We all know Panetta is nothing more than a Cheney/KKKarl Rove plant bent on destroying the Democrats agenda

chuck

OK Nancy, your move.

Either Panetta, Obama's nominee, is part of the Bush Administration's goal of misleading Congress and you by lying to cover up the CIA's actions under Bush

OR

Panetta is telling the truth and you are full of shiat, Nancy.

Hey, if it's not torture, what's it matter?

Calmamity: Hey, if it's not torture, what's it matter?

Interesting how this game is being played out, no?

Calmamity: Hey, if it's not torture, what's it matter?

Yes, who cares whether the Speaker of the House has integrity!

flucto: Yes, who cares whether the Speaker of the House has integrity!

Personally, I care, and I'd like to see everyone who okayed it pay an appropriate price.

Let's start at the top and work our way down, what say?

KaponoFor3: you are full of shiat, Nancy.

It's more likely than you think.

Still, this puts the right in an interesting spot. If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

Chunk?

Somebody is lying. I don't care who, but the liar(s) need to be exposed and pay the consequences.

Lundah: Still, this puts the right in an interesting spot. If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

Consequently, it puts the left/Obama administration in an interesting spot as well -- if you don't condemn Pelosi for lying about what she was told, then are you really admitting that its not that big of a deal that she lied about it?

Interesting all around.

Lundah: KaponoFor3: you are full of shiat, Nancy.

It's more likely than you think.

Still, this puts the right in an interesting spot. If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

Depends, if they can redefine the cause for concern in this entire matter then they can skate away with a clean conscience.

I can pretty much guess at the list of people on Fark who would have a sloppy orgasm if that happened, and I bet I wouldn't get even 1 wrong.

I say start with Pelosi to take the wind out of their sails and then work towards the top.

Nabb1: Calmamity: Hey, if it's not torture, what's it matter?

Interesting how this game is being played out, no?

Everyone's arguing something different. It's a cacophony of finger pointing and CYA.

Lundah: KaponoFor3: you are full of shiat, Nancy.

It's more likely than you think.

Still, this puts the right in an interesting spot. If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

It's only prosecutable when Democrats do it.

Not that I excuse the lying or anything, but I thought investigating this issue hurts America and makes the terrorists win, or something?

I mean, if Nancy is to be the sacrificial lamb the Democrats need to offer up in order to get Cheney and Gonzalez, et al, something tells me they won't have a problem with that. I have a feeling there are a lot more Republican shadows in the torture closet than there are Democrats. Was this necessarily a smart road to travel down?

Action Replay Nick: Was this necessarily a smart road to travel down?

Given the state of disarray of the GOP at the moment, I can't believe you'd ask that.

Diogenes: Everyone's arguing something different. It's a cacophony of finger pointing and CYA.

But this particular issue is really just about her statements and inconsistencies. There's no need to drag in all the separate arguments about war crimes and legalities. Those will not be solved in this debate. This is nothing more than a classic DC "how knew what and when" issue. She bled into the media pool, and they are going to eat her up.

Action Replay Nick: I mean, if Nancy is to be the sacrificial lamb the Democrats need to offer up in order to get Cheney and Gonzalez, et al, something tells me they won't have a problem with that.

Do the Democrats really want to throw the first female Speaker of the House out of her position? That's not the kind of thing I think that they would be very interested in.

Though, if Pelosi got nailed for it, the right would have to pretty much STFU regarding any prosecutions other than that seeing as Pelosi is pretty much reviled amongst them. Actually, it might be better if Pelosi and Bush administration members both go down for it (if anyone is) so that it doesn't appear like it is a partisan witch hunt -- hard to argue it is if Pelosi went down with it as well.

KaponoFor3: Lundah: Still, this puts the right in an interesting spot. If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

Consequently, it puts the left/Obama administration in an interesting spot as well -- if you don't condemn Pelosi for lying about what she was told, then are you really admitting that its not that big of a deal that she lied about it?

Interesting all around.

We'll have to wait to know if she's lying and to what extant. The CIA doesn't exactly have lie-free cred.

If Pelosi lied, this "librul" will be the first to attack her. I just wish there was some republican, somewhere, who would do the same with their own.

lunchinlewis: But this particular issue is really just about her statements and inconsistencies. There's no need to drag in all the separate arguments about war crimes and legalities. Those will not be solved in this debate. This is nothing more than a classic DC "how knew what and when" issue. She bled into the media pool, and they are going to eat her up.

I guess I can't argue with that. But how can we be focusing on this when the basic questions are still unanswered - at least in some semblance of agreement?

Is it torture, and is it illegal? I don't know where Congress is on that but the media noise continues to make it look debatable/up in the air. Until those questions are settled, in my mind, any efforts toward blaming people (regardless of party or role), are masturbatory exercises. People are pointing fingers and trying to save their own skins when we don't even know if it's something they need to save their skins from.

Intentional or not, it's distraction.

KaponoFor3: OK Nancy, your move.

Either Panetta, Obama's nominee, is part of the Bush Administration's goal of misleading Congress and you by lying to cover up the CIA's actions under Bush

OR

Panetta is telling the truth and you are full of shiat, Nancy.

OR

panetta is acting in the interest of his agency in the midst of an honest misunderstanding, speaking to the best of his knowledge based on documentation about events which he was not present for.

Action Replay Nick: I mean, if Nancy is to be the sacrificial lamb the Democrats need to offer up in order to get Cheney and Gonzalez, et al, something tells me they won't have a problem with that.

Somehow I have a hard time imagining them leading the Speaker of the House to the slaughter (metaphorically speaking, of course).

KaponoFor3: Do the Democrats really want to throw the first female Speaker of the House out of her position? That's not the kind of thing I think that they would be very interested in.

Though, if Pelosi got nailed for it, the right would have to pretty much STFU regarding any prosecutions other than that seeing as Pelosi is pretty much reviled amongst them. Actually, it might be better if Pelosi and Bush administration members both go down for it (if anyone is) so that it doesn't appear like it is a partisan witch hunt -- hard to argue it is if Pelosi went down with it as well.

It certainly would be bizarre if, after all that's been revealed, Pelosi is the first one to take the fall for torture. But we've become so cuckoo bananas it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

It was funny listening to Sean Hannity today. Simultaneously frothing about the absolute necessity of investigating "what Pelosi knew; and when she knew it".

All the while, he delicately danced around the elephant in the room that he is talking about her knowledge of the use of torture, and the implication that doing so also means investigating those who actually ordered torture, who are also the same people Hannity has carried water for over the last eight years.

Diogenes: It's only prosecutable when Democrats do know about the GOP doing it.

Fixated.

I could've sworn Obama was just a puppet for Reid and Pelosi. This doesn't seem to puppet like.

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: It's only prosecutable when Democrats do know about the GOP doing it.

Fixated.

Boy, that really does reveal this circus as the pathetic affair it's become, doesn't it?

Diogenes: I guess I can't argue with that. But how can we be focusing on this when the basic questions are still unanswered - at least in some semblance of agreement?

I don't think there is going to be any answer for that. It's like both sides are pointing a gun at the other, nobody wants to pull the trigger first, but they both know each gun has a blank in it. Because I don't think the information is ever going to come out. That's why I think Cheney's cries to release memos is a bluff. He knows that can't happen, but he sounds good when he says it.

I'd also like to add, I think it is HILARIOUS to see people freaking out about the idea of investigating what Pelosi knew and when while seemingly ignoring the whole part about the people that actually did decide to use torture.

Take her down for all I care. She doesn't seem to provide any net positive to the Democrats anymore than she seems to acquiesce to the GOP and make the Democrats look like idiots.

If she does lose her place or her seat because of this..I will be excited to see the people looking for an investigation to suddenly revert back to the "the time is to look forward because otherwise it is a partisan witchhunt".

*too

Diogenes: It certainly would be bizarre if, after all that's been revealed, Pelosi is the first one to take the fall for torture

But it would be smart politically for the Dems if they finally decide "you know what? Fark it, let's get some heads on pikes for this shiat." Going after Pelosi first would totally make it look like they are taking a non-partisan tact by eating one of their own first.

Sneaky but smart.

Diogenes: Boy, that really does reveal this circus as the pathetic affair it's become, doesn't it?

I'm not sure the GOP's propaganda front has thought this through to the endgame.

Demanding investigations for what Pelosi knew obviously goes beyond what she was told, but the underlying subject matter of her knowledge.

My best guess is that they know that there is no way Obama permits an investigation of the most powerful member of his party (after himself). So they are hoping Obama will quash any investigation the justice department initiates, in order to protect her.

But that seems like a strange and risky gambit at this stage.

KaponoFor3: But it would be smart politically for the Dems if they finally decide "you know what? Fark it, let's get some heads on pikes for this shiat." Going after Pelosi first would totally make it look like they are taking a non-partisan tact by eating one of their own first.

So, if they did that, and wound up removing her at least as Speaker, who takes over? Do they elect a new one or is there a line of succession?

/never liked her anyway, could really give a fark how this plays out.

KaponoFor3: But it would be smart politically for the Dems if they finally decide "you know what? Fark it, let's get some heads on pikes for this shiat." Going after Pelosi first would totally make it look like they are taking a non-partisan tact by eating one of their own first.

You are underestimating her power, I think.

She didn't get to be speaker by chance. She has many powerful allies in the house who could make things very difficult - or even revolt outright - if Obama tries to hang her out to dry.

Taking on Pelosi is probably only slightly less politically problematic than going after the president himself.

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: Boy, that really does reveal this circus as the pathetic affair it's become, doesn't it?

I'm not sure the GOP's propaganda front has thought this through to the endgame.

Demanding investigations for what Pelosi knew obviously goes beyond what she was told, but the underlying subject matter of her knowledge.

My best guess is that they know that there is no way Obama permits an investigation of the most powerful member of his party (after himself). So they are hoping Obama will quash any investigation the justice department initiates, in order to protect her.

But that seems like a strange and risky gambit at this stage.

It's only risky if someone in Washington DC decides that the truth is more important than saving political face. Now, that really would be some change.

Calmamity: flucto: Yes, who cares whether the Speaker of the House has integrity!

Personally, I care, and I'd like to see everyone who okayed it pay an appropriate price.

Let's start at the top and work our way down, what say?

So she would be third on the list.

Nabb1: It's only risky if someone in Washington DC decides that the truth is more important than saving political face. Now, that really would be some change.

It goes beyond saving political face. It's about getting shiat done.

My guess is Pelosi could shut Obama's agenda down in a heartbeat if he turned on her.

But yes, Obama's willingness to bend so quickly to what I guess he considers political realities has been very disappointing.

gilgigamesh: Nabb1: It's only risky if someone in Washington DC decides that the truth is more important than saving political face. Now, that really would be some change.

It goes beyond saving political face. It's about getting shiat done.

My guess is Pelosi could shut Obama's agenda down in a heartbeat if he turned on her.

But yes, Obama's willingness to bend so quickly to what I guess he considers political realities has been very disappointing.

I completely agree with you. If Obama gambles and lets Pelosi take the heat and she doesn't go down like Ali taking down Liston, he's done politically. I mean, she has to get run out of town on a rail with no friends left. If she just gets slightly burned, Obama's toast.

Nabb1: I completely agree with you. If Obama gambles and lets Pelosi take the heat and she doesn't go down like Ali taking down Liston, he's done politically. I mean, she has to get run out of town on a rail with no friends left. If she just gets slightly burned, Obama's toast.

Dude's got triple the approval ratings of Congress.

I can only assume that Pelosi would get laughed at if she tried to stand up to Obama because he was mean to her.

I'll worry about Pelosi when they put Cheney in jail for ordering torture.

Nabb1: I completely agree with you. If Obama gambles and lets Pelosi take the heat and she doesn't go down like Ali taking down Liston, he's done politically. I mean, she has to get run out of town on a rail with no friends left. If she just gets slightly burned, Obama's toast.

And this is why, I suspect, we are hearing so much about Pelosi right now. To make it even more politically untenable for Obama to support or even allow this line of investigation by forcing him to take on his own party as well as the previous administration.

He has bigger fish to fry, he is poised to really be able to push his agenda successfully, and he is of no mind to screw that up.

And that, basically, will be the end of that.

bulldg4life: Dude's got triple the approval ratings of Congress.

I can only assume that Pelosi would get laughed at if she tried to stand up to Obama because he was mean to her.

Odd, I thought Congressional approval ratings don't matter, but you have to look at how the individuals are doing in their own districts? Frankly, Pelosi was a party fixture long before Obama got to where he was. She did not get to where she is by not being a major power-broker in DC. If Obama targets her or even lets her be a target and she does not go down, you'll see who really runs the Democratic Party, and it won't be Obama.

bulldg4life: Dude's got triple the approval ratings of Congress.

I can only assume that Pelosi would get laughed at if she tried to stand up to Obama because he was mean to her.

People in Pelosi's district will always re-elect her, and what I think of her as a voter in Louisiana is even less relevant. So what do approval ratings matter?

Pelosi is nearly as powerful as Obama is. He needs her to get shiat done, and she could easily tear it all down. It's a simple as that.

Nabb1: Odd, I thought Congressional approval ratings don't matter

um...ok? What's the point of making this comment?

Nabb1: If Obama targets her or even lets her be a target and she does not go down, you'll see who really runs the Democratic Party, and it won't be Obama.

What's Pelosi going to do? Stand in front of healthcare reform and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? How could pushing away from the popular democratic president possibly be beneficial to her in any way shape or form?

gilgigamesh: He needs her to get shiat done, and she could easily tear it all down. It's a simple as that.

How long would she stay in power if she stonewalls the popular democratic President?

I mean, maybe you can totally see her coming out on top when she torpedoes healthcare reform and such...but I don't see it.

So here's my problem with this.


I don't believe anything anyone is saying.
But yet, someone must be right in this situation.

KaponoFor3: Action Replay Nick: I mean, if Nancy is to be the sacrificial lamb the Democrats need to offer up in order to get Cheney and Gonzalez, et al, something tells me they won't have a problem with that.

Do the Democrats really want to throw the first female Speaker of the House out of her position? That's not the kind of thing I think that they would be very interested in.

Though, if Pelosi got nailed for it, the right would have to pretty much STFU regarding any prosecutions other than that seeing as Pelosi is pretty much reviled amongst them. Actually, it might be better if Pelosi and Bush administration members both go down for it (if anyone is) so that it doesn't appear like it is a partisan witch hunt -- hard to argue it is if Pelosi went down with it as well.

Exactly. I think that the GOP is playing chicken and they are going to be very surprised when the other side doesn't blink.

Whoever was involved with this needs to go down. Both sides.

bulldg4life: How long would she stay in power if she stonewalls the popular democratic President?

I mean, maybe you can totally see her coming out on top when she torpedoes healthcare reform and such...but I don't see it.

Don't you see, she doesn't have to do that. It's a stalemate.

Obama wants some difficult legislation passed, and he knows he can't get it passed without Pelosi's say so. He needs her. He will never allow something that can potentially bring her down; if he has the power to stop it he will.

It goes without saying that he won't actively throw her to the wolves. Not over something that does nothing to advance his agenda.

Lundah: If it's not torture, Pelosi knowing or not knowing what was going on is no big deal, right?

This, a thousand times, this!

You guys are going to be very disappointed when absolutely nothing comes of this.

I'm already in stage 5. When you all get here, I will buy you a shot.