I looked straight ahead at Pelosi and said, "You knew. You were informed."
Then my left arm was seized by another guy and Pelosi countered, "No, I was not."
I dug my feet in and continued, "You were briefed as a member of the gang of four about torture in 2002 and as the gang of eight about wiretapping."
Pelosi was pushing my book across the table and attempting to turn her attention to Gregg when she replied, "We stopped it." I was incensed. "What? Uh, no you didn’t."
Two more goons stepped in, one in front of me and one behind and they pulled me off to the side. I pointed out that other people were having long chats and asking all sorts of questions of the Speaker. "Not these kind of questions. We’re not taking these kinds of questions. You’re done," was the response.
At that point, Pelosi probably wasn’t listening any longer, but fixated on the word power, I managed to squeeze in "Why don’t you use the power the Constitution granted you to stop a president who abuses his powers?!"
They began to escort me out and I wasn’t resisting, but walking slowly as I shouted out, "Know your power Nancy! Stop the torture!" I had had enough and didn’t need their escort anymore and began to leave on my own volition. I glanced over at the long line of people and I realized the incessant chatter had ended all at once like a group of startled crickets. Not one person would make eye contact with me. As I turned the corner under the watchful eye of the security detail, the chatter returned as if nothing had happened.
Outside on the sidewalk, I breathed in the night air - choked a little on the pollution - and began the walk to my car. Then I remembered my new friend, Gregg. Why wasn’t he outside yet I wondered. I pictured him jacked up against the library wall by security, his boyish face pressed into the plaster rendering him unable to speak. All because he decided to hit on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Then the front doors flew open and there was a triumphant Gregg with a mischievous grin (no signs of trauma) and a skip in his step. We walked together to our cars as he delighted me with his story of his newfound love for Nancy Pelosi. Read Gregg’s (way shorter) report on Pelosi’s response to him here. For the record, if you think Gregg's behavior was sexist, I’m pretty sure he would have done the same with Dick Cheney.
Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and normalizing relations with Iran. Seeking to keep people honest - including myself - and expose those who promote ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, encourage terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt.
Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com.
Contact info: cheryl[at]opednews.com
cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com
...and give Pelosi a big fat Fruit Pie in the face. She is nothing more than a common criminal with her obstinate bullshit about not knowing whether Bush committed a crime. I mean honestly! What is it going to take to restore law and order to this nation?
by
daveys (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 189 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 5:47:22 PM
I'm responding tot his comment to get closer to your link for pelosi's book signings. I assume you're thinking that other people will want to do what you did. IT would be cool if a wave ofpeople did it at each location. And plan what to do as you are carried out by the goons. Even come up with a script.
Drudge report that the book is a total flop, less than 3000 sold.
by
Rob Kall (890 articles, 4057 quicklinks, 350 diaries, 1924 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 1:52:57 PM
Thanks Rob. There is indeed at least one person amongst the commenters on this thread who will be visiting Nancy within the next few days. Looking forward to the report!
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 2:41:09 PM
Nancy Pelosi slithers away from impeachment question
In Philadelphia, the birthplace of the Constitution, in a Public Library, the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slithers away from answering a citizen's question about impeachment CLICK HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7fI3aT3as
by
Gene Cappa (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 76 diaries, 285 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 6:37:50 PM
Comment from Ratings: That takes guts to step right up and speak truth to power and then get repelled by power itself in the very city that gave birth to the Constitution while surrounded by British forces no less. Bravo Cheryl and thank you.
by
Gene Cappa (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 76 diaries, 285 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 6:46:30 PM
Forget Pelosi's book signing for a moment, why is there a Newsmax ad up on Oped with a sinister looking photo of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which says Bomb Iran? How freakin sad is that!
I've been noticing this on many different sites, even on Merriam Webster's. It is an outrage!
by
Munich (1 articles, 82 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1012 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:07:50 PM
I agree with you Munich and have voiced my concern as well. Google has the capability of placing specific ads in articles and websites that have keywords that relate to that ad. There may be a way to control, not sure, but that is the price of not having more funding or advertising I guess. I have shared your concern (and mine) with Rob.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:20:34 PM
I always wonder why there aren't MORE people asking the tough questions and making all of these so called leaders feel uncomfortable where ever they go.
Nice work!
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 508 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM
If only this witness faced a prosecutor in a courtroom
She smiled and I leaned in and said in a calm voice, "You were briefed about torture and the wiretapping years before the public found out. Why didn’t you use your power to stop it?"
Pelosi was indignant, "We didn’t know."
In an instant, I felt a very firm grip being placed on my right arm. I chose to ignore the fact that it was beginning to tighten and that the man in the suit who belonged to the hand was now leaning into me and trying to pull me aside.
I looked straight ahead at Pelosi and said, "You knew. You were informed."
Then my left arm was seized by another guy and Pelosi countered, "No, I was not."
I dug my feet in and continued, "You were briefed as a member of the gang of four about torture in 2002 and as the gang of eight about wiretapping."
Pelosi was pushing my book across the table and attempting to turn her attention to Gregg when she replied, "We stopped it." I was incensed. "What? Uh, no you didn’t."
Some part of me wonders if Pelosi is telling the truth. She seems to shift her position from general denial to making an excuse as you get more specific. A great deal of insight might be gained if only a Bugliosi type prosecutor could put Pelosi on the stand.
If you are in the mood to take requests Cheryl, I'd be interested to see a review of the evidence that shows that Pelosi is not telling the truth if she isn't.
Whilst Pelosi is Speaker impeachment goes nowhere except with her consent. This is the very pointy end of the impeachment effort.
Pelosi is putting herself in the spotlight and holding herself out as a role model but as Kucinich points out in a video I received today via email and I imagine you will too, impeachment is about "the restoration of the Constitution".
My point is that if the Constitution needs restoring then there is currently no rule of law and no valid government.
Jefferson said that the liberty tree needs nourishing from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots, its natural manure. If impeachment is not successful, if the Constitution is not being upheld due to the unprincipled leadership of the two dominant political parties I think these become one of those times.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM
First - thanks to everyone for your comments. I really appreciate them.
I'm still kind of processing that exchange, but I tend to think that she either denied it initially because she may have thought I was not in the know about those briefings and thought she could just brush it off and/or she thought if she could deny it in the presence of others no one else would start picking up on it. The thing is she already admitted publically to at least the wiretapping briefing. The waterboarding one I don't know if she discussed, but it is pretty well documented that it occurred. It's just that it really didn't go anywhere in the press which is one of the reasons I felt the need to bring it up again. I wanted her to know we know and I wanted others who weren't aware or who hadn't put the pieces together to fully understand. And, of course, to elicit a response about why she stayed silent until it was made public.
Here is the link to the WaPo article that Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding in 2002.
Here is the link to Pelosi's 2006 OpEd in the WaPo admitting that she was briefed on wiretapping. What I don't know - and if anyone does, please post it here - is when Pelosi was briefed on the wiretapping. Corporate-owned media and politicians like to say that it was as a result of 9/11, but we now know that the wiretapping began before that, just a few months after Bush took office. So, the next question is was she and the others briefed before 9/11 or after?
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM
briefing - Oct 01 (her response of immediate concern)
"So, the next question is was she and the others briefed before 9/11 or after?"
Re: NSA pre-9/11 spying: -- Her letter expressing concern, sent to General Hayden on 11 Oct 2001, strongly suggests that she was not aware of the situation prior to that time. It seems extremely unlikely that she would have written such a letter if she had prior knowledge of this.
Excerpt: "During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions."
Thanks Aurora! I had not seen those before. not sure why...
The redacted info. definitely leaves room for some speculation, but the fact that she said things like:
"Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis," she seems to be letting him know hey if you don't want resistance from [redacted ] pony up. But chances are that she, herself, was not going to give them a hard time on it.
She says " I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the NSA received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."
This tells me that as long as the prez gave the order that's all she needs to know. Screw FISA, Screw the Constitution, Screw the 427 other members of Congress. All power to the President.
The thing that bothered me most when she came clean in her 2006 OpEd she said simply, "But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval." Well, then what the hell is the point of being briefed? She really doesn't seem to have any grip whatsoever on the checks and balances.
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (29 articles, 29 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 435 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:19:58 PM
"She says " I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the NSA received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."
"This tells me that as long as the prez gave the order that's all she needs to know. Screw FISA, Screw the Constitution, Screw the 427 other members of Congress. All power to the President. "
Yes. And yet it could have been so different, if only she had at least allowed impeachment - She would not have had to push for it or even endorse the hearings -- but just allow the normal course of justice to proceed.
Here's Gen Hayden's brief reply, wherein he takes all responsibility himself. ("I had used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.")
"when she came clean in her 2006 OpEd she said simply, "But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval." Well, then what the hell is the point of being briefed? She really doesn't seem to have any grip whatsoever on the checks and balances. "
Which raises the question, WHY is she there? I mean, what is her own understanding, at this time, of her role, and the role of congress for that matter, in actual governing.
Here is that full quote from her WaPo oped:
"But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely."
