More 'splainin' by Nancy

[scandal 951]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/polit...ong.html?ref=us

In Detainee Furor, a Rare Stumble by Pelosi

By CARL HULSE

Published: May 15, 2009

WASHINGTON — After many failed efforts, Republicans have finally found a weak spot in Nancy Pelosi’s political armor as a fight over detainee interrogations engulfs Ms. Pelosi, Republicans and intelligence officials.

The furor was heightened on Friday when the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, pushed back against an assertion by Ms. Pelosi, a Democrat who is the House speaker, that she had been misled by agency representatives seven years ago about harsh treatment of terrorism suspects, a claim that struck a raw nerve at the spy headquarters.

Mr. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California and a longtime associate of Ms. Pelosi, issued a statement that said the agency’s “contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that C.I.A. officers briefed truthfully,” a rebuttal of Ms. Pelosi’s claim on Thursday that intelligence officials had lied to her.

The deepening dispute over what Ms. Pelosi was told in September 2002 has challenged her credibility and raised new questions about whether she passed up an early opportunity to expose the Bush administration’s harsh treatment of detainees.

Lawmakers and senior government officials say the public furor could also give momentum to the push for an inquiry into the Bush administration’s interrogation policies as well as into what senior members of Congress knew about the treatment of detainees. In his statement, Mr. Panetta said it would ultimately be “up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.”

As for the speaker, she no doubt faces a difficult period. But few think the sharp focus on the interrogation matter is a serious threat to the authority of Ms. Pelosi, a powerful figure who weathered previous Republican assaults with hardly a scratch.

“It is an embarrassment,” said Ross K. Baker, an expert on Congress at Rutgers University, “and clearly nobody wants to be embarrassed, particularly a speaker of the House. But other than that, there is nothing here that threatens her job.”

Ms. Pelosi is not the only one with political exposure. Should any investigation determine that the C.I.A. misled members of Congress, the result could be severely damaging to the agency and to the Republican leaders who have relentlessly pressed the issue against Ms. Pelosi.

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

“I do not have any recollection that day of there being a discussion of something that would have been as neon as waterboarding or other torture techniques,” Mr. Graham said.

He said his confidence in the C.I.A.’s account of the briefings had also been shaken by what he said was an incorrect assertion by the agency that he had been briefed on four dates. Mr. Graham, who famously keeps a detailed record of his daily activities, checked and determined that the agency was wrong about three dates and that he had attended only one session before leaving the Intelligence Committee.

“This is just a small chapter of a long, long book of C.I.A. inaccuracies, particularly in the early part of this decade,” he said.

But Mr. Graham was not present for the briefing with Ms. Pelosi. The only other lawmaker present, Porter J. Goss, then a Republican congressman from Florida who was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and later became the C.I.A. director, has contradicted her account. He said he and Ms. Pelosi were told that the agency intended to use the harsh methods.

Republicans on Friday continued to dispute Ms. Pelosi’s assertion that at her sole 2002 briefing as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was told that the Bush administration had determined waterboarding was legal but that it was not being used.

Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said on the “Today” show on NBC: “I have looked at the underlying materials, not only the records they kept but the cables they sent out to the field. From what was apparently contemporaneous documents, it’s clear that they did tell her.”

The furor surrounding Ms. Pelosi’s claim that she was misled has obscured one undisputed fact about the briefings. The Sept. 4, 2002, session, the first given to anyone in Congress on the so-called enhanced interrogation methods, came weeks after the C.I.A. had started to use the methods. Even if Ms. Pelosi had taken action, it is doubtful it would have averted the firestorm about torture that was to come.

Fellow Democrats say they support the speaker, and they will probably become more united as she faces attacks from polarizing opponents like Newt Gingrich, who lashed out at the speaker on Friday, or faces calls from the right to step down. The Democrats say her predicament shows the perils of classified briefings, which can handcuff those who attend if they hear something objectionable.

Since Ms. Pelosi became speaker in 2007, Republicans have repeatedly sought to undercut her, questioning her use of government aircraft and accusing her of aiding pet interests and of acting high-handedly. But the assaults had gained little traction before this latest episode, and with their fortunes down, Republicans are doing what they can to keep the issue alive.

In Ms. Pelosi’s home state, California, residents say they are having a hard time accepting her account. “I’m very skeptical of what she’s saying, and when she goes to get re-elected, this could really damage her credibility,” said Delphine Langille of San Ramon, one of several people interviewed Friday outside of City Hall in San Francisco.

Mr. Panetta’s message to C.I.A. employees, under the heading “Turning Down the Volume,” appeared to be an effort to calm the dispute between the speaker and the agency and show that despite his outsider status he would stand up for his employees.

In a statement issued Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi also sought to quiet matters.

“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,” she said. “What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country.”

Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington, and Malia Wollan from San Francisco.

[Ban Hammer 14,299]

no surprises there. wiggle some more on that hook, nancy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

[scandal 951]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

Yes, Steve. Graham does bolster Nancy's claim. But not so fast.. he was not present at the briefing she received. Porter Goss was, and he's contradicting her recollections. The operative word may come down to his reference to intended usage of waterboarding, etc. I.e. did the CIA brief Congress of what were, at the time, PAST uses of the techniques, or of intended FUTURE usage? That seems to be the crux of the emerging claims and counterclaims.

But Mr. Graham was not present for the briefing with Ms. Pelosi. The only other lawmaker present, Porter J. Goss, then a Republican congressman from Florida who was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and later became the C.I.A. director, has contradicted her account. He said he and Ms. Pelosi were told that the agency intended to use the harsh methods.

[Pooky 3,878]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

Yes, Steve. Graham does bolster Nancy's claim. But not so fast.. he was not present at the briefing she received. Porter Goss was, and he's contradicting her recollections. The operative word may come down to his reference to intended usage of waterboarding, etc. I.e. did the CIA brief Congress of what were, at the time, PAST uses of the techniques, or of intended FUTURE usage? That seems to be the crux of the emerging claims and counterclaims.

But Mr. Graham was not present for the briefing with Ms. Pelosi. The only other lawmaker present, Porter J. Goss, then a Republican congressman from Florida who was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and later became the C.I.A. director, has contradicted her account. He said he and Ms. Pelosi were told that the agency intended to use the harsh methods.

If, as Leon Panetta has stated, there is documentary evidence available, sufficient to substantiate the CIA's assertions, I don't give a monkey's what Bob Graham says.

Mr. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California and a longtime associate of Ms. Pelosi, issued a statement that said the agency’s “contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that C.I.A. officers briefed truthfully,” a rebuttal of Ms. Pelosi’s claim on Thursday that intelligence officials had lied to her.

When you add in that Panetta and Pelosi know each other quite well and is a Democrat appointee to the CIA and I think there is a good chance that Pelosi believed he would back her up when she came out with a denial. Panetta has no reason to lie about the CIA's records and despite Bob Graham's fame at keeping records, this is the NYT we're talking about and they love to put a gloss on Democrat politicians when they can. I think in this case, given Leon Panetta's background (not a Republican appointee), it's safe to rely on the CIA's account of Pelosi's briefing.

Which leads us to the fact that Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of cow poo. And for those who still believe her story, look at her press conference. Look at her body language. Listen to her speak. I'm no psychologist, but even I can tell when someone is that bad at telling porkies.

As for a truth commission? That's Nancy Pelosi's way of trying to deflect and equivocate on the issue. It cannot be allowed to work. The last organisation in the USA that needs a truth commission is the CIA, as it will endanger countless US lives, as it expands under Pelosi's self-preservation instincts. And my views on equivocation haven't changed. They should be left on the 8th Grade playground.

Bottom line is that Nancy Pelosi is damaged goods for this administration. The sooner she departs the spotlight, the better for the Obama Presidency.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi's about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a "bland" session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

Yes, Steve. Graham does bolster Nancy's claim. But not so fast.. he was not present at the briefing she received. Porter Goss was, and he's contradicting her recollections. The operative word may come down to his reference to intended usage of waterboarding, etc. I.e. did the CIA brief Congress of what were, at the time, PAST uses of the techniques, or of intended FUTURE usage? That seems to be the crux of the emerging claims and counterclaims.

Maybe so, but it's also worth remembering that the previous Administration's legal counsel did not believe that waterboarding was torture. I haven't been keeping up with all the details of the he said, she said, but in one corner, we have former VP ####### Cheney still claiming that waterboarding is NOT torture, as well as maintaining that nothing that his WH endorsed was torture, so what I'd like to know is - if Pelosi was in fact told by the CIA that they would be using waterboarding, did she at that time fully understand what the technique was or even had an informed opinion as to whether it was torture or not.

This to me seems like an extension of the finger pointing that was done regarding the invasion of Iraq - where the previous Administration had built a case for invading and Congress approved, even though they based their decision what we later found out was false pretenses. As I recall, it was the Bush Administration who then pointed the finger at the CIA, as giving them unreliable information.

All of this is brewing because our beloved former VP ####### Cheney can't gracefully retire from government. Remember all the stink Carter got for speaking up after he had left office? Where are those same voices to tell Cheney to also shut up?

Edited May 17, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

It will be interesting when they examine Bob Graham's testimony. He is that rare bird that must document his all his daily activities, including the quantity and quality of his bowel movements. Will his personal diaries are used as contemporaneous evidence, if they include such confidential information as what really happened in those closed briefings?

Edited May 17, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Pooky 3,878]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi's about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a "bland" session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

Yes, Steve. Graham does bolster Nancy's claim. But not so fast.. he was not present at the briefing she received. Porter Goss was, and he's contradicting her recollections. The operative word may come down to his reference to intended usage of waterboarding, etc. I.e. did the CIA brief Congress of what were, at the time, PAST uses of the techniques, or of intended FUTURE usage? That seems to be the crux of the emerging claims and counterclaims.

Maybe so, but it's also worth remembering that the previous Administration's legal counsel did not believe that waterboarding was torture. I haven't been keeping up with all the details of the he said, she said, but in one corner, we have former VP ####### Cheney still claiming that waterboarding is NOT torture, as well as maintaining that nothing that his WH endorsed was torture, so what I'd like to know is - if Pelosi was in fact told by the CIA that they would be using waterboarding, did she at that time fully understand what the technique was or even had an informed opinion as to whether it was torture or not.

This to me seems like an extension of the finger pointing that was done regarding the invasion of Iraq - where the previous Administration had built a case for invading and Congress approved, even though they based their decision what we later found out was false pretenses. As I recall, it was the Bush Administration who then pointed the finger at the CIA, as giving them unreliable information.

All of this is brewing because our beloved former VP ####### Cheney can't gracefully retire from government. Remember all the stink Carter got for speaking up after he had left office? Where are those same voices to tell Cheney to also shut up?

Ignorance is no defence, especially for a senior politician such as Pelosi, and especially when she comes out years after the fact and condemns it. Surely it doesn't take 4 years or so to realise that a certain form of "extreme interrogation" constitutes torture? Or is she really that dumb?

Had she not come out with such a high-handed attack against the practice and then denied she knew of its use, then this would be a non-issue. But she has made it an issue, first by pursuing the "waterboarding is torture" route, then repeatedly denying that she had known about it for years. She has built her own credibility gap. ####### Cheney had nothing to do with that. If anything, his public assertions and those Democrats trying to lynch him over this issue may end up doing President Obama a huge favour by sidelining Pelosi, if not removing her completely from the picture.

[endoftheroad 1]

what Ms. Pelosi was told in September 2002

EXCEPT that according to USA law Congress was not only to be INFORMED but CONSULTED BEFORE such measures were to be used.

They say she was told in September BUT the measures were used in August!

Oh, and the CIA has a long history of lying to Congress.

[endoftheroad 1]

Ignorance is no defence, especially for a senior politician such as Pelosi, and especially when she comes out years after the fact and condemns it. Surely it doesn't take 4 years or so to realise that a certain form of "extreme interrogation" constitutes torture? Or is she really that dumb?

Had she not come out with such a high-handed attack against the practice and then denied she knew of its use, then this would be a non-issue. But she has made it an issue, first by pursuing the "waterboarding is torture" route, then repeatedly denying that she had known about it for years. She has built her own credibility gap. ####### Cheney had nothing to do with that. If anything, his public assertions and those Democrats trying to lynch him over this issue may end up doing President Obama a huge favour by sidelining Pelosi, if not removing her completely from the picture.

Look Poopy, she said she couldn't say anything because it was classified. So many people have backed her up on this. The CIA has once again been caught in a flat out lie. Cheney should go to prison for torturing people for the only reason to justify an illegal war against Iraq.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

The Kool Aid hasn't worn off yet . . .

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

The Kool Aid hasn't worn off yet . . .

It will never wear off. There is an IV drip!

[scandal 951]

Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi's about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a "bland" session.

No offense to Mr. Panetta, I'll put more faith in what Bob Graham has said than either Panetta or Pelosi, which in turn means Pelosi is mostly likely being truthful. Panetta isn't going to dump on the very subordinates that he has to rely on unless he was preparing to clean house. I agree with Pelosi in calling for a truth commission....time to air out all the dirty laundry.

Yes, Steve. Graham does bolster Nancy's claim. But not so fast.. he was not present at the briefing she received. Porter Goss was, and he's contradicting her recollections. The operative word may come down to his reference to intended usage of waterboarding, etc. I.e. did the CIA brief Congress of what were, at the time, PAST uses of the techniques, or of intended FUTURE usage? That seems to be the crux of the emerging claims and counterclaims.

Maybe so, but it's also worth remembering that the previous Administration's legal counsel did not believe that waterboarding was torture. I haven't been keeping up with all the details of the he said, she said, but in one corner, we have former VP ####### Cheney still claiming that waterboarding is NOT torture, as well as maintaining that nothing that his WH endorsed was torture, so what I'd like to know is - if Pelosi was in fact told by the CIA that they would be using waterboarding, did she at that time fully understand what the technique was or even had an informed opinion as to whether it was torture or not.

This to me seems like an extension of the finger pointing that was done regarding the invasion of Iraq - where the previous Administration had built a case for invading and Congress approved, even though they based their decision what we later found out was false pretenses. As I recall, it was the Bush Administration who then pointed the finger at the CIA, as giving them unreliable information.

All of this is brewing because our beloved former VP ####### Cheney can't gracefully retire from government. Remember all the stink Carter got for speaking up after he had left office? Where are those same voices to tell Cheney to also shut up?

You'll never catch me defending the Bush/Cheney record on these matters, lord knows!

There are plenty of things done in those years that are potentially worthy of digging up and investigating. As you mention, the lead-up to the Iraq war - was the intelligence intentionally slanted to support going to war? Wiretaps - who in the Justice Department did and said what regarding the issuance of wiretaps without FISA oversight? Renditions - who in Justice and the CIA approved renditions in foreign locations? The list goes on and on.

On this, I think Obama's desire to let bygones be bygones is spot-on, and Congressional Democrats who have called for inquiries and fact-finding commissions about CIA waterboarding and torture is out of step with the public good and the public sentiment.

####### happened back then. We all know it did. Some of it was no doubt excessive, over the line, and not in keeping with American values. That's wrong. But it happened 7 years ago when we all remember the mood in the country. The times were different then, people were much more fearful and apprehensive and willing to err on the side of more governmental power and sacrifice civil liberties. We're gravitating back to center now, which is good. Not that we can EVER lose sight of the danger. It's vital to give the military and intelligence agencies effective, but legal, tools to defend the country.

It's really time to move past this. We have many many pressing issues facing the country at home and abroad. The Administration wants to tackle them. The last thing we need right now is a Congress more focused on 2002/2003 than on 2009/2010.

Pelosi has made herself no friends here whatsoever by dragging this out as a front page story.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ron,

I think a truth commission with extending impunity to the previous Administration as well as the CIA would prevent it from being a political witchhunt, meanwhile shedding light on the truth. We can't and won't move forward until all that gets sorted out - whether it's decades from now by historians or by having the Federal Government open its doors to the public, and to the rest of the world. If there is anything we can take from the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, is to learn never to repeat the same bad choices they made. The legacy of the secrecy will continue until that day when light is shown on the truth of just what happened.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Pooky 3,878]

Ignorance is no defence, especially for a senior politician such as Pelosi, and especially when she comes out years after the fact and condemns it. Surely it doesn't take 4 years or so to realise that a certain form of "extreme interrogation" constitutes torture? Or is she really that dumb?

Had she not come out with such a high-handed attack against the practice and then denied she knew of its use, then this would be a non-issue. But she has made it an issue, first by pursuing the "waterboarding is torture" route, then repeatedly denying that she had known about it for years. She has built her own credibility gap. ####### Cheney had nothing to do with that. If anything, his public assertions and those Democrats trying to lynch him over this issue may end up doing President Obama a huge favour by sidelining Pelosi, if not removing her completely from the picture.

Look Poopy, she said she couldn't say anything because it was classified. So many people have backed her up on this. The CIA has once again been caught in a flat out lie. Cheney should go to prison for torturing people for the only reason to justify an illegal war against Iraq.

Yet another naive idiot resorting to pre-pubescent name-calling because someone doesn't agree with their narrow-minded assumption of the facts. Grow up, will you?

If she couldn't say anything because it was classified, why did she deny any knowledge of its use?

And when you've got your story straight, maybe you can pass on a few tips to the soon-to-be-ex-Speaker of the House?