Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   The big CIA lie that Pelosi is OUTRAGED about? Turns out the CIA didn't divulge details on a program that it never implement. Much like you didn't tell your wife you were cheating on her, even when you didn't. You lying bastard   (online.wsj.com ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1810 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2009 at 6:11 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-10 02:55:15 PM  
Wow, that was an abortion of a headline, subs. I think you picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-07-10 03:00:14 PM  
I will never stop beating my wife.
 
2009-07-10 03:17:06 PM  
The Republican leadership OWES Nancy Pelosi an apology!!

Right?
 
2009-07-10 03:27:17 PM  
but six politicians wouldnt possibly mislead people in order to defend one of their own would they?!?
 
2009-07-10 03:31:07 PM  
On June 24, in a classified hearing, Mr. Panetta produced so-called new information about CIA counterterrorism efforts in the months after the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. We're told that he informed the Members that the agency had considered, then abandoned, a major covert antiterror program. (Our sources wouldn't say what it was.) Bush-era CIA officials didn't tell Congress because it never got off the ground

Oh well if you were TOLD that it was abandoned then it must be true.
 
2009-07-10 03:40:52 PM  
If something seems too obvious that it's true then it pretty much has to be a lie. It's also painfully obvious that all politicians lie... which... wait.

If... no. Wait.
 
2009-07-10 03:41:54 PM  
I love how Republicans are screaming for Pelosi to produce documentation that she was misled, either ignorant of or knowing full well the fact that it would be illegal for her to do so.

Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.
 
2009-07-10 04:01:38 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I love how Republicans are screaming for Pelosi to produce documentation that she was misled, either ignorant of or knowing full well the fact that it would be illegal for her to do so.

Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.


It seems as though it was a fellow Democrat releasing the info.
 
2009-07-10 04:05:02 PM  
Subby, shouldn't that be "that it ain't never implement"?
 
2009-07-10 04:13:18 PM  
Submitter, you may have had a point...but with that abomination of a headline, I'm not going to click to find out.

/Caught sayof
 
2009-07-10 04:27:10 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.


citation, please.....
 
2009-07-10 05:08:22 PM  
So we're supposed to assume that the CIA is telling the truth about what it lied about.

i575.photobucket.com
 
2009-07-10 06:14:57 PM  

GAT_00: So we're supposed to assume that the CIA is telling the truth about what it lied about.


Rupert Murdoch's flagship newspaper in the US says so!
 
2009-07-10 06:19:01 PM  
Much like you didn't tell your wife you were cheating on her, even when you didn't.

Would've made more sense with a reference to staring at a fine Brazilian ass....
 
2009-07-10 06:19:26 PM  
So the fail tag was for the headline?
 
2009-07-10 06:19:45 PM  
Can I hear what's actually going on from a reliable source? The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page doesn't strike me as being honest and/or reliable.
 
2009-07-10 06:22:57 PM  

real shaman: AdolfOliverPanties: Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.

citation, please.....


Christ, the denial. I mean, it's 2009, we know what happened. Just quit.
 
2009-07-10 06:23:06 PM  

GTFO

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

 
2009-07-10 06:23:50 PM  
The sub made me smile, even though it's complete bullshiat that the CIA has ever told the truth, but still, I am a lying bastard
 
2009-07-10 06:24:21 PM  
Uh, what Pelosi is outraged about is that torture was used. She was further upset that the CIA falsely claimed it briefed her on the use of torture and implied that she tacitly accepted and agreed with the decision to use torture.

So, subby, are you telling me we didn't torture people? That the CIA torture program that Pelosi insists she was not briefed about was really never implemented? The Bush administration has even admitted to torturing specific subjects.
 
2009-07-10 06:24:26 PM  
House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting.

We're the WSJ, and we don't understand the first thing about the American system of government. Pathetic.
 
2009-07-10 06:26:20 PM  

ohdoublereally: Subby, shouldn't that be "that it ain't never implement"?


No, it's "That it ain't done never implement"
 
2009-07-10 06:27:46 PM  
So now the WSJ is concerned about the reputation of the CIA after they became the fall guy for Bush's "bad intelligence" about WMD's in Iraq?

Seriously?
 
2009-07-10 06:29:47 PM  

ragekage: Wow, that was an abortion of a headline, subs. I think you picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.


Came here to say this.

I couldn't parse the headline enough to give a damn about the subject matter.
 
2009-07-10 06:30:51 PM  

PascalsGhost: House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting.

We're the WSJ, and we don't understand the first thing about the American system of government. Pathetic.


So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security? I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.
 
2009-07-10 06:32:17 PM  
Has the WSJ gone full retard since Murdoch bought it? I never gave them much credibility as they were always rightwing, but lately they've gone more and more freeper.
 
2009-07-10 06:33:06 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security? I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.


Where is the breach of National Security here?
 
2009-07-10 06:33:24 PM  

RevMercutio: Can I hear what's actually going on from a reliable source? The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page doesn't strike me as being honest and/or reliable.


How's AP for you?

Link to AP story provided by NPR (new window)
 
2009-07-10 06:34:28 PM  
Quick quiz!

Q: who said there were "systemic failures" in the CIA?

A: The CIA did.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/Executive%20Summary_OIG%20Report.p​df

Q: Who distroyed evidence and said untrue things about it?

A: The CIA did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/washington/22intel.html
 
2009-07-10 06:35:11 PM  

pdieten: RevMercutio: Can I hear what's actually going on from a reliable source? The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page doesn't strike me as being honest and/or reliable.

How's AP for you?

Link to AP story provided by NPR (new window)


Much better, thanks.
 
2009-07-10 06:36:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security? I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.

Where is the breach of National Security here?


Didn't say that there was. I was responding to an apparent quote from PascalsGhost.
 
2009-07-10 06:36:57 PM  

real shaman: AdolfOliverPanties: Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.

citation, please.....


Valerie farkin' Plame, you deliberately obtuse motherfarker. Stop pretending you're not a Republican apologist.
 
2009-07-10 06:38:29 PM  
FTFA:

Briefing notes from the time showed Mrs. Pelosi was told and didn't object to waterboarding.

And

Bush-era CIA officials didn't tell Congress because it never got off the ground.

This is either contradictory or the second statement is something else enirely and therefore completely IRRELEVANT.

/Hallmark of a political hit piece
 
2009-07-10 06:38:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: PascalsGhost: House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting.

We're the WSJ, and we don't understand the first thing about the American system of government. Pathetic.

So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security?



Please show me how that happened. The CIA already got caught lying about Pelosi's meeting before. Panetta admitted it. He just admitted they did. Do you know more than everybody else?

I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.


The WSJ is saying "We don't think the legislative branch should have oversight because the wrong party is in power" you stupid bastard. That's reatrded.
 
2009-07-10 06:39:59 PM  
So now they admit Pelosi isn't lying, instead she's a loud-mouth meanie?

Also, Conservatives shouldn't be throwing stones over playing politics with nation security in their delicate glass house.
 
2009-07-10 06:44:09 PM  

real shaman: AdolfOliverPanties: Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.

citation, please.....


really? The name Valerie Plame doesn't come to mind.
 
2009-07-10 06:45:25 PM  

PascalsGhost: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PascalsGhost: House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting.

We're the WSJ, and we don't understand the first thing about the American system of government. Pathetic.

So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security?


Please show me how that happened. The CIA already got caught lying about Pelosi's meeting before. Panetta admitted it. He just admitted they did. Do you know more than everybody else?

I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.


The WSJ is saying "We don't think the legislative branch should have oversight because the wrong party is in power" you stupid bastard. That's reatrded.


Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.

So your assertion that they don't know the first thing about American politics infers that the line you quoted is wrong in some fashion and that American politics should work exactly how they say it shouldn't. So you advocate for party politics over the good of the nation and you call me a stupid bastard? That's rich.
 
2009-07-10 06:45:40 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: So now they admit Pelosi isn't lying, instead she's a loud-mouth meanie?

Also, Conservatives shouldn't be throwing stones over playing politics with nation security in their delicate glass house.


That's pre-9/11 thinking right there.
 
2009-07-10 06:46:31 PM  

pdieten: RevMercutio: Can I hear what's actually going on from a reliable source? The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page doesn't strike me as being honest and/or reliable.

How's AP for you?

Link to AP story provided by NPR (new window)


Huffington Post (new window)?

DefenseTech (new window)?

Military.com (new window)?

Federation of American Scientists (new window)?

Fox News (new window)?

http://RevMercutioNeedsAClue.com (new window)?
 
2009-07-10 06:47:03 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.


Which you admit is BS because there is no threat to National Security involved here. The WSJ is just engaging in another partisan hit piece.
 
2009-07-10 06:49:08 PM  

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.

Which you admit is BS because there is no threat to National Security involved here. The WSJ is just engaging in another partisan hit piece.


I would say that there could be the possibility of a breach of national security if the President must inform all of Congress about a particular situation instead of the current gang of 8.

All it takes is one Congressperson who knows they won't be elected to run to the press to save their party leadership and fall on the grenade.
 
2009-07-10 06:51:25 PM  
Atrocious headline + WSJ = healthy skepticism about this. While Pelosi is a politician and all politicians are slimy by definition, the CIA is even slimier.

real shaman: AdolfOliverPanties: Them Republicans have no problem releasing classified CIA material though, so I guess it's just in their nature to complain.

citation, please.....


You're a good troll... you're just not that good.
 
2009-07-10 06:51:28 PM  
everyone knows the CIA would never tell a lie. just ask george.
 
2009-07-10 06:54:50 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I would say that there could be the possibility of a breach of national security if the President must inform all of Congress about a particular situation instead of the current gang of 8.


The options do not have to be limited to all or nothing.
 
2009-07-10 06:55:41 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.

Which you admit is BS because there is no threat to National Security involved here. The WSJ is just engaging in another partisan hit piece.

I would say that there could be the possibility of a breach of national security if the President must inform all of Congress about a particular situation instead of the current gang of 8.

All it takes is one Congressperson who knows they won't be elected to run to the press to save their party leadership and fall on the grenade.


My bad, 2010 approp bill will only stipulate that Intelligence Committee members be notified of covert operations, not the entire Congress.
 
2009-07-10 06:56:17 PM  
http://media.npr.org/documents/2009/jul/surveillancereport.pdf
 
2009-07-10 06:56:48 PM  

andrewagill: GAT_00: So we're supposed to assume that the CIA is telling the truth about what it lied about.

Rupert Murdoch's flagship newspaper in the US says so!


Hey he couldn't say it if it wasn't true.

Actually he could and he usually does.
 
2009-07-10 06:58:13 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: PascalsGhost: The_Six_Fingered_Man: PascalsGhost: House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting.

We're the WSJ, and we don't understand the first thing about the American system of government. Pathetic.

So you are saying that it is pathetic for the WSJ to call out member of Congress who would rather protect their Speaker than care about National Security?


Please show me how that happened. The CIA already got caught lying about Pelosi's meeting before. Panetta admitted it. He just admitted they did. Do you know more than everybody else?

I would say that the actions of the Congresspersons are the actions that are pathetic.


The WSJ is saying "We don't think the legislative branch should have oversight because the wrong party is in power" you stupid bastard. That's reatrded.

Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.

So your assertion that they don't know the first thing about American politics infers that the line you quoted is wrong in some fashion and that American politics should work exactly how they say it shouldn't. So you advocate for party politics over the good of the nation and you call me a stupid bastard? That's rich.



What the fark are you talking about you dumbass? I didn't mention a party. I'm saying the legislative should have oversight REGARDLESS of party. The article isn't. Read it you illiterate dumbass.

The right is nothing but farking morons. I swear to Christ, they've played to your stupidity so much you guys have become proud of it. Way to go through life.

CnFlght: pdieten: RevMercutio: Can I hear what's actually going on from a reliable source? The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page doesn't strike me as being honest and/or reliable.

How's AP for you?

Link to AP story provided by NPR (new window)

Huffington Post (new window)?

DefenseTech (new window)?

Military.com (new window)?

Federation of American Scientists (new window)?

Fox News (new window)?

http://RevMercutioNeedsAClue.com (new window)?


Now read them, and read what the WSJ says.

Riiiiiigggghhhhhhttt.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Based on the one line that you quoted, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that any elected official that would rather protect their leader against political attacks than care about national security should not be permitted to make intelligence decisions or war-fighting decisions because their view of national security is lesser than their view on party politics.

Which you admit is BS because there is no threat to National Security involved here. The WSJ is just engaging in another partisan hit piece.

I would say that there could be the possibility of a breach of national security if the President must inform all of Congress about a particular situation instead of the current gang of 8.

All it takes is one Congressperson who knows they won't be elected to run to the press to save their party leadership and fall on the grenade.


Tough shiat. Again, you don't understand how it works. We take those risks for freedom. You and the WSJ need a civics lesson.

Go live in a nice dictatorship where you will be a safe little biatch.
 
2009-07-10 07:01:25 PM  
its telling that this opinion was written anonymously. WSJ, a great place for embarrassed and discredited Republicans to have one last chance to revive their image.
 
2009-07-10 07:02:53 PM  
(Our sources wouldn't say what it was.) Bush-era CIA officials didn't tell Congress because it never got off the ground. But this is the "at least one case" Mr. Reyes claims his committee was "lied to" about in the Bush years.

This is not the same program congress was never told about that lasted 8 years. This is something else. They are trying to confuse the issue on purpose.

They are saying "This program was never started." but they are talking about a different program so people believe it was the same program.


The original sin was President Carter's for conceding so much intelligence supervision to Congress in the 1970s.



B-B-B-But Carter!!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 283 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report