My mind hasnt changed at all. I was answering anothers question of 'pass from what'?....:)
 
Uh....no. The enlisted folks from Abu Graib didnt.
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.
 
I don't really care if Pelosi gets a pass or gets tried for war crimes or whatever.

The fact that Pelosi knew about the whole waterboarding thing and kept her mouth shut made my day all by itself. Either the Democrats have to put her on trial for war crimes along with George Bush, or they have to let George Bush off the hook, or they're a bunch of hypocrites.

Fun stuff. :D
 
Hilarious, at least after the Republican surge in 94, it took a couple of terms before the crap started to surface. The current democrats are out to set a record it seems.
 
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.

No...it hasnt at all. If it were as clear as you say, something would be done about it.
 
Taking everything into consideration, the only sane conclusion can be that Mrs Pelosi was informed (because that was obliged) by the CIA, but in such a way that would ensure that the Bush administration had their ways at the time; in other words vaguely or multi-interpretable. of course, with hindsight, Mrs Pelosi should have demanded more clarity, but frankly I doubt the CIA is willing to provide sufficient clarity, even to senators/congesmembers - isn't the goal of the CIA to create, discover and keep secrets ?

Haha! The only "sane conclusion" is that everyone is lying. (Actually, I think that's probably right.)

In all, the question "Should Pelosi get a pass?" should be answered with: "only when we know (and proven beyond reasonable doubt), what Mrs Pelosi was told can we decide on whether she should get a pass or not".

And let's also note that Pelosi is still in favor of investigations to get the whole story. The CIA is not.

Cleo
 
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.

Yes, that's right. If you look at all the evidence (the memos, what was done to people, first-hand accounts), rather than second-order political decisions made in response to that evidence, then it's quite clear.

Cleo
 
1. It is more important to go after Pelosi then Bush, because she is sill in office.
2.EVERYONE in the whole world knew we were waterboarding. So I kinda don't see how this report is a big deal either way.
 
Well, after we prove who was involved in the authorisation of torture, we can always waterboard them to see how much they told members of Congress. That way there's some due process.
 
I don't really care if Pelosi gets a pass or gets tried for war crimes or whatever.

The fact that Pelosi knew about the whole waterboarding thing and kept her mouth shut made my day all by itself. Either the Democrats have to put her on trial for war crimes along with George Bush, or they have to let George Bush off the hook, or they're a bunch of hypocrites.

Not at all. Merely knowing about the incidents but being helpless to actually do anything about them isn't the same thing as committing the acts themselves.

What is incredibly ironic about all this is that Fox "News" and the neocons are calling for her dismissal while whining at the same time that the actual committers of the war crimes be given a "free pass" because their direct involvement is now "history". Now that is hypocritical.
 
Not at all. Merely knowing about the incidents but being helpless to actually do anything about them isn't the same thing as committing the acts themselves.

What is incredibly ironic about all this is that Fox "News" and the neocons are calling for her dismissal while whining at the same time that the actual committers of the war crimes be given a "free pass" because their direct involvement is now "history". Now that is hypocritical.
Congress is the only one who could of done anything about it. The House is far from helpless in this matter. And YES!, it is always far more important to go after the bad people in office, then the bad people out of office.

We ALL knew what was going on. Besides the bug thing, there is NOTHING new in these reports other then details. To claim the wool was pulled over your eyes is...I just don't have the words.
 
Top Bottom