CIA Director Leon Panetta struck back at Speaker Nancy Pelosi today in a memorandum to CIA employees saying that she was fully and truthfully briefed in 2002. He indirectly accuses Pelosi of “making hay out” of the CIA and misrepresenting her briefing for political purposes. I discussed the Pelosi story last night on this segment of Countdown.
In his memorandum below, Panetta says “Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”
He adds “[u]ltimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.” Leaving this growing controversy to Congress with its continued machinations and manipulations is ridiculous. It is time for a special prosecutor who will not be hampered by grants of congressional immunity and leaked intelligence.
Message from the Director:
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.
For the full story, click here.
‘Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.’
Now rendition and torture are within those laws and values, Leon? Just making sure I have everything clear here…
Here’s a link on CNN that also speaks about this issue
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Do the lies surrounding the reasons for the invasion of Iraq count as misleading Congress? Or was that just misleading the American public?
CIA can and will, no doubt, remain focused as long as what they are tasked with passes legal muster. Under Obama it does.
And unless they were involved directly and knowingly with the misadventures wrought by ‘The Dicks’/George’slam-dunk’ Tenet administrations, they will be covered.
Those of us who are on the same team will make sure of it.
“Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”
Slam Dunk, Leon!!!
Leon Panetta would do wel to remember Geroge H.W. Bush’s advice
to him when he took on the position Congress would do well to return the same courtesy…
http://intelligence.senate.gov/090205/panetta.pdf
… ” In preparing for this day, I had the opportunity to talk with most of the former Directors of CIA. They gave me excellent advice and shared many lessons learned, especially President George H.W. Bush, who ran CIA and, later, was its most important
consumer. They all told me to listen carefully to the professionals at the Agency, but also to stay closely engaged with Congress. If confirmed, that is exactly what I intend to
do…”
I will be satisfied with nothing less than the full disclosure of the relevant facts and the prosecution of those who broke the law, regardless of political affiliation. Such a prosecution should be conducted only with a passion to see the law served and not as an opportunity to mill political capital. If there are mitigating circumstances, let them be weighed by a judge and jury in open court, not by sycophantic hand wringing and deliberate misdirection in the media. If this selfish game continues unabated, America Loses her heart and soul.
MAS,
That is very well said.
Like wise, thanks MAS.
Say hi to FAT BOY Keith Olbermann for us.
re: Your comments about Cheney asking someone be “wateboarded”:
Turley, apparently you missed Duelfer on rachel maddows show when he stated that it was nothing MORE THAN AN INQUIRY BY CHENEY’S STAFF AS TO WHETHER HARSH INTERROGATION HAD BEEN USED!
Duelfer clearly stated that when the response was negative on harsh interrogation the office of the VP dropped the suggestion.
You see Turley, you left winger, it was a question, not a REQUEST, not an ORDER, not a DEMAND, it was a QUESTION.
In other words, Cheney’s office asks if the subject had harsh interrogation used on him in an effort to get information. When the response was negative that was the end of the questions from the VP’s office!
PS. this was SADDAM’s information minister, a man no doubt guilty of the murder of many MANY Iraquis.
All this proves is that you really can’t trust anyone having anything to do with the government. The CIA has a long history of hiding its activities from lawmakers. Lawmakers have a long tradition of lying about everything under the sun. Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Throw them all into the fire.
Director please. Who in the Agency has he been talking to and who does he think he’s talking to with these statements? The CIA has two functions; intelligence and operations. Operations is where the rocknroll happens. It’s their job to lie, cheat. steal, manipulate, agitate, subvert and when deemed necessary, kill. To say the CIA wouldn’t lie to Congress flies in the face of a significant part of its job. It’s a lie on its face.
Do I believe Pelosi didn’t know or have reason to believe that torture was an active aspect of the program? Srsly, even I’m not that stupid.
matthew n. Where do you get your information that the CIA has a long history of hiding activities? THE DAILY KOS MORONS or the HUFFINGTON POST LOSERS?
You low life. The CIA is filled with dedicated loyal Americans 500 times the person you and the other half dozen hanger on’s that post in support of the left winger Turley are.
Oh man, what a pack of two bit losers. Now the CIA is your enemy!
Oh man, what a pack of two bit losers. Now the CIA is your enemy!
So far everything in America is your enemy except Democrats, Liberals, and naive old Obama.
kelly:
Which Christian Conservative Univ will you be donating your troll wages to?
Just off the top of my head: Iran-Contra (direct violation of the Boland Amendment, passed by the Congress), illegally mining harbors and bombing air stations/power plants in Nicaragua, spying on citizens illegally (thought its entire history), attempts to subvert/overthrow Cuban rule (Bay of Pigs), all the stuff in the Family Jewels reports, illegal experimentation on humans using LSD without their consent/knowledge…
I’m not going to even bother listing anymore areas where the CIA blatantly broke the law and (most of the time) acted either independently of oversight, with only the executive branch aware of their activities, or without any oversight from anyone higher than the CIA director. These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. If you really want to see all the illegal/deceptive activities the CIA has engaged in, there are more than enough resources out there for you to look them up for yourself. Don’t take this the wrong way. I don’t necessarily disagree with the actions of the CIA (although I would say I don’t agree with most of them), but I do take issue with the fact that the CIA seeks to hide its activities from oversight over and over again. Now, Director Panetta claims that the CIA never misleads the public or lawmakers. This is wholly untrue. They may have undergone changes over the last decade or so, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but the CIA has a long and storied history that requires one to view any claims they make with a great degree of skepticism.
All of this is exacerbated by the politicization of justice. We need an independent court and Justice Department so bad. All these liars and cheaters are unwilling to prosecute each other because everyone has had their fingers in these rotten pies. When everyone in power is dirty or at least complicit, there is no will to enforce the law. We need an independent prosecutor who is willing to throw every single one of these people to the wolves. Throw them all in jail and clean house for all I care. Justice is not a partisan issue.
Like the CIA would know the truth if it spit in their face.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/rip-rubber-stamp-congress.html
The kelly trilogy … BS in triplicate …
With all due respect to Mr. Panetta, he doesn’t have a clue as to how many briefings were conducted and what was said to whom. He wasn’t there, and I’m not particularly interested in his second-hand analysis of selective paperwork. He is attempting to bolster the morale of his employees, as he should. And while I have no great admiration for Rep. Pelosi, I have a great deal of respect for the honesty and integrity of Sen. Graham. His statements reflect that the CIA can’t even get their dates straight on the briefings. So who knows what else we’ll discover as the facts continue to unfold. Let’s wait and see.
Jonathan,
At the bottom of the Panetta column you said you would be talking about the Pelosi development on Countdown tonite. You didnt’ mention Panetta once.
Are you there to be a mouthpiece for Olberman, or are you allowed to comment on what you think is pertinent? Leon Panetta doesn’t have a dog in this fight. Do you think he has had this moment where he feels the need to attack Pelosi?
If there are mitigating circumstances, let them be weighed by a judge and jury in open court, not by sycophantic hand wringing
—
Jill, MAskeptic was referring to you.
Get a clue…
This is good, one points the finger at the other. The other points the finger at the Mothers. The Mothers now point their fingers at the Muthers and now we know who they are.
How many chairs do you need to start this musical? I can dance, watch me now.
Patty,
That was some nice cherry picking there.
“…not by sycophantic hand wringing and deliberate misdirection IN THE MEDIA.” (emphasis mine)
Those pesky subjects never add anything to sentences anyway, and it’s much easier to make things say what you want if you don’t feel obligated to quote them in their entirety.
Leon Panetta is doing a very good job at trying to impress the CIA lifers that he is their friend. Mike A. hit the nail on the head when he brought up the statement by former Senator Bob Graham who said the CIA screwed up their dates with him. I am of the opinion that the screw up wasn’t a screw up. It was intentional. The CIA under Bush had no intention of keeping Congress fully briefed on these activities because they knew it was illegal. That is why they insisted on getting written authorization from the Bush regime. They wanted their “get out of jail” card before they tortured the detainees.
It is really amazing how the trolls show up when torture is the subject. What are you trolls afraid of? If Bush and the CIA were not guilty of anything, why do they not want an investigation? Could they be afraid of what the public will find out and who may go to jail once more facts are in the public forum? It is time for Panetta to shut up and let the facts come out in a full investigation. If any CIA official go to jail, they will have plenty of company when the Bush people who authorized the torture will be joining them.
I did quote them in their entirety.
My emphasis was being given to the constant ‘hand-wringing’
- which I have been complaining about with regard to JILL
for more than a full year now…
If anybody is using the media make a point, it’s Jill.
I stand on my own. If you notice I speak for myself and don’t
others, like Glenn Greenwald or even JT to back up my thinking.
I think Jill is a nincompoop!
There, I said it again…
My God the total ignorance here. God Bless the CIA. Nancy Pelosi will burn in hell for the damage she has caused this Nation.
Eric the infallible
Attorney General Eric Holder before the House Judiciary Committee by Republican Reps. Dan Lungren and Louis Gohmert on the definition of torture. “In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer,” Connie Hair repots, “Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture.” Lungren wondered: Are Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training being tortured?
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.
McCarthy pauses here to note that the Spanish Inquisition lacked a torture statute — as did the United States until 1994, and that to this day federal torture law leaves waterboarding unmentioned. As Hair notes, Gohmert then continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make sense of the attorney general’s “tortured logic.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?
Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.
Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?
Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?
Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.
Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.
Holder appears to have considerable difficulty applying the logic of his answer regarding trainers waterboarding SEALs to interrogators waterboarding detainees. The source of the difficulty is probably political rather than intellectual. Whatever the source, it provides further evidence in support of Paul Mirengoff’s assertion that Holder is probably not infallible.
Gallup: More Americans Pro-life Than ‘Pro-choice’ for First Time since polling began
May 15, 2009 – 09:36 ET
What a difference a radical, in your face, abortion-promoting president makes.
For the first since it began surveying the question, a clear minority of Americans who are still euphemistically “pro-choice” on the question of abortion, just 42%. Pro-life has leaped to 51%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
Yes Kelly, a lot of us here are Pro-Life. We are against capital punishment. Glad you could join in. But then you should could have been a product of selective reproduction and wouldn’t know the difference. Did you know Dollie per chance? Did you mama go Ewe too? and did you sister Blee or was it just Baaaaaaaa.
Kelly,
Once again, I think you are losing sight of the facts on waterboarding. The United States prosecuted waterboarding after WWII and in the Vietnam era. The Reagan Justice Department prosecuted a Texas sheriff for waterboarding in the 1980′s. But you can keep believing that waterboarding is legal. I don’t want to wake you from your fairy tale.
rafflaw, get the hell out of here with your phony “we prosecuted for waterboarding after WW2″. By now EVERY American knows that is a lie. We prosecuted those that BEAT and tortured civilians our troops with bats, burned our soldiers & civilians with cigarettes, and other very terrible actions.
Good lord you losers here are losing the entire argument. Do you think ANYONE with a brain doesn’t understand that anybody with a clue is behind the President on waterboarding THREE terrorists to get information?
Keep it up rafflaw, it is costing you DEARLY in the political game. DEARLY! America has more common sense about this and that is what you are missing, simpleton.
anonymously yours:
so tell me what crime babies have done to mankind that they deserve the death penalty but a murderer doesn’t…..
anonymously; you are a true jerk.
kelly,
I am a conservative Republican. I am also Pro-Choice and Pro-Capital Punishment (hang ‘em high).
When I am alone maybe, just a little extra on the side. You probably claim to be a Christian? Yes? Read what St. Francis had to say about conception.When life began. I bet you like the Oriental, does life begin in the womb and you are one year old when you are born? Then report back here.
AY:
Your patience with kelly is as admirable as it is useless. kelly, you see, is one those “don’t trouble me with facts” types who have all the answers. He/she/it has the Bible, Rush Limbaugh, and a copy of the National Review, and all else is “liberal lies.” Great truth in the bromide, “He is truly blind, who will not see.”
Kelly,
You don’t want to get into an argument that actually deals in facts do you?? Here is just one link for you to read concerning the alleged lies that you mentioned. You might not want to read it because it does say you are wrong…..again.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Mespo72Cubed.
You’re right. I just like having fun with the trolls, change the story line and they say the same thing. Obtuse would be a word to use?
So how are you doing sir?
Looks like FF LEO was getting picked on tonight. He has been nothing but respectful and cautioning when appropriate. He uses fewer words than Mr. Florida aka Mike Spindell but just as effective.
Mike S was getting yelled at for some reason and not too nicely, I may add either.
What has happened to Buddha?
It appears all the others are accounted for, mostly.
AY:
I am just checking in too. I also wonder where Buddha has floated off to today. I suspect he is lurking in the ether awaiting his chance to pounce on some self-absorbed troll.
well sir you do good and we will chat manana. Off to the netherlands for me. No Michael Jackson may not come I am too old.
AY:
Dum loquimor fugerit invida aetas.(Even as we speak, time speeds swiftly away.)
–Horace
Enjoy your slumber.
I’ve decided that our troll (After yesterday’s “oops” of posting the same thing twice under two different name, I’m just going to use the singular) is just brilliant satirist.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
My God, now Keith Olbermann has a segment he names WTF on his little watched show.
Bet Turley’s family is impressed with being a guest on a TV show…
with a WTF segment……….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
uh, maybe Turely doesn’t know what the acronym W T F stands for…………
Talk about being on LOW CLASS TV network.
Mespo, you are such a bogus intellect.
BigEasy:
This is a standard warning about a lack of civility and personal attacks on this site. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, you need to move to one of the many other sites that delight in such attacks. Mespo remains one of the most consistently polite regular posters on this site and should expect that same civility from others. Please work with us in keeping this site passionate but civil.
Patty, again, please avoid the personal attacks on Jill. I cannot play favorite for regulars in asking for the discussion to avoid such personal asides. Thanks for your contributions in the past and your help on maintaining the tenor of the site.
JT
Big Easy:
please provide examples for your claim. Making a statement like that with no backup seems to me to be pretty bogus. Mespo can do rings around your dialectic standing on his head smoking a cigar and having a glass of wine while reading De Officius.
your a light weight, change the handle to “Small and Breezy” or “Lite and Sleazy”
Big Easy:
“Mespo, you are such a bogus intellect.”
***************
Come now, Big Easy is entitled to his opinion. Sometimes my classical bent can be a bit putting off, but I am a product of my experiences and Sr. Francis’ Latin class is one of them. Maybe I can change his mind, but if not, no matter.
Thank you to my passionate defenders, but I enjoy the challenge if BE cares to discuss a topic that involves more than his unsubstantiated opinion. Recall my Emerson quote: I’ll assume intelligent life until BE gives me reason to think otherwise.
“Leon Panetta is doing a very good job at trying to impress the CIA lifers that he is their friend. Mike A. hit the nail on the head when he brought up the statement by former Senator Bob Graham who said the CIA screwed up their dates with him.’
As usual Rafflaw and Mike A. have an excellent understanding of the context behind the headlines.
“Rafflaw, get the hell out of here with your phony “we prosecuted for waterboarding after WW2″. By now EVERY American knows that is a lie.”
Kelly,
Either you are a congenital liar or you are totally ignorant, perhaps both.
“Big Easy:
“Mespo, you are such a bogus intellect.”
Mespo, You always seemed quite intelligent to me, but when a
famed braniac like Big Easy says not….What am I to think?
“He uses fewer words than Mr. Florida aka Mike Spindell but just as effective. Mike S was getting yelled at for some reason and not too nicely, I may add either.”
Ay, I’ve just answered 6 comments in 65 words, despite your contention of wordiness.
Mike S.,
Very economical posting!
Mike S:
Agreed,it’s poetry in posting!!
I aint never takin’ sides never agin’ in this pack of jackals…
I propose a penalty for incivility in posting. We ar eon our honor to comply. I suggest the follwoing:
1.
mespo727272
I propose a penalty for incivility in posting. We ar eon our honor to comply. I suggest the follwoing:
1.
**************************
Anything like the rule of law?
Let’s do something useful with some of this vitriol. I propose a penalty for incivility in posting. We are on our honor to comply. I suggest the following:
1. A $5.00 donation to a pre-determined charity of your choice if called down by two or more fellow bloggers (trolls do not count).
2. A $10.00 donation if called down by JT.
3. Donations payable within 10 days.
4. Anonymous donations ok too.
My charity is “Save The Children.” Any takers?
AY:
Exactly like it.
Well….
FF Leo, Mespo et al
I guess I owe a lot so far. LOL.
Mespo:
I will go for it as long as I dont have to send money to Anonymous.
No AnonY, We will look forward, not back…
Exactly we are moving forward. There is no down side. If we can’t control ourselves, we benefit someone else. If we restrain ourselves the debate improves. Who can argue with that?
M72,
Here is what I propose instead of the honor system. How about a PayPal account that someone, perhaps Professor Turley, or some other regular here has available?
Mespo:
how about with one consideration-you can insult the other person as long as it is in latin, is not foul language and is grammatically correct.
This serves two purposes:
1. makes you feel better
2. keeps latin alive
it is win win
mespo727272
Who can argue with that?
****************************
I can, I am just not paid by the word here.
FF LEO,
I just happen to have a pay pal account that you can use.
FFLeo:
I like your idea better. Let’s see if JT will go along.
Bron98:
I like the Latin idea too.
Okay M72,
I assume that you will ask Prof T. if he can put a PayPay button on this blawg and as you know Larry offered to spiff-up the title page.
FF LEO,
Use my Pay Pal. I am trying to help Bernie and the Widows and Orphans Fund. That is a Good Charity, I will assure you.
AnonY,
If we have a PayPal button on this blawg then we all will have one place to pay and with accountability for us all, if you know what I mean…Plus we could donate extra if we wanted.
FF LEO,
I assure you mine is a better cause. I will set it up and show you. The Widow and Orphans need your support. Please send money, preferably cash.
Pay Pay. No Credit Cards. No Transaction Fees. No Traces. All legitimate I assure you.
I am only kidding you.
AnonY: Think about who might be the, erm, most prevalent offender…
FF LEO,
It could be me, you, you, you . . . All is Latin of course.
He did go off on Big Easy today of course.
Yep, Bernie gave you away…
lol
PayPal.
You’re all moderately insane.
I kinda dig that about this place.
Must be why I feel right at home.
And if JT would just give the word and a button to click, we could make some lucky charity very lucky indeed. I can be as filthy as a dozen sailors. I know. I’ve seen me do it. Just cut me and Seamus loose and soon the March of Dimes can buy a car so they won’t have to march anymore. The problem is I don’t think we can trust the trolls to be on the honor system. I mean, seriously . . . do you really want to put people who back and act as apologists for torturers on the honor system? I think not.
Dudes, this is the road to economic elitism in trolling/insulting; what are po-folks with more vitriol than money gonna’ do? And what about people that don’t speak Latin-Latin, only pig-Latin? Could you build a time-payment option into this plan so some of us can participate? Please?
BIL: “Just cut me and Seamus loose and soon the March of Dimes can buy a car so they won’t have to march anymore.”
*ROFLMAO*
Buddha:
You and Seamus are good for a 12 passenger van a month at $5.00 a pop.
If nothing else, M72, you highlighted the issue.
“Let’s do something useful with some of this vitriol. I propose a penalty for incivility in posting. We are on our honor to comply. I suggest the following:”
Mespo,
Couldn’t agree with you more but here’s the rub. How and who defines vitriol and incivility. Some here take offense when their arguments are disputed and would call that uncivil vitriol. JT is our judge and has intervened at times, but he has a rather full plate and to put the responsibility on his shoulders is unfair. I’m for your suggestion if you show me how we can define and enforce it.
“Let’s do something useful with some of this vitriol. I propose a penalty for incivility in posting. We are on our honor to comply. I suggest the following:”
Mespo,
Couldn’t agree with you more but here’s the rub. How and who defines vitriol and incivility. Some here take offense when their arguments are disputed and would call that uncivil vitriol.
—
I consider harassment, including sexual innuendo offensive. I have dealt with chauvinist pigs my entire working life.
Being a woman AND especially my occupation as a doctor will never be some jerks excuse to treat me like a doormat. Whatever problem they have with my successes are theirs. If they try to make them mine, watch out. I will respond but not in any way that feels good. You want respect, you have to BE respectable.
I respect myself enough to stand up for myself and I will continue to do it.
And yes, mespo, I do believe our problem child Bartlebee, Cromagnum, Waynebro, Gaylord Focker et al IS still with us.
No doubt in my mind.
Patty,
Two words for you to think about while mulling people reactions to the never ending bout between you and Jill and Bron:
Excessive defensiveness.
It’s not a charge. It’s not a claim. Just something to think about when you consider some of the reactions I’ve been reading. I’m all for standing up for one’s self, but there is a line between solid defense and undermining one’s positions by unwarranted or unnecessary attack. It weakens the strength of your attack when you do go on the offensive. See PETA for plenty of examples of this tactical issue.
Staying parallel to the shore was working. Maybe not as personally satisfying but it was working.
Again, just something to think about.
Patty:
Behave, I am watching you!
PattyC:
Ditto Waynebro.
Patty,
See?
People will use your obsessions against you. In this case to either 1) fan the flames or 2) make you look paranoid (which you aren’t).
Winning isn’t everything. How you win counts too. Winning is everything is how we ended up with PNAC and the Neocons.
And if that was just Bron jerking your chain? Knock it off, Bron. That IS his type of humor.
‘Parallel to the shore’ is my signature line, here, about surviving being sucked in to other people’s dis/misinformation on politics.
It’s not a complete ‘way of being’, for me. I continue to post here because I remember what it was like in the beginning. I give my time freely with one condition. I don’t want to be the recipient of petty high school BS. I don’t have time.
A lot of what is assigned to me is others projections.
I don’t make it personal until it is intentionally being launched my way.
I don’t play games. I call it like I see it. If someone behaves like an ass, has been called same by many, and even admits to being an one, then why is it a surprise that I experienced them same way? Quacks like a duck!
p.s. See what I mean? Bartlebee/Waynebro/Cromagnum Man/ Gaylord Focker is cruisin’…! Any bets on how long he’ll last this time?
Mr. Panetta has an obligation to protect his agency and build morale. Having said that, he knows no more than anyone else about what was said at any of the briefings because he didn’t attend them. However, I very much trust in the integrity of ex-Sen. Graham. I would not be surprised if individuals in the CIA ponied up memos on meetings that never occurred, particularly if there is any fear of prosecution. And if Nancy Pelosi gets dragged into the investigation, that’s fine with me. No one has been pushing for a partisan effort, after all, except for Republican partisans.
Patty,
I simply don’t see the venom in Bron that goes with the poster you keep referencing. Is he right of most of the posters here? Probably. Poking at you doesn’t, however, equate to being one and the same as CCM. After all the ration of crap you’ve given him for supposedly being CCM, Bron poking at you is a bit deserved if it was him. But if it was CCM, then who do you think wins when he pulls your chain like that to keep you fighting with people who have essentially the same goals (restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution)? Personal animus is one thing, especially when merited, but when you let it be an opening for distraction or disunity against the criminals then it is a liability. As an observation, Jill usually leaves you alone when you leave her alone and mutual avoidance seems the best policy since neither of you can let go of the bee’s in your respective bonnets, Bron only messes with you when you are accusing him of being someone else and AY was poking at you because it is 1) his nature to smack around trolls and 2) you were indeed coming off a bit trollish in your attacks.
Look, I like your posts in general, but the perpetual pissing match may not be the best way to go when trying to convert people who are not necessarily regulars when they stop by is what I’m saying. Audience, audience, audience. This is an inherent flaw with blogging over IRC – side fights could be taken private channel in IRC. Here they play out in public. We in the Choir need no preaching despite any differences we may have in methodology. It the Undecided that need guidance now. Would you take advice from a room full of teachers less interested in teaching than in personal vendetta and sniping? Some would, the really intrepid learner, but many more would say it’s just too much trouble. It’s not a deal killer, sure, but it has to have a net negative effect on marginal undecideds. People are lazy and that includes when learning. We should be making it easier on them, not harder, to decide that Bush Co. needs to go to trial and that the totality of the legitimacy of the Federal government are the stakes at risk. That is where the rubber meets the road – popular critical mass to force prosecution no matter who goes to prison, R or D. This country does not belong to either party or to the lobbyists. It belongs to We the People and is founded upon the Rule of Law. But those Neocon bastards will take it from us if we don’t start escalation now and escalation now (to me) looks a lot like winning new converts from the undecided column. Better converts now than recruits later, if you get my drift.
Okay, I have one more suggestion. I like all of the regulars, notwithstanding my recent discussion with Patty C. Therefore, why don’t we regulars choose or vote for one person who we all like and respect to be the judge of who needs a gentle reminder or a permanent dismissal by Professor Turley.
Our Sergeant at Arms (SOA)/Supreme Court Judge would have complete control on determining ad hominem abuses; if 2 or more occurred he could e-mail Professor Turley who could quietly correspond with the regular personally via e-mail or on the blawg, if no e-mail was available , if he chose to take an appropriate action. I assume Prof Turley has all of our e-mail address available to him from our posts.
Now, we could not post and complain to the SOA that such and so was a’cussin’ up a storm or was a’pickin’ on poor little what’s their name to get the SOA’s attention and perhaps biased compliance. There will be no need for PayPal or whatever.
The SOA would post some basic #1 Legal Blawg etiquette rules to which we must adhere and they can be very succinct.
Here are my 2 choices of whom should become the one SOA/SCJ.
Mespo727272
Mike Appleton
Both are fine, intelligent, courteous, gentlemen attorneys.
Mespo72 is my first choice because he is here most often.
The Republic at Work! (not a complete plural democracy)
FFLEO
PattyC:
Please accept my apologies if/when I have been offensive. I know I have been on a couple of occasions, but I dislike being accused of being someone else. It is a failing on my part.
Also your recipes are actually very good, I have made a couple and have saved the others in a file for later use and experimentation.
Yes I am very conservative but apparently only on the fiscal side, my bent on the social and legal side tends, unexpectedly, to the more liberal outlook as I find myself in agreement with most on this blog about individual liberties and the constitution.
I did not vote for Mr. Obama and do not agree with his fiscal policies but I do wish him well, as I can only imagine the day to day problems he deals with.
you may accept my apology or not, but please refrain from referring to me as WB, GF CMM, B or any others you may think me to be.
FFLEO:
Buddha would take to this job like a duck to water, he would scare the willies out of any recalcitrant troll or regular who may be going askew.
Mespo and MikeA would be good as well.
Also MikeS would be good as a peace keeper too.
I am my own judge. I have reasons for behaving the way I do.
Mespo and I are practically joined at the hip. He will tell you, it wasn’t like this before Bartlebee who Jill took on as her BFF, which I found telling. He portrayed him self as thoughtfully ‘religious’ when in fact he was a most abrasive, combative, foul-mouthed, and obnoxious individual. He, meaning Bartlebee/ Cromagnum Man/Waynebro etal, wants to start a debate site and have ‘turlees’ be the judges. I’m not interested.
I used to post here because it was fun. We used to have a good time. Now it’s mostly out of habit.
What goes on here is not ‘debate’. It’s All-Jill, All the Time.
That wouldn’t be a bad thing if she knew what she was talking about. She doesn’t. And no matter how many times she keeps repeating the same garbage, it’s still garbage.
I want to get back to having intelligent discussions.
FFLEO,
Not a bad idea nor are your candidates problematic for SOA. Both are fine men with a good sense of balance and proportionality. My qualm is that what amounts to an unpaid moderator isn’t, or more to the point “shouldn’t”, be required to reach consensus about in-fighting.
We know what the problem is: Bush Co. and violating the Constitution.
We know what has to be done: trials and penalties or the dissolution of the Federal government as invalid by the terms of it’s founding documents.
We’ve seen that no amount of moderation will assuage some conflicts and that most of these are indeed personal, e.g. Bron’s identity. The Prof has already weighed in on this, more than once, and to no avail with Patty. So absent barring one (or both) of them, what else is there as a practical punishment? Censure is all there is in a forum like this. And that is strictly JT’s call. This is his playground after all. I’m not saying he couldn’t use a little help now and again, but it seems to me that if it’s a banning offense, such as those committed by Wayne acting like a stalker, that he does take appropriate action. Otherwise, he warns us to play nice and may spot delete offending posts. He’s done it fairly and consistently to my eye. Having been subjected to this process, I must say the Prof’s eye is just. The question then becomes why add an extra layer of (essentially) management unless JT just wants the help?
I’m not saying you’re wrong or it’s a bad idea, but absent a specific need of the Prof’s (one which I would be perfectly willing to accept), I just don’t see what we’d accomplish as a matter of functionality except for adding to either mespo or Mike A’s plate – something they may not either want. They come here to blog and chat too, not mediate.
I try to keep my personal rule this simple: Be a good guest. I don’t post anything I think would create extra work for JT, even if it’s just hitting a button to delete a post. Hell, career, radio and TV, and saving the country aside – the man has four kids! Show some mercy on that work load! Which, conversely, is also why I’d understand if he wanted a moderator to help out. He moderates this rowdy and boisterous crowd pretty well given his workload. We are, at best, a hand full on some days.
But my suggestion is to keep it simple.
“Look, I like your posts in general, but the perpetual pissing match may not be the best way to go when trying to convert people who are not necessarily regulars when they stop by is what I’m saying. Audience, audience, audience. This is an inherent flaw with blogging over IRC – side fights could be taken private channel in IRC. Here they play out in public. We in the Choir need no preaching despite any differences we may have in methodology. It the Undecided that need guidance now. Would you take advice from a room full of teachers less interested in teaching than in personal vendetta and sniping? Some would, the really intrepid learner, but many more would say it’s just too much trouble. It’s not a deal killer, sure, but it has to have a net negative effect on marginal undecideds. People are lazy and that includes when learning. We should be making it easier on them, not harder, to decide that Bush Co. needs to go to trial and that the totality of the legitimacy of the Federal government are the stakes at risk. That is where the rubber meets the road – popular critical mass to force prosecution no matter who goes to prison, R or D.”
Buddha,
I sit at your feet with this explanation and have nothing more constructive to add.
I know fully well what the problem is for people, like me, who intimately value what the founding fathers (and mothers) accomplished, including my ancestors, when the Mayflower landed at Plymouth. I am a desendent of William Bradford, the first governor of Massachusetts which then included parts of VT, NY and Maine. He is buried in Plymouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(1590-1657)
William Bradford died at Plymouth, and was interred at Plymouth Burial Hill. On his Grave is etched: “qua patres difficillime adepti sunt nolite turpiter relinquere” “What our forefathers with so much difficulty secured, do not basely relinquish.”
That’s where I am coming from because that is where I really did
come from. And in Latin, to boot!
I take issue with the notion that our democracy must be or will be torn down if things don’t resolve on ‘anybody’s’ specific time table for effectiveness.
By the way, the ship analogy has to do with making a correction and seeing the turn 1/4 a mile down the chennel. It doesn’t happen ‘on a dime’ as with a racing Olympic Class Soling or a G-22.
Forgive me Buddha, I find you, at times, being very controlling and even hyperbolic in a few situations where you don’t have absolute control.
The sky is not falling and anarchy is not the immediate or preferred answer, in my view.
Buddha,
You are Controlling, Now I know why you are broke and have an exwife. You did say wife? Well!!!! ANSWER ME.
Is it true that the cattle are eaten and the sheep are never lonely?
Disclaimer for Buddhas’ eyes only. There is an expectation of privacy, you can’t read this can you???
I neglected to include NH.
Patty,
Do what you like.
You’ve mistaken this for being about you directly. It isn’t. People were suggesting either more work for regulars or for JT because you have been, quite frankly, a pissy little instigator lately. It was about that.
But I would like to clear some things up.
1) Hyperbole is my preferred methodology. You don’t like it, don’t read it. Hyperbole, to be effective, is a bit like mythology – it has to have a root of truth. You disagree with my truth? Fine. That’s your right.
2) As far as wanting anarchy, no, I never said that. I said it was an inevitable outcome of the path we are on. I actually place odds at about 70% if Bush Co. walks, substantially less with prosecution. I’ve also stated on many occasions that the slide won’t be rapid, but a slow painful devolution barring something tragically stupid on the government’s behalf (which I do not discount given their proven track record in the Stupid category). It’ll take 25 years to completely degenerate at the current rate, but velocity is variable this close to the singularity as they say in the movies.
3) Control? I have no control here nor any control issues here. This isn’t my playground. I just visit. JT is the boss. When you get censured, it’s not by me. I’ve stated many times that control is an illusion and that influence is the best humans can realistically hope to achieve. I’d also like to point out the time I’ve EVER tried to influence you is . . .
4) I’ve tried more than once (as has JT, mespo and others) to mediate your hostility toward Jill, but with the recent expansion including the unprovoked attack on FFLEO, why should anyone bother? You apparently have one mode and that’s “reflexive attack”. You also suck at taking constructive criticism for someone who has the level of education you possess. I’ve never made it personal between us, Patty. If you just want to bust on me? You are barking up the wrong tree. I know you are an intelligent person who should know better, both in action and in concept. You want to keep pissing and moaning about Jill? Fine.
Knock
yourself
out.
I’ll raise nary an objection to the most vitriol laced anti-Jill rants you can assemble. Just don’t be surprised when the circle that takes you seriously starts to contract.
5) I don’t give a damn who your ancestors were and neither does anyone else. It gives you no superior claim on anything. End of line. You want to be proud of your heritage? No problem with that, but you often use it as a cudgel. It makes you sound like an elitist who feels her entitlement to superior opinion is threatened by “us commoners” and our low born values. Again, say what you like, but that’s not a way to win over undecideds or keep to your friends from rolling their eyes when you do it. Your insistence otherwise notwithstanding, the skin you have in the America Game is no less nor any greater than any other citizen.
6) The constant theme I’m seeing IN THE POSTS OF OTHERS is weariness at your perpetual hostility. It got you deleted before, so by all means, make more work for our host. Be a bad guest, but you should remember that is EXACTLY what you are is a guest.
So do as you will.
AY,
I have an Ex because she loved booze more than anyone, including herself or her daughter (previous marriage, not mine). She didn’t even quit when the doctor told her “You will die if you don’t stop drinking. Pancreatitis is a painful way to die.” I know. I was in the office. He then told her I should leave her if she didn’t stop. It took little awhile and a lot of money, but eventually I ended it. And not in way she was happy with. You don’t get anything with an annulment as a general rule. She got her clothes, what I chose to give her for furniture, and one cat that was indeed technically her cat although he loved me more.
I sure miss that cat.
AY,
To remain unseen, might I suggest a camo font? Given JT’s color scheme, I’m thinking urban camo. The problem is I won’t know when you’ve left me a message.
Damn that Catch-22!
Buddha,
I like you. Your words are good. Your writing is even better. I like to gig you as I can. You are a good person.
Buddha :
Ditto AY. BTW looks like we’ve run our little “cussing jar” idea up the Turley flag pole and no salutes. I suggest we all just cool it, and bank our vitriol for the next neo-con outrage which is sure to befall us. I also suspect our buddy waynebro/Bartlebee etc., etc.is still among us as Patty C suggests. Maybe if we ignore him, he’ll slink away with his pal, Gaylord Faulker.
mespo,
I agree that our buddy is still lurking. But I see his attacks as sporadic for some time now. It’s like he’s either probing or struggling. Either is fine with me, but every so often I know it’s him. And really him too. Not Bron playing with Patty, but the full on psycho boy.
mespo & AY,
How utterly ungracious of me. Thank you both for the complements. One lives to be of service.
This blawg has an abundance of excellent people.
Since Waynebro departed, Patty C has been the *only* problem among regulars. No one else has been warned directly by Professor Turley regarding the same repetitive problem. That PC continues with her attacks on Jill is extremely disrespectful of Prof. Turley and harmful to Jill. Like Mike Spindell sometimes does, passionately attack Jill’s position with facts, logic, and reasoning and do not attack her person. Your law schooling should have taught you excellent debate skills and the avoidance of the fallacies of logic. Your Hippocratic Oath must ensure that you confer compassion toward all humans, Jill included.
The reason I spoke up is that by my silence, Jill and others might assume that others and I agreed with PC’s ad hominem abuse. I have abhorred PC’s attacks from the start but I still liked her.
Patty C, if you personally attack Jill again—and I do not mean hard direct rebuttals or refutations of what she posits—I will post numerous times asking Professor Turley to please remove you. I will do this until he decides to either remove you or *me*.
He, others, and I are displeased with President Obama’s statement of wanting to look forward and not look back at violations, although he is not looking back at your attacks on Jill and his repetitive warning for you to please cease and desist. At some point, the man must take a stand or he will appear *hypocritical* and his fine blawg will further be dragged down by your attacks against Jill. You have personally hurt Jill and you must stop. Perhaps part of my concern derives from my law enforcement career and training and part is a dislike for bullying by males or females.
If I am banned for asking for your removal, if you continue attacks against Jill, I will still access this blawg, but I will not post; the information here is just too valuable and fun to ignore.
Professor Turley is easily the finest constitutional lawyer I have ever read or to whom I have listened. He a prince of a man who I deeply respect, to the point that I would leave to avoid any further harm to his blawg, if you—as a doctor and lawyer—cannot control your demeanor anymore than a not-as-bad-as-you blue-collared Waynebro et al. could.
Buddha et al. Regardless of any outcome, you all have given me a lot to ponder and I respect each of the opinions you posit.
‘It got you deleted before, so by all means, make more work for our host. Be a bad guest, but you should remember that is EXACTLY what you are is a guest
So do as you will.’
–
I intend to! ;p
I’ve never been ‘deleted’ and I have to question why would you would make such a claim.
You have been ‘admonished’ more than I, and I was here long before you which makes sense, actually…
The major difference between mespo and I is that I am female. We share much more in common when it comes to being orginal ‘turlees’. We also have Personal Injury Law and Gastronomy in common.
You may not care about my ancestry but I do-very much.
I don’t care about it the same ways my grandmothers did or the way my mother still does for social reasons
My DAR paperwork has been in order since birth. My Mayflower Society paperwork has been in order for decades.
It’s not important to me for social outlets and connections. In fact, I avoid such things as much as possible…
‘An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure’.
And I have tons of manure for my gardens.
FFLEO, you can stick a fork in it!
I will say what I know to be true.
You have no control over me.
Is it not what we complain of about the most usually things which we think are not within our control? I am of the understanding that I may not control anyone but myself and if I do not control myself I have no hope for making a positive difference on anyone else.
We all making a difference on everyone. It is the difference that counts the most. As I see you, I see myself. If something about me or my inner worth is not settled, I may lash at you for the defects in me, why? Because it is easier to spot why you are different than why we are the same.
When I go a complaining, I know the fault is within me. If I am at peace within, then I have peace without anyone or anything.
This is how I used to run my life.
If I have no peace, you will certainly have no peace.
How is that to run one life? I missed a lot and lost a lot, while espousing a position that in the end no one was pleased with, because I was not pleased with myself. I may have won because the law was on my side, or out maneuvered you with the rules or intimidated you because my client was, my client and they expected to win.
I did not always feel good about winning even when the law was on my side.
So as Rodney King says, can’t we all just get along? And if we can’t get along, then maybe it is time for me to get along.
I don’t know what this is all about, but I do know never to pick a fight with a member of the DAR! I enjoy the exchange of opinions on this site and have learned a great deal from everyone, especially the non-lawyers who constantly remind me that perspective is relative. With apologies to those Republicans who don’t know the meaning of the word, contributing to the arguments here requires empathy and the ability to recognize that none of us is the center of the universe, something which lawyers certainly forget at times. As for having a resident peacekeeper, we already have one and it’s his site. Besides, since this is not a grammar school playground, we shouldn’t require a peacekeeper. Strong, forceful arguments allow me to reexamine my own assumptions. Even sarcasm is useful when well played, or when responding to trolls and others who use this site merely to parrot the opinions of others. Finally, I think it’s important to remember that none of us has control over anything other than his or her own reactions. I have to remind myself of that when I am angered by another’s comments. It usually helps to avoid immediately posting a response in such instances. And that is pretty much all I have to say in the matter.
Patty,
I claim you’ve been deleted because JT said he had deleted offending posts once before when admonishing you to lay off the personal attacks on Jill. Since he was admonishing you, it is not unreasonable to infer that the deleted posts were at least in part yours as I came in for the clean up, not the accident proper.
Mike A could have been channeling Siddhartha or Mushashi when he said, “I think it’s important to remember that none of us has control over anything other than his or her own reactions. I have to remind myself of that when I am angered by another’s comments.” Which highlights a distinction between you and mespo since you’ve hopped peerage claims and are calling “original Turlee” status (again): he is not a reactionary.
You should perhaps consider taking that lesson to heart. Again, your choice. If there is one thing living with an alcoholic teaches you is that when one encounters another bent on self-destruction, the only option available that works is to point the way out and stand aside – no matter how much you care about them. Several of us have pointed the way now.
Given your recalcitrant stance so far, all I’m hearing is the sound of a circle contracting.
Mike Appleton wrote, in part:
“Besides, since this is not a grammar school playground, we shouldn’t require a peacekeeper.”
______________
Actually, in is worse since there are supposed lawyers involved. Isn’t conflict resolution a principal duty/function of an attorney? My suggestion of a mediator/arbitrator derived from some of the very canons of law to which you and other lawyers pledged and most likely perform weekly, if not daily. Of course, I realize this is just a blawg and I prefer to use that term instead of blog because I think the term is more appropriate unless it continues to deteriorate from the weight of argumentum ad personam.
No bother, I withdraw my suggestion, and I will simply speak up *if* Ms. PC continues to attack Jill personally and at the risk of engendering my own dismissal.
At some juncture in law, or rules, or whatever term you prefer to call instruments of social order at any level, there evolves the threshold of ‘cease and desist.’ Ms. PC has not just moseyed over that line; she long jumped it and is striving for the pole vault after eliciting several direct scratch fouls and warnings meted by the law coach.
Patty:
Each of us should be allowed to reply free from personal attack. This site is an oasis of cyber civility, you helped craft it. Your friends and our gifted host are asking you to continue contributing to civil discussion.
“You have no control over me.” – Patty C
Exactly as it should be, I am sincerely you to please manage your own energy.
Mike Appleton/CCD:
I think CCD is right that this is an oasis from the foolish shouting matches most sites have become. In a perfect world I would agree with Mike A that no playground peacekeeper is needed, but alas, wonderful though we may be, perfection eludes us all. As FFLeo noted my suggestion was to raise awareness of the issue and relieve JT from being the “heavy” on the blog all the time. As many of the recent posters may not know, JT was much more active in previous times responding to comments and making suggestions. These are the “good old days,” to which Patty C alludes. The recent invasion of trolls and JT’s rise to prominence on the public airways due to his at one time lonely stand against Bush torture policy have certainly limited his time to converse with our little salon. My thought was that if enough peer pressure was voiced the name-calling might quit and,incidentally, a deserving charity would be the beneficiary of our experiment at self-enforcement. This, I thought, might lure JT back to a more active role instead of merely a shushing librarian. As always, I respect your opinion but maybe some idea as to my rationale might be of interest to you.
I take it I was the only one that went fishing? That’s a shame.
I’m not getting through. You’re still don’t getting it and I am long past my last nerve over the issue.
From where I sit, if we are all sitting in that dark crowded theater, Jill is the one yelling, ‘Fire”.
And if you still can’t understand that analogy, then, perhaps we all are at a bit of a loss.
I am not reactionary in that I am not on board with what I experience as mindless chatter which serves only to continue, rather neurotically in my view, in reinforcing false conclusions based on conjecture, fear, and hate.
Except for headaches, I gain very little from such exchanges, but then I’m also not the one here angling for a job in radio, which I am in a position of influence or a debate site.
I am not a psychiatrist and even if I was wouldn’t practice psychotherapy for nothing. My off hours are my free time. I will state that whatever personal unresolved issues people have around physical, emotional, and substance abuses, require active one-on-one help and you should seek it, however, I’m not ‘available’.
I’m all about the recipes.
Thanks to mespo, JT, Mike S. for being on my side even while uncomfortable
Kelly – - you really believe in Hell?
and Satan and all that stuff?
Really?