world

Pelosi says CIA misled her on waterboarding

174 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

174 Comments
Login to comment

"We were told that waterboarding was not being used"

That's a lie. Pelosi and the Democrats knew it was being used.

I still don't understand why waterboarding was used, when a much more effective method to extract information is available: forced listening to Barry Mailow's Greatest Hits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trying to weasel out.... but with a still Obama-groveling press, she will get away with her cheap excuses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the CIA, Pelosi attended ONE meeting -- back in 2002.

There is specific mention of waterboarding in meetings held from February 2003 on -- but Pelosi did not attend any of those meetings. And even some of the records of the 2003 meetings are under dispute.

This is just another in a long history slimy tactics by the party of false accusers: the Republicans. They lie; they lose; they lie even more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..but with a still Obama-groveling press, she will get away with her cheap excuses.

The truth is always tough for Republicans to take. They lie, they lose, they lie even more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - "Pelosi attended ONE meeting - back in 2002. There is specific mention of waterboarding in meetings held from February 2003 on - but Pelosi did not attend any of those meetings."

That makes Pelosi a liar then, doesn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That makes Pelosi a liar then, doesn't it?

Since there is no record of waterboarding being mentioned at the meeting Pelosi attended, the liars are the Republicans. Par for the course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits I have yet to see and falsehoods by the Republicans only by Democrats. I'm afraid whatever comes out of Pelosi's mouth must be taken with a pinch of salt. She has a rather bad reputation you know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits I have yet to see and falsehoods by the Republicans only by Democrats.

LOL!! People who don't want to see will remain blind.

So far, what Pelosi has said has squared with CIA records. One meeting in 2002, before any records of waterboarding were mentioned. No evidence whatsoever put forward by the Republicans. Just false accusations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and only now she comes out with this defense?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfit to lead. Step aside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is laughable that the Republicans' accusation is that Pelosi was complicit with the Repubican's use of torture. Complicity with Republican policy would render anyone unfit to lead.

Only in this case, Pelosi's pointing out that the CIA was misleading Congress is more accurate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to say you were misled is equivalent to saying you were stupid.

U r going to tell me, that the 3rd highest ranking person didn't know what was going on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is pathetic on both sides. A bunch of squabbling children saying

Nuh uhhhh! Ya huhhhh!

Glad the biggest economy, the most powerful military, and the leader of the free world is in the hands of such professional visionaries. They don't make Aso and company look so bad after all...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to say you were misled is equivalent to saying you were stupid

It's like saying you expect Republicans to tell the truth. Very dumb indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Throw her in Guantanamo!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's like saying you expect Republicans to tell the truth. Very dumb indeed." No, it's like saying you expect any American politician to tell the truth. Very Stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The CIA told me waterboarding was the latest marine sports craze"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, I want to ask you a question and please feel free to respond. Do you now, or have you ever worked for the U.S. Government? If you say no, then I can understand some of your responses. If you do, then you should know better.

The reason why I say that, is because when you get to the levels that a Pelosi, and others on both sides of the party line are working, you pretty much know the "inner secrets" of what is going on. For Pelosi to be on the senior Democrat on the Intelligence committee and to not know what is going on, then she should step down or be voted out for being incompetent. It is not all like on the Tom Clancy movies or 24, but they really do know a lot of "what is going on." One key thing to life in the "Beltway" is the fact that "Knowleged is Power." For her to be in such a key position on a key comittee, and to say that she did not know, then she is really lying.

People on those comittees and staffers may have different party affiliations, but when it comes to doing their jobs, they normally do them. That means making what should be disseminated told. I guarentee that there was a report generated in some place that describes the procedures and I am sure that Pelosi read it.

This petty infighting makes not only her, but the rest of the U.S. Govt. look silly. If the Dems wanted Bush to make a confession and say he "screwed up" with Katrina, then she should be woman enough to admit tht she knew but thought she was doing the best for the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This petty infighting makes not only her, but the rest of the U.S. Govt. look silly. If the Dems wanted Bush to make a confession and say he "screwed up" with Katrina, then she should be woman enough to admit tht she knew but thought she was doing the best for the country."

I think her admin is screwing up with the floods in the mid west, but she won't admit that either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which version of her story is this now 6, 7, or 8? I can't keep up with them all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tenet was not a Bush appointee.

She's blaming Clinton.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Waterboard her until she tells the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not the best strategy to take on the CIA. Ask anyone who's tried in the past -- if you can find them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bet she wishes she could lie as effectively as Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush lied!

No, wait, the CIA lied!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not the best strategy to take on the CIA. Ask anyone who's tried in the past -- if you can find them.

that's exactly what they want you to think....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA's lied to us in the past, why think they became angels just because of a change in command. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi puts her politics and personal agenda above the country. She was not honest in the first place, and now as her back is against the wall; she attacks. She lied and well calculated to advance her left wing agenda. Remember Bill Clinton on the meaning of "is". They have no shame. The law of Karma will apply to her, for she will be judged.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder what will be her next version of the "truth"?

Will she pull a Bill Clinton by askin' what is the definition of "waterboarding" and claim she thought it had somethin' to do with allowin' the terrorists to surf at GITMO?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politics as usual, poli meaning "many" and ticks meaning "little blood sucking creatures". Pelosi is lying. If it comes out that the info obtained by waterboarding prevented an attack on San Francisco she will be taking credit for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

time for the Democrats to select a competent Speaker anyway. Nancy Pelosi is proving to be the biggest birdbrain in the House ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA's lied to us in the past, why think they became angels just because of a change in command.

Keep defending Ms. America's honor and her latest version of the truth that she only received a one-off briefing from the CIA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Excerpt:

This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding.

Oops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The funniest part about all this, of course, is not whether or not Pelosi lied, but that Republicans are squawking like chickens about the use of torture -- something they complicitely condone!

Of course, it's no secret that there's a lot of traitorous sentiment by those on the right (wanting the president to fail so they can say 'I told you'), but it's still amusing to watch them rant and get all riled up about someone allowing what they support to happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Makes sense that Obama did a 180 degree turn on releasin' the "torture" photos. He's watchin' the Wicked Witch of the West gettin' doused by water and doesn't want to get wet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The funniest part about all this, of course, is not whether or not Pelosi lied, but that Republicans are squawking like chickens about the use of torture -- something they complicitely condone!"

I kind of felt that at first, but with her coming and joining the band wagon how un-American it is and now we find out she "may have" been involved in it from jump street does change things up. What you have here is a witch hunt going on if the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you want to take a few down with you? Haven't you ever been with a few people who broke a window and you were the one standing around and got caught? Didn't you want to get the guy who was also there with you as you were picking up the pieces?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans are squawking like chickens about the use of torture -- something they complicitely condone!

And the Democrat leadership as it is now turning out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, Nancy, the bus is a comin' for ya.

I'm luvin' it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "Haven't you ever been with a few people who broke a window and you were the one standing around and got caught? Didn't you want to get the guy who was also there with you as you were picking up the pieces?"

Sure, but that requires me admitting I was there breaking the windows with him, and thinking it was fine and dandy. In line with your allusion, what the Republican centuries long window-breakers are doing is saying, "Haha! YOU like to break windows! (we don't condone it one bit)".

Functional words in your allusion being: "...also THERE WITH YOU picking up the pieces". The witch hunt doesn't change the fact that they are condone and even permitted and/or executed the witch-craft they hope to drown her for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder who Obama has in mind to replace Pelosi and Speaker of the House? You can't any more further left than her. Does anyone know what Cindy Sheehan is doin' these days?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peliosi must be thinking that if playing the victim card worked for Obama, why shouldn't it work for her?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi on the CIA:

“They mislead us all the time.”

I'm lovin' it !

This poor woman is so completely flummoxed she doesn't realize she is squandering her most precious resource - the political capital she grabbed by going along with the dingbat Left and the "Bush lied!" crowd...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "Since there is no record of waterboarding neing mentioned at the meeting Pelosi attended, the liars are the Republicans"

But Pelosi claims she was told waterboarding was not being used. That makes her a liar, yabits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

back on topic, the nation is now faced with a Speaker of the House that cannot tell truth. the democrats overshot and ensared one of their own, the second most powerful Democrat. Pelosi's antics will force the media to start paying attention and maybe provide America the service they are supposed to provide, playing watchdog over a government with unlimited power. Obushma must be overjoyed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No smitty, I don't see anywhere we they are saying there are against it, they are saying that since it is "now" wrong to waterboard and one of the witch hunters themselves were complicit in the matter, they that person too should go down.

I can't believe you're backing her up on this. Personally, the whole thing should never have come up, but now that its out, a whole pandora's box has been open. Do you really believe she knew nothing of it?

I am only condeming her because she went around condeming it. She is just like that senator caught in the bathroom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Almost four months into the Obama presidency and almost two and a half years of Dem control of Congress and all they can do is blame Bush, or Cheney, or a CIA that was led by Clintonistas.

Unreal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "I can't believe you're backing her up on this"

Who said I was backing her up? If it's proven she was complicit, she should be sacked, in my opinion. Nowhere did I say I was backing her up. What I said was it's amusing to watch people who condone torture criticize someone who they claim allowed it to happen. It's like the idiots who come on here and criticize Obama for the wars GWB started and that they STILL support (but somehow blame on Obama).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's amusing to watch people who condone torture criticize someone who they claim allowed it to happen." No, I wasn't doing that. I condone the use of torture (not for kicks) - I think I've been very upfront about that but what I am upset over is that one person who was, or accused of, there at the time and said nothing to the public then, is now trying to gain some cred when after all the dust has cleared, she was there and down with the program, yet she says she is against it.

I would have been happy for her to say yes, she was there and sided with the CIA at that time and then changed her mind. I can respect that. I don't care if you are for or against the torture proceedures at Gitmo, I think there were put in place for a purpose and not for entertainment as many here have claimed. What I am against is saying your down with me now but against me when I become not all that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Got to love the politicians, with the winds of change in Washington folks on both sides of the aisle are looking to cover their butts. Out with the group think of the GOP, in with the idol worship of the Obama, the New Messiah. The career officers out at Langley must loving this little Soap Opera.

Anyway, here is my two cents worth. Waterboarding (and a couple of other techniques that have not made the headlines) constitutes torture. There are no ifs and buts about it. Terms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" (a favorite of Dick Cheney) are little more than semantics. Anyway you cut it, engaging in such activities is wrong and the product derived can be very suspect. Moreover, seeing as many people have begun to wake up to this fact, it is rather humorous to watch these politicians run for cover and claim ignorance.

Now with regard to Speaker Pelosi, during the Bush Administration, considering that she was in the loop regarding methods being employed at places such as Gitmo, etc. against high level Al Quieda prisoners, etc, if she had any concerns about the methods being used, she should have spoken up at that time instead of towing the line. Whining about things now and trying to distance herself smacks of hypocrisy. Furthermore, any arguments about her focus being on other things (like winning control of the legislature from the GOP) don't really hold water. Indeed, if her focus was diverted by other issues, one could challenge her suitability for high office seeing as she is admitting to an inabilty to handle multiple issues simultaneously.

God I hate politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They do not hate us because we are good. They hate us because we are a selfish and evil people consumed with our own comfort and drowning in the fetid smell of our own decay.

I'm sorry, but this American believes you speak only for yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They do not hate us because we are good. They hate us because we are a selfish and evil people consumed with our own comfort and drowning in the fetid smell of our own decay."

YOu must be one lonely person. I do hope you find your utopia one day... do you even have a candidate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How long before the Dems sack Pelosi?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How long before the Dems sack Pelosi?

Not soon enough! What an embarrassment she is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh....is see the support group is in full froth.

What a debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the United States Congress,”

Ha, ha, ha, really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "No, I wasn't doing that. I condone the use of torture (not for kicks) - I think I've been very upfront about that..."

Dude, you've really got to stop taking everything so personally. Nowhere did I say that YOU are supporting torture (nor, as I said, did I say I stood behind Pelosi, which you made the mistake of assuming before), I said it is amusing to watch those who do throw slants at a woman who let it happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with the Republicans on this one and hope Obama shows her the door.

Ditto for Reid.

Getting rid of Tweedledum and Tweedledee will only make the Democrats stronger.

Go Republicans! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They do not hate us because we are good. They hate us because we are a selfish and evil people consumed with our own comfort and drowning in the fetid smell of our own decay."

teleprompter (with a handle like that you must be an Obama favorite :))

Let me ask you a simple question. Who were these people that were waterboarded? If they were just some innocent that was to be set up for a crime that the didn't do so that they confessed, then I would probably say that waterboarding is wrong and those who did this should be thrown in jail.

But, these people were on the side that:

poisons young girls in Afgh. for simply going to school. also throws acid on said young girls for going to school. make women cover their bodies from head to toe; and can allow them to be sold off in marriage as young as 6 yrs old. not to leave men out, but have rules and regulations that proscribe the lenght of facial hair that all must wear whether you want long hair or not. most importantly, are willing to die for their cause. Now that is a personal conviction and if they want to do that then that is their right. But how many times have people posted on this board that when some person here in Japan takes a leap off a building to commit suicide and hits an innocent walker, or uses a concoction of hazardous chemicals in small apartment areas forcing the evacuation of others, that they wish they just take themselves out only and not harm bystanders. Well, most likely these people that were waterboarded are willing to kill themselves, and others too just for their cause.

So, you see, if we step away from the partisan politics, you can see that these people who are being held, are probably pretty bad. Not becuase of their religion, but their ideology. They can believe what they want, but when you take the next step of being willing to commit war and harm to others to impose your beliefs on others, then I think that you have to be stopped.

By the way, what about these people who are affiliated with the people who were waterboarded and how they behead and shoot people suspected of adultery and other crimes. Are they really the ones with the higher moral ground in this case?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: post of the day!

Sushi, what are you saying?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm saying I think Pelosi and Reid are liabilities for the Democratic party and should be shown the door.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm saying I think Pelosi and Reid are liabilities for the Democratic party and should be shown the door" Oh, hey, I agree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's pretty amazing. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alphaape asks: "Do you now, or have you ever worked for the U.S. Government?" In a word, yes. The level of security clearance I held was very high, and let's just say I know enough to know better than the average person the kind of stuff that goes on.

The reason why I say that, is because when you get to the levels that a Pelosi, and others on both sides of the party line are working, you pretty much know the "inner secrets" of what is going on.

That is a baseless assumption. In an Administration like Bush's -- extremely partisan, closed, and prone to using misinformation to their own benefits -- it is not safe to assume anything about the people they didn't want to let in on the truth.

For Pelosi to be on the senior Democrat on the Intelligence committee and to not know what is going on, then she should step down or be voted out for being incompetent.

The fact is that Pelosi was off of the Intelligence Committee as of January of 2003. The CIA records show their explicit discussions of "waterboarding" as occurring after that time. Prior to that the language was "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- which can and does include lots of other things.

This petty infighting makes not only her, but the rest of the U.S. Govt. look silly.

The Republicans are the ones looking silly. They are on Pelosi precisely for her proposal to get the truth of this out there. The whole truth. That would include exactly what she knew and when she knew it. It is very obvious that this whole Republican circus is nothing but a diversionary tactic. They are not immune to things like blowing the cover of one of their covert agents for purposes of political retribution.

For someone who thinks they know better, you don't seem to be too able to connect the dots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But Pelosi claims she was told waterboarding was not being used. That makes her a liar...

Pelosi claims that, during the ONE briefing she attended in 2002, she was told that waterboarding was not being used.

Like the CIA and Republicans who pulled the strings at that time aren't capable of lying for political gain. Suuuuure.

Release the minutes of the 2002 meeting and let's see who is lying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The career officers out at Langley must loving this little Soap Opera.

You bet they are! They've got their little Republican lapdogs out spreading the lies, and those on the left wringing their hands about what Pelosi should have done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape writes: "If they were just some innocent that was to be set up for a crime that the didn't do so that they confessed, then I would probably say that waterboarding is wrong and those who did this should be thrown in jail."

So, you are essentially saying that torture is OK as long as the person is suspected of being guilty of something.

People who torture and who are in a legal position to advocate torture are guilty and should be thrown in jail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..and you Americans STILL wonder why these suicide bombings keep happening???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neverknow2 - So, you think that all these suicide bombings are all about the waterboarding of those three scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse a few years ago?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi has been the target of a campaign orchestrated in recent days by the House republican leadership, which is eager to undercut her statements as well as stick Democrats with partial responsibility for the use of waterboarding — a kind of simulated drowning — in the bush administration.

No they don't. They want the entire mess to go away or they want to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Democrats. "Partial responsibility?" That assumes a level of responsibility greater than zero. That's not something that flies with the current crop of republicans. Responsibility and accountability are the two dirtiest words in their collective vocabulary.

I'd worry about it if I thought they had even a modest chance of success in this little blame game endeavor. As it is, I think the republicans will be as successful in that as they will be in renaming the Democratic Party.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, since you claim to have worked in the U.S. Govt with a high clearance (so have I at one time long ago), then you are probably aware that when you get to that level, decisions are not made based on party loyalty, but on what is good for the country. If I only did my job effectively becuase an R. was in office and not as well becuase a D. was, then I need to be kicked out.

Is torture ok? Not all the time, but if we are at war with someone, then they certainly don't have miranda rights. Once again I ask, if we take the high road, doesn't that just shoot down what many libearls have pushed on us as "cultural relativism" in other words, each culture is unique in its own way and there can be no bad cultures and traditions. So if I enemies can behead our troops and blow up innocents, then we should surely be able to dunk one or two of them in water and make sure that they don't drown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She thought they were referring to surfing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't need to step back from partisan politics to know that waterboarding is wrong for America. It makes no difference who the subjects of the waterboarding are. The argument that it does make a difference applies with equal force to fingernail extraction, genital electrocution, branding or insertions of hot pokers--you name it.

The only questions here are whether or not waterboarding is torture and whether America is or is not a country that treats its prisoners humanely. The consensus, except among the mentally tortured minds of the last administration and Rush Limbaugh, is that waterboarding is torture. And America is a country that tortures its prisoners.

Waterboarding is unnecessary and, except for sadists, unwanted. We will never eliminate torture and there is a possibility that torture will occasionally be effective in extracting critical information. However, in the cases in which mavericks succeed, through torture, of extracting such information we should thank them for protecting the country and then prosecute them to the full extent of laws which do not brook torture of any kind.

It's kind of like Billy Budd. Yes, the Master-at-Arms was a nasty piece of work and killing him made the ship a smoother-running ship. But it was a breach of naval discipline. As the captain said in assessing the death of the Master-at-Arms, "Struck dead by an angel of God! Yet the angel must hang!" Torture needs to be a breach of US law. No finessing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So if I [sic] enemies can behead our troops and blow up innocents, then we should surely be able to dunk one or two of them in water and make sure that they don't drown.

Of course we are able to. No law is ever going to divest us of that ability. No law is ever going to stop torture, just as laws against or embezzlement do not put an end to those crimes either. However, those who torture should be prepared to do the time if they do the crime and it should be a crime.

Waterboarding is not a harmless "dunk" and it is not disqualified as torture just by making sure its victims do not drown. That actually makes it worse and medical professionals who participate in this should lose their licenses at the very least. There are at least two problems with saying that we should be able to do this with people who do such or so. Setting aside that we are abusing the "inalienable" rights of those who are created equal to ourselves and that this rather makes a mockery of our institutions, there is no clear category of those who can be subjected to this treatment.

Cutting off the heads of American troops and killing innocents? How about being willing to do those things? How about associating, harboring or being sympathetic to those who do those things? I think it's pretty easy to extend the list of those for whom we could justify torture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

then we should surely be able to dunk one or two of them in water and make sure that they don't drown.

You minimize waterboarding by making it sound like something playful.

Only people who have never been waterboarded make that claim or similar ones. It's easy to do, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe I'm wrong, and will admit it if proven so, but I'll bet you cannot find one single person, who has been waterboarded, who claims it is anything other than torture.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy for me to find some credible sources, who have been waterboarded, who think it's torture.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlphaApe writes: "decisions are not made based on party loyalty, but on what is good for the country. If I only did my job effectively becuase an R. was in office and not as well becuase a D. was, then I need to be kicked out."

"What is good for the country" as determined by those who are often taken to playing God, and see themselves as morally superior when in fact they are morally depraved. For the United States to have become the international disgrace it has, and a traitor to its own moral standards, all it took was some sick and twisted individuals in positions of power claiming that what they did was for the "good of the country."

So if I enemies can behead our troops and blow up innocents, then we should surely be able to dunk one or two of them in water and make sure that they don't drown.

Sure, keep stepping down that ladder one rung at a time. Pretty soon, none of us will able to distinguish our domestic terrorists from our foreign ones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only questions here are whether or not waterboarding is torture and whether America is or is not a country that treats its prisoners humanely. The consensus, except among the mentally tortured minds of the last administration and Rush Limbaugh, is that waterboarding is torture.

The other quesion -- the BIG one -- is how much farther into moral depravity is the United States prepared to sink? The irony to me is that so many of these far right-wingers will claim that the US is a "Christian nation." As far as I can read it, stuff like waterboarding is as far away from genuine Christian morals as one can get.

Anyone who would accept torture as being "good for the country" will easily accept lying too. And yet on this issue, Republicans are making it appear that Pelosi was insisting that prisoners be waterboarded. At least, that is the way they are portraying her role in this.

And why? All she wanted was a "truth commission" to get to the bottom of this waterboarding stuff. If Pelosi has that much to fear about her role in all of this, it seems to me a truth commission would be the last thing she would want. No, the real liars are elsewhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think its quite obvious that both the democrats and republicans are trying to use this to their own advantage. I think the republicans are trying to show that the democrats were right on board and that it wasn't just them, the democrats are trying to use this that it was only the republicans and not them and that the democrats are "good" and republicans are "bad". However though I do believe that nancy pelosi is lying, I do believe that she knew it was going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simple question. You have a man you have captured with knowledge of plots to kill you, major plots, you give him ice cream and candy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However though I do believe that nancy pelosi is lying, I do believe that she knew it was going on.

That is not what is being alleged. What Pelosi is saying that, at the 2002 briefing, the CIA claimed that they had not yet used the technique of waterboarding, when in fact they had. A neutral observer would not fail to note how the Republicans have been twisting this.

In the political climate that existed in 2002-2003, I do not blame anyone in the minority party for running out and exposing what evils were being done to those captured and suspected of being with Al Qaeda. This is what makes the Republicans even more hypocritical, if not outright sick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail,

Simple question or non sequitur? I'm going with the latter.

How about getting the information in a manner that is quicker, more efficient and doesn't paint our country in a poor light?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30721458

Difficult question if answered truthfully. Why does that bother you so?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: You are in pretty fine form lately, my friend. Some good posts. Very well thought out, and the most objective I've ever seen from you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka Read your link, what stands out to me is this.

A former FBI interrogator who questioned al-Qaida prisoners testified Wednesday that the Bush administration falsely boasted of success from extreme techniques like waterboarding, when those methods were slow, unreliable and made an important witness stop talking.

A former FBI interrogator

He got fired, you and I know without going on a public forum what that means, the guy has a grudge. You don't get fired from a sweet Government job lets not go into that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "...who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse a few years ago?"

You forgot 'for looking at them sideways' in yet ANOTHER pathetic rehashing of the washed out line you've been using for years, and which was tired before you even thought of it. One word, sarge... 'originality'. Get some. You don't realize how much you undermine your own arguments.

You have it in you to make better contributions. Simply disliking Obama and Pelosi doesn't cut it. I suggest if you are really unable to think of something new you just change your handle to "sarge who would not kill you without hesitation or remorse for looking at him sideways" and then just post an ellipses.

Sorry... I know that's crass, but seriously, man.

Pelosi deserves the boot for this in my opinion, and if she's proven to be lying she deserves to get nothing good by way of job after. Find someone who is stronger, particularly now that the Dems are a seat away from being unstoppable in the Senate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush was torturing to get more evidence to support his failed invasion of Iraq. He lied about WMD and his lied about the torture. Cheney made sure the CIA kept up the lies for bush.

its that simple. It was all a big con game. Everyone knows this now. Lies and more lies.

And as typical of the sinking republican party, they want to punish the truth cause you know they just cannot handle the truth. Just like the WMD truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How about getting the information in a manner that is quicker, more efficient and doesn't paint our country in a poor light?"

No matter what we do, we'll be painted in a poor light, but as far as getting the information in a manner that is quicker and more efficient, I've already suggested forced listening to Barry Manilow's Greatest Hits.

Smith - Those three scumbags who were waterboarded would kill and torture you without hesitation or remorse if you looked at them sideways, or even if you didn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail,

First of all, a big of your argument is that Ali Soufan's word can't be trusted because he's bitter about being fired.

Do you, in fact, know for sure that he was fired and that he didn't resign? I don't think you do. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but...I'm going to bust out one of your heroes' quotes here, "trust, but verify."

And if that is his motivation, don't you think that when he was testifying under oath (why can't the torture lovers testify under oath regarding it's successes btw?), SOMEONE attending the hearings would or could have called his bluff, since this is all about Ali's grudge?

Lastly, simple question: You have an American Servicemember with information beneficial to the enemy that is captured. Do you want that Servicemember's captors to have in the back of their heads, "American's DO NOT TOLERATE TORTURE" or do you want him thinking "no big deal; everyone does it?"

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind asks a "simple question": "You have a man you have captured with knowledge of plots to kill you, major plots, you give him ice cream and candy?"

First of all sailwind's logic makes it seem that the only option besides torture is "ice cream and candy." Yes, I have imagined that there are morally depraved people who would go so far as to equate a refusal to torture with "appeasement." Of course, this type of amoral thinking is very similar to the thinking of the enemy.

The answer to the simple question is quite obvious: Use the most effective means developed and proven over the years to elicit information from someone under your control. It is definitely psychological and definitely does not involve physical torture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He got fired, you and I know without going on a public forum what that means...

With the Bush administration, all you had to do was show integrity of character and independent thought. That was enough to make anyone a threat to them. Ask those Dept of Justice attorneys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Smith - Those three scumbags who were waterboarded would kill and torture you without hesitation or remorse if you looked at them sideways, or even if you didn't."

So now that they've been waterboarded they won't kill and torture me (interesting order of events... is that like flogging a dead horse, like your tired old phrase? You'd think they might torture me a little first before killing me, instead of torturing me AFTER. Again, though... wit was never your forte) for looking at them sideways... or not? In other words, the torture did nothing, and is meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No matter what we do, we'll be painted in a poor light...

One can easily see the lack of moral reasoning behind that premise: "We are damned if we do anyway, so let's be as brutal as we can be. Let's be every bit the cruel, morally depraved lunatics that our enemies are."

Actually, the premise is false. No nation gets painted in a poor light for treating captives humanely. On the contrary.

It is natural that those without the mental or moral capacity to win hearts and minds will want to resort to the quick and easy method of simply blowing people away. After all, that's what they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you want that Servicemember's captors to have in the back of their heads, "American's DO NOT TOLERATE TORTURE" or do you want him thinking "no big deal; everyone does it?"

It's an excellent question, Taka. And worth remembering that, at one time, the United States placed people on trial for war crimes for using such methods of interrogation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka

Food for thought on your question.

Lastly, simple question: You have an American Servicemember with information beneficial to the enemy that is captured. Do you want that Servicemember's captors to have in the back of their heads, "American's DO NOT TOLERATE TORTURE" or do you want him thinking "no big deal; everyone does it?"

In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[45] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][45] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46][47] Many American POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even longer and worse treatment;[48] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[49] McCain subsequently received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war

I don't think the enemy gives a hoot what WE THINK.

Yabits,

The answer to the simple question is quite obvious: Use the most effective means developed and proven over the years to elicit information from someone under your control. It is definitely psychological and definitely does not involve physical torture.

I agree but 'Killing them with kindness' really hasn't been proven effective as yet see the John McCain excerpt above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree but 'Killing them with kindness' really hasn't been proven effective as yet

Those expressing a similar degree of ignorance about interrogation techniques as the one above might be well advised to read about the successful cracking of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's inner circle. It was conducted by true experts and involved no torture whatsoever. And those who hung around Zarqawi are as bad as they come.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/tracking-zarqawi

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who should we believe: Pelosi or the CIA? One writer's litmus test is as follows:

"It's easy! If the CIA says one thing and former Sen. Graham says another, then the CIA is lying. Or, "in error," if you prefer.

"(Background here and here, in which Graham says that some of the briefings in which he was allegedly filled in about waterboarding and related techniques never occurred. This matters, because the CIA's claims are part of the same argument that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress had known about and acquiesced to waterboarding all the way along.)

"Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes."

Source: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You minimize waterboarding by making it sound like something playful.

Taka, after waterboarding you can walk pretty normal and use your arms fully, for the long term afects (not mental but physical forms of torture) just look at John McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi knew - end of story "Torture" (ad defined by Pelosi) is OK - Do you think the Taliban stops at Waterboarding? Sorry, but it either them or me and frankly I prefer to live and let them to die. (I'm 99.99999999999999999999% sure they feel the same in reverse).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi knew. Cheny knew. Bush knew but might not have understood. They have all violated conventions. One thing for sure, the USA will never join the world court now. If they did most of the congresscritters would end up in the dock.

Which is where they belong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi should simply keep her mouth closed.

The last thing we need right now is a Relublican roast!

Obama is trying to re invent our image abroad... and Pelosi seems to be trying to counter everything he does.

When Obama was sure to win... most of my Republican friends stopped being my friend.

Called me un patriotic and a communist!

& no one believes the CIA lied to her!

What the h-ll did she think waterboarding was? Surfing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi has just opened up the Pandora's box that the Obama administration and the lapdog media didn't want to happen. Now the media is going to have to start acting like the media again and report what is really happening in the halls of government--if they are still capable of doing so. As the second most powerful person in Washington, the American people have the right to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it. This really has the appearance of one political party abusing the power entrusted to them by the American people.

If the Dummycrats were smart, they would convince Pelosi to either come clean or step down. The weakening of American continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

"I don't think the enemy gives a hoot what WE THINK."

That's no excuse for descending to their level.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If the Dummycrats were smart"

Jeez this isn't even a support group for radicals obsessed with America. It's worse than primary school.

Froth away...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi will say whatever Pelosi has to say to get positive press and a majority vote in her district. She reads a poll and opens her mouth. But polls change. Her kind makes me ill (whatever party they may be affiliated with).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

Since you completely avoided it, is it safe to assume you have jettisoned your bitter fired employee whose lying to stick it to his old boss argument. For the sake of logic, I sure hope so.

And whether you realize it or not, both you and alphaape are doing everything in your power to make my point for me.

You both have made a pretty big deal of John McCain's torture, which took place about 40 years ago. 40 years and you two are still carrying a grudge because someone, neither of you even know personally, was tortured.

Yet you cannot see how others might harbor the same resentment. Wow. Really. Slack-jawed WOW from Taka.

And Alphaape,

Taka, after waterboarding you can walk pretty normal and use your arms fully, for the long term afects (not mental but physical forms of torture) just look at John McCain.

Does this mean that you are up to the Taka challenge of providing one (1) name of a person who has been waterboarded who doesn't believe it torture?

I hope you are. I'd really like for someone to take me up on that. I really would. Because I can think of a couple of people off the top of my head, who have been waterboarded, who believe it's torture.

That said, who would you believe? You or the person who's actually experienced it? No offense intended, but I'm going with the latter.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As the second most powerful person in Washington, the American people have the right to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

That's right. Get her up there and put her under oath.

Then do the same with Bush and Cheney.

We'll find out who lied to the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While the current crop of politicians in power are robbing the country blind and playing politics with national security there are still some who prefer to blame Bush and Cheney for everything when in reality, Obama, Pelosi and the rest of them are what they claim to despise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said. That was a reference to Rep Jane Harman, D-Calif.”

How is it possible to both claim not to know about something while also claiming they did their best to stop it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi also vehemently disputed Republican charges that she was complicit in the use of waterboarding, and she suggested the GOP was trying to shift the focus of public attention away from the Bush administration.

Well to be honest I think I side with Pelosi on this one. Everything that has come out of the Bush era has been lies or a cover ups. How can we believe that the Bush administration did not either lie to her or not tell her at all.

This all seems like the same old ploy by the remaining far right wingers to try and pass the blame. Too bad there is a paper trail....

Hm "sniff" "sniff" why does this smell like one of those old Cheney and Rove Ploy?

Coincidentally, Pelosi spoke as the CIA rejected former Vice President Dick Cheney’s request to release secret memos judging whether waterboarding and other harsh techniques had succeeded in securing valuable intelligence information.

Ah the old,"Oh we have it but we just can not show it to you" bait and switch games. This may blow up in the far right wingers camp.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nancy Pelosi is a very kind woman, a mother and a grandmother from California, she would not support what the CIA does to it's victims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is it possible to both claim not to know about something while also claiming they did their best to stop it?

At issue is the ONE briefing with the CIA that Pelosi attended late in 2002 -- where she claims that the CIA told her they had not used waterboarding. The facts show that the CIA was torturing at the time they misled members of Congress. Straight-shooter Senator Bob Graham's account squares with Pelosi's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then do the same with Bush and Cheney.

yabits: Cheney has all ready been on record as saying that the Obama Administration should go ahead and open the files ad reveal what they learned from these methods. Pretty bold you would think for a person who was trying to hide something willing to expose state secrets to prove that they were right.

Does this mean that you are up to the Taka challenge of providing one (1) name of a person who has been waterboarded who doesn't believe it torture?

taka: I don't know anyone who has been tortured. As a matter of fact I have never said that it was not torture, and I recognize that it is not the normal way we go about gathering evidence. But to put it bluntly, "war is hell" and the sooner the U.S. takes what is going on and treat it as such rather than some "criminal case" we will forever be behind with those who are attacking the U.S. and the rest of the world. If the Taliban were to actually gnerate a regular full time army, and a government and land and begin to fight the west "head to head" as it were, then those captured would be covered by the Geneva conventions (which right now the Taliban is not a signee) and of course the use of torture would be wrong. But until then, as long as we try to treat them as a legitmate governing body, and they act as if they are not by just randoming blowing up innocents and beheading captured U.S., then in my opinion they get what they deserve.

smith: Thanks for those comments a few posts back. I only hope that those in power in the U.S. Govt and other nations have as thought provoking discussions about the issues as we do here on this board. Though I at time don't agree with some of the posters here, at least I can see how they are presenting their arguments, and often times see things in a different light when presented with a valid argument on views that are opposite of mine. The way I see this administration, and the previous one, and in cases the LDP here in Japan is that if you surround yourself by people who constantly thing alike, and are not willing to talk to the other side and maybe get a different opinion, you pretty much end up with the situation the world is in now. So for those whose opinions I disagree with here on the board, I will admit you have given me something to think about. Keep up the good work all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA lie?! Now who would believe that!

What does the CIA stand for again? Was it "Creeps In Action", "Creative Information Anonymous" or was it "Corruption Instigating A-holes"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1ic0cat:"Bush knew but might not have understood."

He understood.

likeitis:"What does the CIA stand for again? Was it "Creeps In Action"

Har! But seriously, those "creeps" have probably helped to save thousands of lives, including yours and mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

Well...I guess we will never see eye to eye on the torture issue. For me, it flies in the face of everything that America is supposed to stand for.

And that's not even taking into consideration that you just justified someone on the other side of this conflict rationalizing torture as "war is hell."

I desire that those that torture, fear American justice. When we torture, we make it damn difficult to prosecute those that also torture.

I'm sorry, you may be a great guy in all other regards, but I cannot respect the opinion that "war is hell." By my beliefs, torture is wrong. Period. There is no more discussion. Sorry, but it's not a position I'm willing to budge from.

sarge,

At this point, bringing my children into the discussion would be intensely classless. So let's just nip that bit of nonsense before it gets started.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: I disagree, that is what I meant by lying, she claims that the CIA lied to her in saying they had not yet used water boarding techniques. I believe the CIA did indeed tell her that water boarding was being actively used. So I believe she is lying when says they only discussed water boarding and that they told her they had not yet used the tatics. A neutral observer would note that the only or the orignal people claiming the CIA misled her and that they didn't know the CIA was actively using water boarding technique is nancy pelosi herself and her camp. What is being alleged is that she herself knew that water boarding was actively going on and that she did nothing to protest it and the republicans are calling her a hypocrite because she is bad mouthing the republicans for supporting and doing nothing to stop yet she herself knew it was going and did nothing to stop it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: If you look at the new article "Pelosi draws CIA response, Republican criticism" it seems to give the impression that the CIA did indeed talk about the tatics such as water boarding that were actively being using on the suspects, not just discussing them as she alleges.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is being alleged is that she herself knew that water boarding was actively going on and that she did nothing to protest it

To add to this, on the Today Show (NBC) when they had her statements she was reported as saying that she could not do anything, because of her not having enough Democratic support in Congress, so her mission to counter Bush was to ensure that more Dems get elected to Congress so that she then would have enough supporters. This sounds like to me that she knew what was going on, and did nothing to stop it. Just a protest on the record would have cleared her in this case, but she didn't even do that.

I think the Dems and Obama have seen that it is time to let her go and will let her just twist in the wind. Notice how the senior Senate member on their Intel panel (Diane Fienstein) has been pretty quiet. I guess since her husband's company just got a hefty portiion of TARP money to assist banks with foreclosed homes she is keeping quiet. I believe that Nancy has not stepped away from the far left of the Dem party, and now it is coming to bite her. She will probably be "thrown under the bus" within the next two weeks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you look at the new article "Pelosi draws CIA response, Republican criticism" it seems to give the impression that the CIA did indeed talk about the tatics such as water boarding that were actively being using on the suspects, not just discussing them as she alleges.

It seems to me that it gives the impression that the CIA is under the impression that it talked about these things. It also gives the impression that other lawmakers take issue with the CIA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really entertaining stuff watching this screechy, botoxed harridan hoisted on her own petard and twisting in the wind.

If the CIA lied on matters like waterboarding the Left must admit the agency (and not Bush, as they still desperately need to believe) lied on the much more weighty issue of WMDs.

If the CIA didn't lie, Pelosi's defenders and Dems must concur with the hated Karl Rove: Pelosi is guilty of what the Left insists is torture.

Heh, I'm luvin it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"lied on the much more weighty issue of WMDs. "

Bubba, it's common knowledge the CIA lied on the issue. They were told to at the behest of Mr 8% cheney, who was far more interested in pursuing the neocon agenda of invading oil-rich Iraq, than he was at stopping another terror attack on American soil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

alphaape writes: "Cheney has all ready been on record as saying that the Obama Administration should go ahead and open the files ad reveal what they learned from these methods. Pretty bold you would think for a person who was trying to hide something willing to expose state secrets to prove that they were right."

Cheney? Bold? Laughable. Cheney wants very selective disclosure. Put him under oath and ask him questions that he hasn't cherry-picked himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A neutral observer would note that the only or the orignal people claiming the CIA misled her and that they didn't know the CIA was actively using water boarding technique...

A neutral observer would note that, according to Senator Bob Graham, (a guy who has a solid reputation for scrupulous recording of details) many of the meetings that the CIA claims didn't even happen.

"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."

"More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)

"So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof."

A neutral observer can't help but recall the words "slam dunk" when relating to the CIA. Yes, someone pointed out that Tenant was a Clinton-appointee -- but he lied under Bush and Bush gave him the nation's highest civilian award for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you look at the new article "Pelosi draws CIA response, Republican criticism" it seems to give the impression that the CIA did indeed talk...

The Republicans are masters at giving false impressions and at leveling false accusations. It's why we are in Iraq.

They really need Democrats around to wipe their bloody hands on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Dems and Obama have seen that it is time to let her go and will let her just twist in the wind. Notice how the senior Senate member on their Intel panel (Diane Fienstein) has been pretty quiet.

According to the AP: "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, backed Pelosi.

"I think it's a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that," [Feinstein] said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans are masters at giving false impressions and at leveling false accusations.

Pelosi is a Democrat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the CIA lied on matters like waterboarding the Left must admit the agency (and not Bush, as they still desperately need to believe) lied on the much more weighty issue of WMDs.

Bush took the CIA's lies and did one better himself. Folks only have to recall his state of the union address in 2003 where he mentioned those aluminum tubes and how they were suitable for nuclear weapons production. The intelligence community never believed any such thing. (He must have heard that from Cheney.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good will triumph over evil if good takes the gloves off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter ( 8:27PM ) - Good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like her but Pelosi seriously screwed the pooch on this one. Idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't like her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I don't like her."

"Sarah" will be happy to hear it. Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

""Sarah" will be happy to hear it. Heh."

I wasn't talking about Sarah, I was talking about Nancy. Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: At the end of the day I still believe pelosi is lying about what she knew. Neutral observer would note that it was orignally Nancy pelosi and her camp that made the claim she was misled, obviously she has her supporters who also claim they were left in the dark but there is also evidence to the contrary that they were indeed not left in the dark. To be honest I don't see what is so great about nancy pelosi. Both the democrats and the republicans only care about power in America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I wasn't talking about Sarah, I was talking about Nancy."

Talking and thinking aren't the same thing, young man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the end of the day I still believe pelosi is lying about what she knew. Neutral observer would note that it was orignally Nancy pelosi and her camp that made the claim she was misled...

Former Senator Bob Graham has a long, proven track record of honesty and integrity. He casts serious and credible doubt on the CIA version of events.

On the other hand, we have the CIA, Cheney, and the Republican camp-followers. Not the most credible bunch. At the end of the day, you believe who you want to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dems and Obama have seen that it is time to let her go and will let her just twist in the wind. Notice how the senior Senate member on their Intel panel (Diane Fienstein) has been pretty quiet.

AlphaApe: I just watched Senator Feinstein on a news-show and she was anything but quiet. When asked about the controversy with Speaker Pelosi, she started by saying that she has known Mrs. Pelosi for over 30-40 years, and has never, ever known her to lie.

Secondly, when asked about CIA briefings, Senator Feinstein said that these briefings are notorious for being very vague and "antiseptic" in how they convey information. Attendees are not allowed to take notes or to ask questions for clarification. She says wants to change that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the United States Congress,” responded CIA spokesman George Little, although he refused to answer directly when asked whether Pelosi’s accusation was accurate.

I think it's important to remember that the CIA is in the business of deception. It may be true that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress but that is not the same thing as saying that it is the policy of the CIA to not mislead Congress.

The real question about the CIA and Congress is whether the CIA would be willing to mislead Congress in the pursuit of some superior policy objective. Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient George Tenet claims that (as opposed to saying that the existence of WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk") he told the President that American support for the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk" if the President explained the dangers of Iraq WMDs.

So apparently the CIA is not averse to misleading the American people. I'm sure it would say that it is not the policy of the CIA to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits “Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said. That was a reference to Rep Jane Harman, D-Calif.”

“How is it possible to both claim not to know about something while also claiming they did their best to stop it?”

yabits at 07:20 AM JST - 16th May “How is it possible to both claim not to know about something while also claiming they did their best to stop it?”

“At issue is the ONE briefing with the CIA that Pelosi attended late in 2002 -- where she claims that the CIA told her they had not used waterboarding. The facts show that the CIA was torturing at the time they misled members of Congress. Straight-shooter Senator Bob Graham's account squares with Pelosi's.”

Yabits. I think you missed my point so I will try again.

“Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said. That was a reference to Rep Jane Harman, D-Calif.”

So we can say that Jane Harman knew what was happening because she was writing letters about it & yet at the same time we are being told that Nancy Pelosi didn’t know. I can understand nobody wanting to believe anything the CIA have to say on the matter, that’s normal enough, but just because one side is lying it doesn’t follow that the other side is telling the truth. They could be & very probably both are lying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton: I understand what you are trying to get across, but you seem to be misreading or misunderstanding.

Speaker Pelosi, in 2009, can contend that the Democrats who became aware that the CIA might be using waterboarding -- from 2003 onwards -- did what they could to try and stop it. In 2002, Pelosi was not aware because the CIA did not make it explicitly clear that they were actively using the tactic. Hence her contention of being misled.

To be misleading, all the CIA needed to have said was along the lines of "we may consider using waterboarding since it appears that there is no legal prohibition to do so." Since there is no recorded transcript of the meeting, we simply don't know. What we do know is that three reliable US Senators: Bob Graham of Florida, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Diane Feinstein of California have publicly spoken out about the CIA's extremely ambiguous presentation of data all along as well as their totally getting some the dates of their briefings dead wrong.

If, when Jane Harman received her briefings in 2003, there was less ambiguity, fine. Harman did what she could to present the Democratic opposition to the practice, to the extent that it was being used, and in accordance with the proper channels. But at that time, Pelosi, not being on the Intelligence Committee, would have had no formal way to make her reservations known without getting herself and her party into a controversy -- if it were to be made public that Democrats were leaking information out of the classified briefings.

No, it's the Republicans who are lying here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...at this point, we need to hear what the CIA has to say! If I were Pelosi, I would step down, move to Canada, and never speak of it again. What does she keep talking about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi never lies?

Pelosi on Saddam Hussein:"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

[...]

"Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

To Tim Russert on a November 17, 2002 appearance NBC's Meet the Press,"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Pelosi now:"[T]here was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter,

And the lie was...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the lie was...?

"Bush just wanted all a da oil in Iraq!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi never lies?

You haven't given an example of one. She faithfully reported what she was told by Bush's intelligence people.

As to feeding others lies, one might take a look at Scott McClellan's book. David Brock's too. What Republicans have to count on is that others will always be content to be fed lies -- not exactly the best way to grow a party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She faithfully reported what she was told by Bush's intelligence people.

LOL. It's still all about Bush for you guys.

It's a quagmire for this lying, treasonous witch Pelosi.

What's her party's exit strategy?

Is she too going under the Obamabus?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi should resign. She doesn't possess the honesty and integrity to be speaker of the house - the third highest ranking position in US government. She supported waterboarding until she determined that she could use it to her political advantage - then lied to cover her Machiavelian calculations. Pelosi - resign!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She doesn't possess the honesty and integrity to be speaker of the house - the third highest ranking position in US government.

Totally discredited Republicans do not possess the honesty and integrity to be telling decent Americans like Speaker Pelosi what to do.

"She supported waterboarding..." A complete lie. I rest my case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi's story keeps changin' everyday after each embarrassment.

She's a con artist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: I disagree that bob graham places any serious credibility issues against the CIA version of events. You have panetta who is a democrat law maker from the state california saying the CIA accounts are accurate and truthful. So who is lying then bob graham or panetta?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I disagree that bob graham places any serious credibility issues against the CIA version of events.

Then you have not been reading or keeping up with the facts. Former Senator Graham has done exactly that.

You have panetta who is a democrat law maker from the state california saying the CIA accounts are accurate and truthful.

Panetta was not CIA director when the single meeting with Pelosi occurred. So, who or what is he depending upon for his version of the events? (Answer: an agency that has a record of protecting its own rear end.)

Here is what Panetta has said: "Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

He is right: Launch the truth commission that Pelosi wants and let's get to the bottom of this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi has been exposed countless times asbeing economical with the truth.

The CIA under Bush were 100% honest about methods used for interrogation. Pelosi should resign and the liberals should see her for the troublesome socialist she is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No I have been reading up and keeping with the facts, I know who he is, what I see is the democrats and the republicans have been using the CIA as a whipping boy. They are both using this to gain political power. Again I disagree that graham really places any serious credibility issues against the CIA version of events, he may have a past that is credible but that doesn't mean he is totally credible on this issue. Panetta wasn't the CIA director then, but at the same time he isn't a republican nor is he dick cheney. He is someone who is a democrat that is from california that has worked with pelosi for a long time as a fellow democrat.

So the CIA has an record of protectings its own rear end and that differs from democrats and republicans how? All of them protect their rear end. You think pelosi wouldn't try to protect her own rear end?

All we have is supposdly Senator Graham saying they were never told, the problem though is that it happend 7 years ago and they were not allowed to take notes, so how can any of them for sure say what exactly was talked about when it came to the "enhanced" techniques? I'm not as trusting of our lawmakers, republican or democrat as you are. What I see are both parties using the CIA for their own political gain. It wouldn't be the first time either party has done this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The other problem is that Senator Graham was not at the briefing that pelosi was at, he was at one I believe 3 weeks later, the one pelosi was at they did discuss, but according to graham the one he went to it was never brought up at all. So how would graham know what the CIA said at the one pelosi was at when according to pelosi they did talk about it while the one graham went to he claims they never did at all talk about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I disagree that graham really places any serious credibility issues against the CIA version of events, he may have a past that is credible but that doesn't mean he is totally credible on this issue.

If he is not credible, you have not presented a single thing to bolster that statement.

Panetta wasn't the CIA director then, but at the same time he isn't a republican nor is he dick cheney. He is someone who is a democrat that is from california that has worked with pelosi for a long time as a fellow democrat.

If Panetta was not trying his best to shore up support for the organization he leads, he could be accused by the Republicans of undermining the morale of the intelligence community. He is on safe ground when he says that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead. But as for events that happened in 2002, he has no ground to stand on whatsoever. He's completely at the mercy of his underlings who are not likely to be "fellow Democrats."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi has been exposed countless times asbeing economical with the truth.

Funny how the Republicans here can't bring up a single credible example of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The other problem is that Senator Graham was not at the briefing that pelosi was at, he was at one I believe 3 weeks later...

What former Senator Graham reports is that he corroborates Pelosi's account that the CIA didn't explicitly state they were using waterboarding.

Get everyone under oath and put all the facts on the table. Then we'll see who has the most accurate portrayal of the actual events. The CIA has lied in the past. No such record of lying on the part of Graham or Pelosi.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, graham specifcally stated on his interview on msnbc that the subject of enhanced techniques was never ever brought up. Pelosi says it was, the other issue is that graham wasn't at the meeting pelosi was and he wasn't allowed to take notes, it has been 7 years, it is unlikely that he remembers exactly what was said word for word. When it comes to his credibility, I said he isn't totally credible, why because its been 7 years along with fact he wasn't allowed to take notes, plus he wasn't at the meeting pelosi was, pelosi stated it was brought up, graham says the subject never ever was brought up. I'm not saying when it comes to his meeting he isn't credible, I'm saying when it comes to pelosi's meeting he isn't exactly credible, he wasn't there. That is all that is needed for evidence. It doesn't mean he is lying but he doesn't exactly have credibility on what was discussed at pelosi meeting, I think you can agree with that.

I find it unlikely that is the motivation panetta is acting under, to prevent republicans accusing him of underminding morale. I believe it has to do more with the fact that he is basically head of the organization and that he is expected to publically defend his orgnization from attacks either from democrats or republicans.

Depends on what you consider a lie. Pelosi claimed last year that white house officials prevented the secretary of treasury from alerting congress sooner and that she was told on sept. 18th about the looming economic crisis. Why is this a lie? Because on July 24th Sec. Paulson has asked Congress for a blank check from the taxpayer to pay off investors for losses already incurred and likely to be incurred in the next few years. He told Congress that, if it promises unlimited funds to backstop the lenders, Fannie and Freddie are unlikely to draw on the credit line. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the most likely outcome to be a cost of $25 billion over the next two years - and more if housing deteriorates further. The bush adminstration then moved on september 7th to seized control Sunday of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, aiming to stabilize the housing market turmoil that is threatening financial markets and the overall economy.

So yes pelosi does have a record of lying. How could she claim to say that she/congress wasn't warned sooner then the 18th of september of looming economic crisis when she was told on july 24th, not to mention the fact that you have president bush on september 8 taking control of fannie mae and freddi mac.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In politics (Republican tactic) if you are trying to shift blame you point a finger at your opponent and yell as loud as you can. Then you tell the press that you know for certain that he said she said. If no one listens then you yell even louder until they listen. If that does not work you get on Fox News morning shows and yell and scream.

You know if there was something no one would have said anything. Her opponents would have tried to use the information to have her swing a vote or two. But at the rate they are yelling, this is sounding more and more like a far right witch hunt. You know this almost seems to have the hand of Rove behind it.....

Wow just when you thought he was gone, his legacy of lies and mud slinging pops up again.

Did some hunting and BANGO this does have the hand of Rove behind it!

Man the entire story is his baby!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html

Classic Rove string pulling.......Me thinks this may blow up in the face of the Republicans sooner than later.....LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not a democrat or a republican just to let you know yabits. I've always voted for third party candidates. Just a quick question, do you like pelosi?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, graham specifcally stated on his interview on msnbc that the subject of enhanced techniques was never ever brought up.

Wrong. Former Senator Graham says specifically that waterboarding was never brought up. There are many other "enhanced techiniques" aside from waterboarding that do not constitute torture. Graham does not claim that there was no mention of other enhanced techniques, just that he knows that waterboarding was not brought up even though the CIA was in fact employing the method. In that, he completely corroborates Pelosi's version.

other issue is that graham wasn't at the meeting pelosi was and he wasn't allowed to take notes, it has been 7 years...

Wrong again. Although attendees are not allowed to take notes AT the meeting, Graham recorded the main points of the meetings he attended in a notebook immediately after each and every meeting. He still keeps the notebooks. So your "it has been 7 years" statement does not have much merit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just a quick question, do you like pelosi?

I do not like false accusations or lynch mobs. I believe in due process.

Put all of them -- Pelosi, Graham, Cheney and anyone else considered relevant -- under oath and get their testimony. Pelosi wants the truth commission; give it to her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, my mistake..its quite obvious that when I was talking about when I said enhanced techniques in those posts that I was talking about waterboarding exclusively. The memo that abc news showed that they, cia and pelosi did talk about the EIT's being used on abu zubaydah, they don't say waterboarding but they do say a description of the EIT's currently being employed were also talked about. The question then becomes is what other EIT techniques were currently being employed on abu zubaydah. It's ambiguous. Never mind I was mistaken, it was pelosi who claimed that all forms of EIT's being used at that time were never discussed at her intelligence briefing, just that she was told they were legal. The CIA document though shows that EIT's currently being used at that time were indeed discussed at that meeting. Well since she has been caught lying right there claiming they were only discussing the possibility of EIT's being used not about the discussion of any of the EIT's currently used at that time, which they did indeed discuss, I would say it's also a legit possibility that she is lying about waterboarding.

No I'm not wrong again it's just a point of view, they were not allowed to take notes at the meeting, Graham recorded the main points after the meeting but didn't go into detail each of the main points, just a list of them. If I had an hour lecture with you and you were not allowed to take notes, I doubt that immediately after the lecture you would be able to tell me the main point at minute 5 in great detail, you could probably tell me the title of the topic but not the detail. Ya he does have those notebooks but like I said he can't remember what was said word for word, even his notes that he wrote right away can't tell you what was said word for word, they are just a list of topics discussed. Just like the CIA documents his are ambiguous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No I'm not wrong again it's just a point of view, they were not allowed to take notes at the meeting, Graham recorded the main points after the meeting but didn't go into detail each of the main points, just a list of them. If I had an hour lecture with you and you were not allowed to take notes, I doubt that immediately after the lecture you would be able to tell me the main point at minute 5 in great detail, you could probably tell me the title of the topic but not the detail.

If we had a one hour meeting and you brought up the fact that waterboarding was actually being used on detainees, I can guarantee you that, no matter what else was discussed, the vast majority of people would have remembered it and noted it down later -- whether it occurred during Minute-5 or any other time. That would be an extremely monumental piece of information.

I would say that Graham's description of the meeting fits the pattern that Pelosi described. I do not believe either is lying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a possibility that you would remember it. Ya it's similar but there are significant differences. I don't believe graham is lying about his meeting but I do believe that pelosi is lying about her meeting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its pretty obvious that Pelosi is merely trying to cover her butt. Its pretty much standard policy for a politician when being caught lying on a politically sensitive topic. Worth all the discussion, probably not, though its amusing to see how hypocritical the Dems are again, that in itself is nothing new. From what I can see, this is pretty much a Dem feeding frenzy. Those in the Dem party who don't like Pelosi want to tear her down and put in a new speaker. Reps would love this as well, as they figure anything bad for Dems is good for them. Honestly though, I seriously doubt it will impact either her or her position. Even if it was a blatant lie, its doubtful it would be enough to bring her down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if it was a blatant lie, its doubtful it would be enough to bring her down.

The Democrat Party's identity politics is too important a crusade for the mainstream media to let Pelosi be brought down.

I predict she will survive, at least til 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter,

I asked

And the lie was...?

and you said

"Bush just wanted all a da oil in Iraq!"

That was a lie. But it was not Pelosi's lie. Bush, by the way, wanted something equally improbable from Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its pretty much standard policy for a politician when being caught lying on a politically sensitive topic.

Get the truth commission in place and let's find out who is lying. If it's Pelosi, I've got no problem whatsoever with the Democrats getting her to step aside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how many pairs of shoes she's swallowed with how many times she's put her foot in her mouth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd really rather avoid a "truth" commission. I have to agree with the Republicans on this. Pelosi is claiming the CIA lied. So provide evidence, or just apologize and move on. So she knew way back when. Who cares! Her positions will have been a bit hypocritical, but she is a hypocrite, everyone knows it. Of course Dems knew what was going on. It wasn't until it became politically viable and helpful that they came out strongly against it. Thinking otherwise is simply naive at best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To think that torture does not happen is naive. It even happens within the confines of the NYC police department and it even victimizes those who have the unquestionable protection of American law.

The question here is not whether the Dems knew what was going on. It is, specifically, whether the CIA did or did not mislead her at a particular time, on a particular date and at a particular place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. I this article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi knew and agreed with the enhanced interroation techniques until it suited her not to. She has simply been stupid enough to be caught in a lie. She is hyper-partisan and she let her hatred of Bush get the better of her. Bring on the Truth Commission - first up, the Speaker of the House!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rasmussen:

"The CIA is viewed favorably by 63% and unfavorably by 24%. For Pelosi, the comparable numbers are 35% favorable and 55% unfavorable."

Cheney wins, Obama loses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The CIA is viewed favorably by 63% and unfavorably by 24%. For Pelosi, the comparable numbers are 35% favorable and 55% unfavorable." Cheney wins, Obama loses.

How does Rasmussen poll Cheney's unfavorable rating vs. Obama's? (Hint: Cheney's approval ratings are lower than Pelosi's.)

Obama wins, Cheney loses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites