Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 23, 2009, 11:43:36 AM
-
If this is true I wonder if Obama will be investing legislators too. ::)
Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations
Members of Congress were briefed on the subject of interrogation techniques more than 30 times since 2002, FOX News has learned. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the first meeting, and she raised no objections.
FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.
FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.
He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."
"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.
"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.
A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes.
"One way or another there needs to be a careful review and a public accounting of these troublesome policies," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement Wednesday, adding that an ongoing Senate Intelligence Committee probe should yield a lot of the answers Americans are looking for. "And I think issues of prosecution are principally the responsibility of the Justice Department to evaluate."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.
"I'm not one who feels we should turn the page if you haven't read the page," Leahy said.
But while some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/republicans-claim-lawmakers-loop-interrogations/
-
What a disgrace.
These dreamers wont be happy until we lose another 3000 citizens, or worse.
-
-
LOL!!!!! The cricket sounds are only going to get LOUDER as the story unfolds. This is an extremely jacked up congress, bro.
-
I posted a reference to this earlier in another thread. I got the same response.....crickets.
-
LOL!!!!! The cricket sounds are only going to get LOUDER as the story unfolds. This is an extremely jacked up congress, bro.
Yep. Sure is. :-\
-
I posted a reference to this earlier in another thread. I got the same response.....crickets.
The silence is deafening.
-
They're scrambling to make sure their lib douchbag talking points are in line with whatever scumbag defense Pelsoi comes up with.
-
Where is the proof?
IF there is proof, then they certainly should suffer the same consequences and be under the same scrutiny.
-
What proof..they got briefed in 2002. They have records....
-
What a surprise. ::)
Source: No charges likely over interrogation memos
Posted 5/5/2009 7:41 PM ET
By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, Justice Department investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions.
The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed advice outlined in the memos.
That decision angered conservatives who accused President Barack Obama of selling out the CIA, and from liberals who thought he was being too forgiving of practices they -- and Obama -- call torture. The president's rhetoric, if not actual policy, shifted on the matter as the political fallout intensified.
Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers -- John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized.
The inquiry has become a politically loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers and others urging that the matter be dropped.
In a letter to two senators, the Justice Department said a key deadline in the inquiry expired Monday, signaling that most of the work on the matter was completed. The letter does not mention the possibility of criminal charges, nor does it name the lawyers under scrutiny.
The letter did not indicate what the findings of the final report would be. Bybee, Yoo and Steven Bradbury worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for techniques critics call torture.
The memos were written as the Bush administration grappled with the fear and uncertainty following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Over the years that followed, lawyers re-examined and rewrote much of the legal advice.
Last month, the Obama administration released four of the long-secret memos about treatment of terror suspects in which lawyers authorized methods including waterboarding, throwing subjects against a wall and forced nudity.
In releasing the documents, President Barack Obama declared CIA interrogators who followed the memos would not be prosecuted. Obama left it to Holder to decide whether those who authorized or approved the methods should face charges.
When that inquiry neared completion last year, investigators recommended seeking professional sanctions against Bybee and Yoo, but not Bradbury, according to the person familiar with the matter. Those would come in the form of recommendations to state bar associations, where the most severe possible punishment is disbarment.
Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the decision not to seek criminal charges "inconceivable, given all that we know about the twisted logic of these memos."
Warren argued the only reason for such a decision "is to provide political cover for people inside the Obama White House so they don't have to pursue what needs to be done."
Bybee is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. Bradbury returned to private practice when he left the government at the end of President George W. Bush's term in the White House.
Asked for comment, Yoo's lawyer, Miguel Estrada, said he signed an agreement with the Justice Department not to discuss the draft report. Lawyer Maureen Mahoney, who is representing Bybee, also declined to comment.
"The former employees have until May 4, 2009 to provide their comments on the draft report," states the letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Whitehouse has scheduled a hearing on the issue next week.
Now that the deadline has passed, there is little more for officials to do but make revisions to it based on the responses they've received, and decide how much, if any, of the findings should be made public.
Both Whitehouse and Durbin have pressed the Justice Department for more information about the progress of the investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
The office examines possible ethics violations by Justice Department employees. On rare occasions, those inquiries become full-blown criminal investigations.
The language of the letter, dated Monday, indicates the inquiry will result in a final report.
The letter notes that Holder and his top deputy will have access to any information they need "to evaluate the final report and make determinations about appropriate next steps."
The results of the investigation were delayed late last year, when then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy asked investigators to allow the lawyers a chance to respond to their findings, as is typically done for those who still work for the Justice Department.
Investigators also shared a draft copy with the CIA to review whether the findings contained any classified information. According to the letter, the CIA then requested to comment on the report.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=honoluluadvertiser&sParam=30688343.story
-
He needs to start with the Democrats who knew about the interrogations.
Dodd Calls for Prosecuting Bush Officials
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 12:51 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Sen. Christopher Dodd is pushing ahead with a call for prosecuting Bush administration officials over the use of waterboarding terrorist detainees.
The Connecticut Democrat told home-state bloggers over the weekend that the Obama administration's release of memos detailing interrogation techniques used on detainees creates a "moral imperative" for a congressional investigation — or a criminal probe that could involve former Vice President Dick Cheney's staff, Politico.com reported.
When asked if a probe should go "as high as Cheney's office," Dodd replied: "You gotta go where you gotta go."
Dodd cited his father's experience as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Attorney Thomas Joseph Dodd, who was later elected to the Senate, held a leading position on the Allied prosecution team in 1945 and 1946.
Referring to the Nazi defendants, Dodd said "even these thugs got a lawyer; even these thugs got a trial."
He added: "In a sense, not to prosecute people or pursue them when these acts have occurred is . . . to invite it again in some future administration."
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that an internal Justice Department inquiry had found that Bush administration lawyers who authorized harsh interrogations committed no crimes warranting prosecution.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dodd_prosecution_bush/2009/05/06/211378.html
-
there wont be any prosecutions now that they have found that some dems signed off on it or knew about it as well that would mean that it wasnt just the big bad evil republicans that did it all.
-
This has died a death...funny that.
-
This has died a death...funny that.
Ever Kill anyone HH6? That's what you're paid for.......TO KILL. (With my tax dollars)
-
I pay taxes as well....so I guess I paid myself to have the "most fun u can have with ur cloths on..." My guess is this has never happened to u....
-
The silence is deafening.
OK and what if they were briefed? What can they do? NOTHING... its TOP SECRETE, even if it is ILLEGAL, who can they talk to about it? If they repeat one thing, even to a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, they violate their oath... SO what can any of them really do? wouldnt expect a dem or a rep to say anything from the meetings... Peloci actually talked about this 6 months ago that she was briefed about certian things and she couldnt say shit...
-
OK and what if they were briefed? What can they do? NOTHING... its TOP SECRETE, even if it is ILLEGAL, who can they talk to about it? If they repeat one thing, even to a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, they violate their oath... SO what can any of them really do? wouldnt expect a dem or a rep to say anything from the meetings... Peloci actually talked about this 6 months ago that she was briefed about certian things and she couldnt say shit...
she could have said something in the meetings about it she didnt seem to concerned then why now?
-
OK and what if they were briefed? What can they do? NOTHING... its TOP SECRETE, even if it is ILLEGAL, who can they talk to about it? If they repeat one thing, even to a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, they violate their oath... SO what can any of them really do? wouldnt expect a dem or a rep to say anything from the meetings... Peloci actually talked about this 6 months ago that she was briefed about certian things and she couldnt say shit...
You really believe that? You believe that if a lawmaker is told that people are engaging in illegal activity that the lawmaker can do nothing? Where are you getting that from? What oath prevents them from stopping illegal activity?
-
You really believe that? You believe that if a lawmaker is told that people are engaging in illegal activity that the lawmaker can do nothing? Where are you getting that from? What oath prevents them from stopping illegal activity?
or even speaking out against it in the meeting itself, again she didnt say anything about it then, why now is she upset and suprised about it?
-
or even speaking out against it in the meeting itself, again she didnt say anything about it then, why now is she upset and suprised about it?
Yeah. I don't buy they "their hands were tied" argument. If they truly believed it was illegal they would have done something.
-
Pelosi: I Was Told Interrogation Methods Were Lawful
The House speaker's statement came after CIA records showed Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods and appeared to contradict her claim last month that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 08, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.
"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal,'" she said.
But even that statement is at odds with the official record of the briefings recorded in the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002. That memo says Pelosi received a "briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
Pelosi noted that the media had reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a cover letter accompanying the briefings memo that "the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."
Pelosi is fighting back against accusations that she and other Democrats are being motivated by politics in their attempt to establish an independent commission to investigate officials and lawyers involved with the Bush-era interrogation programs.
Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Valif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.
In addition, from the beginning of the program in 2002 until it became public in the fall of 2006, the House held 13 votes to authorize intelligence funding at which time no one objected or demanded changes to any intelligence programs.
The briefings took place in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the time, the CIA was getting actionable intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots.
Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that. But when it became public, Pelosi and others shifted gears and started criticizing a program they had known about for years, claimed GOP strategist Brad Blakeman.
"Either the speaker has a veracity problem or an incompetence problem and it could be both," Blakeman told FOX News. "The fact of the matter is she was briefed and she was hoping that the top secret nature of these briefings would shield her from this information coming out."
Blakeman added that he trusts the notes made at the briefings more than Pelosi's memory.
Justice Department officials are not likely to recommend criminal charges against the three Bush administration lawyers who the wrote the memos approving the interrogation methods, but two could face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/pelosi-says-told-interrogation-methods-lawful/
-
Gingrich: Pelosi not truthful about waterboarding issue
Posted: 07:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has denied she was ever told explicitly that waterboarding had been used on terrorist suspects, "has a lot of explaining to do," former Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday.
Gingrich, who held the House post from 1995 to 1999, said Pelosi keeps changing her statements on how much she knew about the practice and when.
In the interest of national security, "she [Pelosi] has a responsibility to say nothing or tell the truth," he told "Fox News Sunday." "In this case, it's clear she wasn't telling the truth."
A CIA memo provided to CNN by Republican sources lists 40 briefings for members of Congress from September 2002 to March 2009.
The first briefing — on September 4, 2002 — was for then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the committee.
The subject of the briefing is listed as "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques, "including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah," a suspected al Qaeda leader imprisoned at U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay.
One of those techniques is waterboarding, which simulates drowning and which has been described by critics as torture.
Initially, Pelosi said she had not been briefed on EITs, according to the memo provided to CNN by Republican sources.
However, a recently declassified Justice Department memo from 2005 says, "The CIA used the waterboard 'at least 83 times during August 2002′ in the interrogation of Zubaydah."
That was before the September 4 Pelosi-Goss briefing.
Pelosi released a statement in December 2007 that said, "I was briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal."
Last month, Pelosi told reporters she was told about the legal justification for the interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, but was never told the technique had been used on any detainees.
"We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said Friday.
In a statement issued Friday, Pelosi said: "Of the 40 CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/10/gingrich-pelosi-not-truthful-about-waterboarding-issue/#more-51110
-
Uh oh . . . .
House Majority Leader: Congressional Hearings Should Explore Pelosi's Interrogation Briefing
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.
AP
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an Al-Qaeda leader.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.
While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, "I think the facts need to get out.
"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done."
But he added that the controversy over "what was said and when it was said, who said it ... is probably what ought to be on the record as well."
Hoyer also was asked whether he believes Pelosi's support has been undermined among Democrats.
"No, I don't," he said.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee holds the first hearing on the interrogation policy on Wednesday, but has scheduled testimony unrelated to the Pelosi matter.
A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/house-majority-leader-congressional-hearings-explore-pelosis-interrogation/
-
::)
Pelosi accuses CIA of misleading her on use of waterboarding
(CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused CIA officials Thursday of misleading her in 2002 about the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning and has been described by critics as torture.
Pelosi reiterated an earlier claim that she was briefed on such techniques only once -- in September 2002 -- and that she was told at the time that the techniques were not being used.
A recently released Justice Department memo says that the CIA used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al Qaeda leader imprisoned at U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Pelosi said that one month later, she was told only that the Justice Department had concluded that such techniques were legal, not that they were being used.
"That's the only mention, that they were not using it. And we now know that earlier, they were," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. Watch Pelosi explain what she was told »
Pelosi said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the CIA to release a full transcript of the briefing.
She said that in February 2003, a member of her staff told her that the Republican chairman and the new Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Pelosi said that after that briefing, the Democratic ranking member of the committee responded by sending a letter of protest, but "no letter could change [the Bush administration's] policy."
Last month, however, Pelosi told reporters that she was not told waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation methods were being used. That was before reports came out claiming she was told by her aide about waterboarding in February.
Asked why she didn't mention that before, Pelosi said, "I told you what our briefing was."
"When my assistant told me that the committee had been briefed -- now, I'm not on that committee any more. I'm now out of it. We have a new -- that ranking member wrote the appropriate letter to protest that," she said.
"But the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when and what the nature of the briefing was. I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used," she said.
Shortly after Pelosi's remarks, House Minority Leader John Boehner said her comments "continue to raise more questions than provide answers."
"I've dealt with our intelligence professionals for the last 3½ years on an almost daily basis. And it's hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," he said.
Asked about Pelosi's allegations that Republican policy was leading the country astray, Boehner said, "I think the problem is that the speaker has had way too many stories on this issue."
"When you look at the number of briefings that the speaker was in and other Democrat members of the House and Senate, it's -- it's pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were, they were well aware that they had been used, and -- and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways," he said.
Pelosi said Thursday that Republicans are jumping on the briefings because they want to cause a distraction.
She reiterated her call for the establishment of an independent "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques.
She also suggested that the National Security Act of 1947 needs to be revised so that more members of Congress can be briefed on sensitive intelligence matters.
In 2007, Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring interrogators to abide by the regulations of the Army Field Manual. Former President Bush vetoed the measure, but President Obama enacted similar restrictions shortly after taking office.
"Throughout my career, I am proud to have worked on human rights and against torture," Pelosi said.
"I unequivocally oppose the use of torture."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html
-
This is comical. As I don't think the methods used were illegal or unjustified, I have no quarrel with Pelosi being aware of what was taking place. What is mind boggling to me is the dramatic song and dance that hypocritical liberals try to employ when they are caught with their foot in their mouths. It is an amusing and pathetic display as Pelosi tries to tread water by blaming basically... the entire planet. We saw this same two step shuffle from Dodd, Frank,Geitner,etc. on numerous issues. I'm surprised Pelosi didn't try to blame her "knowledge" on Global Warming or disproportionately high CEO pay.
On minor and meaningless issues, we saw Bill Clinton pull the same bs- I never inhaled, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
I wonder if, and probably when, more democrats are exposed for their actual or tacit authorization of "enhanced interrogation" they will take the road of Roger Clemens and Pete Rose -- Or do the smart thing like Jason Giambi and just fess up.
-
This is comical. As I don't think the methods used were illegal or unjustified, I have no quarrel with Pelosi being aware of what was taking place. What is mind boggling to me is the dramatic song and dance that hypocritical liberals try to employ when they are caught with their foot in their mouths. It is an amusing and pathetic display as Pelosi tries to tread water by blaming basically... the entire planet. We saw this same two step shuffle from Dodd, Frank,Geitner,etc. on numerous issues. I'm surprised Pelosi didn't try to blame her "knowledge" on Global Warming or disproportionately high CEO pay.
On minor and meaningless issues, we saw Bill Clinton pull the same bs- I never inhaled, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
I wonder if, and probably when, more democrats are exposed for their actual or tacit authorization of "enhanced interrogation" they will take the road of Roger Clemens and Pete Rose -- Or do the smart thing like Jason Giambi and just fess up.
Pelosi seems up a creek
-
I pay taxes as well....so I guess I paid myself to have the "most fun u can have with ur cloths on..." My guess is this has never happened to u....
U pay taxes HH6? With what, MY tax money? STFU.
-
Gingrich rips into Pelosi
Posted: 01:20 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is engaging in a "despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort" to withhold what she knew about the CIA's aggressive interrogation techniques, Newt Gingrich said Friday, in what amounts to the harshest criticism yet leveled at the California Democrat.
In an interview with ABC Radio, the former House Speaker said Pelosi flat-out "lied to the House" when she earlier claimed the CIA had never briefed her about the Bush administration's use of aggressive interrogation techniques including waterboarding.
"I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," Gingrich said.
Pelosi has been under fire from critics who say that she was fully briefed on the techniques in 2002 and 2003. On Thursday, the California Democrat accused CIA officials of misleading her, reiterating an earlier claim that she was briefed on such techniques only once — in September 2002 — and that she was told at the time that the techniques were not being used.
Pelosi also said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the CIA to release a full transcript of the briefing. She also accused Republicans of jumping on reports of the briefings to cause a distraction.
"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior," Gingrich also said in the blistering interview.
Earlier: Source: Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used
"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses," he continued. "The fact is, she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
-
Republicans to Pelosi: Prove Your Case or Apologize to CIA
House Minority Leader John Boehner told FOX News that lying to Congress is a crime, so if Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks agency officials did so, she needs to present evidence and have the Justice Department prosecute it or apologize for casting aspersions.
FOXNews.com
Monday, May 18, 2009
It's week two and Republicans aren't about to let House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the CIA lied to Congress slip between the cracks.
House Minority Leader John Boehner told FOX News on Monday that "the ball is in the speaker's court." If she is accusing the CIA of lying, she "needs to come forward, either present evidence or do an apology, and let's get this behind us."
"Lying to Congress is a crime. Purposely misleading Congress is a crime. And if the speaker is accusing the intelligence community of lying to her or purposefully misleading her, then she ought to present that evidence, turn it over to the Justice Department, have them prosecute it," Boehner said.
But Boehner did not call for Pelosi's ouster.
"Let's not get too far down the road here. I'm not going to take anything off the table, but I do believe that -- that the ball is in her court. And she has to either put up or have an apology and move on," he said.
Pelosi caused a stir last week when she accused the CIA of misleading Congress about its use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terror detainees, particularly on Abu Zubaydah.
"Yes I am saying the CIA was misleading the Congress, and at the same time the (Bush) administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said that this intelligence doesn't support the imminent threat," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference on Thursday.
"Every step of the way the administration was misleading the Congress and that is the issue and that's why we need a truth commission," she said.
On Friday, CIA Director Leon Panetta issued a letter to CIA staff repeating his statement of a day earlier that the agency's response to congressional inquiries shows that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
"I think that it's pretty clear that Mr. Panetta and the CIA believe that they were truthful in their briefings to Ms. Pelosi. There's been no reason to lie," Boehner said Monday.
According to a Rasmussen poll out on Monday, 43 percent of voters nationwide say they believe the CIA could have misled Pelosi about the use of waterboarding while 41 percent said that's unlikely. The belief and disbelief tracked closely with political party affiliation.
The poll of 1,000 likely voters taken over the weekend has a 3 percent margin of error. In it, 58 percent said they don't want any probes of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said that Pelosi either needs to prove her case or apologize.
"If indeed Nancy Pelosi has lied, which it seems to me that she has, then she either needs to resign or at the very least have a public and open apology to the CIA," Franks said.
Franks then accused Democrats, including Pelosi, of constantly undermining the Bush administration for political points.
"They held themselves completely unconstrained to the truth in all of those debates and it was I think damaging to our country and damaging to our national security, and it seems like now that they are in the supermajority, they've completely disinvited the truth from the entire discussion," Franks said.
"We could be facing nuclear jihad in the coming years, and being able to rely on what people say is of more and more importance to the American people," he added.
Franks acknowledged that for now it's more advantageous to Republicans for Pelosi to stay in office.
"Politically it might be better for us if she stays in because I think she's lost credibility with the American people, and it's easier for us to point out some of the foibles of the Democrat leadership with her in the leadership," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18/republicans-pelosi-prove-case-apologize-cia/
-
Democrats circling the wagons.
House Rejects Probe Into Pelosi CIA Claims
Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the resolution.
"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.
Pelosi was not present at the time of the vote. Republicans called for the vote on Thursday, while she was giving a commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Earlier this month, Pelosi told reporters that she had not been told that waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects, even though it had been. President Barack Obama and human rights groups have said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is torture.
"To have this charge out there and not have it resolved I think is damaging to our intelligence efforts, and certainly will have a chilling effect on our intelligence professionals around the world," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney also stepped into the debate.
In a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Cheney said Pelosi and other lawmakers had been briefed on the interrogation techniques on "numerous occasions."
"In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists," Cheney said.
Pelosi has asked the CIA to declassify information supporting her claims.
The CIA has sent lawmakers its notes and memos on 40 congressional briefings on the interrogation techniques. But that document has been found to include several errors.
CIA Director Leon Panetta acknowledged in a May 6 letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, that the CIA's list may not be completely accurate.
"In the end, you and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened," Panetta wrote.
Democrats are pointing out that Republicans too have accused the CIA of misleading them on intelligence matters. Boehner himself called into question the soundness of the intelligence community when it determined in 2007 that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program.
Boehner told reporters on Thursday that it was an unfair comparison because he never accused the men and women of the intelligence community of misleading Congress.
Boehner defended harsh interrogations.
"I don't believe the enhanced interrogation techniques were wrong," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_torture_probe/2009/05/21/216894.html