At Last! ROVE To Give 'Interview' In CRIMINAL CASE! We Hope It's One Of Many! Of Both ...

[MioMyo]

Good, then maybe the Imperial Princess Pelosi can testify NEXT
under oath as to What she KNEW and When she KNEW it regarding
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques used to prevent another 9-11
attack Post 9-11-2001.

This is the latest rightard talking point,

Actually it's what is on the record, what transpired in the meetings

No, what's on the record is what's on the record. It may have
transpired as recorded or not.

Correct, what's on the record is what's on the record which is why the
CIA says she's a LYING BITCH.....

The CIA says a lot of things. Think they might have something to hide?

I'm sure you think the CIA should make their entire record available for
public review.

Your trusting naivete is adorable!

Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

and if bamby and company really wanted a transparent goverment, he'd
release the minutes to those meetings. Aftere all hye's already
released the top secret sensitive information which will eventually
caused Americans to be killed anyway.

The released memos were public information anyway.

Classified until bamby declassified them thereby making them available
for public review, dumb ass.

[Pause to consider the irony of the insult.]
No, one of the reasons for declassifying the memos is that their contents
had already been leaked.

And the excuse for NOT declassifying the memos detailing results of the
Enhanced interrogation is.....

{DRUMROLL]

Partisan Politics, Tard...................

Now he needs to quit the partisan crap and come clean.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! *He* needs "to quit the partisan crap and come
clean." Bwahahahahahahaha!
Good one. Rightards say the funniest things. Where were you from,
say, Jan 2001 to Jan 2009?

Right here watching the democrap propaganda machine constantly and
traitorously deconstruct the war on terror.

So you drank the kool-aid for eight years. Great.

Actually I paid close attention to what all sides were saying.

The kool-aid drinking is your excuse, libtard.....

but I fail to see its force.

The Bitch Knew and the Bitch has been Lying saying she didn't and
then she expects everyone to be her over the CIA.

Even if Nancy Pelosi is a bitch or even *the* Bitch, and even if she
knew for a fact that waterboarding happened, so what? Does that mean
it wasn't against the law?

Depends on who you ask. Libs have also argued panties on the head of a
terrorist or a dog on a leach or confinement with a catapillar is
torture.

No, that's just humiliation. Also forbidden, but not torture.
Waterboarding. Now that's torture.

Opinion. Cutting off fingure, gouging out eyes, throwing people into meat
grinders (Saddams favorrite), cutting off heads..... (shall I go on).....
those are example of torture. They are also example of techniques used by
the terrorists before 9-11 and still, which nullifies another of the left's
lame arguments........

I don't to those or to water boarding.

You don't "to those" what? You don't object to those? You understand
that we executed Japanese war criminals after WWII for waterboarding
POWs, don't you?

Soley for waterboarding? Your proof is?

Waiting............................

Does that mean she's guilty of breaking the law?

If she thought it was torture, why didn't she raise some red flags. By
her silence she became conconspirator. So what's the difference
between a lawyer giving an opinion and the Imperial Princess Pelosi's
silence?

Pelosi's silence may have been moral cowardice.

No because just about everything the bitch does is on the basis of partisan
politics......

My hope is that bamby nor the dems muzzle her. In fact I wish she would
stump her news conference diatribes on a daily basis. The American people
need to see more of her.....

Perhaps she should have
written to the CIA (as Don Gazpacho suggests) or perhaps she should have
gone public, violating the laws against revealing classified material.
But her silence wasn't assent: she didn't have any power to affect the
criminal conspiracy that was the Bush administration. She was a minority
member of the House, in no position to issue orders to the executive or
to change policy. Certainly whatever she knew didn't make her a
"conconspirator," since she was informed after the fact.
A lawyer is bound by the code of ethics of his profession. In
particular, it is against the rules to issue a legal defense of
criminality. It's probaby not against the law, though.

It's rather convenient for her to now say she disagrees when no one
can be sure if she really did in 2002.

This rage at Pelosi seems a bit over-determined to me. What's really
inconvenient for you is that we're finding out about the disgraces of the
Bush administration.

No, I think you should put them on trial, charge them with war crimes and
get on with your ultimate hate fest.

The princess's conviction blows whichever way the wind blows.......

We can only hope for the conviction of the Bushies.
If you don't like Pelosi, don't vote for her in 2010.

You dumbass, you think the entire country votes for her.... figures what a
moron you are...........

Let's suppose that for the one and only time some crook in W's
administration actually told the truth. So Nancy Pelosi heard that
W's folks were torturing prisoners.

She was briefed as to the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
That's a Fact - end of story.....

She was, and she claims (and your precious record backs her up) that
the briefers claimed to be following the law.

The CIA disputes her, so you're saying the CIA is lying and she isn't
even though her story has been changing over the last two weeks?

The CIA has been very cagey,

So why do you fail to address the Princess's ever changing story?

and the director won't even vouch for
accuracy of the briefing reports. This is a sideshow. Pelosi didn't
order anyone tortured; she didn't authorize anyone to order anyone
tortured; she didn't torture anyone.

Now maybe she shouldn't have
believed any one of those gang of liars, and maybe she should have
broken the law against revealing classified information and blown the
whistle.
But so what? Whether Pelosi abrogated her ethical duty to call
attention to Bush & Co. malfeasance, how does that let the malfeasors
off the hook?

Malfeasance seems to be the convenient opinion of the radical left.

No one in the "radical left" lied us into one war we didn't have to fight

No one lied the US into war, but a bipartisan majority of congress authorize
the president take action against those who were already conducting a war
against the US.

and lost another that we did. No one in the "radical left" disgraced
this nation by resorting to torture. And the "radical left" wasn't in
charge when the American economy went down the tubes.

I
suggest the AG charge the entire Bush administration with war crimes
and quit trying them with propaganda in the kangaroo court of the
Liberal Media Whores......

Then you'd better tell Dick Cheney that his torture tour is doing more
harm than good.

God Bless Dick Cheney. But if you really beleved your above statement, you
wouldn't want him to stop. It goes back to not getting in the way of your
opponent when they are self-destructing which is why I want Princess Pelosi
whining every hour of everyday.

God, I love the smell of rightard desperation. It smells like victory.

That's what you libtards said about republicans just before Clinton fell
from grace......

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot

The Bush Administration started with lies, conducted
itself with lies and more lies, then started a war
based on lies, lied their way all through the last 4
years---NEVER took any decent appraisal of their
policies (and the lies that formed them) and now when
the republicans "say" they were "informed"---you want
the American people to believe their GOP Run CIA wasn't
lying?---or the republicans who were briefed arent?

Stupid fuck

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot
The Bush Administration started with lies, conducted

Off topic... the bitch said the CIA lied. Now she's back tracking, so her
web of lying has nothing at all to do with Bush, you libtard.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
itself with lies and more lies, then started a war
based on lies, lied their way all through the last 4
years---NEVER took any decent appraisal of their
policies (and the lies that formed them) and now when
the republicans "say" they were "informed"---you want
the American people to believe their GOP Run CIA wasn't
lying?---or the republicans who were briefed arent?
Stupid fuck

[sid9]

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's
every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot
The Bush Administration started with lies,
conducted

Off topic... the bitch said the CIA lied. Now
she's back tracking, so her web of lying has
nothing at all to do with Bush, you libtard.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
itself with lies and more lies, then started a
war
based on lies, lied their way all through the
last 4
years---NEVER took any decent appraisal of
their
policies (and the lies that formed them) and
now when
the republicans "say" they were
"informed"---you want
the American people to believe their GOP Run
CIA wasn't
lying?---or the republicans who were briefed
arent?
Stupid fuck

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363

Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings

"I'm not impressed with the credibility of the
CIA as it was being led in 2002. I think it had
become an agency that instead of following the
admonition to speak truth to power, it was trying
to speak what it thought power wanted to hear."

All Things Considered, May 15, 2009 · House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused the CIA of
misleading her in 2002 about its use of
waterboarding during the Bush administration.

Now her fellow Democrat, former Sen. Bob Graham of
Florida, is also disputing the CIA's version of
the briefings that he received at the time. Graham
was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, while Pelosi was the top Democrat on
the House Intelligence Committee.

How Many Briefings?

Graham is known as a meticulous note-taker and has
maintained a daily log that fills hundreds of
spiral notebooks, which now reside at the
University of Florida Library of Florida History.

"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to
bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the
dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells
Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of
'02, two in September."

Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined
that on three of the four dates there was no
briefing held."

He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a
briefing held and, according to my notes, it was
on the topic of detainee interrogation."

Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he
told the agency what he had found in his notes.

"They said, 'We will check and call back,'" Graham
recalled. "When they finally did a few days later,
they indicated that I was correct. Their
information was in error. There was no briefing on
the first three of four dates."

Graham says the agency offered no explanation
regarding how it came up with the other dates.

'No Discussion Of Waterboarding'

The Sept. 27, 2002, briefing occurred about three
weeks after the briefing in which the CIA says it
told Pelosi about the use of waterboarding, a
technique also described as simulated drowning.
Graham, like Pelosi, says waterboarding was not
mentioned during his briefing.

"There was no discussion of waterboarding, other
excessive techniques or that they had applied
these against any particular detainees," he says.

Pelosi has charged that she was misled by the CIA.
Graham puts it another way.

"Nothing that I can recall being said surprised me
or has subsequently proven to be incorrect," he
says. "It was a matter of omission, not
commission."

Graham says he is not surprised at the CIA's
claims, noting that within a week of its Sept. 27
briefing, the agency presented to the Senate
Intelligence Committee its National Intelligence
Estimate of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
which was later shown to be flawed.

"I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA
as it was being led in 2002," Graham says. "I
think it had become an agency that instead of
following the admonition to speak truth to power,
it was trying to speak what it thought power
wanted to hear."

[MioMyo]

Quit wetting your depends over getting your ass stomped, tard. You'll notice
siddy, in the first paragraph of your citation, the author quotes, "he's not
IMPRESSED..." and "he THINKS...."

Hardly anything concrete which means he's actually telling you his OPINION,
you imbecile.

So post that dribble as often as you like, but I've posted Leon Panetta's
accounts in that he doesn't just surmise.....

HE KNOWS THE BITCH IS LYING, why? Look at HIS TITLE, moron....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta
Clue: Leon Edward Panetta (born June 28, 1938) is the current Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency.

Try reading and comprehending you pathetic piece of shit of a sycophant
libtard.....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

Post by sid9

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot
The Bush Administration started with lies, conducted

Off topic... the bitch said the CIA lied. Now she's back tracking, so her
web of lying has nothing at all to do with Bush, you libtard.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
itself with lies and more lies, then started a war
based on lies, lied their way all through the last 4
years---NEVER took any decent appraisal of their
policies (and the lies that formed them) and now when
the republicans "say" they were "informed"---you want
the American people to believe their GOP Run CIA wasn't
lying?---or the republicans who were briefed arent?
Stupid fuck

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363
Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings
"I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led
in 2002. I think it had become an agency that instead of following the
admonition to speak truth to power, it was trying to speak what it thought
power wanted to hear."
All Things Considered, May 15, 2009 · House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has
accused the CIA of misleading her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding
during the Bush administration.
Now her fellow Democrat, former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, is also
disputing the CIA's version of the briefings that he received at the time.
Graham was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, while
Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
How Many Briefings?
Graham is known as a meticulous note-taker and has maintained a daily log
that fills hundreds of spiral notebooks, which now reside at the
University of Florida Library of Florida History.
"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA
and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells Robert
Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."
Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the
four dates there was no briefing held."
He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a briefing held and,
according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation."
Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he told the agency what he
had found in his notes.
"They said, 'We will check and call back,'" Graham recalled. "When they
finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their
information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four
dates."
Graham says the agency offered no explanation regarding how it came up
with the other dates.
'No Discussion Of Waterboarding'
The Sept. 27, 2002, briefing occurred about three weeks after the briefing
in which the CIA says it told Pelosi about the use of waterboarding, a
technique also described as simulated drowning. Graham, like Pelosi, says
waterboarding was not mentioned during his briefing.
"There was no discussion of waterboarding, other excessive techniques or
that they had applied these against any particular detainees," he says.
Pelosi has charged that she was misled by the CIA. Graham puts it another
way.
"Nothing that I can recall being said surprised me or has subsequently
proven to be incorrect," he says. "It was a matter of omission, not
commission."
Graham says he is not surprised at the CIA's claims, noting that within a
week of its Sept. 27 briefing, the agency presented to the Senate
Intelligence Committee its National Intelligence Estimate of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, which was later shown to be flawed.
"I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led in
2002," Graham says. "I think it had become an agency that instead of
following the admonition to speak truth to power, it was trying to speak
what it thought power wanted to hear."

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:50:40 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Quit wetting your depends over getting your ass stomped, tard.

How does HE get "stomped" by reminding you that Bush's
administration is known for it's massive lying?

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:50:40 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Quit wetting your depends over getting your ass stomped, tard.

How does HE get "stomped" by reminding you that Bush's
administration is known for it's massive lying?

Who proved anyone lied?

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:37:39 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot
The Bush Administration started with lies, conducted

Off topic... the bitch said the CIA lied.

And what, exactly, would be irrational or "lying" about
thinking that?

Bush lied from the day he started campaigning, lied us
into war, lied about torture, -----MOF you can't name a
time when he wasn't lying to us

"Slam Dunk", wasn't it---that the CIA Director said
about WMD?

[MioMyo]

Than you Imperial Princess Pelosi for single-handedly redirecting the
national debate from bamby's socialist policies changing it to what a Lying
Bitch you are which focuses in on how many other dems are lying
hypocrites......

Also thank you princess for this libtard having his panties tightly shoved
up his ass......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:37:39 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:34:35 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your taking the Imperial Princess Pelosi's every changing story is the
epitome of partisan naivety.

Consider the alternative, idiot
The Bush Administration started with lies, conducted

Off topic... the bitch said the CIA lied.

And what, exactly, would be irrational or "lying" about
thinking that?
Bush lied from the day he started campaigning, lied us
into war, lied about torture, -----MOF you can't name a
time when he wasn't lying to us
"Slam Dunk", wasn't it---that the CIA Director said
about WMD?

[MioMyo]

No lies were told. Do try to keep up.

Where's the WMD? Lies were told and if you didn't hate America you
would be outraged.

Most likely Syria. Do try to keep up you fucking retard.

Well, there's still one fool who believes that there were WMD!

You have proof they aren't there?

[MioMyo]

http://www.freespeechseattle.org/media/1999-07-22-stranger..shtml

July 9, Seattle Center officials banished Tim Crowley--who's pushing I-46,
an initiative to repeal Seattle's poster ban--from the 74-acre property.
Seattle Center security claimed Crowley had violated park guidelines by
displaying an anti-poster-ban sign [see "Cops Ban Poster Guy," In Other
News, July 15]. He was told to stay out for a year.

While working the crowd for signatures, Crowley took a "Yes on I-46" sign
and placed it in a tree near stage left of the Mural Amphitheater. Two
people wearing shirts that read "staff" approached him and told him he had
to take the sign down. He asked why. They said it was against the rules.
"What rules?" he asked.

They didn't answer. A third staffer showed up and informed Crowley that
people have to pay to display signs at Seattle Center. He ordered Crowley to
take his sign down, and Crowley refused. The staffer then took the sign down
himself, and Crowley ripped it out of his hands.

The police--who operate a cop shop on Seattle Center grounds--responded
immediately, confiscating the campaign sign and ordering Crowley to come
with them. The cop in charge, Sergeant Ron Wilson, told Crowley he was "out
of control," and had better do what he was told. Wilson and two other cops
escorted Crowley back to their office, where they filled out a card with his
name, address, and date of birth, and informed him that he couldn't return
to Seattle Center for a year. Crowley asked for a copy of the card, but the
police refused.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=1559

The cop in charge, Sergeant Ron Wilson, told Crowley he was "out of
control," and had better do what he was told. Wilson and two other cops
escorted Crowley back to their office, where they filled out a card with his
name, address, and date of birth, and informed him that he couldn't return
to Seattle Center for a year.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/payn205.shtml

Crowley, who lives on Capitol Hill, says he was gassed in his home by
"rampaging police" last year and wants an assurance it won't happen again.
He claims the message being broadcast by the mayor and police is that the
city is prepared to do its worst to silence the citizens of Seattle.

Heaving a sigh, Lilly called that kind of talk "really, really
disappointing." Of course, people are free to turn out with signs for labor,
the environment, social justice, whatever the cause, he said.

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/el99a/report/filings/bi_fss/s99072...

1999 Seattle Election Information

**********************************************************

FACT: The Bush Admin lied to the world to send us to war. Our brave
soldiers died for Bush's lies. If you didn't hate our Country you
would be as agnry as me and other patriots.

The only Fact you stated Cowardly is you are Angry.... yes, you made that
point abundantly clear long ago. You indeed are an Angry, Inept little black
man with a Racist Chip on your shoulders. Details above.....

[MioMyo]

Thanks for proving my point Cowardly which is, no matter what the
circumstance, you consider yourself a patriot and anyone who opposes or
challenges you a racist and a traitor. In this instance we can all see, all
so clearly, that the POLICE ARE THE CULPRIT RACISTS, while you on the other
hand are THE VICTIM OF POLICE PREJUDICE......

ROFLMFAO........

Post by MioMyo
http://www.freespeechseattle.org

Thanks for spamming that web site. If you had a brain you would read
it. Every word. It would teach you what American's do when we are
faced by unjust laws. We change them. But, I do, we appreciate
the extra traffic. When you friend spammy posts it, we always get a
couple hundred in donations. You do good work.

Of course it doesn't change the fact. Al-Qaeda attacked our nation. On
President Bush's watch. (you'll notice that, even tho I disagree with
almost every decision President Bush made, as an American I ALWAYS
refer to him with respect. Instead of destroying Al-Qaeda as was his
responsibility, he choose to lie to the world and declare Iraq to be
the real threat. 10's of thousands needlessly were killed based on
these lies. I'm an American, of course I am angry. And of course,
you hate anyone that is man enough to stand up for what he believes.
You know it's something you will Never, ever be able to do. Hide
little girl. Proud Americans are changing the world while you post
racist lies, anonymously, of course.