Pelosi

[Lurker]

Using your standards for proof and support of position...

Pelosi is on her way out. I think she is. Argue against it.

I think she isn't.

2) Democrats were wrong to oppose water-boarding and restoration of the rights if prisoners in Guantanamo. Water-boarding may or may not be wrong. But Pelosi knew it happened a long, long time ago and only raised the issue when politically expedient for her to do so. Argue against it.

Waterboarding is wrong, it hasn't been shown that Pelosi knew it was in use in 2002, and the Democrats did try to stop it when waterboarding and other torture methods were known to be in use.

That Obama is the same as Bush? Obama will continue military tribunals at Guantánamo. Argue against it.

As pointed out here, Obama was never against military tribunals as long as proper safeguards were in place. Only a very shallow knowlege of what's going on would lead someone to say Obama is "continuing" what Bush did. I'd also point out that if Obama doesn't go far enough in upholding our American values, he'll be opposed by the same people that opposed Bush on this issue. We don't walk in lock step behind our Leaders like the right does.

That Jecks and Embar are the last standing protectors of truth? They have been more right then you in this thread. Argue against it.

No, they haven't.

I would have liked to devote more thought into my responses, maybe even supporting my arguments with details, but I wanted to stick to the standard of your example. Some people have this strange notion that they can just post their random opinions and then demand detailed rebuttals... with links! It's quite amusing.

[Kulaf]

We don't walk in lock step behind our Leaders like the right does.

Who is this "We" you keep speakiong of? Are you a Congressman?

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pel ... 05-16.html

Pelosi now says she respects the CIA.

And she knew waterboarding was being used as early as 2003.

Yet she remained silent, why? She wasn't a part of the classified group anymore, she could have gone public. But she didn't. She remained silent (as did many others).

In regards to Chants... his statement that this will be the end of Pelosi as Speaker... a week or so ago, I would have disagreed. But she's completely mishandling this, caused an uproar (which as Chants noted is her specialty, that's all she knows how to do), and she keeps whacknig the tarbaby, makng herself look more guilty and desparate everytime she speaks. So I really do think she could lose her leadership poistion over this. The Dems can't be seen as protecting one of their own when they are calling for heads, and they can't let Pelosi shape the organization that will investigate her. She has to be benched and muzzled, at least for the time being, if the Dems want to control the message.

The Reps are doing a pretty good job of keeping her off-balance and marginalized. Everytine she addresses the issue, she either reveals material she should have revealed earlier on, or she's in fulll back pedal mode, like right now with her comments on the CIA.

She's in for a rough few weeks, if she survives this.

[Harlowe]

I have yet to defend Pelosi. Saying I want to see an investigation isn't defending, not that Chants has ever needed facts to crow about something political. Also ad hominem attacks are only bad, if they aren't coming from him. If they are, that would be "focusing on the argument".

Anyway, Embar and Jecks hold their own just fine. I enjoy rattling sabers with them, whether I drive them nuts or not.

[Lurker]

Pelosi now says she respects the CIA.

She doesn't "now say" anything different about the CIA. When Pelosi's comment that the CIA misled her during the briefing was twisted into an attack of the entire intelligence community (much like attacks on Bush's Iraq policies were always twisted into attacks on our troops) she felt it necessary to state the obvious.

And she knew waterboarding was being used as early as 2003.

Yet she remained silent, why? She wasn't a part of the classified group anymore, she could have gone public. But she didn't. She remained silent (as did many others).

More assumptions stemming from your incorrect belief that Pelosi's staffer wasn't authorized to tell her about the 2003 briefing.

The Reps are doing a pretty good job of keeping her off-balance and marginalized. Everytine she addresses the issue, she either reveals material she should have revealed earlier on, or she's in fulll back pedal mode, like right now with her comments on the CIA.

Pelosi hasn't contradicted herself or changed her story since the circus begain a couple weeks ago. Her original statement that she wasn't briefed about waterboarding in 2002 still hasn't been disproven. The statement about the CIA misleading her hasn't been rescinded. Just because disgraced ex-Reps like Newt go on TV and call her actions vile doesn't make it so.

Pelosi is asking for the briefing notes to be released and for a full investigation into all this to begin. Let's do that. I don't care who puts the commission together as long as it's impartial and all inclusive.

[Embar Angylwrath]

LOL... have some more Koolaid...

I suggest you view and listen to her press conference, and then get back to me about her not lambasting, and then hugging, the CIA.

Lurker, you usually are link-heavy, but here, it seems you're just spouting your opinion, regardless of the facts. Why the change?

[Lurker]

I've watched it and stand by my statement, "When Pelosi's comment that the CIA misled her during the briefing was twisted into an attack of the entire intelligence community (much like attacks on Bush's Iraq policies were always twisted into attacks on our troops) she felt it necessary to state the obvious."

It is possible to praise the job the CIA has done in protecting our country and to claim that the CIA brief in 2002 was misleading. Those aren't contradictory positions. The Republicans claimed she was attacking the entire intelligence community when she clearly wasn't.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1003

Pelosi claims the CIA lied to her, and often lies to Congress. So tell me Lurker, how does one rectify this language with admiration for the CIA? An agency that Pelosi states often misleads Congress?

[Harlowe]

This was a pretty stupid thing to say ..

"They mislead us all the time,"

I don't know, it just seems over-the-top ridiculous to me. I just want it all out on the table and am tired of the whole "hot potato" game that is being played.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.rushmoredrive.com/LatestNews ... 2949515625

http://digg.com/politics/AP_Torture_Pel ... e?FC=PRCP3

http://obama.wsj.com/article/0bWK42z0yA ... nce+Agency

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:npr708: ... g-Congress

Clearly she is distinguishing the CIA and the Bush Admin.

Again I ask you, you are usually link-heavy in supporting your position.. why the absence of supporting docs now?

[Lurker]

Linking to the same basic story over and over doesn't provide more support or facts.

So tell me Lurker, how does one rectify this language with admiration for the CIA? An agency that Pelosi states often misleads Congress?

The same way you can say that Alberto Gonzales often lied to Congress without it being an attack on the career lawyers at the DOJ.

This was a pretty stupid thing to say

A little over the top maybe, but is it that hard to believe that the CIA misleads Congress when it suits their purpose, or that the Bush Administration wouldn't want to let information about waterboarding out days after they approved its use? Pelosi said the CIA misled her in the briefings and wants the notes released. Lets do that.

why the absence of supporting docs now?

Because there's no dispute over what Pelosi said. The concept is simple and shouldn't require links. Is it possible to claim that the brief was misleading and still praise the rank and file CIA agents? Obviously. Is an accusation that the brief was misleading an attack on the entire intelligence community? Of course not.

[Embar Angylwrath]

[quote="Lurker"]Linking to the same basic story over and over doesn't provide more support or facts.

quote]

And dodging the facts that are revealed in the story doesn't help your argument.

Where are your links that refute what I claim? Also, Pelosi stated the CIA constantly misleads.. not just in this one instance. Where are your links to support Pelosi's statement?

[Lurker]

Where are your links that refute what I claim?

Which claim? That you can't say the CIA briefing was misleading without attacking all CIA agents? I responded to that and links aren't required to point out how idiotic that line of attack is.

I agree that the line about the CIA misleading them all the time is over the top. Obviously there are examples of them misleading or flat out lying to Congress but it's wrong to say they do it all the time. That was hyperbole.

Pelosi's basic point stands though. She claims the CIA misled her during the briefing and wants the notes released to prove it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I agree that the line about the CIA misleading them all the time is over the top. Obviously there are examples of them misleading or flat out lying to Congress but it's wrong to say they do it all the time. That was hyperbole.

Please provide examples that the CIA lied to Congress, or misled them. Otherwise, stfu about it.

[Lurker]

This took about 20 seconds of research.
Transcript Indicates Casey Lied to Panel Over the Iran Affair

Now can you answer a question? Is it possible to claim the CIA briefing was misleading without it being an attack on the entire intelligence community?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Are you delusional???

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree

That's a very blanket statement casting aspersion on the CIA with no limitations.

LURKER WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS?

[Lurker]

You obviously aren't reading. Why would I post links when we agree that the "they mislead us all the time" line was wrong? It was hyperbole.

Can you respond to my question now?

[Harlowe]

I'm not sure what you are demanding of Lurker here that he hasn't provided. Unless you think that the believes the blanket statement was correct or just won't be happy unless he links a whole bunch of crap. I'm just not seeing him dodge anything.

I think we all agree that her statement was overly dramatic, but is anyone gullible enough to believe the CIA is the epitome of honesty and integrity 100% of the time? That no one is ever mislead?

I'm not saying they did or did not mislead her, I want to see what an investigation turns up.

[Partha]

If nothing else, people can see how far the star of Chants as a reasonable person has fallen.

2) Democrats were wrong to oppose water-boarding and restoration of the rights if prisoners in Guantanamo. Water-boarding may or may not be wrong. But Pelosi knew it happened a long, long time ago and only raised the issue when politically expedient for her to do so. Argue against it.

Waterboarding, as even 'sane' Jecks and Embar will tell you, is immoral AND illegal. It IS wrong. And Chants is so far under the spell of the right wing that he can't even bring himself to articulate that a war crime is wrong.

Sad. I'd pour a 40 if I thought it would help people's memories.

[Kulaf]

If nothing else, people can see how far the star of Chants as a reasonable person has fallen.

And Partha would know.....he's at all the meetings.