Official CS.com Pelosi Political Death Watch Thread

[Pwns]

i realize the conkland vocal band is rubbing their stubby shillelaghs raw over the possibility of witch-hunting the hated Speaker... but all of this really begs the question... in the 5 years we were apparently torturing and the GOP controlled Congress was seated... why no investigations and why no protest? and if it's because they don't oppose torture, than really... what the **** is their problem??? or is it more that their problem is that ol Nancy is a D.

The republicans aren't objecting to the enhanced interrogation methods, unfortunatly. What they are objecting to is that Pelosi does absolutely nothing when she knew everything that was going on, and then now thinks she can have her politically motivated nuremberg-like hearings in congress without someone calling her out with her complicity in GWB's policies.

Pelosi and the congressional dems are the ones on a witch hunt, and it has backfired inPelosi's face.

[native]

Actually, I have been fairly happy with Obama on a few issues, and national security so far is one of them. We still have no plan on Afghanistan, but the administration says that is forthcoming. (Amazing how hard it is to put together a plan overnight, isn't it? Easy to say "we need a plan", a little harder to actually put one together) Agreed with the administration on not releasing Gitmo pics. It is bad enough that we have shown our whole hand in terms of interrogations, but there's no way to put that cat back in the bag now. I think Obama is realizing that as a pragmatist (which he appears to be) he is going to have to hang on to some of the Bush policies in the war on terror. As a result, we have already seen how the called for immediate pullout from Iraq is no longer on the table. We are also seeing that Obama has decided to keep the military tribunals. It is going to be spun as being tweaked to provide more rights to the defendants, but this is just window dressing for the Pelosi crowd. Obama knows that if he sends terrorists into the loving arms of our civilian courts it will not be a happy political day when one of them gets turned loose.

All this being said, Nancy Pelosi is not just a liability to her party, she is also a liability to Obama. She represents the moonbattiest part of the Democratic Party, and Obama is going to have problems with that side of the house. As long as Pelosi is Speaker, the Obama administration is going to have to play ball with her and the baggage (read: interests) that she brings with her. Obama will find it much easier to pursue his agenda (leftist, but not nearly as leftist as Pelosi's) when Nancy is relegated to the House Subcommittee on Parks and Paper Clips.

As a side note.... look for Janet Napolitano to be the first cabinet member to "retire" to a consultancy.

Although it is way too early to make any predictions, the best thing that could happen politically for Obama, and maybe for the country, would be a Republican sweep of Congress in 2010.

Although they lost some credibility under Bush as the party of responsibility, the Republicans have a better chance than the Democrats of saving Obama from his most foolish policies and setting the country on a more responsible course, just as they did in 1994 for Bill Clinton.

Besides, both Wall Street and Main Street seem to prefer divided government.

[houndawg]

Holy Shirt. How many clarifications can one person have on a subject.

Now, after saying the CIA lied to her and lied to others, Pelosi has released a statement that she was only talking about the Bush administration.

Has any considered that maybe the CIA did lie? I remember several of our conks assuring us that the CIA was lying when they said Valerie Plame was covert and that the Bush Administration outing her compromised assests of ours abroad.

[AZGrizFan]

Holy Shirt. How many clarifications can one person have on a subject.

Now, after saying the CIA lied to her and lied to others, Pelosi has released a statement that she was only talking about the Bush administration.

Has any considered that maybe the CIA did lie? I remember several of our conks assuring us that the CIA was lying when they said Valerie Plame was covert and that the Bush Administration outing her compromised assests of ours abroad.

I wouldn't doubt it. The CIA's JOB is to lie...

[SeattleGriz]

Holy Shirt. How many clarifications can one person have on a subject.

Now, after saying the CIA lied to her and lied to others, Pelosi has released a statement that she was only talking about the Bush administration.

Has any considered that maybe the CIA did lie? I remember several of our conks assuring us that the CIA was lying when they said Valerie Plame was covert and that the Bush Administration outing her compromised assests of ours abroad.

Sure that could have happened, but the point is that not only Pelosi, but many other Dems knew about waterboarding and didn't object. Why do you think so many of them are distancing themselves from Pelosi. They were told, and so was Pelosi.

Even if she wasn't briefed about waterboarding during her briefing, she has admitted to being informed as early as Feb 2003 and still didn't do anything. Why didn't she sign Jane Harman's letter?

Her excuse that she was busy trying to wrest control of congress back, shows in my opinion, that she was willing to politicize our national security less than one year after 9/11. I say less than one year, because you can bet that if Pelosi was SO busy working behind the scenes, she sure as hell started before Feb 2003.

[houndawg]

Actually, I have been fairly happy with Obama on a few issues, and national security so far is one of them. We still have no plan on Afghanistan, but the administration says that is forthcoming. (Amazing how hard it is to put together a plan overnight, isn't it? Easy to say "we need a plan", a little harder to actually put one together) Agreed with the administration on not releasing Gitmo pics. It is bad enough that we have shown our whole hand in terms of interrogations, but there's no way to put that cat back in the bag now. I think Obama is realizing that as a pragmatist (which he appears to be) he is going to have to hang on to some of the Bush policies in the war on terror. As a result, we have already seen how the called for immediate pullout from Iraq is no longer on the table. We are also seeing that Obama has decided to keep the military tribunals. It is going to be spun as being tweaked to provide more rights to the defendants, but this is just window dressing for the Pelosi crowd. Obama knows that if he sends terrorists into the loving arms of our civilian courts it will not be a happy political day when one of them gets turned loose.

All this being said, Nancy Pelosi is not just a liability to her party, she is also a liability to Obama. She represents the moonbattiest part of the Democratic Party, and Obama is going to have problems with that side of the house. As long as Pelosi is Speaker, the Obama administration is going to have to play ball with her and the baggage (read: interests) that she brings with her. Obama will find it much easier to pursue his agenda (leftist, but not nearly as leftist as Pelosi's) when Nancy is relegated to the House Subcommittee on Parks and Paper Clips.

As a side note.... look for Janet Napolitano to be the first cabinet member to "retire" to a consultancy.

Although it is way too early to make any predictions, the best thing that could happen politically for Obama, and maybe for the country, would be a Republican sweep of Congress in 2010.

Although they lost some credibility under Bushas the party of responsibility, the Republicans have a better chance than the Democrats of saving Obama from his most foolish policies and setting the country on a more responsible course, just as they did in 1994 for Bill Clinton.

Besides, both Wall Street and Main Street seem to prefer divided government.

Understatement of the millenium.

Kind of like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer had unusual taste in friends.

[Wedgebuster]

Krill the Krunt.

[CID1990]

Holy Shirt. How many clarifications can one person have on a subject.

Now, after saying the CIA lied to her and lied to others, Pelosi has released a statement that she was only talking about the Bush administration.

Has any considered that maybe the CIA did lie? I remember several of our conks assuring us that the CIA was lying when they said Valerie Plame was covert and that the Bush Administration outing her compromised assests of ours abroad.

The CIA didn't lie, but neither did the Bush Administration where the Plame issue was concerned. Everyone in the CIA who works outside of Langley can be considered 'covert,' in that they work with a cover. The brouhaha about Valerie Plame was that she was an analyst, not a case officer. In layman's terms, 'covert' means James Bond. In industry terms, it means just about anyone who doesn't drive to Langley in the morning. There IS a distinction. An analyst with a blown cover does not cost assets in terms of those assets being killed. It costs assets in terms of letting our adversaries know where our intelligence interests lie. It would seem like this is a no-brainer, as in 'why would that be classified', but it is.

And I agree 100%... it seems that the CIA's credibility only seems to come into question when somebody's political life is at stake.

As for whether the CIA lies to Congress, don't believe it. It does not profit the Agency to do that, ever. A LOT of people have to be totally on board with the lying, and you need a tinfoil hat to think that the folks over at CIA operate that way.

[Appaholic]

At the end of the day, this whole thing isn't about torture anyway. It is about credibility and politics. Nancy Pelosi has been very vocal for a long time that one of the sins of the former administration was torture. The right has argued that waterboarding is not torture, and even if it WAS, it does not apply here since those animals down in Gitmo do not qualify for rights under the Geneva Conventions. So, it doesn't matter whther Pelosi knew or not in terms of whether waterboarding is torture.

What DOES matter is that in her efforts to crab walk out of what was originally just a political faux pas and branding as a hypocrite, she has now claimed that the CIA lied to her, and in effect, lied to Congress. Whether waterboarding is torture or not, if her allegations are true, then there is certainly a criminal act involved here. It is Pelosi's big mouth and poor judgment that is keeping this alive, and now that she has alleged that the CIA lied, well, now we have to find out.

I think the ironic thing here was that all during the Iraq War, Pelosi and Co. thought the CIA could do no wrong, since their whole position on 'cooking the books' about the evidence that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger depended on the integrity of the CIA. NOW the CIA is no longer the sole voice of reason in the wilderness, but one of the shady animals that inhabit it. This whole thing can only go badly for Pelosi and whomever else she chooses to drag down with her.

Word here on the Hill is that she is already on her way down.

Well stated CID1990....I totally agree with the credibility angle of this issue. One can start seeing the dem apologists lining up for Pelosi much like a blue wildkyle. Proving yet again the ardent supporters of either party aren't so much concerned with what's good for this country as they are with what's good for keeping their people in power.....

BTW, good to see you posting here....

[native]

McCain would have kicked waterboarding's ASS in 'Nam....

Yeah, Daddy would have bribed the Viet Cong to use "Dry" waterboarding. Chortle, chortle, chortle, snicker, and done...

As a POW, John McCain sacrificed more for you than you will accomplish in 1,000 lifetimes.

[Cleets Part 2]

Yeah, Daddy would have bribed the Viet Cong to use "Dry" waterboarding. Chortle, chortle, chortle, snicker, and done...

As a POW, John McCain sacrificed more for you than you will accomplish in 1,000 lifetimes.

Please explain this to me...
the concept that a "sacrifice" is relational to an "accomplishment" in terms you describe above..?

By being shot down repeatedly - as an admitted terrible pilot and then finally captured...
he accomplished more than some arbitrary value you have applied to others..?

seriously explain this...

[native]

As a POW, John McCain sacrificed more for you than you will accomplish in 1,000 lifetimes.

Please explain this to me...
the concept that a "sacrifice" is relational to an "accomplishment" in terms you describe above..?

By being shot down repeatedly - as an admitted terrible pilot and then finally captured...
he accomplished more than some arbitrary value you have applied to others..?

seriously explain this...

1,000 is 10 x 10 x 10. Seriously. Fourier transformations were my undoing, so I had to keep the math simple.

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.

Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

[grizzaholic]

Please explain this to me...
the concept that a "sacrifice" is relational to an "accomplishment" in terms you describe above..?

By being shot down repeatedly - as an admitted terrible pilot and then finally captured...
he accomplished more than some arbitrary value you have applied to others..?

seriously explain this...

1,000 is 10 x 10 x 10. Seriously. Fourier transformations were my undoing, so I had to keep the math simple.

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.

Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

Cleets was not making fun of POW's. He was just trying, as am I, to figure out your rational.

[slycat]

Shes a moron and needs to be removed.

[Cleets Part 2]

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.
Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

How does you being a self righteous buffoon have anything to do with me "making fun of POW's"

My father was in the Vietnam war...
and served 22 years in the Military for this great Nation

You cannot even imagine (on your best day) what I know - so please "man up" and answer the question...
or forever be the self inflated pompous blow hard that you have have continually shown you are

[native]

1,000 is 10 x 10 x 10. Seriously. Fourier transformations were my undoing, so I had to keep the math simple.

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.

Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

Cleets was not making fun of POW's. He was just trying, as am I, to figure out your rational.

I understand that Cleets did not make fun of POWs, the previous post did. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don't wear it.

Here is my rationale: The value of the service and contribution to the greater good of someone who is willing to risk death in defense of our country and suffer extreme torture to try to keep the faith with the POWs who remained loyal to the U.S., even under duress, is beyond measure.

Those who demean that service devalue themselves and whatever their own contributions might be.

Did I address your question, Grizz?

[native]

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.
Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

How does you being a self righteous buffoon have anything to do with me "making fun of POW's"

My father was in the Vietnam war...
and served 22 years in the Military for this great Nation

You cannot even imagine (on your best day) what I know - so please "man up" and answer the question...
or forever be the self inflated pompous blow hard that you have have continually shown you are

You didn't make fun of POWs. The previous post did.

You merely started a fight, I suppose because I hurt your feelings by calling you an empty suit after several vacuous posts.

I apologize for calling you an empty suit.

[native]

On the other hand, it is apparent you understand nothing of honor, duty or sacrifice, so I will not bore you with it.
Anyone who wants to make fun of POWs can go straight to hell.

...You cannot even imagine (on your best day) what I know ...

Your criticism is fair. I do not know what you know.

On the other hand, your posts speak for themselves.

[grizzaholic]

...You cannot even imagine (on your best day) what I know ...

Your criticism is fair. I do not know what you know.

On the other hand, your posts speak for themselves.

Likewise.

[slycat]

I'm a Liberal
and I do not think she is fit to lead (period)


just my 2 cents as if anybody cares

Outside of Obama, the Democratic party is pretty weak. Pelosi and Reid aren't doing their own party much good.

No shit. Again why I don;t like political parties. Some day maybe they will work together.

Torture doesn't work that well anyway. Should be banned.

[slycat]

BTW I just read through this thread and it is hilarious. So many jokes packed in.

[Cleets Part 2]

You didn't make fun of POWs. The previous post did.

You merely started a fight, I suppose because I hurt your feelings by calling you an empty suit after several vacuous posts.

I apologize for calling you an empty suit.

Okee-Dokee
1) You answered the question (nicely) in your previous post - and I appreciate that perspective on Service & Sacrifice equaling Accomplishment

2) When did you call me an empty suit..?

[Appaholic]

Yeah, Daddy would have bribed the Viet Cong to use "Dry" waterboarding. Chortle, chortle, chortle, snicker, and done...

As a POW, John McCain sacrificed more for you than you will accomplish in 1,000 lifetimes.

Sorry, not to diminish what McCain nor any other POW experienced at the hands of torturous interrogaters, let's not confuse their experience with "sacrificing for my freedom"....my freedom was bestowed upon me the day I was born, not earned by fighting a police action, advising, whatever in Vietnam....had my or any other American's freedom been dependent on the outcome of the Vietnam war, we probably wouldn't have the luxury of arguing this topic on an unfiltered message board......

[native]

As a POW, John McCain sacrificed more for you than you will accomplish in 1,000 lifetimes.

Sorry, not to diminish what McCain nor any other POW experienced at the hands of torturous interrogaters, let's not confuse their experience with "sacrificing for my freedom"....my freedom was bestowed upon me the day I was born, not earned by fighting a police action, advising, whatever in Vietnam....had my or any other American's freedom been dependent on the outcome of the Vietnam war, we probably wouldn't have the luxury of arguing this topic on an unfiltered message board......

Well crafted post, Appy, but as you know, freedom isn't free and cannot be maintaned without sacrfice.

Whether or not the particular sacrifice is or is not on your list of aproved sacrifices, the value of the willingness to sacrifice and the effort to maintain the faith under extreme duress is priceless. Unfortunately, it takes thousands and thousands of such sacrifices, even though some may, in hindsight, be misdirected.

My family members who spent years in communist prison camps in SE Asia may disagree with your characterization of our efforts there.

[native]

...When did you call me an empty suit..?

Your short term memory is an admirable quality.

I forgot. Onward and upward!