What did Pelosi know, and when did she know it?

[ProSense]

Bush and the Republicans must be laughing their asses off!

Edited to add this from Marty Lederman:

The pattern is by now very familiar. Whenever the Administration begins to do something of dubious legality, it:

1. sends to Congress messengers who the Intel committees trust -- solemn, serious, professionals, often uniformed military officers

2. to inform a very select, small number of legislators of the conduct -- legislators who have developed close and trusted relationships with the intel officials briefing them and who are, quite understandably, loathe to undermine such relationships, which do, after all, facilitate trust, access, and oversight itself

3. and to provide such briefings after the conduct has commenced

4. in a highly classified setting

5. putting the conduct in its best possible light -- in particular, making sure to insist that it has prevented terrorist attacks

6. while assuring the legislators that it has been vetted by the lawyers and is legal

7. without showing the legislators the legal analysis supporting the conduct

8. without disclosing the legal arguments that cut the other way

9. without informing the legislators of any policy-based or legal dissent within the executive branch

10. while warning the legislators that they may not legally breathe a word of it to anyone -- certainly not to staff, or their fellow legislators, nor to experts outside Congress who might be able to better assess the legality and efficacy of the conduct

11. and while insisting that the legislators cannot second-guess the need for classification and secrecy, even in cases -- such as with respect to OLC opinions concerning what techniques are lawful and which are not, and with respect to conduct that has been revealed to the enemy already -- where there is no legitimate justification for the classification.

The reaction from the Intel Commmittees is, alas, predictable: Muted, furtive and internal (i.e., entirely ineffective) protest, at best. More often than not, acquiescence and encouragement.

(emphasis added)

Why anyone would think that this administration gave Congress a full, unmanipulated briefing on anything? If hey exclude information or present cherry-picked information it's not a full briefing. Just look at the Mukasey hearing, which is why Feingold wrote this, and McConnell's op-ed on Bush's FISA bill, and Dodd's response.


The only way to get to the bottom of this is to investigate Bush.



Oops, edited typo!

[TwilightGardener]

1. I am afraid we're stuck here. If our leader has her hands dirty, how

do we ever get justice in this country?

[ProSense]

2. We're stuck believing anything the spinners dish us,

aided by the get the Dems crowd, searching for vindication!

[L. Coyote]

12. IF. Come on man. Read the damn post. Get past IF and try to deal with FACTS.

Is that too much to ask?

Ask if Pelosi was lied too by Bush, just like everyone else!
That is the question they are trying to prevent you from asking!!!

[TwilightGardener]

15. I hope, if she knew about torture taking place by the CIA in 2002, that

she had very good reason not to protest that fact--maybe they scared the shit out of that gang of four. I wouldn't expect an honest presentation from BushCo. However, Jane Harman raised objections. Why didn't Nancy? Why didn't Jay Rockefeller?

[warren pease]

19. How then do you explain...

...the fact that Pelosi was lied to AND BELIEVED THE LIES while the rest of us -- operating on far less information and completely out of the insider loop, but sensible enough to know a pathological liar when we see and hear one -- knew that anything that comes from this administration is self-serving horseshit. And that what this administration DOESN'T say is probably a self-serving omission.

In short, how stupid do you have to be to be duped by the stupidest man to ever occupy the Oval Office? How many millions of people around the world weren't -- and aren't now -- fooled by this imbecile? And why was/is Ms. Nancy, the wise veteran of countless political battles, so gullible? Does she actually think she's dealing with honorable people when she deals with this administration?

She's the type who might be interested in my 40 acres of prime coastline property. It's been mostly under water for several millennia, but with a little imagination and a few thousand pumps...


wp

[ProSense]

20. " How then do you explain...Pelosi was lied to AND BELIEVED THE LIES while the rest of us..."

believe WaPo's BS?

She was a sage when she voted against the IWR, now she's an idiot?

[warren pease]

27. The WaPo isn't the liar I'm referring to...

"She was a sage when she voted against the IWR, now she's an idiot?"

An idiot and an easily conned Pollyanna are two different creatures, even though their actions often produce identical outcomes. In this case, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on intelligence, but not on gullibility. But it's this post I was replying to anyway:

See post # 12 above, subject line: "IF. Come on man. Read the damn post. Get past IF and try to deal with FACTS."

The text reads:

"Is that too much to ask?

"Ask if Pelosi was lied too (sic) by Bush, just like everyone else!
"That is the question they are trying to prevent you from asking!!!"

So the poster implies that Ms. Nancy got suckered by an imbecile who calls himself The Commander Guy, and that's what I'm responding to.

Did you get suckered? Probably not. I know I didn't. I haven't believed a single thing that's come from this administration since Dec. 12, 2000. I haven't believed a single thing out of Bush's mouth since the first time I heard him say he was a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter, not a divider." The guy just reeks of bullshit; how come Ms. Nancy can't smell it?

So again: Why is Ms. Nancy, with all her experience and presumably a ton of inside information that I don't have, still a hundred times more gullible than I'll ever be? In fact, if I were that easily duped, I would probably have been killed in Vietnam or on the streets long ago. And I don't pretend to be that wise or smart. Just a tough sell for chronic bullshitters.


wp

[madrchsod]

3. we will know as the case evolves

there are several laws that have been violated so the case must be developed one step at a time and it is time to call fitzgerald back to washington.

[BuyingThyme]

4. (1) She knew they were spying on us. (2) Before 9/11.

Oh, were you asking about something else?

[ProSense]

5. Sorry, not that gullible!

I'm for investigating Bush, not Pelosi!

[BuyingThyme]

6. That's very sad.

[ProSense]

7. No it isn't!

Sad is that there is more post on this page calling for Pelosi's head, not Bush's!

[BuyingThyme]

8. Oh, you didn't hear? We've been doing that for seven years.

[ProSense]

9. When the Repub's controlled Congress? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

11. Yes, we've been on Bush's case since day one.

This Pelosi thing is just getting underway. We have a lot of time to make up, as she's been attacking our Constitution almost as long as the Chimp has.

[L. Coyote]

13. BULLSHIT. You are just making up shit.

Pelosi has "been attacking our Constitution almost as long as the Chimp has" is total CRAP and you know it!

[BuyingThyme]

16. What are you talking about?

If the fact that she knew about the illegal spying before 9/11 didn't catch your attention, surely taking the Constitution off the table should have given you a clue.

[11 Bravo]

17. Quite possibly the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read at DU.

Congrats.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Now, both you and I know you're just babbling because

anything approaching honestly does not serve your kind, but just for fun, why don't you let us know what you're referring to. What is the dumbest fucking thing you have ever read on DU?

Please, now. Try to do this. Try very hard to answer the question. We see stuff like this all the time, but your kind always alerts and runs away. Everybody's watching you. Please answer.

[11 Bravo]

21. My kind? What, pray tell, is my kind? And everyone is watching? Oh my, I may faint!

Apparently a combat tour in the A Shau Valley failed to inoculate me against a case of the vapors upon receipt of an ominous message from SpongeBob SquarePants.
You seem to be struggling with my post, asking "What is the dumbest fucking thing you have read on DU." Let me try again, this time with smaller words. Your - post - number -11. Got that? Any attempt to equate the actions of a long time reliable progressive such as Nancy Pelosi, with those of this criminal administration is ridiculous on its face.
Now, piss off, Junior. Take your "please now ... try to do this ... try very hard" bullshit and stick it wherever it will give you the most pleasure. Snark only works when the author has at least a minimum of cred. That eliminates you.
On another note, I've been here considerably longer than you have, and this the first time my honesty has been questioned. If "my kind" had even a modicum of respect for you, I might be offended.
So there we have it. I neither alerted (where the fuck did that come from?), nor ran away.

[BuyingThyme]

22. No need to equate the actions of Bush and Pelosi being that they're

the same actions.

Now, how did you get so confused as to think they were different actions?

Haven't you been reading any of the threads today? Oh, wait. Have you forgotten to answer the question honestly?

Next, being that Nancy Pelosi knew about the illegal spying since before 9/11, and Bush came into office only 8 months before 9/11, how is it that you believe Bush has been attacking our Constitution so much longer than Pelosi?

Lastly, why does the truth make you so mad?

[11 Bravo]

23. You only asked one question.

If you require assistance, find a friend to help you count the number of question marks in your post to which I responded. My answer was clear, concise, and yes, honest. (Hell, I even re-stated your question in order to help you to avoid embarrassing yourself .... again.) Alas, to no avail. Hang in there though, Sparky. You're quasi-amusing.

[BuyingThyme]

24. And so s/he runs.

Anything but reality.

[11 Bravo]

25. You earlier stated that "everybody is watching". You better hope you're wrong.

You have now lapsed into a kind of cringe-inducing incomprehensibility. If "everybody is watching", trust me, they want to turn away, but you're sort of like a train wreck. Hell, even I can't wait to read your next bit of witlessness.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[11 Bravo]

28. Thanks, I knew you wouldn't let me down.

You argue like a Republican. I said nothing about supporting spying on citizens , or torture. You may be aware of that, but maybe not. b Bsed on previous posts, your reading comprehension skills have been seriously called into question. You attempted to conflate the actions of Speaker Pelosi with those of Bush. I called you on it. You then spiraled off into a spat of projection (Tossing words like dumb or dumbness around 5 times in just one response? Damn, have you ever seen a monkey fling its own shit?)
Anyway, I've got to go now. My son has a basketball game and I would much rather watch him dribble through the opposing team than continue to watch you dribble down your chin.

[BuyingThyme]

29. So if you're not here to defend Pelosi's positions on torture and spying,

what are you here to do? What was the purpose of your first post?

I think that honesty thing is getting in the way again. Or is it the dumbness?

[11 Bravo]

10. Limbaugh asked that very question at approximately 1:35 this afternoon.

Trust me, the RW echo chamber doesn't need any help from you.

[L. Coyote]

14. Of course. they have a well-oiled (correlation intended) and co-ordinated effort

to discredit the one person who can start impeachment proceedings, and who is probably witness #1 that the lied to Congress about torture in 2002!!