Comments on: Pelosi: The New WMD

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:46:15 +0000

Plame, Iraq fraud, U.S Attorney firings, Destroying evidence, Torture, not briefing Congress. For starters. There's enough criminality there to convict several times over.

But it won't happen, because there weren't any blowjobs involved.

The Village just hates blowjobs….very threatening to national security….but torture? Yawn.

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:10:23 +0000

Rev, without quoting a conspiracy website or Madcow and Olberdork, tell me about this overwhelming criminal evidence against Cheney and Bush on anything. If you look into it and the history of it all, everything points toward the far left.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:47:38 +0000

Good stuff frank.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she didn't have the votes. That, naturally, is not an acceptable reason. It was her obligation, not option, to begin proceedings, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Bush/Cheney. So I agree with what you say.

At the same time….if she would have begun proceedings, and then fell short in the Senate, not only would Bush/Cheney be vindicated for their crime spree….but American voters would have concluded that the Democrats were feckless because they couldn't get the job done. And there was no way the votes were in the Senate.

Just as outing a covert CIA agent and then conspiring to cover in up quickly became a "political" difference of opinion….so too, now, torture.

We just keep sliding further and further into madness.

By: frank

frank — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:00:25 +0000

larry d.,
First of all, I believe that Pelosi should be impeached. She swore to uphold the Constitution and by declaring "impeachment off the table" she violated her oath. Also, since the Constitution uses the phrase "will" instead of the word "may", it indicates a duty to actively pursue impeachment under the circumstances, and that she could not assume the power or position to thwart such efforts. But I still don't know what witch hunts you think she's calling for. I think she and the entire administration are treating the issue as something that they don't want to deal with at all.

Once again, these "enhanced techniques" weren't used as a last resort, they weren't used for their efficacy, and the way to get it to stop was to invent a story linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. This wasn't done in the name of national security, a significant number of people were tortured, killing some, to obtain statements for use as justification for the invasion of Iraq.

I really don't know why you accuse me of hate. I've been following politics since Goldwater's run, and quite frankly, I began to find the Dems vs. Reps arguments bogging down things on these two sites. But torture is something that should transcend the constant twists in logic needed to support ones side.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:57:08 +0000

Strange hate, I suppose, is in the eye of the hater.

Personally, what I hate is the fact that torturing prisoners to coerce false confessions in order to stage a fraud-upped war…..resulted in more American soldiers being killed, needlessly.

Those getting their hate on over Pelosi, it seems, hate, like vampires, the threat of embarassing and humiliating sunlight of truth and accountability shining on the faces of their torture heros.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:00:45 +0000

You forgot the last clause in each possibility, frank–seven years later Pelosi calls for a witch hunt, lying about what she knew and damaging American security efforts for purely partisan purposes.

You two don't care about torture at all. It's just an excuse for your strange hate.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:14:15 +0000

You won't get an answer to that question, frank.

By: frank

frank — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:42:09 +0000

Mr. King,
I would bet that most of the pre-2000 statements were replies in response to questions about ending the economic sanctions imposed the Gulf War. At the time, what was imported and what was exported was under UN (US) control. Sadaam refused to change Iraq's budget to meet his people's needs which resulted in the deaths and suffering of the populace. There was a movement then that advocated ending the sanctions. The Clinton administration strongly opposed ending them. They needed to convince that Sadaam was still a risk even after destroying his military, even though we knew what came and left the country, even though we maintained flyovers, and even though Iraq was one of the heaviest surveilled places on the planet. Given all these factors, it would have been truly remarkable if Sadaam had been able to have any weapons program, much less one which had developed into an imminent threat. Since we controlled Iraq's airspace, any such targets would have been quickly taken out.

Your second group of quotes featured people who were briefed with information that went through Cheney's office. In other words, they were fed a line of s**t. That was also a time when neither the nation or Democrats wanted the president restricted in any way from pursuing AlQaeda. And politically, Democrats have learned to innoculate themselves against charges of being soft on whatever ism we find ourselves opposed to.

It should be apparent that when politicians speak, they do so for a purpose. The truth is secondary. Finding an honest statesman among our politicians is akin to finding a hooker with a heart of gold.

But arguments over Pelosi's virtue notwithstanding, there are three possible scenarios:
1. "Enhanced" interrogation practices are legal. Pelosi briefed, did nothing.
2. They are not legal. Pelosi given misleading briefing, therefore did nothing.
3. They are not legal. Pelosi given accurate briefing and gives active or passive consent by doing nothing.

In the worst of the three, Pelosi's fault is in not preventing a crime. If that crime exists shouldn't we be going after the perpetrators of the crime first?

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:09:18 +0000

Clue me in, then, Einstein…..what is it that they prove?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:18:38 +0000

Rev
The quotes "prove nothing"? They prove everything.
Nothing else you say can be taken seriously.