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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (71227)	8/28/2009 12:21:43 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

From Brumar... Message 25898043 Proof Pelosi lied: In Case You Had Any Doubts Jennifer Rubin - 08.27.2009 - 7:29 AM The Wall Street Journal editors in a helpful summary make two key points about the newly released CIA documents. First, Nancy Pelosi did indeed lie. She was briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques: The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims that she wasn’t told about all this. “In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . . .” Ditto in September 2003. And second, the interrogation techniques worked: The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program’s results. The CIA’s “detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world.” That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York. The same is true of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who planned the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t talk before the enhanced interrogation techniques. They did after. And we got essential information. You decide if the techniques “worked.” So naturally, we are reinvestigating the CIA. In a sane world, Pelosi would be on the hot seat, the grandstanders who decried Bush’s antiterror policies would be discredited, and Dick Cheney would be taking a victory lap. But we have long since passed the point at which facts matter. The Obama team shamelessly airbrushes the past, rejects the techniques that kept us safe, and continues with full prosecutorial zeal against what it perceives as the real enemies—the intelligence operatives and Bush officials who successfully extracted key information. The American people haven’t shown much interest in the netroot inquests, don’t like the idea of closing Guantanamo, and, I suspect, would be horrified if CIA employees were ever tried. At some point the politically obsessed Obama White House may realize they’ve embarked on a foolhardy course of action. Not out of decency or a revived sense of concern for national security, but for the sake of their own political survival, they may eventually decide that enough is enough. But we aren’t there yet. commentarymagazine.com

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (71227)	8/28/2009 8:25:02 AM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

Key Democrat suggests party moderates 'brain dead' Aug 27 12:28 PM US/Eastern By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer breitbart.com WASHINGTON (AP) - A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care legislation are "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign donations. Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. "They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call. A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment. Thursday's call was being hosted by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future to release a report making the case for a strong new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of any health overhaul legislation. Health care legislation introduced in the House included a public plan with payment rates to providers modeled on Medicare rates. Doctors and hospitals say those rates are too low, but Stark and other liberals support the model, saying it would result in lower costs to the public. Stark's Ways and Means Committee passed a version of the bill with Medicare-style rates. But in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Blue Dogs pushed successfully for changes that would have a public plan with payment rates negotiated by the Health and Human Services secretary. The Blue Dogs said this would mean fairer rates to providers but Stark and others say it would be more expensive to the government and costlier to patients. The final form of the public plan in the House bill remains to be determined because versions passed by the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor committees must be reconciled once Congress returns from its summer recess after Labor Day.