Democrats: CIA is out to get us

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,742
42
91
All of this "bu bu bu but.." finger pointing is hilarious. I love seeing these frauds squirm.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html
The document came with a disclaimer from CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said that some of the descriptions of briefings ?may not be accurate.? And it was leaked to the press just as Democrats were debating the idea of a sprawling investigation into the Bush administration?s interrogation techniques.

Questions about the CIA?s motives have added to bad feelings between the CIA and Democrats on the Hill and in the Obama administration. Panetta tried to limit the release of Justice Department memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, but he lost a struggle with the department, and the memos were released. CIA officials fear that release of the memos could subject them to lawsuits and hurt officers in the field.

The memos are to be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Feinstein acknowledged Tuesday that suspicions over the documents aren?t helping the Hill?s relations with the agency. But she said that?s why her panel is conducting a classified investigation on torture in a ?professional way? in seeking unredacted documents, e-mails and cables. And she said that she will include language in an upcoming intelligence authorization bill that would expand classified briefings to the entire panel ? rather than just the chairman and the ranking member ? except in ?exceptional circumstances.?

Still, she said that responsibility for the interrogation techniques the CIA used lie with the CIA.

?Look, the CIA has the responsibility ? there?s no question about that,? Feinstein said. ?Because you brief or notify doesn?t mean there?s any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this ? in my opinion.?

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, said that if Pelosi or other Democrats objected to the interrogation techniques when they were briefed on them, they could have offered legislation ? or withheld appropriations for the program.

?We?re not without power up here,? Hatch said. ?Now they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.?

Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called ?a strong, affirmative yes.?
This gets crazier by the day. All the "bu bu buuu but" finger pointing is going to get nasty! I want to see all the frauds exposed
Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

?I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others ? that?s what I think,? said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it ?interesting? that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as ?some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.?

Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: ?Sure it is.?

The CIA has long been on the receiving end of harsh rebukes from Congress ? on intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq, on secret prisons abroad and on the harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects. But with the release of records showing that it briefed members of Congress along the way, the CIA has effectively put lawmakers on the defensive.

Intelligence officials insist it wasn?t intentional and have not taken responsibility for publicly releasing the documents.

Asked for comment about the Democrats? charges, CIA spokesman George Little said only that the CIA ?understands the importance of a strong relationship with the Congress, which in our democracy, conducts oversight of secret intelligence activities.?

But another U.S. intelligence official went further, noting that the records of the congressional briefings were ?prepared in response to a request from Congress.?

Intelligence Committee member Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said it appears that ?members of the committee or their staff were not in any way involved in [the release of the document]. It appears to come from the executive branch itself. ... I think it?s unbelievable.?

Added a top congressional official who has participated in the briefings added: ?I think the agency wanted to get this out, quite frankly.?

The 10-page document, which was prepared after an April 20 request by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), lists 40 instances in which the CIA briefed members of Congress between September 2002 and March 2009. But they provide a vague description of the briefings, giving just enough information to fuel claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top officials have long known about waterboarding and other tactics but did little to stop the techniques from being used.


The document came with a disclaimer from CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said that some of the descriptions of briefings ?may not be accurate.? And it was leaked to the press just as Democrats were debating the idea of a sprawling investigation into the Bush administration?s interrogation techniques.

Questions about the CIA?s motives have added to bad feelings between the CIA and Democrats on the Hill and in the Obama administration. Panetta tried to limit the release of Justice Department memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, but he lost a struggle with the department, and the memos were released. CIA officials fear that release of the memos could subject them to lawsuits and hurt officers in the field.

The memos are to be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Feinstein acknowledged Tuesday that suspicions over the documents aren?t helping the Hill?s relations with the agency. But she said that?s why her panel is conducting a classified investigation on torture in a ?professional way? in seeking unredacted documents, e-mails and cables. And she said that she will include language in an upcoming intelligence authorization bill that would expand classified briefings to the entire panel ? rather than just the chairman and the ranking member ? except in ?exceptional circumstances.?

Still, she said that responsibility for the interrogation techniques the CIA used lie with the CIA.

?Look, the CIA has the responsibility ? there?s no question about that,? Feinstein said. ?Because you brief or notify doesn?t mean there?s any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this ? in my opinion.?

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, said that if Pelosi or other Democrats objected to the interrogation techniques when they were briefed on them, they could have offered legislation ? or withheld appropriations for the program.

?We?re not without power up here,? Hatch said. ?Now they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.?

Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called ?a strong, affirmative yes.?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The interesting question is on the last line, "Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called ?a strong, affirmative yes.?

Then what the hell was wrong with Pat Roberts when his party was in the majority, he should have brought that torture crapola to a screeching halt but did not. Roberts is either a morally bankrupt turd or a liar, which is it?
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The interesting question is on the last line, "Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called ?a strong, affirmative yes.?

Then what the hell was wrong with Pat Roberts when his party was in the majority, he should have brought that torture crapola to a screeching halt but did not. Roberts is either a morally bankrupt turd or a liar, which is it?

Who's a Lair Pelosi. CIA reports have her at the meetings. She is using samantics dodging question and bold face lying about attending and knowing that she was told what harsh interrogation techniques were involved.

It is intellectually backrupt to be so partisan in this matter.

Me I'm all for Any and all waterboarding Techniques with KSM. And so was pelosi post 9/11. Why? She licked her finger stuck it in the air and saw that it was the politically expediant to appear tough on terror.

Democrats have scooter libby syndrome. Except they are immune from any and all retrobution for outing CIA operative because BHO administration is flush in political/media capital.
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
You can't call someone a liar when they admit to the facts. Roberts admits he was aware of the interrogations (enhanced). The person who is not admitting is Pelosi. So the question is Pelosi a liar or a bankrupt political turd?
 

SonicIce

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2004
4,771
0
76
I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Jiggs simply does not understand the question or the meaning of answers whe he states, " You can't call someone a liar when they admit to the facts. Roberts admits he was aware of the interrogations (enhanced). The person who is not admitting is Pelosi. So the question is Pelosi a liar or a bankrupt political turd? "

If Roberts is a liar and was unaware of the full extent of the torture being practiced, then Pelosi was likely be be similarly unaware.
Except Roberts is a liar and Pelosi is not.

If on the other hand, Roberts was aware of illegal torture policies, as then GOP majority party chairman of the intelligence committee,
he was then legally and morally obligated to do all in his powers to stop the practices because he had the power to do so. Pelosi, if she were aware at the time would enjoy a slightly lesser state of guilt, because as a minority party member, she did not have the power to stop torture policy.

But Jiggs is also making two other bogus assumptions. (1) How can Senator Roberts speak for House member Pelosi? The House and Senate have two totally different intelligence committees, not one joint one. (2) If Roberts is telling the truth about his knowledge of torture policies, then he should resign or be be impeached from the Senate. And maybe criminally prosecuted. If Pelosi
is nearly as guilty then she should suffer the Roberts fate also, do not assume us democrats are hypocrites seeking only to punish the other party.

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Jiggz
You can't call someone a liar when they admit to the facts. Roberts admits he was aware of the interrogations (enhanced). The person who is not admitting is Pelosi. So the question is Pelosi a liar or a bankrupt political turd?

Both? :D
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Jiggs simply does not understand the question or the meaning of answers whe he states, " You can't call someone a liar when they admit to the facts. Roberts admits he was aware of the interrogations (enhanced). The person who is not admitting is Pelosi. So the question is Pelosi a liar or a bankrupt political turd? "

If Roberts is a liar and was unaware of the full extent of the torture being practiced, then Pelosi was likely be be similarly unaware.
Except Roberts is a liar and Pelosi is not.

If on the other hand, Roberts was aware of illegal torture policies, as then GOP majority party chairman of the intelligence committee,
he was then legally and morally obligated to do all in his powers to stop the practices because he had the power to do so. Pelosi, if she were aware at the time would enjoy a slightly lesser state of guilt, because as a minority party member, she did not have the power to stop torture policy.

But Jiggs is also making two other bogus assumptions. (1) How can Senator Roberts speak for House member Pelosi? The House and Senate have two totally different intelligence committees, not one joint one. (2) If Roberts is telling the truth about his knowledge of torture policies, then he should resign or be be impeached from the Senate. And maybe criminally prosecuted. If Pelosi
is nearly as guilty then she should suffer the Roberts fate also, do not assume us democrats are hypocrites seeking only to punish the other party.


You will go to any length to defend your heroes. It is comically ironic!

That said how many times do Democrats think they can get away with the "I didnt read the memo and know what I was voting on" excuse?
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Jiggs simply does not understand the question or the meaning of answers whe he states, " You can't call someone a liar when they admit to the facts. Roberts admits he was aware of the interrogations (enhanced). The person who is not admitting is Pelosi. So the question is Pelosi a liar or a bankrupt political turd? "

If Roberts is a liar and was unaware of the full extent of the torture being practiced, then Pelosi was likely be be similarly unaware.
Except Roberts is a liar and Pelosi is not.

If on the other hand, Roberts was aware of illegal torture policies, as then GOP majority party chairman of the intelligence committee,
he was then legally and morally obligated to do all in his powers to stop the practices because he had the power to do so. Pelosi, if she were aware at the time would enjoy a slightly lesser state of guilt, because as a minority party member, she did not have the power to stop torture policy.

But Jiggs is also making two other bogus assumptions. (1) How can Senator Roberts speak for House member Pelosi? The House and Senate have two totally different intelligence committees, not one joint one. (2) If Roberts is telling the truth about his knowledge of torture policies, then he should resign or be be impeached from the Senate. And maybe criminally prosecuted. If Pelosi
is nearly as guilty then she should suffer the Roberts fate also, do not assume us democrats are hypocrites seeking only to punish the other party.

/facepalm
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I just told you people that I would cheerfully throw Pelosi away also but somehow you still persist in saying I am defending my hero's.
If what Roberts is saying is true, then neither of them should remain in elective office. But we ain't there yet, because its not yet established that Roberts is telling the whole truth.

Let us simply get at the truth, but this Roberts crapola statement is just more FUD that must be cut through. Logic is about asking the right questions and getting at the unvarnished truth. And then doing the right things with that truth that will set us all free.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Democrats: CIA is out to get us


Dont they know that the tin only amplifies the brain waves?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Funny how the CIA wants to put both Republicans and Democrats in Jail. It is funny how a secret organization wants to tell the truth. They are trained Liars.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Funny how the CIA wants to put both Republicans and Democrats in Jail. It is funny how a secret organization wants to tell the truth. They are trained Liars.

I have to largely agree with piasabird, but its not so clear that the if the villain is the CIA here,
we have to also wonder how much the better trained liars of Darth Cheney and cabal corrupted the CIA. And when Darth Cheney and cabal shamelessly manipulated intel and then were proved wrong, they got away with it by blaming the CIA. Then Darth Cheney and cabal ordered the CIA to engage in torture and provided the bogus legal justification for it, and now we just blame the CIA while forgetting that GWB&co also directly hired private contractors for torture operations in addition?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
And I forgot to mention that CIA agent GWB&co outed when her husband dared tell the truth about Uranium and Niger, there are still a pile of CIA agents angry over that disregard of their safety.
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
This just in, as a 32 minutes ago yahoo news link, Pelosi has held a new conference to give her version of torture event knowledge in a what she knew and when did she know it format.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...over-waterboarding/?hp

Even as democrat, its hard to buy all the Pelosi excuses, its somewhat of a defense, but not enough to clear her.

Which is why as a liberal "vote for the Dems if I have to pick between the two" kind of person, I really REALLY wish they'd get rid of Pelosi as speaker. She just fuels the Republicans attacks on anything and everything Obama wants to get done, and is just one of those politicians that give politicians bad names.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: Lemon law
This just in, as a 32 minutes ago yahoo news link, Pelosi has held a new conference to give her version of torture event knowledge in a what she knew and when did she know it format.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...over-waterboarding/?hp

Even as democrat, its hard to buy all the Pelosi excuses, its somewhat of a defense, but not enough to clear her.

Which is why as a liberal "vote for the Dems if I have to pick between the two" kind of person, I really REALLY wish they'd get rid of Pelosi as speaker. She just fuels the Republicans attacks on anything and everything Obama wants to get done, and is just one of those politicians that give politicians bad names.

Totally agree.

 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
everyone is lieing, everyone is guilty, everyone loses.....


at this point, democrats and republics in elected office are too corrupted with power to trust many of them. and then we have to worry about the bias in how this si reported and how information is released.

maybe we cant trust the media, maybe we cant trust the cia, maybe we cant trust documents released...


man, sometimes this back and forth gets really tiresome. if i was sitting back on the outside looking in, I would wonder how this system hasnt collapsed yet becuase little gets done and little moves forward due to politics and all the crap that comes along with it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I am none too happy with Pelosi or Reid myself, but if you really want to ride the vomit comet, its hard to find bigger jerks than Mitch McConnell or Boehner who have the all the vision, learning ability, and charisma of maggots feeding on a corpse. They even eat their own dead body parts.

What has kept Reid and Pelois in power is the facts that they can draw grudging support from all competing elements in the democratic party and the fact that they were pragmatic enough to wait for the 11/2008 election rather than to shut down government to get their way in the 2 years after the 11/2006 election. Now they have the power but do not know how to build bi-partisan consensus or enthusiasm.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now they have the power but do not know how to build bi-partisan consensus or enthusiasm.

Id be suprised if they even knew what bi-partisanship really means....
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now they have the power but do not know how to build bi-partisan consensus or enthusiasm.

Id be suprised if they even knew what bi-partisanship really means....

It's when both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want something. It was the same when it was Dick Cheney and Satan.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now they have the power but do not know how to build bi-partisan consensus or enthusiasm.

Id be suprised if they even knew what bi-partisanship really means....

It's when both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want something. It was the same when it was Dick Cheney and Satan.


Id see Nancy as more of the Satan role then Harry, he just doesnt seems to have the same talent for disseption