Do you trust Sen. Russ Feingold? = Congress DID NOT approve or consent to CIA Torture Methods.

[L. Coyote]

The WA Post article places a lot of SPIN up front, and gets to the facts in the last line:

"In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it." "

What are the questions we should be asking instead of bashing Pelosi because a couple of Rs want to?

* First, "Why is a propaganda piece like this running now?" SIMPLE. Bush has been caught with his hand in the War Crimes cookie jar, and he is deflecting blame. The distraction, any distraction, deflects from discussing the larger crimes, like illegal wars.
* Second, I suspect this is this a pre-emptive leak because the CIA was in violation of the law by NOT fully informing Congress, Pelosi, et.al., and the tapes prove just that.

I'll go with both of the above, Bush and the CIA committing crimes.
Now, they are having to make limited admissions in the face of what hit the presses.

What I don't get is why people do not read the whole article and apply a little critical reason before running off to the House floor with a noose yelling for Pelosi's neck! I might understand that kind of crap from Karl Rove .....

STOP torturing Rep. Pelosi for Bush's crimes!!!!!! and instead
FOCUS on the junta's crimes by order of magnitude:

#1. Hundreds of thousands of humans killed in illegal wars.

Do not lose sight of the #1 crime that leads to this one (destroying two video tapes), way, way, down that list after torture and the LIES.

==============
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

[spanone]

1. Yes I trust Feingold.

[defendandprotect]

2. I trust Feingold --- but not Pelosi, who I feel may have aided + abetted the WH

re torture programs ---

Implied consent --- ??????

[Occam Bandage]

4. In spreading RW anti-Dem bullshit, you're aiding and abetting the WH.

[fascisthunter]

13. and terrorists too

:crazy:

[Occam Bandage]

17. Apparently it's only a kosher argument when aimed at people you dislike.

[fascisthunter]

20. apparently

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

25. You sound like a LW mirror image of O'Reilly .... !!!

[fascisthunter]

28. I Was Being Sarcastic

note the :crazy: emoticon.

[defendandprotect]

38. Full apologies --- !!! Beg pardon!!!

Realized that after I posted it --- I thought you and the original commenter were the same ---

[defendandprotect]

21. Didn't trust Pelosi before this --- based on what she has NOT been doing re the WH --- !!!

Feingold would have made a better Majority leader ---

[Occam Bandage]

39. You have the most idiosyncratic punctuation I have ever seen.

[EFerrari]

3. Yes, I trust Russ. One of the very few I trust any more.

The problem with this issue, as you know, is that the Noise Machine is spinning as fast as it can AND that Democrats do bear some responsibility. These two situations aren't mutually exclusive.

[L. Coyote]

7. The Spin is probably our best indication that this is HUGE, and here is why

The junta lied to Congress all along, beginning to Pelosi, and in that scenario Bush is completely over, done, kaput, history, washed up ....

The first order of business is refuting the witness. Who is witness #1? Pelosi!

[EFerrari]

9. Well, It might be Jay Rockefeller but they will get more mileage

out of tarring Pelosi.

/oops

[defendandprotect]

23. The spin is working on some people who think this is simply RW propaganda re Pelosi ---

Who knows what they told her; but we have known for years that there was a viewing for Congress of these films and photos -- and when she came up and could do something about torture, she hasn't --
and she hasn't done anything to curtail any of the outrageous and illegal things that Bush has done
as president.

[mmonk]

5. I'll give congress a break if they know less than I do

and didn't know what many of us found out years ago.

[defendandprotect]

26. They very well knew --- they had a special viewing of the photos --- and some video ---

of the torture---
I remember pics of some of the women coming out in tears ---

Yeah -- they didn't know BEFORE --- but since then they have done nothing ---
that is . . . since they are the MAJORITY!!!

[mmonk]

40. Yep.

So if people are looking for me to give them a break, my answer is no.

[Luminous Animal]

6. I trust Glenn Greenwald more...

"The core function is to monitor what the intelligence community does and to "assure that such activities" are legal. It is a complete travesty for the senior Democrats on those Committees (and their apologists) to claim that they are powerless to act when learning of lawbreaking."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

I continue to be amazed and disturbed by the number of people willing to defend the actions of Rockefeller and his comrades by claiming that these poor, victimized Congressional members just have no ability to do anything when they learn about outright lawbreaking by the administration. As I asked yesterday, why would they even bother to attend briefings if they believed that they were "powerless" to act even upon learning of serious illegalities? Here is the central purpose of the Select Committee on Intelligence -- the primary reason it exists, as stated by the resolution which created the Committee:

It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The Intelligence Committees were created as a response to the discovery in the 1970s of illegal conduct by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The core function is to monitor what the intelligence community does and to "assure that such activities" are legal. It is a complete travesty for the senior Democrats on those Committees (and their apologists) to claim that they are powerless to act when learning of lawbreaking. Anyone who thinks that way should not be on the Committee. The idea that they can't do anything once learning of lawbreaking is the very opposite of the Committee's core purpose. But, of course, they were not and are not powerless to act. They simply chose not to act.

[L. Coyote]

10. Fallecious argumentation. Greenwald is not priviliged to what the junta told the Intel chairs.

Yet, he bases his argument on assumption that would have us believe he was there.

Why isn't he asking if Bush lied to Congress? After all, we already know he was lying to everyone else!!

There really is a Catch-22 in all this because everything is a secret and the principles cannot discuss it.
Nonetheless, everyone seems to know with certainty that their own personal version of reality is true.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Certainly they can go on record.

Without revealing any state "secrets", each Democrat on the committee can go on record whether or not they approved or consented to it. And if not, why not.

[Supersedeas]

8. the Tweeties of the world will have no problem helping to DEFLECT whatever comes

[L. Coyote]

11. And Rush just asked, What did Pelosi know and when did she know it?

Well-co-ordinated propaganda effort, to be sure! With 60 moles working in concert here ......

[defendandprotect]

27. Now ... Pelosi an accomplice willingly or unwittingly ----

Whichever way it is, it leaves me with less confidence in her ---

[Mike03]

14. I THINK I trust him; a few months ago I was hoping he would

run for POTUS.

[undeterred]

15. He can't raise the $ because he isn't a corporate candidate

and he is entirely trustworthy.

[shraby]

16. He didn't have much money when he ran the

first time for the Senate..that's why I voted for him..figured he didn't owe anybody anything. He's not let me down.

[undeterred]

18. He's the real deal.

We're lucky to have him.

[defendandprotect]

29. Did he throw in with Dennis Kucinich on the impeachment --- ????

[ThomWV]

19. How much do I trust him? If he were running for President I'd say screw all the rest of 'em.

[Truth2Tell]

22. have not "approved it or consented to it"

is very different than "did not know about it."

What's much more critical is that they failed to use the tools at their disposal to stop it after they knew about it.

[L. Coyote]

31. First, we need to know what they were told. The crime may be that they were not fully informed.

It is a stretch of the imagination that the Bush junta, whiole maintaining secrecy about all this, lying to the world, the courts, everyone essentially, was going to the Hill to inform Dems that they were in fact lying, and besides, that they were committing war crimes.

This would make a good poll question:

Do you believe Bush told the Dem leaders he was torturing and lying to the world and to courts trying terror suspects?

Consider this. Bush just overturned any convictions by having suppressed evidence and by obstructing justice.

And, the damn trolls want us to believe they just couldn't wait to go over to the Hill to confide this to the Dems.

:rofl: in my pee! The absurdity was too much!! :rofl:

[Truth2Tell]

34. The crime may be that they were not fully informed.

If so then let's hear some outrage on her part. The American people need to hear it. Will she demand accountability for being lied to? Will she at least issue a statement clarifying whether she was or was not told about these techniques? You'd think that if she wasn't told that she'd be rushing to set the record straight? Why the silence? :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

41. There has been a statement issued. It was in the WA Post article. Additionally,

her staff has spoken with media and clarified the situation.

There are restrictions on what can be said, given the situation of an oath.

I would not allow the WA Post hit piece to make me speak out in response to idiotic inferences. That would be feeding the trolls, and Pelosi knows better.

Surely, Pelosi and others on the Hill are thinking, "Only complete IDIOTS think Bush lies to everyone, even the courts--even jeopardizing any 9/11 convictions by obstruction--and then comes to the Hill to confess war crimes to Dems."

That, of course is as sound as reasoning gets, because they live in the real world. This, in contrast, is the blogosphere and any idiot can be king. Wait, that happened in the real world too. But that idiot knows better that the ones here, that idiot does not confess war crimes to Dem leaders. Big difference between these worlds, and I'm guessing Pelosi is really happy to be living in the real one, not this realm of delusions and political insanity.

[Truth2Tell]

43. If she was told about a crime

she would be free to reveal that - regardless of her oath. Plus, there are many other things that she could've done, but I won't waste more time going over them again, as they have been reviewed at great length here and elsewhere.

I'm still waiting for an unequivocal statement refuting the claim that she was told about about these methods of "interrogation."

But we won't get that - because she was told.

Complicity. None of this makes Bush less guilty. It just makes some Democrats also guilty. The cop who walks on by and ignores the bank-robbery is just as guilty as the bank robber.

[L. Coyote]

44. The crime is probably what they were not told. Obstruction of Congress!

And, in that context, there would also be restrictions on what can be said--to not jeopardize the criminal investigation of the Junta.

[defendandprotect]

32. AND, if Pelosi knew this up front and didn't speak out against it --- NO ONE DID? ---

then Pelosi has kept quiet about something really vile and really wrong --- !!!!

And she is in a position where her consent --- even if only implied --- could be construed to
mean that she was nodding "OK" not only as part of the intelligence team but as a minority leader for the Dems ---

It stinks!

And Bushco know this --- that's why it's out ---

[Major Hogwash]

24. The GOP is the party of torture and war - not the Democrats!!

Did Karl Rove write that piece in the Post?

Man, it sure sounds like it - blame it on the Democrats.

Well, hell, now it's snowing - it's the Democrat's fault!

[defendandprotect]

36. Understand . . . but Dems have had plenty of time to impeach Bush for TORTURE ---

They haven't moved on this at all ---

Do any of us ever speak about the war and stopping it ---
without often also mentioning TORTURE --- ????

[Mythsaje]

30. I suppose there's a big moral difference between approval

and simply ignoring it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2442135&mesg_id=2442135

[defendandprotect]

37. Filthier yet, no one at this meeting spoke against it --- just, "yeah, Bush -- go, go!" ... ?????

Disgusting!!!

[debbierlus]

33. It DOESN'T MATTER, if they approved of it - their silence was CONSENT

This is so obvious. Let's put it this way & remove the Republican & Democrat after the names....

A Presidential Administration implements policies that allow torture. They go to a Congressional committee & inform them of their practices & policies. Torture is a international criminal offense. The Congressional members say & do nothing to stop this clear criminal violation of international law. They remain silent as the torture policies are exposed to the nation. The administration continues the practice despite outcry from around the globe & ethics/human rights organizations. In addition, the administration breaks other laws, but the Congressional members, one who is the leader of the House of Representatives (& later boots sole objector to program from chance to chair Intelligence Committee), fail in their duty to uphold & defend the constitution, allowing the Presidential administration to violate Constitutional law with immunity.

Who is at fault?

Obviously, the Presidential administration for instituting & implementing the policy. ALSO, the members of the Congressional committee who discovered that a crime was occurring, & did not do their duty to protect & defend our laws & international treaties.

Be honest. Be really honest....if this scenario occurred with all Republicans, would you defend those who knew & did nothing to stop it? Or, would you say that they are as bad as the administration?

It DOES NOT MATTER WHAT LETTER THEY WEAR AFTER THEIR NAME....it is their actions & deeds that count. How do we differ from Republicans, if we refuse to acknowledge & demand account from our leaders?

[L. Coyote]

42. FALSE ASSUMPTION: "They go to a Congressional committee & inform them of their practices & policies

How do you know what they informed the key members? I would venture that therein lies a crime, either lying to Congress or failing to comply with the law and fully disclosing.

Your assumption would have Bush lying to everyone, except of course, Dem leaders.
YEAH, like I'm gonna bite that hook!!! :rofl:

[debbierlus]

46. I don't think you will be laughing very much longer

Wait.

[debbierlus]

35. Oh, & in answer to your question...No, I don't trust him.

[WHAT]

45. k...

.