Do you believe Nancy Pelosi?

[ThomWV]

She says she was not briefed on the torture policy of the United States. Officials who would have done the briefing say she was. Which do you believe and does your belief suggest that some action is required?

[NNN0LHI]

1. Over the CIA?

You must be joking.

Don

[elleng]

2. She said she WAS briefed about the mechanisms,

but was NOT told that they were being or would be used. Its a fine line.

After reading Sibel Edmonds' recent piece, I believe what I've always suspected: They're all (Congress and Senate) in it for themselves, and in fact lie and deceive early and often.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Which Is Absurd

Why did she think they were briefing her on these mechanisms - because they weren't going to use them?

Incredible.

[elleng]

12. She didn't WANT to think.

.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Then She Shouldn't Be A Legislator. nt

[butterfly77]

50. Exactly, like many...

I never wanted her to be heading the house because I felt that there were many others who were more courageous and informed than her plus the fact that she said.."Impeachment is off the table" Reid needs to go to these two are a lot of the reasons that Bush and Company have gotten away with so much.

[marshall]

27. Her defense is that she didn't understand what they were saying to her

Too bad that it comes down to the lesser of two evils--she's either a liar or she's stupid. Take your pick.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Thank you.

I can't believe how many here are trying to rationalize this whole thing away.

She admitted she was briefed on the techniques.

End of story.

[AndyA]

4. When Rachel Maddow interviewed Pelosi, this question was asked.

Pelosi responded that while these techniques were discussed among many other things, she was never told that these things were actually in use.

Now, it would seem to me that this would be an area where one might want clarification, in the form of asking which techniques are being used and which ones aren't, but I'm not sure if that question was ever asked. Given what Pelosi clearly knew about the Bush Administration, it's a question she should have asked at the time.

Of course, all of this was super secret, so I'm not sure how she could have taken action against them even if she knew, as to reveal certain techniques were being used would be a violation of law.

It's a very slippery slope for Pelosi and any Dem involved in any discussion, but Nancy hasn't done such a red hot job anyway, so if she failed to act appropriately, let the chips fall where they may.

I'm tired of Dems who roll over and spread their legs for the GOP. I'm tired of attempts to reach across the aisle. Time and time again, we've seen the results of those actions. And when the GOP was in the majority, such attempts to bring the Dems into the arena weren't extended.

Enough! Our economy is bad, we have two illegal and unnecessary wars, we've been lied to, spied on, CIA agents have been outed for political reasons, our Justice Department was turned into an arm of the GOP, our reputation in the world was damaged, warnings of terrorist attacks were ignored, resulting in the worst attack ever on American soil...it just goes on and on.

What does it take? When is enough enough?

[lazer47]

33. When something becomes "CLASSIFIED" to protect a crime

it became her duty to stand aganist it, bring it out into the open, way to much B.S. coming from her to believe.

[mmonk]

5. I think she is probably equivocating or playing semantics games.

But that's just my opinion. There has to be a reason people do not want to do anything about illegal activities generally associated with the opposition party.

[Lint Head]

6. This country may need a total shake up to resolve the fact that we have

had criminals running our government and people aiding and abetting those criminals.
:dem:

At least we got Martha Stewart and our country is safe from cinnamon muffins.

[elleng]

13. Safe FROM cinnamon muffins?

Oh NO!!!

[lamp_shade]

7. Yes, I do believe her and I do believe the truth will come out. n/t

[polichick]

8. Her story is silly imo - they told her and others they were planning torture techniques...

...but not that they were using them?? So why didn't she and the others say NO to the planning?

[KharmaTrain]

9. Do You Believe Cheney Gave An Honest Briefing??

The quick take is easy to play here. Did Pelosi know about the torturing? Yes. Was she briefed on it? Yes.

Now let's walk this through a little slower. By the memos and other documents, we know that this regime began to torture while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoldering. She and others weren't briefed until late 2002...a year later...and then only because it was becoming obvious that the program would leak and the briefings were done to CYA in case things were exposed. It was to compromise people like Pelosi and Rockefeller bt hamstringing them...briefing them just enough, under the law. They knew that they could force silence by keeping the program and the briefings classified (why Rockefeller wrote his famous note to himself). Do you think Pelosi or other Democrats had access to the Yoo memos? Pelosi says she wasn't aware of waterboarding being used, and I will believe her. It was the MO of Cheney, in specific, to drag others into his messes (look at how he tried to railroad Timmeh during the Plame scandal).

Before action, investigations definitely are required and it will be a long process. We've only just begun to see the real evidence of war crimes and more are sure to be uncovered. The wild abuse of "executive privilidge" the booooshies used to hide anything and everything has been lifted, but it's also in the backdrop of a lot of other political scandals and distractions.

The longer Holder waits, the more evidence comes forward, the strong both the push and justification for an independent investigation become feasible. It's simple to say "others knew", but that's what Cheney was hoping people would say...cast doubt on your own means you won't look under his rug.

[emulatorloo]

18. Yes -- we all know that CHENEY NEVER LIES!

<sarcasm>

Additionally I remember reading there was a lot of "buck passing". Congresspersons would ask a question:

-- if it was a WHite House briefer = "I don't know you will have to ask Defense"
-- Then they would ask a defense briefer = "Sorry that is a Bush admin issue, you will have to ask them"

and vice versa

[KharmaTrain]

23. Divide And Conquer...

That was cheney's game. He pitted DOD vs. CIA vs. State. Then he was able to get his moles in the right places (and some are still there) to intimidate others into toeing the line. It truly was a criminal syndicate in every sense.

[tularetom]

10. She probably was but it's just misdirection by the people who actually made the policy

They think if they implicate a high profile Dem or two in the torutre policy we can stop any investigation into it or prosecution for it.

So they've adopted sort of a shotgun approach. Last night I heard some asswipe republican senator going on and on about the fact that renditions had taken place during the Clinton administration and threatening tit for tat if the AG didn't quelch any investigation of the bush cheney gang.

They're scared. And they're desperate. So they're calling in all their chits with the media and pointing fingers everywhere.

But I don't think it' going to succeed. There will be prosecutions whether here in the US or elsewhere. And high US officials will end up convicted as international war criminals. And if Pelosi gets caught up in the net, c'est la vie. She should have had the guts to expose it. She would be a minor player at best in the whole drama.

[Kalyke]

20. That asswipe Republican senator was Lamar Alexander.

Unfortunately, he is my former governor, my former university president and my current senator. Oh - and he's my cousin. :cry:

I really dislike him. Immensely.

[hlthe2b]

11. Let's clarify the argument: she claims not to have known the

admin's plans to use them (or that they WERE using them) and only to know the plans. To me this is a ridiculous distinction.

She was manipulated by the administration, who clearly knew they were breaking the law and used her purposely for "cover." She was too weak and unprincipled to stand up to them. Bottom line. If she goes down with the Bushies*, so be it. I agree totally with Jonathan Turley (and spare me the Turley hate vis-a-vis his role in CLinton impeachment. He IS right on this one).

[defendandprotect]

36. Agree --

Turley was pushing for Clinton impeachment?
That's disappointing --

[Fleshdancer]

14. I have no idea who to believe

which is just another reason why everything torture related needs to be investigated.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

22. Turley is right

when he says all of this can be resolved by appointing a special prosecutor, it really won't matter who knew what and when, when you have an objective prosecutor looking at all the evidence. Having the congress investigate torture when there are people in Congress who knew about these techniques isn't going to solve anything.

[kentuck]

15. It won't matter...

once it is swept under the rug.

[bdamomma]

46. it shouldn't be swept under the rug, but they are CYA'ing their own

a$$es.

[conscious evolution]

16. No

As a responsible high level goverment official she was legally and morally required to speak up.
She did not.
Either she is just as complicit as the bfee or she was being blackmailed.
Whichever reason is true it still does not relieve her of her obligations so as far as I am concerned the ICC should take a good hard look at her actions.

[unpossibles]

17. yes and no

personally, I am not pleased with many of the things Pelosi has (and has not...) done, and I don't trust her.

That said, I also doubt that Congress was told the truth about much of anything. Come on: it's the same as the Iraq War resolution, and everything else. Congress was lied to as much as we were, all so that later Bush's crowd could point and say "they did it too!"

[scarletwoman]

59. So, how come millions of people around the world knew that the Iraq War was based on lies, but

Congress couldn't figure that out?

Whether Congress "was told the truth" or not is utterly irrelevent. Either they were too stupid to recognize that they were being lied to -- in which case they are totally incompetent and useless -- or they were willing accomplices because they were worried that opposing the war would hurt their chances in the upcoming election.

There's simply no way to gild this shit, it's gonna stink because it's shit.

sw

[spiritual_gunfighter]

19. I really want to believe her

and I am reserving judgement until I learn more about it but that being said her answer about if she was briefed about torture to Rachel Maddow in February was pretty shaky as Jonathan Turley pointed out last night. When Rachel asked her she answered that she was told about techniques that were sometimes used but they didn't tell her they were going to use them??? It also fills a lot of gaps as to why she said that impeachment of Bush was off the table, and her unwillingness to want to pursue any kind of investigation on torture. It just doesn't add up, but like I said I am waiting until more information comes to light before I throw her in with the Bushies.

[Mari333]

21. no. nt

[rurallib]

24. If I have to choose between Pelosi and some Republican

not much of a contest to me.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

25. I do NOT believe anything that comes from Pelosi's mouth.

All that BS about Bush not committing any crimes. She's either spineless or she's in thick with Bushco.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Yep. This is "too good to be true"

The Republicans get a piece of her hide, and the angry Progressives get a piece of her hide.

I smell a rat, and its name ISN'T Nancy Pelosi.

--d!

[OHDEM]

28. They're just trying to deflect responsiblity.

Did she know? I doubt she knew the extent of what they were doing and I have no reason to believe anything that comes from that admin.

[1776Forever]

29. Yes I do believe her for one reason - Retired Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said the same thing.

I believe Sen. Graham because he has a very good reputation for the truth.

[emulatorloo]

45. Good point. n/t

[closeupready]

52. What did Graham say?

Be curious to read it for myself.

[1776Forever]

53. Scroll to the bottom of this page -

December 9, 2007: Lawmakers Recall Being Briefed on CIA Interrogation Tactics in 2002

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bob_graham

(snip)

Former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) says he does not recall ever being briefed about waterboarding or other extreme interrogation methods, “Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn’t object.” Graham says he believes waterboarding and many of the other interrogation techniques used by the CIA are illegal and constitute torture.

.........

I believe him!

[OHdem10]

30. IMO, the CIA would cover their behinds. They would not just brief

one party.

The Democrats should have been raising Holy Hell if they
were not briefed.

Dems have to learn you cannot hide under your desk. It will
come back to bite you.

Let us be perfectly honest, Democrats have never been profiles
in courage. When you are a centrist, there is no core commitment
which means you are constantly trying to be on all sides of an
issue.

The Democrats furthermore hold similar foregin policy and defense
positions as Republicans. There is a reason why in 2006 the Democrats
ran on ending the war yet would never push votes to change things.

The Democrats should be honest with AntiWar Activists and explain
the Democratic Party holds strong Defense and Foreign Policy Positions. Internationalists. Honesty is always best policy.
Some may have opposed Iraq war but their overall positions
re'war and foreign policy are similar to Republicans. Some just
may not be as hawkish. Doing the Poltomoc Two-Step is not exactly
attractive.

Frankly, IMO Pelosi does not want to upset the Activists.

[Bandit]

31. I think there should be an Independent Prosecutor look into the whole shebang

If she was aware then she is an accomplice. There has to be some reason "Impeachment was Off the Table before any evidence would even be presented...Yes I believe she lied and I believe Rockefeller and Reid have Lied as well.

[Bread and Circus]

34. No, I don't believe Nancy Pelosi. I think she is a bonafied liar.

[defendandprotect]

35. She's excluding waterboarding . .. i.e., she knew about other stuff . . .

Meanwhile, they have increasingly narrowed down the people the give info to --

that's wrong -- all of Congress should know what's going on.

This secrecy crap is going to to be the death of us --

If Pelosi in any way approved of TORTURE, she should go -- PLEASE .. . GO !!

[Javaman]

37. I never have. Any leader of the house who says that impeachment is off the table

in the face of overwhelming evidence is enough for me to never believe a thing they say.

[frylock]

44. word up

[spanone]

38. what about the republics that were IN CHARGE OF THE HOUSE & SENATE

[lovuian]

39. She KNEW

and SHE did NOTHING

[bdamomma]

48. she is not the only one involved there are more who knew what was going on

the whole thing needs to be investigated period.

[MadHound]

40. Whether or not I believe Pelosi is a moot point,

The fact of the matter is that torture is a cancer on our government right now, and in order to excise it we must appoint a special prosecutor to pursue justice, wherever that pursuit leads. If Pelosi is found guilty, so be it, if other Dems are found guilty, so be it. They can take their place alongside Bush, Cheney, et. al. on the cell block.

The only way we're going to restore our standing in the world is to clean our government out and restore justice to the land.

[dem629]

41. No.

That's why there's so much foot-dragging.

I hope the investigation happens, and I will be surprised if there are many clean hands after it's over. But the law is the law, and regardless of party, anyone directly or indirectly involved needs to be called on it, to one degree or another depending on that involvement.

[Paladin]

42. No. And I'd Like To See Her Lose Her Job Over It. (n/t)

[leftofthedial]

47. I haven't believed her for awhile now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. I believe she's trying to cover her collaboration with the CIA torturers.

The "I know nothing" defense went out of fashion at Nuremberg.

[closeupready]

51. No, she's lying.

She doesn't represent my district, so I'm not sure what of any import I can do about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. I believe her version of the story

[EFerrari]

55. No. She, Cheney and CIA are spinning like tops.

And we need a special prosecutor, just like we did on Wednesday, and that has nothing to do with her.

[NNN0LHI]

56. Who do you believe Thom? You didn't say in your OP

Do you believe the unnamed "officials" you speak of or do you believe Ms. Pelosi?

Don

[Duer 157099]

57. I believe she's parsing this to her advantage (naturally)

She may be correct about the "letter of the law" but then she completely missed the "spirit of the law" - and that's what she is hiding behind. Yes, she probably can honestly say that they didn't specifically say they were actually using those techniques on human beings. But I believe she's being dishonest and disingenuous to claim that that briefing didn't let her know what was going on. I wonder if they deliberately briefed in that ambiguous way so that this sort of scenario were inevitable? Likely.

Also, the briefing, from what I understand, was to inform Congress that the lawyers (at OLC) had determined that these procedures were LEGAL. So no doubt that was a major emphasis of the briefing, and I suppose Pelosi probably thought that she wasn't as well informed as the lawyers, so she should take their word for it. After all, that was the purpose of the briefing, for OLC to explain that the techniques were legal.

I'm not sure what the proper response would have been at the time, but I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the appropriate response NOW is to get a special prosecutor on the job and just let it all get aired out.

Everything else aside, I lost all respect for Pelosi when she took impeachment off the table, and she will never ever get it back. Ever.

[Kablooie]

58. Oh lord. She was briefed and yes, knew, and probably thought it was OK at the time.

A lot of us might have not realized the ramifications right after 9/11.
We were all pretty shell shocked if you remember.

Now that we can see things in light of day we can see how reprehensible and dangerous it is.

But politically she can't admit this.
Obama might have been able to admit it if he were in the situation but she can't.

[Mind_your_head]

60. Whelp.....my "take".......90% of "what's happening" happens 'behind the scenes....

With that said, Nancy is just an appeasor, not a TRUE, HONEST, STRAIGHT-SHOOTING "Leader". She's just 'being led by the nose' of every Washington lobbyist/special interest.

Nancy is NOT LEADING THEM...."THEY" are leading her. Hence, she is not in any way "a leader".

Pelosi s*cks.

[ProSense]

61. The Republicans are using Pelosi to sucker people into believing

that a briefing (despite whose version anyone believes) is the same as writing the memos, approving the policy and carrying out the torture.

Pelosi has nothing to worry about and Republicans are running scared.

[EFerrari]

63. The Big Lie always contains a grain of truth -- that's why it works so well. n/t

[noamnety]

62. Is there a torture version of LIHOP?

I believe she's part of that.