Hannity and O'Reilly conveniently ignore accusations that CIA misled Congress
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Though Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and their guests criticized Nancy Pelosi for alleging that the CIA gave her false information, they have yet to note the report by several Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee that CIA director Leon Panetta disclosed to them that the CIA withheld information from Congress for years during the Bush administration.
In May, Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and their guests sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for alleging that in 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) gave her false information about enhanced interrogation techniques, often suggesting it was ridiculous to claim the agency would ever deliberately mislead Congress. However, neither host has yet noted reports that in a closed-door meeting with members of the House Intelligence Committee, CIA director Leon Panetta disclosed that the CIA withheld information from Congress for years during the Bush administration.
In a July 10 article, The Washington Post reported:
Four months after he was sworn in, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta learned of an intelligence program that had been hidden from Congress since 2001, a revelation that prompted him to immediately cancel the initiative and schedule a pair of closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill.
The next day, June 24, Panetta informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the program and the action he had taken, according to Democratic and Republican members of the panels.
The incident has reignited a long-running dispute between congressional Democrats and the CIA, with some calling it part of a broader pattern of the agency withholding information from Congress.
The Post reported the reaction of Democrats:
"The full committee was stunned," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (Calif.).
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (Tex.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, called Panetta "a stand-up guy."
Eshoo said the intelligence panels should investigate how and why the program was concealed from Congress. Rep. Rush D. Holt (N.J.) suggested "a major commission" or other entity to conduct a much broader investigation of intelligence practices. "A lot of people are trying to turn this into an inside-the-Beltway political matter," Holt said, emphasizing that the dispute goes to the heart of the intelligence committees' oversight function.
While O'Reilly and Hannity have yet to address the reports, the hosts and their guests harshly criticized Pelosi for her allegation that the CIA had misled her, in some cases broadly rejecting the idea that the CIA would ever mislead Congress:
- On the May 14 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly hosted Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, who said of Pelosi's statements, "I think that is a very large and serious accusation to make. It's fraught with political peril. It's like accusing the IRS of some grave crime on national television. You know what's going to happen next. I mean, this is the speaker of the House accusing the CIA of lying. If you don't think the CIA is now going to find a way to disclose all the notes about the various times she was briefed, you've got another thing coming." O'Reilly responded, "Well, I already got a call from the CIA. I already got a call from them a couple hours ago, and what they say this is -- Ms. Pelosi is not telling the truth. She is impugning the agency. And the agency will correct the record, so you're absolutely right. I already got that call. But here's what I want to know. I think that most people understand that Ms. Pelosi is not telling the truth at this point. Now, how bad it is or what -- I don't know. I can't possibly say. What happens now? Can anything happen to her?"
- On the May 15 edition of his show, O'Reilly said of Pelosi, "Yesterday, she got hammered by the press because it looks like she simply did not tell the truth about being briefed on enhanced interrogations by the CIA. And even worse, Ms. Pelosi has called the Central Intelligence Agency liars. And that might not be a smart thing to do." O'Reilly later added, "Well, what does the Democratic Party do? Do they try to get her out of the House position because she's tainted? Look, everybody knows she didn't tell the truth unless you're a loon, unless you are crazy. So everyone -- all Americans know. So now we have a third in line for the presidency, a woman who has been publicly dishonest about a very important issue. So what do you do? Do they get her out of there? Or do they circle the wagons and try to protect her?"
- On the May 18 edition of his show, Hannity said of Pelosi, "I think just for national security purposes she's got to go because, first of all, she lied and then got caught, and then she accused the CIA of lying, which effectively renders them impotent in doing their job and keeping us safe, which I think really renders her -- she's not qualified for this position." Hannity also hosted Fox News contributor Dick Morris, who said, "But the basic point here is, Sean, Sean, is that Pelosi's days are numbered. You cannot have a Democratic speaker feuding with the Democratic CIA chief without the president looking terrible, and you're not going to remove the CIA director, for goodness sakes, and you can't leave him there. If you undercut him and you go with Pelosi -- Pelosi is expendable in this situation."
- On the May 20 edition of his show, Hannity invited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to discuss the controversy, and said, "Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Nancy Pelosi, you have said she is unworthy to be speaker. You said shame on her. You said she has made America less safe; she has damaged America's safety; she has made America less secure by sending a signal to men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them. And, every day we spend worrying about the political -- that she is being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities." Gingrich stated that Pelosi "went on to say that the CIA lies all the time to Congress. That is a terrible falsehood. It is illegal." He also stated: "I felt that, to smear every man and woman in our intelligence service who is out there risking their life trying to defend America from terrorists, trying to defend America from other major powers -- worried about North Korea, worried about Pakistan, worried about Iran -- for those folks to have, as speaker of the House, third in line to be president, somebody who had that level of contempt and that level of dishonesty was simply unacceptable." Hannity commented, "I agree wholeheartedly with everything you're saying."
From the May 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
SAMMON: I think that's a very large and serious accusation to make. It's fraught with political peril. It's like accusing the IRS of some grave crime on national television. You know what's going to happen next. I mean, this is the speaker of the House accusing the CIA of lying. If you don't think the CIA is now going to find a way to disclose all the notes about the various times she was briefed, you've got another thing coming.
O'REILLY: Well, I already got a call from the CIA. I already got a call from them a couple hours ago.
SAMMON: Well --
O'REILLY: And they say this is -- Ms. Pelosi is not telling the truth. She is impugning the agency. And the agency will correct the record, so you're absolutely right. I already got that call.
SAMMON: Well --
O'REILLY: But here's what I want to know. I think that most people understand that Ms. Pelosi is not telling the truth at this point. Now, how bad it is or what -- I don't know. I can't possibly say. What happens now? Can anything happen to her?
SAMMON: I think there's a real question about whether her speakership is in peril. And it's not because of Republicans. It's because of Democrats. She, you know, Bill, the torture debate is supposed to hurt Republicans. That's what it's all about.
O'REILLY: Yeah, it's hurting Democrats worse. Absolutely.
SAMMON: It's hurting Democrats.
O'REILLY: Sure.
SAMMON: And the Democrats are very, very acutely aware of that. She is now the story. She is standing in the way of any truth commission. She's standing in the way of any Department of Justice investigation or any congressional hearings into this because, you know, she's the issue. If -- at some point it may occur to Democrats that if she gets out of the way, they can get on with their show trials and their witch hunts to put it in critic words.
O'REILLY: Well, she's going to have to be put under oath.
But here's what worries me, Bill. If she's going to go out in front of the world and say that she was lied to, misled, and information was withheld from her, why wouldn't she say it on the witness stand under oath?
SAMMON: Not only that, it's a crime to lie to Congress. She's essentially accusing the CIA of criminal activity.
From the May 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-Up" segment tonight: These are tough days for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Yesterday, she got hammered by the press because it looks like she simply did not tell the truth about being briefed on enhanced interrogations by the CIA. And even worse, Ms. Pelosi has called the Central Intelligence Agency liars, and that might not be a smart thing to do. The once-powerful speaker losing friends fast. Only the far-left loons at MSNBC and radical left politicians like Congressman Jerrold Nadler are standing by her today.
The question: How badly will Ms. Pelosi be hurt in the long run? Joining us now from Washington, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who will be talking about this on Fox News Sunday.
So, today, Leon Panetta, and I know you have a copy of this memo -- Senate memo to the CIA employees which, of course, you got, I got. They leaked it to us, like, seconds after they got it. And Panetta is basically saying Pelosi is full of what?
WALLACE: Well, what he says first of all, this is really -- and it wasn't a matter of leaking, this was just put out to the press. It's a memo to the CIA, saying -- there's a long history of making political hay out of the CIA. And it reached a new decibel level. And then, he basically is saying to the members -- you know, remember, this is Barack Obama's appointee to be CIA director. He is saying we have nothing to apologize for. We haven't lied. And he says this, I just want to quote it specifically. "Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that the CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing," quote, "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Now, remember, this is the previous month. August of 2002, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
WALLACE: And he's saying that our contemporaneous records indicate that our briefers briefed Pelosi and briefed her truthfully on the techniques that had been employed.
O'REILLY: OK, so Panetta, a longtime Democratic operative and a very close friend of the White House, is throwing Nancy Pelosi overboard. The White House had to know he was going to do that before he did it. They had to approve it. So this says that Nancy Pelosi is in big trouble. How do you see it going forward?
WALLACE: Yeah. Well, I agree she's in trouble. Remember, Leon Panetta was a Democratic congressman from California. He was the chief of staff to Bill Clinton. And now he is Barack Obama's CIA director. And he is saying to the world, in addition to the CIA members, we told the truth. And the speaker, in effect -- he doesn't say that, but the speaker didn't.
O'REILLY: Right.
WALLACE: And so, you know, I think that with her -- I think yesterday she made a terrible mistake, and you're exactly right. You don't want to get in a fight with the CIA because they have all kinds of information and all kinds of ways of making it known explicitly and also through leaks. And I think they're going to fight back.
O'REILLY: OK, but let's --
WALLACE: And so I think you are going to have it --
O'REILLY: Let's take it to the political realm. Look, the CIA is not going to stand for this. And you'll never hear another word from Nancy Pelosi about the CIA. I can guarantee it. She'll never even mention it again.
Well, what does the Democratic Party do? Do they try to get her out of the House position because she's tainted? Look, everybody knows she didn't tell the truth unless you're a loon, unless you are crazy. So, I mean, all Americans know. So now we have a third in line for the presidency, a woman who has been publicly dishonest about a very important issue. So what do you do? Do they get her out of there? Or do they circle the wagons and try to protect her?
WALLACE: Well, the answer is nobody knows. And it depends on how it plays out.
From the May 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
MORRIS: Good to see you, and I have a video on there about Miss Pelosi right now. You can get it on that site.
HANNITY: All right. First, I think the most important question that you could explain to our audience, having been in a White House, is there any way the CIA director would come out against the speaker of the House of her own party and accuse her of lying without the approval of and without telling the administration ahead of time?
MORRIS: Yes, I think there is. I think that Panetta has a very specific task now, which is to win the respect and the affection of his agency because he has a reputation as a liberal, and the CIA doesn't like that type, and CIA's pretty important to the anti-terror strategy, and Obama wants Panetta to become popular with them. So I think Panetta probably played this one straight with the agency, and I'm not sure he asked the White House for permission to unload on Pelosi. I think he probably did that at the prompting of his agency.
But the basic point here is, Sean, is that Pelosi's days are numbered. You cannot have a Democratic speaker feuding with the Democratic CIA chief without the president looking terrible, and you're not going to remove the CIA director, for goodness sakes, and you can't leave him there. If you undercut him and you go with Pelosi -- Pelosi is expendable in this situation.
MORRIS: And --
MORRIS: The die is cast. You can't get into this kind of fight with the CIA and expect to win it.
HANNITY: Well, now, Steny Hoyer, it was revealed last week, he seemed to be pulling back from her. You don't really hear a lot of Democrats offering a really strong defense, but there's speculation, Dick, that it might go a little bit deeper inasmuch as maybe the White House wants a weakened speaker. Maybe -- or perhaps they want Steny Hoyer and will help him get that position. You don't think that's --
MORRIS: Well, that's -- that's possible. They don't want a weakened speaker. But what's going on in the House now is, you know, Hoyer lost by only 118 to 95. It was a pretty close vote -- Hoyer ran against Pelosi for speaker. And what's happening now is probably many of the people that voted with Pelosi but were in play and could have gone either way are now figuring that Hoyer will take over, so they're busy making sure that they're not too closely tied to Pelosi.
HANNITY: Yeah.
MORRIS: And I think that soon, some of Pelosi's friends like [Rep. John] Murtha [D-PA] and others are going to go to her and say, "Hey, Nancy, you better step aside."
Let's realize how low the bar is for a speaker. It's not like she's the head of an agency, it's not like she's vice president or head of a Cabinet. Her job is to pass the president's program, and the only word that counts with the speaker is the word "effective" or "ineffective." Those are the only two things she can be. And right now she is so distracted and so mired that she's ineffective, and when she goes to her members and say, "Toe the line," they say, "Well, how long are you going to be in office, lady? I think you're on your way out, so why should I listen to you?"
HANNITY: You see, I think she's now a huge liability. I think just for national security purposes she's got to go because, first of all, she lied and then got caught, and then she accused the CIA of lying, which effectively renders them impotent in doing their job and keeping us safe, which I think really renders her -- she's not qualified for this position.
From the May 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And we continue now with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Nancy Pelosi, you have said she is unworthy to be speaker. You said shame on her. You said she has made America less safe; she has damaged America's safety; she has made America less secure by sending a signal to men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them. And every day we spend worrying about the political -- that she is being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities. Well, I really -- explain that in detail why this is so important and why you have been so outspoken.
GINGRICH: Well, there are two parts to this. The first is Nancy Pelosi, as a San Francisco congresswoman, can believe anything she wants to. And she can be -- she can represent the kookiest wing of her constituency. And, as a congresswoman, that would be fine. There are 435 members of the House, and that we have a fair number at any given time on the right and the left might be a little bit unusual or a little bit out to lunch on certain issues.
But speaker of the House is the only constitutional office in the legislative branch. The speaker is third in line to be president. The speaker has a direct concern for national security. The speaker has to be available to be briefed on any issue that involves this country's future and to be briefed on secrets that are, frankly, pretty darn important. I thought that, measured as speaker of the House, what Speaker Pelosi did last Thursday was totally unacceptable. And if you watched the press conference, which I think is now available on YouTube, you will see how unacceptable it was.
The first issue was whether or not, in 2002, she was, as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, being given certain information. She claims she was not given it. Other people claim she was given it. That should be a matter for investigation by the House as to whether or not she's lying.
But the second thing she did was, in trying to defend herself, she went on to say that the CIA lies all the time to Congress. That is a terrible falsehood. It is illegal. And, in fact, I was very impressed on Friday when former Democratic congressman, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, Leon Panetta, now the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, sent out an email to all of his employees at the Central Intelligence Agency pointing out very explicitly -- this is a former Democratic congressman -- saying that they did brief in 2002 accurately; saying that it is a falsehood to suggest that the CIA lies to the Congress, that that is against the law, and the CIA, as an institution of the United States government, must obey the law.
I felt that to smear every man and woman in our intelligence service who is out there risking their life trying to defend America from terrorists, trying to defend America from other major powers -- worried about North Korea, worried about Pakistan, worried about Iran -- for those folks to have, as speaker of the House, third in line to be president, somebody who had that level of contempt and that level of dishonesty was simply unacceptable.
HANNITY: I -- I agree wholeheartedly with everything you're saying.
When He's on the hunt it feels like the last stand of Custer.
He's Hatred for pedophiles is starting to look like a Psychological dodge.
What is your truth O'Reilly? Where does your evil Lodge?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
First, they said that this was such a secret program that the CIA could keep it from Congress. First off, that's not true - this was not a super-secret program. But if it was, then what the heck was Panetta doing informing Congress about it?
Second, they said that it was never operational and therefore there was no need to inform Congress. But if that were true (and it's not, it was never fully implemented, but it went past the idea phase, and as such, had to be disclosed) then why did Panetta learn about it one day and tell the leaders of Congress about it the next day?
Either their arguments don't hold water, or Panetta really screwed up by informing the Congressional leadership about this super-secret not yet operational program.
Panetta did the right thing, and they aren't saying that he did the wrong thing. So, they are only bringing up invalid arguments to distract from the fact that Dick Cheney and George Bush disregarded the checks and balances built into our Constitution.
The Dems are playing politics with national security (to save Pelosi from being seen as an off the wall lying idiot). You would have thought that 9/11 would have taught the Dems something - like it's stupid to play politics with national security when you are engaged in a multi-faceted, multi-front belligerency.
The Dems ought to be trying to mend their fences with the CIA - the nation needs the Congress and the CIA to work together. Pelosi is a proven liar. Give it up, boys - it's a lost cause.
From what I hear, the CIA plays hardball - it will be interesting to see how these Democrat dimwits get hung out to dry when the time is right.
And so the saga continues.... The bush/cheney admin are getting closer and closer to inflicting their on demise. What idiots they couldn't even cover their own tracks. This is laughable!!! Truly Laughable!!!!
All this is only dimwitted democrats playing politics with national security. As one GOP Congressman said, the Democrats on that committee are in need of adult supervision.
That's like me not telling you that I thought about, but decided not to go to the Post Office yesterday, and you calling me a liar for not telling you. That is bizarre thinking, indeed. That is the logic of the Dems on the HSCI. They need adult supervision!
By that logic, it is impossible for the CIA to not lie to the Congress, because it is impossible to tell them (Congress) all the things they (the CIA) are not doing!
So, if you work for the CIA, what motivation do you have to do anything? None. if you do something, you are likely to be charged with perjury. If you do nothing, you are likely to be charged with perjury. Not since Jimmy Carter has the intelligence community been so maligned. And we are still suffering the effects of that fiasco.
But again, all you are trying to do is distract us from the true topic, the fact that Hannity and O'Reilly haven't talked about this issue at all. And considering their furvor to talk about this topic on other occasions, failing to mention this new aspect is conservative misinformation.
Just checking. Exactly how many times did Dick Cheney, the man put in charge of dealing with the threat of Bin Laden, meet to discuss the issue??
...and the Dems need adult supervision? Your revisionist history isn't working.
The Bush Admnistration didn't have a meeting of the adminstration principals involved in fighting terrorism scheduled for the first 8 months. That meeting was scheduled for 9/12.
Too little, too late. We'll never know if they could have stopped Bin Laden, but they could have tried harder to stymie terrorists before 9/11, and they didn't do their jobs well.
Bush put political needs ahead of concentrating on terrorism. History shows us that Clinton was right, that if Bush only did one thing, it needed to be fighting against terrorism. And history shows us that Bush and Cheney fell down on the job.
Your revisionist history won't work, Ed. You're the tool here.
Where did you get that? Can you provide legitimate links to back that up? Or is this just another example of a conservative pulling something out of his ...?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718513104720457.html (That's the link copied from above)
"Mr. Panetta must feel burned. After the Pelosi blow-up, he has tried to repair relations with his own party's Congressional leaders, and last month he reached out to the Intelligence Committee. 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. But this is the "at least one case" Mr. Reyes claims his committee was "lied to" about in the Bush years." (italics mine)
Too bad.
"But one U.S. intelligence official, speaking to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity Friday, said that Panetta briefed lawmakers within about a day of learning about the program — as soon as he could bring members of the oversight committee together for a meeting.
This official characterized the program as "on-again, off-again over the years,"and said that it "never went fully operational."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24775.html#ixzz0KznMAEMp&D
That's not a program that was "considered, then abandoned'. That's equivalent to a criminal conspiracy that stopped, but the conspiracy still existed.
And the Sunday papers have more details!
"Intelligence and congressional officials told the newspaper the agency began the program after the September 11 attacks and said it never became operational and did not involve CIA interrogation programs or domestic intelligence activities.
"The CIA withheld information about a secret counter-terrorism program from Congress for eight years on orders from former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney."
So, the program began. They had an obligation when the program began to tell Congress. They didn't only have an obligation to tell Congress when the program became fully operational.
That's the flaw in your argument today. I have never seen you have an argument that didn't have a huge hole in it, so at least you are consistent that way.
And remember, the topic being discussed before you tried to derail the conversation was the failure of Hannity and O'Reilly to cover this story. There IS a story here.
The HSCI Dems have accused the CIA of lying because they didn't report something they didn't do. Anyone with even 1/2 a brain can see the charges ludicrous. The motives are plainly political and reprehensible.
Do you ever engage in anything but ad hominem attacks?
"The author is doing the same thing he is accusing the Democrats of doing. It's just baseless attacks on Pelosi and the Dems."
Just for your illumination, Pelosi wasn't the subject of this piece - it's about Silvestre Reyes, the Dem Chairman of the HSCI. These people from Obama down, are totally incompetent.
It was a program that was on again, off again. It was a program that was started but never became fully operational.
And the CIA had an obligation to inform those in Congress when they began the program.
But remember, the real story being covered here, the story you are so desperately trying to distract us from, is that Hannity and O'Reilly haven't mentioned this. Supposedly they are incredibly concerned about whether or not the CIA was lying to Congress. Once this story came out, they should have covered it if they were truly concerned about whether or not Congress was being lied to. Lies of omission are lies too.
And everyone should recognize your desperate attempts to derail the conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?hp
The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.
The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.
Congressional leaders have to be kept fully informed, and should be told about planned actions, not just actual actions. There was planning that went on and off for multiple years. Cheney told the CIA to hide that. As soon as Panetta found out about this, he put an end to it, but even though he put an end to it, he still reported it. Why? Because a potential activity has to be disclosed too. A criminal conspiracy that doesn't actually come to fruition is still a criminal act. A potential spy operation that doesn't get fully implemented still needs to be disclosed to the leaders of Congress.
But the issue is that Hannity and O'Reilly have not mentioned this! Thanks for showing that you're trying to derail the conversation.
But the issue is that Hannity and O'Reilly have not mentioned this! Thanks for showing that you're trying to derail the conversation.
As Ed's heroes on FOX prove on a daily basis,you can take any given known fact and by twisting it slightly,just out of alignment turn it into if not an outright lie,something "worthy" of suspicion or fear,or even outright hatred.
The first three or four weeks I posted here, I tried to do just that. Engage in conversation. Every single time I posted anything that was not in total agreement with the article in question, I was immediately a troll, and called everything from an idiot to a nazi. It never failed. There are a core of regular posters here..yourself, the Col, OnceyougoBarack, and of course, the biggest idiot of all Easy to refute.
Most of the time none of you can even begin to imagine that someone else may have even close to a valid point. It is nothing more than name calling and attacks. So in regards to your great question of why we post here, and why we post the way we do, perhaps you and some of the others should examine what you post in response to others here. Until that happens, your argument falls on deaf ears.
One of my first posts on the Ricci case was simply that "justice was done" That got me labeled a racist, a skin head, a nazi, and I was told I only care about the white man. That's your idea of a "conversation".
Not that I think you really care about a conversation, but I have given you an honest response. Lets see how well it is received here.
We don't demand that you agree with our political philosophy. We demand that you respect the truth and don't push nonsense as facts.
We've seen many times when people claim that they are attacked for their positions. It's not true. People are attacked for their abuse of reality. People are attacked for their lies and distortions.
We would treasure true interaction from a conservative voice. But, truth be told, a true conservative who honored the truth would have to agree with virtually everything that MMfA posts here, because all they do is show examples of conservative misinformation! It's not our fault that reality has a liberal bias. We'll share the truth with anyone from the right. All you have to do is embrace the truth. Bring facts to the table. It's quite simple.
Three points.
First. A couple days ago you said almost no one here makes nazi references against conservatives. Read the threads, they are all over the place. In addition, look at the attacks made against anyone who does not agree with the positions posted here. You are either choosing not to see them, or have grown so used to them , that they do not register as offensive anymore.
Second. You know as well as I do, that the stories posted here are usually just the beginning. A true conservative or a true liberal should question EVERYTHING MMFA posts. Everyone is trying to sell you something, MMFA is no different. That fact that you say anyone should agree with virtually everything MMFA posts is indeed scary. Like the conservative's bias they claim to report on, the stories posted here are often open to honest debate. This very story on Pelosi is no different. There are those that claim she was at the briefing, and those that claim she was not. There are documents that seem to back her up, and those that do not. Rarely, are any of the stories posted here black or white, with clear answers.
Finally, for you to claim that you would "treasure" true interaction with a conservative voice, and then turn around and claim that reality has a "liberal bias" is just plain sad. It demonstrates that in fact, you are only open to, and only treasure those that agree with you. That is not discussion and interaction. That is what you claim the Bush admin did for 8 years, listening to only those voices they agree with, and silencing the others. Neither liberals or conservatives own reality or truth.
As for your demand that I and others respect the truth, I always have and always will respect the truth. You have no right however, to demand that anyone accepts your version of the truth.
That's why I try to get people to stop feeding the trolls.
"CIA has Lied To Congress" - gotta dig for it in July...
Don't be fool EdRoss.
What some people (including at least some of the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Intelligence) don't seem to be aware of of is that we are engaged in a world-wide battle with a terrorist organization that has every intent to do American citizens serious harm. (Come to think of it, a Democrat on an intelligence committee is rather an oxymoron :) )
it looks like the Democrats are more interested in doing harm to our intelligence community than they are in doing harm to our enemies.
That is beyond stupid. IT is you being a brainwashed moron. Spewing your hatred with baseless assertions and basic stupidity. I have yet to read a single post you have ever made worth the waste of life it takes to read. You are nothing but a troll. All you come here to do is slander Democrats and the left since you really arent bright enough to contribute in any meaningful way. You are a sad joke who hasnt even got a dim idea what you are talking about.
Someday, perhaps you will have the opportunity to have someone read a book to you and you will discover what the term 'ad hominem' means.
The harm the Dems on the HSCI are doing to our intelligence community is painfully evident to anyone not blinded by their political agenda. The fact that you don't see it speaks eloquently to your slavery to an agenda, rather than to truth.
And what damage are we doing calling an agency that lies an agency that lies?
It does not mean anything that hurts your feelings personally or points out your stoopidity..
Ad Hominem:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
As you may be aware, Col., calling someone a moron is not answering the argument, it is an attack on character.
Hope I've helped you understand. I'm not counting on it.
Did you notice Ed that THOSE are ad hominems? Did you really then come in and snivel like a little girlscout that we didnt treat YOU respectfully after your rude and ignorant insults? Grow up. We all know you liked it better when it was only conservatives making the rude insults but those days are gone. If you come here and get nasty get ready for a return serve the WWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHH you keep serving up after YOU have been so rude is just pathetic
Why are you giving the extremists in the Arab world more power than they deserve? Are you that frightened?
These people don't have super powers - they used box cutters to take over a plane. Second, the only reason why such an unsophiscated attack was able to occur is that we had Bush the ignoramus in office. The guy received numerous warnings in the summer of 2001 from our allies of an impending attack using planes and he did absolutely nothing.
Does it not seem ludicrous, if that is the case, for the Dems to do their very best to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? When Pelosi lied and accused the CIA of 'misleading' her, she declared war on them. They are now spending their time trying to defend themselves from baseless and ludicrous charges from adolescents Democrats on the HSCI instead of using their talents to protect our nation.
The democrats have fallen off their tricycles, and they are going to get bruises (probably so will innocent Americans).
They act at the behest of the administration in charge. They're not suppose to run off and do their own thing.
No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it true. The CIA are known liars. I'll take her word over the CIA.
The charges are well warranted. And if people at the CIA are going to cry because someone accuses them of lying, I really don't think they're up to the task of defending the nation.
She said they didn't tell her.
That is a lie, political posturing at the expense of national security. Now Reyes has compounded the error.
These new charges are transparently political in motive and ludicrous on their face.
Yes, the CIA has documentation of their meetings with Pelosi, et al. This is in the form of notes that were transcribe after the fact (their definition). Even their own notes appear to be slightly inaccurate about who attended, what was discussed, etc. This can be debated (?) back and forth forever and never resolved. Did the CIA lie? They have pretty much admitted that. Have an investigation (if neccessary) and try to get to the bottom of it. Let the people in charge do their job. If they don't satisfy the people who elected them, vote them out of office!
After reading several of your postings here I have to comment that we all need to take a step back and remember why and how the constitution was set up. There are three branches of government for a reason, checks and balances. I, for one, do not want the president to have unlimited power to do whatever he wants, even when he feels it is neccessary. Congress needs to keep and eye on the presidentcy and the justice department (SCOTUS) need to help keep congress in check (as well as presidency). Granted 99% of the politicians that are out there are in office for their own good, not yours. (my personal opinion) This would be regardless of party.
They act at the behest of the administration in charge. They're not suppose to run off and do their own thing.
No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it true. The CIA are known liars. I'll take her word over the CIA.
The charges are well warranted. And if people at the CIA are going to cry because someone accuses them of lying, I really don't think they're up to the task of defending the nation.
I misread your rambling. Now who said the intelligence community doesn't make a valid contribution? Everyone in government makes a valid contribution except conservatives.
It's people like you, Ed, who help the cause of the terrorists by pushing the Bush methods and attacking Obama's much saner approach.
But--of course--she can't prove any such thing, since she was not allowed to take any notes of the meetings.
Boehner must know that. He's playing cheap politics with a very important issue, and the mainstream media aren't challenging him on it.
Wish everyone would boycott Fox News endorsers until Hannity and O'Rielly make an admission that they were wrong.
They were screaming that Pelosi should be fired for lying. There is plenty of proof that they have been lying for years. They should be fired for lying.
I also hope that Congress also follows up on investigating Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deals with companines he oversaw. And what about Charles Schummer causing a run on the banks to aid in creating that October surprise in September. Speaking of which, how about looking into what country or individual wealthy(GS, maybe?) enough, drew down on their accounts in mutual funds in a matter of hours @550 Billion dollars. Look into that too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4&feature=related
And what about Rep Jefferson's frozen assests? He's indicted yet still allowed to serve in Congress by Democrat leadership. Thank goodness the citizens of New Orleans finally acted and replaced him.
Or Rep Rangel tax finaggling? He is still serving yet has questionable ethical issues.
If the CIA lied to congress, someone should go to jail. If congress is lying about CIA briefings, then they should go.
But, we have learned long ago that when your a democrat, things are different.
Just let it run its course, maybe he'll make some sense tomorrow.
Har. I love when the wingnuts assume regular people are as easily distracted as they are.
Yes, and I just received a call from the Kremlin!
And oh, look! The Easter Bunny called Santa Claus!
The fact that O'Reilly, an insignificant, glorified paparazzi, wants people to believe he's got a bat-phone in his office & gets calls from the CIA & Commissioner Gordon, is pathetic enough, but the fact that his mouth-breathing, Confederate-flag-waving, audience BELIEVES he's got high-level government contacts proves just how insane the whole "FOX Fantasy World" is.
It's not surprising O'Reilly isn't man enough to admit he was wrong and Pelosi was right. This is, afterall, a "man" who uses a dildo to get off!
Family values, just like Jesus preached!
Whatever her motive for lying was, she lied.
She was not coerced into lying, she called a press conference and lied. Your friends in the MSM caught her in the lie. It's on video - you could even watch her lying if you cared to.
The upshot of her lying, and Reyes' covering for her, is that the relationship of the CIA and the Congress is now even more rancorous.
Panetta is in a tough position. If he doesn't stand up to these adolescents, they will ruin our intelligence capabilities. If he does stand up to them, he makes some very prestigious members of his own party and the government's leadership look like lying fools.
And surely, our enemies are watching, and laughing at the ineptness of this administration and the Congressional leadership.
So it's your position that the CIA will put the country in danger because they can't take criticism?
And they never will. They will never talk about any report that makes Bush or any other Republican look bad.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fox%20argues%20right%20lie
The problem with your strawman argument is two-fold. First, Reyes et al haven't done anything that makes them look stupid, incompetent, or unwise.
Secondly, the issue here is the fact that O'Reilly and Hannity were supposedly interested in the issue of whether or not the CIA was lying to Congress. When there appeared to be some question about if Pelosi was telling the truth about the CIA lying, they were all about promoting their spin that she was caught lying about the CIA. Now that it's been pretty well proven that the CIA was not properly informing the Congressional leadership (remember, Panetta shut down the on again, off again program, then came to Congress and told them about it because they should have already been told about it while it was a potential effort), and therefore the CIA was lying by omission (exactly what Pelosi claimed they were doing), O'Reilly and Hannity are silent.
And what does that tell us - what does being silent on this new info tell us? It tells us that they weren't interested in covering this issue in a fair way. They wanted to cover it when they could make Pelosi look bad. Once she is vindicated, which has now happened, they haven't touched the story.
Conservative misinformation at its finest.
And you KEEP trying to distract us from the topic here. No wonder about why.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fox%20argues%20right%20lie
Just like Mc Carthy. These are some of the sickest Americans to speak out in this country. while I believe in free speech, sometimes it's really hard to accept what these idiots have to say. And at the same time I know about the "know your enemy" but I really don't want to waste my energy reading the garbage they spew. I also realize that one has to keep up on these bums, but it's so hard to watch these creeps continue to spout their hatred. I know there is no such thing as Utopia, but some people should be seen and not heard. After the last Administration and all the dirt that is finally coming out. Lock these bastards away and give them a taste of their own medicine that they continue to speak of. And President Obama, I voted for you, what's up with the detainees? That's a big time Bush league move. Are you really going to continue what the worst President in recent history started? I sometimes wonder what I did. I also vote Democrat and short of the second coming Hitler, race or gender doesn't change my vote, so get it together, cause I'm having big doubts about what's going on and I don't like being ashamed of whom I voted for.
Kimberly Velasquez