Pelosi Says She Knew of Waterboarding by 2003

[Frank Booth]

Source: NY Times

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, acknowledged for the first time Thursday that she knew by early 2003 that the Central Intelligence Agency had subjected terror detainees to waterboarding but saw little recourse to challenge the practice except by achieving Democratic control of Congress and the White House.

Ms. Pelosi offered her account at a tense news conference as she was pressed for a full accounting of when she became aware that the Bush administration had sanctioned harsh interrogation techniques.

The issue is emerging as one of the toughest tests of Ms. Pelosi’s tenure, as she finds herself fending off accusations of hypocrisy from Republicans for criticizing the interrogation methods, even though she had known about them, and from liberal critics who say that she should have raised the alarm earlier if she knew what was transpiring.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15cong.ht...

[babylonsister]

1. And she still couldn't talk about it. From the article...

Ms. Pelosi was present at a C.I.A. briefing in September 2002 that a recently released C.I.A. account says included discussion of techniques that “had been used” against a terrorism suspect.

That briefing was the only one that Ms. Pelosi attended in person, and on Thursday, she repeated her assertion that the only mention of waterboarding during the session was that while it was deemed to be legal, the technique was not being used.

“We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used,” she said.

But she went on to acknowledge for the first time that she had been told five months later, in February 2003, that top lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed on the use of tough interrogation methods on terror suspects, including waterboarding.



So what's the point? What did the rethugs hear and do, or not do?

[Frank Booth]

5. I agree it's an unnecessary distraction.

I'd rather have the speaker concentrating on issues like health care. Unfortunately, the Republicans are going to keep pushing this story for political leverage and to bog things things down.

[No Elephants]

28. It's not an unnecessary distraction at all. Please see responses to Reply 1. Pelosi does not

have to neglect health care to defend whether she learned of this in 2002 or in 2003 (as if that were the point anyway). She could do her job as a respresentative of the people of her state and of the nation. If she had done that before now, she would not have to be defending her inaction.

This is not the fault of the Republicans. What she focuses on is her choice. If she wanted to throw the rule of law in the hopper, that was her choice. If her re-election is more important to her than health care, that is her choice, too, even if every Republican in the House is running around her mike naked hurling insults at her.

[sinkingfeeling]

47. "Not the fault of the Republicans"? Really? Guess you've missed the 24/7 TV

cable news pundits, the Karl Rove editorial, and the Andrew McCarthy rant on National Review Online.
It's a GOP diversion tactic all the way. First they claim, 'we don't torture' and then "if the Prez does it, it doesn't break the law'. Then it becomes, 'well, it's Nancy's fault because she didn't stop it.'

[Titonwan]

45. People in hell want ice water.

I keep hearing this from people that have no sense of priorities. Bassackwards thinking. You want to ignore the Rule of Law but expect good things to happen. How? Nancy has put on a good show but she's been wounded and shows it. She knew about this waterboarding long ago and I'm sure there's an encyclopedia/UMCJ manual/history book somewhere in D.C. to explain that to her and it's illegality. She was plainly aware of the torturing and the NSA wire tapping program- as a member of the "gang of eight", how could she not know? When Nancy took impeachment "off the table", that should have been your gigantic red flag. And why would she do that? Blackmail files. What, you think everyone just found their conscience after J. Edgar Hoover? Karl Rove is an avid historian of power and Dick Cheney has been in Washington in many positions of same. When they met it was a marriage made in hell. Karl had the ideas and Dick knew how to make them happen. Homeland Security? I guess Fatherland Security would have been too obvious. Nothing happens by accident and the Jane Harman wiretapping expose was Porter Goss' clarion call to those that want to investigate Bush to "STFU" if you know what's good for you. No? Explain Barack's adamant disapproval of FISA and then his abrupt reverse when it was apparent he'd be the primary winner. THAT'S when he got briefed. And he's been protecting her ever since. More proof? Recall and marvel at the way Nancy was springing out of her seat clapping at every sneeze from President Obama at the Congressional Address where it looked like a cattle prod had been sewed into the chair upholstery. That's the look of someone that's just got a reprieve. If those Telco's had been compelled to testify, it would have rocked your world- hence the retroactive immunity. You wonder why Barack has been protecting not only the complicit Democrats as well as Bush? The answer is Ma Bell. Big Oil, Big Pharm and the Defense industry are mere sergeants in ranking compared to the communications giants. They are the pharaohs you'd never suspect. The fall of Poland was executed by blitzkrieg, but the cutting of communications and radio stations is what made it possible.
Those of you to dismiss conspiracy out of hand with nervous laughter, consider this also. Once Barack was almost certain to win and had struck the Faustian bargain of giving Hillary the plum appointment of SOS (this had been arranged looong before it was announced), he was formerly introduced to the Bilderberg Group in their secretive annual meeting in Virginia (and were NOT sitting in front of Diane Feinstein's fireplace). Ask the press jet full of reporters that Robert Gibbs lied to.
So there you have it. If they haven't been blackmailed into silence, they've been bought off with power. And if you think drone airplanes are new, you've never heard of "Operation Northwoods". A plan hatched in the early 60's to start a war with Cuba using a CIA airplane painted to resemble a regularly scheduled airliner flight that skirts Cuban air defenses. The plan was for the drone to intercept the scheduled flight under radar and to take the place of the airline (which would in turn go under radar) and continue in it's path until close to Cuba and then detonated with explosives to simulate an attack by Cuba. Gee... that sounds oddly familiar. (38 min. in) http://www.documentarywire.com/the-new-american-century

[Tutankhamun]

71. Good post

[MrMickeysMom]

73. My hat's off to you for that post...

Mods... leave it here.

Leave it alone.

People should do more homework and ask more questions part in parcel to making their House members accountable.

[katanalori]

6. Pelosi involvement explained simply:

Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi are walking to their bank. On the way there, Pelosi jaywalks, BREAKING THE LAW. Cheney makes it to the bank, but while he is there, he kills 14 customers, shoots 4 tellers and the bank manager to death, and takes all the money in the vault.

Arrest Nancy Pelosi! She jaywalked and MUST BE PUNISHED.

[Pale Blue Dot]

18. Standing silently by while people are being tortured is not jaywalking.

We wouldn't give Republican Congresspeople a pass on this, and we shouldn't give Pelosi a pass either.

Not to mention that her story seems to be changing by the hour.

[No Elephants]

35. If I may: Standing by for SIX years and several elections, including re-election of Bushco, while

Bushco was torturing jaywalking.

[No Elephants]

30. Sorry, but that hypothetical could not be more pitifully off base. Nancy is a member of

Congress. So is Russ Feingold. So is every other legislator who knew about this, Democrat or Republican. In our system, the system established by the Constitution, we have three co-equal branches, each of which is supposed to--is legally obligated to--be a check on the excesses of the other two branches, with Congress supposedly being the strongest branch and the judiciary the weakest. (The judiciary declared parts of the Patriot Act that Congress passed unconstitutional. Ccongress rubber stamped Bushco.) Unlike the Judiciary, which can deal only with the issues parties to a lawsuit put before it, Congress also has an oversight responsiblity, a DUTY to investigate and report back to the public.

While Nancy was busy not performing any of those duties when it came to torture, Cheney did not kill 14 people in one bank. No, he went from one bank to another before all 14 were dead. And he also got re-elected during the same period that Nancy was not performing her duty. That enabled him to go to even more banks and do more evil. Would he have been re-elected if Nancy had spoken out? We'll never know, will we?

What I do know is that he did get re-elected--and so did Nancy. I also know that, in 2006, Democratic and non-afflilated voters, even some Republican voters, handed the Democratic Party victories because they were sick and tired of the evil. That got Nancy her spot as third in line for the Presidency. And the first two things she did (or so it seems to me) was take impeachment off the table and demand a bigger plane to fly her back and forth to her job at taxpayer expense than Haestert had been using because her state is further from D.C. than Haesterts (Yeah, yeah, I know. she didn't demand it. Some House functionary noticed the problem on his own and took on the White House and all Republicans in Congress and in the Beltway media on her behalf because stopping to refuel bothered him that much. She had no involvment in any of that whatever.)

Now, I don't begrudge any Californian Speaker of the House a bigger plane. However, I begrudge Speaker Nancy Big Plane Clean Table even five cents of tax money if all she wants from Congress are all the perqs and none of the responsibilities--well, at least not when it's difficult.

Really not seeing the point of blind partisanship.

On edit: Just in case the above is not crystal clear, you arrest those who tortured and you expose Pelosi for what she is. Don't know why some here have been posting as though one precludes the other. But only Obama can prosecute Cheney and he is saying he will not do that. Obama is not explaining how that does not put Obama in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and other laws, but that's another story.

[Winterblues]

53. A better example would be

Peloisi and Cheney went to the bank, cheney robbed the bank and killed many and Peloisi said any investigation of his crime was "OFF The Table" because she witnessed the crime and refused to do or say anything about it for fear she could be considered an accomplice..

[No Elephants]

26. I did not donate to the rethugs because I do not expect them to do anything positive about

violations of the Constitution, federal statutes and treaties to which my country is a party. I donate to Democrats because I do expect them to do something about those things. Those who don't should be primaried. And the rethugs who break the law should be prosecuted. That's the point of knowing the truth about both sides.

Oh, and she could have talked about it. And she could have started impeachment proceedings over it. She has Congressional immunity, like the rest of Congress.

[tomhayes]

2. i thought they were disallowed by LAW to disclose what happened in the briefings

I thought the briefings were classified and if *any* member who was brief released any information about the briefings that they would lose their clearance and be prosecuted in a secret court.

And if they are saying Pelosi knowing they were doing was wrong, then why not prosecute the wrongdoing *FIRST*? then see who was told and if blow the whistle would have itself been a crime.

[Shipwack]

17. The "LAW" is not a good enough reason to remain silent.

Also by law, classification cannot be used to cover up an illegal act.

Legality aside, it would have been morally correct to have blown the whistle; law be damned. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good.

[No Elephants]

32. First, you cannot classify a crime and torture is a crime under the

Constitution, domestic statutes and international law.

Second, all members of Congress have Congressional immunity.


Third, "I was only making sure nothing undesirable would happen to me" is a worse defense than "I was only following orders," and the latter did not work for a member of the military (Lt. Calley) during cmbat in wartime. Why should it work for Nancy "Don't make me refuel on my way home from cleaning the tables?"

Fourth, what law and what secret court are you talking about? Any links?

[Igel]

69. So?

Who has to break confidentiality to clear up a point that Congress has yet to rule on: Whether waterboarding is torture. After all, the entire debate is over definitions, and the problem with the last 40 years--as the recent UAE sheikh video showed--is one of definitions.

Do we have torture include beating somebody with a board with a nail in it and electrocuting his gonads? Sure. How about making them stand on a box, hooded, with wires attached to their hands so they're scared but without the wires being attached to any electrical source? Is it really the same? What about using a collar to help fling a prisoner against a double wall to make a horribly loud sound--it it the same as grabbing his hair and banging his head against a concrete floor? Was waterboard uniformly considered torture? We, we considered it such--even as our president had pilots and Seals subjected to it on a regular basis. Therein lies the problem--we were doing to the bad guys what we were doing to the good guys, regardless of the practices' origins. We were torturing our own men? Off to the Hague with Carter and Clinton! Or not.

Congress even backed off of defining waterboarding as torture to avoid this problem. They rather preferred to allow public opinion to define "torture", "evolving standards of morality" that allow a law to change meanings without the Legislature's input.

So why do I say all this? Let's assume that Pelosi heard about waterboarding and promptly peed her pants in furious, mute outrage. She could say nothing. But she was a legislator. Introduce an amendment saying that certain practices are banned, "I'm introducing an amendment to outlaw waterboarding, forced stress techniques such as xxx and yyy, etc., not because we are doing it, but to show that we have higher standards--and because the legal code doesn't currently include this information and guidance. Just look at Abu Ghraib, for instance." Nowhere does she mention the briefing, that we're doing it or that anybody said it was legal. This is even *better*.

Why is it better? Because either * &co. would have to say they're doing it--declassifying the information years ahead of time and allowing her to claim that her actions had triggered this and she was true to her principles--or the * administration would have had to stand by and participate in an abstract discussion in which no claim of additional, high-value information derived from the practices would be possible. They might even deny that such a bill would be needed because they'd never do such a thing--with the inevitable leak appearing on p. 1 of the NYT or Guardian a few days later. If they just remained silent, devoid of political "skin", it's a lot harder to argue over even if you're a "freeper". Pelosi's amendment would almost certainly have passed and voila--problem solved! The Yoo and Bybee memos would be completely meaningless.

All without violating the law.

[stillcool]

3. It just gets better and better...

I so hope the Republicans keep pushing this. Blame Pelosi, blame Obama..blame anybody but keep the illegal..then legal..then illegal again torture in the news.

[Turbineguy]

4. OK, so we've gone

from "we do not torture" to blaming the torture on Pelosi.

What else can we do to help the repubs?

Come on people, there must be something we can do to help them!

[No Elephants]

36. Baloney. No one is blaming torture on Pelosi. No one is holding her responsible for anything other

than her own acts and omissions. Being a Democrat is not a pass to enable Bushco, though. Just the opposite, ESPECIALLY after 2006.

[Turbineguy]

55. Sorry,

should have included:

[Gregorian]

7. I want to know why impeachment was off the table.

Like the post above, she really didn't commit anything that wasn't eclipsed by the administration's crimes.

She was threatened. I can hear Cheney's voice, "You've got a pretty face, like a quail. Aaargh."

[babylonsister]

8. The more I hear about Pelosi,

the more I think she was bound and determined to have a Dem prez because she knew this was going to be a big issue, and it might never have gained traction if we did it without Dems being involved.

This is now an enormous issue, and I'm really glad we have a Dem prez.

[Gregorian]

9. I've always felt that might be the case.

But then there is this bit of Kucinich in me that sees through the "game".

I'm the same way with the environment. And civil rights. And justice. And war. It's all so simple. So easy. Or I could say it might have been. Or could be still. Every moment is the future.

Hopefully we'll work our way around to understanding what has happened.

[babylonsister]

13. He might see through it, but his opinions were squashed, as you know.

Yes, this current guy, the prez, is our last best hope at the moment.

And if DK had a prayer to be prez, I would have voted for him.
Didn't happen then, but I'm glad he's a mouthpiece.

[No Elephants]

37. Please tell me you are not serious about why Pelosi was silent for 6 years while people

were being tortured and killed and Bushco ran for re-election, while a multiple Purple Heart recipient got swiftboated by the supporters of a torturing deserter, but Bush never got sullied by info about torture and killings.

Bushco briefed Nancy on this in 2003 to endgame her and she complied.

[MilesColtrane]

10. Pelosi needs to step down as Speaker.

Her ability to be an effective leader on new Democratic legislation (if it ever existed) is over.
May as well ask Reid to resign his role as Senate majority leader as well.

Time for new blood, without the baggage.

[Gregorian]

11. This is a good subject for discussion.

It might be time to start thinking about replacements. Yet even in their compromised conditions, they are light years ahead of the Linday Grahams of the Congress.

[No Elephants]

39. Agree, but that is a very low standard.

[snowdays]

12. I agree.

[babylonsister]

14. Baloney. How, why, when, where, and reason?

She wouldn't be there unless she was voted in.

And she was real effective today.

[EFerrari]

22. The sadder outcome will be when she's allowed to stay on

after enabling the more destructive Republican administration in our modern history.

[No Elephants]

41. Didn't that already happen in the election of 2008? And look at some of the posts on this

thread--not even from her home state voters.


We have met the enemy and them is us.

[EFerrari]

57. Yep. I'm in her district. There are many people here like me

who have no love for her, just not enough people I guess.

It doesn't matter in the least to me if she knew or didn't know or knew some She should have impeached these mofos for a number of crimes. Pick a crime, any crime. And she didn't and she was as disrespectful of the progressives in her district as possible.

One thing I'm remember most about the Bush years is that I saw Nancy Pelosi turn into Dianne Feinstein right in front of my face. It sounds like she's having trouble getting heard today. Now she knows what it's like to have someone ignore you entirely. That's too bad.

[AlbertCat]

54. after enabling the more destructive Republican administration in our modern history.

Yes...Nancy Pelosi is RESPONSIBLE for everything the Bush Administration did before 2006!!!! DAMN HER!!!!




Why do so many here let Repugs lead them by the nose so much?

[EFerrari]

56. LOL! Yeah, I let the Republican media that I never watch

make up my mind. That's the ticket.

[No Elephants]

64. Please see Reply # 36

[No Elephants]

38. I agree with your step down as speaker and raise you one. She needs to announce, not long after

that, that she does not intend to stand for re-election because she feels a pressing need to spend more time with Andrew Card's children.

[Demeter]

46. Second the Motion

Step away from the table, Madame Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. and her excuse for "impeachment is off the table"????

Nancy is full of shit.

[babylonsister]

16. There's no excuse now, and Bush hasn't even been mentioned.

Cheney has. Baby steps, and patience, grasshopper.

If anything is going to happen, it will be with the Dems in charge.

[Optical.Catalyst]

19. "except by achieving Democratic control of Congress and the White House"

Well, we have gained Democratic control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Executive Branch.

I want the 'recourse' of which she speaks.

I want an immediate end of the war, prosecution of everyone in the Bush Administration, and then I want a top to bottom review of how Bush could get as close to absolute power as he did.

We need to make an example of Bush and his cohorts to serve a deterrent to those who may conspire to do it again.

[depakid]

20. Probably still "off the table"

[panzerfaust]

21. ... still she waits

As soon as "impeachment {was} not on the table" she should have resigned.

Certainly she needs to do so now.

[No Elephants]

42. I agree with most of that. But I fear that we must ask the Tooth Fairy for all that and

click our heels together three times. Oh, and cross our fingers on both hands. Those are likelier to get it done than anything else I know of right now. At least with voters being as apathetic and/or as deluded as most of them are.

[Optical.Catalyst]

58. A bit of aggressiveness from our Congressional leadership would go a long way

If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would operate from the position of strength that the voters have given, I would be much more happy.

[bread_and_roses]

23. Peace, Civil Rights, Labor Activists. MLK, Daniel Ellsberg, SOA protests.

They all "broke the law." Ordinary people, strikers, nuns, priests, draft-refusers, environmentalists, GLBT activits...people without the resources and protections of a Congressperson.

Was Pelosi going to face torture if she were arrested? Did she not have protections as a sitting Congressperson? Did she not in fact have a case under the Law to speak on the House floor?

I can't believe that "it was against the Law" keeps coming up as a defense.

I am also aghast at the repeated red herring that condemnation of Pelosi - and any other Dem who knew of this - is painted as "excusing" the illegitimate Junta that perpetuated it. One does not preclude the other.

[Solly Mack]

24. K&R

[deacon]

25. How 'bout this. She volunteers to testify. Will Bush and Cheney and others do the same?

The ones that are pro torture get a break because of allegations over someone who appears to be against torture????????????

Madness.

[Big Orange Jeff]

27. Maybe she (and Reid) should just step down...

Wouldn't be that big of a loss. They were a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. Now that Obama's in office, they finally find their spines.

I'm through with both of them.

[No Elephants]

43. Before I suggest they step down, I want to know how their replacemtns would be

chosen, but I'm too lazy this morning to google. So, I'll suggest that Nancy announce really soon that she does not intend to stand for re-election. Reid? I think he would be okay as a Senator, just not as Majority Leader. If you have Democratic Senators, contact them and ask for a new Majority Leader.

[Big Orange Jeff]

59. Agree. They can keep their elected offices, just not the leadership positions.

<eom>

[DallasNE]

29. I Don't Understand How The Whitehouse

Can put a gag order on Congress. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government. It seems to me that this issue should have been settled in the court of public opinion. It is called transparency and we need a whole lot more of it. The American people have a right to know what is being done in their name.

[pjt7]

31. Feingold or Webb should

replace Reid, not sure who the strongest candidate for the house seat is.

[DU GrovelBot]

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

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



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

[FourScore]

34. And your recourse now, Ms. Pelosi? So far, I haven't seen any. n/t

[paulsby]

40. people are missing 1/2 the picture

either

1) she thought waterboarding was ok, so she didn't speak up
2) she thought it wasn't ok, but didn't have the courage to speak up

everybody is assuming (2).

for all we know, (1) may be the case

[hugo_from_TN]

50. I absolutely believe (1) is the case

She and the others that were briefed were OK with it.

[MilesColtrane]

62. Don't forget 3)

She thought waterboarding wasn't OK, but the CIA/White House was blackmailing her to keep her mouth shut.

Also a possibility....

[No Elephants]

63. It wasn't "only" waterboarding and she does not have the luxury of thinking wb is Ok. America

had already declared it to be torture. As a member of Congress, she is responsible for knowing the law and she has staff to research for her. So, if (1) was the case, she did not do her job. So, the likelier thing is the same reason Democrats voted for the Iraq War resolution.

[republicansarewhores]

44. Ever since 2006 and impeachment was taken "off the table"...

I NEVER liked the bitch.

She has always facilitated the Bush Crime Family and is complicit in their crimes and the cover ups. Get rid of her and prosecute Buschco already!

RAW

[madmom]

48. My prediction...Nancy Pelosi will be the only one who suffers any repercussions over this!

I'm talking about the whole torture episode. The repugs did it but it wasn't torture but when she didn't tell it was.So she will lose something besides her credibility and they will gain stature in their party and possibly around the country, for making her fess up .Yup mark my word that's how it will happen

[krabigirl]

52. Yep, and the populace will just roll over aqnd accept it. Total bullshit.

[LynnTheDem]

49. WHO ORDERERD AND AUTHORIZED TORTURE.

How 'bout we start going after the MFers who ORDERED AND AUTHORIZED TORTURE.

[No Elephants]

65. We can do both--prosecute them and primary the enablers. However, prosecuting is up to

the D of J, which apparently cannot even bring itself to make a formal complaint to state agencies about the lawyers who gave the legal opinions.

[Hepburn]

51. Not good to lie, Nancy....

...I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. But there is no excuse to say that you could not have done a thing about the illegal torture. Here is a hint: Why didn't you at the very least reveal it was happening? We are the people who employ you ~~ you owed us that much.

GMAFB....

[bemildred]

60. Ms Pelosi needs a serious primary challenge. nt

[Samantha]

61. I refuse to join the growing criticism of Nancy Pelosi because

I feel any Dem that does is playing right into the Republican strategists hands. They want to tear down the Democratic party as much as possible before the next election. Obama is untouchable (virtually) so they have picked a much more vulnerable target. That target is Nancy Pelosi.

Sam

[No Elephants]

66. Republicans said she knew in 2002. Now, she says she knew in 2003. At some point,

it has to stop being about partisanship and start being about right and wrong. For me, anyway. Maybe not for you.

[robcon]

67. For the sake of the party, Pelosi should resign.

Her credibility will never return. She's lied too often about this.

[No Elephants]

68. No. She should announce soon that she will not seek re-election.

[Riley18]

70. Here's a thought...let Nancy Pelosi take the fall and Cheney, et.al. take a pass.

Give all the power right back to the right wingnuts and let them win another one. The Democrats are in power through a legitimate election process (for a change) and should go after the leader who ordered and sanctioned the actual crime. I feel like this is just a smokescreen sent out by Cheney and the CIA to distract the public from the real issue.

[Tutankhamun]

72. It's a smokescreen, but it's not going to save a single Republican.

The best Repubs can hope for is that it slows things down. Hopefully, Pelosi is completely politically destroyed b this and prosecuted in a court of law, along with the Repubs who ordered the torture.

This should serve as a warning to any Democrats who seek to aid and abet the Republican crime machine for the furtherance of their political careers.

If Pelosi would have spoken out before the (phony) 2004 election, things would be a lot different now.