Why would Nancy Pelosi say she didn't know about waterboarding?

[Skyhunter]

"i do recall" is the same thing. it's the implied version of "i don't recall ever being informed that these techniques were actually being used".

anyhoo, she's not stupid. pinning her down on the issue will be about as easy as nailing jello to a tree.

Actually what she said was:

We were not! I repeat not told that water boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.

 

[LowlyPion]

If it is so clear to you, how does one go about addressing all the language in the GC Art 4 that Prisoners of War must be persons that belonging to militias ...

I see so your position is that the US had merely kidnapped foreign citizens who was not even a combatants ... and chose to torture them, under the suspension of habeas corpus, and any civil right?

I think you'd be better off clinging to the charade that these high value detainees were combatants, rather than grasping at assigning them to the status of kidnapped individuals. That's not exactly upgrading the tenability of the Bush Administration's position.

 

[LowlyPion]

The Washington Post doesn't specify a 1 hour brief...it specifies (about) 30 separate briefings.

Not all of which concerned interrogation. And none of which is in the Public Record to substantiate that it was made clear to these Select Congressional Members exactly the means that were being employed to get these detainees to talk.

 

[Proton Soup]

Actually what she said was:

Originally Posted by Nancy Pelosi

We were not! I repeat not told that water boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.

so what? doesn't mean she wasn't told that they intended to use them.

i think she is lying. just like i thought the bush administration was lying when they portrayed the abu graihb offenders as renegades. they were simply doing as they were told.

 

[WhoWee]

Not all of which concerned interrogation. And none of which is in the Public Record to substantiate that it was made clear to these Select Congressional Members exactly the means that were being employed to get these detainees to talk.

How do you know what the 30 briefings concerned?

 

[Skyhunter]

so what? doesn't mean she wasn't told that they intended to use them.

i think she is lying. just like i thought the bush administration was lying when they portrayed the abu graihb offenders as renegades. they were simply doing as they were told.

So all you have is your opinion. There is no evidence that she is lying. And quite enough to cast a more than reasonable doubt. She said the members were told that they would be briefed before these enhanced techniques were employed.

It is much ado about nothing in order to undermine any investigations.

 

[LowlyPion]

How do you know what the 30 briefings concerned?

And how do you know exactly what these select Congress People were told and when?

And how do you know with such certainty the circumstances and the presentation such that you can call Nancy Pelosi a liar?

 

[WhoWee]

And how do you know exactly what these select Congress People were told and when?

And how do you know with such certainty the circumstances and the presentation such that you can call Nancy Pelosi a liar?

You said...

Originally Posted by LowlyPion View Post

Not all of which concerned interrogation. And none of which is in the Public Record to substantiate that it was made clear to these Select Congressional Members exactly the means that were being employed to get these detainees to talk.

...you first

 

[mheslep]

I see so your position is that the US had merely kidnapped foreign citizens who was not even a combatants ... and chose to torture them, under the suspension of habeas corpus, and any civil right?

I think you'd be better off clinging to the charade that these high value detainees were combatants, rather than grasping at assigning them to the status of kidnapped individuals. That's not exactly upgrading the tenability of the Bush Administration's position.

I havn't stated my position here on the interrogations, so you know nothing about it. However, you LP, have repeatedly claimed knowledge of how these actions and briefings obviously violated the GC, but when asked a straight forward question regarding the GC on this subject you have nothing to say except to demean and slur.

 

[mheslep]

So all you have is your opinion. There is no evidence that she is lying. And quite enough to cast a more than reasonable doubt. She said the members were told that they would be briefed before these enhanced techniques were employed. ...

If we find that these 'enhanced techniques' that were briefed in the Sept 02 meeting included water boarding, then she's mistaken when she said recently that the CIA "flat out never briefed us on waterboarding": in that case she's either lying or didn't find the intent to waterboard in '02 all that memorable which is also relevant. And there is other evidence, other people were there, like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html" .

 

[LowlyPion]

...you first

A careful reading of what you posted and saw fit to highlight even reveals this to be the case:

... the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

 

[LowlyPion]

... except to demean and slur.

I think you are letting your imagination get away from you.

 

[mheslep]

BTW, my position is that the interrogation of the three detainees by water boarding is indeed torture, even though college kids and others volunteer to be water boarded as a lark, even though AQ/Hamas/etc care nothing for Geneva Convention and never will, and even though KSM is mass murdering psychopath.
I believe WB is torture because Senator John McCain says it is, end of story for me. I also go along with his more recent statement:

"So who are we looking at? We're looking at people that gave the advice. It was bad advice. But if you're going to criminalize bad advice on the part of lawyers, how are we going to get people to serve and what kind of precedent does that set for the future?"

-- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, on CBS Face the Nation

 

[Skyhunter]

If we find that these 'enhanced techniques' that were briefed in the Sept 02 meeting included water boarding, then she's mistaken when she said recently that the CIA "flat out never briefed us on waterboarding": in that case she's either lying or didn't find the intent to waterboard in '02 all that memorable which is also relevant. And there is other evidence, other people were there, like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html" .

That is not what she said, at least it was not in any of the sound bites I heard. She said the members were told of a legal opinion that would allow them to use enhanced techniques and that they would be briefed before the techniques were employed. And they were never briefed.

The briefings were top secret and no one was allowed to record or take notes.

It is a moot point. A distraction by the right to try and deflect scrutiny.

 

[LowlyPion]

I also go along with his more recent statement:
"So who are we looking at? We're looking at people that gave the advice. It was bad advice. But if you're going to criminalize bad advice on the part of lawyers, how are we going to get people to serve and what kind of precedent does that set for the future?"
-- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, on CBS Face the Nation

Hopefully we will get people whose interest is in serving the Law and not driven by ideology to fashion the application of the law to justify illegal behavior.

If you are practicing Law before the Bar in any state you are subject to sanctions for poor lawyering. Why would we give those serving in Government an exception?

The precedent it should set is The Nation demands respect for The Law above Party ideology. If Bush had had lawyers like that, we might not be facing these inquiries into what is now being recognized as illegal behavior that was once rationalized by shoddy thinking in the service of party agenda. For had the Bush Administration not been so eager to pin Al Qaeda connections to Iraq, perhaps they wouldn't have stumbled and given the Nation a black eye in the process.

 

[Proton Soup]

That is not what she said, at least it was not in any of the sound bites I heard. She said the members were told of a legal opinion that would allow them to use enhanced techniques and that they would be briefed before the techniques were employed. And they were never briefed.

The briefings were top secret and no one was allowed to record or take notes.

It is a moot point. A distraction by the right to try and deflect scrutiny.

and that is just your opinion.

 

[drankin]

I haven't been following the news on this lately but are they going to investigate this and find out who knew what? Meanwhile, we can only speculate. My speculation is that Pelosi was privy to the tactics and didn't say a peep.

 

[WhoWee]

Hopefully we will get people whose interest is in serving the Law and not driven by ideology to fashion the application of the law to justify illegal behavior.

If you are practicing Law before the Bar in any state you are subject to sanctions for poor lawyering. Why would we give those serving in Government an exception?

The precedent it should set is The Nation demands respect for The Law above Party ideology. If Bush had had lawyers like that, we might not be facing these inquiries into what is now being recognized as illegal behavior that was once rationalized by shoddy thinking in the service of party agenda. For had the Bush Administration not been so eager to pin Al Qaeda connections to Iraq, perhaps they wouldn't have stumbled and given the Nation a black eye in the process.

Is the ACLU going to put "Country before ideology" when they distribute the interrogation photos...or are they going to fan the flames of hatred and put American lives abroad at risk?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pentagon_abuse_photos

"The president is not concerned that this is going to distract from a larger agenda," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday, referring to the combination of events. "I think the American people are focused on moving forward."

Gibbs said the release of the photos was "largely compelled by a court decision" and not something that was in the White House's control. He declined to say whether Obama would support releasing the photos even if he were not pressed by a court case.

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said the release of the photos could cause a backlash that will put U.S. troops in harm's way at greater risk. She said the issue is not Obama's agenda but rather protection for the U.S. men and women in the military. "The administration should have fought this all the way to the Supreme Court," Ferrier said.

 

[LowlyPion]

Is the ACLU going to put "Country before ideology" ...

Isn't the point that we put The Law before "ideology" ?

You are complaining because this White House now would observe the Law?

Why should we hide the disgrace that Bush and Cheney brought to The Nation by misleading fabrications to engage in a war that wasn't justified by the facts in the first place and the conduct of which was also not surprisingly justified by following the Law? Should we hide these facts to bury the tarnish Bush and Cheney brought to the country? Or air them so that the country may learn that this is not consistent with American regard for The Law.

But I must say it is surprising to see you digress in this way, when not so long ago you were calling to stick to the topic of the thread. Since whatever traction you might think you can get with Pelosi must necessarily come at the expense of recognizing that Bush Cheney were engaging in something that they should have recognized as illegal, I suppose I can't blame you if that's the only direction you have left?

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't the point that we put The Law before "ideology" ?

You are complaining because this White House now would observe the Law?

Why should we hide the disgrace that Bush and Cheney brought to The Nation by misleading fabrications to engage in a war that wasn't justified by the facts in the first place and the conduct of which was also not surprisingly justified by following the Law? Should we hide these facts to bury the tarnish Bush and Cheney brought to the country? Or air them so that the country may learn that this is not consistent with American regard for The Law.

But I must say it is surprising to see you digress in this way, when not so long ago you were calling to stick to the topic of the thread. Since whatever traction you might think you can get with Pelosi must necessarily come at the expense of recognizing that Bush Cheney were engaging in something that they should have recognized as illegal, I suppose I can't blame you if that's the only direction you have left?

You are right...you distracted me from the topic of the thread...Nancy Pelosi.

This is from her website...gives you an insight of her tone at the time...
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prSept11Inquiry121102.htm

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prterrorismfieldhearing.htm
I didn't realize this...
Chairman Porter Goss, Subcommittee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, and Ranking Member Jane Harman, thank you for your leadership in the fight against terrorism. As the Ranking Member on the full Intelligence Committee, I join you in welcoming our distinguished guests. I commend Mayor Giuliani and the public safety community for demonstrating that New York is truly an extraordinary place.

She was quite supportive of Bush when Saddam was captured
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Dec03/SaddamHussein121403.html

WOW she really doesn't like closed door negotiations
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Nov03/EnergyBill111803.html

I think she believes this...and acted accordingly
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Oct03/IraqSupplemental103003.html
"As Members of Congress we recognize that we have no greater responsibility than that charged to us in the Preamble of the Constitution -- to 'provide for the common defense.' We all take that responsibility seriously.

Actually, she said it twice
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Oct03/BushSupplementalRequest101603.html
"Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress we recognize that we have no greater responsibility than that charged to us in the Preamble of the Constitution: to 'provide for the common defense.' We all take that responsibility seriously on both sides of the aisle.

This week she disclosed that she wasn't happy with electronic surveillance
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April09/wire.html

She appears to be well briefed and knowledgeable on the war effort
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept03/prpostWarIraq091603.html

She said it again
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept03/prDemHomelandSecPriorities090503.html
"House Democrats have been working to develop a set of priorities to make our country safer and more secure.

"Next week, we will mark the second anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It will be a time for remembering the thousands who lost their lives or who were injured on that day, as well as our service men and women who have died or have been wounded in the campaign against terrorism following the attacks. In remembering those who have sacrificed so much, we must be ever mindful of their families, for whom the pain of loss continues.

"As necessary and appropriate as our ceremonies of remembrance will be, this should also be a time for an honest evaluation of how well we have done in the past two years in reducing our exposure to another terrorist event. The attacks of 2001 made clear the gaps that existed in our homeland security, and post-attack reviews have revealed even more vulnerabilities.

"As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution -- to provide for the common defense. When the Constitution was written, providing for the common defense meant homeland security. We weren't fighting wars around the world, we were defending the homeland. As we protect and defend our country, we must protect and defend the Constitution -- that is the oath of office that we take.

"Improving the safety of the American people at home must be undertaken as aggressively as pursuing terrorists in far-off lands.

"Today, we present an assessment of areas in which security improvements are critical. Our priorities focus on making America safer and more secure.

"Our priorities include enhancing protection of our borders; securing sensitive nuclear and chemical plants; improving the coordination of our intelligence; and improving the resources of our first responders. Reducing these risks to our security must be a national priority, and we need a commitment to accomplishing it that reflects the enormity of the tragedy we suffered on September 11."

To be fair...this comment could go either way in making a case
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/July03/pr911JointInquiry072403.html
“Our work started with the recognition of a sobering fact: al Qaeda was better at planning the attacks and keeping their plans secret than the United States government was at uncovering them.

“The findings that were released last December detail deficiencies in the performance of our intelligence agencies: They failed to share information; they failed to ensure that techniques for collection and analysis were of the highest standards; and they failed to focus appropriately on the possibility that foreign-based terrorists would attack in the United States.

“The joint inquiry made recommendations last December that were intended to address those fundamental problems, and I trust the intelligence committees are monitoring the implementation of those recommendations. The unclassified report we are releasing today provides a better understanding of the basis for those judgments.

again, this was a pre-Sept 11 assessment...

The record demonstrates that Pelosi was well informed and in favor of preventing future terrorist attacks...to her credit. I couldn't find any record of her speaking out about concern for captives or the need for restraint or concern about adhering to the letter of the law during interrogations...no veiled warnings to the CIA that wouldn't have put her at risk of violating secrecy.

Sorry for the long post...just wanted to get back on track.

 

[mheslep]

That is not what she said, at least it was not in any of the sound bites I heard.

<shrug>, everybody seems to have a slightly different quote.
SF newspaper:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39012

My experience was they did not tell us they were using that. Flat out. And any -- any contention to the contrary is simply not true.

Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53M6NW20090423

"They did not tell us they were using that, flat out, and any contention to the contrary is simply not true,"

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47108

She said the members were told of a legal opinion that would allow them to use enhanced techniques and that they would be briefed before the techniques were employed. And they were never briefed.

Speaker Pelosi says they were never briefed.

The briefings were top secret and no one was allowed to record or take notes.

No Congressional members were allowed to take notes, SOP. It may well be that the CIA briefers have some kind of recording.

 

[WhoWee]

She lied.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ca...pelosi_was_briefed_on.html?hpid=news-col-blog

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

 

[seycyrus]

It will be illustrative to see how the dems will ignore this evidence, but continue to hound Bush over this topic. It will be even more illustrative to see how this is ignored by the media and the majority of the populace.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

 

[LowlyPion]

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill.

What debate? It's a who cares.

Whether or not she knew about it specifically being used in no way excuses the excesses perpetrated by the last administration. It was their war crime, if it is determined to be that. It was Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury that were carpet-bombing away dissent with their legal rationalizations. It was Cheney and his apparent paranoia hunkered in his bunker that was willing to employ such means to an end.

The best that conservative talking heads can do then is attempt to co-opt critical appraisal with diversion?

 

[WhoWee]

What debate? It's a who cares.

Whether or not she knew about it specifically being used in no way excuses the excesses perpetrated by the last administration. It was their war crime, if it is determined to be that. It was Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury that were carpet-bombing away dissent with their legal rationalizations. It was Cheney and his apparent paranoia hunkered in his bunker that was willing to employ such means to an end.

The best that conservative talking heads can do then is attempt to co-opt critical appraisal with diversion?

Again...back to the thread...Why would Nancy Pelosi say she didn't know about waterboarding? Why lie?

 

[LowlyPion]

Again...back to the thread...Why would Nancy Pelosi say she didn't know about waterboarding? Why lie?

You've yet to demonstrate that she lied. Repeating "she lied" doesn't make it so. There is no information on how any of the select members of congress were told. Or exactly what they were told and most importantly, what they were left understanding about what they were told. If they were informed in a manner that was not clear, buried in a bulleted list, called euphemistically EITs, whatever, that doesn't mean that Pelosi or anyone else necessarily was provided with the complete information or detail necessary to fully understand the US was engaging in War Crimes.

 

[WhoWee]

You've yet to demonstrate that she lied. Repeating "she lied" doesn't make it so. There is no information on how any of the select members of congress were told. Or exactly what they were told and most importantly, what they were left understanding about what they were told. If they were informed in a manner that was not clear, buried in a bulleted list, called euphemistically EITs, whatever, that doesn't mean that Pelosi or anyone else necessarily was provided with the complete information or detail necessary to fully understand the US was engaging in War Crimes.

Surely you jest...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...=news-col-blog

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

 

[LowlyPion]

... said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics.

... notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah."

I don't think that is the requisite nexus to conclude that she would be lying now about what she would have understood at the time. Nor would she have necessarily understood that detainees had already been water-boarded over 100 times by the point of the briefing.

She has freely admitted that she was told about the techniques, but not that they were specifically used, or the extent that they would have been used. Revealing an incomplete picture is still fraudulent conduct, if sufficient facts are not provided to give a proper context to what is being conveyed, such that the listener can draw a complete picture of what they are being told.

Until they would provide exactly what she was told, and the manner of the telling, and keeping in mind that no notes were allowed to be taken at the time, presumably because of security concerns, apparently it will forever be a he said she said. Which raises the question of exactly why the previous administration defenders are so keen to make the assertion in the first place.

 

[WhoWee]

Until they would provide exactly what she was told, and the manner of the telling, and keeping in mind that no notes were allowed to be taken at the time, presumably because of security concerns, apparently it will forever be a he said she said. Which raises the question of exactly why the previous administration defenders are so keen to make the assertion in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I hope your's will be the standard Left response...demand the facts...Obama wants transparency so let's open up the books on "what she (and Congress) knew and when she knew it and let the chips fall where they fall. Liars only serve themselves...not the People.

When they are finish with "torture", they can start on "banking and mortgages (Chris and Barney). But we'll need to start before the 2010 elections.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the consequence of the 2002 Congressional briefings on EIT: If any executive branch lawyer was to be found guilty of a war crime on the subject (and I believe they won't be, nor charged, nor disbarred), then the briefed members must be complicit in the act absent action on their part to object at the time. There's no escape from this if the CIA notice is even remotely correct; so far there have been no complaints of accuracy in the CIA release.

 

[russ_watters]

...and the conclusion that that leads one to is that democrats won't push for an inquiry because then what they knew would become a bigger issue. The media has been speculating as to why the democrats aren't pushing for an inquiry, but I haven't seen them make that connection.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think that is the requisite nexus to conclude that she would be lying now about what she would have understood at the time. Nor would she have necessarily understood that detainees had already been water-boarded over 100 times by the point of the briefing.

She has freely admitted that she was told about the techniques, but not that they were specifically used, or the extent that they would have been used. Revealing an incomplete picture is still fraudulent conduct, if sufficient facts are not provided to give a proper context to what is being conveyed, such that the listener can draw a complete picture of what they are being told.

Until they would provide exactly what she was told, and the manner of the telling, and keeping in mind that no notes were allowed to be taken at the time, presumably because of security concerns, apparently it will forever be a he said she said. Which raises the question of exactly why the previous administration defenders are so keen to make the assertion in the first place.

This is an eye witness account...Goss was in the briefings with Pelosi...this is what he has to say...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html

"Security Before Politics

By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.


Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:


-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.


-- We understood what the CIA was doing.


-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.


-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.


-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

The writer, a Republican, was director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004. "

 

[LowlyPion]

This is an eye witness account...Goss was in the briefings with Pelosi...this is what he has to say...

It's also Porter Goss.

I would believe him like I would believe Cheney.

 

[drankin]

It's also Porter Goss.

I would believe him like I would believe Cheney.

Obviously, he is lying. Everything he says about the CIA becoming less effectual is a bunch of bologne too. The guy has no credibility. We should just dismiss his comments outright. For that matter he should be thrown out of public service for being such a liar and even suggesting that Pelosi knew anything about what actually happens to terror suspects in the CIAs hands after all those briefings. Pelosi is practically the definition of an honest politician, everyone knows this.

 

[LowlyPion]

Obviously, he is lying. Everything he says about the CIA becoming less effectual is a bunch of bologne too. The guy has no credibility. We should just dismiss his comments outright. For that matter he should be thrown out of public service for being such a liar and even suggesting that Pelosi knew anything about what actually happens to terror suspects in the CIAs hands after all those briefings. Pelosi is practically the definition of an honest politician, everyone knows this.

I'm always hopeful that people can be brought back from the dark side.

As an ex-CIA head himself, it's not like Porter doesn't have a dog in the fight protecting the CIA. That he would find himself on the same side in a fight as Cheney is not exactly news nor is it conclusive of much of anything.

If you are suggesting that politicians are less than honest, then by an unhappy coincidence he's also one of those too..