Sharon noted that Democratic politicians have been for stuff before they were against it, such as Senator Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) change of position on the use of waterboarding. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has to be just incredibly dumb, to pick the kind of fight she’s picked, claiming that the Bush Administration never told her about waterboarding, then that they told her, but didn’t tell her that it had been used, when there’s so much evidence out there that she’s been lying through her scummy teeth.
William A. Jacobson, an Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell, who maintains the site Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, went back and did more research on the lovely Mrs Pelosi’s previous statements:
Pelosi May 2002 Statement Casts Further Doubt On Her Claims
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has denied being briefed in September 2002 about the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi claims she was told that the technique had not been used (when in fact it had been used a month earlier). Pelosi uses this September 2002 briefing, and the alleged concealment of waterboarding, to support her claim that the CIA misled Congress.Pelosi says she first learned of the waterboarding in February 2003, when her aide was briefed on the issue, and relayed the information to her. CIA Director Leon Panetta states that CIA records show that Pelosi was in fact briefed on the techniques used on Zubaydah at the September 2002 briefing.
We do not know at this time what other records exist showing what was said at the September 2002 briefing, but this quotation from Pelosi in May 2002 lends credibility to the CIA’s account. Pelosi clearly was being kept apprised of the specific details Zubaybah’s interrogation and the difficulty of getting Zubaydah to give up all he knew.
In May 2002, the government announced a terror alert based in part on information Zubaydah had revealed about attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and other landmarks, although Zubaydah was being evasive as to whether there was an active plan. Pelosi was quoted as being aware of the details of the interrogation (italics in quotation mine):
CNN.com, May 22, 2002: Last Monday night, the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force–a round-the-clock operation at the New York field office of the FBI–got a call from FBI headquarters. Abu Zubaydah, the highest al-Qaeda official to be captured by the U.S., had told interrogators that he had heard other Osama bin Laden loyalists discussing attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty and other U.S. landmarks. But, a federal law-enforcement official told TIME, Abu Zubaydah had said the conversations took place a while back and claimed he knew of no particular plan. Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. “He’s not b.s.ing us on everything.” Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, “he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation.”
So as of May 2002, Pelosi knew the details of the interrogation of Zubaydah, and the problems the CIA was encountering due to Zubaydah’s evasiveness. It does not take any leap of imagination to believe that Pelosi, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, would have been kept informed of the progress of the interrogation, including the use of waterboarding months later.
It would take an incredible leap of imagination to believe that the CIA would tell Pelosi about all the problems with the interrogation of Zubaydah, but not tell her what was being done to solve those problems. Particularly when the waterboarding revealed that the plot against the Brooklyn Bridge, about which Pelosi publicly spoke, was
revealed to bereal based on information Zubaydah provided after being waterboarded.A leap of imagination is exactly what Pelosi is asking us to do with her ever-changing explanations.
Hat tip to Sister Toldjah for the article.
There’s an old saying that when you are trying to get out of a hole, stop digging. Mrs Pelosi needs to throw away her shovel. With any luck, it’ll rain, the hole will fill with water, and she’ll be able to float to the top. 
In 2001 (after September 11th) and 2002 and 2003, the Democrats saw how popular President Bush was, and though they didn’t like it, they tried to bask in the reflected glory, tried to gain whatever political points they could by being Strong On National Security, as that was the issue of the day. The statements of the Democrats who actually had to vote on the authorization to use force against Iraq are just wonderful, statements of complete support; Barack Obama made much of the fact that he didn’t vote for the authorization, but he couldn’t have, because he wasn’t in Congress at the time. (Had he been, he’d probably have voted “present.”) Senator John Kerry (D-MA) had no flaming idea what to say in the 2004 campaign, having been for the money for troops before he was against it, and even stating in August of 2004 that, with the benefit of hindsight, he’d still have voted to authorize the use of force.
Well, as the occupation turned ugly, the Democrats have backtracked on their past statements; that’s hardly surprising. But when it comes to Mrs Pelosi, backtracking has turned to outright lying. From her, this, too, is unsurprising; she tap-danced her way around the fact that the non-FISA-Court approved wiretaps were revealed to her as the senior Democrat in the House, and the fact that she could have ended them had she disapproved, but she kept her mouth shut.
Of course, the voters in San Francisco will continue to return Mrs Pelosi to Congress for as long as she wishes to run for re-election; that much is a given. And her mouth will continue to provide ammunition for Republicans for as long as she stays in Congress.
But, you’d think that, by now, Members of Congress would have realized that everything they say gets recorded somewhere, and if they lie about something, someone is going to unearth the documentation to prove it. She could have, and should have, just kept her mouth shut.
Mr Jacobson also noted that Mrs Pelosi is Two Heartbeats Away from becoming president. Now that’s a scary thought!
Could Pelosi’s objections have ended the programs? I’m not clear on that – I guess that’s why I’m confused as to why we even care whether Pelosi knew or not.
Put another way – if I know about a bank robbery, and I don’t tell anyone about it, am I still criminally responsible for that robbery even if I didn’t participate in it?
Jeff: Had Mrs Pelosi revealed the existence of either the enhanced interrogations or non-FISA-Court-approved wiretaps when they were disclosed to her, she would not have had the legal authority to end them, but she could have created the political pressure that might have led to changes or elimination.
Jeff,
Arguing that she couldn’t have changed administration policy is weak. Congress demands to be advised on all aspects of government, including war policies, even when they cannot change it. Because Nancy Pelosi couldn’t prevent policy she disagreed with doesn’t mean she wasn’t informed, as even Leon Panetta has said.
What this points out is a couple of things. First, Pelosi is lying about what she knew when. Second, that Democrats roundly supported the same techniques they now call torture when it was politically convenient to do so. And third, if Democrats want to shriek that the techniques were illegal and that we should prosecute lawyers for giving legal advice, they’d better be prepared to be prosecuted themselves.
I agree that Pelosi’s comments have been confusing and inconsistent; however, this right wing obsession on her is a partisan attempt to take the focus off of the decisions of the Cheney/Bush/Rice administration to torture detainees. It’s as simple as that!
The Obama/Biden/Emmanuel administration is currently murdering civilians in Iraq and Afganistan. What can be done about this? I can no longer tolerate this blood on American hands.
As for Pelosi, Congress does appropriate money.
Perry: Confusing and inconsistent? Well, if one simply takes the logical conclusion that they were deliberate lies, they are no longer confusing.
Of course we are trying to take down a partisan Democrat! We are trying to weaken the Democratic Party’s control over the government, and Mrs Pelosi is the target of opportunity right now. As for trying to deflect the debate, haven’t you noticed: most of the writers on this site have supported the aggressive interrogation, and have initiated articles which have continued the discussion. I’d hardly call that “attempt(ing) to take the focus off” of the subject.
So let’s see if I have the wingnut position down pat – it isn’t torture, and it is totally justified torture, and Pelosi is equally to blame for it. Would that be about right – that this screaming about Pelosi is because she supposedly knew about a program you’re still fine with?
As for trying to deflect the debate, haven’t you noticed: most of the writers on this site have supported the aggressive interrogation,
Dana, America tortures prisoners to death. Deal with it.
If Pelosi knew about the torture, she should also face charges or sanction. If she was lied to or mislead about the programs, there’s an additional charge against those responsible for the torture and murder of prisoners. It isn’t that difficult to figure out.
Pho has it right, that America tortures prisoners to death. And then, Dana, I cannot help but contrast your strong reaction to Daniel Pearl’s assassination (which I share) to the torture to death which you support. Where is there consistency in your position?
Dana says: “Confusing and inconsistent? Well, if one simply takes the logical conclusion that they were deliberate lies, they are no longer confusing.”
Logical conclusions are not necessarily correct conclusions, as I am sure you know well, Dana. You also know that there is not evidence that Pelosi is guilty of anything more than a confusion or a poor memory, neither of which is exemplary on such an important issue, I admit.
I am glad to see that you favor prosecution or sanctions against those alleged to have lied or mislead about the torture programs and their consequences. This of course includes not only Pelosi, but also Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, at least.
“Dana, America tortures prisoners to death. Deal with it.”
I must be missing something. When did we “torture someone to death”? Who was it? When did this happen? Now that I’m against.
Why not just “Waterboardgate”?
On a more serious note, it’s ridiculous to focus on Nancy Pelosi when the people who designed, committed, and conspired to legalize torture are still free.
I must be missing something.
How surprising. It’s only been mentioned about a million times.
When did we “torture someone to death”? Who was it? When did this happen? Now that I’m against.
Here. Here. Here.
But that doesn’t stop you, or Dana, or Sharon, or Eric talking about “panties on heads” or “aggressive interrogation”.
Your country tortures prisoners to death. That is the image of America everyone else has these days.
There were stupid excesses which occurred, particularly Mr Dilawar’s, but such does not inbvalidate the need to interrogate top level people. I’m sorry that Mr Dilawar died, but those are the fortunes of war.
My favorite term for this comes from RedState: “Prevarigate”
Mr Jacobs: That’s gotta be worth a point or two!
There were stupid excesses which occurred, particularly Mr Dilawar’s, but such does not inbvalidate the need to interrogate top level people. I’m sorry that Mr Dilawar died, but those are the fortunes of war.
No, Dana, they were not “stupid excesses”. They were part and parcel of a deliberate programme of torture as a means of justifying war. More than Dilawar died – he’s just the most visible part of the iceberg.
Your country tortures prisoners to death. Deal with it.
Name three that died during torture.
No, I don’t count suicide at Gitmo.
So come on. List three. I bet you can’t name a single one who died as a result of torture.
Name three that died during torture.
Abu Malik Kenami, Jamal Naseer, Sher Mohammad Khan, Manadel al-Jamadi.
Your country tortures prisoners to death. Deal with it.
Or try reading this.
Your country tortures prisoners to death. Deal with it.
And third, if Democrats want to shriek that the techniques were illegal and that we should prosecute lawyers for giving legal advice, they’d better be prepared to be prosecuted themselves. – Sharon
Amen to that. There should be an extensive, nonpartisan investigation into what happened, and anyone who broke the law ought to be prosecuted for it regardless of the consequences of such prosecutions. The law is the law and it ought to be enforced. (And now I’m sounding like Jim Gilchrist. Sheesh.)
There should be an extensive, nonpartisan investigation into what happened, and anyone who broke the law ought to be prosecuted for it regardless of the consequences of such prosecutions. The law is the law and it ought to be enforced.
You have to understand, Jeff, the wingnuts only see it as a matter of tribal politics. they literally cannot see past “who wins, who loses” to realise “this is evil”.
Yeah, well, their country straps bombs to kids and has them blow up on buses and next to schools.
I think we’re still ahead in this race.
Yeah, well, their country straps bombs to kids and has them blow up on buses and next to schools.
And which country would this be, Scott?
I think we’re still ahead in this race.
I see. So your comeback is “we’re less evil than the guys who flew the planes into the World Trade Centre”? In other words, you’re not actually the good guys – just the less-evil guys.
This is an interesting political juncture for those of us who think that waterboarding – or the end-run around the FISA courts – were wrong. We have two choices:
(a) we can say that these things were wrong, period, and that if Speaker Pelosi knew about them and did nothing (whether due to political cowardice or due to honest belief that they were right), she is just as bad as those who authorized them, and is unworthy of our support;
(b) we can say that these things were wrong but that, if she knew about them, somehow Speaker Pelosi isn’t responsible for tacitly supporting them.
Option (b) is the option of a partisan who places the good of the party over the good of the country.
I don’t know if I believe Speaker Pelosi or Mr. Panetta in this case. But I will irritatedly say that if Mr. Panetta is telling the truth, Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, and is unworthy of our support; and in that case, both the Democratic party leadership and the voters of San Francisco should remove her from office.