DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:First of all, I personally dislike Pelosi, but a lot of this dirt being thrown at her is fallout from the Bush Administration, of which very few of you guys criticized and I personally think WAS the most crooked administration to date, unless, of course, Obama tops it (and he's headed that way). Eventually, the truth WILL come out and we'll find out one way or another if she is covering her A$$.

first off, the "Fallout" from the Bush administration does NOT excuse anyone else's actions so that doesnt fly. and I think if you research the history of the POTUS you'll find several administrations that were everybit as crooked as you claim Bush, for starters try Andrew Jackson and FDR

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, NO ONE in our government has declared a WAR in ANY theater. So everything we're doing in the name of national security is not under the cover of war. If we're going to kill people, lets at least officially declare war on them.

and you can thank Truman for that one since Korea was officially a "Police Action" in the US and not a war.

tunnelcat wrote:First of all, I personally dislike Pelosi, but a lot of this dirt being thrown at her is fallout from the Bush Administration..

I don't know what you are talking about. She claims members of the CIA lied to her in a briefing. If she is telling the truth it is a serious matter.
She made the accusation not to have justice served, not to fulfill her role as an overseer of the CIA's activity but merely to give herself cover because it was disclosed that she voted for the interrogation methods that her constituents were strongly opposed to, methods that she pretended to be equally opposed to and those supporters would likely vote her out of office for her having done so!

So what part of her behavior in this matter is fallout from Bush?
Bush didn't make her a two faced lying self serving ★■◆●. She developed those characteristics on her own.

Anyway…I wouldn’t really declare war on the Arab nations, I just wanted to point out the problems with “declaring” war. You have to declare war on a “State” because if you declare war on a group such as the Taliban, that would be considered genocide.

LOL Spidey, we were listening. really we were

Will Robinson wrote:I don't know what you are talking about. She claims members of the CIA lied to her in a briefing. If she is telling the truth it is a serious matter.
She made the accusation not to have justice served, not to fulfill her role as an overseer of the CIA's activity but merely to give herself cover because it was disclosed that she voted for the interrogation methods that her constituents were strongly opposed to, methods that she pretended to be equally opposed to and those supporters would likely vote her out of office for her having done so!

So what part of her behavior in this matter is fallout from Bush?
Bush didn't make her a two faced lying self serving *****. She developed those characteristics on her own.

A CIA under Bush/Cheney control. Don't tell me that the CIA doesn't kowtow to whoever President (or VP in this case) is in office. Cheney and Rumsfeld were practically running things and THEY didn't want anyone to know about this little CIA op (shifted to the Pentagon because the CIA wanted no part of it) Al Queda Supporters (not actual Al Queda members) hit squad planning in the works.

Until some other evidence comes out that Pelosi WASN'T lied to by the CIA, I'm going to wait to pass judgment. The dirt always comes out in time.

Spidey, I was referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got major military operations going on in 2 countries and we've never declared war. Why? And if we're doing covert ops in other ways, not under cover of war, our government should be following the 1947 law. It's all about checks and balances. We are a nation of laws last time I checked.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I don't know what you are talking about. She claims members of the CIA lied to her in a briefing. If she is telling the truth it is a serious matter.
She made the accusation not to have justice served, not to fulfill her role as an overseer of the CIA's activity but merely to give herself cover because it was disclosed that she voted for the interrogation methods that her constituents were strongly opposed to, methods that she pretended to be equally opposed to and those supporters would likely vote her out of office for her having done so!

So what part of her behavior in this matter is fallout from Bush?
Bush didn't make her a two faced lying self serving *****. She developed those characteristics on her own.

A CIA under Bush/Cheney control. Don't tell me that the CIA doesn't kowtow to whoever President (or VP in this case) is in office. Cheney and Rumsfeld were practically running things and THEY didn't want anyone to know about this little CIA op (shifted to the Pentagon because the CIA wanted no part of it) Al Queda Supporters (not actual Al Queda members) hit squad planning in the works.

Until some other evidence comes out that Pelosi WASN'T lied to by the CIA, I'm going to wait to pass judgment. The dirt always comes out in time.

Spidey, I was referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got major military operations going on in 2 countries and we've never declared war. Why? And if we're doing covert ops in other ways, not under cover of war, our government should be following the 1947 law. It's all about checks and balances. We are a nation of laws last time I checked.

You are really trying hard to be obtuse aren't you?!?
My question to you ACCEPTS THE PREMISE OF YOUR ASSERTION THAT PELOSI WAS LIED TO!!
So your whole dodge in your last response is a smoke screen!!

Under the assumption that she was lied to by the CIA shouldn't she, as an adult, as a member of Congress, as a member of the security team, etc. etc.....shouldn't she be DEMANDING a complete investigation and hearing and special prosecutor to have the liars from that briefing brought to justice?!?

But of course we know full well she avoided that very question when asked by the press, she refused to take any questions on it, she tried to say she wasn't there that day but that her aids were and may have failed to fill her in (another total lie), then she tried three or four times in the following days to alter her initial statement just slightly so to try and avoid the responsibility of having made that serious accusation.

Why did she do that?
Simple, as I've explained, she wants the cover of being able to claim she was lied to in a room full of people who will testify that she wasn't lied to! She wants that lie to hide behind for her own personal political survival and that is all.

My question is, why do you want to swallow this load of crap so willingly that you make up absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical arguments to rationalize it all?

Here's a note to all you lefties:
BUSH IS GONE, YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BE COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS IN YOUR POLITICS! YOU MAY NOW USE COMMON SENSE AND JUDGE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ON THE MERITS OF THEIR ACTIONS AND THE FAILURES THEY COMMIT INSTEAD OF BELIEVING "ANYTHING BUT BUSH" IS GOOD ENOUGH!!!

Have you ever wondered why Obama tells you every bill he pushes for is so important we must vote on it before it is even read?
Because he knows the Bush derangement syndrom will wear off soon and you and the other lefties are going to look around and say WTF??!!?!? And then he'll be unable to stick it any further up the collective colon of America!

Dang it Will…

No tc, you answer my question first…

……………….

CUDA…Yea I know, I expected to get flak, and then the thought occurred to me…maybe they agree, so I had to retract.

Heh, no I really just wanted to finish my thought, and it was too late to edit.

Btw…I don’t think tc was listening…

Spidey wrote:Hah…Declare war on who? That’s a semantic battle you just can’t win.

War “has” been declared on “Terror”, so anybody that fit’s the definition is our enemy, but again that’s only semantics.

Who should we declare war on?

I would start with the 21 or so Arab nations…but hell, that’s only me.

Spidey, we went into Afghanistan and Iraq to stop 'STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM'! If this is part of our 'War on Terror', why haven't we declared war? These were nation states that lil' Bush told us were sponsoring terrorism. As for going after individual terrorists, we still need oversight of the CIA and Pentagon to ensure we GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE, not just going off half-cocked, looking for just supporters or worse, wannabe innocents. If we start going around killing whoever we think is a terrorist (and we've been doing this with Predator Drones, with indiscriminate and collateral death), we're going to have a lot of blood on our hands that may incite even more hatred of the U.S. It just seems a counterproductive way of solving the problem of terrorism. We're just picking off hornets one by one and not getting the nest and they keep reproducing. By the way, if we want to rein in a terrorist supporting nation, why are we allies with Pakistan? They sure aren't enthusiastically helping us out with the problem and they have nukes that could fall into the wrong hands.

Will Robinson wrote:Under the assumption that she was lied to by the CIA shouldn't she, as an adult, as a member of Congress, as a member of the security team, etc. etc.....shouldn't she be DEMANDING a complete investigation and hearing and special prosecutor to have the liars from that briefing brought to justice?!?

Will, I concede that she looks dirty as hell, but the CIA looks dirty too. It's a case of she said, they said. And you have a good point, "Why isn't she starting an investigation as to why the CIA lied to her?" if she is telling the truth? You're right, you have picked my curiosity, this smells. She does seem to be brushing aside a lot of things. But the CIA is no angel either and they have secrets to keep, as the Cheney/CIA secret hit squad fiasco is showing.

In fact, I dislike Pelosi (and Harry Reid) so much as a Congressional leader(s), I would welcome an investigation into what she knew and when. If the Dems want change, they need to start with their own people. Congress needs to follow the 1947 law as well, they aren't exempt. It goes both ways.

Well ‘State Sponsored Terrorism’ is just a term that’s been bandied about. I’m pretty sure the reason we have not declared war on either Iraq or Afghanistan is because it would include all of the people there, and not just the terrorists.

And as I have said before, you can’t declare war on a group of people, so that’s the conundrum.

Changed my mind. its not worth it