Washington witch Nancy Pelosi has for weeks now looked directly into the cameras and, with a kind of shamelessness that would make even Bill Clinton proud, insisted that she had no idea that enhanced interrogation methods were being used against murderers who killed 3000 Americans.
Well, now that CIA briefs have come out which detail the facts that she did indeed hear of such methods in meetings in September 2002, there is absolutely no doubt that she is a selfish, sleazy, out-of-control LIAR.
If you are a liberal, who screamed bloody murder claiming "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied," I suppose you are already lining up in the streets in protest over this blatant abuse of power which cannot be denied. Oh, wait, you're a liberal, which means that your perspective is relative - meaning that you have no problem if someone is a confirmed LIAR so long as the liar in question is also a liberal. Which means if you called Bush a liar but are not yelling that Pelosi is a LIAR just as loudly, you are a stinking HYPOCRITE, just like the wicked witch Pelosi herself.
Don't deny it. We all know.
Even the Washington Post can see that Pelosi is a liar.
She, too NEEDS to be held accountable, she needs to be fired and removed from governmental service immediately.
14 comments:
I don't think you'll find too many liberals defending Pelosi here. I sure as hell am not. If I lived in her district, she wouldn't have my vote in the Democratic primary.
She's a very well funded corporate democrat, so she will probably breeze through the primary on sheer name recognition and brute advertising force. But in the general election, we're going to see the same problem we always see. Her district is overwhelmingly democratic. So even though Democrats like me are pissed about this, it becomes a choice of the "lesser of two evils." I would probably vote for her over a Republican because even though I really can't stand her (Or Harry Reid), I would rather have someone who is going to at least vote in my interests most of the time. It's the problem with the 2-party system and money politics.
"She, too NEEDS to be held accountable, she needs to be fired and removed from governmental service immediately."
I would argue that you're being the hypocrite. You're calling for Pelosi to be "fired" (by which I assume you mean impeached, where you'll again run into the problem that lying is not a crime, and she therefore cannot be impeached) for knowing about torture. Yet you're not calling for any Republicans' heads. Why not?
PW, I'm thoroughly impressed to hear a Democrat actually disapproving of Peolsi's lies. Very refreshing.
You are a democrat, but you are a somewhat reasonable one who can fairly engage in honest debate.
I would not be surprised if the interaction which you participate in on this blog actually helps you to practice the logical propositional debate which will become a mandatory part of your career. So I am honored to be one of your sparring partner in your legal training. For though we are not often discussing purely legal matters, the elements of conservative vs liberal points and counter-points are quite similar to actual legal debates. So this can actually act as something of a lab that compliments your schooling. So be it. Ain't America great?
So why should I call for any Republican's heads? What have they done? Just because the hypocritical liberals and hypocritical main stream media have been on a witch hunt since 2004, doesn't mean that anything illegal has occurred.
Go ahead and name a crime committed by a conservative that isn't just liberal hysteria...
Well I thought I had already documented pretty thoroughly that torture is highly illegal and that waterboarding clearly constitutes torture, even according to the Bush state department. Additionally, according to the U.S. Torture Statute, the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the statute matches the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Constitution. So if waterboarding can't be done to U.S. civilians, it cannot be done to foreign prisoners, as it would constitute torture. Therefore, anyone, Republican or Democrat, who ordered waterboarding or other torture committed a crime.
So someone committed a crime. Because waterboarding happened, and someone ordered it. We just aren't sure who. I want an investigation into this. As you said, people need to be held accountable. It's not a witch hunt if we have a fair and transparent investigation into any wrongdoing.
I also want to emphasize that I'm not proposing we coddle terrorists or let them go or anything of that nature. Obviously, they are despicable people who did or planned to do despicable things. They should be punished, but it should be done within the confines of the law.
...
"You are a democrat, but you are a somewhat reasonable one who can fairly engage in honest debate. "
That's how most Democrats and Republicans are--fair, honest, good people. That's a point I've routinely tried to make. Since the 90's, both sides of the American political dive have become so terrified of the other side and convinced of their opponents' inhumanity that it has poisoned political discourse in our country. That's why I get pissed off when I read things like "libtards" or "cretins" or other dehumanizing things about the left. I get equally angry when I read some jackass ranting on Daily Kos about how All Republicans=Evil. The fringes on both sides have dehumanized their opponents to the point that we can barely have an honest debate anymore.
PW, so all those commanders in the military who have approved of waterboarding for thousands of Americans in SERE survival school, a standard part of military special ops training should also be prosecuted in this witch hunt?
"Cruel and unusual" is a relative term.
And it is simply appalling that the liberal feigns concern for morality and goes about on a witch hunt that they deny is a witch hunt while at the same time looking the other way on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and other egregious immoral activity. Furthermore, they want to take this contrived 'concern for morality' all the way to the top so as to indict Commander in Chief, George W. Bush.
This entire charade so obviously works to divide this country which works right into the hands of our enemy. The liberal, in an attempt to claim some moral high ground, is simply continuing to devour the country itself as it has for about a decade now. Envy, hate and hunger for power can be the only motivations because were the liberal ACTUALLY interested in morality abortions would stop tomorrow.
So the claim about concern for about our national character, and how waterboarding makes us evil is a whine with crocodile tears. What makes us evil is our abortions, our homosexuality and our pornography all of which liberals jubilantly endorse.
The minutia of three men getting waterboarded, all who deserved much worse and were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, is nothing compared to the real evil this country is guilty of, and all of which liberals approve of.
It would do the liberal well to remove the log out of his own eye before he complains about the speck in the conservative's eye.
Otherwise he remains a logical and moral hypocrite.
"PW, so all those commanders in the military who have approved of waterboarding for thousands of Americans in SERE survival school, a standard part of military special ops training should also be prosecuted in this witch hunt?"
No, they voluntarily subjected themselves to it. They could no sooner sue the military than Christopher Hitchens could sue the people who waterboarded him after he asked them to do it so he could report on it.
I also think you're missing a larger point here. The point of subjecting special forces to waterboarding is to prepare them in case they are tortured by some barbaric enemy. The fact that SERE uses this technique to prepare soldiers for torture should serve as even more evidence (as if any more was needed), that waterboarding is torture and therefore illegal.
If you really have the respect for the Constitution you tout so often ("Don't tread on my Constitution," I believe was how you put it...), then you should condemn it, regardless of whether you think it is fair or justifiable. Because the Constitution is the legal framework of our entire country. And torture is unconstitutional.
PW, if getting a terrorist's head wet is torture, than so were all my high school and college football practices. That was way tougher than anything these terrorists have had to deal with.
And the games? I played football in the rain at 33 degrees. You were frozen to the bone the instant you first hit the ground and stayed that way the entire game. I played in snow on a frozen field that was as hard as a parking lot.
You are a wuss if you think getting a terrorist's head wet is torture.
How about spending some of that energy focusing on the dang ENEMY instead of feigned moral objection of the military who protects us.
NO LIBERAL has a molecule of ground to stand on to cite moral objection of our military as long as said liberal supports abortion and homosexuality.
"You are a wuss if you think getting a terrorist's head wet is torture."
Get this through your head. It DOES NOT MATTER what I think or you think is torture relative to other experiences. It matters what the law says.
PW,
"It matters what the law says."
And what does the law say about a person's eligibility to be President as it relates to the country in which he was born? Why aren't you hunting that one down if you are so outraged about "what the law says?"
And what does the law say about obstruction of justice as Obama's lawyers continue to shield Obama's birth and college records?
And what does the law say about Hillary Clinton's actual eligibility to be Secretary of State?
And what does the law say about graft and corruption?
And what does the law say about my right to KEEP and BEAR arms?
None of you liberals really care about "what the law says," you just want to continue to hate Bush because you have NO POSITIVE, HELPFUL IDEAS to offer, and you thrive on hate...and have done so since 2000.
And guess what? The first person to go down in your witch hunt will be Nancy Pelosi, the LIAR.
(What does the law say about lying to Congress, anyway????)
"And what does the law say about a person's eligibility to be President as it relates to the country in which he was born? Why aren't you hunting that one down if you are so outraged about 'what the law says?'"
Obama was born in the U.S. I'm not starting with this again. Obama's long form birth certificate isn't being shielded by his lawyers. It is simply not accessible because HAWAIII DOESN'T RELEASE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATES. However, the U.S. State Department says that short form certificates, such as the one Obama has shown reporters, is perfectly acceptable for proving citizenship.
"And what does the law say about Hillary Clinton's actual eligibility to be Secretary of State?"
I assume you're talking about the Emoluments Clause. I assume you're also completely ignoring the Saxbe fix, which has been used by several Presidents, including Taft, Nixon, and Clinton, to avoid the Constitutional problem here. Basically, Congress restores the salary to its original level so that the nominee isn't receiving a pay increase that he/she voted for.
"(What does the law say about lying to Congress, anyway????)"
Unless it's under oath, you can lie your ass off without legal ramifications. Obviously, it shows moral and ethical flaws, but it is not a crime.
I'm for the right to keep and bear arms. And Obama hasn't taken that right away. If you think requiring permits or restricting certain military-style weapons is against the 2nd amendment, then it's a question of interpretation of the law, not a question of ignoring it.
On another note, here's an article that pretty much sums up how I feel about our whole conversation about torture, and your responses along the lines of "What Al-Qaeda did was worse."
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/11/torture-is-fun/
The article is not a no torture under any circumstances article. You do what you have to do. Exactly.
I don't think you read the article. I think you read the excerpt from Townhall.com that Taibbi goes on to criticize.
But that's not even the main point of the article.
His main point was how stupid it is to say things like "Where was the outrage over Nick Berg's beheading?"
Because being outraged at torture and being outraged at attrocities committed by terrorists are not mutually exclusive.
PW, sorry, the font change led me to believe the rest was just comments.
I read the article.
The guy is a moron.
Again, if he is all concerned about things like this:
"My group, the anti-torture group, believes that what should make us superior to terrorists is respect for law and due process and civilization, and that when we give in and use these tactics, we forfeit that superiority and actually confer a kind of victory to the al Qaedas of the world, people who should never be allowed any kind of victory in any arena"...why isn't he standing outside abortion clinics protesting the failure of due process for innocent children who are tortured and murdered?
The man is absurd.
And his whining accomplishes exactly what he says he is against: namely allowing AQ victories by his appeasements and surrendering. There is no winning a POLITICAL war with these jihadists...unless he plans on convincing them that the Qu'ran is not 'god's' word...and he won't live long enough to do that because they will slit his throat for even suggesting it.
Furthermore, what's with the racism? "Angry White Person" was mentioned a number of times. What's the deal with that? What does he have against white people?
Perhaps he should look to see why a person might be angry, like the guy who the wtc fell on and crushed his chest, does he not have a right to be indignant? And yet Mr. holier-than-thou hypocrite reporter condemns the victim of terrorism and labels him as an "Angry White Person."
What a bunch of crap.
The bleeding heart liberal who wrote the article is a wuss.
Cry me a dang river.
Wow, you completely missed the point of the article.
And by the way, when he mentioned "Angry White People," he was commenting on the fact that the Republican Party, for whatever reason, is made up almost exclusively of whites. He wasn't being racist.
"the guy who the wtc fell on and crushed his chest, does he not have a right to be indignant?"
"Obviously Mr. Reeg suffered a terrible experience; I would never make light of that. What I do want to say is that there seems to be this idea that those of us who are against making torture an allowable practice in the U.S. are somehow condoning the behavior of those wacko/asshole religious extremists, that we’re picking “their side” in the debate, like it’s an either/or proposition or something."
Let me ask you something. I oppose torture (which includes waterboarding) unequivocally. Does that make me pro-terrorism?
PW, If you oppose waterboarding, it makes you not only a pro-terrorist, because you do not have the inner strength to do what it takes to deal with and defeat these people, thus, playing into their hand, but it also confirms that you are a wuss.
And he was being a racist or he wouldn't have said what he did.
Furthermore, you said earlier that the short-form birth certificate is the only one that Hawaii releases...but they also release this same form for children born outside the USA...which makes this no proof at all...it's like if a policeman stopped you because someone had reported that you had a gun in a bag. The cop asked you what was in the bag, a walmart bag. You say, "well, walmart sells candy and they put it in this bag." Since walmart [in some states] also sells handguns and puts them in the same bag, name one single police officer who would accept your argument that it was candy, and not a gun. VERIFICATION is mandatory, and your short-form argument is as lame as the walmart bag argument, and you know it.
Post a Comment