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

[Skyhunter]

What Pelosi said was that when the WH briefed Congress told them they had legal opinions that supported enhanced interrogations, but not that they were actually being used.

I don't see any evidence that her statement is false.

 

[Skyhunter]

Pelosi's denial of any knowledge is nonsense.

Since she is not denying any knowledge, your assertion otherwise is nonsense.

 

[LowlyPion]

If it was so obvious then why didn't all those present in that room in 2002 immediately object and file complaints?

You too should really provide the entire quote. Here is the full quote of what I posted:

For if indeed it should have been obvious to her in her limited access to what was going on then it falls squarely on them for pursuing a policy that should be so obviously against International Law.

The point is that you can't have it both ways.

Either it was obvious from the presentation that there was a breach of International Law, and Pelosi chose to be complicitous and would now lie about it,

... or the presentation was so obfuscating in its representations about what was going on, and the legality of it, that she would have taken no notice that there was anything amiss.

In the first case, if Pelosi is lying, then I'd say the Bush Administration approved such acts knowing full well it was an obvious breach of Law.

In the second case, if the presentation to the Congressional Members was made such that it didn't appear to be a violation of Law that would warrant objection, given what we know now about the shoddy OLC memos attempting to call a sows ear fine spun silk, then the Administration was at once guilty of not only breaking the law as regards torture, but deliberately committing fraud against Congress by not supplying sufficient detail for Congress to adequately judge the real situation.

 

[mheslep]

Since she is not denying any knowledge, your assertion otherwise is nonsense.

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

Pelosi repeated that the Bush administration “flat out never briefed us on waterboarding,” adding that, “any contention that we did know is not true.”

 

[WhoWee]

Since she is not denying any knowledge, your assertion otherwise is nonsense.

Because Huffington basically leans Left and defends the Dems...I'll post it yet again...


The Bush administration did not inform Congress that it had waterboarded detainees in classified briefings, after the agency had already done so, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged Thursday.

Pelosi told reporters that the administration officials only told her and those in a classified briefing in the fall of 2002 that they believed they had the legal authority to do so, based on Office of Legal Counsel memos which have recently been released by the Obama administration.

"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Pelosi said that the officials promised to inform Congress if they ever did waterboard a detainee, but never did so. Her assertion contradicts a recently released Senate committee report that cited CIA records to claim that senior members of Congress in both parties were briefed on the waterboarding, which had already been done to detainee Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, in the strongest terms should could conjure, said the report was untrue and that she never approved, tacitly or otherwise, the waterboarding of detainees.

"Further to the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," said Pelosi. "I know that there's some different interpretations coming out of that meeting. My colleague, the chairman of the [intelligence] committee, has said, well if they say that it's legal you have to know they're going to use it. Well, his experience is that he was a member of the CIA and later went on to head the CIA. Maybe his experience is that they'll tell you one thing but may mean something else."

Pelosi is referring to then-GOP Rep. Porter Goss. "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," she said.

Republicans have recently been making the case that if Democrats insist on investigating torture, they must own up to their own culpability for remaining silent. Pelosi's insistence that she wasn't briefed on the occurrence of waterboarding is an effort to push back on that offensive.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also pushed back against the GOP Thursday. "They know that this is all Cheney-driven and are making excuses," Reid told the Huffington Post.


Maybe you'd like to translate for her?

 

[Al68]

Any evidence of this?

Do yourself a favor next time and not quote out of context.

And as is relevant, if it was supposed to be so obvious, how is it that the Administration was pursuing something that was so obviously illegal?

You cannot excoriate Pelosi and make her complicitous in that she should have objected then about something obvious. If the supposition is that it was so obviously torture, that puts the Bush administration, who was in command of all the facts, in the position of knowingly engaging in torture, certain in knowing they were indeed committing illegal acts, despite the shameful cover of these shoddy OLC memos.

What has not been placed in the public record is the manner, background and the actual presentation of the material to these Select Members of Congress revealing the acts the Bush administration was pursuing, ... this so called "enhanced interrogation".

Absent this we have no way of knowing to what extent the procedures were "fully" disclosed or to what extent they were buried, glossed over or de-emphasized, such that she would no longer recall any details about being told 6 years ago. After all it seems the ground rules were that there was to be no note taking, no aides allowed at this presentation. Maybe in fact, it is evidence that the administration was limiting potential evidence against themselves for their certain knowledge that what they were doing was extra legal?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[mheslep]

You too should really provide the entire quote. Here is the full quote of what I posted:

The point is that you can't have it both ways.

Either it was obvious from the presentation that there was a breach of International Law, and Pelosi chose to be complicitous and would now lie about it,

... or the presentation was so obfuscating in its representations about what was going on, and the legality of it, that she would have taken no notice that there was anything amiss.

In the first case, if Pelosi is lying, then I'd say the Bush Administration approved such acts knowing full well it was an obvious breach of Law.

In the second case, if the presentation to the Congressional Members was made such that it didn't appear to be a violation of Law that would warrant objection, given what we know now about the shoddy OLC memos attempting to call a sows ear fine spun silk, then the Administration was at once guilty of not only breaking the law as regards torture, but deliberately committing fraud against Congress by not supplying sufficient detail for Congress to adequately judge the real situation.

I agree with the either-or argument - though not about the International Law aspect - I am not an international lawyer. At the moment the evidence that we have in deciding whether the matter was clearly presented (or not) includes: the recent writing by Goss that everyone in that room 'understood' what was being presented, and on the other hand Pelosi's statements to the contrary “We were not told of waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation methods used".

 

[LowlyPion]

I agree with the either-or argument - though not about the International Law aspect - I am not an international lawyer. At the moment the evidence that we have in deciding whether the matter was clearly presented (or not) includes: the recent writing by Goss that everyone in that room 'understood' what was being presented, and on the other hand Pelosi's statements to the contrary “We were not told of waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation methods used".

It was clearly against the Geneva Convention, which was apparently abandoned in their haste to make a case against Iraq and uncover some connection, any connection, between Al Quaeda and Saddam.

Porter Goss just carries water for the Republicans. His report is not particularly compelling at this point, given his subsequent association with the CIA under Bush

 

[WhoWee]

It was clearly against the Geneva Convention, which was apparently abandoned in their haste to make a case against Iraq and uncover some connection, any connection, between Al Quaeda and Saddam.

Porter Goss just carries water for the Republicans. His report is not particularly compelling at this point, given his subsequent association with the CIA under Bush

I guess only a Democrat can tell the truth?

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe you'd like to translate for her?

Translate what?

She is clearly claiming some knowledge of the policy. What she is denying is that WH and CIA told them during that briefing that the CIA was actually torturing people.

Your statement that she is denying all knowledge is hyperbolic, untrue, and undermines the credibility of your argument.

 

[mheslep]

It was clearly against the Geneva Convention, which was apparently abandoned in their haste to make a case against Iraq and uncover some connection, any connection, between Al Quaeda and Saddam.

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 and:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Porter Goss just carries water for the Republicans. His report is not particularly compelling at this point, given his subsequent association with the CIA under Bush

Maybe so, but he is certainly more compelling to me than any hand waiving statements here to the contrary.

 

[turbo]

I guess only a Democrat can tell the truth?

Neither party tells the truth unless it coincidentally serves their purpose. The right-wing noise machine is full of "Pelosi approved of waterboarding in 2002" posts, which is more than a bit disingenuous. The truth is that Pelosi and 3 other members of Congress were given an hour-long briefing in which they were presented the Bush administration's position that they were legally entitled to use "enhanced" interrogation methods. A whole hour? Can't take notes, can't consult with staff, can't mention the briefing to legal counsel for an informed decision on international law, can't discuss the briefing with other members of Congress to determine if oversight was needed? Anybody else see a problem here? The Right-Wing-Nuts are piling on Pelosi to shut her up, and every single blog you read regurgitates the same un-provable "facts". Frankly, I hate Pelosi, but right now the smear-job looks like an attempt to shield the people responsible for crafting the Bush administrations torture policy from any legal repercussions.

 

[WhoWee]

Neither party tells the truth unless it coincidentally serves their purpose. The right-wing noise machine is full of "Pelosi approved of waterboarding in 2002" posts, which is more than a bit disingenuous. The truth is that Pelosi and 3 other members of Congress were given an hour-long briefing in which they were presented the Bush administration's position that they were legally entitled to use "enhanced" interrogation methods. A whole hour? Can't take notes, can't consult with staff, can't mention the briefing to legal counsel for an informed decision on international law, can't discuss the briefing with other members of Congress to determine if oversight was needed? Anybody else see a problem here? The Right-Wing-Nuts are piling on Pelosi to shut her up, and every single blog you read regurgitates the same un-provable "facts". Frankly, I hate Pelosi, but right now the smear-job looks like an attempt to shield the people responsible for crafting the Bush administrations torture policy from any legal repercussions.

The whole point of the thread is that she had nothing to gain by making her statements. All she did was discredit herself with all of the double-talk...again.
As Turbo-1 pointed out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

 

[Skyhunter]

The Huffington Post BTW, is at least as credible as the Moony paper.

 

[WhoWee]

The whole point of the thread is that she had nothing to gain by making her statements. All she did was discredit herself with all of the double-talk...again.
As Turbo-1 pointed out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

The Huffington Post BTW, is at least as credible as the Moony paper.

Forget Huffington Post...The Washington Post (I just noticed something else in the above posted article) is credible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
"Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, 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.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). "

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

 

[mheslep]

...Can't take notes, can't consult with staff, can't mention the briefing to legal counsel for an informed decision on international law, can't discuss the briefing with other members of Congress to determine if oversight was needed?

They can, and do apparently, go to their oversight committee chairs with complaints where they can work a process to have CIA funding pulled.

...Frankly, I hate Pelosi,...

Because of this issue or another?

 

[Skyhunter]

That is a December 2007 article in WaPo.

Since this thread is about Pelosi...here is what the article says about her knowledge of the breifings.

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

Consistent with her latest statements.

This is nothing more than wing-nuts frothing at the mouth about nothing.

 

[Proton Soup]

"i don't recall" is the best way to lie. it gives you an out.

 

[Skyhunter]

"i don't recall" is the best way to lie. it gives you an out.

If your statement is aimed at Pelosi's statement then you are confused.

She said she recalled that they were told of legal opinion allowing the CIA to use enhanced techniques and that Congress, or at least the gang of four, would be briefed before these techniques were employed.

 

[Proton Soup]

If your statement is aimed at Pelosi's statement then you are confused.

She said she recalled that they were told of legal opinion allowing the CIA to use enhanced techniques and that Congress, or at least the gang of four, would be briefed before these techniques were employed.

"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.

 

[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.