This smells like a Repug hitjob: 'CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogations’'

[kpete]

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogations’
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Blah, blah, blah.

…In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi’s office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

“As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,” said Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s spokesman.

Pelosi’s statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations…

here is the report:
http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/EIT%20Briefings.pdf

[Pisces]

1. I believe she knew everything. Dems aren't puritans. Nancy's hands are dirty and it is why she

resisted going after Bush when she could have. Take off the rose colored glasses.

[KittyWampus]

16. You do the Republicans a tremendous favor and with zero evidence to back up your claims.

[pocoloco]

19. She did the fucking repugs a tremendous favor .

Can't remember the last 8 years??

[sendero]

54. Plenty of evidence..

.... why do you think impeachment, and damn near everything else, was off the table?

I believe TOTALLY that Pelosi knew about it.

Does that make her guilty as the perps? No, but her inaction makes it now easy for them to get away with it.

She is at best a coward, at worse an idiot.

[pnwmom]

35. She didn't MAKE the policy and she was required by law not to leak it.

Yes, it would have been nice if she had martyred herself, but her culpability isn't anything like Bush's.

[merh]

42. I believe you are mistaken

The law doesn't require that they keep quiet about crimes committed by the administration.

[pnwmom]

51. As it turns out, the letter that came with the CIA list

basically says that the validity of the information provided is yet to be determined.

So I don't think we should be so quick to jump on the Democrats.

[merh]

61. I'm aware of the letter from the CIA

I knew about it when I responded to your post.

It has nothing to do with your post or my response to same.

My post is not "jumping on democrats" as you put it, it is about the truth and justice. It is about applying the law equally to all, no matter what party.

Let's play a game. Suppose the sheriff of the town goes to the city council folks during an executive session and says, I'm blowing up all the gangs in neighbor X to save our city. Suppose there is a law that "talking about what happens in the executive sessions is against the law". Now, do you think that the city council members have an obligation to try to stop the sheriff? I mean blowing up a whole neighborhood is against the law and outside the duties and authority of the sheriff, isn't it?

It is the same thing, only in a grander scale with members of congress who may have been "given the intel" - if in the intel sessions the CIA tells congress "we are going to violate the laws of the US" don't you think congress is obligated to try to stop them?

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. I don't understand why you feel the need to use the word "martyr" to excuse her.

Historically, that's a word reserved for those who

A. willingly suffer death rather than renounce his or her religion.

B. are put to death or endure great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause.

She's 69 years old. She will live a nice, cushy, catered to life until the day she dies, regardless of what happens tomorrow or may have happened in the last eight years.

She had her eyes on the prize. It was more important for her to rise to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives than it was to save the lives of people who might have been innocent but were tortured to death by the Bush Administration.

I take exception to your use of the word "martyr" in the context of losing her status On High by calling the world to her doorstep and telling them what George W. Bush and his minion were doing. She'll breathe rarified air with each and every breath she takes until she's done drawing breath, which is what she would have done had she shown the courage of her newfound convictions nearly a decade ago.

All these fucking old people keeping nasty secrets just to get reelected. Is there something wrong with that picture? I've been told that Arlen Specter is the last living person who knows the secrets of the Warren Commission Report. He's fucking 79, and changing lanes to make his chances for keeping his seat better.

Age Limit and/or Term Limit for CongressCritters, Senators, and Judges. It's time.

[SerfinUSA]

2. Of course she knew and approved.

BTW You are not in Kindergarten anymore.

[KittyWampus]

17. Of course you have zero evidence. But since she has some votes you dislike it feels good

to just post crap with no proof.

[SerfinUSA]

31. Ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaa

Let me know when you wnat to face reality. You are fooling yourself

[SerfinUSA]

33. Here you go, time to grow up

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

[ControlledDemolition]

34. She may or may not have known but I wouldn't take the word of anything put forward by the CIA.

To a large degree they are behind most of the world's instability. This is then used to justify budget increase upon budget increase. Let's face it, if they were paid on performance...

(Edited: Changed 'any' to 'anything'.)

[Eric J in MN]

3. And she couldn't talk about it or she would have been prosecuted...

...for revealing the contents of classified briefing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Bingo

I am no Pelosi fan, but this fact is almost always left out of these 'Pelosi KNEW!' threads.

[scarletwoman]

24. And gawd forbid that any POLITICIAN suffer a day in jail for the sake of principle.

Unlike Martin Luther King or Father Daniel Berrigan or countless others.

But I guess that's because they didn't have to raise money for re-election campaigns.

[merh]

46. So, in a classifed briefing, the CIA tells committee members

that they intend to stop Iran's nuclear efforts and will cause a nuclear accident in Iran to make it look like Iran has nuclear weapons.

Must Pelosi and the rest of the committee remain silent and allow the CIA to commit the crime?

[Eric J in MN]

48. They can talk about anything, but they could be prosecuted for it...

...in your example, too.

[merh]

49. They can be prosecuted for anything

The old saying is "a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".

They are obligated to protect the nation and to uphold the laws, if at the briefing the CIA advises it is violating the laws in accordance with the president's authorization, congress is obligated to act to prevent the crime. The CIA intelligence actions must be in accordance with the laws and the purpose of the law against leaking the briefings is to protect the national security. If the actions of the CIA endanger our security then congress is obligated to act to prevent said action. Committing crimes in our name endangers our security.

[santamargarita]

5. They briefed her to implicate her in their criminal activity...

and use blackmail

[EFerrari]

29. They briefed her because they were required to by law. n/t

[Fumesucker]

37. And we all know how fastidiously the bushies follow the law...

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

52. We know how they exploit it to their benefit.

They went through this whole song and dance after the illegal wiretapping was revealed and with the same Democrats, too. Pelosi isn't denying that she was briefed. She's denying the content of the briefing. Fine.

I wonder how she could not know about the torture program after so many others did. She's as dishonest as the Thuggery and just as self interested. Sorry. Didn't get to that conclusion very easily. :(

[Fovea]

6. Well, we could have Waxman take her place.

Or maybe Kooch or Frank.

Anyone of those would cause a lot of distress in wide stance land.

[emilyg]

7. She knew. She never spoke up against it.

[Supersedeas]

38. Would it have been a breach of secrecy laws to speak against it?

[leftofthedial]

8. If they're going after Pelosi,

I'm on their side.

If she knew and looked the other way, she's guilty.

[NNN0LHI]

44. If Bush and Cheney's thugs are going after Pelosi you are on their side?

Why hell we all knew that.

Don

[leftofthedial]

50. straw man.

[mmonk]

9. I couldn't say.

All I know is she and many others haven't wanted to press things too much. I've heard some speculate knowledge of some of the activities which she may have been briefed on from the bush administration was a reason she was against impeachment.

[scarletwoman]

10. I have no interest in protecting Pelosi, she had no interest in protecting US.

"Impeachment is off the table."

Let her hang with the rest of the collaborators.

sw

[The Magistrate]

11. This, My Friend, Falls So Far Short Of 'Collaboration' As To Stretch The Term To Meaninglessness

It does no one any good to try and dilute the responsibility of the Executive, and its subordinate agents, for the crimes it conceived, ordered, and executed on its own authority.

[scarletwoman]

12. Dear friend, in the sense that all of official Washington protects their own power and privilege

by protecting each other's, I stand by my statement.

I see posts here speculating on whether Congresspersons were being wiretapped/blackmailed, and I find the notion utterly disgusting. The only reason blackmail would work is if someone is determined to hide some truth.

I hold all who occupied positions of power during the bush* maladministration guilty of dereliction of duty to the Constitution if they failed to resist and speak out. The epithet of "collaborator" seems plenty apt to me.

sw

[The Magistrate]

14. To My Mind, Ma'am, It Leaves Out Two Important Elements

The first is the actual possession of power to exercise. Persons without power, or without power sufficient to achieve a desired effect, cannot properly be blamed for what people in possession of power do. Congressional Democrats as a matter of practical fact lacked power to alter the course the Bush administration was resolved on, and during the most critical period, between '02 and '05, would only have strengthened the administration's power to act by engaging in shows of defiance from a position of weakness. Even after '06, the degree of power newly gained was insufficiently sturdy to be pitted with confidence against the weakened administration. Political realities are what they are, uncomfortable as they may be on occasion.

The second is a question of achieving a useful and lasting effect on the political life of the nation. Only lines which are simple and clearly focused can penetrate a mass of people and come to meet with their wide agreement. There can only be a single enemy, a single focus for cultivated ire. The most useful focus in this matter is on an Executive acting the part of a tyrant, in the classic definition of a leader exercising power unlawfully. This is what must be scotched, and rendered past repeating in the future. Crying up others as partly to blame for what the tyrant himself actually did simply dilutes the focus and confuses the issue. Where everyone is to blame, no one is really to blame, as the common saw goes. If that is the conclusion the mass of the people come to, then no one will bear opprobrium, no one will emerge stigmatized to stand as an example to the future, to play the role of a warning to take another direction.

[scarletwoman]

21. The "mass of the people" would NOT be incorrect in coming to the conclusion that all are to blame.

The care and maintenance of the Oligarchy and Empire is a bipartisan affair, and always has been.

IMHO, the sooner the "mass of the people" come to recognize that fact, the better their chances of organizing to reject the current corrupt political system.

sw

[The Magistrate]

28. While There May Be Something To That, Ma'am, We Do Not Hover At The Edge Of Revolution Today

On this particular issue, namely the war crime of torturing prisoners committed by the Republican administration led by Bush, it may be possible to achieve some lasting effect to the good by maintaining a tight focus.

[scarletwoman]

30. Of course "we don't hover at the edge of revolution" because We the People are treated

like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed bullshit. And thanks to the political class, this will remain the case for as long as possible.

sw

[The Magistrate]

32. But We Are, Ma'am, At What is Nowadays Called A 'Teachable Moment'....

The people have an opportunity two learn two things, directly from their own unmediated experience of public affairs. First, that electing rightists courts tyranny, and not just tyranny, but rapacious and incompetent tyranny. Second, that economic affairs are most emphatically not arranged for their benefit, but rather that their aspirations and savings as harvested like so many heads of wheat come ripe. We on the left should adopt two separate lines of attack, and keep them separate and singular, even though they have a natural convergence, as attacks on both flanks of an opposing army have. The line of attack against war crimes should be focused exclusively on the former Republican administration. The line of attack on economic matters should be focused on Congressional Democrats who stand against assisting the people and reining in corporate exploitation.

[scarletwoman]

53. I logged off last night before you posted your response, else I would have replied sooner.

I can grant a certain logic to what you say, but I must admit that I remain unpersuaded.

First of all, that "rapacious and incompetent tyranny" of the right was only made possible by the fecklessness of the elected Democrats. How many stood fast against granting Bush his Iraq War Resolution? Or any of his "war powers"?

When, in those 8 years of the Bush maladministration did we ever see the elected Democrats rise up as one to oppose Bush's policies? If our own party refuses to resist "tyranny", why should they be given a pass on that count?

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Where and when were the good men and women of the Democratic Party standing up against evil? Instead we got, "Impeachment is off the table." And continued funding for an illegal occupation with little end in sight even now.

The elected Democrats have been aiders and abettors of tyranny -- why should such behavior be given a pass? The BEST that can be said of such behavior is that it's sheer cowardice. Why should I accept such cowardice on the part of my purported "leaders"? Why should I not hold them responsible for allowing tyranny to flourish for 8 long years?

As for the economic flank, I don't see how it can separated from the bipartisan Imperialism flank. Our military adventurism is driven by "business interests" -- all wars are resource wars. General Smedley Butler had the right of it, War is a Racket -- and our elected officials serve the Racketeers.

It's one monster with many heads, and as long as the Dems protect this monster they are just as guilty as the right.

sw

[The Magistrate]

60. My Endeavor Here, Ma'am, Is Simply To Point Out What Seems To Me The Best Means Of Attack

The public does not blame the Democratic Party or its leadership for the actions of the Bush administration. Indeed, it looks to the Democratic Party to repair the damage done by the Bush administration.

Thus in attacking actions of the Bush administration, attempts to tie the Democratic Party leadership to those actions are wasted efforts. People recognize who was really in charge, and who ran rough-shod over whom. The documented committing of the war crime of torturing prisoners is an excellent singular emblem of the tyrannical thrust of the Bush administration. The self-evident fact the leadership of the Bush administration engaged in felonies as a regular item of policy directed from the highest levels must wear into the public mind, and will produce a lasting revulsion. Any attempt to spread the blame will only dilute this. It does not matter whether or not cogent arguments can be made that the Democratic leadership did not do enough to oppose this policy; the public knows the Bush administration could not have been stopped from doing what it wished.

However, attacking Democrats in Congress who today 'stand with the banks, not the people' is very much in accord with the feelings of the public. The people handed the Democrats power in the national government in order that they should repair damage done to the country's economic life by the Bush administration, or in other words, to stand by the people, not the banks. Democrats who do not do this are defying the popular will, and not only ought to be called to account for it, but ought to rightly fear being called to account for it. This is a live, present moment issue, on which Democrats are vulnerable, and on which particular Democrats who set themselves up as road-blocks to what the people want can be made fatally vulnerable. The public which voted the Democrats into office across the board can certainly be rallied against the likes of Nelson and Bayh and Lincoln.

A body which is weakened in one area is weakened in all areas. The collapse of the Bush administration, for example, began with the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina. This had, certainly, no obvious connection to or bearing on any major policy of the Bush administration. However, it did cost it a great deal of popular goodwill, and got people used to listening to criticisms of it that they agreed with. It is not a coincidence that in the aftermath of that storm criticism of war policy began to take hold, and that as criticism of war policy began to take hold, criticism of economic policy began to flourish. By discrediting the right as a whole, attack on the line of war crimes weakens Republican efforts to stave off beneficial repair to the economic system of the country, and maintain the war of the right against working people. The stigma of criminality, attached to any one aspect, has a deleterious effect on all other aspects of the whole body. Similarly, those Democrats who are making names for themselves as obstacles to what the people want done in the country's economic life are precisely those Democrats who in the past have done the most to make it impossible for the Party as a whole to effectively oppose the right in other fields. They are, as we would certainly agree, creatures of the right themselves: perhaps not to the degree as the present rump of the Republican party is, but certainly to a degree that makes them opponents of left and progressive policies. Attacking them on the line of attack to which they are currently vulnerable lessens their ability to do harm in other areas.

Both these lines of attack converge on what you identify as being behind the entire front, and pressed simultaneously, can work together to weaken its totality. But each must be kept clean, and focused on its specific area of vulnerability, if either to have any good effect.

In short: attack Republicans on war crimes, attack Democrats for failing working people.

[Mari333]

43. ...

:thumbsup:

[bdamomma]

15. everyone is fair game.

I still believe she was being blackmailed or her phone tapped too, she knew what was going on.

[KittyWampus]

18. if she was blackmailed, why didn't she give Harman the chair? So much for your stupid theory.

[scarletwoman]

26. So, what would a principled person do? Would blackmail or a phone tap stop a principled person from

speaking out or doing the right thing?

Did constant government harrassment and death threats stop Martin Luther King?

What if Pelosi had called a news conference and said, "Hey, I'm being blackmailed by these assholes! I'm not going to put up with it!"

I refuse to accept blackmail or phone taps as an excuse. The members of the Ruling Class protect their fellow members of the Ruling Class -- that's all there is to it.

sw

[NNN0LHI]

55. Yea she could have had Bush's Justice Department go after the fuckers. Right?

The same Bush Justice Department that had concluded torture was legal.

I am glad my elected officials aren't wasting their time pissing in the wind.

Don

[scarletwoman]

58. There is a higher power in our democracy -- at least theoretically -- and that is

We the People.

If the Dems were being blackmailed, they could have appealed to US. They could have called a news conference and said, "These rat bastards are lying to us and to you, and I don't care if they throw me in prison, what they're doing is wrong and evil and I will not stand for it."

sw

[spanone]

13. nothing 'pelosi knew' in any way absolves bu$h*/cheney of war crimes

they are the enemy

[Politicalboi]

20. Impeachment is off the table

Is why I think she did know what was going on. And if she did know she should be tried too. Or was she just following orders too.

[noamnety]

22. Not sure why anyone here is surprised by this news.

A whole lot of us figured this out already.

[Occam Bandage]

23. I think we should definitely shift all the blame onto people who had no power to stop it.

Clearly the CIA is trying to implicate Democrats out of their deep and abiding sense of justice, and not in a desperate attempt to save their own asses by sowing discord.

[Atman]

25. It smells like no such thing. We've been saying this on DU for years now.

OMG! Pelosi was briefed about the use of torture, therefore she was complicit and therefore she wouldn't prosecute anyone in BushCo???!!! You're kidding...can't be so!!!

:wow:

Are you serious? Pelosi has been neck-deep in this since day one. It ain't the Republicans "fault." It was their strategy, and they outplayed Pelosi in a big way.

.

[kpete]

27. i had a brain fart

when i posted this, sorry, kp

[CJCRANE]

36. We don't know exactly what was said in the brief.

Let's wait for all the facts, we know the neocons have a way of twisting or omitting things.

[JBoy]

39. To what standard were the German or Japanese equivalents of Pelosi held after WW2?

I imagine there wasn't much sympathy for their "predicament".

[Canuckistanian]

40. I'd like to know why this was "leaked" NOW

And who did the leaking? Wasn't this classified intelligence?

This seems perfectly timed to shut Democratic leaders up and to keep the focus on them.

[MadHound]

41. Which is why we need a special prosecutor,

Find out who knew what, when, and prosecute them accordingly. If Pelosi knew this was going on, or any other Dem, then throw them in jail too, along with Bush, Cheney, et. al.

Our government needs to be thoroughly cleaned out in order to restore America's standing in the world.

[NNN0LHI]

45. You know whats been going on why haven't you made a citizens arrest yet?

Big talk, eh?

Don

[Dr.Phool]

47. I agree. Investigate, and let the chips fall where they may.

Truth is the only cure for this mess.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Concerning Pelosi: Oh... What a Tangled Web We Weave... n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. Delete

[walldude]

62. Smells like desperation to me...

See the repugs think we are like them. THey think if they can show that Democrats are involved that the calls for hearings will stop because to them this is a "partisan" issue. Fools. They still don't get it. If Pelosi is dirty she can sink with them.