View Full Version : Torture, and the democrats who love it.

07-13-2008, 07:35 AM
NANCY PELOSI KNEW: (http://www.codepink4peace.org/userdata_display.php?modin=54&uid=4144)

I apologize for using such a right wing source as Code Pink.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One day after the Washington Post broke the story that Speaker and SF Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was briefed in detail in 2002 about torture, including waterboarding, secret CIA torture sites, and rendition, Bay Area Code Pink organized a protest in front of, and a visit to, Pelosi's district office.</div></div>


07-13-2008, 07:47 AM
JAY ROCKEFELLER KNEW! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/125731/124/587/394019)

HARRY REID KNEW! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/125731/124/587/394019)

JANE HARMAN KNEW! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/125731/124/587/394019)

TOM DASCHLE KNEW! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/125731/124/587/394019)

I apologize for using such a rabid right wing source as the Daily Kos.


07-13-2008, 12:48 PM
Fine, deal with it.


07-13-2008, 04:40 PM
I have.

I have condemned their seditious behavior while you chose to remain ignorant by intent.


Gayle in MD
07-17-2008, 06:58 AM
I don't usually read anything written by this right wing nutjob, but don't you think it is interesting how totally ignorant he is about the very things he tries to suggest against the Democratic Representatives.

Regardless of the facts, he continues to try to lay the blame for everything that Bush has done wrong, at the feet of the Democratics. His vast ignorance on every subject is the reason why I block his posts, however, I did read this one, and laughed, since he obviously doesn't know that anything discussed in any of those meetings with the Democratic leaders, including knowledge of the torture, was classified, and they were honor bound not to reveal any of it. They did, however, launch investigations once they had their razor thin majority.

He also does not know, apparently, that Jay Rockafeller wrote a letter to the Bush Administratin long ago in protest of what they ere doing.

We have seen the most pervasive stonewalling of any administration during this one. If they were so innocent of all the correct charges against them, they wouldn't be turning the law upside down, and inside out, to avoid holding their hands up and testifying under oath. This is the greatest abuse of executive priveledge in our history, and regardless of how many Republican SHEEP deny the facts of all their illegal actions, lies and incompetence, the abuses are quite evident to the majority of Americans, and hence, they lost their majority in the last election, and will surely lose more seats in the next one.

That's good enough for me! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

07-17-2008, 07:25 AM

Having the President invoke priveledge in his top advisors and cabinet members is nothing new. Do you remember any other president who may have done this?

Gayle in MD
07-17-2008, 07:51 AM
Seeking executive privledge was tried by many presidents, but it was never sought in the same ways that this administration has sought to extend it to every aid, even those who are no longer serving, and never in an effort to hide treason, which is exactly what they did when they outed Valarie Plame, and lied us into a war. Also, politicizing the Department Of Justice, is an impeachable offense, punishable by law, a felony.

There is no justifiable cause, no national security threat, to justify Rove and Meyers blatant refusal to testify about their involvment in outing a covert, NOC CIA agent, for political purposes. They are in contempt of a Congressional subpeona, and they should be in jail, along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales and Rumsfeld. Mucasey is nothing but the new Gonzales, chosen only to aid Bush in stonewalling the law of our land. All AMericans should be outraged over their illegal actions, instead of accusing those Americans who realize that our laws are the only protection of our rights, our Constitution, and our democratic principles, of being partisan.

Gayle in Md.

07-17-2008, 08:06 AM
Let's not forget about Pat Tillman. Killed by friendly fire but covered up and the public told another story.

When the family finally found out, they wanted to know who knew, when they knew it, and why it was covered up.

What did the White House do? well, excutive privledge of course.

The White House refused to give Congress documents about the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman, with White House counsel Fred Fielding saying that certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

Gayle in MD
07-17-2008, 08:12 AM
Yeah, and how about that little gal, Jessica...can't remember her last name, and the playhouse 90 propaganda story they made up about her!

When a president manipulates the American public on his illegal war to the point of hiding the caskets of our brave soldiers from the public, that's about as low as it gets!

I guess you heard about the gal who was fired at the National Cemetary for allowing the family of one our deceased soldiers to have reporters nearby for the funeral.

There is no limit to these manipulative, underhanded, dispicable characters in the White House.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-17-2008, 09:15 AM

Does Bush think his executive privledge extends to every branch of the law and government?

Mucasey is refusing to release information in the DOJ, and the FBI. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of the Executive office. In a criminal case, about outing a covert CIA AGent, the security threat was breached by those who leaked her identity, and why they did so. Where there is no national security threat, the only reason to refuse a Congressional subpoena is to cover up illegal activities, and avoid the role they (Bush and Cheney, Rove and Meyers) played in the leak.

Rove, by being the confirming source for Novak, was directly involved in the leak.

Gayle in Md.