Pelosi's latest story....[rolls eyes] Sorry, but she is no longer believable.

[Infinite Hope]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

She seems to have a new story every day or two. It's time for a Speaker Clyburn.


Edit: For those who seem to be reading words that aren't here, let me clarify...
I don't blame her for the use of torture. She couldn't have done anything other than try to make it a PR issue. What I fault her for is feeling the need to lie about her story (considering she's had several stories now, clearly some were used to mislead). Considering she no longer has the credibility necessary when addressing the American people, she no longer has the credibility needed to be speaker. She mislead, she should no longer lead. She can continue being a congresswoman from CA.

[babylonsister]

1. That's from Thursday.

Don't have much to say? Nothing to add to that thread? Rolls eyes - - > :eyes:

[Infinite Hope]

5. I hadn't seen it and it's still yet another story. It's the quantity of stories she's had, not the

timing of them. Whether that story came out Thursday, two weeks ago, today, or a week from now...it doesn't negate the point at hand which is that she's had roughly half a dozen stories now.

[babylonsister]

11. Then read this, or a host of other threads, to educate yourself on who the real

culprits are...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x449115

Better yet, from EarlG...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5662034

I think you're listening to too much r/w claptrap.

[Infinite Hope]

18. Nope, I've just been listening to Pelosi and her revolving and evolving stories.

I don't blame her for the use of torture. She couldn't have done anything other than try to make it a PR issue. What I fault her for is feeling the need to lie about her story (considering she's had several stories now, clearly some were used to mislead). Considering she no longer has the credibility necessary when addressing the American people, she no longer has the credibility needed to be speaker. She mislead, she should no longer lead. She can continue being a congresswoman from CA.

[babylonsister]

20. There you go again. You have no idea if she lied.

Compared to the rethugs, she's got plenty of credibility. But since it sounds like that's who you're listening to, you wouldn't even recognize that.

Have fun, I'll not be participating. You're willfully ignorant. Facts are there if you'd like to read all about them.

[Infinite Hope]

25. 1) She's had multiple stories which can not simultaneously be true. 2) Comparing her credibility to

Rethugs does not make her credible. Truth is not relative.

[Captain Hilts]

23. No, sequencing - and the info that backs her up - is important. nt

[Infinite Hope]

26. You could mix her stories up in a hat and draw them again...it won't change the fact that she's had

multiple and conflicting stories.

[Captain Hilts]

34. And none make her responsible for what happened or able to stop it. nt

[Infinite Hope]

41. NO ONE HERE SAID SHE'S RESPONSIBLE. SHE JUST HAS A CREDIBILITY GAP, SO SHOULD NOT BE SPEAKER.

MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU READ. GOOD DAY.

[KittyWampus]

2. What's Hastert's story? Or Pat Robert's story?

[geckosfeet]

7. Exactly. Who chaired the all the committees prior to 11/2006?

[Buzz Clik]

3. Fine. She's not believable. Now, get back to the real issue.

And that's the torturing of prisoners and those who authorized it.

[Vickers]

4. Linking to existing DU threads is fucking KEWL!!!!11!!!

:eyes:

[geckosfeet]

6. Republican taking points much? Every RW Sunday talk show pundit will be spewing this crap.

And oddly enough - none of them will mention buSh, rove, chainey and the republican majorities who conceived, approved, rubber stamped and funded torture policy.

This is a classic misdirection campaign being fueled and funded by republicans.

[Infinite Hope]

10. Uh...because she has had multiple stories. No sense in denying that fact just because we're Democrat

s...in fact, that's all the more reason to look at the reality of it. That's what we as Democrats have taken pride in the last 8 years...living in reality not denial.

[geckosfeet]

19. I am not denying. Simple fact - she did not concieve of the torture policy. And if

you are going to accuse her of approving a policy that was clearly insane, then you should also look at the republican leadership at the time, and the the other democrats who approved at the time.

My point is that this is simply a way for republicans to deflect attention from the people who created the policy, and that getting democrats to eat their own is a way of diverting attention from the republicans who chaired the committees, bu$h, rove and chainey.

Yes Pelosi is a hypocrite, but she is certainly not alone in that camp.

[Infinite Hope]

29. I never accused her of approving the policy.

If you'd learn to read what I wrote instead of reading what you ASSUME I wrote, you'd see I merely have an issue with her because she has a credibility gap, not because she condoned torture.

[geckosfeet]

47. Rolls eyes.

And my point, (should you care to read what I wrote) is that we should go after criminals, not people with credibility gaps.

[Infinite Hope]

57. You: "And if you are going to accuse her of approving a policy that was clearly insane"

Good day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. CYA is a political art form. Nancy has been a politician for a long time.

[Infinite Hope]

14. You make more sense than most around here. n/t

[spanone]

9. no matter how inept ms pelosi is, SHE IS NOT THE FUCKING CRIMINAL HERE

[Infinite Hope]

13. Who said she was a criminal?

No one here suggested criminal charges, nor vacating her seat. She should simply step down as Speaker because she no longer has the credibility a party leader needs.

[geckosfeet]

22. Disagree.

She simply needs to get back on track and focus on those who really lack credibility - read those who devised and approved the policies.

Going after Pelosi is similar to going after the grunts who actually carried out the policies.

[donco6]

50. No one should "go after her". She should step down.

Out of her own limited sense of integrity.

Sorry, I've never liked her, regardless of whether she's "in" or "out" on DU.

[horseshoecrab]

16. Agreed!

Pelosi is most definitely not the criminal in this scenario.


horseshoecrab

[WeDidIt]

12. Believing PElosi has been taken of the table n/t

[javelin]

15. I don't know how she got to where she is in the first place.

She is an embarrassment and the sooner she is gone the better.

[Vickers]

35. Ummm....she was elected?

:shrug:

Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay!

[donco6]

44. I agree with javelin

So no need for the extra heavy helping of snark.

[snake in the grass]

51. It's strange how when someone new posts something...

...some "old-timer" doesn't like, they get a response like yours. I had that happen to me too in the beginning and I like to count myself to the "radical left". I don't know the poster you responded to. Maybe it is a Freeper in disguise (although I doubt it). However, I do agree with him or her totally. Pelosi is an invertebrate in a long line of Democratic invertebrates. She should have never gotten into bed with the Bush thugs and what's happening to her now, as ridiculous as it is, is their thanks for her acquiescence. True: Pelosi isn't the criminal here. True: the rectums of the MSM are having a feeding frenzy over this story. True: it is distracting from the real criminals. All that is true and yet, Nancy herself does carry some blame for playing nice with these psychopaths, instead of tearing them a new orifice when she had the chance. She is inept as Speaker of the House and if she has to go down, while taking the Bush bastards out, so be it. I wouldn't cry one tear. Put someone in the position, who actually cares about the people; someone like Dennis Kucinich. He's not afraid of anything the GOP can bring.

[donco6]

56. Hear, Hear, HEAR!

Bravo. Truly couldn't have said it better.

[Infinite Hope]

39. I supported her as Speaker in the beginning. n/t

[TankLV]

17. But let's IGNORE the TORTURERS, the ones who ACTUALLY DID THE TORTURING!!!

We MUST investigate the DEMOCRATS who DIDN'T "protest" the TORTURERS TORTURING enough!!!

Got it...

[B Calm]

21. Wow! You're falling for the right wing finger pointing trap.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Yeah, sad. nt

[Mudoria]

27. I have to agree with you... she should have had her side of the story

front and center with all the details from the very beginning. This changing the story every so often makes her look bad even though she couldn't have done squat about what she knew or didn't know. Right now the Repubs and the media are making this the story instead of focusing on WHO gave the orders to torture and WHO carried them out.

[Infinite Hope]

31. Well said. n/t

[L. Coyote]

28. Now, you are LYING like a Republican! What a crock of Bullshit!

Did you send this to Faux News yet? "a new story every day or two"
Or are you just posting for 'that other site' to quote you?

Let's not start playing their games, first by sticking to the facts!

[donco6]

43. It was from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15cong.html?_r=1&ref=us

I suppose it could all be lies, but why not help by pointing them out?

[Infinite Hope]

45. Shhh...you're disrupting the land of Bliss with reality. Pelosi has been consistent. [/sarcasm]

[donco6]

48. Damn, back for 15 minutes and already I'm a boat-rocker.

such is my life.

[craigmatic]

30. None of this would have happened if she acted like the represented one of the most liberal cities in

the US and showed some guts and conviction instead of continually playing this senseless political role. She's simultaneously playing into the repub hands by taking the focus away from the question of whether the US should torture and instead put the bull's eye squarely on her own back. I'm glad Obama is president because between Pelosi's huge ego and colossal fuck ups and Reid's cowardly management style, it's no wonder why you can't lead this country from congress.

[Infinite Hope]

32. Exactly. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[donco6]

36. Didn't everyone hate Pelosi a little while ago?

I think I remember something about "impeachment not on the table" and lots of fur flying.

[Infinite Hope]

37. I never blamed her for lack of impeachment because...

by the time it would have finished, Bush/Cheney would have been out of office anyway. It was more important to focus on the issues and regain control of both branches.

[Mudoria]

38. Yeah they did. Pelosi's popularity ebbs and flows on DU worse than the stock market.

[donco6]

42. So I'm not just imagining things . . . good.

When you can only stomach this place by interspersing two month increments, it can leave your head spinning.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. So does Rachel's, Jon Stewart's, Tweety's, Bill Maher's, KO's, and a grip o' other people's.

Let them criticize Obama and it's "Fuck X, he/she doesn't know SHIT". Let them say something complimentary the next day and it's "WOW, X knocked that one out of the park!"

[donco6]

49. But we're not in danger of becoming sycophants. No way.

Not us, no siree.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. Of course not.

I was actually disappointed that Supermodel/actress Iman's comments about Michelle Obama didn't cause a shitstorm yesterday. I needed some good entertainment. I know of four or five DU'ers who would have been frothing at the mouth like they had rabies or hoof-in-mouth disease had someone posted about it here.

[donco6]

54. Well hell! We can fix that!

I haven't seen a good frothing in . . . two months.

[cloudbase]

40. We should hold our own to the same or higher

standards than we hold the Republicans. Just because somebody has a (D) following their name doesn't mean they get a pass.

[IsItJustMe]

53. Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly would all agree with you. You seem to be in some, what I would call,

fricked up company. Unlike you, I will wait for the truth to come out, but you already seem to know it, suspect.

[donco6]

55. So, what do you do with the NY Times article?

WASHINGTON — The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, acknowledged for the first time Thursday that she knew by early 2003 that the Central Intelligence Agency had subjected terror detainees to waterboarding but saw little recourse to challenge the practice except by achieving Democratic control of Congress and the White House.

Ms. Pelosi offered her account at a tense news conference as she was pressed for a full accounting of when she became aware that the Bush administration had sanctioned harsh interrogation techniques.

The issue is emerging as one of the toughest tests of Ms. Pelosi’s tenure, as she finds herself fending off accusations of hypocrisy from Republicans for criticizing the interrogation methods, even though she had known about them, and from liberal critics who say that she should have raised the alarm earlier if she knew what was transpiring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15cong.html?ref=us

I know it's easier, but fobbing it off to Limbaugh et al., doesn't quite cut it here.

[Infinite Hope]

61. Shh...stop confusing people with facts. They prefer convenient denial over inconvenient truth. n/t

[Infinite Hope]

59. The truth is she's had varying stories and all of them cannot be simultaneously true.

Your words imply I shouldn't be critical of Pelosi's changing story simply because my political opposition is critical as well. I'd rather not live in convenient denial. I prefer to acknowledge inconvenient truth.

[backscatter712]

58. Pelosi's the distraction.

Again, the fascist media's focusing on her because she MIGHT have known about waterboarding (assuming that we actually take the CIA at their word.)

And they're saying nothing about the people who bragged on TV that they ORDERED the waterboardings and other atrocities..

[Infinite Hope]

62. I'd agree with that sentiment, though Pelosi's dragging the story out by changing her story,

twisting and turning which is drawing the story out and distracting from what should be the focus of the story: the Bush administration.

[ecstatic]

60. I blame some on our side for this fiasco

All the cries for hearings etc, and then when repugs try to flip things, we didn't even stand behind our own. To me, that indicates that some people need to STFU and let Obama and our congress do their thing.

[Infinite Hope]

64. I agree. Pelosi is throwing the party's agenda and appointments such as Peneta under the bus to...

try and spare herself. Even in her last press conference, she couldn't get her story straight and had to shuffle through notes to keep the story straight. It was an embarrassment. She should step aside because she's becoming a distraction to the Democrats' agenda, putting herself first.

[opihimoimoi]

63. Fucking Newt and his chiming in with SHE IS DESPICABLE shit...no longer believable??

What IS Believable is Torture was USED by Her and her staff....she is guilty of torturing the GOP with false hope...

The GOP believes they can stick it to Nancy with the SHE KNEW CARD...LOL....They sucked for Nancys ROPE A DOPE STRAT...

They went for the throat and now look like shit....

Newt has EGGS in his hair....as well as eggs for BALLS...

Neuter Newt

[justinaforjustice]

65. Pelosi is Irrelevant: Bush,Cheney, Rumseld, Feith, Et. al. Were in Power.

Why is Pelosi even being discussed here. She didn't have the power to start or stop the torture. We should be concentrating on the criminals who designed, implemented and lied to the American people about torture and all the other war crimes they committed.

[Infinite Hope]

67. Apparently you haven't read the post or comments. Your question has been answered a dozen times. n/t

[justinaforjustice]

68. No, The Diversion Continues.

Pelosi is a weak Democrat, Reid is much, much worse. They both should be replaced. Having said that, the torture issue is much too important to get diverted, as the Republicans want to do, to the issue of what Nancy Pelosi did or did not say and when she said or did not say it. This is a diversion from the Republicans horrific record of torture and other war crimes, which is where our attention should be focused. It is too early for the 2010 primaries which is where and when Nancy Pelosi should be discussed.

[Political Heretic]

66. I just think Pelosi is a spineless appeaser and I have since 2006.

Her latest save-face maneuvering isn't suprising to me at all. But I do think that the leadership chosen for the House and Senate says a LOT about Washington Democrats and none of it is good.

[jsamuel]

69. dude, her stories all match up

1. She said she wasn't briefed about waterboarding at 2002 meeting. (she wasn't)
2. She said that an aide of hers was briefed in 2003 and told her. (what you link to)

No contradiction there, you just aren't paying enough attention.

[kpominville]

70. Going after Pelosi on torture

is like going after the witness to a mugging while the mugger gets away.

[devilgrrl]

71. I compare it to blaming Roman Polanski for Sharon Tate's murder

Because that's really what it this all about. Pointing the finger elsewhere.

[Vidar]

72. Never was.