Talking Out Both Sides of Your mouth

Hmmm…

Pelosi Statement on Judiciary and Intelligence Committees Passing FISA Reform Bill

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees each approved a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

“The Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have approved a bill to restore constitutional checks and balances (read: no way we’re going to let you do anything.) to the way electronic surveillance is used to gather intelligence. The RESTORE Act gives the government all the tools necessary to acquire under the law the intelligence that can keep our country safe. (Except the ones you all don’t like.)

“At the same time, the bill protects the privacy of Americans by putting the FISA court back in business and assuring strong oversight of surveillance activities by Congress. The two committees also reaffirmed Congress’ constitutional role by refusing to consider granting retroactive immunity to companies that participated in the President’s warrantless surveillance programs until the Administration has provided Congress with full information about those programs. (Hell, I wouldn’t give you all my dogs’ rabies vaccine number…)

“We can and must protect and defend the Constitution as we protect and defend the American people.” (How? By making it near impossible for our Intelligence guys to act on the intelligence??? Oh, that’s a good one!)

<><><><><>

Pelosi ‘proud’ of her House: ‘We’ve drained swamp’

by Naftali Bendavid

(Notable quotes:)

“We have drained the swamp,” Pelosi said. “We have passed historic legislation.” (oh, I wouldn’t say that. You, Murtha, Jefferson, Kerry, Kennedy, Waters, Woolsey, Reid and Durbin to name just a few, are still holding seats. And what “historic legislation”? Keeping funds for our troops hostage for your political agenda? It’s ‘historic’ all right ~ never has there been so much use of the troops as pawns so blatantly while this country is at war.)

“It is not just the opinion of the base of the Democratic Party that this war should end, it’s the opinion of the American people, largely across-the-board,” Pelosi said. (Keep saying that and clap your hands 3 times and think happy thoughts) “Democrats, Independents, and a reasonable chunk of the Republican Party as well. They want the war to end. They don’t want to hear about 60 votes in the Senate-‘Just do it!’ ” (you know who really wants the war to end, Nancy? Try the soldiers over there fighting it. It’s just that they don’t want it to end in defeat ~ again. It goes against everything they stand for, which is something you apparently have no clue about. They’re so much better than that.)

“We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,” Pelosi said. “God bless them for their passion on this issue. I believe that mostly they are right. But I do believe that we are responsible for the responsible, safe redeployment (read “defeated”) of our troops out of Iraq, and that is what we will continue to fight for.” (if only you would use all that energy to fight for our country!)

Pelosi then launched into a surprisingly personal description of the protesters camped outside her house: “I’ve had, for four or five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering my neighbors, hanging their clothes from the trees, building all kinds of things-Buddhas, I don’t know what they are (What this? You’re not in touch with your ‘Buddha within’?? No wonder you’re having such a hard time with your base.) -couches, sofas, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk. (Just imagine what their homes look like…) You can imagine my neighbors’ reaction to all of this. And if they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering. (hmmm, maybe in your neighborhood…not necessarily anyone else’s) But because they have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment, four or five months into that. So I’m well aware of the unhappiness of the base.” (smack-down! But hey, she understands…)

Read this from one of the very upset with Nancy anti-war folks.

<><><><><>

10-10-2007

Pelosi Defends Removal of ‘God’ from Flag Certificates

 

Of course she does. It offends so many of her base. And God knows, she doesn’t want all those atheists cluttering up her lawn. It might intrude on all her praying for President Bush to come to his senses and see things her way…

 

<><><><><><>

 

And I thought democrats hated corporations. Don’t they??

 

 

 

A Gap billionaire’s museum in Pelosi’s privatized National Park?

by Naturelover
Tuesday Oct 9th, 2007 2:36 PM

I’m so confused…

 

But I just love this:

 

 

 

October 11, 2007. Tags: , , , . Politics, Videos. Leave a comment.

Well, This Explains Alot!

I just came across the following over at Hot Air:

By Bryan

Another day, another political football.

Senate and House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects — despite the Bush administration’s insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.

White House and Justice Department press officers said legal opinions written in 2005 did not reverse an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as “abhorrent.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to the acting attorney general saying the administration’s credibility is at risk if the documents are not turned over to Congress.

The memos are “critical to an appropriate assessment” of interrogation tactics approved by the White House and the Justice Department, Rockefeller wrote to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler. “Why should the public have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of the United States?” the West Virginia Democrat asked.

What I can’t figure out is why anyone anywhere should have any confidence in anything that Sen. Rockefeller says. He has been operating right along the lines of a Democrat Intelligence Committee memo that surfaced way back in 2003. It outlined a Democrat strategy for using that committee to politicize nearly everything about the war. Sen. Rockefeller was the ranking member at the time, so he was certainly in the distro loop on it, if it didn’t come from his own office.

“We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

“1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

“For example, in addition to the President’s State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department.

“The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

“2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ‘additional views’ to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

“In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

“The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

“3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration’s use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

“The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

“A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

“B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

“In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

“SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

“The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives.”

Keep in mind, this was 2003. Joseph Wilson and his wife weren’t household names yet. The Iraq war itself was only a few months old, and had been based primarily on intelligence gathered during the Clinton years, and upon which the Clinton administration had based two medium-sized actions against Iraq, one in 1998 and one in 2000. And the Democrats had investigated nothing by November of 2003, but this memo outlines the conclusions that they had already reached and the strategy that they were going to employ to discredit the war, using their seats on the Intelligence Committee to do it.

I did some extensive blogging on this memo at the time, but it went down the memory hole before too long. The MSM never really pursued the memo’s implications, which are that the Democrats have for nearly four years been operating a disinformation campaign according to this script and dragging the American people through a grueling game of political gotcha just to lead us to defeat.

So with this latest memo, the old script appears to be alive and well. Just like the 2003 script says, Democrats are trying to

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

They don’t know what’s in the memos that they’re seeking, but they’re raising suspicions anyway, just like the script says.

We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

Shameless.

<><><><><><>

Hmmm…. In 2003 this was sent out.

Gee, we wouldn’t want those silly little things called “facts” to get in the way and undoing our uncorroborated conclusions…

The Constitution? Merely suggestions.

And oh, how the media plays right along.

<><><><><<><><>

An interesting timeline here.

Oh, and let’s not forget Rockefeller’s pre-war diplomacy act:


Rockefeller’s Confession
What was the West Virginia Democrat doing as a freelancing prewar diplomat?

By William J. Bennett

“Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney’s, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else….”

Click on title above to read the rest.

This is just sickening.

October 5, 2007. Tags: , , , . Politics. Leave a comment.