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

[drankin]

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..

The theory that Pelosi didn't know precisely what was happening looks very very weak. If, in fact, she did not know then the logical question is WHY NOT? But I don't believe we even have to get to that question.

 

[LowlyPion]

The theory that Pelosi didn't know precisely what was happening looks very very weak. If, in fact, she did not know then the logical question is WHY NOT? But I don't believe we even have to get to that question.

Of course you do. Because as you would imagine it would most certainly be in the interests of those in the Administration to present the material in such a way that she would not get upset. This would explain the sham cover of Bybee's memo, created a month prior to any presentation to Pelosi, so that they could point to "legal opinion" back-up to their position.

I'd say the case against those with a motive to deceive Pelosi - no need to deceive Porter Goss, as he was on their team and clearly trusted to the extent they subsequently gave him the Directorship of the CIA - looks to me to be a stronger possibility than any attempt of Pelosi's to duck responsibility.

Motive - means - opportunity. Check. Check. Check. And they surely knew that Bybee's and Yoo's kited opinions were a tissue paper defense against what they had done so ... why would they have stopped at trying to co-opt Pelosi with a little deception?

 

[drankin]

Of course you do. Because as you would imagine it would most certainly be in the interests of those in the Administration to present the material in such a way that she would not get upset. This would explain the sham cover of Bybee's memo, created a month prior to any presentation to Pelosi, so that they could point to "legal opinion" back-up to their position.

I'd say the case against those with a motive to deceive Pelosi - no need to deceive Porter Goss, as he was on their team and clearly trusted to the extent they subsequently gave him the Directorship of the CIA - looks to me to be a stronger possibility than any attempt of Pelosi's to duck responsibility.

Motive - means - opportunity. Check. Check. Check. And they surely knew that Bybee's and Yoo's kited opinions were a tissue paper defense against what they had done so ... why would they have stopped at trying to co-opt Pelosi with a little deception?

In other words "conspiracy". I'll side with the obvious answers before I'll entertain that one.

 

[russ_watters]

Once you set yourself into an 'anything I see that I don't agree with must be a lie' frame of mind, there really isn't anything more to discuss. Rational thought is no longer on the table.

 

[turbo]

Let's get realistic. If the briefers had told Pelosi that they had already waterboarded a detainee 83 times in the course of a single month, do you think she would have forgotten that? Would you or I have forgotten torture that took a man near to death repeatedly? I think not. If in fact she was told that, she should immediately resign her position because she was complicit in torture.

The facts as we know them include: the Bush administration did not consult with Congress. They gave after-the fact selective briefings to select members of Congress to provide a fig-leaf of deniability regarding their actions. That is not a consultation in the sense of advise and consent. The people who got the briefings were not allowed to take notes, were not allowed to consult with their offices' legal counsel, and not allowed to mention the briefings to fellow committee-members. For people who were involved in these briefings to come out now and claim that Pelosi and other members of Congress were "fully briefed" when no supporting evidence exists gives a lot of fuel to the right wing media (who are rarely deterred by a lack of evidence).

 

[LowlyPion]

Let's get realistic. If the briefers had told Pelosi that they had already waterboarded a detainee 83 times in the course of a single month, do you think she would have forgotten that? Would you or I have forgotten torture that took a man near to death repeatedly? I think not. If in fact she was told that, she should immediately resign her position because she was complicit in torture.

The facts as we know them include: the Bush administration did not consult with Congress. They gave after-the fact selective briefings to select members of Congress to provide a fig-leaf of deniability regarding their actions. That is not a consultation in the sense of advise and consent. The people who got the briefings were not allowed to take notes, were not allowed to consult with their offices' legal counsel, and not allowed to mention the briefings to fellow committee-members. For people who were involved in these briefings to come out now and claim that Pelosi and other members of Congress were "fully briefed" when no supporting evidence exists gives a lot of fuel to the right wing media (who are rarely deterred by a lack of evidence).

Given their eagerness to foment war with Iraq on sketchy underqualified and as it turns out incorrect information, (and at some level likely knowingly so I would conclude), I'd say it's mighty difficult to trust that the Administration would have engaged in what one might normally think would be full disclosure.

At trial, generally speaking, the standard for proof and the instructions usually given a jury are that if a witness has been untruthful, part or all of their testimony may be disregarded, or discounted in considering a verdict. Given the information lapses the last administration engaged in, whether or not you would believe that Nancy Pelosi would be engaging in dissembling what and when she would have known, and given the actors on the Bush-Cheney side of things - coupled with the predicate of the poorly argued legal memos permitting acts of torture that were prepared prior to the briefings, it must be a cause for wonder of who of any of them can be believed.

http://www.netlawlibraries.com/jurinst/ji_002.html#2.22"

Absent the actual briefings themselves, and for any useful purpose it seems there was intentionally no notes or taping of these briefings that would survive today, at best it's all a wash as to knowing what may have happened and who exactly would have condoned what. The only thing we do know for sure is that the administration engaged in the practice of performing acts of torture, as generally recognized and admitted to even by the Republicans themselves, and attempted to hide the legality of their acts by opinion memos from their own lawyers.

 

[mheslep]

Let's get realistic. If the briefers had told Pelosi that they had already waterboarded a detainee 83 times in the course of a single month, do you think she would have forgotten that? Would you or I have forgotten torture that took a man near to death repeatedly? I think not. If in fact she was told that, she should immediately resign her position because she was complicit in torture.

The facts as we know them include: the Bush administration did not consult with Congress. They gave after-the fact selective briefings to select members of Congress to provide a fig-leaf of deniability regarding their actions. That is not a consultation in the sense of advise and consent. The people who got the briefings were not allowed to take notes, were not allowed to consult with their offices' legal counsel, and not allowed to mention the briefings to fellow committee-members. For people who were involved in these briefings to come out now and claim that Pelosi and other members of Congress were "fully briefed" when no supporting evidence exists gives a lot of fuel to the right wing media (who are rarely deterred by a lack of evidence).

According to the http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf" , and without further elaboration in that memo. I believe it is only because of the intricateness of the requirements placed on the interrogators is every few seconds (10-40) of dousing during a session counted, totalling into the hundreds of 'times'. I further think it is reasonable that Pelosi et al were told something like 'the detainee would be waterboarded for an hour or so for five/six days' (a summary of the RC report) and that's an accurate depiction.

Problems/objections to classified briefings can be (and are) discussed at least with the Chairman of the intelligence committee according to various members of Congress. At the very least the majority party Senators in the 2002 briefing (e.g. Rockefeller) had immediate recourse to their subpoena power for further closed sessions.

There now is substantial public evidence about what was briefed: Goss's eye witness statement (repeatedly linked in this thread), and recently this CIA report on the briefings. That may be insufficient for some, but in no way can it be called 'no supporting evidence'.

 

[LowlyPion]

There now is substantial public evidence about what was briefed: Goss's eye witness statement (repeatedly linked in this thread), and recently this CIA report on the briefings. That may be insufficient for some, but in no way can it be called 'no supporting evidence'.

Pelosi was briefed once on Sept. 4, 2002 and the water-boarding apparently occurred after that time. The FBI does not report any participation in water boarding before they withdrew, due to what the FBI construed was improperly harsh interrogation in Aug 2002. The FBI withdrew because the CIA was using EITs such as constant nakedness, cold, loud rock music and sleep deprivation. Water-boarding, however, was not mentioned.

Then on Sept 4, Pelosi gets a briefing about what? The EITs they had employed in August? Certainly not the waterboarding they subjected Abu Zabiada to after that time, since it hadn't happened. And how many subsequent briefings did Pelosi get? The DNI memo only lists her as attending once.

But what does Porter Goss say?

This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Given that the CIA documents reveal that Pelosi was only briefed once, this would appear to be misleading, for its failure to inform that Pelosi was not otherwise present for further briefings, despite the fact that he may have attended multiple briefings.

On the face of the evidence, I'd say Nancy Pelosi's statements are consistent with the evidence, and Porter Goss has only served to obfuscate, by implying that Pelosi would have been briefed more than the once.

 

[WhoWee]

Pelosi was briefed once on Sept. 4, 2002 and the water-boarding apparently occurred after that time. The FBI does not report any participation in water boarding before they withdrew, due to what the FBI construed was improperly harsh interrogation in Aug 2002. The FBI withdrew because the CIA was using EITs such as constant nakedness, cold, loud rock music and sleep deprivation. Water-boarding, however, was not mentioned.

Then on Sept 4, Pelosi gets a briefing about what? The EITs they had employed in August? Certainly not the waterboarding they subjected Abu Zabiada to after that time, since it hadn't happened. And how many subsequent briefings did Pelosi get? The DNI memo only lists her as attending once.

But what does Porter Goss say?

Given that the CIA documents reveal that Pelosi was only briefed once, this would appear to be misleading, for its failure to inform that Pelosi was not otherwise present for further briefings, despite the fact that he may have attended multiple briefings.

On the face of the evidence, I'd say Nancy Pelosi's statements are consistent with the evidence, and Porter Goss has only served to obfuscate, by implying that Pelosi would have been briefed more than the once.

At the end of the day, let's not forget that Pelosi is 3rd in line for the Presidency...consider this her vetting. If you need to split hairs to this degree to proclaim her "not a liar"...she fails the test! Next.

 

[LowlyPion]

At the end of the day, let's not forget that Pelosi is 3rd in line for the Presidency...consider this her vetting. If you need to split hairs to this degree to proclaim her "not a liar"...she fails the test! Next.

First of all who's splitting hairs here? You are the one making the claim that she lied in the first place. I don't see her story changing across the various interviews or with the release of the CIA memo that substantiates her claim that she was not informed that water-boarding had been initiated. You would throw mud at her and even though it does not stick you would still call her dirty?

If your concern is that she is third in line, just look at the bullet we dodged then now that Cheney mercifully no longer is in office to be signing off - with full knowledge - and defending still its use. Even after all we know - morally and legally - and even knowing the nation condemns - and the law does not support - he is apparently still with the program and would be water-boarding to this day. I'd say it was a fortunate day indeed for the Republic that a freak pretzel accident didn't elevate him further.

 

[mheslep]

...Water-boarding, however, was not mentioned.

Says _only_ the Speaker. You don't know that.

 

[LowlyPion]

Says _only_ the Speaker. You don't know that.

Look at the evidence.

The chronology was that the FBI had interrogated Abu Zabaida. With non-coercive techniques they had confirmed the code name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and they had identified and arrested Vincent Padilla in May of 2002.

Apparently not satisfied that Abu Zabaidah had given them all the information, because after all he had failed to link Saddam to 9/11, they were primed to step up their "techniques", as we can see by the issuance of the Bybee Memo on August 1, 2002. Sometime in August the FBI observed the sleep deprivation, loud rock music, and nakedness and cold exposure and withdrew from any further interrogation, suggesting that whatever information would be gained in this manner would be tainted through such coercion. That such interrogation treatment exceeded their ability to further participate.

The briefing of the Select Members, and the only one at which Pelosi was listed as present at by the CIA briefing memo, occurs on Sept 4, 2002. It's not clear at all, exactly what was conveyed at that time, because by then Abu Zabaidah had apparently been relocated to CIA dark sites in Pakistan, Thailand and points not disclosed.

9/4/02 Briefing Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.

What we can see from the CIA briefing memo is that there was disclosure of EITs being used. But there are 10 EITs referenced and approved in the Bybee Memo, some of which (sleep deprivation, cold, etc.) are on Bybee's list of "legal" means, and are the reasons already the FBI withdrew in August. So EITs were in use, but that does not contradict Pelosi's account that she was not informed that the 10th and last on the list technique of water-boarding had actually been used.

I'd say her account aligns pretty substantially. To suggest that she was lying based on the dissembling statements of Porter Goss who would imply that Pelosi had been at more than one briefing, then appears to be without foundation. Given Porter Goss's relationship with the Republicans and the CIA, you know how much I weigh his attempt to trash by implication Pelosi's statements.

 

[WhoWee]

Look at the evidence.

The chronology was that the FBI had interrogated Abu Zabaida. With non-coercive techniques they had confirmed the code name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and they had identified and arrested Vincent Padilla in May of 2002.

Apparently not satisfied that Abu Zabaidah had given them all the information, because after all he had failed to link Saddam to 9/11, they were primed to step up their "techniques", as we can see by the issuance of the Bybee Memo on August 1, 2002. Sometime in August the FBI observed the sleep deprivation, loud rock music, and nakedness and cold exposure and withdrew from any further interrogation, suggesting that whatever information would be gained in this manner would be tainted through such coercion. That such interrogation treatment exceeded their ability to further participate.

The briefing of the Select Members, and the only one at which Pelosi was listed as present at by the CIA briefing memo, occurs on Sept 4, 2002. It's not clear at all, exactly what was conveyed at that time, because by then Abu Zabaidah had apparently been relocated to CIA dark sites in Pakistan, Thailand and points not disclosed.

What we can see from the CIA briefing memo is that there was disclosure of EITs being used. But there are 10 EITs referenced and approved in the Bybee Memo, some of which (sleep deprivation, cold, etc.) are on Bybee's list of "legal" means, and are the reasons already the FBI withdrew in August. So EITs were in use, but that does not contradict Pelosi's account that she was not informed that the 10th and last on the list technique of water-boarding had actually been used.

I'd say her account aligns pretty substantially. To suggest that she was lying based on the dissembling statements of Porter Goss who would imply that Pelosi had been at more than one briefing, then appears to be without foundation. Given Porter Goss's relationship with the Republicans and the CIA, you know how much I weigh his attempt to trash by implication Pelosi's statements.

LP...you accuse me of splitting hairs?

Again, this is the eyewitness account...and she IS the most powerful member of the House and 2 heartbeats away from serving as our President (and might possibly remain in this position for DECADES)...she needs to be held to a much higher standard.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042403339.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]

Porter Goss's article serves no purpose in this regard.

A) She has been saying from the beginning she was briefed once.
The CIA Briefing Memo exactly relates that she was briefed only once. Aside from Sept 4, 2002, she is not otherwise identified as briefed according to the released CIA Memo.

B) Porter Goss dissembles in that article by talking about multiple briefings, that he attended, yet does not offer any evidence that Nancy Pelosi was briefed more than she has readily disclosed. The CIA Briefing Memo shows that Porter Goss was briefed more than once, but not Nancy Pelosi. As to exactly what Nancy Pelosi was told on Sept. 4, 2002 he is silent. I'd say in later briefings water-boarding may have been disclosed and discussed, but the CIA doesn't necessarily place Pelosi at any briefing where it would have been disclosed.

C) Abu Zabaidah was subjected to some of the EITs as of September 4, 2002 that were sanctioned by the scandalously poor legal opinion by Bybee, but apparently not all of the techniques would have been employed. Otherwise the notation would have been less descriptive and limiting as to what was described. There is no indication which of the 10 EITs was used. From all evidence that I have seen Abu Zabadiah wasn't water boarded until after August of 2002, when the FBI disassociated themselves from the interrogation. If he had been being water-boarded in interrogations referenced by the FBI, they would have noted that, as they did the other less ultimate EITs than water-boarding.

D) Finally Porter Goss himself as an ex-CIA Chief and as a Republican ready to close ranks with the likes of Dick Cheney with regards to the torture that the Bush-Cheney subjected detainees to, simply cannot be trusted. If you read that account there is nothing that is apparently actionable as untruthful by its assertion, but there is by its omission unfortunate lack of clarification, in not saying that he would only have been aware of Pelosi being at the first briefing.

 

[drankin]

Clap your hands to your ears and yell "la-la-la-la...".

 

[WhoWee]

Porter Goss's article serves no purpose in this regard.

A) She has been saying from the beginning she was briefed once.
The CIA Briefing Memo exactly relates that she was briefed only once. Aside from Sept 4, 2002, she is not otherwise identified as briefed according to the released CIA Memo.

B) Porter Goss dissembles in that article by talking about multiple briefings, that he attended, yet does not offer any evidence that Nancy Pelosi was briefed more than she has readily disclosed. The CIA Briefing Memo shows that Porter Goss was briefed more than once, but not Nancy Pelosi. As to exactly what Nancy Pelosi was told on Sept. 4, 2002 he is silent. I'd say in later briefings water-boarding may have been disclosed and discussed, but the CIA doesn't necessarily place Pelosi at any briefing where it would have been disclosed.

C) Abu Zabaidah was subjected to some of the EITs as of September 4, 2002 that were sanctioned by the scandalously poor legal opinion by Bybee, but apparently not all of the techniques would have been employed. Otherwise the notation would have been less descriptive and limiting as to what was described. There is no indication which of the 10 EITs was used. From all evidence that I have seen Abu Zabadiah wasn't water boarded until after August of 2002, when the FBI disassociated themselves from the interrogation. If he had been being water-boarded in interrogations referenced by the FBI, they would have noted that, as they did the other less ultimate EITs than water-boarding.

D) Finally Porter Goss himself as an ex-CIA Chief and as a Republican ready to close ranks with the likes of Dick Cheney with regards to the torture that the Bush-Cheney subjected detainees to, simply cannot be trusted. If you read that account there is nothing that is apparently actionable as untruthful by its assertion, but there is by its omission unfortunate lack of clarification, in not saying that he would only have been aware of Pelosi being at the first briefing.

She opened this can of worms...again...why does she need to lie? By the way...where are her defenders (other than LP)?


Pelosi Denies Knowing Interrogation Techniques Were Used

By Paul Kane

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today said congressional leaders were never briefed about the use of an enhanced interrogation practice, rejecting GOP claims that leadership was aware of the controversial tactics by late 2002.

Pelosi said the select few lawmakers who were briefed about handling of detainees from the war on terror, were then forbidden from discussing what they had learned with their colleagues. This produced an environment in which the top lawmakers were told of the existence of legal opinions supporting the rationale for waterboarding detainees, but never told that it was actually being used, according to Pelosi.

"Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening," she said.

In late 2002, Pelosi was the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, while Porter Goss (R-Fla.) was chairman, when they first learned of the general nature of the interrogation techniques that were under consideration by the CIA's top officials. They were part of the so-called "Gang of Four" briefings given to the top members of the intelligence panels in the House and Senate. Pelosi continued receiving highly classified briefings when she became Democratic leader in 2003, as is custom to brief the top Democrat and Republican in each of the two chambers.

Republicans have repeatedly cited these briefings to reject calls from Pelosi and many congressional Democrats to create a "truth commission" to investigate alleged abuses in interrogations. Those calls grew louder after last week's release of the legal memos that the Bush administration used, from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, to explain what was allowed and what would break international anti-torture laws.

"All of this information was downloaded to congressional leaders of both parties with no objections being raised," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters today, specifically citing Pelosi as someone who received the briefings. "Not a word was raised at the time, not one word."

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich), the ranking member of the House intelligence panel, argued the same point in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal.

Pelosi denied these claims. "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.

She said some officials, such as Goss, who went on to become CIA director, argued the lawmakers should have known the waterboarding would be used because they were told it was a legal practice. But she said they had no way of knowing that for certain, and they were then forbidden from talking about what they had learned so they could not work to outlaw the practice.

She summed up the briefings this way: "This is what they're doing. That's all they do. They don't come into consult. They come into notify. They come into notify. And you can't -- you can't change what they're doing unless you can act as a committee or as a class. You can't change what they're doing."



Here is more
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E4BB6FE2-18FE-70B2-A86BE8DB9E8BEABD




Pelosi playing defense on torture
By: Glenn Thrush
April 27, 2009 04:33 AM EST

Nancy Pelosi didn’t cry foul when the Bush administration briefed her on “enhanced interrogation” of terror suspects in 2002, but her team was locked and loaded to counter hypocrisy charges when the “torture” memos were released last week.

Many Republicans obliged, led by former CIA chief Porter Goss, who is accusing Democrats like Pelosi of “amnesia” for demanding investigations in 2009 after failing to raise objections seven years ago when she first learned of the legal basis for the program.

“As soon as the president made the decision to release [the memos], I was telling people that the Republicans were going to come after us, saying she knew about it and did nothing,” said an adviser to Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking on condition of anonymity. “And I’m sure we’re going to get hammered again when they release all those new torture photos,” the person said.

But Pelosi’s allies were less prepared to confront the fallout from her convoluted answers during three sessions with reporters last week — answers that raised new questions and handed Republicans a fresh line of attack on a speaker at the height of her power.

“I’m puzzled, I don’t understand what she’s trying to say,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and currently the committee’s ranking minority member.

“I don’t have any sympathy for her — she’s the speaker of the House; there should be some accountability. She shouldn’t be given a pass,” added Hoekstra.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to keep up the heat, telling reporters last week, “She and other leaders were fully briefed on all of these interrogation techniques. There’s nothing here that should surprise her.”

Democrats dismiss such talk as a sideshow, arguing that the criticism of Pelosi is nothing compared with the long-term damage done to Republicans by the disclosure of Bush administration interrogation abuses.

“The Republicans may have won a news cycle, but we’re doing what we want to do,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly, pointing to Pelosi’s legislative successes during President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office.

Nonetheless, Pelosi finds herself on the defensive at a time when she needs to be on the offensive, pushing through a record-breaking budget, health care reform, a controversial cap-and-trade proposal and a supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

To make matters worse, Pelosi’s troubles cast renewed scrutiny on her fraught relationship with Rep. Jane Harman, the hyperkinetic California Democrat who lobbied her relentlessly — and unsuccessfully — to become Intelligence Committee chairwoman in 2006.

A week ago, Congressional Quarterly reported that Harman had been secretly wiretapped by Bush administration intelligence officials and was overheard promising a suspected Israeli agent she would advocate on behalf of two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of espionage.

In return, CQ reported, the agent promised to enlist Pelosi’s friend Haim Saban to pressure the speaker to tap Harman as committee chair by threatening to withhold contributions. Nothing became of the scheme, and Pelosi says Saban, a billionaire and major Democratic benefactor, never strong-armed her.

At a roundtable discussion with reporters in her office on Wednesday, Pelosi claimed government officials had told her “maybe three years ago” that Harman had been bugged — but indicated she hadn’t been told of the content of the recorded conversation.

A day later, CQ reporter Jeff Stein cited three former intelligence officials who contradicted that account, saying Pelosi was, in fact, told of the substance of the wiretap.

Daly said the speaker stood by her version of events.

Pelosi also complicated matters at the roundtable by telling reporters, “Many, many, many of Jane’s friends talked to me about her being named chair of the committee” and scoffed at Harman backers’ charge that she had been promised the post.

“I’ve heard some people say to me, ‘Oh, she was promised in writing she would be the chairman’ — completely not so,” Pelosi said.



That, in turn, sparked public pushback by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Pelosi’s No. 2, who pointed to a 1999 letter from then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt promising Pelosi the intelligence post.

House Democrats say the Harman matter is likely to blow over fairly soon. More serious, they say, are questions raised by Pelosi’s knowledge of the torture memos.

Pelosi supports the creation of a “Truth Commission” to root out wrongdoing by the Bush administration on interrogations — putting her at odds with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Obama, who want the matter dealt with exclusively by congressional committees.

That has sparked charges of hypocrisy.

Republicans have been circulating a December 2007 Washington Post report that quoted Bush administration officials saying Pelosi did little to block “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002 when she was briefed as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

At a press briefing last week — one she hoped would focus on the legislative accomplishments in Obama’s first 100 days — Pelosi said she didn’t raise objections because intelligence officials didn’t divulge they had actually begun using the techniques at the time of the briefing.

“We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” she said.

However, that account seemed to be contradicted by a Senate Intelligence Committee timeline that found House leaders were briefed “in the fall of 2002, after the use of interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaida. CIA records indicate that the CIA briefed the chairman and vice chairman of the committee on the interrogation.”

And Porter Goss, who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when Pelosi was the ranking member, made the same point in a Saturday Washington Post op-ed.

“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,” Goss wrote. “I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues.”

Pelosi dismissed such criticism, telling reporters the 2002 briefing was strictly classified, and she was hamstrung from raising objections with officials or even sharing information with other lower-ranking committee members.

And Pelosi says that Democrats did raise red flags when the extent of the administration’s program became apparent.

In an e-mail to reporters, Pelosi said that Harman — who replaced her as the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee in 2003 — “filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred.”

But Hoekstra, a frequent Pelosi critic who supported most Bush administration policies, said he has often raised objections to officials during intelligence briefings and shared his misgivings with his leadership.

“I’ve never felt hamstrung,” he said. “If there were things I heard that made me nervous, I’d tell John Boehner or [former Speaker Dennis Hastert], ‘You guys have to get briefed up on this because I’m uncomfortable with what I heard.’ ... It was my job to let my boss know so that he could take what he believes is appropriate action.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

 

[LowlyPion]

None of which addresses the legality of the actions of the last administration, which went to far as to fabricate scandalous legal opinions that argued that torture wasn't torture. Your complaints about Pelosi are simply distraction from the extra-legal actions taken and approved at the highest levels in the Bush-Cheney White House. Since there is no way of knowing exactly what Pelosi was told on the one occasion that she was told anything, there is no way to blame her for anything. There is certainly no way to call her a liar.

Apparently as long as the right wingers think they can distract from straightening out the economy, or health care, or looking too closely at the extra legal actions of the last administration, they hope to delay, delay, delay, with the hope that some resistance can be developed to the current administration's mandate.

You boys are going to need more sun block. That Obama sun can be mighty damaging to your complexion.

 

[WhoWee]

None of which addresses the legality of the actions of the last administration, which went to far as to fabricate scandalous legal opinions that argued that torture wasn't torture. Your complaints about Pelosi are simply distraction from the extra-legal actions taken and approved at the highest levels in the Bush-Cheney White House. Since there is no way of knowing exactly what Pelosi was told on the one occasion that she was told anything, there is no way to blame her for anything. There is certainly no way to call her a liar.

Apparently as long as the right wingers think they can distract from straightening out the economy, or health care, or looking too closely at the extra legal actions of the last administration, they hope to delay, delay, delay, with the hope that some resistance can be developed to the current administration's mandate.

You boys are going to need more sun block. That Obama sun can be mighty damaging to your complexion.

I guess what you are trying to say is that Nancy Pelosi did not have aany reason to lie...that she shouldn't lie any more or point fingers when she is guilty of the very thing she accuses others of doing? If so, I agree.

 

[LowlyPion]

I guess what you are trying to say is that Nancy Pelosi did not have aany reason to lie...that she shouldn't lie any more or point fingers when she is guilty of the very thing she accuses others of doing? If so, I agree.

What I'm saying is that the whole effort to attack Nancy Pelosi is misguided and serves no purpose when it was the previous administration that was engaging in torture and they were the ones trying to craft disingenuous interpretations of the Law to suit their extra-Legal efforts, and of course they were the ones crafting the Secret briefings.

For if indeed it is mud you would want to paint Pelosi with, it would be mud manufactured from Bush White House compostings of their own extra-Legal activities.

 

[WhoWee]

What I'm saying is that the whole effort to attack Nancy Pelosi is misguided and serves no purpose when it was the previous administration that was engaging in torture and they were the ones trying to craft disingenuous interpretations of the Law to suit their extra-Legal efforts, and of course they were the ones crafting the Secret briefings.

For if indeed it is mud you would want to paint Pelosi with, it would be mud manufactured from Bush White House compostings of their own extra-Legal activities.

Again, this thread isn't about Bush or Cheney or legal procedure or Goss or even "torture"...this thread is focused on why would Nancy Pelosi say she didn't know about waterboarding?

Nobody is painting her with mud...she did this to herself.

Nancy Pelosi is out on a limb because of her comments and her colleagues seem content to let her swing.

 

[LowlyPion]

Nobody is painting her with mud...she did this to herself.

Of course you are. You are calling her a liar. I don't see that she has necessarily been untruthful. Missing is exactly what she was told.

Because you cannot ignore that what is it issue is about what she was told, by an administration that has shown us a history of not being forthright to the point that we find ourselves in a war in Iraq that apparently had no real basis other than a Bush-Cheney ill-conceived and executed agenda to wreck Iraq. To suggest that there would have been no intent to mislead by those that were misleading the Nation and the World with the execution of their Foreign Policy, is simply not choosing to look at the whole picture.

 

[WhoWee]

...I don't see that she has necessarily been untruthful...

Now we are making progress...I'm content to stop here...until more of the details are released...fair enough?

 

[seycyrus]

...Because you cannot ignore that what is it issue is about what she was told, by an administration that has shown us a history of not being forthright to the point that we find ourselves in a war in Iraq that apparently had no real basis other than a Bush-Cheney ill-conceived and executed agenda to wreck Iraq.

Oh please. Shall we stop with the opinionated blather?

To suggest that there would have been no intent to mislead by those that were misleading the Nation and the World with the execution of their Foreign Policy, is simply not choosing to look at the whole picture.

You are deliberately ignoring arguments that stem from previous administrations statements regarding Iraq, and other nations intelligence regarding Iraq.

Pelosi is pretending that she didn't know things that she either she did know, or that she should have known.

She is either a liar, and/or incompetent.

 

[LowlyPion]

Oh please. Shall we stop with the opinionated blather?

We can't do that.

What do you think politics is about?

 

[LowlyPion]

Now we are making progress...I'm content to stop here...until more of the details are released...fair enough?

Perhaps you are the one making progress in understanding my position from the beginning?

 

[mheslep]

Oh please. Shall we stop with the opinionated blather?

We can't do that.

What do you think politics is about?

If that is the only content in PWA then it no longer has any connection to the forum guidelines.

 

[russ_watters]

This issue has been beaten to death. Locked.