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

[Ivan Seeking]

Pelosi wants a "truth commission" to investigate the CIA's "torture methods". If anyone is guilty of allowing this , they would be the ones who knew about it.Therefore she MUST say she knew nothing about it.

She had no power to stop it. If she did, then show me the evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For that matter, where exactly did Pelosi deny having any knowledge of this? I see nothing but a comment in a blog supporting the premise of the thread.

 

[Al68]

How many times did the Bush admin tell Congress, in so many words, where they could stick the Constitution?

Any evidence of this?

how is it that the Administration was pursuing something that was so obviously illegal?

Any evidence of this?

 

[WhoWee]

Looks like you are drawing conclusions based on hearsay. Where is the evidence?

Please refer back to post#4 in this thread by mheslep...for the link and the entire context.

 

[WhoWee]

For that matter, where exactly did Pelosi deny having any knowledge of this? I see nothing but a comment in a blog supporting the premise of the thread.

Nancy Pelosi was on television last week claiming (demanding actually) she didn't know anything about the enhanced techniques.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nancy Pelosi was on television last week claiming (demanding actually) she didn't know anything about the enhanced techniques.

Then where is a reliable media account of this?

 

[WhoWee]

Then where is a reliable media account of this?

http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10243158

 

[WhoWee]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/23/1905111.aspx

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/pelosi-bush-administratio_n_190661.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First of all, the Huffington Post is not a legitimate reference. Secondly, even that reports says that she claims she wasn't told that it was currently in use, only that they claimed it was legal. I see nothing to refute that. What's more, no one could refute this because there is no written record of the meeting.

This entire thread is nonsense.

 

[LowlyPion]

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?

 

[LowlyPion]

This entire thread is nonsense.

It is a red herring to the real issue which was the Bush Cheney interrogation policies.

The idea that Nancy Pelosi is somehow lying ... that there is in some way any proof of her lying, is not only disingenuous, but it is irrelevant to the real issue which is lame attempts that the administration went to in order to cover their transgressions.

 

[WhoWee]

It is a red herring to the real issue which was the Bush Cheney interrogation policies.

The idea that Nancy Pelosi is somehow lying ... that there is in some way any proof of her lying, is not only disingenuous, but it is irrelevant to the real issue which is lame attempts that the administration went to in order to cover their transgressions.

The "Real Issue" of this thread is Why would Nancy Pelosi say she didn't know about waterboarding?

If she didn't lie...then she either didn't care (or perhaps fully understand or wasn't paying attention) at the time...but it is apparent she was briefed.

 

[WhoWee]

First of all, the Huffington Post is not a legitimate reference. Secondly, even that reports says that she claims she wasn't told that it was currently in use, only that they claimed it was legal. I see nothing to refute that. What's more, no one could refute this because there is no written record of the meeting.

This entire thread is nonsense.

Pelosi's denial of any knowledge is nonsense.

 

[Proton Soup]

Again, why would she lie?

As far as I know...nobody is blaming her for torture...including me.

reflex. politicians instinctively lie when they feel threatened.

 

[mheslep]

First of all, the Huffington Post is not a legitimate reference. Secondly, even that reports says that she claims she wasn't told that it was currently in use, only that they claimed it was legal. I see nothing to refute that. What's more, no one could refute this because there is no written record of the meeting.

This entire thread is nonsense.

Oh? We know several facts. Pelosi attended the September 2002 CIA oversight briefing. We know that only Members were not permitted to take written notes from media sources, there may be transcripts from the briefers. We know there were multiple other witnesses in the room, some of them have made recent statements to the main stream press; one of them speaks here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html

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.

Speaker Pelosi's parsing of this is Clintonian+1, claiming that she was briefed only on what the CIA planned to do, not what had been done, so that some how renders her kept in the dark.

 

[mheslep]

Her knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant. Whether she was told with or without understanding what she was being told, still doesn't matter.

Good to know, since the US can then do away with pesky Congressional oversight. It 'doesn't matter'.

that should be so obviously against International Law.

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

 

[mheslep]

... no aides allowed at this presentation. ...

There were staff members present according to the WPost; one of them was most likely a source for the piece.

 

[seycyrus]

First of all, the Huffington Post is not a legitimate reference..

You should have said *third* of all, because you blatantly ignored the other two pieces of offered evidence. Pieces that were offered prior to the piece you objected to.

This entire thread is nonsense.

What's nonsense is the willingness of some to look the other way when it suits their fancy.

 

[drankin]

reflex. politicians instinctively lie when they feel threatened.

Did everyone miss this? LOL

I think this might be the answer.

 

[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.