The Dems are Either Okay with Pelosi's Smear or a Criminal CIA. Which One?
A week ago, Nancy Pelosi, the person two heartbeats away from being the President of the United States, accused the CIA of committing a serious crime. Today, Republicans proposed a bipartisan four-member commission to investigate that criminal allegation. The crime carries with it a jail sentence of up to eight years.
The Democrats defeated it on a nearly party-line vote. Not one Democrat voted to investigate the Speaker’s allegation.
The vote means one of two things: 1) The Democrats in the House do not care to investigate whether the CIA committed at least one felony in the middle of a war; or 2) they believe that Pelosi’s allegations are baseless but aren’t willing to hold her accountable for slandering hundreds of innocent CIA employees.
It doesn’t matter whether the resolution was a political ploy by Republicans or not. The allegation was serious. That it came from the Seaker of the House made it even more serious. Let’s not forget the left’s favorite whipping boy in the 80s and early 90s, Lt. Col. Oliver North here who very nearly faced jail time and a stiff fine for the lies he told Congress. Democrats were hot to investigate his few lies while they’re unanimously opposed to investigate lying that happened, according the Pelosi “all the time”.
Of course, the North investigations helped the Democratic Party. These allegations, which are most likely horse manure, would hurt them very badly. So to heck with truth, law, and the good names of the people who work for the CIA; the Democrats have political points to score.
(cross-posted at The Greenroom)
UPDATE: Linked by Allah at Hot Air who finds that Nancy Pelosi is sticking with at least one of her stories. At this point, who can tell which story Pelosi believes?
UPDATE 2: Linked by Troglopundit!
Related posts:
- The Dems are Either Okay with Pelosi’s Smear or a Criminal CIA. Which One?
- Obama and the Dems Front on McCain, Yo.
- Nancy Pelosi is About to Learn that Lies Make A Poor Fallout Shelter
- So, A Skunk Changes His Stripe and It's Bad News for the Dems.
Category: Featured, Fighting the Islamists, Our New Democratic Overlords, The Long War Here At Home
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
[...] The Dems are Either Okay with Pelosi’s Smear or a Criminal CIA. Which One? [...]
[...] The Dems are Either Okay with Pelosi’s Smear or a Criminal CIA. Which One? : The Sundries Shack Share and Enjoy: [...]
"The Democrats in the House do not care to investigate whether the CIA committed at least one felony in the middle of a war"
Why bother? If the CIA can go a week without committing a serious felony, I'd be really surprised. It's pretty much the nature of their business to break laws in the commission of it. And, yes, misleading Congress is part of their business. Republicans have complained about being misled in the past, and Democrats will do it now. As for Pelsoi's claims, we won't know for another fifty years. The only proof in this he said/he said issue is classified and will remain so for many decades. That's the very nature of the CIA's business. The only thing we do know is that the CIA has either lied about when the meetings took place and who attended them, or they are so bad at record keeping that they are not qualified to be in the intelligence business. I'd guess a combination of the two. As for Pelosi, she's getting caught not keeping her story straight, which is to be expected from someone who's making up a story. But she has to make it up, it would be treason to disclose the real story because the real story involves a classified briefing at the very highest levels of security clearance. So what do you want, Jimmie, Pelsosi lying, or committing treason by telling the truth? When secrecy is paramount, lying and deception are they only way to maintain it. Both the CIA and Pelosi are doing it now, and they both should be doing it.
Well, the evidence points to Pelosi as the liar and not the CIA. And the CIA is ready to put their evidence on the table. Pelosi's ducking questions about it.
Regardless, Pelosi accused the CIA of committing a crime. She either has to make good on her accusation or step down.
"Well, the evidence points to Pelosi as the liar and not the CIA."
Pelosi has made inconsistent statements about these meetings. But she's never put a real time, date, or place to any of them. The CIA has put times, dates, and places out, and they have already admitted that those 'facts' are wrong. Bod Graham called them on it, and the CIA backed down. So the CIA has already admitted to lying. And that doesn't bother me, lying is their job. They wouldn't be an intelligence agency if they told the truth.
As for her making good on her accusation, she legally can't do it. She'd have to disclose classified information to do it. Would you really prefer that she commit treason? Of course, you did prefer that Scooter Libby commit treason, so I'm guessing you are actually in favor of treason. And I don't recall Pelosi actually making an accusation of any crime, she just said they lied. And when you make that accusation against the CIA, it's understood that the accusation is probably true but can't ever be considered a crime. You are merely accusing the CIA of doing their job.
Speaking of the CIA, how about Erich Muller? Six seconds? That's well below the fourteen second average for the Muslims who get this treatment. Apparently, Muhammed really is a better channel to God than Jesus is. Obviously, we cannot question Mr. Muller's direct line to Jesus, but I guess Jesus couldn't help. But that's consistent with Jesus, whose crucifixion ended unusually quick as well. You apparently need to have the grace of Allah to withstand any tortuous techniques for even an average amount of time. Bad news for Christianity and conservatism at the same time.
You'll have to show me chapter and verse on that. Leon Panetta's most recent statement is that his agency's statements stands, and that came after Bob Graham's unofficial handwritten notebooks spoke their peace.
Pelosi obviously had enough to make a public accusation that the CIA lied to her. If she can make an accusation in public, then she can refer the matter to the Justice Department as she is obligated to do. The Justice Department can wrangle with the CIA over any classified information. That's not Pelosi's decision to take.
As for your religious smear, well, stay classy, man.
"Leon Panetta’s most recent statement is that his agency’s statements stands"
That's correct. And here's why: the CIA qualified their entire statement by claiming it wasn't necessarily true, it was just the records they could come up with. And this is normal. The CIA works on a plausible deniability standard. So when they release obviously wrong information, they can just say "oops, we were mistaken." They operate somewhere in the realm partially encompassing incompetence, delusion, and deception. But based on their standard, there is no reason to believe anything they say. Usually, when you really parse the statement, they didn't say anything at all. And that's the nature of their organization. I won't criticize them for doing it because that's the very nature of what they do. The only reason I think they should exist is that if we forced them all, they'd just keep doing what they're doing anyway, except not necessarily for our side. Although I'm not convinced they are on our side. But they'll be less on our side if we stop paying them.
"As for your religious smear, well, stay classy, man."
Hey, I make no claims to the effectiveness or positiveness of any religion, even my own. But Christians always assure me that Jesus will always save me and that everyone must be a Christian to be saved. I'd give them a pass if they weren't constantly deriding me for my religious beliefs. And if Jesus won't save a good Christian like Mr. Muller, but will do more to to save Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then you might want to ask who Jesus really wants to save. And look, I'll stay classy when you write a post decrying the Christians who want to claim superiority over me. When they become classy, I'll start acting classy. And I can be classy, and I can act Christian. I've fooled many a Christian into openly saying their true beliefs. And trust me, I always say "I think you're taking it too far here and I don't really agree with that interpretation" before they go into a rant against whomever does not follow their specific brand of Christianity. Here's hint: don't proselytize if you don't want me criticizing those that do. Look, the Thai Buddhists have many beliefs that I think are completely insane, but I don't criticize because they don't ask me to believe it. When Christians stop asking me to believe their beliefs, I'll stop criticizing those beliefs. Keep it to yourself, and Matthew (or the book so named), asked us all to to this. Sadly, only the Buddhists listened. When Christians can take Matthew's advice, I'll seek their advice. And when any Christian has the mental and moral strength to subject themselves to waterboarding and prove that they are not weaker than other people, I might respect them as having a real religion. Buddhist monks can burn themselves alive without raising even a peep. Jesus couldn't even make it through a basic crucifixion. The guys crucified with him lasted longer and nobody made a big deal about it. Apparently, Christianity is based on the inability to understand or withstand suffering. It's based on creating suffering for other people. And if what I am saying is not true, then God will surely strike me down. Except that nonexistence tends to make one impotent. And while I have surely offended, that was not my intent, I only meant to enlighten. But we Buddhists don't get passes like that. This writing has strong positive and negative Karma to it. And mostly negative, I'll admit. But Karma lasts forever, so ask me in a thousand years how it really worked out. I'll be here, and so will you.
What you know about Christianity you could put in a thimble ten times over.
The CIA's function is to advise policymakers–by definition, that means that lying to Congress, or to individual Congresspersons, is a violation of law and their mission. If members of Congress can't trust the accuracy of information they get from an intelligence agency, then that agency has zero value.
Now, releasing false information to the public, that's a whole other area. Not a violation of law, not a violation of their mission…also not particularly good karma, but I'm sure they consider it to be in service to a greater good.
So, if you find the CIA lying to the press, you probably could say it's part of their job. But if they lie to Congress, then they're violating their primary duty, and breaking the law as well.
The comment I've quoted above seems to make the claim that the two cases are equivalent, which is just specious. Unless you really can't tell the difference between the government and the public.
In my opinion, Speaker Pelosi is usually a reasonably canny politician, and I'd have expected her to realize that her statement might just be casual conversation in certain circles, but making it in front of the press, on the record, is tantamount to filing charges. If you think she meant it the way she said it (and I don't) then you should be asking why she isn't calling for an investigation.
That is, dare I say it, a lie.
A formal accusation against the CIA would go before a congressional commission, and it is not illegal to disclose classified information to a congressional commission. Unless you define 'making good on her accusation' to mean 'trying the case in the media' in which case, she would indeed be hampered by the law.
"What you know about Christianity you could put in a thimble ten times over."
What I know about Christianity has been experienced throughout the South of this country and in ten times the countries you've ever been in. And what I know is that I actually read the whole Bible and many of the other texts that were rejected by Constantine. And I don't really think the the message of Jesus should be defined by the Roman Empire. You do. I accept Gnostic and St Thomas philosophies within Christianity. You accept what passed through the Roman Censors. It's not what the Christians of the day accepted, but they were being abused by the Romans at the time. I'll stick with St Thomas's interpretation. Unlike Paul, he was actually an Apostle. And his interpretation wasn't defined by the Roman Empire. Your interpretation is.
"If members of Congress can’t trust the accuracy of information they get from an intelligence agency, then that agency has zero value."
Obviously. But reality is much different, and you don't live in that world. In the real world, the CIA fools Congress as much as it does with anyone else. They find a few Congressmen who are on the Appropriations Committee for their funding. Ever wonder how Charlie Wilson runs his own war without anyone knowing about it?
"A formal accusation against the CIA would go before a congressional commission, and it is not illegal to disclose classified information to a congressional commission."
Umm, yes it is totally illegal to disclose such information. And that's why we only once have had a formal Congressional commission on stuff like this. The only real example here is the Congressional commission against the bombing of Cambodia. But that bombing was well known and fully documented from independent news agencies. They had the film footage of us actually bombing Cambodia, so nobody could claim the information was actually secret. You just can't kill a million people without somebody finding out. And the information provided to that committee did NOT come from the CIA, it came from dozens of international news organizations that had definitive proof that we were lying to Congress and proceeding with a massive bombing campaign that killed hundreds of thousands of people. None of this happened because we revealed what the CIA said in these briefings. And back then, the CIA didn't even bother to give such briefings. It all happened because people actually filmed the actions that the Nixon administration said were emphatically not happening. Which makes those journalists more powerful than God. God couldn't stop this from happening, but the Press could film it, and nobody in the world would ever claim responsibility for doing it. And the fact that American planes with American markings did it, Nixon still said that the Soviets were doing it. Which only proves that the Soviets must have been so much superior to us that that could instantly manufacture our planes just to make us look bad. We now now that that's just silly, but the Nixon administration tried to make that point.
"But if they lie to Congress, then they’re violating their primary duty, and breaking the law as well."
When you make that assertion, you obviously don't understand the nature of secrecy and the very nature of how intelligence services work. Let's put it this way, my great aunt started working for our intelligence services the day after Peal Harbour was attacked. Back then, it wasn't the CIA, but it became it, and she worked for the CIA since the day it was formed. She always denied it to us, but we always suspected it. We got a special briefing about the work she had done at her funeral. And he wouldn't talk about anything that might have happened after the CIA was formed. In other words, the last 30 years are still classified. But I was her special grand-nephew. And I really do have the special china she bought for me in Germany after the war (which is weird because I hadn't been born yet). But I got the post cards. They said nothing, but where they came from said quite a lot. But that's the secrecy you should deal with when you're a spy. NOBODY MUST KNOW. It's just that simple, and Pelosi must abide by it.
"(which is weird because I hadn’t been born yet)"
I'll add that my parents hadn't been married yet, and they decided to not have any more children before I was born. A birth control mix-up produced me. This particular aunt always loved my father and thought that the china should go to the last born male of his (he was the last born). When I was born by accident, she was overjoyed. And when mom died, I didn't even to ask for that china, my siblings knew it was mine. As for the name of this woman, well, it's still classified. But you, Jimmie could probably figure it out. But if you wanted to find out what she did, that's not possible. All I know is what I'll tell you. She died with two Distinguished Service Awards from service in Japan. And three from the European Theater. Once the CIA was formed, nobody got awards that we can see. But let's put it this way: she served in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, China, Russia, and Mozambique. She spent a lot of time in Thailand, but that was just debriefing. But what happened in Thailand during our war with Vietnam is not something we want to talk about. I've been to the place where the war was planned, and it's a hotel. Think I'm joking? Then go to the Atlanta in Bangkok and talk to Charlie. Charlie won't be there (he's back in London), but his son will point to you the photographs of Westmoreland with his other planners hanging out in the restaurant area. All the generals are all in uniform and their lowers are too. And they have maps of Vietnam are in front of them. I won't tell you Charlie's son's name because if you don't know it, you don't get in. But let's put it this way: Charlie's son doesn't want to talk about the military guys, he always thought guys like Charles Mingus, Tommy Dorsey, and Benny Goodman were the real the real draw. No surprise, music is always more fun than military theory. But it doesn't matter, the Vietnam War was planned in the Atlanta Hotel. And if the few photos they'll show you don't work, then sorry, the real ones are classified.
And if you're questioning Tommy Dorsey, think again. We were secretly involved in Southeast Asia long before 1956. There's a classic photo of Vice President Richard Nixon visiting Vientienne, Laos in 1953. And there's two thousand troops cheering him on. Think we weren't involved back then? Then tell me why the vice president is visiting the troops. And obviously, he's not pulling all of the troops out of the field. Those two thousand troops are just a small minority that weren't pulled from the field. When they did R&R, it was Bangkok, and if you got lucky, Tommy Dorsey was there. And you saw him at the Atlanta. This is way before anyone in America ever thought we were fighting wars in Southeast Asia. And I've met people who are children of such wars, so don't even try to tell me it didn't happen.
Oddly enough, there's a great one from the Atlanta. The elder George Bush when he was young, dancing with Charles Mingus. I know exactly why George was there, but why the hell was Charles there? But I guess it's the same answer: making money. Except that George was only making money, while Charles was having a lot of fun as well. But the only way to make the serious money that the Bush family would consider worthwhile is certainly not in jazz music. There's only three ways for the Bush's: gun running, drug running, or taking over governments. They did very well in the third aspect. They didn't really do well in the second because they took out their supplier. As for the third, they are still doing it, and we'd take them out if they weren't the Bush Family. And let's face it, we're finally going after the Carlisle Group. But the Bush's already got out. The Bush's are the most effective international mafia ever created. Good for them, but they should never have control of an important government. They should just stick to the international mafia concept. And you see what's happening now, Cheney used to control everything, but now he's going to be the Bush Family's bitch. He's trying to break away, but Papa Bush won't ever let him. Cheney gets his last hurrah because Papa Bush will make him die soon. Papa Bush is smart, you think he doesn't know how to make Cheney's pacemaker to stop working? He put it in him in the first place. When Cheney is no longer necessary, he's no longer necessary. Any pacemaker will stop with lots of incoming radiation, but Cheney's is special, it needs a certain frequency to mess with it. Think Papa Bush knows that frequency?
"The elder George Bush when he was young, dancing with Charles Mingus."
And by the way, you'll never see that picture. The photographer who took it was killed in an unusual incident involving lots of gunfire. Most of his pictures are still classified. One of the prints is held in the Atlanta's collection that you can only see if Charlie's son let's you. I've seen it, but you won't. And if you try to touch it, you will face some really nasty foreign authorities, because all of them want to keep that reality under wraps. If it were just the Americans who wanted to keep that collection closed, you'd only face our authorities. And you could probably get away with it. But there are other organizations that are far more sophisticated. And you really don't want to mess with them. Some of those are countries, and some are mafias. And it's the mafias you really don't want to mess with. What's your fear, Jimmie? If they cared about you, they already know. And when they kill you, they are nasty about it. Don't like spiders? They'll strap you down and let thousands of harmless spiders crawl across you just to really freak you out. Then they'll let one on you that would drop you dead in a second. That's how the Chinese mafias work in Asia. They may seem tame here, but the Russians are afraid of them. In Asia, it's a different level. I got on the wrong side of them once, and I thanked the woman the next day for having put me through hell and let me live. My mistake was that I didn't sleep with the local boss, who was a woman. Next day, I wai her with more respect than I would wai the King. And yes, I would say I was tortured, but your definition of torture is absurdly extreme. I got worse than John McCain, but that's not torture. Whether what I got is torture is up to you. You have a definition that doesn't seem to include anything that's ever happened in history. But what I received was worse than the treatment that any US soldier ever received in Vietnam. And I thanked (wai) the woman who ordered it. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand Asia. Let's put it this way, most people in Asia don't even know what baseball is, but they know damn well how to use a baseball bat. That, combined with a phone book, is ugly. They can break your ribs without even leaving a bruise. I've been beaten, but nothing like that. And with no visible bruises, but with broken bones. But bones heal, so there's no permanent damage. In reality, conservatives like you think there's nothing that could possibly be torture unless it leaves permanent damage, but everything heals. You might have scars, but they eventually go away too. After all, when you die and your body decays, they are gone. Nothing is ever permanent.
"I’ve been beaten, but nothing like that"
I need to be clear here. Previous beatings never involved broken bones. They were just beatings. These beatings were real beatings that did involve broken bones. But that's not torture, because torture does not exist. It's a fantasy concept. Because if what happened to me is something America does, then it's defined as being something other than torture. Because the very definition of 'torture', is what America does not do. And America does everything. Breaking someone's ribs without leaving a bruise is perfectly okay. Bruises heal and so do bones, so it's all cool right?
Essentially, conservatives define torture as something that actually produces death, except that they provide exceptions for when the the interrogators didn't really mean to kill them. But this is silly, we have words like homicide, murder, and manslaughter to deal with these issues. At that point, what does 'torture' mean? Why do we even have this word if no action in history ever constitutes this meaning? It's clear that no action by the Vietnamese, the Nazis, the Soviets, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Khmer Rouge would ever constitute torture, then what's left? I can't possibly think of anything but progressive amputation. And only the South Vietnamese ever did that. And we Americans watched that happening. So are we and the South Vietnamese the only cultures in the world and in all of history to have ever practiced torture? Do we really want to define torture in such a way that we are only one of the two cultures to have practiced it?
"I can’t possibly think of anything but progressive amputation"
The concept of progressive amputation is very rare, so I'll define it. Only the South Vietnamese and Americans have ever practiced it. It's when you ask ask a question and get the wrong answer, you cut off a finger. Ask another question and get the wrong answer, cut off another finger. Obviously, this line of questioning stops at ten questions, but there's toes. And then there's hands, and feet. In the history of humanity, only one man has ever taken the full force of this treatment. His limbs were completley removed. As were his ears and eyes. And his sexual organs. And his nose. But he still lived through this. The people who did this were the South Vietnamese Army with the full participation of the United States Army. This was done under the concept of the Phoenix Program. We have pictures of this, but you really don't want to see them. So how'd that technique work? Well, the guy became a spokesman for the Viet Cong when we finally released the guy. And he made it very clear what we would do to people if they were caught. So people fought harder to make damn sure they would never be caught. When they saw that, they no longer thought we were civilized, and they fought hard and simply considered us to be savage animals and treated us that way. They realized that we were simply animals that needed to be destroyed. When we showed how truly savage we really are, they lost any respect for us. The Phoenix Program was already failing, we went hardcore, and that backfired bigtime. War will always piss off the locals, but when you start torturing people, the torture won't work. Eventually, you really will end up dismembering live people. Where else can you go? If the regular brutality doesn't produce results, the mentality you like always has to go harder. So it isn't enough that you're eating the limbs you cut off people. And that still doesn't work. The only next step is the entire destruction of humanity. So, Jimmie, where do you cut off this sadistic experiment? Are you willing to go beyond cutting off limbs and go to the full on destruction of all human beings? Tell me where you stop, Jimmie.
And let me make this clear: waterboarding didn't produce the desired results because this man wasn't guilty of anything. When that didn't work, we stared cutting off parts of his body. How far are you willing to go when an innocent man has no information? We have already gone pretty damn far. Are you willing to go that far? How about slicing out a man's kidney and showing it to him? Will you go that far? And at that point, will you finally admit that that might be torture? And trust me, the South Vietmnamese did really do that. Your definition of torture is that when America and its allies do it, it's not torture. So tell me that when an SVA soldier rips out a kidney, it's perfectly reasonable.
"How about slicing out a man’s kidney and showing it to him? Will you go that far?"
You know you can do this without any permanent damage. You can just put it back in and sew it up. No big deal right? It can't possibly be torture, right? Everything's cool because you have two of them. Same thing with your testicles. Want me to describe that procedure? I'm guessing not. But it can't be torture, because it causes no permanent damage. You have two, after all. And we can put a little rubber ball in there to make you feel like a man if we screw up. Want to try it? It's perfectly safe, and given our perfectly safe techniques, what's there to worry about? It's just a way of making you talk, it's not torture.
Wow, that was a rant. But you know what Jimmie, I do have the connections to get you a room in the Atlanta. It's not classy, but it's nice, and has a very unique history. But it's a family place and they don't let single men in without a special recommendation. And you need a really special recommendation to see that archived picture of George HW Bush with Charles Mingus. But that picture is worth the flight to Thailand. It's illegal to publish, and you can't photograph it or copy it. But I can get you permission to see it. But if you get that permission, you also get full permission in the archives. You get Westmoreland dancing with Thai prostitutes, you get all the generals mapping out the strategies on the bar, and there's even a Nixon shot. And few Johnson shots as well. However much an asshole I may be to you, I will still give you that access if you want it. It's quite the archive, believe me. But it's too classified to travel.
[...] This link leads to a trick question: Dems are fine with both! [...]