I heard on the internet that Nancy Pelosi was not lying

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,576
6,713
126
Gosh, and I so so so wanted to hate her for that. But then, I guess I don't have to let the facts cloud up my vision. I can just go on thinking like I was originally programmed. She's not worth the reversal of a Moonbeam decision.

If I can squeeze in the time maybe I can get a link. I have to go hate some other people elsewhere, however, so give me some time.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Gosh, and I so so so wanted to hate her for that. But then, I guess I don't have to let the facts cloud up my vision. I can just go on thinking like I was originally programmed. She's not worth the reversal of a Moonbeam decision.

If I can squeeze in the time maybe I can get a link. I have to go hate some other people elsewhere, however, so give me some time.
It's tough being a Wingnut when the facts do support your beliefs.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
You heard on the internet ........ care to share this?
In the meantime I'll try to google it.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
I read the same thing but it wasn't posted on skull fux news so I didn't think anyone would believe it.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
It has always been that she did not personally get a briefing.

Her chief of staff did get a breifing - as it is a logical assumption that she would have then been updated.

Semantics is being used for her to CYA
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
So what is this thread about again?

No links + no news = ??

The Op was referring there was some evidence produced that proves the CIA did lie and/or mislead Congress.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Ausm
I read the same thing but it wasn't posted on skull fux news so I didn't think anyone would believe it.

Anything NOT posted on Fox is true.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: OCguy
So what is this thread about again?

No links + no news = ??

The Op was referring there was some evidence produced that proves the CIA did lie and/or mislead Congress.

No, the OP was implying that there was information somewhere on the internet that proved that Nancy Pelosi was not lying about her statements concerning the CIA. She said the CIA had not given her the facts concerning water boarding back in 2002.
Unfortunately for her it has been proven that they had so I'm interested in reading the article.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,576
6,713
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: Skitzer
So where was it posted?

Here is the article.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...lidated-by-intel-panel

Oh, damn you, I was hoping I could just not completely inform the thread of the exact facts since they are so so unpleasant to so so many of us. I had wanted no cognitive dissonance in my hatred of Pelosi and I was sure that in my joyous journey out beyond to hate others I would forget my promise to look up the link.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
That is probably because she was too busy to go to the meeting and sent some staffers. She cant take time out of her day to actually meet with the FBI on a security matter.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: OCguy
So what is this thread about again?

No links + no news = ??

The Op was referring there was some evidence produced that proves the CIA did lie and/or mislead Congress.

The funny part about this whole fake outrage thing is that the CIA has repeatedly and deliberately misled Congress on a whole host of issues dating back to its inception.

Yet the mere suggestion that they have once again engaged in the same behavior is grounds for someone being called an unpatriotic traitor.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So how come when it is a member of Bush's white house staff the CIA is believable, but when it is Pelosi, the CIA cant be believed? Something is fishy in denmark.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Porter Goss was briefed at the same time as Nancy Lugosi (mad as a hatter)


On September 4, 2002, Porter Goss, then the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democratic member, were given a classified briefing by the CIA on what the Agency calls "enhanced interrogation techniques," or, in persistent media parlance, "torture." In particular, the CIA briefed the members on the use of these techniques on Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan the previous March.

These days, Speaker Pelosi insists she heard and saw no evil. "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she told reporters late last month. "What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would."

That doesn't square with the memory of Mr. Goss, who has noted that "we were briefed, and we certainly understood what the CIA was doing," adding that "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182533815302417.html


Almost reassuring to know that with Afghanistan being allowed to fester the Dems still have USA as main tagret.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: Skitzer
So where was it posted?

Here is the article.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...lidated-by-intel-panel

Oh, damn you, I was hoping I could just not completely inform the thread of the exact facts since they are so so unpleasant to so so many of us. I had wanted no cognitive dissonance in my hatred of Pelosi and I was sure that in my joyous journey out beyond to hate others I would forget my promise to look up the link.
Maybe other exact facts need to be introduced as well, since the previous article wasn't actually "completely" informing you?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/198829
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Torture is cutting off fingers and gouging out eyes.
Making someone "unpleasant" is not torture.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: Patranus
Torture is cutting off fingers and gouging out eyes.
Making someone "unpleasant" is not torture.
Now you've done it. You've mentioned the "T" word. Please don't mention the "B" word, or all hell will break loose - for the umpteenth time.

Edit: typo
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: Patranus
Torture is cutting off fingers and gouging out eyes.
Making someone "unpleasant" is not torture.

I guess it is safe to say you aren't torturing us then ;)