Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (481582)	5/17/2009 4:50:11 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575181

Actually, he did. To clarify, this was an earlier letter. You're obviously very confused. The letter you cite is concerning a totally different subject, i.e., the "dates, locations, and names of all members of Congress who were briefed ... " There was no reference, at all, to the subject matter of the briefings. And in fact, there is no debate over whether Pelosi was the recipient of the Sept. 2002 briefing. I would add, however, that the conclusion reached by the blogger was totally erroneous. Apparently, you were reciting what you had read there. It is wrong. The blog says .... CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate As I noted below, newly released documents appear to show that according to the CIA, officials briefed Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats back in 2002 about the use of torture techniques on terror suspects. But a letter that accompanied these documents, written by the head of the CIA, appears to clearly concede that the information in the docs about who was briefed and when may not be accurate or reliable. Clearly, the referenced letter refers ONLY to dates, times, and recipients of the briefings -- in no way does it suggest or "admit" that the briefings themselves could be inaccurate. Moreover, there is no admission at all that ANYTHING pertaining to it could be inaccurate. It is simply pointing out the source of the material, which was a totally appropriate disclosure. You're really reaching here to try to discount Panetta's statements. What matters is the "best" evidence and without any doubt at all, Panetta has the "best" evidence.

To: combjelly who wrote (481582)	5/17/2009 4:56:54 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575181

Says very clearly "I wasn't there so I don't know. Figuring it out is your job". If doesn't say, "I wasn't there so I don't know". It does say, "Figuring it out is your job". You say you know what contemporaneous means but apparently you don't. When used in this context it is THE RECORD. And it is inarguable in the absence of some conflicting evidence or other record. That she lied will be proven. These guys don't just show up to one of these briefings with their peckers in their hands. They've got a very specific agenda that is covered in a specific order and depth. Ultimately, if the Ds want to move forward with their "truth squads", these briefings are going to come out and Pelosi is going to be taken down. I don't know whether the good that is done for the country in eliminating Pelosi will be outweighed by the disclosures of what was in the briefing. But the Ds started this crap and I think they're going to get what they asked for.