Panetta: CIA Misled Congress
July 8th, 2009, 11:02 PM EDT
CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress in a recent briefing that the agency misled them on “significant actions” for a “number of years.”
In a letter written to Panetta on June 26 by seven Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA chief is urged to “publicly correct” an earlier statement he made in which he insisted that it was not agency policy to mislead Congress.
As the letter details, Panetta apparently acknowledged in an earlier briefing that this statement was not, in fact, true.
The “significant actions” that were concealed were Bush interrogation policies. I presume apologies to Nancy Pelosi with be forthcoming from all those who excoriated her because she stood up the the CIA.
What’s done in the dark will be brought to the light someday.
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Yah,
Saying that the CIA is dishonest is kinda like saying, it’s dark at night.
Someday perhaps stuff will be brought into the light,
probably not in our lifetimes though.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Thats actually pretty biblical…
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
That’s what I believe bro.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
“I presume apologies to Nancy Pelosi with be forthcoming from all those who excoriated her because she stood up the the CIA.”
Praying for rain in the desert, my friend.
Rain in the bared, dry, cracked lands of the sandy, vapid wastes.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Alan said: I presume apologies to Nancy Pelosi with be forthcoming from all those who excoriated her because she stood up the the CIA.
K: How did Pelosi stand up the CIA?
trees are people too Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I dunno, apparently she was supposed to go on a date with them and never showed……..
And Alan is complaining about her being excoriated for that?
She should be excoriated for that, standing someone up just ain’t cool………….
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Who, in his right mind, would ever go on a date with Nancy Pelosi?
trees are people too Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I bet Alan would…. but then you did say right mind….. so, Alan is out as a possibility…..
Hmm…….
Bill Clinton might……..but yeah, we have that right mind issue again…..
Yeah, I dunno…….I don’t think anyone in their right mind would ever go out with her……..
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Trees said: Bill Clinton might……..but yeah, we have that right mind issue again…..
K: The only reason Clinton would turn her down is because of her rickety knees… ;-)
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Oooh this is fun! The conservatives are getting catty! I guess that’s all you have. Too bad.
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
see again I dont believe these guys(kregg/trees) are xtian at all, they use religion, they mock and demean people all the while they have someone to blame. bad devil! or is it the nature of man? anyway nice exploitation.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
CRAIG,
…they mock and demean people all the while they have someone to blame.
does this none of the libs here are “xtian” as well?
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Jared please clarify. might of left out a word or two.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
CRAIG,
You’re right…here ya go:
…they mock and demean people all the while they have someone to blame.
does this mean none of the libs here are “xtian” as well?
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Nope I was really specific on who.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
CRAIG,
Yes, you identified KREGG and TREES as unworthy of the “xtian” title because of your inferred mockery, etc.
To which I asked if that means that no lib this site can claim to be “xtian” if those are the standards.
trees are people too Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Jared,
I think Craig just managed to throw a fairly good sized stone through the ceiling of his “glass house”.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“does this mean none of the libs here are “xtian” as well?”
The difference is, Jared, we don’t wear or religion on our sleeves. I think if someone is going to quote the Bible 24/7 (as Trees does), they should at least practice what they preach.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Well now. Isn’t that special? Mr. “holier than thou” Trees is accusing others of throwing stones? Tsk, tsk. Cattiness doesn’t become you.
flap Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“we don’t wear [our] religion on our sleeves”
But it’s perfectly okay to wear an ideology of disdain for people who YOU claim purportedly “wear a religion on their sleeves” on YOUR sleeves?
Trees has inspired me. Here’s a nice verse slamming moral relativism:
Proverbs 28:26: “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
no no I didnt say unworthy, I said WASNT xtian. like I said they use religion. hey if it makes them feel good to mock and demean others and then write bible verses on other posts who cares. they’re big boys Im sure they can handle a negative post directed their way.
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Flap, Im gonna assume by that post you take every word in the bible as truth. just in case you dont then that quote isnt worth that much now is it.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
“Trees has inspired me”
Of course he inspires you. You’re birds of a feather. Just as good and righteous people, people who believe in peace, love and the brotherhood of man, disgust you, those who believe in war, hatred and bigotry, inspire you. It’s the nature of the beast
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Proverbs 28:26: “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
I was going to post the “beware the false prophets” quote again, but I’m sure you’re already working for them.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I think you anti-bible types have a wrong impression of who and what a christian is.
A christian is someone who has voluntarily submitted control of his life to who he understands God to be as written in the bible.
The purpose of the ‘walk with Christ’ is to become in our attitudes – and therefore, our lives – as much like Christ’s character as we are capable of, as loving as He was toward others. This isn’t so much a goal as it is a natural change in character as we ‘associate’ with Christ through time spent in worship, study, and practice.
No christian is any more perfect – or better – than any anti-bibler but simply has a philosophy of wanting to emulate Christ. Part of that emulation is following a divine moral code regarding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which includes the biblical understanding – and rules – of marriage. That a christian sometimes fails his/her beliefs and morals regarding marriage should be no more a surprise than an anti-bibler doing the same. The only difference is that the christian has a moral code to compare his behavior against wherein the anti-bibler can easily excuse whatever behavior he wishes to exhibit by simply claiming no moral code – or moral authority – outside what feels good to him.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Craig said: see again I dont believe these guys(kregg/trees) are xtian at all, they use religion, they mock and demean people all the while they have someone to blame. bad devil! or is it the nature of man? anyway nice exploitation..
K: The fact that I may ‘mock’ or ‘demean’ people is simply evidence that my distaste for them has overruled my love for them. I’m working on it… ;-)
K: What are you guys doing to eliminate the ‘mocking’ and ‘demeaning’ you engage in?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
TDRO
Are you implying that God is never in favor of war? Maybe you better go read again.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
And for some reason, MANY have the misconception and believe the worldly lie that Christians HAVE to be perfect.
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“Are you implying that God is never in favor of war? Maybe you better go read again.”
I don’t know if God is in favor of war. I myself am against all form of war.
But hey, if you’re okay with sensless killing and murder, try calling Obama and see if he’ll start another war for you.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
TDRO
You posted that it wasn’t Christian to be in favor of war. SO, I asked if you thought God ever condoned war. You don’t know. So if you don’t know, don’t act like you know what GOd would or wouldn’t condone and please don’t throw stones at folks we support our troops AND finishing what we started.
Why don’t you try calling obama? He hasn’t done what he promised you would he do. Troops are still dying and so are civillians. Where’s your calls for impeachment?
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“So if you don’t know, don’t act like you know what GOd would or wouldn’t condone”
Where have I posted that I know EXACTLY what God would and wouldn’t condone? Pulling s**t out of your ass again, I see.
“Why don’t you try calling obama? He hasn’t done what he promised you would he do. Troops are still dying and so are civillians. Where’s your calls for impeachment?”
Why are you complaining? He’s doing everything you want him to do. He’s keeping our troops and the Iraqi people in harm’s way. That way, you can feel good about yourself by saying “we support our troops AND condone their finishing what we started” when they come home in body bags to mourning families.
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“Just as good and righteous people, people who believe in peace, love and the brotherhood of man, disgust you, those who believe in war, hatred and bigotry, inspire you.”
Hahaha, you’re hilarious, TDro. Talk about pulling $hit out of one’s a$$…that about takes the cake. That’s up there near EricG rhetoric, TDro.
“And you are inspired by baby killing and communism!” How does that sound? Equally inane?
Yeah, TDro, why is Obama being a “war criminal” continuing some “illegal war” killing innocent people over in Iraq and Afghanistan?
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
And since libs are big on moral relativism, “good and righteous” is relative to what? YOUR idea of what is good?
craig7120 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Why is the distaste there Kregg if not because of your religion?
craig7120 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:38 am
K: What are you guys doing to eliminate the ‘mocking’ and ‘demeaning’ you engage in
Lets see when did you start following religion? so that many..days? months? years? decades? still has’nt cured your ills then its time to seek another road. unless your stubborn and it’s your fault you havnt begged hard enough.
Me?…. uh Im not so sure mocking or demeaning isnt necessary sometimes. but thats just me.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“LIBERALS do it all the time, even though they deny it and believe that they are all so very “open-minded.”
Maybe it’s because we’re not as infallible as you, Flap. We’re bound to make mistakes. But being you’re alway right, I’m sure you don’t know what a “mistake” is.
flap Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Maybe it’s because we’re not as infallible as you, Flap.”
Yes, TDro, I’m never wrong and I don’t make mistakes. Glad you noticed.
My point was that libs are as close-minded as conservatives, just in a different way. Not saying it’s wrong at all…
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“K: How did Pelosi stand up the CIA?”
Don’t pay much attention to national affairs, do you Kregg?
She claimed the CIA mislead Congress on the use of illegal interrogation tactics.
—
What in the world is an “xtian”!?!
Is this like X-Mas … just super-lazyness… Is that it?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Posted this in the wrong thread…
“To which I asked if that means that no lib this site can claim to be “xtian” if those are the standards.”
Hardly any Xtians in this world anyway.Not a surprise,the religion goes directly against human nature…as do most other religions…
Except mine of course…hehehe
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Kar said: Hardly any Xtians in this world anyway.Not a surprise,the religion goes directly against human nature…as do most other religions…
K: You’ve said a mouthful. Christianity IS ‘against human nature’ in that human nature is selfish (oriented to what is good for one’s SELF rather than others). I disagree that there are ‘hardly any christians in this world’ by degree because a large part of the civilised world subscribes to christian thought and practice. If you expand the focus to include “God” instead of “Christ” The majority of the world believes in God. Muslims=40% of the population, if I recall correctly, while Christians=30%. Together, 70% of the world population believes in a God who has the right to impose a moral code on His followers. Such a number leaves out the many other religions who follow and submit to a “god” of one understanding or another. In fact, atheists are a statistically small number of the world population.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“K: You’ve said a mouthful. Christianity IS ‘against human nature’ in that human nature is selfish (oriented to what is good for one’s SELF rather than others).”
We Agree above.And yes,I was refering to the above.
” I disagree that there are ‘hardly any christians in this world’ by degree because a large part of the civilised world subscribes to christian thought and practice.”
We disagree above.
Lack of Selfishness is possible only in people who are far beyond human. J.C was 1 such person.
He preached a message he probably knew was against the nature of human beings.
I hold nothing against him, I guess it was his right to preach what he truly believed in, especially since he was capable of living by it. But its really not possible to achieve any form of peaceful societal existence, going against your own individual nature (of selfishness).
I pick and choose from the religions I studied, the philosophies that seemed to make sense with my nature and the nature of my fellow human beings. I believe god is an ideal. I believe god is to be found inside oneself, and not outside. In that much,I am not an atheist.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“But its really not possible to achieve any form of peaceful societal existence, going against your own individual nature (of selfishness).”
I forgot to add:
I strongly disagree with Any Religion or philosophy that tells me selfishness is immoral.Why the heck is it immoral?
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“Why the heck is [selfishness] immoral?”
Why the heck is anything moral or immoral?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
“Why the heck is anything moral or immoral?”
Flap:
While I waffled all over the place on my previous reply to your question…
the short answer from me is, I truly dont know. All I know is,I follow my own individual code.Why?I dont know. And as I said in my previous post,without choice, there’s a pressure from society to follow a moral code of conduct.Why does that code exist?I dont know.Should it exist?I dont know.
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“the short answer from me is, I truly dont know.”
Hey, Karthik, cheers to you. Waffling is cool…this is a forum so we all do it. Finally an honest answer from somebody, though. Tell that to some of these people on this site who try to define absolute morality from nothing.
If God doesn’t exist, how can anything TRULY be moral? I’m not saying you have to believe in God, but it’s sort of hard to definitively say “this is right” and “this is wrong” without a supernatural source.
I mean, most of us kind of “know” that certain things are wrong…or we’ve been taught to believe that by parents, society, etc., so I suppose that’s why everyone comes to an agreement on some basic ethical norms. But can we REALLY know that killing is wrong?
Life has a lot of difficult questions to answer, and I’ve always been a huge believer in trying to seek out the truth. What is the truth? I’m not pluralistic, so I believe in some sort of absolute truth. But that’s the scientist in me. And, I have found what I believe to be the truth in my faith.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“If God doesn’t exist, how can anything TRULY be moral? I’m not saying you have to believe in God, but it’s sort of hard to definitively say “this is right” and “this is wrong” without a supernatural source.”
I think the existence of the moral compass of the individual may have some connection with the old adage “do unto others as you’d have them to unto you”. (Discounting the effect of upbringing for the time being), most of us possibly believe if we act with a “reasonable” moral code, it can help “shield us from”(reduce the probability of) immoral actions by others to us (especially ones that are too costly by our utility curve, which we are each innately aware of).
Am assuming we are talking of Right and Wrong outside the scientific domain, because scientific Right and Wrong questions can usually be validated by Experiment,Observation.
“we’ve been taught to believe that by parents, society, etc., so I suppose that’s why everyone comes to an agreement on some basic ethical norms”
The first part of what you said is common experience. However I dont see why its some kind of a requirement to come to any kind of agreement on basic ethical norms. Its in your interest to do so, to build your credibility, and I guess from that perspective I can sort of agree with what you said in the 2nd part as well.
“Life has a lot of difficult questions to answer, and I’ve always been a huge believer in trying to seek out the truth. What is the truth? I’m not pluralistic, so I believe in some sort of absolute truth. But that’s the scientist in me. And, I have found what I believe to be the truth in my faith.”
I can figure from your refreshing tone to my typically abrasive presentation of my views, that you’re a truth seeker. All I can say to that is, good for you,Amen to that attitude.
With regard to finding the truth,I believe it MAY be possible that you can go deeper…depends on your experiences,your attitude, and your…god given mental faculties :-).If you’ve reached an enlightened state, good for you.I dont think I am close to being there yet, but I have time on my side..
flap Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Oh, I’m far from so-called “enlightenment,” Karthik…heh. I’m sure a lot of liberals on this board would concur. ;)
Um Cara Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Oh, I’m far from so-called “enlightenment,” Karthik…heh. I’m sure a lot of liberals on this board would concur. ;)
It’s true – for example: he doesn’t know why rape is wrong, he just thinks that his god does not approve of it, so we should not engage in it.
Yea, seriously.
(Though please correct me if I’m wrong, Flap – I don’t want to misrepresent your unenlightened views).
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“And for some reason, MANY have the misconception and believe the worldly lie that Christians HAVE to be perfect.”
Bliss: My beef isnt with Christians or Christianity.
My beef is with a moral code of conduct that defines or suggests selfishness as immoral. I cant accept such a moral code of conduct.
Further,I am compelled to express my scorn for those who proclaim selfishness is immoral….for obvious reasons…who the heck are you to preach to me that I am immoral by being selfish?
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hey, Karthik, my understanding of Christianity is that it’s not what you do, it’s what you believe. Since we’re all at our cores EVIL, then it seems reasonable to me.
I don’t think condemning people is a good thing, but condemning certain actions isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
LIBERALS do it all the time, even though they deny it and believe that they are all so very “open-minded.”
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Flap:
“Why the heck is anything moral or immoral?”
Very good question.
Because, we are constrained to live in a society.
Society is a bunch of individuals.
Each individual uses a MORAL code of conduct he/she defines for himself/herself, on himself/herself.This in theory could be an empty set.
And,society, whether the individual likes it or not,pressurizes the individual by making moral judgements on the individual’s code.
These societal moral judgements, the societal moral pressure and the society-level-moral-code usually comes from religion(or a combinations of religion, which is the case in a melting-pot-culture like USA).
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Hey, Karthik, my understanding of Christianity is that it’s not what you do, it’s what you believe.”
As I said before,Flap:
My beef isnt with Christianity. Islam also preaches a code of conduct that defines or suggests that selfishness is immoral.
The “religion” I was “brought up with” thankfully (for me) did not fetter me with such a suggestion.For my own edification,that helped me in accepting selfishness as a reasonable code of conduct from my fellow human beings(and myself).
This is not to suggest anything like “my religion is better than yours” or such crap. I have learnt a fair bit from studying the teachings of J.C, some of which I didnt find in the “religion of my upbringing”.
Which is why I have respect for him,inspite of the moral high ground accorded to selflessness by him(easy for HIM to preach that).
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Again,Flap,I waffled all over the place.As a short summary:
“is that it’s not what you do, it’s what you believe”
Exactly:If you believe J.C was right about selflessness being a moral ideal, thats fine and swell by you, but I refuse to accept that code of conduct, and further, I grudge you the right to expect that code of conduct from me.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Just to complete the loop,Flap:
““is that it’s not what you do, it’s what you believe”
When an individual believes selflessness is a moral ideal(or says so) ,in accordance with J.C’s teachings, and then acts selfishly…
Is that individual DOING something different from his belief?I dont think so, I think what you do is what you truly believe, at the core.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Hahaha, you’re hilarious, TDro. Talk about pulling $hit out of one’s a$$…”
Ooooh. Did I hit a nerve, Flap? Good! I never thought too highly of you warmonger, bigoted types anyway.
“And you are inspired by baby killing and communism!” How does that sound? Equally inane?”
Sure I am. I hunt them every chance I get. As for communism, I’ve lived for 8 years under the Bush administration. Nuff said.
“Yeah, TDro, why is Obama being a “war criminal” continuing some “illegal war” killing innocent people over in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
YOu got me there. I wanted him to end these stupid wars months ago. Unfortunately he’s listening to people like you who want the death and destruction to continue.
flap Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Good! I never thought too highly of you warmonger, bigoted types anyway.”
And I never thought too highly of you baby-killing communists!
Obama is a “war criminal”! Glad you admit it! Let’s string Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden up for their evil crimes!
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“And I never thought too highly of you baby-killing communists!”
Yep. That’s me. I must’ve bagged at least 700 babies in my time – and counting.
“Obama is a “war criminal”! Glad you admit it! Let’s string Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden up for their evil crimes!”
If this war doesn’t end within the next two years, I say let’s get rid of Obama and get a pacifist in office. Two years is the time I gave Bush to prove himself in office. I was terribly disappointed.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Kregg
I imagine he means stood up TO the CIA.
This Blacberry is tough. My fingers are too big.
Very interestig development in this whole torture, CIA deal.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:52 am
James said: I imagine he means stood up TO the CIA.
K: Yeah, I know. Just my opinion but it’s one thing for a poster to miss a word or misspell something the heat of typing a reply but quite another for a professional webmaster to so frequently do so on a nationwide blog where his only job is to post a few paragraphs of commentary. ;-)
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Now we KNOW Kregg is pissed. He’s going after Alan for misspelling a word because the CIA during the Bush/Cheney Admin misled Pelosi (what she’s been saying all along). Tsk, tsk.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
No, TD, I simply believe professional webloggers ought to proof read. If they don’t care enough about their finished product to take it seriously, why should their readers?
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
K: “No, TD, I simply believe professional webloggers ought to proof read”
TD: Alan’s made spelling errors in the past and they never seemed to bother you. All of a sudden-like, you’re perturbed by his very minor spelling mistake.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
TD said: Alan’s made spelling errors in the past and they never seemed to bother you. All of a sudden-like, you’re perturbed by his very minor spelling mistake.
K: Your powers of observation are limited. I’ve commented on them a number of times.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
TD said: Alan’s made spelling errors in the past and they never seemed to bother you.
K: TD, do you feel professional webloggers ought to proofread?
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
TD, do you feel professional webloggers ought to proofread?
Alan isn’t a professional blogger, this is his hobby. No ads, no cost to join, he owns the domain…
He is an amateur blogger.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Um said: He is an amateur blogger.
K: Which is still no excuse IMO for a nationally known figure such as he to practice lazy proofreading.
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Why do nationally known figures have a greater responsibility than the rest of us to proofread?
You might have a point if he were charging for access to his blog, but I think he has the right to enjoy and share his hobby however he likes.
craig7120 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“Why do nationally known figures have a greater responsibility than the rest of us to proofread?”
Oh! Oh! I know I know because the bar is set higher for the educated liberal by the religious conservative? Its kinda unfair considering who they pick for high office.
then again im on vacation so my mind is all about loafing, who wants a twinkie?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
TDRO,
…because the CIA during the Bush/Cheney Admin misled Pelosi
That’s quite a supposition considering neither the article nor the letter identified what, specifically, the CIA was misleading about.
In fact, the only thing we have is a “it’s supposed the actions were related to CIA interrogation techniques.” That is hardly vindication for Pelosi.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
K: “Your powers of observation are limited. I’ve commented on them a number of times.”
TD: Yes you have. But never as rabidly as you have today.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Jared:
The point is they misled congress. This is nothing new. They’ve been doing it for years. Peter Hoekstra and John Boner have also accused the CIA of being less than forthright.
Let’s say for example Nancy Pelosi said, “the CIA informed me they were waterboarding detainees”. Since the CIA is not known for it’s honesty, how would you know they weren’t lying to her?
In 2007 Hoekstra said, “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
TDRO,
Why would the CIA lie about doing something they weren’t?
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“Why would the CIA lie about doing something they weren’t?”
If it benefits them, I think they’ll lie about anything.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“reply but quite another for a professional webmaster to so frequently do so on a nationwide blog where his only job is to post a few paragraphs of commentary.”
Yet you continue to visit this website.
Do know how much time I spend on partisan anti-liberal websites like WolrdNetDaily or RedState? … ZERO SECONDS!
I’ll visit Drudge or some official website, but if you hate Alan Colmes so much, as much as I hate Jerome Corsi or Alex Jones … then what in the world are you doing here all the time?
Your logic is backwards. If you dislike what he does so much you wouldn’t be here to comment except so often.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“Your logic is backwards. If you dislike what he does so much you wouldn’t be here to comment except so often.”
That’s not quite true…I watch Hannity and OReilly regularly, because I’d like to know what drivel those devils in human form are trying to propagate…
July 9th, 2009 at 2:17 am
“CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress in a recent briefing that the agency misled them on “significant actions” for a “number of years.”
Can a president reorg the CIA and NOT be assassinated?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Reorganized how, 4MORE?
4moreyears Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Sorry Jarhead almost missed that.
CIA reorg would mean
NO Liars in CIA,
Texans,
or people like YOU that call other posters Idiots, see your most recent post.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
4MORE,
If lying is a deal-breaker for public service…we should “reorg” the entire US Congress, yes?
4moreyears Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Let’s not exagerate Jared,
not ALL congress critters are liars and
I would have to grant that not ALL Texans are either.
Austin has some honest people, good food and music.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
4MORE,
fair enough…then not all CIA critters are liars, yes?
by the way, have you met an honest politician lately?
July 9th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Good question.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:39 am
CIA misleading?? Im shocked.. come on people..look at what they do for a living….
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:59 am
in related news, people need oxygen to breathe.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
This is the latest news-flash to Neo-Cons!
That CIA lies for a living ..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
ERIC,
No…the CIA collects intelligence for a living.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:44 am
CIA misled Congress, wow… I wonder what the Repugs would think, they wanted Nancy Pelosi to resign, they actually wanted her head on a silverplater.
I think that everyone who were doubting her, should apologize to her. I may not be a big fan of hers, but she never lied.
The CIA doesn’t lie? They are spies and they collect Intellegence. I am watching Morning Joe on MSNBC right now and he ended a program that the Bush Administration have started before Director Leon Panetta went to Congress
Damn our Country is looking more and more like Russia and China.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
CELTICWITCH,
I think that everyone who were doubting her, should apologize to her.
If you can point me to the place in the article where the author identifies the “lies” the CIA told Pelosi, then I’ll more than gladly apologize for my harsh words against her.
Or, how about this…this article, and no other article I’ve found, identifies ANYTHING related to Pelosi. The only thing any article says is that the “misleadings” could “possibly be regarding the CIA interrogation techniques.”
but she never lied.
She’s a politician…she always lies.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:15 am
“She’s a politician…she always lies.”
By those standards,Jared…
If the CIA is to be believed over Nancy Pelosi because she is a politician…
lets apply the same standards to Sarah Palin vs Walter Monegan…
Waiting to hear your explanation on how the CIA should be believed over a politician but not a Cop…
If I know you right,I’ll be getting a personal attack directed at Walter Monegan…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
KARTHIK,
The simple case against Palin was dismissed because of lack of evidence and the overwhelming lack of credibility of the officer in question.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
“The simple case against Palin was dismissed because of lack of evidence and the overwhelming lack of credibility of the officer in question.”
The officer lacked credibility…but the CIA has credibility? And from where do we have the overwhelming evidence for these 2?
I think I know…your bible…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
KARTHIK,
Yes, I would say our national intelligence agency has a bit more credibility than a child-abuser in Alaska.
Apples and Oranges, my friend.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Of course Politicians lie! I remembered when Nixon resigned because he lied and got caught.
What I meant by that statement is that she told the truth about the CIA misleading her and Congress.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am
““The simple case against Palin was dismissed because of lack of evidence and the overwhelming lack of credibility of the officer in question.””
Applying the same “Politicians Lie” standard, it seems clearcut to me that Sarah Palin LIED about what she DID in the Walter Monegan Case(claiming she did NOT exert unethical influence to get Wooten fired), that she got away with it in court(A La Clinton), and the legal process accepted her lies as not untruth, thereby enabling her to escape under “benefit of doubt”, a la Clinton,O J.
However, the stunning part of the whole thing is how every bible toter actually accepts THIS Court Ruling as reflective of reality and NOT the court ruling of Clinton,O.J(For Me, I dont accept all 3). There MUST be something hidden in that bible that I missed, that all these chaps seem to have spotted.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:42 am
KARTHIK,
Please give me statements whereby Palin lied.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Asked “Governor, did you abuse your power?” she said, “No, and if you read the report you’ll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You gotta read the report, sir.”
It’s true that there’s nothing “unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member” in principle. And the report concluded that she had the power to fire Monegan.
But the report concluded that she had abused her power, and there was indeed something “unethical” about her behavior, insofar as it violated the state Ethics Act.
”
Those were to reporters.
And what do you think she did in court?Pleaded guilty?Pleading Not Guilty to the allegations constitutes a Lie,going by the standards YOU applied.
We all *know* what Clinton did. We all know what he said in court. We all *know* what Palin did. We all know she pled not guilty in Court.
Anyway, you’re looking for the answers in the wrong place…get your bible man.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Get your Bible?? And all this time I thought democrats wanted to keep religion and politics totally separate?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
More LIES from Saint Sarah.
“”Governor, if I can follow up,” a reporter said, “the report says that you did abuse your authority in trying to get Officer Wooten fired. How do you respond to that charge?”
“There was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired,” Palin said.
If she was stating that as her opinion, fine, but if she was stating that as the conclusion of the report, that’s false.
“In fact, remember, Officer Wooten is still an Alaska state trooper, which is up to the commissioner, top brass in the department of public safety to decide who is worthy of wearing a badge and carrying a gun in the state of Alaska,” Palin said. “And if they think that Trooper Wooten is worthy of that, that’s their decision. I don’t micromanage my commissioners and ask them to hire or fire anyone, and thankfully the truth was revealed there in that report, that showed that there was no unlawful nor unethical activity on my part.”
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Bliss:
Am being realistic. Debating with you,Jared…most of your answers come from the bible, not from the head…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“And all this time I thought democrats wanted to keep religion and politics totally separate?”
Bliss: I support BO for just 2 reasons:
1.His stance on the Iraq war, and general approach to foreign policy.
2.I dont trust the Republicans’ commitment to fiscal prudence, after the last 8 years.
I am a fiscal conservative.Not many people in the US with my preferences, but am not running for a popularity contest.
I am not a democrat. I would much rather prefer someone I can trust to not mismanage the economy…the key to that in the long run(to the best of my understanding) lies in taking the keys of the currency printers away from the federal government.I will support a politician of ANY OR NO political party who I judge to have some degree of commitment to that.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
karth
If you are a fiscal conservative how did you vote for obama? Really, the government we have now has no clue what being fiscally conservative means. As long as citizens are fine with giving the government MOST of their money (because the government can obviously manage their money better) that won’t change.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
“I am a fiscal conservative.”
Cutting spending brings down the size of government.NOT cutting taxes.
Cutting taxes is a natural byproduct of cutting spending.
Republicans have been defrauding American Citizens by cutting taxes WITHOUT cutting spending. As I have said many times before, that’s not a tax cut, that’s just fraud.
Not to suggest the Dems have anything better to offer.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Bliss: Read my previous post.
The key is not in what Government TAKES from you, but what the government SPENDS.
The government can hypothetically take 80% of your dollar denominated income, and spend X dollars.
If the government alternately took 40% of your dollar denominated income, but spent 2X dollars, THE LATTER IS A BIGGER GOVERNMENT THAN THE FORMER.
This is the point that many Republican SUPPORTERS fail to miss. They’re letting their politicians con them using the myopia associated with judging size of government using tax rate.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
karth
Do you think the governmnet is going to downsize itself? Please.
I think the government is too big, taxes are too high and there are too many social programs.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
KARTHIK,
No, I don’t know if Palin acted outside of ethical boundaries or not. With Clinton, it was pretty clear what “boundaries” were crossed. With Palin and this state trooper…it is not.
But this from the Alaska Personnel Board which has jurisdiction over all Alaskan personnel issues…above that of an “investigative report”: “There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters.”
Otherwise, let me ask you this…since you’re so interested in the truth…why would the legislative board indicate ethics laws were broken…but then clear her of all charges? Doesn’t make much sense.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
KARTHIK,
Identify for me, if you will…points that I’ve used that “come straight from the bible”.
Happy hunting!
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“KARTHIK,
Yes, I would say our national intelligence agency has a bit more credibility than a child-abuser in Alaska.
Apples and Oranges, my friend.”
JARED:
You are a bloody hypocrite, and have demonstrated it again. But thanks for using the Apples and Oranges analogy.Will show now, what Apples and Oranges means.
St Sarah and her husband go over the board to get Wooten Fired. Monegan didnt cooperate. She fired him. Monegan claims she did it BECAUSE MONEGAN refused to fire Wooten. HOW THE HECK DOES IT MATTER IF WOOTEN WAS A CHILD ABUSER?
Apples and Oranges is…Converting Monegan, the person accusing St Sarah of firing her on account of the above decision of his(to NOT fire Wooten), into Wooten,whoeever he is.
What does she say, in testimony?NO,I did NOT fire him on account of this decision.
What does that make her?A Liar on testimony. Same as WJC,OJ.
And you refuse to acknowledge this because…
St Sarah shows much much she regards the bible by having an autistic child. No other reason. Thats the bible connection.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Wait…I’m a hypocrite for saying the CIA and a Alaskan Trooper are two different things?
Wow…
It’s your OPINION that Palin “went overboard” to get this trooper fired. The Alaskan Personnel Board sees things differently…
I used the “child abuse” moniker to identify the trooper’s lack of credibility. Are you this dense you cannot comprehend common english. You see…words put together make sentences. Sentences make complete thoughts. Incredible…
No…apples and oranges means you’re comparing two incredibily different things and trying to make them the same. YOU compared the CIA to Palin’s involvement with “trooper gate”…and then you attacked the CIA’s credibility by saying the CIA didn’t have more credibility than the trooper.
And she had a DS baby…get your facts straight if you’re going to go on a diatribic rant…and her belief in anti-abortion led to her having the baby.
“No other reason”…really? how about a mother feeling the responsibility of raising a child? or how about the incredible maternal instinct to have and raise a child? Bigot.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
JARED:
“I’m a hypocrite for saying the CIA and a Alaskan Trooper are two different things?
”
You are a hypocrite for Converting the accuser, Monegan into Wooten.
You are a hypocrite because you know very well that Monegan’s accusations Re St Sarah had NOTHING to do with WHO Wooten was. And you tried to use WHO Wooten was, to make a case for St Sarah.
“And she had a DS baby…get your facts straight if you’re going to go on a diatribic rant…and her belief in anti-abortion led to her having the baby.”
Ooooh, as always, you fall for the Hair Splitting…except, I laid the bait intentionally…ROFL how predictable you are.
“No other reason”…really? how about a mother feeling the responsibility of raising a child? or how about the incredible maternal instinct to have and raise a child? Bigot.”
Again,Apples to Oranges.
St Sarah may have her children for MANY reasons.
YOU refuse to see her as a LIAR,acknowledge her as a LIAR only because of the reason I stated.None else.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
KARTHIK,
You poor soul…converting Monegan into Wooten is a mistake…and not hypocritical.
I’m not a hypocrite for saying Monegan’s accusations were against Palin and had nothing to do with Wooten. Monegan’s accusations had EVERYTHING to do with Wooten.
Ooooh, as always, you fall for the Hair Splitting…except, I laid the bait intentionally…ROFL how predictable you are.
Do you even realize how idiotic you look here? Comparing autism with Downs Syndrome? I correct you and now I’m “hairsplitting”?
St Sarah may have her children for MANY reasons.
Ah…but you said St Sarah shows much much she regards the bible by having an autistic child. No other reason.
Care to change your stance on this again? Or can’t you keep up with your own arguments?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“You poor soul…converting Monegan into Wooten is a mistake…”
Blink Blink…did I just see what I saw…
NOW,back to the original point…
Regardless of WHO Wooten is, given St Sarah’s actions on the pressure applied by her,her husband,ALL of which are documented, to get Wooten fired, was St Sarah a liar or not, for saying she did not exert pressure to get Wooten fired?
“Do you even realize how idiotic you look here? Comparing autism with Downs Syndrome? I correct you and now I’m “hairsplitting”? ”
The only one making comparisons is YOU. I made an intentional “typo”,knowing you would lap it up, and start changing the point…something you’re well trained to do through Hannity et al.
“Ah…but you said St Sarah shows much much she regards the bible by having an autistic child. No other reason. ”
Child,Kiddo…I said YOU supported her ONLY for her demonstration of her faith in the bible shown through her choice in Children. I never said She had her children because of her faith in the bible only…read what I wrote, and….answer my original question: If WJC was a liar, OJ was a liar, what does that make St Sarah?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I made an intentional “typo”,knowing you would lap it up, and start changing the point…
At what point did I change the subject? YOU brought up her children, not me. So…and try to keep up here…YOU changed the subject.
Your “intentional” typo just shows how callous and disingenuous you are. I correct your “intentional” error and you accuse me of trying to change the subject…HAHAHAHAHA…now that’s funny!
I said YOU supported her ONLY for her demonstration
No…you neither said, nor implied this when you said her ONLY REASON for having her disabled baby was because of her religion. Trying to spin your original comments to try to catch me in a pickle puts you in the “tempter tantrum” category.
I never said She had her children because of her faith in the bible only…
Hmmm…that’s interesting, because this is EXACTLY what you wrote: St Sarah shows [how]much she regards the bible by having an autistic child. No other reason.
Seems pretty clear to me that you were saying she only had her baby because of her faith…and “NO OTHER REASON.”
(here’s where you attempt to try to reword your statement to try to make sense of your lack of sense.)
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
KARTH
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was simply a mother’s love for her unborn child that “drove” her to have her baby?
Did it ever occur to you that some mother’s love their children regardless of their physical or mental limitations?
guess not.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“you said her ONLY REASON for having her disabled baby was because of her religion”
I did not say that. But this isnt the first time you’ve twisted words,arguments. This was what I wrote…
“And you refuse to acknowledge this because…
St Sarah shows much much she regards the bible by having an autistic child. No other reason. Thats the bible connection.
”
does the … after the because need to be made even more that I was alluding to YOUR reasons for supporting St Sarah.
I notice you’ve posted more disingenuous stuff.Will return to that.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
JARED:
“No, I don’t know if Palin acted outside of ethical boundaries or not. With Clinton, it was pretty clear what “boundaries” were crossed. With Palin and this state trooper…it is not. ”
Thats a blatant lie, and disingenuous.
The Reports Concluded the following:
1.That she was out of bounds in her attempts to get Wooten fired.
2.She was within bounds in firing Monegan.
And item 1. clearly states she is LYING when she claims she did NOT exert pressure to have Wooten fired.
The question is NOT whether Wooten was a good guy, OR If Monegan had a case. The question is, Is St Sarah’s claim Re: Pressure exerted to get Wooten fired truthful?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
OH…MY…GOD…
You’re certainly trying…but it’s not working.
You’re own words are there in black and white. If you were implying that MY only reasons for supporting Palin (supposition on your part, by the way) was entirely due to her religious stance on giving birth to a disable child…you’re way off and entirely disingenuous.
You’re “and you refuse to acknowledge this because…” was a reference to me not acknowledging Palin is/is not a liar.
How is it that I’m having to explain your own comments to you? Perhaps it’s because of your lackluster grasp of grammar and sentence structure? yep…I think that’s it.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Thats a blatant lie, and disingenuous.
Do you even know what “disingenuous” means?
And it’s not a lie as Alaska’s Personnel Board indicated there was NO ethics violations at play here.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“If you were implying …”
Yep, thats exactly what I was implying.
Your rebuttal is very convincing.
“You’re “and you refuse to acknowledge this because…” was a reference to me not acknowledging Palin is/is not a liar. ”
Exactly…I was refering to the fact that the evidence adds up to “She’s a liar.”, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Paragraph below, following the “…” was my explanation of your support for her, your belief/conviction that she isnt a liar, in the face of the evidence of her being a liar, the same evidence standards used for WJC,OJ.And I believe I have seen you use these standards in your assessments,critique of WJC before, on this forum.
“How is it that I’m having to explain your own comments to you? ”
Because I never twist your words,dice your sentences. You twist my words, dice my sentences. The … should make it quite clear it was part of the same sentence.
Because you never will accept facts that fly in the face of your core beliefs, especially ones that have a connection to religion.Such as St Sarah lying…I never expected you to acknowledge that she’s a liar. And the realisation is in tune with expectations, so we can all go home now.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“With Palin and this state trooper…it is not”
That is the definition of disingeuous.
From dictionary.com :
“lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Amazing, what amount of hypocrisy you go to,Jared:
1.Its perfectly reasonable IF the Branchflower report had found her guilty, AND no other investigation was conducted, to speculate that she’d been railroaded.
But from that to
2.A Board appointed by her,in the context of the Branchflower report suggesting she would be found guilty of the charged offence, should be accepted at face value?No problem, am even willing to go that far…but on to step 3
3.The evidence, testimonies given on the case already demonstrated that St Sarah DID apply pressure to dismiss Wooten. And she claims she didnt.
Does that make her a liar?Seems clearcut. But no, the APSC report said she wasnt guilty of ETHICS breach…does that change her from being a liar?hehehehehe…a liar,is a liar, is a liar. No matter what clothes they wear.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Where in the hell did you learn debate? I’M twisting YOUR words?
“guffaw”
You’re the epitome of an idiot with an opinion. You in NO WAY proved any point other than your have an uncanny ability to blather away without even trying to make sense.
Let’s recap shall we, high speed? YOU stated the ONLY reason I defend “St. Palin” was entirely based on her religious beliefs. THAT IS WRONG and ENTIRELY DISINGENUOUS.
Because I never twist your words,dice your sentences.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re obviously speaking tongue-in-cheek here because that’s exactly what you’ve been doing during this whole discussion.
The … should make it quite clear it was part of the same sentence.
And the extra space in between the “…” and the next sentence? A “pause” or something? Get a grip jackass…and learn the finer points of American grammar and sentence structure before lecturing me on not understanding your statements.
I’m done with you. You intentionally seek my posts out because you know you can get me riled up with your bigotry and virulence. No more will I entertain your elementary diatribe with a second of my time.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“You intentionally seek my posts out because you know you can get me riled up with your bigotry and virulence. ”
I call a spade a spade. Sometimes, it can touch a nerve.
You get riled up because of the exposure of your hypocrisy,dishonesty in debating. Most people here are content to let you present stupid arguments ,without logic or evidence,and twist facts according to what your religious beliefs accomodate.
My style is abrasive, but so is yours.
“No more will I entertain your elementary diatribe with a second of my time.”
That’s wonderful,lets get entertained with your intellectual, honest,overflowing-with-logic arguments instead.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
You get riled up because of the exposure of your hypocrisy,dishonesty in debating.
You’re right…as opposed to your nonsensical ramblings that you twist every which way to Sunday and evolve your debate to contradict your original posts when you’re proven incorrect. Kinda like that?
Most people here are content to let you present stupid arguments ,without logic or evidence,and twist facts according to what your religious beliefs accomodate.
As opposed to your 100% factual postings, right? The only thing you’ve attempted to provide as basis for your argument is a book of OPINION based on a racist liberarian (with regard to the tax cuts = inflation debate)…and this one, you’ve failed to provide anything even close to “evidence” to support your theory that Palin lied…other than “she lied”.
It’s incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence to support your theory. It’s NOT incumbent upon me to provide evidence that proves you wrong.
I’ve NEVER injected religion into ANY debate that you and I have engaged in. You’re a blatant liar.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“(with regard to the tax cuts = inflation debate)…”
More of your disingenuousness.
THe School of Economics Murray Rothbard is associated with says Tax Cuts WITHOUT AN EQUIVALENT SPENDING CUT Equals Inflation. This is the sleight of hand Republican leaders pull on you routinely. I have discussed this with other conservatives, including Bliss here;Only you are disingenuous enough to insist I said tax cuts=Inflation.
“It’s incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence to support your theory. ”
The evidence is in the articles provided. The Branchflower report had already collected testimony from witnesses to demonstrate the pressure St Sarah exerted, along with her husband,to get Wooten fired.When she denies she exerted such pressure, she’s an established liar. She denied it to the reporters. I posted that link too.
“I’ve NEVER injected religion into ANY debate that you and I have engaged in. You’re a blatant liar.”
I said:
“Most people here are content to let you present stupid arguments ,without logic or evidence,and twist facts according to what your religious beliefs accomodate.”
More of Monegan Wooten Transformation from you…like that Transformation you did on me a couple of days back…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Hmmm…yes…the “Branchflower report”. Interesting that you didn’t identify that Branchflower and Monnegan were close colleagues and friends during Branchflower’s time as a prosecutor for Anchorage. Do you think there might be some not-so-subtle bias involved and conflict of interest there as well? Good on you for doing your homework.
My next question is this: if there was a legislative ruling that showed Palin had indeed violated ethics laws…why wasn’t she impeached or fired? Simple question…I look forward to your answer.
and twist facts according to what your religious beliefs accomodate.”
Lemme guess…this isn’t implying that I inject religion into my arguments?
And what facts have I twisted according to my religious beliefs, then? I’m on the edge of my seat for this answer…taxes? HAHAHAHAHAHA…taxes is a religious issue now? Whether or not YOU believe someone lied or not is a religious issue for me? Whether or not YOU believe that I value all human life equally is a religious issue for me?
Please, clarify and enlighten me with more of your “logic”.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Jar(h)e(a)d:
I thought you didnt want to continue a discussion with me?
Doesnt matter…
1.If you’re going to use the argument Branchflower was biased, then the APSC report was by a commission appointed by St Sarah: That had the possibility of bias in the opposite direction.If you wanna dismiss the evidence of one, you must be prepared to dismiss the evidence of the other
2.Why wasnt she impeached?The evidence of the Branchflower is gathering dust. The commission was dismissed because St Sarah appointed her own investigative commision, the APSC, which was the one which “cleared her”. And when the APSC report cleared her, the legislature couldnt impeach her.
Re: Religion.
I have told you many times over, but I guess you dont get it. Will repeat one more time,as clear as I’m able to be
1.If Nancy Pelosi doesnt get the benefit of doubt(she’s a politician,she always lies…YOUR words), I dont see why St Sarah should get any benefit of doubt OUTSIDE the legal process, in the judgement of individuals. Did WJC lie in court?Sure,I believe he did.
Did St Sarah lie to reporters?I believe she did.
I believe there is enough evidence available on St Sarah lying that if you applied even 1/1000th a strict standard as you applied to Nancy Pelosi, you would be able to make a judgemental statement that St Sarah lied.
You dont make that statement.
My belief is you dont, because the single largest utility for you(and so far, every Pro Republican I have met on this website) is religion. Following the bible matters most for you. You’ll support a scumbag over a scrupulous representative if the scumbag would support overturning of Roe vs Wade, and the scrupulous one wouldnt.
Again, because of the bible based utility function, you apply different standards to Nancy Pelosi as opposed to St Sarah, to make a judgement on whether they lied.
The logic of my above analysis ends where I try to get into your head. At that point, I know I am guessing.So, dont bother wasting our times with how I have no clue of what’s really in your head. I have no way of proving the above are in your head. But I have seen enough to believe they are, and I’ll stick to that judgemental call of mine, until I see evidence to the contrary.
Good luck,Ciao.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
karth
I just have a HUGE problem with anyone wanting to take the money I earn and give it to someone else, or think they know how to use it better than I do.
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“Give unto Ceasar…..”—JC
I think the military, roads, CDC, fire depts., police, VA, Medicare, Social security, and even the CIA are beneficial services to society as a whole, derived from our tax dollars. We have representation with our taxation, and a peaceful revolution every two years. If we are not fond of our representatives, we can fire them. 1 1/2 years to go Bliss, and we all get to participate in the peaceful revolution again.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
medicare the way it is won’t last. social security is broke and won’t last the way it is.
We sometimes have representation with our taxation…..not always.
Our forefathers NEVER meant for MOST of our income to go back to the government. They thought WE should keep most of OUR money.
I think each state should be responsible for their roads, fire dept, police NOT the federal government.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Now, since you quoted Jesus Christ regarding taxes, you quote me what he said regarding war, charitable giving, and the value of unborn human life.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“Our forefathers NEVER meant for MOST of our income to go back to the government. They thought WE should keep most of OUR money.”
You mean more of your paper money, or more of the the dollar denominated compensation for the value you added?If you mean the latter,I have news for you: Your dollar denominated compensation got devalued while the government cut taxes and refused to downsize itself.
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Bliss,
Ok.
Whenever possible, be at peace with all men.
If your enemy is thirsty, give him something to drink…..
You have heard it said, love your neighbor, hate your enemy. I tell you, love your enemy, pray for those who spitefully use you…..
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall……
The widow gave more from her lack than the rich…..
Sell all that you have, give it to charity and follow me.
Nothing comes to mind in regards to ‘unborn’ human life.
All of mankind is who Christ loves(even those who were crucifying him), I would include the unborn in that view as well as convicted murderers.
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“the value of unborn human life”
Blissful, I don’t know if Christ mentioned the unborn, but I don’t suppose He had to mention a laundry list of every single type of murder, especially those involving a mother practicing “reproductive rights” and “family planning” and “women’s liberation” and “my body” and “choice” and “birth control” by KILLING her own child.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am
““women’s liberation” and “my body” and “choice” and “birth control” by KILLING her own child.”
That’s right! We gave these women the right to vote and now they want rights over their own bodies? What kind of blasphemy is that?!? This has to stop. God specifically meant for the church to have complete control over the woman’s body.
flap Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“their own bodies”
If you come up to me and shoot me, you’re using YOUR body. You don’t have a right to kill me, even though you’re using YOUR body. A mother has no right to kill her child, morally speaking.
“the church”
What Christ said about abortion is irrelevant. It’s a human rights issue.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“A mother has no right to kill her child, morally speaking.”
But the government has the right to send our soldiers to the slaughter for profit?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Do you think the governmnet is going to downsize itself? Please.
I think the government is too big, taxes are too high and there are too many social programs.
”
Bliss:Cut the social programs, prioritize and cut spending. Taxes should be lowered in proportion to the spending cut.
Cutting taxes without cutting spending isnt really a tax cut!!! Its just defrauding you.
Your dollar was worth say 100$ an ounce of gold,and they cut taxes and keep spending the same amount(or more), your dollars will be definitely worth less….and the purchasing power you get out of the increased dollars u got to keep will be less, because there’s nothing in the outside market that has changed the value of your goods and services(bread,fish,whatever) relative to gold.
Its like Credit Card Companies giving you more reward points, and simultaneously increasing the price it takes to redeem your reward points.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
karth
I have an idea for ya to prove my point. Why don’t you send the government ALLLL of your check with a note that says “send back what you don’t want to use” and see if you get anything back.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Bliss,
I”ve heard the Obama Administration is readying a new, easier to fill out, 1040 form that has only two instructions on it:
1: ENTER YOUR TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON LINE 1:________
2: SEND IT…
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Kregg
I know you are making a funny, but honestly, how far away from that are we?
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The sky is falling.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Bliss said: I know you are making a funny, but honestly, how far away from that are we?
K: In principle, we’ve been heading toward such a condition for a number of years under both the GOP and the Dems. The spirit of America as founded was one of personal responsibility, independence, freedom to benefit or suffer from one’s own choices in life, and a spirited cooperation in issues such as common defense, and other issues pertaining to the group as a whole. We have evolved into a social govt model NOT designed by our forefathers. We are becoming – in our minds – a nation of aggrieved victims who are owed recompense by everyone else for the ills we claim to suffer but refuse to take responsibility for. We have slowly evolved to this state by losing our national compass and and moral founding as laid out by our ancestors. Its only going to get worse, I fear…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“Now, since you quoted Jesus Christ regarding taxes”
Bliss: Where did I quote J.C on taxes?
“I have an idea for ya to prove my point. Why don’t you send the government ALLLL of your check with a note that says “send back what you don’t want to use” and see if you get anything back.”
Bliss: what’s your point…if you have more reward points, you are richer, even though the reward points will buy you less per reward point?
average james Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I see it from a completely opposite viewpoint Kregg.
In pursuit of a more perfect union, a concept very prevalently put forward by our founders, we have achieved more and more equality and freedoms.
In the natural course of progress, the industrial revolution, the automobile, communications evolution, and the like, necessary steps have been taken to adress these issues.
Electric grids, waterways and agencies for safety standards for them. Roads and subsequent governing bodies such as the highway patrol and Transportation depts that keep us safe and moving along.
These kinds of developments(the particulars) the founders could not forsee but they did say that we would necessarily have to adapt as we progressed. And I believe we have done that pretty darn well for over 200 years now.
Let’s keep moving forward.
flap Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
1: ENTER YOUR TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON LINE 1:________
2: SEND IT…
Kregg, that’s hilarious!
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“I just have a HUGE problem with anyone wanting to take the money I earn and give it to someone else, or think they know how to use it better than I do.
”
Bliss: If that is the case,Can I take it you have a huge problem with your employer paying you X dollars(or your customers paying you X dollars) for your efforts/work, with a particular set of prices on goods and services YOU want to procure…
and then, the government tells you “Hey WE determine that those X dollars cant buy the same basket of goods and services, you’ll need more than X dollars to do that.”.
That’s exactly what happens when Gov cuts taxes without cutting spending to the same tune.
As I said before,cutting the nominal tax rate is EASY. The hard part is MAKING your Gov spend less, and prioritizing what you want them to spend on, and trimming out expense items to match the tax cuts.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
You can’t MAKE your government spend less when you constantly elect people who WANT to spend MORE of your money. You can’t MAKE your government spend less when you have people BEGGING for bigger government, more social programs.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“You can’t MAKE your government spend less when you constantly elect people who WANT to spend MORE of your money.”
That covers over 99% of Republican politicians, and Democrat politicians.
Which Republican politician has actually committed to desiring to make government spend less when elected?With specifics. And actually lived up to his/her promises.
I know before I ask that the sheet for the Dems is barren on that score, so there’s no need to compare.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:26 am
“Damn our Country is looking more and more like Russia and China.”
…
Freedom of speech?We have,they dont.
Right to own what you make?Neither has.
Right to vote?We have, they(China) dont.
…
2 in 3,not really that bad.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am
What I was meant by that is in the Bush Administration there was so many secrets.
During the Bush Administration we had the Partiot Act, which took away almost all of our rights. Freedom of Speech was long gone. Remember when Dubya told the American People either you are with us or you are with the terrorist. You speak out against the Bush Administration, you were un-patriotic or un-American, that is what I meant by that.
I looked up about Reagan secret Prisons, I found out we were so close to a Police State and/or Martial Law, that is also what I meant by that statment, right now I like to be able to speak my mind, not in whispers.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
CELTICWITCH,
You’ve been watching WAY too many movies lately, it seems.
which took away almost all of our rights
Please, tell me “all of the rights” the Patriot Act took away…I’m genuinely interested to know.
Freedom of Speech was long gone.
Hmmm…and yet…you’re able to speak out freely.
when Dubya told the American People either you are with us or you are with the terrorist.
No he didn’t. Do your homework, please.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“No he didn’t. Do your homework, please”
Bush’s exact words were, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
TDRO,
Yes…he did say “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”…but he wasn’t directing those comments toward Americans…he was directing those comments toward countries who harbor and abet terrorists.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“Please, tell me “all of the rights” the Patriot Act took away…I’m genuinely interested to know. ”
Civil Liberties are eroded by the communistic and unamerican “Patriot Act”.
If you want to buy into the fear and baloney that brought that into our legal code then so be it.
Real Americans know the difference, and would not trade their momentary security for their liberties. Then the over-reaching power of the government comes and takes then away anyway.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Again…identify the civil liberties that have been “eroded”. Be specific.
flap Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Jared: Again…identify the civil liberties that have been “eroded”. Be specific.
Eric: Bush is obviously evil. It’s obvious.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Argh! What did I start! I can tell you this, when my daughter and I looked up the Patriot Act, and in this sight, the ACLU complained that the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional. When we were going on this sight, we were flagged and we thought the Laptop just crashed. It would not close or anything, it took about ten minutes until we got it to turn off. My daughter and I were really scared.
By the way, I don’t watch many movies. I do watch the News. I have seen on You Tube about Habeas Corpus.
Let me ask anyone here, have anyone seen any protest on the boob tube on any of the wars, escpecially the Iraq war.
I went on this one sight, about building secret prisons and I found this one were I read about our Country being almost being a Police State. The Bush Administration wanted Martal Law after 911. The Patriot Act is the most dangerous piece of Legislation that went through Congress.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
CELTICWITCH,
So…after all that…no response on my query for specific rights the Patriot Act “took away”?
alex Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Under the patriot act, Americans lost all right to privacy from their government. For example, telephone companies were forced to provide information to the gov without a warrant (ill go and post links if you want, but any IT inclined American will tell you that is the way it goes), also, your emails and whatever was unprotected under such act in such a way that gov. agencies, even now, can get your email from google without a court order…. how is that for some rights lost?
Mind you, as far as I know, even Obama supported the Patriot Act and similar legislation, which is just plain wrong.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
ALEX,
Please, if you would, provide links to your assertions.
My understanding of the phone information is related to “roving wiretaps” whereby a person under investigation for terrorism has been targeted by the FBI…with all required warrants issued…that will allow continued surveillance after the person has switched providers/phones/phone numbers, etc. This means a separate warrant is not issued/requested every time the person in question decides to change phones…hence the “warrantless wiretaps” phenomenon.
Do you have another understanding?
Your email argument is incorrect, as far as I understand it…the only way the Gov can read your email is if you’ve been targeted as a terrorist. Actually the Patriot Act provides for MORE protection for your online correspondence than previously afforded (Section 215). Originally, the requester for the information only had to convene a local grand jury in order to gain access to your information…the Patriot Act actually raises that to the federal level for approval.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I need to reply to this one again, Jaredfrom Texas. I am not sure if you are a big Bushie fan or not. But Bush and Cheney gave the permission to allow warrentless wiretaps. Bush and Cheney were paranoid, they seen conspiracy at every corner, we were spied on, were you ever flagged on the computer? I was and it was something that the government don’t want you to see.
Our internet has been target. Employees of the NSA has been on the news about listening in on the soldiers
calling home, alot of pillow talk, they blew the whistle and we all were aware that we were spied on.
How about the FBI keeping taps on what we read, they can track the books we borrow or buy, I guess if you use a check or money order. I am concerned that it would not be over turned nor revised.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Bush is obviously evil. It’s obvious.”
I wouldn’t say Bush is evil. Now Cheney on the other hand….
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:58 am
yet people still spoke out…and nothing happened to them…that is freedom of speech.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:46 am
ALAN,
The “significant actions” that were concealed were Bush interrogation policies. I presume apologies to Nancy Pelosi with be forthcoming from all those who excoriated her because she stood up the the CIA.
Since you’re so willing to excoriate the CIA…I wonder if you know exactly what Panetta was referring to when he states the actions that were concealed were interrogation policies?
Questions I still have:
- what about the interrogation policies were concealed? type? time? on whom?
- what does this have to do with Pelosi?
- what else was “concealed”?
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Pointless wastes if time.
Who broke the law by committing torture?
Who approved it?
–
That’s it. Unless you’re on a witch hunt to destroy all politicians you don’t like and you really could give a bean about this nation and the code of law.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
little ERIC,
I forgot to update my comment…apparently the CIA is reporting the briefing and Panetta’s comments were, in no way, related to the subject of waterboarding or interrogation techniques.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Nancy Pelosi was a blithering idiot when she tried to answer questions from the media about her lying about her knowledge of EIT’s. She looked as guilty as sin during that Q & A session.
Budda Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 am
You’re confusing Nancy with Sarah, now there’s a blithering idiot…oh, wait, I’m sorry. I forgot we are picking on Sarah when we say things like that, but no, not you neo-cons when you say similar things about Dems or liberals. Sorry, I just forgot the rules there for second.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Here, here Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin are not 2 peas in a pod! Well Maybe Nancy might not have alot of support of some people, but she is more smarter than Sarah Palin with her ramblings about Basketball analogy.
Epiphany Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“She LOOKED as guilty as sin…”
Oh that’s a good way to determine someone’s guilt, by the way they “LOOK”. lol. I hope you never make it to court aa a juror. If you do or have, I pity the defendant.
4moreyears Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“She LOOKED as guilty as sin”,
WRONG Willio as usual.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“She LOOKED as guilty as sin”,
Well there ya go! What other reason does a republican/conservative need in order to indict a democrat/liberal?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I dunno TDRO. There were plenty on here accusing sanford of using taxpayer money to see his friend and that turned out to be NOT true.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Bliss:
Was he ever convicted of anything? Last I heard, no. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
By the way, we never said Sanford LOOKS guilty, so he must be guilty.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
No, plenty just simply said he was flying around on our dime and it wasn’t true.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Sure. And Giuliani was carting his misress’ ass around on the taxpayer dime. Of course you defended him.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“her lying about her knowledge of EIT’s”
Okay, then this means you’re submitting to the idea that EITs are illegal, immoral and wrong.
I mean, it’s great that your telepathic and can read her mind like that, but let’s stick to real issue.
Bush is a war criminal.
People who supported him and support his party. Those people are supporting crime and illegalities.
trees are people too Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
No, it doesn’t.
It only means that Pelosi wanted to capitalize on the political position that EIT’s were an illegal intelligence gathering activity, but here’s the rub, she knew of EIT’s and she approved of them at the time that they were being discussed and made policy, so what she was really attempting to do was to persecute others for something that she herself had understood and approved of.
And this intended persecution was wholly based on her political ambition and aspirations.
Gee, go figure……a politician lying in an attempt to gain political power
And you fell for it like a fat bass sucking up a fake plastic worm
July 9th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The CIA did not lie.
They were ordered by Dick Cheney what to/ not reveal to congress.
Why do think George Tenet got the medal of honor from Bush?
Celticwitch Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I am wondering why AG Eric Holder refuses to put the Bush Administration on trial, for warcrimes. My daughter wanted to see what it was like to know what it is like to be waterboarded until she read what they did and then what it felt like; she exclaimed that the water fills your head, the sinus cavities. Sounds nice huh, if you don’t believe me, well go and look up, How to waterboard someone, and see…
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Celt said: I am wondering why AG Eric Holder refuses to put the Bush Administration on trial, for warcrimes.
K: Uh, maybe because they didn’t COMMIT war crimes? Just a thought…
Celticwitch Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Yeah they did, sorry. We invaded Iraq without provocation, lied to the American Public, The Bush Doctorine means we can invaded any Country if they are a threat to The United States, waterbaording, sleep depravation, placing them in hotboxes, starvation. They were going against the Geneva Convention. Murdering 10,000 or more innocent men, women and children in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Cheney had to go around the Geneva Convention by calling them “Enemy Combatans” we signed a NO TORTURE agreements with Free Europe, and some Countries want to Proseccute some of the Bush Administration. That is all she wrote.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
K: “Uh, maybe because they didn’t COMMIT war crimes? Just a thought…”
TD: Sure. And OJ didn’t kill his wife because he was never convicted.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
TD said: Sure. And OJ didn’t kill his wife because he was never convicted.
K: Unfortunately for you, TD, we rely on the rule of law in this country. Sorry…
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
K: “Unfortunately for you, TD, we rely on the rule of law in this country. Sorry…”
TD: Doesn’t mean he didn’t kill his wife. It just means he wasn’t convicted of it.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
TD said: Doesn’t mean he didn’t kill his wife. It just means he wasn’t convicted of it.
K: Also works the other way. It doesn’t mean Bushco is guilty of war crimes just because we have a law against war crimes.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
K: “Also works the other way. It doesn’t mean Bushco is guilty of war crimes just because we have a law against war crimes.”
TD: It doesn’t mean Bushco is NOT guilty of war crimes, either.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Alan, Panette HAS NOT publicly said this. Only 7 dems have said. Until Panetta admits it, I don’t believe it. Too much politics involved; putting our CIA under the bus for political gain leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would much rather trust my family’s lives to any member of the CIA than any member of congress.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I’d trust the CIA before UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, or Cigna, but that’s like trusting Dr. Frankenstein over Dracula.
Budda Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Come on now, lets lighten up in the CIA, after all their job is to mislead, obstruficate, distort and con joule. How else can you get valuable information from people or get them to do your calling? Waterboard them?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Yeah, but you trust medicare and medicaid AND social security since the government manages them oh so efficiently. Right?
OldLefty Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I ABSOLUTELY would and so would the doctors in the offices.
They don’t have to deal with problems like the former ceo of Atena testified to, and Grandma gets her medicare bills paid, and her social security check on time, but she has too fight like crazy with her private insurance companies AND she has been trying bogus charges off her phone bill for months, we have to tell Verizon that we already have fiber optic, when they call 3x a week to ask if we are interested.
Add that to the meals that Halliburton charged for and never delivered, the water problem etc….when the private sector gets too big, and crushes competion and are run by those who don’t even have the best interests of their companies at heart….I ‘ll trust the government bureaucrat over the ceo who is rewarded for denying you treatment.
pierre Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
So you trust the insurance companies to provide health care!!
Those guys are only interested in profit– simply put– they are bookies.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
This just in:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she expects Democrats to pursue further claims by the CIA Director Leon Panetta that the spy agency repeatedly misled Congress.
Wait…isn’t this exactly what we were expecting Pelosi to do after her own accusations? Is this a “do as I say, not as I do” moment?
Also, Panetta himself is apparently disputing the characterization of the Dem members of the Committee about Panetta’s testimony.
Interesting…”innit”?
pierre Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
What dispute!!
This is what the GOPs are putting out as propaganda.—Why?
Because they know the Dems can’t reveal any specific/classify information.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
PIERRE,
Here ya go, buddy…perhaps you missed the official CIA statement on these charges while you were patrolling left-wing sites:
“Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement. It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress. This Agency and this Director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. “
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
All Panetta is saying is it is not their policy to mislead congress. Doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. It just means they didn’t mean to do it and maybe they won’t lie anymore.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
TDRO,
If you can show me proof that the CIA lied to Congress…then we can talk about it…I mean other than “several democrats stated…”
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement. It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress. This Agency and this Director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. “
None of that means “We didn’t lie.”
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“If you can show me proof that the CIA lied to Congress…”
If you can show me proof that Pelosi knew anything that might implicate her in any illegal actions she may have/have not know about, then we can talk about it.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Where is the propaganda? Oh…you must mean the statement made by lefties stating the “lies” were related to “EITs”…now THAT is propaganda…
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“by lefties stating the “lies” were related to EITs”
What?
That’s broken grammar.
The left says the EITs are torture. Because people on the left are actually intelligent enough to know that torture doesn’t work. And some of them know that it’s communism that you and Cheney love so much, not democracy.
Go look it up. Your defending the use of communist tactics, you’re so frightened of others that you want to become like the foes we fought in decades past.
Propaganda? You’re a liar. The propaganda was, and is, all over the right wing and it disgusts me how dishonest the party is about their sins!
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
ERIC,
Try to keep up, buddy…this discussion is NOT on whether or not EITs = torture or not…this discussion is on whether or not the briefing Panetta gave to this Committee was related to interrogation techniques or not.
Alan, the HuffPost, etc. propagated the idea the briefing was about interrogation techniques and how the CIA misled the members regarding the same. However, the CIA has stated the briefing was NOT related to interrogation techniques.
You’re a liar.
And you’re an idiot. Read the thread before posting and it’ll save you from perpetrating your lack of credibility.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“Oh…you must mean the statement made by lefties stating the “lies” were related to “EITs”…now THAT is propaganda…”
By those standards…
The statements of the Bush Administration,Republicans that they had Intel on Saddam possessing WMDs is also propaganda…
The real proof for both is in the classified Info…I havent yet seen declassified Info on this Intel.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Re my Previous Post…
Unless of course you count the CIA’s own statements as proof…
but hey,wait a minute, didnt they just say they lied?And we’re supposed to believe their statements, when there is classified info that will establish the veracity of these claims?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Get your head out of the left-wing media machines and you’ll find the CIA has denounced the Dem assertion they “lied” about anything.
So, now we’re down to a “he said, she said”. Welcome to politics.
Celticwitch Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Welcome to Politics of lies and deceit. Bush and Cheney were famous for that one. EIT’s is torture, no if’s ands or buts. I want you to google How to waterboard, have a good friend do that to you and maybe you could out last Mancow, he was on Keith Olbermann and Keith gave 10,000 to a military family charity.
There were no WMD’s in Iraq, the lies that was spewed, and people swallowed it up. We’ve been in two wars, most of the Bush Administration; since 2001 in Afghanistan. In 2003 we were attacking Iraq, for what? Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 911, Osama Bin Laden however did.
Bush and Cheney ignored the daily intel about a
possible attack on US soil, they bushed it away. An FBI Special Agent was drumed out of the Bureau, because he told his superiors about a possible Terrorist attack. He is a goodie, how about the Middle Eastern men taking a flying lessons, they wanted to know how to take off, but not land… FLAGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING THE STAR SPANGLE BANNER AND AMERICAN THE BEAUTIFUL.
We as Democrats suffered under the Bush Administration.
The Republicans flourished under the Bush Administration. I am going off script, because of your post. Have a great day.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“find the CIA has denounced the Dem assertion they “lied” about anything.”
Of course they said that. And Charles Manson said he had nothing to do with Sharon Tate’s murder.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
treason if it’s true. the traitors want to sweep these things under the “classified” rug. to hell with your classified bulls”@t EXCUSES!! This is about doing things against our LAWS. this is about corporate power influencing,or worse controling our foreign policy in matters of capital importance to our security. Anybody still buying the second stated reason for the Iraqi invasion to win hearts and minds?. It’s getting clearer everyday Bush used this war with the help of the CIA to get rid of Saddam hussein to get our energy companies back in Iraq. TREASON. The disclosure of this classified EVIDENCE can’t be as devastating to our security as not getting to the bottom of the lies and infidelity
of the people we trusted to make policy
Celticwitch Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Not only that SISI, Haliburton,was the contractor in there, who was the CEO of that Company, is none other than Dick Cheney and the substidy, KBR, I think that is what it is called. The Bush administration should be all tried for warcrimes, invading a Country who did not attact us on 911. It is was a vandetta, After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein did put a hit on Poppy Bush. Remember that old saying, Pay back is a Mother?
Yes what the Bush Administration should be looking at Treason Charges also.
TDro319 Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Don’t forget that KBR was trying to kill our troops by giving them tainted drinking water and hiring unlicensed plumbers to install the wiring in the military shower, thereby causing our troops to be electrocuted. Talk about “supporting the troops”! I’m sure they wished Cheney didn’t support them at all.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“To which I asked if that means that no lib this site can claim to be “xtian” if those are the standards.”
Hardly any Xtians in this world anyway.Not a surprise,the religion goes directly against human nature…as do most other religions…
Except mine of course…hehehe
July 9th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
The Democrats have circled the wagons to save their precious Speaker. Is there no decency left in Washington?
Of course they ALL LIE, those who we call congressmen/women. I simply don’t know how they look at themselves in the mirror everyday.
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Yeah Daddio. Much like the republicans circled their wagons to save their precious crooks and adulterers Palin, Ensign and Sanford (to name a few).
July 10th, 2009 at 8:42 am
“Of course they ALL LIE, those who we call congressmen/women. I simply don’t know how they look at themselves in the mirror everyday.”
Because they’re no different from you or me, or the radical evangelical christians who think they know all the answers to everything.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
It’s always the fault of Christians with you Rocky. SOOOOOOO Telling.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“Now, since you quoted Jesus Christ regarding taxes”
Bliss: Where did I quote J.C on taxes?
“I have an idea for ya to prove my point. Why don’t you send the government ALLLL of your check with a note that says “send back what you don’t want to use” and see if you get anything back.”
Bliss: what’s your point…if you have more reward points, you are richer, even though the reward points will buy you less per reward point?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“KARTH
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was simply a mother’s love for her unborn child that “drove” her to have her baby?
Did it ever occur to you that some mother’s love their children regardless of their physical or mental limitations?
guess not.
”
Bliss:
The only one who claims I delved into St Sarah’s intentions Re: her Children is Jared. I did not claim any such thing.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I think you said she had the baby ONLY because of her belief in the Bible
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
BLISS,
It’s not worth it to even try with this guy…he constantly changes his position with the flow of the debate.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“he constantly changes his position with the flow of the debate.”
And so, the topic succesfully changes from how Monegan was transformed into Wooten by Jared’s sleight of hand, into what K said/didnt say Re: St Sarah’s intentions Re Her Children.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I did not,Bliss.
I have no idea why she had her baby, and I dont want to speculate on it.
I said Jared supported her on the issue of her LYING because her having her children, especially her DS son demonstrates to HIM her faith in the bible…he has no more clue about why she REALLY had her children, than you or me.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm