What did Pelosi know and when did she know it?

[kentuck]

We now hear reports that Speaker Pelosi was informed of the "waterboarding" torture method back in 2002. Is it any wonder that she was willing to "take impeachment off the table"? She is either stupid or she is part of the criminal cover-up. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she is stupid.

As is Jay Rockefeller. He also knew about the waterboarding. Now we can ask why he was willing to give the telecoms immunity for illegally spying on America. Stupid. Make that in capitals: STUPID.

[shraby]

1. If they are unwilling to make things right

it's not stupid, it is criminal.

[acmavm]

2. Don't make excuses for Grandma Pelosi. The witch is one of them.

[mtnsnake]

3. This latest revelation about Pelosi is extremely troubling and shameful

When she immediately took impeachment off the table everyone was wondering "WTF?", but slowly all the revelations about her and what she knew are all starting to add up. It's funny how all the loose ends always start becoming connected after a matter of time.

For her to be one of four people who knew about waterboarding torture way back in 2002 and to never speak up about all this time is simply shameful and un-Democratic.

[fascisthunter]

4. Just CRIMINAL

If I see a crime committed and don't tell the authorities, I become an accessory to that crime right? Why is it any different for a Congressmen or woman? Does she think she is the authority and if so, why protect those who commit the crime by doing NOTHING about it? Fear? Dumb? I'm tired of excuses.... she's become one of them!

[derby378]

5. It's official - Pelosi is dead weight to the party now

I say Jane Harman for Speaker of the House in the 111th Congress. Any Democrat who is not on board with this proposal should be prepared to work very, very hard to earn our vote in the primary.

[kentuck]

7. Uh...Jane was told also...

She is even worse than Pelosi.

[derby378]

12. Harman voiced her objections to waterboarding in February 2003

I don't like the fact that she waited, either, but Pelosi punished her for even objecting at all.

[terisan]

6. Yes let's forgive Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld ,Rove (they might hurt us) and jump on other people. It

worked in invading Iraq.

Saudis attacked us! (But their Bush's friends and oil supplier and may hurt us so let's attack Iraq instead.

Stupid?

You have let your country be taken over by a cabal that is driving it into total destruction. Does that make you stupid.
No.

..... believing every slanted story published in the Washington Post does qualify you.

[kentuck]

8. I'm sure Pelosi will come out and clarify it for you...

She is weak. It's time for her to step aside and put a real Democrat, one that is able to think independently without White House assistance, into her position.

[KingFlorez]

10. I've noticed that a lot

It seems that some people here have completely taken the blame off the administration for everything and put it all on the Democrats. It's really ridiculous.

[terisan]

13. It seems to fit in with the Repub campaign to blame Democrats for Iraq Invasion ala Karl Rove's

misleading statements that Bush wanted to wait but Dems pressed for it.

They are wiley foxes.

[Imagevision]

9. Pelosi has turned into a h-u-g-e disappointment, little crdibility, maybe too old?

[terisan]

17. ah Ageism, the bitter indulgence of youth. nt

[cali]

11. It's a WaPo story

and that makes me very suspicious of its accuracy. Since when do DUers buy something from the WaPo unquestioningly?

[EstimatedProphet]

14. When it reinforces their beliefs

[mtnsnake]

15. It's been all over the news, so if it's not true, it would only make sense for her to denounce it

with a statement of her own which contradicts what all the news reports are saying.

[cali]

16. And when did it come out?

Today, right? And all the reports are based on that one WaPo story. In addition, it may be difficult for her to comment on a classified briefing in a way that wouldn't tip off what was in that briefing.

[mzmolly]

18. To my undertstanding they were not allowed to disclose it for "national security" purposes?

That's not to say that we should not impeach, however. Knowing about something does not mean approving of it.

[Perry Logan]

19. You're being led by the nose, trusting the media and the CIA.

[L. Coyote]

27. Or the paycheck from the RNC.

[Mnemosyne]

20. Complicit. n/t

[Hydra]

21. "Houston, we have a problem..."

I don't care that Bush/Cheney/Rove/Gonzo ordered this- that's just what they do. That's why we don't want people like them in ANY branch of our Gov't.

The fact that Pelosi is involved in this is a HUGE problem, as is anyone else in our party who knew about this and raised no objection.

Is this even our party anymore?

[cal04]

22. Did Bush approve CIA leak to embarrass Pelosi?

by John Aravosis

Sure looks that way. Today's Washington Post reports that Pelosi was briefed about the CIA's waterboarding in 2002 and raised no objections. A few responses:

It's pretty clear that either one of the Republican members of Congress at the meeting, or the CIA, decided to leak what happened at a super-classified post-9/11 briefing in order to embarrass Pelosi and the Democrats. And I don't doubt for a minute that Bush approved the leak, as he always does.

It's also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It's patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn't object then that she doesn't have the right to object now.

One final point. I hope this teaches Pelosi and Reid and all the Democrats that no matter what you do, this administration will mark you as a traitor and try to do destroy you. You might as well fight back and try to win, because if you don't, you'll sit back and lose.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/did-bush-approve-cia-leak-to-embarrass.html

[kentuck]

24. Well, maybe that's good?

Maybe now that they no longer have everyone in the Party covering their asses, they might finally get on the stick and investigate, lest it all be blamed on them. It's sad it has to be that way but they should have known better.

[L. Coyote]

26. Ask instead, "Did Bush approve the destruction of the evidence?"

Give your head a little air already!

[Nimrod2005]

23. All politicians are crooks

[L. Coyote]

25. TOTAL BULLSHIT! "either stupid or she is part of the criminal cover-up"

This does not even merit further comment. It stands on its own merit as obvious total CRAP!

But, I will add, those of us in the Democratic Party still believe in the Constitution, innocence until proven guilty, trial by jury, due process, and calling horse shit just that, horse shit!