The Nancy Pelosi deathwatch

[Cail]

The woman went from being a housewife to being two seats away from being the president. Say what you want about mistakes, but overall you have to admire her achievements.

"Well, she may be a dishonorable liar, but look how far she got in life".

I don't think so. It's so tempting to make another comparison, but I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law.

[sindatur]

I see this as having absolutely no negative/positive effect on Pelosi.

I'm not so sure. She's a Democrat, and most Democrats are against the extreme interogations, so, I think the act of lying about it, will not neccessarily hurt her, but, if she has fans still, they're liable to turn on her, for being involved and not speaking up

[Plissken]

We may all be choking back our opinions:

Graham: CIA Gave Me False Information About Interrogation Briefings

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."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.

"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."

As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.

"What struck me...was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president...only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee.... Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn't brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."

The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.

"Yes, I am saying that the CIA was misleading the Congress," she said.

However, records and testimony do show that high-ranking aides were present during a February 2003 briefing when waterboarding was discussed by the CIA with Reps. Porter Goss and Jane Harman.

Graham declined to speculate as to what took place during Pelosi's briefings, noting that the House and Senate had two entirely different sessions. But he did point out that, at the time, "the whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question" -- giving credence to Pelosi's claims that she was given faulty information.

"The irony," said Graham, "is that the whole series of events in late September of '02 were concurrent with the CIA's release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn't move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, 'a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud' kind of argument."

[Zarathustra]

So whether or not the issue of war crimes were known and authorized by officials in our government boils down to this guy's spiral notebook he carries around with him? And we're supposed to conclude from this that the CIA's own records are suspect? Isn't the CIA run by Obama's men, now? This is ludicrous. Surely our government keeps better records than this.

I wonder how Cheney and Bush would have been treated if they used the "I've got a spiral notebook--with notes that I made myself--that proves you wrong," argument.

The woman went from being a housewife to being two seats away from being the president. Say what you want about mistakes, but overall you have to admire her achievements.

I'll agree with you. I think it's fantastic that we're living in a time when women and minorities can ascend to the upper eschelons of our power structure. Good for her.

Now, can we get the Dems to say the same about Sara Palin? She also went from housewife to the highest position of power in her state. Say what you want about her mistakes, but overall you have to admire her achievements.

Somehow, I don't think the same respect will be bestowed (even though Palin never authorized or voted for funding ANY "torture," while Pelosi did). Feminist pride only seems to apply to Democrat achievements. Even the Dems who voted for the Iraq war and "torture."

However, taking the focus off of who authorized torture, and moving it to whether anyone in congress knew about it ... making that the *bigger* story ... well, that *IS* diversionary politics. While Pelosi may come off like an excuse factorty trying to make that claim, it is true in the end.

But if Pelosi knew about the torture, and approved the funding for it, then she did "authorize" it. Knowing about it and not stopping it (when you have the power to do so)--is the same as authorizing it.

It is not diversionary to track down all those involved. That's like saying a crime was committed, and the police were in on the crime, but pointing out their role is a diversionary tactic from catching the criminals. Pelosi is the one who brought up the charge in the first place. She's the one pushing the witch hunt. If you're going to point fingers at people for doing something you did yourself, then it's not diversionary to say, "But you did it, too." The only reason people think it's diversionary is because they want Bush and Cheney to be punished. They care more about politics than torture. Just like Pelosi. She even admitted it:

She admitted that an aide had been briefed a few months later, but then she moved to her fallback argument: It didn't matter if she was told about waterboarding, because "it was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House."

She cared more about political power than torture. And now so do her supporters. Hell, we've even got some of her supporters here telling us how we should admire her, even though she knew about torture and did absolutely nothing to stop it.

It's all about politics, folks. This isn't about torture at all. If it were, you wouldn't see calls for admiring the Dems involved, and punishing the Reps involved.

[Cail]

I would imagine that there's going to be all sorts of ducking and covering over who was briefed on this.

[Vraith]

I'm not going to defend Pelosi even is she's telling the truth (well...on this issue, I would, but not in general) I just don't like her.
Two things, though, Malik: I know a LOT of women who appreciate the fact of Sarah Palin's accomplishments, while hating her positions.
And I'd trust the spiral notebook of an Enron exec [or Madoff] just as much as I'd trust CIA records.

[Plissken]

So whether or not the issue of war crimes were known and authorized by officials in our government boils down to this guy's spiral notebook he carries around with him? And we're supposed to conclude from this that the CIA's own records are suspect? Isn't the CIA run by Obama's men, now? This is ludicrous. Surely our government keeps better records than this.

Just for you, Mal:

"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."

I wonder how Cheney and Bush would have been treated if they used the "I've got a spiral notebook--with notes that I made myself--that proves you wrong," argument.

Well, Cheney's running around looking for full disclosure - I'm sure he'd love to show us all his notes! I know I'd love a look at them...

[Tjol]

Hell, I'm hoping the sharks have lasers attached to their heads. I just hope everybody who authorized this crap (or looked the other way while it was happening) in my name goes overboard with her.

(We're gonna need a bigger boat!)

Can we throw all the politicians who signed off on Geitner into the same boat as well?

Then we should send the boat into waters patrolled by sharks with lasers.

I forget the name of the character in The Lord of the Rings, who broke the law by commiting violence on sacred ground, and was punished for the sake of the law, but punished in such a way as to acknowledge they did it for the right reason. That's the way torture should be handled when it's done out of a honestly perceived necessity.

[wayfriend]

Sorry, Malik. When who knew about the crime becomes more important than who committed the crime, our priorities are out of whack. Yes, we should hold everyone involved accountable*. But there are degrees of importance. Unless someone can show how Pelosi's briefing or lack thereof was a more significant factor in the torture issue than the facts right now suggest, then this should not be the center of attention. Hence: diversion.

Second of all, I don't understand all thus hue and cry for Pelosi to prove anything. Has the CIA proven that she was briefed? AFAICT no, its as much a matter of someone's word as Pelos's denial of it.

* except, it seems, anyone in the previous administration

[sindatur]

Sorry, Malik. When who knew about the crime becomes more important than who committed the crime, our priorities are out of whack. Yes, we should hold everyone involved accountable*. But there are degrees of importance. Unless someone can show how Pelosi's briefing or lack thereof was a more significant factor in the torture issue than the facts right now suggest, then this should not be the center of attention. Hence: diversion.

Second of all, I don't understand all thus hue and cry for Pelosi to prove anything. Has the CIA proven that she was briefed? AFAICT no, its as much a matter of someone's word as Pelos's denial of it.

* except, it seems, anyone in the previous administration

I don't think anyone is trying to say Nancy Pelosi's involvement is more important that the Bush Administration, at least I'm not. I'm saying if she's the Policeman who watched the crime occur, she can't come out years later, trying to look like some kind of hero for letting the dogs loose. Although I like Newt Gingrich for the most part, this situation is no different than Newt being involved in his own infidelities while leading the witch hunt against Bill Clinton, talking about morals and respecting the office you're holding.

I was under the impression the CIA has produced records of her being at the briefings?

[Vraith]

I was under the impression the CIA has produced records of her being at the briefings?

There seems to be some evidence that the CIA records are...ummm...inaccurate concerning both whether various briefings happened or not, and whether or not the content of those briefings actually included the interrogation material they say it did.

[sindatur]

I was under the impression the CIA has produced records of her being at the briefings?

There seems to be some evidence that the CIA records are...ummm...inaccurate concerning both whether various briefings happened or not, and whether or not the content of those briefings actually included the interrogation material they say it did.

CIA records inaccurate? This a major concern, that's the crux of their jobs.

Is this based upon actual information or just based upon "the spiral notebook"?

[Rawedge Rim]

Is Nancy Pelosi seriously trying to tell me, and convince me that somehow she remained inside some kind of "Cone of Silence" while allegations and outright photos and documents of "harsh interogations" were circleing around in the world press for years?

Come on.

I would have more respect for her is she would just say "Hey, I heard about this, recieved a few briefings, but at the time I didn't realize how serious an issue this was, and now that I'm better informed, I'm ready to hold those accountable, up to and including myself if that's what it takes."

Not holding my breath on that one though. What I am heaing is "Define the word "Is""

[Zarathustra]

Sorry, Malik. When who knew about the crime becomes more important than who committed the crime, our priorities are out of whack. Yes, we should hold everyone involved accountable*. But there are degrees of importance. Unless someone can show how Pelosi's briefing or lack thereof was a more significant factor in the torture issue than the facts right now suggest, then this should not be the center of attention. Hence: diversion.

Second of all, I don't understand all thus hue and cry for Pelosi to prove anything. Has the CIA proven that she was briefed? AFAICT no, its as much a matter of someone's word as Pelos's denial of it.

* except, it seems, anyone in the previous administration

I'm for holding no one accountable (because I don't think enhanced interrogation is a war crime). I'm for calling them all heroes for keeping us safe for 8 years.

But instead of sharing the glory, the Dems seem only interested in the political benefits of blame. So since this issue arises from their pursuit of political gain, they must first address their own culpability before they can start punishing people for things they did, too. Just because the Dems make a charge doesn't mean that this should be the center of attention. What is defined as "diversion" depends only on which party you want to benefit from this. It's a diversion from what *you* want people to notice. Personally, I think Pelosi's hypocrisy is a bigger deal. And from my perspective, this entire issue (raised by the Dems) is a distraction from the fact that they are making us less safe, failing to solve our problems, and breaking their promises.

[wayfriend]

I'm for holding no one accountable (because I don't think enhanced interrogation is a war crime). I'm for calling them all heroes for keeping us safe for 8 years.

And it's a solid conservative example of giving up freedom for protection. I hope you mention it in the thread on that topic.

So since this issue arises from their pursuit of political gain, they must first address their own culpability before they can start punishing people for things they did, too.

Must they? If so ... so much for holding everyone accountable.

[finn]

Malik:

Torture (which is the correct name) IS a war crime. If I said that murder (or should we call it termination with extreme prejudice) is not a crime it would have equally less meaning. It is a war crime regardless of the language used to try to dress it up, like putting a suit on the defendant!

Call it what it is: this use of language to soften it, is just one step in saying its OK to torture people. What's next "enhanced flirting" to describe Rape? Really, The people fleeing so rapidly from the moral high ground has a name, its called cowardice.

You guys want Pelosi's hide, fine if she's involved take it but you need to put it up next to Bush, Cheney et al. Does it occur to anyone that the persons most intimately connected with this (the CIA) are the people giving "evidence"? Does no-one question their version of events?

The previous adminsitration have left this chancre along with gitmo. Its a big problem to deal with, but it must be addressed and quickly or it will fester and scar America both in the eyes of the world and in its own eyes.

[Zarathustra]

Finn, you know how you can tell it's not torture? Because journalists volunteer to have it done to them. You don't see them volunteering to having bamboo shoved under their fingernails, or fingers chopped off, etc.

Look, I could take your position and call it cowardice, too. Cowardice of facing the unpleasant realities of this world. Of doing the difficult tasks necessary to keep us safe, etc. Cowardice, like torture, is defined in ways that are designed to make your particular political alignment look more moral. But if Obama was ordering water boarding, liberals would be singing a different tune. (For instance, notice how different the treatment is when Miss California is against gay marriage, compared to when Obama is against gay marriage. Notice how we're supposed to admire Pelosi for her life achievements, but we're supposed to hold Bush accountable. And on and on.)

But maybe you're different, and you'd still be calling people like me cowards and morally deficient. Honestly, I don't care. It's very easy to hold that position when it's not your responsibility to keep millions of people safe, and when your own country isn't being targeted. Idealism is very easy; it risks nothing.

And it's a solid conservative example of giving up freedom for protection. I hope you mention it in the thread on that topic.

Not my freedom. I do not give a damn about the freedom of the mastermind of 9/11, who is not even a U.S. citizen and has no rights according to our Constitution or the Geneva Convention. In fact, I earnestly hope he is never free again.

[The Dreaming]

So whether or not the issue of war crimes were known and authorized by officials in our government boils down to this guy's spiral notebook he carries around with him? And we're supposed to conclude from this that the CIA's own records are suspect? Isn't the CIA run by Obama's men, now? This is ludicrous. Surely our government keeps better records than this.

I wonder how Cheney and Bush would have been treated if they used the "I've got a spiral notebook--with notes that I made myself--that proves you wrong," argument.

The woman went from being a housewife to being two seats away from being the president. Say what you want about mistakes, but overall you have to admire her achievements.

I'll agree with you. I think it's fantastic that we're living in a time when women and minorities can ascend to the upper eschelons of our power structure. Good for her.

Now, can we get the Dems to say the same about Sara Palin? She also went from housewife to the highest position of power in her state. Say what you want about her mistakes, but overall you have to admire her achievements.

Somehow, I don't think the same respect will be bestowed (even though Palin never authorized or voted for funding ANY "torture," while Pelosi did). Feminist pride only seems to apply to Democrat achievements. Even the Dems who voted for the Iraq war and "torture."

However, taking the focus off of who authorized torture, and moving it to whether anyone in congress knew about it ... making that the *bigger* story ... well, that *IS* diversionary politics. While Pelosi may come off like an excuse factorty trying to make that claim, it is true in the end.

But if Pelosi knew about the torture, and approved the funding for it, then she did "authorize" it. Knowing about it and not stopping it (when you have the power to do so)--is the same as authorizing it.

It is not diversionary to track down all those involved. That's like saying a crime was committed, and the police were in on the crime, but pointing out their role is a diversionary tactic from catching the criminals. Pelosi is the one who brought up the charge in the first place. She's the one pushing the witch hunt. If you're going to point fingers at people for doing something you did yourself, then it's not diversionary to say, "But you did it, too." The only reason people think it's diversionary is because they want Bush and Cheney to be punished. They care more about politics than torture. Just like Pelosi. She even admitted it:

She admitted that an aide had been briefed a few months later, but then she moved to her fallback argument: It didn't matter if she was told about waterboarding, because "it was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House."

She cared more about political power than torture. And now so do her supporters. Hell, we've even got some of her supporters here telling us how we should admire her, even though she knew about torture and did absolutely nothing to stop it.

It's all about politics, folks. This isn't about torture at all. If it were, you wouldn't see calls for admiring the Dems involved, and punishing the Reps involved.

Yeah, you are reminding me about the left's contempt for Clarence Thomas.

I honestly think we are about to see a few key leftist voting blocks turn around. The republican party is in shambles, I am optimistically thinking a more moderate, secular sect must eventually take control. (Because I am a secular, rational moderate-right leaning individual myself) I think Obama is pretty close to seriously crossing american Jews with his middle east policy. He cant keep skating around Israel forever, hes going to have to either be hard nosed about it or let down our ally. Pelosi bites the dust, it's not even 6 months into the Obama presidency and the honymoon is over. Pelosi is screwed. Either she is going to lose power, or the entire party is going to completely lose its moral authority. Pelosi lied so baldly and transparently that a more believable lie from another senator just doesn't hold water. Cheney likes secrets, and he is a fiendish political pugilist, but he doesn't usually tell bald lies. Hes always been this person, he still is, and it's fairly clear that's who he actually is.

Well what about Pelosi? I have always seen her as an opportunistic, prissy political ninja. If she thinks she can get away with it, of COURSE she's going to do her damn dist to make herself look good and the opposition look bad. All it takes is a couple of lies right? Bush was secretive, but secrets tend to be found out. Lies can become history. We have seen this exact behavior before when she trashed Bush about the housing crisis.

I'm hardly the biggest fan of the outgoing administration, but even I thought Obama might actually be the real deal. Silly me.

[Plissken]

Like I was going to leave this alone:

Cheney likes secrets, and he is a fiendish political pugilist, but he doesn't usually tell bald lies.

Really? "It's been pretty well established..."

[wayfriend]

Finn, you know how you can tell it's not torture? Because journalists volunteer to have it done to them.

I have to say "Wow" on that one. That's certainly the most inventive reasoning I've read here in the tank in a while.

And it's a solid conservative example of giving up freedom for protection. I hope you mention it in the thread on that topic.

Not my freedom.

Some recognize the danger of saying "its okay when its done to someone else". As one day, when its done to you, you realize it's not okay. (Sound familiar?)

However, that aside, the constitution declares that you don't need to be a citizen of the U.S. to enjoy its rights and protections. Therefore, a valid logical conclusion which can be drawn is, if U.S. representatives can lawfully torture anyone, they can lawfully torture *you*. And me. And anyone else. Because the laws that grant them this power don't -- can't -- say "applies only when torturing 9/11 masterminds". 9/11 masterminds have the same rights and privileges you do. You can argue that with the constitution if you want to. Until you overturn the constitution, anyone who has power to torture 9/11 masterminds necessarilly has the power to torture you.