Pelosi and "What She Knew"

[Ken Carman]

I'm guessing this will be a pretty hot topic. As the OP I may sit back a while and let others chime in before I join the action, only because as OP I think I may have responded a bit too much in the past.

Here is the start of my most recent edition of my column, Inspection...

Afternoons I drive around in my small pickup and do chores or make contacts for work. I have Sirius… satellite radio… and afternoons are rather droll. The just left, or right, talk show programming during that time is pretty bad, so I tune into POTUS, a kind of catch all stream for left, right and all that’s between. A news blurb came on. Addressing the Pelosi vs. the CIA conundrum, the “reporter” stated in that droll, newsie, rip and read monotone that “Nancy Pelosi has yet to prove that she wasn’t told about enhanced interrogation methods.” Excuse me? And how exactly is she to do that?

Apologies in advance, there is no longer an on site edition since the blog section crashed. Here's a direct link to the rest. That way, if you wish, you can understand my take on all this.

There's so much to discuss here, like can she do this without violating classified meetings she had? Or is this mere distraction when the enhance interrogation/torture debate comes up? If you feel this is valid then what should she do? If she's not trustworthy, is the CIA any more "trustworthy," especially after past intel problems? Feel free to take it where you wish... as much as the mods will allow.

[Jack]

Let's not overlook Bob Graham's claims, which mirror Pelosi's:

Now her fellow Democrat, former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, is also disputing the CIA's version of the briefings that he received at the time. Graham was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, while Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings : NPR

[Ken Carman]

Good article.

You know, I promised to keep out of this. In fact I thought by now we'd have a lot of rabid foam spitting Neo Cons jumping in so they might "teach me a thing or two" about how righteous Cheney, Bush and their torture/death cult might be. So far all I see are twitters of the birds and a lot of cowering in the form of "mums the word."

[Goyboy]

In his defense of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Senator Bob Graham said, "I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led in 2002." [Quote Source]

During the year 2002, the Director of the CIA was George Tenet, who resigned from the CIA on June 3, 2004.

The SourceWatch website quotes AP reporter Pete Yost as reporting the following:

Conventional wisdom had been that Tenet, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, did not plan to stay on next year, no matter who won the White House.

So, in 2002 the Director of the CIA was a Clinton appointee. I wonder if Graham doubted the credibility of the CIA's leadership while Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Goyboy In his defense of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Senator Bob Graham said, "I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led in 2002."

It's certainly possible that CIA leadership consistently lied.

Grandpa h.

[Ken Carman]

So, in 2002 the Director of the CIA was a Clinton appointee. I wonder if Graham doubted the credibility of the CIA's leadership while Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office.

Perhaps he did doubt it. Of course 9/11 did bring all this to the forefront, for obvious reasons. I frankly hadn't trusted them long before that: too easy to manipulate. An agency that does what the CIA does so prone to manipulation by political winds and politicians: especially if they're eager eager to get intel they want cooked to serve their needs? Not a good thing.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Jack Let's not overlook Bob Graham's claims, which mirror Pelosi's: Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings : NPR

You're leaving out that Pelosi has had several different stories. Whatever the case if it is true that the CIA lied then there must necessarily be a full-blown Senate investigation. So where are the the calls for such an investigation?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: maximdewinter You're leaving out that Pelosi has had several different stories. Whatever the case if it is true that the CIA lied then there must necessarily be a full-blown Senate investigation. So where are the the calls for such an investigation?

I'd be curious what these "several different stories" were. From what I've heard she's been pretty consistent, essentially... "Yes, there was a meeting. Yes, the phrase 'enhanced interrogation' was used... but not specifics and we were told 'may' be used." But it's also important to note that she has had to dance around what she can, and cannot, say. These were classified meetings. She's not suppose to talk about content, unlike Cheney who is a citizen now and talks about them anyway... and classified documents. Which makes Cheney either a liar, or someone who should be headed to prison.

And those who have provided such intel haven't provided "several different stories?" Recently when confronted over claiming there were five different meetings they came back, yeah, only one. After all the bad intel over the years the fact that Pelosi is the target is laughable.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Ken Carman I'd be curious what these "several different stories" were. From what I've heard she's been pretty consistent, essentially... "Yes, there was a meeting. Yes, the phrase 'enhanced interrogation' was used... but not specifics and we were told 'may' be used." But it's also important to note that she has had to dance around what she can, and cannot, say. These were classified meetings. She's not suppose to talk about content, unlike Cheney who is a citizen now and talks about them anyway... and classified documents. Which makes Cheney either a liar, or someone who should be headed to prison. And those who have provided such intel haven't provided "several different stories?" Recently when confronted over claiming there were five different meetings they came back, yeah, only one. After all the bad intel over the years the fact that Pelosi is the target is laughable.

Will it ever be possible to discuss the current Obama Administration and the current Congress on the merits without rehashing the emotions and accusations against the Bush administration? If the answer is no, when do you think that will be?

I'm referring to something that happened recently in 2009 and with Nancy Pelosi. If her latest accusation is true, and there are those here who think the accusation is true, then the charge is very serious. Or do you think that the accusation that the CIA lied to Congress is not serious? So if anyone thinks she is really telling the truth then answer please the question which I will pose again: Does this charge not demand a full blown congressional investigation to find out the truth?
It's a simple enough question.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: maximdewinter Will it ever be possible to discuss the current Obama Administration and the current Congress on the merits without rehashing the emotions and accusations against the Bush administration? If the answer is no, when do you think that will be? I'm referring to something that happened recently in 2009 and with Nancy Pelosi. If her latest accusation is true, and there are those here who think the accusation is true, then the charge is very serious. Or do you think that the accusation that the CIA lied to Congress is not serious? So if anyone thinks she is really telling the truth then answer please the question which I will pose again: Does this charge not demand a full blown congressional investigation to find out the truth? It's a simple enough question.

Of course it does.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Apeman81 Of course it does.

Of course it does. Lying to Congress is a felony.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: maximdewinter Of course it does. Lying to Congress is a felony.

Indeed. Pelosi constructed a catch 22 that demands investigation. If she lied or the CIA lied, investigation into the issue is now required

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Apeman81 Indeed. Pelosi constructed a catch 22 that demands investigation. If she lied or the CIA lied, investigation into the issue is now required

Here is a wild guess as to to why there is no investigation forthcoming.... Since all the committees in Congress are now firmly in the grip of the Democratic Party there would be little effort required to begin that full blown investigation. But it would require a majority hand count of Democrats who believed that Pelosi is telling the truth and that, indeed, the CIA lied to her and Congress. All the wonks by now have seen and logged what is in the written record of all the briefings in 2002 and forward. If they found something of substance which corroborated her claim we would be off and running and making political hay out it. But we're not. On this basis I believe that she is closer to 20 than than she is to the truth.

[Ken Carman]

Will it ever be possible to discuss the current Obama Administration and the current Congress on the merits without rehashing the emotions and accusations against the Bush administration? If the answer is no, when do you think that will be?

Was it possible during the Bush II years to discuss them without, "It's all Clinton's fault?" To answer your question: first we're talking mere months. It's not like it was was years ago. Second: the past is important... how we got here. When will it be time? Well perhaps once we get beyond all that was started on their watch; or at least most of it. Frankly I don't see that for a long time: the dinosaurs had an easier time with the tar pits.

Yes, I do think it deserves a full blown investigation... and if Pelosi is justly convicted and gets hung along with the rest of them (I'm speaking mostly metaphorically... though I don't dismiss the possibility of "other than.") ...then I'd help pull the trap door open if needed.

[Ken Carman]

Of course it does. Lying to Congress is a felony.

Curious where exactly these statements were made. To the press? To talking heads? If she lied, then... again... I'd put the trap door: just as soon as Cheney who claimed over and over there was an al Qaeda/Saddam connection and then, just a few days ago, "There's never been any evidence..."

If Pelosi lied to Congress I'd eagerly support an investigation and any punishment: as long as Cheney, George, Ashcroft, Rummy and the whole gang: including much of Congress, for the past ten years is part of it and sitting beside her. This isn't specifically a Dem/Rep thing for me.

You know? That's one hell of a big investigation and resulting trials. Screw the rope. If the worst happens, we might need a hell of a lot of machine guns. But, of course, that's hyperbole. Probably the whole lot would get spanked with an over cooked noodle and then given choice assignments/jobs in Congress or industry.

[rmnunez]

I think legislators are immune from prosecution for statements made in the course of their performance of official duties.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: maximdewinter Here is a wild guess as to to why there is no investigation forthcoming.... Since all the committees in Congress are now firmly in the grip of the Democratic Party there would be little effort required to begin that full blown investigation. But it would require a majority hand count of Democrats who believed that Pelosi is telling the truth and that, indeed, the CIA lied to her and Congress. All the wonks by now have seen and logged what is in the written record of all the briefings in 2002 and forward. If they found something of substance which corroborated her claim we would be off and running and making political hay out it. But we're not. On this basis I believe that she is closer to 20 than than she is to the truth.

As I stated in my column, the problem here is we are talking about information that... even if it was recorded/written down... is classified. I doubt most of this was even written down. If we focus merely on Pelosi I think the best we can get is a she said/they said situation.

Now if there are documents: minutes of these meetings, they could be declassified. I would support that. But of course that would have to come from the direction of those who have the power to do so, not an ex-VP.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: rmnunez I think legislators are immune from prosecution for statements made in the course of their performance of official duties.

You know, I think you're right.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Ken Carman Was it possible during the Bush II years to discuss them without, "It's all Clinton's fault?" .

Of course it was.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Ken Carman I'm guessing this will be a pretty hot topic. As the OP I may sit back a while and let others chime in before I join the action, only because as OP I think I may have responded a bit too much in the past. Here is the start of my most recent edition of my column, Inspection... Apologies in advance, there is no longer an on site edition since the blog section crashed. Here's a direct link to the rest. That way, if you wish, you can understand my take on all this. There's so much to discuss here, like can she do this without violating classified meetings she had?

Are you asking if she can prove that she was not told about “enhanced interrogation methods?” And if that is the question, then one must say, that judging from your article, evidently she can. This is because, it appears from the article, that without violating the terms of the classified meetings that she had, she was able to prove it to you ?

Quote by: Ken Carman Or is this mere distraction when the enhance interrogation/torture debate comes up?

And who should we say has been distracting?

Quote by: Ken Carman If you feel this is valid then what should she do?

Prove her claim to everyone else as she was able to prove it to you?

Quote by: Ken Carman If she's not trustworthy, is the CIA any more "trustworthy," especially after past intel problems?

Well, evidently, from reading your article she is more {trustworthy} than the CIA. The question now is, why? Why does the article make her out to be {more} trustworthy than the CIA?

Quote by: Ken Carman Feel free to take it where you wish... as much as the mods will allow.

.. if you are arguing in favor of the ideology that they agree with.

Secondly, please feel free to come back and explain why we should trust Mrs. Pelosi more than the CIA?

Quote by: Jack Let's not overlook Bob Graham's claims, which mirror Pelosi's: Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings : NPR

Mr. Graham’s claims mirror Mrs. Pelosi’s claims? Mr. Jack, first question: Which claims of Mr.
Graham’s are your referring to? Which claims mirror Mrs. Pelosi’s claims? You are aware that Mrs. Pelosi has more that one claim, right?

First claim: She was not told at all.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: CIA Lied to Me
Nancy Pelosi Says CIA Misinformed and Misled Congress on Waterboarding and Harsh Interrogation Techniques

Quote, Mrs. Pelosi:
1. "In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Second Claim: The only mention of a certain method by her aide, was that it was not being employed.
Pelosi News Conference on Waterboarding Disclosure

Quote, Mrs. Pelosi:
2. “I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was that the briefing -- in the briefing was that it was not being employed.”

3. “But I'm telling you that they talked about interrogations that they had done and said, "We want to use enhanced techniques, and we have legal opinions that say that they are OK. We are not using waterboarding." That's the only mention, that they were not using it. And we now know that earlier they were.”

Third Claim: The mention by her aide was that a certain method was being employed.
Pelosi News Conference on Waterboarding Disclosure

Quote, Mrs. Pelosi:
4. “No, he did say that. He said that the -- the committee chair and ranking member and appropriate staff had been briefed that these techniques were now being used. They -- that's all I was informed, that they were being used and that a letter was sent.”

So, Mr. Jack, does Mr. Graham have three claims that mirror Mrs. Pelosi’s three claims? If so, can you please bring them forward so that we may all examine them to see how they all resemble?

Quote by: Ken Carman Good article.

Why?

Quote by: Ken Carman You know, I promised to keep out of this. In fact I thought by now we'd have a lot of rabid foam spitting Neo Cons jumping in so they might "teach me a thing or two" about how righteous Cheney, Bush and their torture/death cult might be.

Or rabid foam spitting Democrats jumping in so they might “teach all of us a thing or two” about the how righteous Mrs. Pelosi, and the Democrats and their torture/death cult might be ?

Quote by: Ken Carman So far all I see are twitters of the birds and a lot of cowering in the form of "mums the word."

Don’t get too cocky because they appear to be down and you appear to be up. Be careful what you wish for.