KIT, Your certainly free to ignore anything you think is nonesense. No one forcing you to participate.
On May 17, 9:57 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Whoops!! > > Excuse me, I thought I had entered into a relatively sane, normal, > intelligent conversation, but instead, I see I have entered into a thread > full of Moonbats! > > Excuse me, ya'll continue on!! > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM, SgtUSMC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The good thing about this attack on Pelosi is they had to admit to > > torture or the attack is meaningless. No torture ... nothing for > > Pelosi to know about. So, let's get the investigations and > > prosecutions started. > > > On May 17, 3:03 am, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Wow, this is exactly what i said the Torture Apologists would > > > do, try to involve as many people as possible with the belief > > > that if all are guilty, none are. > > > > The problem with this childish premise, is it is ignoring the fact > > > that > > > partial knowledge of a crime after the crime has been committed, > > > is not the same as planning and conspiring and then committing the > > > crime. > > > > Also to say that Cheney a proven liar, whose lies are directly > > > responsible > > > for American deaths has more credibility than the speaker is a joke. > > > > The CIA claim already has holes in it, the CIA has now admitted. > > > The CIA claimed to have had 4 meetings to inform congressional > > > leaders about the torture policy, when challenged that 3 of the 4 > > > dates > > > never occurred, the CIA admitted their mistake and backed off the > > > claim. > > > > Makes you wonder how many other things the CIA got wrong.... > > > > On May 16, 5:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > [Q] - Uh-oh. Nancy Pelosi’s performance at her press conference re > > > > waterboarding has raised, according to the Washington Post, “troubling > > > > new questions about the Speaker’s credibility.” The dreaded T-word: > > > > “troubling.” > > > > > I doubt it will “trouble” the media for long, or at least not to the > > > > extent of bringing the Pelosi speakership to a sudden end — and > > > > needless to say I’m all in favor of Nancy remaining the face of > > > > congressional Democrats until November 2010. But her inconsistent > > > > statements do suggest a useful way of looking at America’s tortured > > > > “torture” debate: > > > > > Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding? > > > > > He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it > > > > now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the > > > > books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes > > > > gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a > > > > demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use > > > > should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent. > > > > > Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding? > > > > > No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in > > > > the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naivete) soul. > > > > Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing > > > > thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly > > > > believe about waterboarding? > > > > > Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back > > > > when, over six years ago. > > > > > Does she oppose it? According to Speaker Pelosi, yes. In her varying > > > > accounts, she’s (a) accused the CIA of consciously “misleading the > > > > Congress of the United States” as to what they were doing; (b) > > > > admitted to having been briefed that waterboarding was in the playbook > > > > but that “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or > > > > any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used”; (c) > > > > belatedly conceded that she’d known back in February 2003 that > > > > waterboarding was being used but had been apprised of the fact by “a > > > > member of my staff.” As she said on Thursday, instead of doing > > > > anything about it, she decided to focus on getting more Democrats > > > > elected to the House. > > > > > It’s worth noting that, by most if not all of her multiple accounts, > > > > Nancy Pelosi is as guilty of torture as anybody else. That’s not an > > > > airy rhetorical flourish but a statement of law. As National Review’s > > > > Andy McCarthy points out, under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant > > > > statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same > > > > penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed > > > > that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being > > > > used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her neck in it as > > > > whoever it was who was actually sticking it to poor old Abu Zubaydah > > > > and the other blameless lads. > > > > > That is, if you believe waterboarding is “torture.” > > > > > I don’t believe it’s torture. Nor does Dick Cheney. But Nancy Pelosi > > > > does. Or so she has said, latterly. > > > > > Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the speaker’s fellow San > > > > Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s > > > > self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” > > > > said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08, or > > > > ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about > > > > a second wave of attacks.” > > > > > Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable > > > > in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the > > > > country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was > > > > no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the > > > > explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush- > > > > Cheney-Rummy war crime. > > > > > Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her > > > > colleague’s behavior. The alternative — that Speaker Pelosi is a > > > > contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most > > > > destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security — > > > > is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no > > > > reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she > > > > supported all those years ago. But it’s okay to hold Cheney or some no- > > > > name Justice Department backroom boy to account? > > > > > Well, sure. It’s the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie > > > > Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay > > > > marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack > > > > doesn’t mean it, so that’s okay, whereas Carrie does, so that’s a hate > > > > crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is > > > > Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of > > > > national security. Nancy doesn’t, because to her it’s about the > > > > shifting breezes of political viability. > > > > > But it does make you wonder whether a superpower with this kind of > > > > leadership class should really be going to war at all. Over at the New > > > > York Times, the elderly schoolgirl Maureen Dowd riffed off Cheney’s > > > > defense of waterboarding and argued that, no matter when the next > > > > terrorist attack comes, the former vice president would be the one > > > > primarily responsible. He is, she said, “a force multiplier for > > > > Muslims who hate America.” - Mark Steynhttp:// > > article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQ5ZTA3NDE2NjE3YTEyNjY3ZjJlNzQ2...- Hide > > quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
