[Chongo]

So, What did the Speaker know and when did she know it?
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi Gets Flustered

This looks like a good time for that "Truth Commission" Speaker Pelosi has been pushing for.
First she didn't know, then I was told of techniques, but that had not been used, then...

[subego]

Beat me to it. Same title even.

The only two things I can find in Nancy's favor is that Bob Graham claims he wasn't told either, and that she could have just let this drop.

Otherwise, the reason you beat me to it was my search for a more polite way to phrase "she seems full of ****".


Edit: I found this quick and dirty AP timeline helpful.

[subego]

This is getting more bizarre.

Originally Posted by Nancy Pelosi

We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

[stumblinmike]

So, is waterboarding torture NOW? Because Pelosi MAY have been briefed on it's use? There still seems to be some question as to what/when she knew, but because she MAY have known, she's as guilty as Bush/Cheney and the rest of the bunch? You wingnuts are HIlarious!!! Is it torture or isn't it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

but because she MAY have known, she's as guilty as Bush/Cheney and the rest of the bunch?

Who said that?

[besson3c]

The Daily Show sure made her look like a big liar last night. Something doesn't add up.

[SpaceMonkey]

She should be tortured until she tells us everything!

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Daily Show sure made her look like a big liar last night. Something doesn't add up.

The protocol here is dirt simple. Get your story straight and then get out in front of it.

She knows that.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Beat me to it. Same title even.

I was waiting...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Daily Show sure made her look like a big liar last night. Something doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by subego 

The protocol here is dirt simple. Get your story straight and then get out in front of it.

She knows that.

Someone pointed out that if her memory is so clear on this, why did she need a carefully worded statement to reference

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

So, is waterboarding torture NOW? Because Pelosi MAY have been briefed on it's use? There still seems to be some question as to what/when she knew, but because she MAY have known, she's as guilty as Bush/Cheney and the rest of the bunch? You wingnuts are HIlarious!!! Is it torture or isn't it?

That what the debate is. The CIA (Panettta)says she was briefed on the interrogation techniques that were to be used, and later briefings outlined which were used and who they were used on. (AZ and SKM). Remember, Pelosi was House Minority leader, and the ranking member of the Intel Committee.

[Dork.]

From what I can tell, there were no official transcripts of these briefings, and the CIA is going by the notes that were left by the folks in the briefing. And we have no way of knowing how precise those notes were. (One would hope they were at least truthful.)

Also note that the current CIA director is not the guy who was the CIA director when all this stuff happened. He can say things like "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress", but he doesn't have any direct knowledge about what the unwritten policies might have been in 2002.

I didn't set out to be defending Pelosi like this, but the more I read about it, the more I think she's getting a bum rap. She's not exactly handling it well politically, though. I guess I need to catch that Daily Show to get my facts straight.

[hyteckit]

The media is making it sound like Pelosi is the only person from congress that has been brief.

Besides, haven't we been told by the media in the past that those who have be brief during intelligence meetings cannot reveal to the public what they've been told?

I don't think Pelosi nor any other congressman can reveal too much about what's been mention during those briefings.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The media is making it sound like Pelosi is the only person from congress that has been brief.

She was one of four who were briefed at the time, IIRC.

[hyteckit]

Who are the other 3 who were brief?

Did those other 3 back up Pelosi or contradict Pelosi?

[subego]

The only other person who I've heard mentioned as being at the meeting is Porter Goss (who I believe was the ranking Republican at the time). He sides with the CIA account.

Edit: Goss used to be ranking Republican, but was head of the CIA at the time, and he probably wasn't at the meeting. I was assuming he was in the House, and therefore had to be at the meeting to make a comment worthy of print. Whoops.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I didn't set out to be defending Pelosi like this, but the more I read about it, the more I think she's getting a bum rap. She's not exactly handling it well politically, though. I guess I need to catch that Daily Show to get my facts straight.

Because Panetta defended the organization he's in charge of from hearsay?

She needs evidence for it to be a bum rap.

If she had sparked a debate more important that "I learned this in early 2003 not late 2002", then it would be a bum rap.

If she had waited less than six years to bring it up, then it would be a bum rap. That's the best case scenario here: she's telling the truth, and therefore failed miserably in her duty to her constituents.

It's either that or it didn't bother her.

[ghporter]

Nancy Pelosi is a career politician. Her history and behavior indicate that she is capable of saying anything that might improve her chances of reelection and/or advancement in either the party or Congress (preferably both). Being a politician, she has practice in saying a lot of things that are most likely not entirely true, and knowing precisely how much truth she is expressing, metering it such that her "message" makes its impression, irrespective of the actual veracity of her statements.

In other words, I do not believe Madame Speaker's protestations at all. She is saying what she is to insulate herself from responsibility for approval of the conduct of interrogations, in spite of the fact that records show that she was given plenty of information about them. It is barely possible that nobody actually explicitly said "we're using this technique called 'waterboarding,' which sort of simulates drowning and we think it's a pretty strong technique."

However, having a powerful politician state that she was not told something specific, verbatim, while there is every indication that she actively participated in meetings where the subject was so thoroughly discussed that such verbatim statements would be unnecessary for, say your typical 4th grader, becomes amusing. Is she going to try to put together a stand-up routine? "A funny thing happened while I was supposed to be an important leader in Congress..." Yeah, right.

Other than that, I have absolutely no opinion on this matter...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because Panetta defended the organization he's in charge of from hearsay?

She needs evidence for it to be a bum rap.

If she had sparked a debate more important that "I learned this in early 2003 not late 2002", then it would be a bum rap.

If she had waited less than six years to bring it up, then it would be a bum rap. That's the best case scenario here: she's telling the truth, and therefore failed miserably in her duty to her constituents.

It's either that or it didn't bother her.

Your assessment may be correct. I'd just like to point out that, as far as I can tell, the evidence against Pelosi's position is heresay, too. There's no official record on the subject. And the information was classified to begin with, so there wasn't much she could do with the information at the time other than quietly seethe in Bush's general direction.

Who brought it up first, anyway?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'd just like to point out that, as far as I can tell, the evidence against Pelosi's position is heresay, too.

You are correct.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

so there wasn't much she could do with the information at the time other than quietly seethe in Bush's general direction.

She could have signed on to Harman's letter.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Who brought it up first, anyway?

According to the AP timeline, the media in 2007, and then more recently, the CIA.

[Shaddim]

Meh, I don't really care if she knew. She's scum, like any other national politician. Hell, she'd carry around a handgun and run in Utah as a Republican, if it was the only way she could keep public office. All these people are fakes, finding some way to gain power and money.

[hyteckit]

Senator Bob Graham backs up Pelosi, saying he was not brief on waterboarding either.

Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings : NPR

Emptywheel � Senator Bob Graham: The CIA Made Up Two Briefing Sessions

[ghporter]

I distrust Bob Graham about as much as I distrust Nancy Pelosi. Note that Graham makes a point of being "at war with the administration" at the time CIA said he was briefed. Whatever the cause of the CIA's inaccurate dates, Graham's agenda is apparently to distance himself from the administration. The Emptywheel page claims that CIA was "making s*** up." To misquote Tommy Lee Jones, the CIA "does not have a sense of humor that we are aware of." While appointees may be tempted to slant intel interpretation toward where "the boss" appears to want it (i.e. Sadam's yellowcake issues), it's not appointees that do these briefings. Briefings are handled by analysts who are employees and not appointed by anyone. What reason would a bunch of civil service people have for lying about briefing members of Congress? I find it far more likely that those members of Congress are lying about being briefed.

As for dates of briefings, Congress has this thing about never cooperating with security protocols. Congresscritters don't like to admit responsibility for anything, let alone being granted access to national security information, and to my knowledge being a member does not actually require a security clearance. But trustworthy or not, members get briefed on important stuff all the time. It's quite possible that Graham was initially scheduled to be briefed on the dates the CIA had, but he canceled and the people doing the scheduling (even lower level employees than the analysts that would do the briefings) failed to properly note the cancellation and rescheduled dates. That's an administrative bookkeeping error, not "lying to Congress."

[Chongo]

Like Patrick "Leaky" Leahy?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like Patrick "Leaky" Leahy?

Good example. Congress members aren't unique for security leaks; LBJ and Nixon both blurted out stuff that should have been kept VERY quiet, but their position gave them authority to declassify a whole lot of operational stuff. Members of Congress have no such authority.

[hyteckit]

Not a single member of the House or Senate whether Democrat or Republican has confirmed that they were brief on waterboarding.

So far?

Pelosi and Graham denies being brief on waterboarding.

Republican congressman - no one can confirm that they were brief on waterboarding during 2002.


Why won't a single Republican congressman confirm that they were brief on waterboarding in 2002?

Pelosi has ask to have the briefing made public.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Briefings are handled by analysts who are employees and not appointed by anyone. What reason would a bunch of civil service people have for lying about briefing members of Congress? I find it far more likely that those members of Congress are lying about being briefed.

Yeah, those briefings to Pelosi don't mention waterboarding at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_200087.html


On Wednesday, the CIA released a report describing the briefings it gave to members of Congress on the Bush administration's interrogation program. According to the report, Pelosi partook in a September 4, 2002 briefing on, among other things, "the use of [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah." The report, which was drawn from recollections of the CIA officials, did not, however, specifically mention whether waterboarding was discussed at the briefing -- an absence that Pelosi's aides say validates her statements.

[hyteckit]

What I really want to see is Republicans coming out and confirming that they were brief on waterboarding.

[Big Mac]

She was in rare form during that press conference. Nixon was more telegenic, and Slick Willy was more believable during Monica Gate.

Waterboard her already!!! She should step down so that a different corrupt Dem can take her place.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The report, which was drawn from recollections of the CIA officials, did not, however, specifically mention whether waterboarding was discussed at the briefing -- an absence that Pelosi's aides say validates her statements.[/b]

Which EIT's does Pelosi say they discussed specifically, since it does generically classify the methods discussed as EIT's?

Sounds like Nancy is trying to find a loophole where one doesn't exist.

As it's been explained, the CIA doesn't really have a reason to lie. Members of Congress who are looking at an upcoming witch hunt, and not wanting to be dunked in the water themselves however do and Pelosi has given several different versions of what she knew, and when she knew it. The CIA has been pretty consistent. Do you think that Leon Panetta is going to lie in a way that helps Republicans? Yeah, right.

[Big Mac]

In all seriousness (although I was being pretty serious before), Pelosi tried to go on a Bush Admin prosecution political vendetta immediately after January 20th and had to be muzzled by Obama. Failing that, she thought she could score easy political layups against Bush by taking advantage of the EIT manufactured controversy. The problem was, she has a continually evolving story, and any credibility she may have had with politically aware moderates went out the window with that laughable press conference. I would say her career is over, but disgraced hard-liner Democrats (Kennedy, Frank, Byrd, Dodd, etc.) seem to have a considerable amount of staying power on the Hill.

[hyteckit]

What I find shocking is not a single Republican is coming forward and confirming that they were brief on waterboarding in 2002.

40 briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Why's that?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...p_N.htm?csp=34

An unclassified chart released last month by the CIA describes a total of 40 briefings for lawmakers over a period of several years on enhanced interrogation techniques. Pelosi's name appears once, as having attended a session on Sept. 4, 2002, when she was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Former Rep. Porter Goss, a Republican who at the time was the chairman of the committee and later became CIA director, also was present.

[hyteckit]

Senator Bob Graham has been keeping a daily record of everything he does for the past 30 years. His record contradicts the CIA's records on the briefings.

Why's that?

Graham: CIA Gave Me False Information About Interrogation Briefings

And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."

"What struck me...was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action.

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What I find shocking is not a single Republican is coming forward and confirming that they were brief on waterboarding in 2002.

Goss came forward. Otherwise, they're not coming forward because they never denied it.

I linked most of the Graham info already. Second post of the thread.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sounds like Nancy is trying to find a loophole where one doesn't exist.

As it's been explained, the CIA doesn't really have a reason to lie.

Exactly. Nancy is trying to weasel out of having given her tacit approval to these activities. Transparently, too.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Senator Bob Graham has been keeping a daily record of everything he does for the past 30 years. His record contradicts the CIA's records on the briefings.

Why's that?

Just because his records show that he wasn't present for the specific briefings the CIA provided dates for does not mean that he was not informed. By specifying that "on these dates I was doing something else," he sidesteps saying anything about whether or not he had other contact with the CIA. Again, what reason would the CIA have to lie about this? They're already in trouble for conducting the interrogations this way and for encouraging GIs to do the same things. On the other hand, Graham has plenty of reason to distance himself from knowledge of these practices, since he apparently still wants to establish himself as "the only Democrat that had any sense" in the matter... or some junk like that-it's hard to figure out what he's after most of the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

since he apparently still wants to establish himself as "the only Republican that had any sense" in the matter...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I fixed it. My fingers apparently thought they were typing about PHIL rather than BOB. And of course my highly refined proofreading skills skipped right over that too... Sorry.

Bob still acts like he's a contender for the White House sometimes, and that shows up in his animosity toward ALL administrations...

[subego]

Well, if he's claiming he's the only Democrat who had sense in the matter, he just knifed the whole party in the back.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Just because his records show that he wasn't present for the specific briefings the CIA provided dates for does not mean that he was not informed. By specifying that "on these dates I was doing something else," he sidesteps saying anything about whether or not he had other contact with the CIA. Again, what reason would the CIA have to lie about this? They're already in trouble for conducting the interrogations this way and for encouraging GIs to do the same things. On the other hand, Graham has plenty of reason to distance himself from knowledge of these practices, since he apparently still wants to establish himself as "the only Democrat that had any sense" in the matter... or some junk like that-it's hard to figure out what he's after most of the time.

No, it's show the CIA records are inaccurate.

CIA said Graham was brief on these dates, when he wasn't even there.

So how can we trust the CIA records when they have been proven inaccurate?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Goss came forward. Otherwise, they're not coming forward because they never denied it.

I linked most of the Graham info already. Second post of the thread.

Goss? Goss was the former CIA director. What do you think Goss is going to say? Goss said members of congress were brief on Enhanced Interrogation.

Goss agrees the CIA didn't tell Pelosi waterboarding had been used.'s statement on Waterboarding | flavius's Blog

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp...ositorture.jpg


There is nothing backing up claims that Pelosi was brief on waterboarding.

This was the only time Pelosi was brief by the CIA.

The question is why hasn't any Republican congressman who have been brief by the CIA on EIT, come out and confirm that they were brief on waterboarding? Why hasn't any Republican come out and back up Goss?

[hyteckit]

The arguments and proof here are so weak.

I don't trust Pelosi - she must be lying
I don't trust Graham - he must be lying
I trust the CIA - they must be telling the truth, even if they can't keep accurate records

That's the logic and proof? Wow.

The CIA can't even keep track of who they brief, what they brief, and when they gave the briefing. CIA needs to keep better records.


Republicans who have been told about waterboarding need to stop being cowards and come forward and back Goss up.

Republicans need to grow some balls. Seems like Pelosi and Graham are the only one with balls.

[BadKosh]

How many variations of 'the truth' has Pelosi given to us so far? 4-5 times???

How many times has the CIA revised or corrected it's story?

Pelosi has had more than a few incidents in recent months which call her mental state into question.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, it's show the CIA records are inaccurate.

CIA said Graham was brief on these dates, when he wasn't even there.

So how can we trust the CIA records when they have been proven inaccurate?

We have this newfangled technology called telephones, maybe you're heard of them?

Senator Bob Graham has been keeping a daily record of everything he does for the past 30 years.

Maybe he's full of ****, like just about all other career politicians.


It's fun watching the Dems dance around for a change, I'm just looking forward to seeing who doesn't have a chair when the music stops.

[hyteckit]

How many Republicans were brief by the CIA on Enhanced Interrogations?

How many Republicans have come forward backing up Goss, claiming they were brief on waterboarding? Zero? None?

If what the CIA was telling the truth, we would be hearing a least a dozen Republicans backing Goss up by now.

Either the Republicans are liars or cowards, or both.

[hyteckit]

Bob Graham is well known for taking a daily journal of all his activities.

Floridian: Dress in gray suit, discuss CIA, mingle

Back in 2000:

Take note of Bob Graham - July 10, 2000

8:25: Awaken at MLTH (Miami Lakes Town House)

8:45-9:35: Kitchen, family room. Eat breakfast, branola cereal with peach

9:35-9:40: Complete dressing. Watch Meet the Press

9:25-9:50: Drive to ABC studio

9:50-11:00: Makeup and prepare for interview

11:00-11:20: Taped interview with Bob Zelnick for ABC Sunday News

11:35-11:40: Talk with security

11:40-12:05: Drive to MLTH. Discuss Nicaragua

12:05-12:20: MLTH bedroom, bathroom, change to red shorts

12:20-1:20: MLTH kitchen, family room. Eat lunch (tuna salad). Watch Ace Ventura

12:50: Cissy thinks she's going into labor

1:15: Cissy preparing to leave for Baptist Hospital

1:20-1:30: MLTH. Bedroom, bathroom. Dress in blue slacks

1:30-1:45: Rewind Ace Ventura

2:00: Adele ready to go. Drive to Baptist Hospital

2:15: Stop at [video store] to return Ace Ventura

6:00-7:05: Cissy in examining room, delivery room, watch ABC News. Cissy commences preparation for labor

7:05-8:40: Drive to Bennigan's Restaurant with Adele. Listen to New England Patriots-Miami Dolphins (39-35)

7:20-8:25: Bennigan's. Eat supper (ham and cheese sandwich). Return to hospital

9:05-9:10: Waiting room. Read NYT, mingle

11:00-12:45: Waiting room. Watch CNN, CBS News

12:44: It's a boy!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Either the Democrats and Republicans are liars or cowards, or both.

Fixed that for ya, since you're too partisan to think rationally and connect the dots.

Bob Graham is well known for taking a daily journal of all his activities.

Yesterday called, they said your birth certificate is ready.

[hyteckit]

Republicans are the ones harping on the issue that Pelosi was brief on waterboarding, not Democrats.

If Republicans keep insisting Pelosi knew, then Republicans need to come forward and back up Goss.

If they don't come forward, then they need to shut up.

Otherwise, they are either liars or cowards, or both.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Republicans are the ones harping on the issue that Pelosi was brief on waterboarding, not Democrats.

Of course the Dems aren't, if it's true it could make them all look bad. You think they want to commit political suicide? Think of all the soccer moms and pseudo-intellectuals who would be crushed if it was verified that Pelosi and her cohorts knew about what was going on.

[BadKosh]

Perhaps Pelosi WAS AT THE BRIEFINGS, but too drunk to remember? Duress! Yeah, thats it!

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The question is why hasn't any Republican congressman who have been brief by the CIA on EIT, come out and confirm that they were brief on waterboarding? Why hasn't any Republican come out and back up Goss?

This question makes no sense. Goss was the only one at the meeting. You're not even taking Goss' word for it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, it's show the CIA records are inaccurate.

CIA said Graham was brief on these dates, when he wasn't even there.

So how can we trust the CIA records when they have been proven inaccurate?

As I said earlier, having records of appointments not agree is a very different thing from saying "Sen Graham was briefed" and not doing that. Again, it's an administrative issue, not "lying," which Mr. Graham is suggesting-no it's what he's accusing. And yet, like Pelosi, he hasn't used his authority to instigate a criminal investigation of the matter...

I'll agree that Sen Graham's situation is significantly different from Rep Pelosi's, but given his track record, and that there is no apparent reason for the CIA (led by a fellow Democrat) to lie about who they told what, I'd say that Graham, like Pelosi, is attempting to avoid responsibility for allowing the waterboarding to go on. Further, since there does not seem to be a career politician in D.C. that is involved in this dustup AND that has a clean enough record for his/her statements to be taken at face value, I think the party with the most to lose politically deserves the most scrutiny here. That would be Senator Graham and Representative Pelosi.

And I thought that Army leadership's failure in allowing Abu Grahib to go on was horrendous...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It is kind of poetic justice when Democrats looking for a witch hunt against someone else, end up snaring themselves.