Newt Gingrich is calling for Nancy Pelosi to resign because he says she dishonorably accused the CIA of lying to Congress.
What Gingrich doesn't include in his hypocritical diatribe agains Speaker Pelosi is that a Republican member of Congress, Rep. Peter Hoekstra’s (D-MI), also accused the CIA of lying, but Gingrich was nowhere to be found, back in 2007, demanding Hoekstra's resignation for saying so.
When interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America today, Gingrich was asked by her why he didn't call for Hoekstra's resignation when he said the CIA lied:
In 2007 this is what Hoekstra said about the CIA: “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress.”
Hoekstra wrote a letter to President Bush in 2006 accusing the intelligence community of withholding information on their activities from Congress. “I have learned of some alleged Intelligence Community activities about which our committee has not been briefed,” Hoekstra wrote. He said that he believed the Bush administration’s failure to fully brief his committee could constitute “a violation of law“:
Similarly, in 2007, Hoekstra described a closed-door briefing by representatives from the intelligence community (including CIA) on the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran’s nuclear capability, saying that the members “didn’t find [the briefers] forthcoming.” More recently, in November 2008, Hoekstra concluded that the CIA “may have been lying or concealing part of the truth” in testimony to Congress regarding a 2001 incident in which the CIA mistakenly killed an American citizen in Peru. “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress,” Hoekstra said of the incident.
When asked about this inconsistency by Diane Sawyer, Gingrich dissembled uncomfortably:
GINGRICH: Well, in that case, he’s writing a specific letter asking them to change something they were doing. He did not say the CIA routinely lies —
SAWYER: “Lies,” he said —
GINGRICH: — to the Congress.
SAWYER: Well, he says “lies.” He says “what it does and then lies to Congress.”
GINGRICH: And I think they actually had to come back and testify.
Apparently only US Representatives with a "D" after their names should resign when they accuse the CIA of lying. When Republican Representatives do so, not so much.
35 comments:
This is just another example of politicians pointing out when the other side does something out of line, but dissembling when their own party does the same thing.
It is what drives people nuts about politicians from both parties.
Perhaps a more definitive refutation of what the Gin-Grinch said is this testimony from former Senator Bob Graham (D, Florida):
"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing."
Thus, Graham's remark bolsters Pelosi's version of the story ... although the press paid little attention to Graham's account. Of course, the Gin-Grinch chose to ignore Graham's remarks altogether. Bottom line: The GOP is using this feint and dodge tactic to deflect criticism from themselves by putting Pelosi on the defensive.
BTW, ISIR is trolling this comment thread. There is sufficient racism, hate mongering, and irrelevance in the above comment to justify its immediate removal.
Darn it 8Pus. I never get back in time to see those comments before Shaw drops 'em, or Beth deletes her own words.
I too had heard about the Graham notes.
From what I understand, he even lists what he eats for breakfast.
Interesting idiosyncrasy.
My apologies, Dave. Trolls who are playfully annoying without being offensive are worthy of being kept as pets. I let my cat play with them. Sometimes I throw them out in the garden and let the birds eat them. This troll, however, was too toxic for birds and small mammals.
Dave,
The comment from the troll isn't worth repeating. 8(O)PUS described it accurately.
Arlen Specter has just come forward in the defense of Nancy Pelosi, saying "the CIA has a long record of dishonesty."
Isn't it the business of the CIA to deceive?
Anon: "Isn't it the business of the CIA to deceive?"
Your question can't possibly be serious; but since asked, one would think there is a distinction between "enemies" whom one wishes to deceive, and the U.S. Congress which funds the CIA and is legally mandated to engage in oversight - notwithstanding the fact that the CIA has a legal obligation to provide truthful answers to its own government.
I'm addressing this as a political hack. What Newt did here was throw the first punch. No matter how dishonest it is, you have to hit back at least ten times as powerfully to counter it. Rahm and I are from Illinois. We know how to fight dirty. It's time to drag Newt through the most disgusting, stinkiest, pig shit infested mud that ever was.
If Newt is not made to pay for this, we will see over the next few years those that only pay at best a casual observance to issues when deciding whom to vote for, will remember Newt saying Nancy lied. They won't remember it was really Newt that lied. Or won't care because they were not told forcefully why they should.
Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich is really the perfect mouthpiece for Repugs.
He joins the phalanx of GOP hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Dan Burton, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert.
I always find these clowns amusing because they are banking on us having short memories and nothing can be further from the truth.
Octo: Anon is obviously a CIA operative engaged in psyops.
he just chuckles at the comments here. doesn't anyone see the foolishness of what is being said?
the Griper,
That's rather condescending.
If you have something to add or point out, you should really do so.
To come here, chuckle to yourself, then not explain why you are so amused is really not adding anything to the discussion, except your supercilious attitude.
You usually don't act this way. I'm surprised.
"If you have something to add or point out, you should really do so."
what "you" think i should do, and what i choose to do are two different things, shaw.
if i was to add anything to this i'd only be adding to foolishness.
i already pointed out what i thought each of you should hear. i left it up to you to see it. i'm giving each of you credit for the intelligence to see your own mistakes in argument.
the Griper typed:
"what "you" think i should do, and what i choose to do are two different things, shaw."
Good grief. That's an obvious statement and is redundant.
Frankly, I'm too tired and too involved with other very serious issues to play games.
But thank you for coming by and leaving your comment.
Yes, Christopher. We should never listen to any former political leader who is a serial adulterer, right?
Or does it really depend on the political party they are in.
dmarks typed:
"Or does it really depend on the political party they are in."
Oh I think President Clinton (and the rest of the country) paid the price for his lousy behavior. You might recall he was impeached. We shouldn't listen to 'serial adulterers' who claim, by virtue of their conservatism, to be better people.
But that's America for you. Sex remains the ultimate taboo. Our Puritan streak will not die. It's like the motion picture rating system. Portray a naked breast and get an R rating. Chop it off and get PG.
dmarks,
Why do you deliberately miss the point when people remark on the hypocrisies of the GOP?
Christopher is not saying that no one should listen to a serial adulterer. He points out that Newt Gingrich was the leader of the pack in going after Clinton for his sexual misconduct and subsequet lying while he himself was involved in an adulterous affair.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but THAT IS MONUMENTAL HYPOCRISY.
And the GOP is awash with people who constsantly engage in it.
Why should the American people pay any attention to the GOP's leading hypocrites?
the Griper typed:
'i already pointed out what i thought each of you should hear. i left it up to you to see it. i'm giving each of you credit for the intelligence to see your own mistakes in argument.'
Ah yes another 'teaching opportunity' provided by the Griper.
The lesson I'm taking with me is there is a vast gap between wisdom and obscurity.
Shaw: You'd have a point if Gingrich was going after Clinton for adultery. Instead, the problem was Clinton engaging in sexual harassment of an employee (which he eventually admitted to by settling out of court) and then committing perjury as one of his efforts to rig the resulting civil case.
There is absolutely no hypocrisy unless someone can point out where Gingrich engaged in sexual harassment of his employees.
obscurity, huh? ok, the foundational basis of the two incidences that shaw spoke of are not the same.
without the foundational basis leading up to this incident no body would have cared what Pelosi knew or did not know about the use of waterboarding. thus, any acccusations of lying would not exist now.
Part of the problem was President Clinton's alleged sexual harassment. Another part of the problem, the parallel rail if you will, was adultery. And the name Monica Lewinsky came up over and again in that discussion which in turn was co-mingled with everything else worth dredging up on Clinton (from the murder of Vince Foster to pot smoking at Oxford to sexual harassment) into one vast clump of mud.
So, yes, hypocrisy sums up Newton quite well.
Another thing I find sort of amusing is that the Paula Jones thing resonates so endlessly with the 'frivolous lawsuit' crowd. Historically it's the one sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuit the right is onboard with.
The Paula Jones thing had teeth, which is why he settled out of court on the whole matter.
"Clinton (from the murder of Vince Foster to pot smoking at Oxford to sexual harassment) into one vast clump of mud. So, yes, hypocrisy sums up Newton quite well."
Can you find me anything at all where Newton charged Bill or even mentioned the pot smoking or Vince Foster nutter theories?
Probably not, so the hypocrisy thing still isn't sticking.
dmarks typed:
'The Paula Jones thing had teeth, which is why he settled out of court on the whole matter.'
Frivolous or not? I believe the McDonald's coffee suit had 'teeth' and yet you remarked at its frivolous nature a while back. Prior to the famous suit McDonalds had been involved in dozens of episodes of patrons suffering injuries from coffee served at excessive temperatures.
Oh, hypocrite is spot on. The Lewinsky episode was not about sexual harassment.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/18/gingrich.clinton/
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 18) -Further escalating his recent war of words against President Bill Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Clinton of degrading the presidency, through his handling of the Monica Lewinsky investigation, to "a level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American."
Oh, that IS rich. Is there a "level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American" that applies to serial-adulters who happen to be third in line to the presidency?
You got it just right, Arthurston, rank hypocrisy.
The American presidency is viewed world wide as a "rough equivalent of the Jerry Springer show," Gingrich wrote in a commentary for the conservative weekly publication, Human Events.
Arthur: The McDonald's one was a textbook example of lawsuit abuse (as she spilled the coffee herself), and completely toothless, once you look at the actual facts. The temperatures were not excessive. They were in fact at the recommended temperature for coffee. And the woman who filed the frivolous suit had bought and drank the same hot coffee from the same place many times before. The dozens of episodes out of billions of cups sold represented people choosing to do something stupid with the coffee. And if you do something stupid and file lawsuits to harass innocent parties, that is lawsuit abuse. People should take responsibility for their own actions. I'm not going to gouge my eye out with a knife and sue the knife company.
"Oh, hypocrite is spot on. The Lewinsky episode was not about sexual harassment."
It was. The Lewinsky episode had to do with Clinton's lying in court to cover up relevant information about the sexual harassment he committed. It was about nothing more than sexual harassment.
-------
Shaw: It's not really rich, since Gingrich was not involved in sexual harassment and perjury crimes. You have yet to show hypocrisy (i.e. Gingrich criticizing Clinton for something he did himself).
It might exist, if you can find quotes from Gingrich about Clinton's affairs. But there is no hypocrisy in Gingrich pointing out actual crimes that Clinton committed that Gingrich did not.
dmarks,
Gingrich is quoted calling what Clinton did as "disrespectful" and decadent. Neither of which are crimes. Gingrich is making a direct comment on Clinton's behavior--behavior that Gingrich himself was indulging in at the time.
Your deliberate failure to understand that is noted.
We're not talking about perjury or harrassment here. We're talking about Gingrich hypocrisy, which is documented in his own words.
You do this all the time--misunderstand the point, then hammer away at your misunderstanding.
THIS IS ABOUT GINGRICH'S HYPOCRISY, his comments that characterize Clinton's behavior, and the FACT THAT GINGRICH WAS INVOLVED IN EXACTLY THE SAME DECADENT AND DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR.
Get it now? We're not talking about anything else.
"Gingrich is making a direct comment on Clinton's behavior--behavior that Gingrich himself was indulging in at the time."
It looks to me like he was commenting on the perjury problem. And Gingrich was not sexually harassing his employees or commiting perjury at the time (nor has it been alleged for other times)
"Your deliberate failure to understand that is noted."
How can I "understand" something you have shown no support for?
"We're talking about Gingrich hypocrisy, which is documented in his own words."
Where?
"You do this all the time--misunderstand the point, then hammer away at your misunderstanding."
"The point" being made by you is so far unsupported and invalid. So forgive me for seeking to understand a valid point.
"FACT THAT GINGRICH WAS INVOLVED IN EXACTLY THE SAME DECADENT AND DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR."
Go ahead, at least try to make your point valid. Please, please show me examples of Gingrich sexually harassing employees and committing perjury. Or, from the other side of it, please show me comments from Gingrich specifically condemning adultery (instead of referring to Clinton's decadent behavior in regards to sexual harassment and rigging civil cases).
"Get it now? We're not talking about anything else"
I get you are still trying to make an invalid point. I get what actually happened.
Shaw,
Don't let that dmarks highjack the subject of the post, Gingrich's hypocrisy. He's jusst trying to win an unwinnable point.
It's not just that Gingrich doesn't realize that people can look up what he said five years or five minutes ago on the internet tubes. Newt has become a Catholic, I believe, because old-style Catholicism buys into what he (and Republicanism) have believed all along: that you may not be perfect, but you are always forgiven, provided you profess loyalty and devotion to the ideology involved. So as long as you SAY you believe in the Holy Catholic See/Grand Old Party ideology, no matter how much you lie or how big a hypocrite you are, the indulgences will come at you fast and easy
The Republican Party and the 24 hour news cycle (that apparently needs them to fill up 'fair and balanced' programming minutes) doles out indulgences all the time. That's why compulsive gambler Bill Bennett and Christian Right/Gambling benefactor Ralph Reed can appear on CNN as Republican analysts and Wolf Blitzer doesn't bat a eye. It's why Newt Gingrich himself is allowed into the green room at This Week any Sunday morning he likes, whether Paul Krugman sits next to him or not.
It's why despite his horrible record and affairs and total hypocrisy he may be the standard bearer of his party, the party of family values, in 2012.
"Don't let that dmarks highjack the subject of the post, Gingrich's hypocrisy."
I've not strayed from the subject, as empty as it is. However, Shaw has yet to show his hypocrisy. I don't doubt that Gingrich is hypcritical on something (who isn't?). But so far, there is a complete lack of connection. Gingrich commiting adultery, and then criticizing Bill Clinton for sexual harassment and perjury, is not an example of hypocrisy. Shaw has shown no "smoking gun" on this (such as Gingrich criticizing Clinton for adultery).
"Unwinnable point" is right, as Shaw isn't even coming close.
Also... "It's why Newt Gingrich himself is allowed into the green room at This Week any Sunday morning he likes, whether Paul Krugman sits next to him or not."
Regardless of Paul Krugman, the Left is always represented by the guy who runs the show, George Stephanopoulos. Yes, an actual journalist (Brinkley) replaced with someone who was paid to smooth out Clinton's scandals. I'm not sure about your point on that one.
dmarks typed:
'It was. The Lewinsky episode had to do with Clinton's lying in court to cover up relevant information about the sexual harassment he committed. It was about nothing more than sexual harassment.'
It was about lies told covering up the affair so Bill's wife wouldn't find out. Monica Lewinsky never made an issue over harassment. But if you choose to then that would place you in the vanguard of those finding female victims in each and every relationship between a man and a woman. And it certainly goes back to the idea of the 'frivolous' lawsuit. While Lewinsky could 'claim' sexual harassment, she didn't and she would have had to have proved it. Anyone can make a claim. And anyone can sue.
And your reading of the McDonald's lawsuit doesn't quite square with the facts.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
"Monica Lewinsky never made an issue over harassment"
But Clinton's use of his employees for sexual gratification was relevant to the Jones case. Clinton had no right to commit perjury, and even encourage others to lie in court.
"And your reading of the McDonald's lawsuit doesn't quite square with the facts."
Which fact did I get wrong? I've researched this textbook-example frivolous lawsuit extensively. The site you linked to (some sort of ambulance-chaser outfit) contains some lies and leaves out important facts. Just like lawyer's statements when pushing frivolous lawsuits.
Sorry, coffee served at the recommended temperature which millions drink just fine is not "dangerously hot".
Their McFact #7 is an odd one, seems to have nothing to do with anything, and does not help or hinder their "frivolous lawsuits are good" stance.
Post a Comment