On May 16, 2:29*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:06:56 -0400, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys *have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. *She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. *Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. *It's
called a NDA. *When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. * She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. * She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. *It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. *As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. *Bush's time was
over. * *Both candidates .... Obama *and McCain *were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. * She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. *You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

You've never received briefings on classified material. You have no idea
what is said and how it is said. Any knowledge about classified
briefings on your part is hearsay.

And how would you know that?


You were too busy buying German screwdrivers to get any classified
briefings, idiot.

~snerk~

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

Is this what you consider dialogue?



--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:31:57 -0400, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:


She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be
elected with or without her involvement or position in Congress.
Bush's time was over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain
were and are on record has opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.
Except think timeline, the briefing meeting was back in 2003. Any work
to get Kerry elected failed, and, for the next 4 years, no one knew who
the 2008 candidates were going to be.
Except that Pelosi's comments today cannot be verified to have occurred
in 2003. Pelosi is trying to rewrite history but, she fails to
understand that the events she is attempting to rewrite never occurred.

Pelosi is now backtracking on her accusation that the CIA lied to her
and congress. I guess she didn't listen when she told her children that
honesty was the best policy. Or, she may not have told her children that
honesty was the best policy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Pelosi's veracity. She is a
politician, after all, but this particular point, about Obama and McCain
both being against torture, doesn't pin her in a lie.

Pelosi is a lightweight, and now damaged, but I don't see this bringing
her down, way too much wiggle room in her statements. There is also
danger for the Republicans trying to pin this on her. There weren't only
Democrats at that briefing. If Pelosi knew about torture, many in the
Republican leadership did also.

Spin it any way you want. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, called the
CIA liars one and all. The CIA doesn't like to be attacked like that and
they will not retaliate publicly but they will retaliate.

The Republicans did not call the CIA liars. The Republicans are smart
enough not to get into a public ****ing match with the CIA. Pelosi is
keeping the story on page one. Obama and Emanuel smell blood in the
water, they want their man, Steny Hoyer, sitting in the Speaker's
office. This isn't a Republican power play at this point.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:24:02 -0400, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:31:57 -0400, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:


She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be
elected with or without her involvement or position in Congress.
Bush's time was over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain
were and are on record has opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.
Except think timeline, the briefing meeting was back in 2003. Any work
to get Kerry elected failed, and, for the next 4 years, no one knew who
the 2008 candidates were going to be.
Except that Pelosi's comments today cannot be verified to have occurred
in 2003. Pelosi is trying to rewrite history but, she fails to
understand that the events she is attempting to rewrite never occurred.

Pelosi is now backtracking on her accusation that the CIA lied to her
and congress. I guess she didn't listen when she told her children that
honesty was the best policy. Or, she may not have told her children that
honesty was the best policy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Pelosi's veracity. She is a
politician, after all, but this particular point, about Obama and McCain
both being against torture, doesn't pin her in a lie.

Pelosi is a lightweight, and now damaged, but I don't see this bringing
her down, way too much wiggle room in her statements. There is also
danger for the Republicans trying to pin this on her. There weren't only
Democrats at that briefing. If Pelosi knew about torture, many in the
Republican leadership did also.

Spin it any way you want. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, called the
CIA liars one and all. The CIA doesn't like to be attacked like that and
they will not retaliate publicly but they will retaliate.

The Republicans did not call the CIA liars. The Republicans are smart
enough not to get into a public ****ing match with the CIA. Pelosi is
keeping the story on page one. Obama and Emanuel smell blood in the
water, they want their man, Steny Hoyer, sitting in the Speaker's
office. This isn't a Republican power play at this point.

You're reading too much into it. The play is to cover for Bush/Cheney
torture policy by making Pelosi the red herring.

Cheney was torturing people before they briefed congress.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:55:20 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

Is this what you consider dialogue?

WTF does it have to do with you? Can't you keep your nose out of
other folk's asses?

Was this a problem while growing up? Did your parents have to
discipline you and didn't they warn you that you could pick up
cooties?

BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:31:57 -0400, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:


She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be
elected with or without her involvement or position in Congress.
Bush's time was over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain
were and are on record has opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.
Except think timeline, the briefing meeting was back in 2003. Any work
to get Kerry elected failed, and, for the next 4 years, no one knew who
the 2008 candidates were going to be.
Except that Pelosi's comments today cannot be verified to have occurred
in 2003. Pelosi is trying to rewrite history but, she fails to
understand that the events she is attempting to rewrite never occurred.

Pelosi is now backtracking on her accusation that the CIA lied to her
and congress. I guess she didn't listen when she told her children that
honesty was the best policy. Or, she may not have told her children that
honesty was the best policy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Pelosi's veracity. She is a
politician, after all, but this particular point, about Obama and
McCain both being against torture, doesn't pin her in a lie.
Pelosi is a lightweight, and now damaged, but I don't see this
bringing her down, way too much wiggle room in her statements. There
is also danger for the Republicans trying to pin this on her. There
weren't only Democrats at that briefing. If Pelosi knew about
torture, many in the Republican leadership did also.

Spin it any way you want. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, called the
CIA liars one and all. The CIA doesn't like to be attacked like that and
they will not retaliate publicly but they will retaliate.

The Republicans did not call the CIA liars. The Republicans are smart
enough not to get into a public ****ing match with the CIA. Pelosi is
keeping the story on page one. Obama and Emanuel smell blood in the
water, they want their man, Steny Hoyer, sitting in the Speaker's
office. This isn't a Republican power play at this point.

This is pretty funny. The CIA is one of the least competent of federal
agencies...it ought to be trashed and a new intel agency formed, one
that might do better at gathering human intel and less involved in
trying to screw around with other countries.

"The republicans are smart enough..." Funniest laugh line of the year.
The republicans couldn't find their way out of a closet with a glass door.

jps wrote:


You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.
Is this what you consider dialogue?

WTF does it have to do with you? Can't you keep your nose out of
other folk's asses?

Was this a problem while growing up? Did your parents have to
discipline you and didn't they warn you that you could pick up
cooties?

I don't think you understand the concept of Usenet. This forum is set
up so anyone can comment in any thread. You were emphasizing the
importance of dialogue, yet when someone starts a dialogue, you say
"they have no authority from which to speak". Then you go and stick you
nose up my butt (as you so fondly like to say) because I was wondering
if that was your concept of a dialogue.

Now if you don't want people to comment on your illogical thought
processes, you need to take it to email. If your anger was only
directed at me, it might seem that I was the reason for your outburst,
but in reality, you have been on a soapbox for years. You never debate
any topic, you are just screaming so you can listen to yourself. I have
been around long enough to know I will not have any impact on your
lashing out at the world, so carry on.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

"HK" wrote in message
m...


This is pretty funny. The CIA is one of the least competent of federal
agencies...it ought to be trashed and a new intel agency formed, one that
might do better at gathering human intel and less involved in trying to
screw around with other countries.



Your statement is even funnier. What qualifies you to judge and declare the
competency of the CIA?
It's more accurate to state that you have very little knowledge, other than
media generated sensationalism that anyone can read or listen to, of what it
does.

Wouldn't it be more accurate and honest to state, "In my opinion .....?"

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


This is pretty funny. The CIA is one of the least competent of federal
agencies...it ought to be trashed and a new intel agency formed, one
that might do better at gathering human intel and less involved in
trying to screw around with other countries.



Your statement is even funnier. What qualifies you to judge and declare
the competency of the CIA?
It's more accurate to state that you have very little knowledge, other
than media generated sensationalism that anyone can read or listen to,
of what it does.

Wouldn't it be more accurate and honest to state, "In my opinion .....?"

Eisboch

I am still trying to figure out what is the advantage of trashing an
organization and forming a new one that will perform the exact same
function. Even if you believe an organization is incompetent, it makes
no sense to trash and start up a new organization to perform the exact
same function as the old organization. If you believe the current
organization is not working correctly, it makes sense to redefine the
mission of the organization, and then hire a management team and/or
retrain your managers and employees so they achieve those objectives.
Can you imagine what the labor unions would do if a corporations
"trashed" their employees and started up a new company every time they
had a bad quarter or if they needed to redefine their mission statement?


--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On May 17, 5:46*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...



This is pretty funny. The CIA is one of the least competent of federal
agencies...it ought to be trashed and a new intel agency formed, one that
might do better at gathering human intel and less involved in trying to
screw around with other countries.

Your statement is even funnier. *What qualifies you to judge and declare the
competency of the CIA?
It's more accurate to state that you have very little knowledge, other than
media generated sensationalism that anyone can read or listen to, of what it
does.

Wouldn't it be more accurate and honest to state, "In my opinion .....?"

Eisboch

Of course not. He get's his inside information from the Daley KOS and
Huffington Post. How much accuracy do you need to build such a
profound knowledge?