Nancy Pelosi Knew about Waterboarding in 2002, and Thought it was Okay
We are now learning from this article that top Democrats were told about, knew about, and had no objections to waterboarding as a means to gather necessary information to stop terrorist threats and capture terrorists as early as 2002.
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
You read that right, Nancy Pelosi was one of those who received a tour of the CIA and their harsh interrogation techniques in 2002. This tour included showing the tourists, Nancy Pelosi included, the practice of waterboarding. Pelosi, and other Democrats didn’t seam to have a problem with it back then.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Some even said the United States should push harder. This is amazing, isn’t it? Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats and some Republicans, like to say America should take the high road. They like to say America should be above this type of torture. They tell us that America has lost it’s standing in the world because of this type of harsh interrogation. They say America must take the moral high ground. Remember how they feigned disgust and disdain when they supposedly learned that we were waterboarding terrorists? And now we find out that Nansy Pelosi and others knew all along about it, and they thought it was okay. As a matter of fact, some didn’t think the CIA was going far enough with their interrogations.
So what changed? Did Nancy Pelosi suddenly grow a set of morals? I don’t think so. Waterboarding was considered fine with everyone until they thought it could be used to show us how the president is committing crimes against humanity, and violating a person’s civil rights.
This whole anti-war movement in the Democrat party started as a political movement, not a moral or ethical movement. During the primary season for the 2004 election there was only one anti-war candidate, Howard Dean. When it appeared as though Howard Dean was gaining momentum John Kerry suddenly turned anti-war and proclaimed to Americans, ” I am the true anti-war candidate”. That, in my opinion, is where this whole anti-war movement began. Since that moment in time Democrats have been trying to out anti-war each other. This is now on full display in this primary season.
They have continually tried to undermine the war effort in order to gain political advantage, and it has worked.
When shown the interrogation techniques in 2002, the country was still solidly behind the president, who would dare to speak out against ANY effort to capture the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks? If Nansy Pelosi was against waterboarding back then and didn’t say anything because she was afraid of the backlash it shows us a real character flaw. If she was actually for it back then, and is against it now for political gain, it shows us perhaps an even bigger character flaw.
As the anti-war movement grows, a movement that the Democrats created, Democrats have seized on any issue they feel they can use to bring down the Bush presidency. Waterboarding is just such an issue. It doesn’t matter that they were for it before they were against it. Their opposition to waterboarding is nothing but a tool designed to help us lose the war on terror.
This is political gamesmanship at it’s worse. Nancy Pelosi knew all along about waterboarding and had no problem with it until it was decided they could hurt George W Bush with it. Somebody leaked this out that the CIA was using this practice, could it have been Nancy Pelosi herself? Who knows? To think someone would put their re-election ahead of what is right for the country is despicable. The fact that Nancy Pelosi knew the CIA was waterboarding and didn’t say anything until it could be used to hurt the president, actually, to hurt the country is underhanded to say the least, traitorous at worst.
Perhaps this is San Francisco morals at their finest.
Hillary Clinton’s Fall From Inevitability
With the news of this poll, we are learning exactly how far Hillary Clinton has fallen in the eyes of the Democrat voters. Once thought of as the inevitable Democrat nominee, she is now clinging on to her leads in all of the early primary states by a thread. Her once large leads have dwindled to within the margin of error.
Iowa: Clinton nabbed 27%, followed by Obama at 25% and Edwards at 21%. No other candidate scored double-digits, including Richardson who came in at 9% and Joe Biden who rec’d 5%. As for the all-important second-choice category, all three Dem frontrunners are tied, with 30% picking Obama, 29% naming Clinton and 27% selecting Edwards.
New Hampshire: This is the tightest result for any New Hampshire Dem primary poll this year. Clinton gets 30% to Obama’s 27%. Edwards barely cracks double-digits with 10%, with one in five primary voters undecided.
South Carolina: Clinton gets 28% to Obama’s 25%. Edwards is a competitive third at 18%.
So what has caused this rapid and, to be truthful, delightful fall from grace? It appears to have begun during that now infamous debate in which she took both sides of the same issue in regards to driver’s licences for illegals, and her campaign has spiraled downward ever since. She has been found to have planted questions at her campaign stops, and at the Republican debate for that matter. She has run on her experience in the white house as first lady as a reason to vote for her, yet she refuses to release her records as first lady to the public until after she is elected, I mean until after 2008.
One of the reasons for her fall from grace and her inevitable nomination is all of the above I just mentioned. She now seems to be dishonest. I know what you are thinking, a dishonest Clinton, it can’t be. Her campaign seems to be in panic mode now and the more she tries to save it, the worse it becomes.
Hillary Clinton has always maintained high disapproval ratings. They hover near or above 50% depending on the poll you look at. This has many voters feeling buyer’s remorse. When it comes time to go into the booth and vote for a candidate, Democrats will be afraid that Mrs. Clinton will not be able to win the general election because of those negativity ratings, so they are beginning to turn elsewhere.
And lastly, Americans love the underdog. Americans love to route for those that seem doomed to failure. Hillary Clinton was, and is, pushed upon the American people as the front-runner, and the Democrat nominee in waiting. Americans don’t like to be told who to route for, or in the case of politics, who to vote for, so there could be some backlash in this regard also. Democrats are tired of being told that they will nominate Hillary, so they will look at an underdog, another name to vote for.
Honestly, I still feel Hillary will win the Democrat nomination, but it is fun to see her vulnerable. Her campaign seems to be panicking, and that is fun to watch, even if in the end she still pulls out the Democrat nomination. I think her negatives do hurt her in the general election, and I honestly believe Republican pundits hope she wins the nomination because of all the fuel they will have. I still don’t want to see her get that far, because of the chance she could win, after all, just look how close a moonbat like John Kerry came. She would be far worse.
So while Hillary probably will still win the Democrat nomination, let us all enjoy her fall from inevitability, and watch her squirm a little bit. Of course the media will probably portray this as a positive, and spin this as how she was strong as all the candidates attacked her and closed the gap. They will tell us how she stood tall in all this adversity, and tell us that that strength will qualify her to be president.
But we know the truth. Hillary is struggling, her campaign is struggling, she is being exposed has having no true ideas. She is just promising everyone everything, all the while knowing she can deliver very little, if any, of it, in an attempt to get elected.
Will Hillary Clinton still win the Democrat nomination? In my opinion, yes. Is it a coronation, as we have been led to believe? No. And where there is a little doubt, the door opens for others to walk in. Let’s see if they can take advantage.
A conservative group called Freedom’s Watch was recently denied in their bid to buy advertising on NBC. The ad that they wanted to run was an ad to tell everybody to say thank you to our troops over the holiday season. Sounds like a controversial ad to me, doesn’t it. This is ridiculous, and the killer here is the lame reason they gave for not accepting the ad. I would respect them more if they came out and said, “your website supports President Bush and his policies, so we do not want to show your commercial.” That, at least, would be the truth. The reason they gave was that the advertisement was an advertisement for the group’s website. They also called the ads too political.
How obscene is that? Since when can a website not advertise on network television? I see all these lame website commercials every day. So, one can logically assume that NBC is not opposed to running an ad for a website, they are opposed to running an ad for THIS website. One can then assume that the reason NBC doesn’t want to run an ad for THIS website is because they agree with the president’s policies.
Alan Wurtzel, NBC’s head of standards and practices, even went so far as to say that the reason that Freedom’s Watch refused to alter their ad for their own website was because Freedom’s Watch wanted to create a controversy with NBC to gather even more media attention.
What a disgrace.
Here are the ads that NBC refuses to show.
Video Hat tip: Political Vindication
Read the breitbart article here.
UPDATE: NBC has reversed it’s decision and is now running the ad. NBC claims to have changed some policy that they were hiding behind in their decision to reject the ad in the first place.
A Day That Will live in Infamy
The Hypocrisy of the United Nations Summit on Global Warming
For the sake of this post, let’s all pretend that man-made global warming exists and it not a ploy by politicians to tax and regulate us. Let’s also pretend that scientists don’t have a financial stake, in the form of grants, in this. If we pretend that there is no money for scientists to lose if they speak out against the global warming fraud, and that there is no money to be made by the government, and that Al Gore doesn’t own the company that all these people buy carbon offsets from, we can then expose these frauds for the hypocrites they are.
Even if you know, as I do, that this whole climate change trend is bullshit, we can still expose these wackos for who they are. So on second thought, I am not going to pretend anything. This is coming straight from the heart.
We all have heard about the big UN summit on global warming that is now taking place. Government officials and tree hugging activists from all over the world are meeting to tell us what WE need to do in order to save the planet. Notice how I said WE, I did not say THEY. These hypocrites are FLYING in to the UN to tell us we need to stop DRIVING. How much co2 is this little summit releasing into the air? I’m glad you asked. According to this article, this little feel good meeting of the oh so ever concerned about the earth tree hugging green environment friendly caring insightful children of the earth is producing the same amount of co2 that 20,000 cars would create IN ONE YEAR.
Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island 950 kilometers (600 miles) from Jakarta, according to estimates e- mailed to Bloomberg by the UN agency holding the conference.
Naturally SOME of these people have pledged to plant trees to offset their hoarding of the earth’s precious resources.
Some of the 187 nations participating in the two-week forum promised to offset their so-called carbon footprint by planting trees or buying emission credits.
Here is the kicker though:
“What’s very unclear when you do buy your offset is what exactly you’re buying, and how it’s calculated,” Meyrick said.
Right there is the admission that nobody really knows what the hell a carbon offset is. I will tell you two things that a carbon offset is. It’s a way for Al Gore to get rich, and it’s a way for people who feel guilty about their energy consumption to feel better about themselves. They care so much about the planet, yet they are unwilling to change their lifestyle, even while telling us to change ours, so they perpetuate this carbon offset scam as a way to feel good about their lack of self discipline and control in curbing their own lifestyles. If they really believed what they preach, they would change their lifestyles. Hell, they are even too lazy to go out and buy the trees themselves and plant them. They pay someone else to do it for them.
I drive a truck, I have never flown in my life, and I never plan to fly. So I ask you, why should I change my lifestyle when these people who are telling me I need to change, are flying around the world in PRIVATE jets? Who the hell do these people think they are.
In case you can’t tell, I am getting a little pissed off at these people right about now.
Video: Mitt Romney’s Mormon Speech
Here is a video of the highlights from Mitt Romney’s speech today about his Mormon beliefs.
Hat Tip: Political Vindication
Latest New Hampshire Democrat Primary Poll (12/05)
Here are the latest New Hampshire Democrat primary poll numbers:
Clinton has 35 percent support, Obama 29 percent, John Edwards 17 percent and Bill Richardson 10 percent, with others in the low single digits.
In October Hillary held a 21 point lead over Obama, 43% to 22%, but that lead has dwindled to single digits.
Edwards is up slightly from 14%.
For a much, much more detailed breakdown of this poll, read this article.
Latest New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary Poll (12/05)
Here are the numbers according to the latest New Hampshire Republican primary poll:
37 percent of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire support Romney, 20 percent McCain and 16 percent Giuliani. Huckabee trails with 9 percent support, about the same as Ron Paul’s 8 percent. Fred Thompson has 4 percent.
Not too much has changed. Romney is up slightly from 33%.
McCain is also slightly up from 18%.
Rudy holds steady at 16%.
Huckabee is up from 5%
Paul and Thompson are unchanged.
There are still many undecided independent voters, so all of this could be meaningless come January.
For an in depth analysis of this poll, read this article.
Is Global Warming Real? Blame the Jews
The list of things that the environmentalists blame for destroying the planet goes on and on. Everything from water coolers, to plastic bags, to earthworms have been said to cause global warming. Now we find out the latest item that is destroying the planet. Jews.
That is right, the environmentalists are now reporting that all of the candles being lit on Menorahs over Hanukka are doing irreversible damage to the planet.
The founders of the Green Hanukkah campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
“The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won’t need another miracle,” said Liad Ortar, the campaign’s cofounder
Do they even understand how ludicrous this sounds? These same people are probably at home right now with their stupid, nice smelling aroma candles burning in every room of their houses.
“There are many people who just light candles for the tradition and for their children,” he said. “To tell a child on the eighth day that we are not lighting the last candle as a sacrifice for the environment is an act that is not only educational but also will prevent the release of a huge amount of carbon dioxide that would hurt the environment.”
They are asking Jews to change the meaning of the eighth candle to represent sacrificing for the environment. Who do these people think they are to tell someone what their symbolism should represent?
And what about Christians? Why are they only targeting Jews? Christians light the candles on an Advent Wreath every Christmas season. Shouldn’t they be told not to light the final one? Instead of lighting the last candle to represent the birth of Jesus, shouldn’t they not light it to represent a sacrifice to mother earth?
What about radical Muslims? Shouldn’t we tell them to stop blowing up cars to help save the planet? Maybe if we tell the lefties in this country that there was irreversible environmental damage done on September 11th, and that the terrorists are doing more damage to the environment by blowing up cars than Jews are by lighting candles they will support the war.
Anyway, I thought producing energy was a major source of global warming. What about the days before electricity? Why didn’t the world start heating when fire was used for heat and light by everyone in the world all day and all night? Why don’t we blame the Geico cavemen for this problem?
Honestly, think about this, lighting candles is bad for the planet, this really is getting absurd. I know I’ve said that before, but how else would you describe it? I have heard the theory that global warming is the environmentalist’s religion, and when you hear them start to tell other religions how to practice their faith, you have to wonder if they are going to slowly try to take over other religions.
These people will stop at nothing until they get what they want. They will blame almost everything for causing global warming, and what they can’t blame for causing global warming, they will say is an effect of global warming. The genocide in Darfur is a perfect example, the environmentalists have said that the reason there is genocide in Darfur is…….global warming.
So the battle goes on, we must win this fight or we will all pay, dearly.
Read the Jerusalem Post’s article here.
Massachusetts Bans Patriotic Signs on Highway Overpasses
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Massachusetts residents who wish to keep the tributes to the troops that they have hung on bridge overpasses have until the end of the week to take them down, or they will be trashed.
Last year Massachusetts tried this same bullshit but caved under the pressure from military families. Instead they passed an ordinance that required the tributes to be behind a fence, which every one of the tributes I see every day are. Now that is not good enough. It is evidently a public safety issue according to the Massachusetts Highway Department. Falling signs could cause an accident. Of course this hasn’t happened in the six years these tribute have hung over the highways, but that must be beside the point. This also didn’t seem to be an issue with the “IMPEACH” sign I drove by everyday, and it didn’t seem to be an issue with the “911 INSIDE JOB” sign I had to drive by every day either. That last one WAS a public safety issue as I almost drove off the highway in my blind anger. Luckily citizens cut those signs down on their own, they didn’t need the government to tell them to do it.
Massachusetts officials are trying to calm the storm by saying that this applies to all signs, not just patriotic signs. But I have a problem with this as I mentioned in regards to the signs I mentioned above. Massachusetts officials say they are sympathetic to the patriotic signs, but they can’t regulate which sign can stay and which can go.
State highway crews have recently been noticing a proliferation of not just flags and other military tributes, but also political messages, family birthday greetings, and even real estate advertisements, Paiewonsky said.
She sympathizes with the patriotic sentiment but says state government cannot get into the business of regulating which messages can stay.
The government can’t get into regulating the messages that can stay? Since when has the government ever claimed they can’t regulate something? Doesn’t the government regulate what can be written on a billboard? What a crock of shit this is.
I might actually be able to believe that Massachusetts wasn’t targeting the patriotic signs if it wasn’t for the fact that last September 11th, during a speech in remembrance of September 11th, Governor Deval Patrick had this to say:
Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other. And it seems to me that that lesson and that warning is something that we must carry with us everyday.
That’s right, September 11th happened because we failed to love the terrorists.
I ask you, are these patriotic signs being targeted? I think you know my answer.
Read the article this post was based on here.
