Pelosi says CIA misled her

[sabra]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused CIA officials Thursday of misleading her in 2002 on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning and has been described by critics as torture.

Pelosi reiterated an earlier claim that she was briefed on such techniques only once — in September of 2002 — and that she was told at the time that the techniques were not being used.

A recently released Justice Department memo says that the CIA used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al Qaeda leader imprisoned at U.S. facilities in Guantanamo Bay.

“Throughout my career, I am proud to have worked on human rights and against torture,” Pelosi said in a prepared statement. “I unequivocally oppose the use of torture.”


Read more: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/pelosi-says-cia-misled-her/

[marshall]

1. Be very careful what you continue to say, Nancy

They've probably got a recording of the conversation, just waiting to release it at the right time--the CIA's version of a stained blue Gap dress.

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

14. I believe she is loosing support now

Steny Hoyer was just shown with a big smile on his face, I believe he is thinking that there is a good chance he will get the gavel over this now.

[No Elephants]

53. Maybe not with that AIPAC letter out there.

[MercutioATC]

2. I don't buy it.

I can imagine that the CIA might have skimped on the details, and Pelosi might not have asked specific questions, but I believe she knew that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were being used.

[polmaven]

6. Why do you believe

the Bush CIA over Speaker Pelosi? What is your basis for that?

[MercutioATC]

10. The CIA really has no compelling reason to lie. Pelosi does.

Common sense dictates that they were vague about the details, but they covered their asses.

I believe they MAY have deflected any questions about warterboarding being used...something along the lines of "We're not telling you that we're actually doing it, but it's legal." (which isn't an actual denial)...but I don't think they'd have actually LIED to Congress if posed with a direct question.

Pelosi, on the other hand, ain't the sharpest tool in the shed and she has a reason to make any "denial" by the CIA sound stronger than it might have been.

[polmaven]

15. No compelling reason to lie?

:shrug:

How about..."if we tell her that these ARE being used, she will want it STOPPED! We want it to continue...so let's not tell her the whole truth!"

Pelosi, on the other hand, ain't the sharpest tool in the shed

Why is that? Because she took impeachment "off the table"? Do you even know her reason for doing that? My own Congressman has told me why, and I agree with it. Does that make me too stoopid to live as well?

[wpelb]

42. Everybody inside the Beltway has a compelling reason to lie

If a politician believes that it will help him (or her) to stay in office, and if the lie is believed to be plausible, you can bet that the person will lie. High-level bureaucrats are no different.

Politicians and bureaucrats from outside of D.C., right down to your local school-board member or dogcatcher (or whatever the lowest elected official you have in your neck of the woods), aren't necessarily any better.

In short, I don't know if Speaker Pelosi or the CIA is lying. My guess is that everybody is fudging the truth at least a little bit.

[hack89]

45. There is no evidence that the CIA was as enthusiastic about torture

as the WH was. There is a reason that the CIA went to great effort to document every step of the decision making process - they knew that the politicians would throw them under the bus in a second. More to the point, even if they really wanted to torture, they would still make sure they were protected from criminal liability.

You can bet your bottom dollar that they can prove every statement they make about briefing Pelosi - they understand survival inside the Beltway.

[polmaven]

48. So they were very careful

to "document every step", as well as they documented their briefins of Congressman Graham, eh?

These are Bush administration people. Do you REALLY think they are above fabrication of facts?

[hack89]

50. There were witnesses - she was not alone

and I also know that the truth is very flexible to a politician. Listening to her press conference did not inspire much confidence in her truthfulness.

[No Elephants]

55. Who cares who was more enthusiastic? It's a crime. And the CIA is NOT able to prove every

statement they've made. Or if they can, they sure haven't shared that info with anyone else.

[Justitia]

23. Uh, are you kidding? We are talking the CIA here - you know their history don't you?

:crazy:

[hack89]

46. History of protecting themselves from politicians?

They understand Beltway survival - you know very well that they went to great effort to document every step of the decision making process. I am sure they were extra careful in documenting their dealings with politicians.

[Hulk]

25. On the contrary!!

The CIA knows that if they can tie in all the forces on the left to this debacle of crime they have been involved in, they can SHUT DOWN this investigation and keep on with their evil ways.

Did ANYONE ever suspect the CIA wasn't torturing? Do you really believe they are NOT TORTURING TODAY? I'm sorry...but you are one naive person if you believe that bull shit. You should be tuning in to fox regularly.

There is an abundance of reason for the CIA to involve everyone in this clandestine crime. Shut them up. Turn it off. Get on with their business, and leave the torture and murder to them.

Come on America...you've been watching James Bond, Mission Impossible, etc, etc...and LOVING IT. This is very likely just one more "mcCarthy technique" to scare the piss out of anyone in power to leave the killing and torture to them.

[csziggy]

36. Former Senator Bob Graham does not have a reason to lie about this

And he has a reputation for keeping copious notes on his entire day.

Graham: CIA Gave Me False Information About Interrogation Briefings

First Posted: 05-14-09 04:41 PM | Updated: 05-14-09 06:17 PM

In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency's records on these briefings "suspect."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.

"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. 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 where 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."

As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.

"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. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president...only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee.... Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn't brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."

The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.

"Yes, I am saying that the CIA was misleading the Congress," she said.

However, records and testimony do show that high-ranking aides were present during a February 2003 briefing when waterboarding was discussed by the CIA with Reps. Porter Goss and Jane Harman.

Graham declined to speculate as to what took place during Pelosi's briefings, noting that the House and Senate had two entirely different sessions. But he did point out that, at the time, "the whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question" -- giving credence to Pelosi's claims that she was given faulty information.

"The irony," said Graham, "is that the whole series of events in late September of '02 were concurrent with the CIA's release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn't move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, 'a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud' kind of argument."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/graham-cia-gave-me-false_n_203683.html

I know I do not believe the Bush/Cheney CIA and I am not sure if I believe Nancy Pelosi, but I sure as hell believe Bob Graham!

[Atticus]

39. No compelling reason to lie, huh?

I'll try to remain calm about this, but Jesus H. Christ! Read that post again---are you getting that "Aw, shit, I didn't post something THAT ridiculous, did I?" feeling yet?
I don't know what Nancy was told and neither do you. And, I'm not even a fan of Ms. Pelosi. Her "impeachment is off the table" BS torqued my jaws royally. But, there are certainly at LEAST two sides to this dispute. Why take the position that I've heard several smirking Repubs, from Boner on down, voice on the evening news this evening?
If you want to support an investigation of ALL the torture issues, from Bush and Cheney down to and including Nancy, I'm with you---and so is she, I believe.
But let's not pour gasoline on fires they've started in our house.

[ThomCat]

29. She is one of the people who had access to the first batch of photos

and is reported to have seen them before they were made public a few years ago. So she knew we were torturing people BEFORE anyone else did.

How can she claim she didn't know we were torturing people if she saw the photos that proved that we were torturing people?

And even if she covered her eyes and didn't look, after the photos came out a few years ago from Abu-Graibe, how can she claim afterward that she didn't know we were torturing people?

It is such an obvious, transparent lie that it's surprising that anyone is taking her serious in her denials. It is as if people have a very short historical memory. :(

[polmaven]

44. Where is her PROOF

that THE ADMINISTRATION ordered the torture? "Everyone knows it" is not a high enough standard of proof, and the Bush adminstration did CYA actually very well in that case, by blaming and actually prosecuting the soldiers involved.

You do understand that proof is necessary, don't you?

What I find amazing is that, because the Speaker did not do exactly as we wanted her to do, she is now stupid and untrustworthy. There were reasons that she took impeachment off the table, but why let that stand in the way of our outrage?

[No Elephants]

54. She knew enough to know there was reason to investigate. All America

knew enough for that. She herself said she knew about torture in 2003. So, all this flap is over only the distinction between knowing in 2002 versus 2003.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198


Talk about a distinction without a difference, in terms of Pelosi's silence and inaction.

[EFerrari]

7. Graham caught them fabricating two dates that April

where they claimed to have briefed him and didn't.

The truth is somewhere in between. Nancy knew more than she claims but not as much as Cynicism in Action claims, either.

/oops

[No Elephants]

56. She herself says she was briefed in 2003.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

[closeupready]

18. Completely agree.

n/t

[Tempest]

37. Graham already proved the CIA lied about briefing him

It's a safe bet they're lying about Pelosi.

[No Elephants]

57. About 2002, maybe, but Pelosi admits she was briefed in 2003.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

[Tempest]

64. But not about waterboarding being used

Until I hear something that is actually true coming out of the CIA, I'm leaning towards Pelosi being the one telling the truth.

[ejpoeta]

3. did you hear the talking heads on msnbc? i will guess they were saying the same thing on

cnn. this republican strategist chick was saying how pelosi is politicizing this! she was responding to someone claiming she knew all about it. then contessa brewer was saying how confusing her statement was. it wasn't to me. i heard her say that during the one briefing she was at she was told specifically that there was no waterboarding taking place, just about the legal opinion. then, later, when she was no longer on the committee, she was told about someone else being briefed about torture taking place. she learned later that they had been waterboarding people at the time of the briefing she recieved in which she was told they weren't using waterboarding.... so they LIED to the members of congress in the briefing she was at.

then the republican strategist lady was talking about there is no use to talk about whether torture is legal or not.... it's a done deal and there is no point in going after a previous administration for something that is done and over with. so, then there is no reason to prosecute murderers then.... after all, it's done and over with. how about bank robbers? what's done is done. this is a ridiculous argument. the law was broken. congress was lied to about it. people need to be prosecuted. at the very least we should find out what happened to prevent it. give me a break!!

and then schuster came on and said that even if pelosi and the other members of the committee did know.... they couldn't tell anyone. and they had no standing to object or do anything else. makes me wonder what the point of briefing congress is, then. if they can't do anything about what they are being told if it is wrong or illegal.

[Native]

5. according to a report on NPR this morning . . .

their only recourse is to express their concerns to the White House OR they can go to the media (being very careful not to disclose confidential facts). So, basically, Schuster is right - they have no real recourse.

[No Elephants]

59. People are repeating what they've been told or what they've heard. Congress

has Congressional immunity, even for use of classified info. Beyond that, you cannot classify commission of a crime and torture is a crime.

[No Elephants]

58. Nancy admits to having been briefed in

2003. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

Shuster is off base. Google Congressional immunity classified information.

[KansDem]

4. Oh, great! Turn this into a "(t)He(y) Said/She Said" type of debate...

Put the Dems on the defensive!

Why not just released the photos and let them speak for themselves?

[hughee99]

8. So how exactly did that briefing go?

Rep. Pelosi, we know you're busy, so we'd just like to brief you on a few enhanced interrogation techniques that we don't use at this time.

[OHdem10]

9. Nancy, It just might be time to come and remind people of what

the country was like at the time. Using this context, might
just explain your position more clearly.

Whether is correct or not, most average Americans like myself
believed that the majority on the Hill in both parties were
supporting the war effort. It has always been part of the
American System that both parties agree on BIG ISSUES in Foreign
Policy. Partisanship stops at the waters's edge. There was
no Senators or Representatives speaking out against the war
on the Democratic Side. If you voted against war, who knew it.
The Media was busy supporting the war. Saying now, one has
been against the war all along is lame. I do remember Ms.Lee
in the House as speaking out. I also remember Dennis Kucinich
speaking out against the war.

My point in explaining all of this: It is very hard to try to
prosecute someone when the public believes you were there assisting
the President at that time.

We need to get past this. No one tried to prosecute my Heroes
FDR and Lyndon Johnson. FDR's treatment of Japanese Americans
and Johnson's Vietnam War. These Men are Heroes and Great
to Me. Most people are reasonable enough to believe they did
these things thinking they do doing the right thing for the country.
The country was willing to move on. This has been the American
Way. The Bush ADM was wrong wrong wrong(IMO). They too probably
believed they were doing what was best for the country.

Until we have a Democratic Party who is willing to stand up to
the Opposition and call them out at the time of transgressions,
there is never a satisfactory answer. The Activists, GOD BLESS
THEM, stood up and tried to point out the House and Senate what
was going on. They were ignored, so to speak. GOING BACK
will not give a satisfactory result. Let us join Obama and
Turn the Page.

[me b zola]

11. The assault on reason

If torture was used, if torture is illegal (the answer to both is yes), then why is the press concerned about someone in Congress who may or may not have been briefed on it's use? Why wouldn't they be burning up the pages and airwaves focusing on those who ordered it? If the press is concerned enough about the fact that the bush* administration used torture that they feel it necessary to chase Nancy Pelosi around, why do they go out of their way to excuse it? Why aren't they going after the torturers?

Enough! Enough you so called journalists who do nothing more than chase any talking point that the gop sends to you. You either have the analytical abilities of a protozoa or you are nothing more than spineless cowards who will report what and how you are told to report so that you may continue to live the lifestyle to which you are accustomed.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked for your post, me b zola.

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

60. Simple. The prosecution decision rests with the D of J and obama has said he is not going to

prosecute. Republicans are digging up these stories and handing them to the media. Democrats are not doing the same.

Our media is as lazy as they come. Newspaper reporters barely exist anymore. The media people are just that--media people, not reporters. They jabber about what each side hands them and Democrats apparently have not been handing them much on this subject, apart from denials of those who have been accused, like Pelosi and Graham.

As far as Pelosi, she said she was not briefed in 2002. She also said she was briefed in 2003. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

So, all the flap is about some number of months. Big deal.

[Doctor_J]

67. Media is not lazy - they're ultra-partisan repukes

stop giving them cover.

[Necon-Be-Gone]

12. Having seen Gonzales

testify under oath in Senate hearings, where he claimed no torture was taking place or had taken place, I have serious doubts as to whether Pelosi was fully briefed by the CIA or the Administration. On the other hand, she took impeachment off the table and blocked that process.

The Bush administration has been to most secretive in US history. I really can't believe that they all of a sudden shared everything behind closed doors.

[No Elephants]

61. See the article linked in the OP of this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

[MarjorieG]

13. CIA developed torture for Bush, and FBI wanted nothing of it. I think it's CIA, GOP in CYA.

As many witnesses, facts come up with Cheney ordering this, it's timing, to get Iraq-Al Qaeda link, the press barely mentions it and never repeats it. That underminds the whole keeping us safe rationale for considering the illegal and immoral somehow legal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. i believe her. since gonzalez clearly lied to us all, i cant see him or his staff

being particularly forthright with dem senators

[closeupready]

20. That's certainly a possibility.

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. also this is a very well used republican tactic. imply the dems were also involved

so hopefully both sides of the aisle are too frozen to do anything

[closeupready]

24. Yes, that has been an effective counterattack method, this is true.

n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

17. Madame Speaker

With all due respect...... Shut Up.

Stop the whining, stop changing your stories.

[oneofthepeople]

19. Not necessarily

Pelosi gets the benefit of my doubt especially when others keep pointing out the obvious. Bush Administration 'Ordered' the practice.

This 'we aren't guilty, because THEY knew what we were doing' is taking framing the issue to heights only the Republicans think can exonerate them. They are wrong, Bush Administration did everything they could to hide what they had been doing, and continued to do. Torture.

[Abq_Sarah]

27. No

I don't buy that spin.

The congress is responsible for writing legislation, not the President.

The congress controls the purse strings.

The President can be reigned in by congress.

Pelosi isn't a victim. She has been Speaker of the House for the last two years. That is a powerful position.

[newspeak]

65. so, then you remember that the Republicans controlled Congress, right?

I'm tired of the BS--now this is an issue deflecting from the true criminals. The Democrats were shut out--the Repukes had their secret little meetings. Some people have very short term memories. The Democrats had no POWER, no POWER at all. And, they especially didn't have access to the MSM. Now it's the Democrats fault because * tortured. Those Republicans must be like little children and the Democrats are the adults--so it's the adults fault that the (children) * administration tortured.

I see how this whole thing is being deflected, especially with the aid of the media, again. Some of you can keep arguing about Pelosi, but I'll keep my focus where it truly belongs--the creepy * administration, the CIA and the DOJ. They all worked together committing these crimes and I'm not going to let their deflection steer me away from whose really at fault!

[JonLP24]

21. I'd believe Bill Clements over the CIA any day

CIA is not to be trusted.

[swilton]

26. This debate about who knew what when

is a distraction. We need to start some prosecutions. Let's role!:rant:

[marshall]

28. You have to identify the perps before you can prosecute them

Who knew what when is a crucial part of getting to the bottom of it.

[No Elephants]

52. Start with prosecuting Bushco. No doubt there.

[rcrush]

30. So who the hell is telling the truth?

No one? Thought so.

[The Stranger]

32. "which has been described by critics as torture"

Why can't the media call it what it is?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[bemildred]

34. Admitting you are a tool may not be the best strategy Nancy. nt

[Solly Mack]

47. :)

:D

No shit

[IndianaGreen]

35. Pelosi should resign as Speaker. She has lost the confidence of the people!

It was Speaker Pelosi that put impeachment off the table. Now it is clear why she did so. Pelosi wanted to cover up the role played by Democrats in the intelligence committees in enabling the Bush/Cheney crimes.

[marshall]

49. Circumstances have changed

They had to keep quiet so that the elections would swing toward the Democrats. If it had been known that everybody's hands were dirty who knows what would have happened.

[No Elephants]

62. Nancy had to keep quiet about torture in 2003, so people would vote Dem? Not

understanding that logic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3878198

[orpupilofnature57]

38. I thought the second you said " is off the table '' a missile was perfect.

And I hate Covert inbred assholes.

[excess_3]

40. could N.P. have gone public with that info?

what would have been a better thing to do? (that silence)

[No Elephants]

63. Yes. She has Congressional immunity and it is the job of Congress to

be a check and a balance on the excesses of the other two branches. And, if she was not sure, she should have investigated, because Congress has oversight responsibility. And, yes, it would have been better for the nation to know its Executive Branch was acting lawlessly. It was good in the days of Nixonco and it would have been good while Bushco was in power, too. Truth is always to be sought. It's our government. We need to know when it breaks the law, especially when the lawlessness endangers the troops and the population in general.

[hugo_from_TN]

41. Poor Nancy - so gullible

[Amonester]

43. Her paycheck is big. - n/t

[robcon]

51. Pelosi backs off her claim that the CIA lied. Not good for her credibility.

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."

[ohio2007]

66. (POLL) Do you believe the CIA lied to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Do you believe the CIA lied to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the use of controversial interrogation techniques?

7% Yes
91% No
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2009/may/do-you-believe-cia-lied-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi/results/
barely 13,000 total votes cast

[grahamhgreen]

68. Pelosi's best defense: Would people who Torture LIE about a briefing? n/t