Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

That is more likely due to the fact that we covered this the first time he posted it. I stated long ago that Pelosi misleading (which when Bush did it was called a LIE) the press about when she found out about waterboarding is the issue. Not whether she was lying about what the CIA briefed her on. Go back and look at the thread, I stated long ago that the 2002 briefing she attended is a he said/she said situation.

But when the press asked her if she knew about the waterboarding long ago, she stated 'I was not briefed on waterboarding' only to find out that her aide was briefed in early 2003 and that she was told of it at that point. She has since admitted to knowing about it in 2003. She deliberately misled the press with her initial comments. She tried to make it appear that she had not known.


Of course, you know that Pelosi has remained consistent about what she knew and when. After all, I posted her statement from December of 2007. Here it is again:

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439


And her statement the other day:

“Throughout my entire career, I am proud to have worked for human rights, and against the use of torture, around the world.

“As Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in the 1990s, I helped secure the first funding for the Torture Victims Relief Act to assist those suffering from the physical and psychological effects of torture.

“I unequivocally oppose the use of torture by our government because it is contrary to our national values.

“Like all Members of Congress who are briefed on classified information, I have signed oaths pledging not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously, and I have always abided by it.

The CIA briefed me only once on some enhanced interrogation techniques, in September 2002, in my capacity as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee.

“I was informed then that Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques was legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.

“Those conducting the briefing promised to inform the appropriate Members of Congress if that technique were to be used in the future.

“Congress and the American people now know that contrary opinions within the Executive Branch concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. However, those opinions were not provided to Congress.

“We also now know that techniques, including waterboarding, had already been employed, and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.

“At the same time, the Bush Administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“Five months later, in February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.

“Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, the appropriate person to register a protest.


“But no letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership of the Congress and the White House. That was my job.

“When Democrats assumed control of Congress in 2007, Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture. An effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of Republican Members.

“We needed to elect a new President. We did; and he has banned torture.

“Congress and the Administration must review the National Security Act of 1947 to determine if a larger number of Members of Congress should receive classified briefings so that information can be utilized for proper oversight and legislative activity without violating oaths of secrecy.

“I have long supported creation of an independent Truth Commission to determine how intelligence was misused, and how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the Executive Branch.

“Until a Truth Commission is implemented, I encourage the appropriate committees of the House to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues.”


http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1168
 
Of course, you know that Pelosi has remained consistent about what she knew and when. After all, I posted her statement from December of 2007. Here it is again:



http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439


And her statement the other day:




http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1168

Just so that we are clear... how many fucking times are you going to post the same stupid shit to try to spin this?

Again, you fucking hack.... as I stated, I am not saying that Pelosi lied about what the CIA briefed her on in 2002... that briefing is a he said/she said situation.

Where she misled (again under Bush this was consisdered a LIE)... was when reporters asked her if she knew about waterboarding, she responded with the 'The CIA did not brief me on waterboarding in 2002' (again for the final fucking time.... a he said/she said situation). She deliberately gave the impression that she did not know about the waterboarding early on. Then it was discovered that her aide was briefed on waterboarding in 2003 and that she found out about it from her aide. THAT is what pissed the press off.

It was just another 'what is the definition of IS' moments.
 
Just so that we are clear... how many fucking times are you going to post the same stupid shit to try to spin this?

Again, you fucking hack.... as I stated, I am not saying that Pelosi lied about what the CIA briefed her on in 2002... that briefing is a he said/she said situation.

Where she misled (again under Bush this was consisdered a LIE)... was when reporters asked her if she knew about waterboarding, she responded with the 'The CIA did not brief me on waterboarding in 2002' (again for the final fucking time.... a he said/she said situation). She deliberately gave the impression that she did not know about the waterboarding early on. Then it was discovered that her aide was briefed on waterboarding in 2003 and that she found out about it from her aide. THAT is what pissed the press off.

It was just another 'what is the definition of IS' moments.


But it's clear from her 2007 press release that she knew about it in 2003 and that she knew that Harman wrote a letter about it in 2003 and that she concurred with the Harman letter.

What am I missing?


2007:

Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

2009:

n February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.

“Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, the appropriate person to register a protest.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/pelosi-bush-administratio_n_190661.html

"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Pelosi said that the officials promised to inform Congress if they ever did waterboard a detainee, but never did so. Her assertion contradicts a recently released Senate committee report that cited CIA records to claim that senior members of Congress in both parties were briefed on the waterboarding, which had already been done to detainee Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, in the strongest terms should could conjure, said the report was untrue and that she never approved, tacitly or otherwise, the waterboarding of detainees."

The above quote you fucking hack is what pissed off the press. Pelosi flat out lied to them.
 
That you think you own some intellectually higher ground by stating this is why I am able to say pro abortionists are logically inconsistant. To claim you are anti abortion but all for allowing others to do so, makes you pro abortion. Why are you "persoanlly" opposed to abortion?

Abortion kills human beings. Science today leaves no room to dispute this. The tri-mester strawman invented for Roe VS Wade would not hold water today if this were being tried before SCOTUS.

I personally belive its a close call as to if the fetus is a living human being. To me, in a close call I would err on the side of not personally promoting or paying for an abortion. That being said, I would not tell a woman that she should make the same decision I have made. Its not a moral high ground, its just my opinion. I am not and would not promote abortions.... thus I am not pro-abortion. I guess you could say I am pro-legal-abortion.
 
But it's clear from her 2007 press release that she knew about it in 2003 and that she knew that Harman wrote a letter about it in 2003 and that she concurred with the Harman letter.

What am I missing?


2007:



2009:

"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Pelosi said that the officials promised to inform Congress if they ever did waterboard a detainee, but never did so. Her assertion contradicts a recently released Senate committee report that cited CIA records to claim that senior members of Congress in both parties were briefed on the waterboarding, which had already been done to detainee Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, in the strongest terms should could conjure, said the report was untrue and that she never approved, tacitly or otherwise, the waterboarding of detainees."

The above quote you fucking hack is what pissed off the press. Pelosi flat out lied to them.
 
I personally belive its a close call as to if the fetus is a living human being. To me, in a close call I would err on the side of not personally promoting or paying for an abortion. That being said, I would not tell a woman that she should make the same decision I have made. Its not a moral high ground, its just my opinion. I am not and would not promote abortions.... thus I am not pro-abortion. I guess you could say I am pro-legal-abortion.

Close call? ROFLMAO....

Science DICTATES that it is most certainly human and most certainly alive. How is that a close call? Abortion ends a unqiue human life. PERIOD. It is murder.
 
That is your opinion.

Which part do you think is an opinion?

The part where it is a unique human? (genetically PROVEN FACT)

Or the part where it is alive? (it is either dead or alive... and I know you aren't dumb enough to be suggesting its dead)

thus it is a FACT that an abortion ends a unique human life.
 
"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Pelosi said that the officials promised to inform Congress if they ever did waterboard a detainee, but never did so. Her assertion contradicts a recently released Senate committee report that cited CIA records to claim that senior members of Congress in both parties were briefed on the waterboarding, which had already been done to detainee Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, in the strongest terms should could conjure, said the report was untrue and that she never approved, tacitly or otherwise, the waterboarding of detainees."

The above quote you fucking hack is what pissed off the press. Pelosi flat out lied to them.


You are correct. I hadn't seen that quote before. Her use of "we" there is misleading at best. Even in context it gives the impression that no one in Congress was told waterboarding and other techniques were used.

But it seems that it is also clear that she is on record saying she knew about their use. That's why I don't quite get the whole "she lied" affair. She already admitted that she knew about it in 2003.
 
You are correct. I hadn't seen that quote before. Her use of "we" there is misleading at best. Even in context it gives the impression that no one in Congress was told waterboarding and other techniques were used.

But it seems that it is also clear that she is on record saying she knew about their use. That's why I don't quite get the whole "she lied" affair. She already admitted that she knew about it in 2003.

If I said six months ago....

" I was told that WMDs existed in Iraq"

Then last week said....

" I was never told that WMDs existed in Iraq"

In one of those two situations.... I am lying.
 
Nope, I am against abortion, but for allowing others to make the decision for themselves.
Jarod,

In concern with the law, there are two ways to be.

1. Against allowing legal abortions.
2. For allowing legal abortions.

Are you for or against allowing legal abortion?
 
I personally belive its a close call as to if the fetus is a living human being. To me, in a close call I would err on the side of not personally promoting or paying for an abortion. That being said, I would not tell a woman that she should make the same decision I have made. Its not a moral high ground, its just my opinion. I am not and would not promote abortions.... thus I am not pro-abortion. I guess you could say I am pro-legal-abortion.

Since 1973 I have not heard of anyone having an illegal abortion? The unborn is a human being. The fetus is merely one of the earliest stages in our developement. Everything neccesary for us being who we are is present at conception. You have always been you from the earliest moments you were concieved. To say that a woman has a "right" to kill another human being simply because it resides in her womb is illogical.
 
Since 1973 I have not heard of anyone having an illegal abortion? The unborn is a human being. The fetus is merely one of the earliest stages in our developement. Everything neccesary for us being who we are is present at conception. You have always been you from the earliest moments you were concieved. To say that a woman has a "right" to kill another human being simply because it resides in her womb is illogical.

The unborn. What a strange term. Like the undead.

"Meet Mr. Smith. He is an undead corpse."

It's strange how society refers to human beings. Imagine if we employed the same terminology in other situations.

The local grocery store could advertise tomatoes: 25 tomatoes for one dollar. The customer is offered a package of seeds.

Roasted chickens: Two for a dollar. The customer is given two cooked eggs.
 
The unborn. What a strange term. Like the undead.

"Meet Mr. Smith. He is an undead corpse."

It's strange how society refers to human beings. Imagine if we employed the same terminology in other situations.

The local grocery store could advertise tomatoes: 25 tomatoes for one dollar. The customer is offered a package of seeds.

Roasted chickens: Two for a dollar. The customer is given two cooked eggs.

Unless we are talking fertalized chicken eggs they are not chickens. We don't call babies men or women we call them infant boys or girls. The "unborn" is a perfectly logical term. A shortened form of unborn baby. Fertalized chicken eggs are chickens at their ealiest stage, but they are not something we roast. Unless they are unfertalized most people don't even want to fry, scramble, or poach them either.
 
Unless we are talking fertalized chicken eggs they are not chickens. We don't call babies men or women we call them infant boys or girls. The "unborn" is a perfectly logical term. A shortened form of unborn baby. Fertalized chicken eggs are chickens at their ealiest stage, but they are not something we roast. Unless they are unfertalized most people don't even want to fry, scramble, or poach them either.

When a person is considered brain dead, whether from accident or disease, we consider them dead. We "pull the plug". We have certain tests or standards to determine what is considered brain dead. Why would the standards be different for an embryo?

If one is considered dead, although technically alive, due to a lack of certain brain functions why would we consider another alive who has less brain function?
 
When a person is considered brain dead, whether from accident or disease, we consider them dead. We "pull the plug". We have certain tests or standards to determine what is considered brain dead. Why would the standards be different for an embryo?

If one is considered dead, although technically alive, due to a lack of certain brain functions why would we consider another alive who has less brain function?

False argument.

A brain dead person has nothing in common with a fetus whose brain developement begins as early as the thrid week after conception and is not "dead" but a living and developing brain.

"The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life. The major difference between brain development in a child versus learning an adult is a matter of degree: the brain is far more impressionable (neuroscientists use the term plastic) in early life than in maturity. This plasticity has both a positive and a negative side. On the positive side, it means that young children's brains are more open to learning and enriching influences. On the negative side, it also means that young children's brains are more vulnerable to developmental problems should their environment prove especially impoverished or un-nurturing."
 
False argument.

A brain dead person has nothing in common with a fetus whose brain developement begins as early as the thrid week after conception and is not "dead" but a living and developing brain.

"The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life. The major difference between brain development in a child versus learning an adult is a matter of degree: the brain is far more impressionable (neuroscientists use the term plastic) in early life than in maturity. This plasticity has both a positive and a negative side. On the positive side, it means that young children's brains are more open to learning and enriching influences. On the negative side, it also means that young children's brains are more vulnerable to developmental problems should their environment prove especially impoverished or un-nurturing."

It's not a false argument. Whether the person is 5 years old or 50 years old if the brain is at a certain level the person is classified as dead even if there is activity. In other words there is a minimum standard required across the board. Why make exceptions for embryos?

In a society where our most fundamental and cherished belief is every human being is an individual how can one possibly claim something is a human being when it requires the body of another to survive not to mention the legitimate human being be required to offer their body?

Some anti-abortionists go as far as demanding the legitimate human being risk their health and possible permanent damage from uncontrolled blood pressure and diabetes. It's like tossing the word "freedom" into the garbage can.
 
False argument.

A brain dead person has nothing in common with a fetus whose brain developement begins as early as the thrid week after conception and is not "dead" but a living and developing brain.

"The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life. The major difference between brain development in a child versus learning an adult is a matter of degree: the brain is far more impressionable (neuroscientists use the term plastic) in early life than in maturity. This plasticity has both a positive and a negative side. On the positive side, it means that young children's brains are more open to learning and enriching influences. On the negative side, it also means that young children's brains are more vulnerable to developmental problems should their environment prove especially impoverished or un-nurturing."

Now, wait a minute!!
We could use Apples definition as justification to help all the anti-right in "assissted suicide"!
 
Sure it is. It is in the 10 commandments.....and covered in the NT as well...."Thou shalt not kill".......more aptly translated, "You shall do no murder."

And yet God ordered the Israelites to murder all women and children who did not flee before them in Jericho and other places.
 
Back
Top