erynthered Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I dunno, didn't Obama chair the working group on Afghanistan for six months before showing up for a meeting? This would end if the CIA and the botox B word released the documents. Then again Cheneys request was denied..........hmmmmmmmmm. Whats up wit dat, boyz ant girlz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Rep. Pelosi responded with "no comment" when later asked if she was really that !@#$ing stupid. I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone, but let's face it; old people and especially old broads have literally only one memory running through their brain. That one memory is: Whatever I remember about something is right, and everyone else is wrong. That is why Pelosi keeps changing her story and keeps insisting that it is consistent and that everyone else is wrong. It has nothing to do with the actual topic. She might as well be saying that Cy Young is the all time Home Run leader. She doesn't remember anything so she says whatever suits her at that moement in time. Then she insists that is what she has been saying all along. If half the planet points out the falsehood, she just insists more forcefully. She is old. That is what old people do. They are in no mental state to be in positions of power. P.S. Did you see that Disney is putting out a cartoon movie about an old man. Are they trying to lose money on purpose? Flop city. Even so, that old man and Nancy Pelosi and all the old congresspeople are basically the same person. Now that hippies are getting old we are in for a real treat. Old Disney Cartoon guy for President!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Well, it looks like Pelosi is done. She couldn't keep her trap shut. I must admit to enjoying watching her squirm watching the PC. The real question is where this ends. She almost certainly will lose the seakership, but how far this goes is anyones guess. What comes around goes around. Couldn't happen to a nicer person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I hope she ends up with jail time. Of course, I wish the same for Cheney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I hope she ends up with jail time. Of course, I wish the same for Cheney. why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 why? In my opinion, he lied about the need for war with Iraq, defending the claim of weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al-Qaeda. It would seem hypocritical to wish Pelosi to jail for much more minor lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 In my opinion, he lied about the need for war with Iraq, defending the claim of weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al-Qaeda. It would seem hypocritical to wish Pelosi to jail for much more minor lies. Oh, Christ.......... You, You.........never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 In my opinion, he lied about the need for war with Iraq, defending the claim of weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al-Qaeda. It would seem hypocritical to wish Pelosi to jail for much more minor lies. Should Hillary Clinton go to jail, too? I mean, she defended the claims of WMD as well. So by your logic, she should go, too, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Oh, Christ.......... You, You.........never mind. He didn't? He didn't make all sorts of claims about the ties? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...p;type=politics http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm Not even in 2007? I am sure that they are fake because of the sites. I remember seeing him say Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Should Hillary Clinton go to jail, too? I mean, she defended the claims of WMD as well. So by your logic, she should go, too, no? Her latest claim was when? Edit - If you can find a way to send her away too, I am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Should Hillary Clinton go to jail, too? I mean, she defended the claims of WMD as well. So by your logic, she should go, too, no? Let's ignore the fact that the administration shared skewed/altered/bad evidence, when they made their case to Hilary and others. It would be very inconvenient to mention that, I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Let's ignore the fact that the administration shared skewed/altered/bad evidence, when they made their case to Hilary and others. It would be very inconvenient to mention that, I understand. Wouldn't you imagine if there was one, just one member of the Senate who perhaps may have known more about the situation given her family .. ahem ... connections to a certain husband's former job. Who would that Senator be ???? If there was obvious doubt on the intelligence that the spooks were providing, wouldn't that Senator call a husband to ask, does this sound true or fake to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Wouldn't you imagine if there was one, just one member of the Senate who perhaps may have known more about the situation given her family .. ahem ... connections to a certain husband's former job. Who would that Senator be ???? If there was obvious doubt on the intelligence that the spooks were providing, wouldn't that Senator call a husband to ask, does this sound true or fake to you? It sounds like you are forgetting that situations change over the course of time, and in matters that involve international conflict the members of the Senate have typically trusted the Administration to be forthcoming with relatively honest intel. If Bill had the same info, I wonder why he didn't decide to attack Iraq, without provocation? Are you suggesting the Administration was totally straight with the Senate, and gathered and presented the best info they had, in the most honest way possible? Or are you suggesting Hilary knew they were lying, and supported the claims, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 It sounds like you are forgetting that situations change over the course of time, and in matters that involve international conflict the members of the Senate have typically trusted the Administration to be forthcoming with relatively honest intel. If Bill had the same info, I wonder why he didn't decide to attack Iraq, without provocation? Are you suggesting the Administration was totally straight with the Senate, and gathered and presented the best info they had, in the most honest way possible? Or are you suggesting Hilary knew they were lying, and supported the claims, anyway? By the way it's not like all Senate members and all allies of the USA agreed with what the US administration was "selling". It's not like the "evidences" given then by the Bush adminstration did not let room for doubt and questions... Those, and especially the democrats, who supported the war in Iraq, chose to trust the government and to not listen to other opinions and sources. It was their choice and if they say now "they lied to us or we did not know" they're hypocrit liars. To support the military invasion of a foreign country is as serious a decision as i can think about for a member of the Congress, if you do it without listening carefully to all opinions on the issue, you're playing with your country's security, the future of the people you represent. The blindness of the US congress during that period is still something i can not understand. It probably raises more questions about our occidental democraties than what the Bush administration did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 And in other news. In Salem, MA: "If they sink with the weight on them, they were a witch. I they survive, they weren't a witch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 It sounds like you are forgetting that situations change over the course of time, and in matters that involve international conflict the members of the Senate have typically trusted the Administration to be forthcoming with relatively honest intel. While situations change, it's highly unlikely there would have been a tectonic shift inside Iraq in three years that the former first Mrs had to only rely on the Bush Admin's account of events. Actually, strike that. Dems believe that the entire world can change in 8 months, so nothing that happened in the Clinton Admin had anything to do with 9/11. Here's a question, will Dems ever take responsibility for any action Are you suggesting the Administration was totally straight with the Senate, and gathered and presented the best info they had, in the most honest way possible? Or are you suggesting Hilary knew they were lying, and supported the claims, anyway? That's not the issue. The question was, no matter what information the horrendous, America hating administration was pimping to enrich its cronies, who was the one Senator who probably had more information on the situation than others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Stewart B word slaps Pelosi*. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...hen-she-knew-it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Wouldn't you imagine if there was one, just one member of the Senate who perhaps may have known more about the situation given her family .. ahem ... connections to a certain husband's former job. Who would that Senator be ???? If there was obvious doubt on the intelligence that the spooks were providing, wouldn't that Senator call a husband to ask, does this sound true or fake to you? If she even trusted him at that point. She may have still been pondering what the definition of the word "is" was. I think it's clear that congress members had the same intelligence the white house had. It is so disingenuous the way the Dems attempt to blame Bush for everything. It does beg the question, if Bill had the same info, why did he do so little when he had the chance? Perhaps because his mind was on impeachment and little else. The last couple of years of his presidency was a time of great distraction for him. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I hope she ends up with jail time. Of course, I wish the same for Cheney. The ultimate punishment... Make them cell mates!! intersting article on CNN -- Finding a "smoking gun" linking Iraq and al Qaeda became the main purpose of the abusive interrogation program the Bush administration authorized in 2002, a former State Department official told CNN on Thursday. The allegation was included in an online broadside aimed at former Vice President Dick Cheney by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. In it, Wilkerson wrote that the interrogation program began in April and May of 2002, and then-Vice President Cheney's office kept close tabs on the questioning. "Its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda," Wilkerson wrote in The Washington Note, an online political journal. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said his accusation is based on information from current and former officials. He said he has been "relentlessly digging" since 2004, when Powell asked him to look into the scandal surrounding the treatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Even LIBERALS are killing Stretch over this thing. Remember Ed Norton in that flick where he plays the nazi? He comes out of the house and takes on the guys trying to rob him...and says "You just messed with the wrong !@#$ing bull." Pelosi just !@#$ed with the wrong bull...the CIA. Shes DONE. These people document when they go take a dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts