View Full Version : Slaying the zombie corpse of a leftist myth!

09-03-2011, 08:08 PM
This one keeps resurfacing ... that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> and <span style='font-size: 11pt'>CH-CH-CH-CHENEY!!!!</span> authorized <span style='font-size: 11pt'>T-T-T-TORTURE!!!!</span> that the beloved democrook party would never have went along with.

The claim:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nancy Pelosi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."</span> </div></div>

The reality is that not only where they informed ... and not only did they approve ... but when the polls were pro "GET THE TERRORISTS" she and her frllow thugocrats displayed their blood lustt by encouraging the tactics and suggesting that they in fact weren't strong enough.

Only when the seditious MSM began to turn public opinion by redefining what "TORTURE" was ... knowing full well that the public definition of the word was far different ... did they enter into their treasonous denials.

From the reich wing POLITIFACT: (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/12/nancy-pelosi/cia-documents-claim-speaker-pelosi-was-told-about-/)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-false.gifhttp://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-false.gifhttp://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-false.gifhttp://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif

Republicans who oppose efforts to pursue legal action against government lawyers who signed off on waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques used after 9/11 have settled on a high-profile target: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the latest game of "What did she know and when?" Republicans claim Democrats' outrage is hypocritical because Pelosi and other Democrats were briefed on waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" back in 2002 and 2003 and did not raise objections.

In an April 23, 2009, news conference, Pelosi was asked if, during the fall of 2002, she and other key members of the intelligence committee were briefed on interrogation methods, including waterboarding.</span> ...

In an April 25, 2009, commentary for the Washington Post, Goss said <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"a disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill." Goss said he was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as 'waterboarding' were never mentioned."</span>

"Let me be clear," Goss wrote, "It is my recollection that: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four (including Pelosi), were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists; we understood what the CIA was doing; we gave the CIA our bipartisan support; we gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities."</span> ...

The timeline says waterboarding was mentioned in a Feb. 4, 2003, briefing with Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., during which, according to the CIA data, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>enhanced interrogation techniques were "described in considerable detail," including "how the water board was used." Roberts was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, and Rockefeller was ranking Democrat.</span>...

In a May 5, 2009, memo submitted with the timeline, CIA director Leon Panetta acknowledged the differing accounts of the meeting that Pelosi and Goss attended. But he said <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the CIA's version is based in part on records created at the time of the meeting.</span> ...

At PolitiFact, we normally would be reluctant to make a Truth-O-Meter ruling in a he-said, she-said situation, but in this case, the evidence goes beyond the competing accounts from Pelosi and Goss. We are persuaded by the CIA timeline, which the agency says is based on "an extensive review of (the CIA's) electronic and hard copy files."

It's also important to note that the timeline that contradicts Pelosi was put together at the behest of an administration controlled by her own party. That document provides compelling albeit sparsely worded evidence that Pelosi's recollection is incorrect. There may be further evidence on this that emerges in the future. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has asked director of national intelligence Dennis Blair and CIA director Leon Panetta to release the CIA briefing notes that the timeline is based on. We reserve the right to change our ruling if new information emerges that contradicts the CIA timeline, but for now, we rule Pelosi's statement False.</div></div>

09-04-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This one keeps resurfacing ...<span style='font-size: 17pt'> that B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! and CH-CH-CH-CHENEY!!!! authorized T-T-T-TORTURE!!!!</span> </div></div>

Yes they did. End of story.

Pelosi was told after the fact. So what?
Since when have you ever cared about anything Pelosi says?


09-04-2011, 06:31 AM
Thanks for verifying, again, that you are nothing more than an Obamatron repeating what you are told you believe.

09-04-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Goss said he was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed <span style='font-size: 17pt'>were to actually be employed</span>; or that specific techniques such as 'waterboarding' were never mentioned." </div></div>

This is the crux of the dispute. 'Were to be employed.' As in, the future.

It is said by Pelosi and others that the briefings explained a range of techniques in prospect, which were being considered. Not that they'd already been used, and not that they were going to be used. That the national security apparatus was thinking about how far they could go, and describing what they thought they could legally do in terms of enhanced interrogation methods.

Goss' comments support the notion that they had NOT yet been used, and were simply in prospect. Otherwise, he'd have expressed a different incredulity-- amazement that those being briefed didn't understand that the techniques 'WERE BEING EMPLOYED.' (as opposed to 'were to be employed.')

Suddenly, the CIA is thought to be a wholly forthcoming honest party, to be believed in all they claim? So Pelosi was accused of saying they lied, horrors! Then, hilariously, some of those most loudly denouncing her alleged calling the CIA liars, themselves bleated about how THEY had been misled by that same CIA. Which sometimes does happen, surely we can agree.

09-04-2011, 04:49 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 8pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 11pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 23pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span><span style='font-size: 26pt'>I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... I MUST DEFEND MISS NANCY ... </span>


09-04-2011, 05:39 PM
This is odd behavior. Usually, we'd find some mention of botox, at least. Hmmm. Fascinating!