In Sept 2002 when Nancy received the briefing, I'm trying to find out

[lamp_shade]

who would she have to gone to express her disapproval (or submit a formal complaint) of EIT being used. Anybody know?

[Aviation Pro]

1. It's not EIT, it's torture.....

...let's dispense with the fricking word play of the Republicants. It's not waterboarding, it's water torture; it's not sleep deprivation, it's sleep torture; it's not stress positions, it's stress torture.

And it was used for one thing, to coerce the victim to sign a statement creating a link between fucking al-Qaeda and fucking Iraq that did not fucking exist.

[tsuki]

4. And WMDs, so the Niger yellowcake forgery could be used at the UN. nt

[lamp_shade]

10. Sorry. You're right.

[WeDidIt]

2. The Floor of the House

It would have destroyed her career, but it wiould have been the right thing to do in order to not be culpable.

[ejpoeta]

5. we all know what's most important to the vast majority of house members

as well as senate.... their career. they have a good gig. they get paid a lot to work basically part time, get great health insurance and have 'friends' in big business circles. why would they want to give that all up for what's right!! there are a few members of the house and senate who are not like this, but most of them are.

[MrModerate]

6. Or maybe it would have saved her career . . . and the lives of tens of thousands.

We'll never know.

But I do know this -- even in the depths of the post-9/11 fecklessness, there were still millions of Americans who rejected the blatant jingoism, bloodthirstyness, and lies of the Bush White House. Dems' cowardice in the face of fear was a major reason that fear became embedded in politics. If they had stood up to the big lie, history would be hugely different.

[merh]

12. thank you for this post

You said it better than I could and you hit the mark.

[JDPriestly]

8. Arguably, she would have had immunity on the floor of the House.

But, considering the wiretapping, etc., she would have been crazy to cross the Bush administration in that way. Remember, Bush/Cheney ruled like dictators in many respects. They had no respect for the separation of powers, no respect for the Constitution. They believed in the unitary, in other words in their view the imperial, presidency. Remember the signing statements. Remember how they ignored and violated FISA, the right to habeas corpus and numerous other laws and provisions of the Constitution. They were an illegal regime. They may have been benevolent in some ways, but they ruled like a dictatorship in many others. So, we could call their reign a benevolent dictatorship. Sorry if this offends, but if you look at the facts objectively, you may agree with me.

[lamp_shade]

11. This is why I have such a hard time judging her decision to not report her disapproval.

I honestly don't know what "I" would have done under the circumstances.

[lamp_shade]

9. Really? If that's true then you're right... it would have destroyed her. Would it have

cost her her job? I don't think so... the mud-slinging and name-calling (by even some in her own party) would have continued for years, but at least NOW she'd be able to stand tall and say "I told you so!". Considering that she was up against the Cheney/Bush cabal at the time, it was a tough decision for her to make back then. Unfortunately, she made the wrong one. Then again, I should probably reserve judgment for the day we get the whole story.

[ejpoeta]

3. well you would start by asking who COULD she tell? it wouldn't be any of her staff

because these were classified briefings. so whoever she told would have to have clearance to hear it.

[tsuki]

7. According to Sen. Bob Graham, there were no "gang of eight" classified

briefings as his legislative aides attended the only 2002 briefing in September. It was the briefing before the NIE came out. So, the staff would have all ready known.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Nobody...That Was The Point...

Her hearing were considered "Top Secret". She couldn't discuss it with anyone...not anyone in the House...not even people on her staff. She wasn't the only one briefed. So was Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham (as well as an equal number of rushpublicans). None of them came forward. Rockefeller wrote a letter and put it in his desk.

The only people she could have complained to were those doing the torturing.

What people are missing here is that those briefings were yet another dog and pony show. We are getting evidence that torture was already going on and those briefings were used as blackmail (as we're seeing now) to barely fulfill the advise and consent provisions of the Constitution without getting either. She and other Democrats were given just enough to fulfill the "obligation" and to try to frame it that they actually could have done something at the time. As always hindsight is 20/20...

[lamp_shade]

14. Thanks. I've seen this argument someplace else (maybe you) and it makes sense to me.

I read in some article that she had two choices: write a classified letter to the CIA (Tenet's CIA? uh!) or write a letter to George Bush (uh!).

[seabeyond]

15. i can remember something coming out with rockefeller, and he couldnt legally say anything

he knew the bind he had been put into.

i havent folowed the pelosi thing, but i assumed it was the same set up

[lamp_shade]

16. Rockefeller hand-wrote a note of disapproval and locked it in his desk.

Harman wrote a classified letter to (CIA? Bush?).
Graham and Pelosi took no action and I hope we some day find out why.