Pelosi proven correct on CIA briefings....they lied.

[Carolina]

Wonder when we'll be seeing the apologies from the lunatic fringe right wingnuts who were calling for Pelosi's resignation over her claim that the CIA was lying?

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/27/...

[Night Crawler]

Some Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, including ranking member Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), argue that the House inquiry is politically motivated and is an effort to shield Pelosi from criticism after her allegation that the CIA failed to tell her the truth.
Leftwing commies are lyin again....Can`t stand the truth can they???? Pelosi will be gone next year along with the qweer Reid and we can elect some humans in congress..

[Sundog512]

Carolina wrote:

Wonder when we'll be seeing the apologies from the lunatic fringe right wingnuts who were calling for Pelosi's resignation over her claim that the CIA was lying?
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/27/...

LOL. Probably never.

Maybe now she can get back to discussing that hanging tree for Cheney!

[Ole BDT]

I didn't read anything in your article about the CIA not telling Pelosi about waterboarding, Carolina.

[Just John]

Ole BDT wrote:

I didn't read anything in your article about the CIA not telling Pelosi about waterboarding, Carolina.

LOL, neither did I. Oh well desperate times require desperate measures.

Surprised that Dog didn't pick that up. He's usually sharp enough not to post until he reads.:-)

[Former McDowell Resident]

Ole BDT wrote:

I didn't read anything in your article about the CIA not telling Pelosi about waterboarding, Carolina.

Same here. Not a word. Do you think Carolina is stretching?

[Carolina]

The lunatic right wingnut fringe which makes up the republican party, was all up in arms because Pelosi said the CIA lied.

They have admitted it. Next?

[Just John]

Carolina wrote:

The lunatic right wingnut fringe which makes up the republican party, was all up in arms because Pelosi said the CIA lied.
They have admitted it. Next?

Drowning and gasping for air FMR. The USS O'Bomber is taking on water like the Titanic and all the rats seeking free cheese are squealing like a water pump on a 47 Ford.:-)

[Former McDowell Resident]

Carolina wrote:

The lunatic right wingnut fringe which makes up the republican party, was all up in arms because Pelosi said the CIA lied.
They have admitted it. Next?

Actually, Pelosi said that the CIA lied about one thing and that hasn't been proven. Nowhere in that article was your premise even remotely stated.

I await Sat night when Pelosi will be spotted flying around San Fran on her broom.

[Former McDowell Resident]

Just John wrote:

<quoted text>
Drowning and gasping for air FMR. The USS O'Bomber is taking on water like the Titanic and all the rats seeking free cheese are squealing like a water pump on a 47 Ford.:-)

I can't recall what a water pump on a 47 Ford sounds like but some newer ones sure could emit some serious death rattles.

About that free cheese, I've noticed that with this health plan, those who got on board the O'Bomber are getting the free cheese while those who are taking a good look before committing or are showing the plan(s) for what it/they is/are are getting stuck paying for that free cheese. In the end, that recurring theme will sink them.

[Carolina]

Whine to your hearts content girls, but facts are facts. Pelosi said the CIA lied to congress.

The CIA admitted they lied to congress.

Spin that any way you like, Pelosi was correct.

[Watch It Closely]

The opening paragraph of the article states:

"A senior intelligence official conceded Tuesday that the intelligence community has failed to fully inform Congress about some of its spying activities."

Remember these words:

"failed to FULLY inform" (note the emphasis on 'fully').

Litt said:

“We have an obligation to get you the information that you need to provide oversight. And the scope of what we provide you needs to be adequate to permit you to provide oversight of the intelligence community,”

He then went on to say:

"I think that when some of the agencies went back and looked at their records, they found a couple of matters where they had determined not to brief (i.e. "omitted" certain information that might be crucial to an informed decision). And they relooked at it and decided probably ought to be briefed,”

The article then goes on to say:

The House Intelligence Committee launched a probe of the intelligence community over the summer after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) exclaimed at a contentious May press conference that the CIA "lied" to her about using advanced interrogation techniques on detainees.

In this case, given the nature of the article, it would appear to be safe to assume that when Pelosi said that the CIA "lied" to her, she really meant that she wasn't "FULLY informed" (note the re-emergence of the term fully informed).

The article also states that:

"Democrats on the House Intelligence panel say there as many as five episodes where Congress was kept in the dark. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the committee in June that it failed to alert Congress about operations targeting al Qaeda."

Note the phrase "kept in the dark", which in this instance, I believe, means "not fully informed."

Perhaps "lied" is too harsh a word for you folks? Is that the problem?

[Ole BDT]

Just John wrote:

<quoted text>
Drowning and gasping for air FMR. The USS O'Bomber is taking on water like the Titanic and all the rats seeking free cheese are squealing like a water pump on a 47 Ford.:-)

And, he's well aware of that fact, John. I mean, they've gotta dig up something that will replace the hope BHO promised them. I believe they've already lost hope in the hope he promised and I'm sure the change he's brought about isn't something they believe in. LOL!

[Ole BDT]

Watch It Closely wrote:

The opening paragraph of the article states:
"A senior intelligence official conceded Tuesday that the intelligence community has failed to fully inform Congress about some of its spying activities."
Remember these words:
"failed to FULLY inform" (note the emphasis on 'fully').
Litt said:
“We have an obligation to get you the information that you need to provide oversight. And the scope of what we provide you needs to be adequate to permit you to provide oversight of the intelligence community,”
He then went on to say:
"I think that when some of the agencies went back and looked at their records, they found a couple of matters where they had determined not to brief (i.e. "omitted" certain information that might be crucial to an informed decision). And they relooked at it and decided probably ought to be briefed,”
The article then goes on to say:
The House Intelligence Committee launched a probe of the intelligence community over the summer after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) exclaimed at a contentious May press conference that the CIA "lied" to her about using advanced interrogation techniques on detainees.
In this case, given the nature of the article, it would appear to be safe to assume that when Pelosi said that the CIA "lied" to her, she really meant that she wasn't "FULLY informed" (note the re-emergence of the term fully informed).
The article also states that:
"Democrats on the House Intelligence panel say there as many as five episodes where Congress was kept in the dark. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the committee in June that it failed to alert Congress about operations targeting al Qaeda."
Note the phrase "kept in the dark", which in this instance, I believe, means "not fully informed."
Perhaps "lied" is too harsh a word for you folks? Is that the problem?

Hold on tight, Dog, cause you're in for a long and ride, my friend.

[Ole BDT]

Carolina wrote:

Whine to your hearts content girls, but facts are facts. Pelosi said the CIA lied to congress.
The CIA admitted they lied to congress.
Spin that any way you like, Pelosi was correct.

Hold on tight, Carolina, cause you and the Dog are in for a long, rough and very frustrating ride. LOL!

[Just John]

Watch It Closely wrote:

The opening paragraph of the article states:
"A senior intelligence official conceded Tuesday that the intelligence community has failed to fully inform Congress about some of its spying activities."
Remember these words:
"failed to FULLY inform" (note the emphasis on 'fully').
Litt said:
“We have an obligation to get you the information that you need to provide oversight. And the scope of what we provide you needs to be adequate to permit you to provide oversight of the intelligence community,”
He then went on to say:
"I think that when some of the agencies went back and looked at their records, they found a couple of matters where they had determined not to brief (i.e. "omitted" certain information that might be crucial to an informed decision). And they relooked at it and decided probably ought to be briefed,”
The article then goes on to say:
The House Intelligence Committee launched a probe of the intelligence community over the summer after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) exclaimed at a contentious May press conference that the CIA "lied" to her about using advanced interrogation techniques on detainees.
In this case, given the nature of the article, it would appear to be safe to assume that when Pelosi said that the CIA "lied" to her, she really meant that she wasn't "FULLY informed" (note the re-emergence of the term fully informed).
The article also states that:
"Democrats on the House Intelligence panel say there as many as five episodes where Congress was kept in the dark. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the committee in June that it failed to alert Congress about operations targeting al Qaeda."
Note the phrase "kept in the dark", which in this instance, I believe, means "not fully informed."
Perhaps "lied" is too harsh a word for you folks? Is that the problem?

No Dog, that's not the problem. Nancy said they lied to her specifically. No where in the article does it say they lied to her specifically.

Lie is not too harsh of a word for me. It use to be but with this administration it is a reoccurring theme so most folks have gotten use to it.

Correct me if I am wrong but was Nancy also referring to a specific incident or action when she made her statement?

Does this article address the specific incident Nancy was referring too?

[Watch It Closely]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>Hold on tight, Dog, cause you're in for a long and ride, my friend.

How so, BDT?

[Mr White God]

i believe Bo Tox causes Gayness , and destoys any brains that you have, point made aye?

[Carolina]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>Hold on tight, Carolina, cause you and the Dog are in for a long, rough and very frustrating ride. LOL!

That would be a complete turnaround for those of your ilk. So far all I've seen is the spin from the same lunatic fringe that led our great nation to the brink of a depression.

[Watch It Closely]

Just John wrote:

<quoted text>
No Dog, that's not the problem. Nancy said they lied to her specifically. No where in the article does it say they lied to her specifically.
Lie is not too harsh of a word for me. It use to be but with this administration it is a reoccurring theme so most folks have gotten use to it.
Correct me if I am wrong but was Nancy also referring to a specific incident or action when she made her statement?
Does this article address the specific incident Nancy was referring too?

Semantics John.

The article refers to CIA lies told to Congress.

Excuse me, the article refers to omissions by the CIA in their briefings to Congress.

Ms. Pelosi, who I believe is a member of Congress, said that the CIA "lied" to her.

"The House Intelligence Committee launched a probe of the intelligence community over the summer after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) exclaimed at a contentious May press conference that the CIA "lied" to her about using advanced interrogation techniques on detainees."

I'm going to go out on a limb here John, but I do believe that Ms. Pelosi meant that the CIA lied to her in her official capacity as a Congresswoman of this fine country. I mean because, otherwise, the CIA would have no reason to talk to her at all.