Have Pelosi and Dem Leaders Been Complicit in Bush's Torture Policy Since 2002?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Have Pelosi and Dem Leaders Been Complicit in Bush's Torture Policy Since 2002?
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan L. Smith, AlterNet. Posted December 11, 2007.

What did Congressional Democrats know about Bush's waterboarding and rendition policies, and when did they know it?

Is it possible that many Democratic leaders have been informed by the Bush administration over the years about its doubtfully legal activities?

If so, are they therefore complicit in the Bush administration's lawlessness?

It's just been disclosed that Representative Jane Harmon and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were briefed by the Bush administration on the use of waterboarding. Harmon objected but Pelosi did not -- and when she became speaker of the house, she rejected Harmon for chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Administration has frequently responded to charges of Executive usurpation by saying the Congressional leaders were fully briefed on such questionable practices as NSA surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques.

And evidence is mounting that they were. According to the Washington Post, since 2002 leading Democrats lawmakers received "about 30 private CIA briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding, overseas rendition sites, "and other harsh interrogation methods." Officials present at some of the meetings, told the Post that the reaction from legislators "was not just approval, but encouragement."

...

http://www.alternet.org/story/70218/

[orleans]

1. yes, and as randi says: "nancy pelosi is an accomplice"

Randi: nancy pelosi is an accomplice, unfortunately john Rockefeller is an accomplice, bob graham is an accomplice, jane harmon is an accomplice, porter goss is an accomplice, senator pat Roberts from Kansas--they have just become criminal accomplices to the crimes of the president. Which are war crimes. They’re big crimes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2444927&mesg_id=2444927

and this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2444687&mesg_id=2444687

[L. Coyote]

4. Randi is full of crap. She is a talker, and she goes off reality road all the time.

That is fine on a talk show, especially given the juxtaposition of Rush Limbaugh in that media.

But, it is important to keep that in perspective, especially when the wrath is misdirected and simply without factual basis.

What remains to be determined is what did the Bush junta actually inform Congress.

FROM: Bush Junta Lied About War Crimes to The World, the Courts, ALL Except Pelosi - That's LOL Moranic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

I think I found THE way of summing up the torture revelations.

It really is this simple. Bush has been lying, lying, and lying some more. He lied to the American People, to the World, denying the USA tortures and his war crimes.
The Junta has been busy lying too, to the courts about torture and about the evidence of the war crime, about the existence of video tapes of waterboarding.

What are the legal consequences of the perjury to the courts and the obstruction of justice. These revelations may overturn the cases against Zacarias Moussaui and Jose Padilla, not a small consequence, and the repercussions just spread from there to all cases where interrogations occurred.

So, Bush's lies were covering up perjury and obstruction of justice, and evidence of torture and war crimes. What else? The evidence was also sought by the 9/11 Commission. No doubt there is more to come still. Major players like Harriet Meirs were involved.

That is a brief summary of the import of what this newest scandal entails. Very serious and numerous crimes leading right to the President of the United States, and very impeachable crimes at that.

NOW, who would like to claim that, with all this lying going on, someone was running over to Capital Hill to fully inform Dem leaders about all this impeachable criminality? Come on, step right up and claim this moranic distinct. Own this idea! Anyone? Oh, come on. WA Post? Anyone at all?

I just transcends all reason to think that the Bush Junta, like faithful Catholics, were confessing their crimes against humanity to Dem leaders, admitting their perjury, obstruction of justice, war crimes, admitting all the lying, admitting impeachable offenses to Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller.

Anyone falling for this scenario truly, truly deserves the distinction of being called a moran. :rofl:

[nashville_brook]

14. okay, then one would expect Pelosi to be opening investigations/impeachment proceedings any minute

her silence is deafening.

[cali]

17. nah, just because one doesn't believe that bushco spilled

the beans to Pelosi and Graham in 2002-2003, doesn't mean that she has the courage to stand up and impeach. She strikes me as basically a political creature, not someone of deep conviction or courage

[cali]

15. dupe

[cali]

16. amen.

How people can think that Randi Rhodes is a fount of wisdom is beyond me. It also stretches credulity to its limits to believe that the bushco revealed what his real policies were to people like Pelosi and Graham. And Pelosi denies that they were told anything substantive.

[orleans]

20. what is it with you that you can't bring yourself to believe pelosi

KNEW about this torture--that she was briefed. she was on the fucking intelligence committee and no one is saying she was DOING anything--but she was informed. why is that so difficult for you to believe?

no one is saying bushco "confessed" shit to them--like you're naming all this crap in the name of true confessions.

and if you think pelosi's shit don't fucking stink then WHAT THE FUCK IS HER PROBLEM REGARDING ALLOWING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS??

you think randi is full of crap?
i think someone else is.

and, imo,
"Anyone falling for this scenario truly, truly deserves the distinction of being called a moran." right. falling for the scenario that this gang of four is pure as the driven snow--that they never were made aware of a crime so they didn't need break their "secrecy oath" to report it is a total "moran"

hahaha. whatever!

[mmonk]

2. They weren't in power then.

That being said, they know and have done little, even after being elected to a majority.

[polichick]

3. Looks like it - surprise, surprise, surprise...

No wonder impeachment has been conveniently off the table ~ God only knows what else might come out in an investigation. The only way to take back our gov't is to clean both houses, top to bottom ~ make that, ALL THREE HOUSES!

[jaksavage]

5. Don't ever forget

They all play for the same team and
just wear different colored jerseys for games.

VOTE FOR CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blm]

6. In 2003-4, Kerry, Dean, Clark, Gore called for Rumsfeld to go - where were the power Dems

like Clintons and Lieberman who were the wellknown Dems with the greatest access to newsmedia at the time?

They wouldn't even back up Kerry on this after Abu Ghraib and even after he was the known nominee.

[mod mom]

10. Excellent point, again I believe we must look at Dems individually and not

follow them blindly. If you you were a dirty scum bag neocon intent on a coup, wouldn't you find those willing to play along within the opposition party? Get control of elections and entice them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Well, it certainly explains why Impeachment has been "off the table" since day one,

doesn't it? Some people need to come clean.

[L. Coyote]

9. NO, emphatically.

[L. Coyote]

8. I call BULLSHIT on this article.

From the article, which actually says it is just bullshit:

Is it possible that many Democratic leaders have been informed by the Bush administration over the years about its doubtfully legal activities?
If so, are they therefore complicit in the Bush administration's lawlessness?
It's just been disclosed that Representative Jane Harmon and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were briefed by the Bush administration on the use of waterboarding.

SO, we have a "It is possible" and an "If so" followed by a LIE. The lie is "on the use of waterboarding." What was in the briefing is not known with that detail.

Then, add this one " about its doubtfully legal activities?" Anything the Congress was briefed on would have been presented as legal! This inference, that the Junta was going to Congress and briefing members on illegalities is simply absurd. The Junta was violating the law and not telling Congress is a criminal, obstruction of Congress, lying to Congress, and possibly perjury.

Are Bush and Cheney about to be forced out in unison. The campaign to discredit the next President, Nancy Pelosi, would hint that their indictments may be near.

[magellan]

11. I call bullshit on you calling bullshit all over the place on these threads

Legitimate concerns are raised and you answer with "bullshit" and parsing. You're in denial.

Parse the meaning of the classified letter Harman sent to the CIA in 2003, in response to an in-depth briefing she had received on the interrogation techniques being employed by them, to "protest the use of such techniques". Parse the meaning of Pelosi saying she had concurred with that letter of protest.

All of that information comes from Pelosi's press release yesterday. There is nothing "iffy" about it. A classified letter of protest and Pelosi's admitted concurrence with that protest aren't things they'd do if they believed what was being done was unquestionably legal.

[VP505]

13. Not absurd at all.

All the Admin had to do was claim they thought what they were doing is legal and classify what was told to members of congress, it them becomes ILLEGAL for the congress people to say anything about it.

"This inference, that the Junta was going to Congress and briefing members on illegalities is simply absurd"

[magellan]

19. And they still could have spoken up

Remember Ford telling economist Herb Stein not to use the word "recession"? Stein used "banana" instead. "I think we must be wary of the risks of a banana."

There's simply no excuse for knowing a crime was being committed and NOT speaking up about it, even if it means jail. I'd have no reservation in Harman and Pelosi's position. Suspects were being TORTURED, many of whom were later released without charge, i.e. they were INNOCENT.

[notanotherday]

12. The evidence is starting to look as thought there was a agreement with Dems on Torture.

This is not a revelation to those who have seen the democrats bend over time and time again to the insatiable power grab of this white house.

The leadership, Pelosi should resign their positions, and a special counsel needs to investigate who knew what and when.

Just as soon as monkeys start fly out of my arse because she will is not about to admit anything or be investigated.

[zippy890]

18. 'The only way for Congressional Democrats to clear themselves

'...from the suspicion of complicity in Bush administration crimes is to appoint a special prosecutor, empowered to investigate not only the destruction of the torture tapes, but also other government crimes and efforts to conceal those crimes. Otherwise, their "investigations" may appear to be little more than another layer of cover-up."

from the article in th OP

alrighty then - They should appoint a special prosecuter.

or else it starts to stink to high heaven.