The title statement is all one can glean from watching this clip of Nancy Pelosi talking to Candy it was an act of terror Mitt! Crowley about the soon to be declassified Senate report on CIA 'torture'..
Here's the same Nancy Pelosi, according to various CIA entities, when briefed about 'the program' back in 2002:
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Crowley is good at reminding people of facts--why didn't she remind Ms Pelosi of the above bolded item during her interview? Pelosi had just praised the CIA so she would have been forced to call certain past members of that same organization "liars" (again), which if nothing else would have been compelling TV.
Why does no one in the media challenge these kinds of things?
"..it's post 9/11; Iran was more or less an American ally. By being included in the axis of evil it turned the Iranian government in a completely different direction; it was a turning point in American politics and foreign policy"
Maybe because they were uttered by someone in the media. Allahpundit has already fisked this nonsense but it's helpful to add the fact that Iran was almost certainly responsible for the bombing of the US barracks at the Khobar Towers in 1996 and was later identified in the 9/11 Commission as being helpful to the AQ terrorists in the September 11th attack and later found partially responsible by a federal judge.
So to say that Bush's identification of them as an enemy in any way affected their true intentions towards the United States is ludicrous, especially coming from a supposedly respected NBC foreign policy analyst. More likely what happened is they saw that Bush was no Clinton and rushed in a loud-mouth radical blowhard to their 'presidency' after Bush refused to deal with them as a way to scare us off. Now that another liberal is in the White House they've brought back a 'moderate' to make deals, and we're making deals.
Not to be outdone, the former Speaker of the House was interviewed today and said the following:
...we did not treat President Bush this way...this obstruction to President Obama is something quite stunning, and something quite different.
Well, except for Articles of Impeachment being brought against him. Or the fact he issued 11 of his 12 total vetoes during the time period when Democrats ruled Congress under Bush, 2007-2008.
This is reminiscent of the faded memory of Keith Olbermann....
But Pelosi is the same dingbat who lied about knowing of the CIA 'torture' program back in the day, then when busted about it later called the CIA a bunch of liars. Of course who could forget the Democratic House booing or dissing Bush during the SOTU in 2004 and 2005, or having the Senate Majority leader call Bush a 'loser' and saying the Iraq war was 'lost' on the floor of the Senate in 2007 with US troops still on the battlefield.
All of this should be shocking and outrageous but it's not surprising at all. The ends justify the means for our modern Democrats, and the nodding, baby-bird media acolytes are not likely to challenge them on much of anything, so they can just say anything. As for Fox, well, they can be Alinsky'd.
FAIR AND BALANCED 1/28/14
It appears the Rand Paulster might have lapsed into a mild 'say anything' moment when discussing the War on Womyn. He needs to address this, because of course, the press already has. As to his comment on Bill Clinton's office antics back in the day, awesome. Seems Ms McCaskill lapsed into a say anything moment herself in a fit of outrageous reply.
Now we await the ultimate in say anything, arriving on our screens in a little over an hour..
SAID ANYTHING 2/1/14
The State of the Union has already been dissected adequately by others so will not waste more time on it other than to say "year of action" is another slogan that has a slight reek of totalitarianism when coming from the current occupant of 1600.
"My chair was getting crowded in and I couldn’t figure out what it was, it was like this," she said.
"And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were," said Pelosi. "More than I named and I could hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were gone."
This seems to be a regular occurrence in Washington. Obama made a quip about such things in his very first presser. Bush was quoted as telling some Arabs that God spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq.
And Hillary also claims to have discussed things with Eleanor Roosevelt and other feminist luminaries of the past. Of course with Democrats one could say they are only taking advice from part of their constituency, ba-dum dum.
Speaking of crazy, what's up with all the naked people running around getting arrested? Randy Travis is the latest story but there have been scores of others recently, including the so-called zombie attacks. In the good ole days it seems like drunk men at least had the sense to keep their clothes on when driving or wandering aimlessly on the street. Maybe that 2012 end of the world stuff has some merit.
Here's the prez, during an interview with a local Florida TV reporter..
Anybody who says we can get gas down to two bucks a gallon just isn't telling the truth," Obama said.
Well OK, here's some vintage Nancy Pelosi talking about the Democrats' version of the contract with America in 2006:
"We want to send our energy money to the Midwest, not the Middle East," Ms. Pelosi said.
Apparently the Middle East now includes Canada. Still 2006, more:
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
Or how about this..
So please, this silliness has to end. Only Karl Rove has a meter that controls the price of oil (when it's not being used to direct hurricanes into poor areas). Everyone knows that. And he only listens to Cheney.
Where have you been, Mr. President? The ... middle class squeeze is on, competition in our country is effected by the price of ... energy and of oil ... and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of Washington, see that the fact that the public is ... outraged about this, come home and make a speech. Let's see that matched in your budget, let's see that matched in your policy, let's see that matched in your separating yourself from your ... patron, Big Oil. Cut yourself off from that anvil that is holding ... your party down and this country down. Instead of coming to Washington and throwing your Republican colleagues under the wheels of the train, which they mightily deserve for being a rubber stamp for your obscene, corrupt policy of ripping off the American people.
Surely the media can track her down for a comment. It would be interesting to watch her blame Congress. But c'mon Jay, everyone knows you don't need a magic wand...it's all about government policy.
There's so much wrong with this clip it's not even funny--not only from Pelosi but from the doe-eyed reporter letting her get away with it. But OK, Miss Nancy is still rolling with the unproven meme about a congressman being 'spit on' by a Tea Party protester in DC and thinks the OWS folks are basically patriots for simply expressing their voice as the constitution allows. Time to call up the wayback machine for a minute...and not so wayback at that..
You see, the OWS people are simple patriots speaking their mind, but Americans she doesn't like are robotic fascist astroturfers..
Maybe she doesn't realize there's an internet. Or maybe she doesn't care, knowing that only bloggers and talkers like Limbaugh will be calling up such relics from her past while mainstream reporters will be struggling hard to understand why those drums and tambourines are being beaten so loudly, and how the GOP was responsible. As Herman Cain says, anything but focusing on the actual problem. BTW, Cain is very poised but he needs to be--these same people will soon be calling him a racist without pausing one second to consider the absurdity.
MORE 10/10/11
This comment jumped out at me from a Daily Mail roundup up of the festivities:
'We realise that Occupy Wall Street is calling for systemic change. We are honoured to join you in this call to take back our nation and democracy' -Ben & Jerry's
Ah yes, Ben and Jerry's...which is now owned by Unilever. In other words Ben and Jerry sold out, just like capitalist pigs. As to the support statement, it's likely just a marketing ploy. Who are the protesters going to "take back the country" from? The Democrats hold a majority of power and Obama was elected to take back the country. But it's the symbolism that counts, not the substance.
Obama's Saturday address rather whimsically lays it out-- he's not gonna waver over tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires but he wants to work with the new Congressional winners, which he identifies as Republicans, Democrats and Independents. The people have spoken, and the message they sent by electing a GOP House was to tell him that socialistic change had not come fast enough! Well, at least he's a glass-half-full kind of guy, even if a bit myopic.
But in strongly defending tax cuts for the 'middle class' he's kind of contradicting previous rhetoric..
He also talked about reversing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, to the delight of the crowd bringing about a large round of applause. He explained that many rich people are happy to reverse the tax cuts as long as they know that the money is going to a good cause.
Notice the parsing. Back then the tax rate was always described as "Bush's tax cuts for the rich", now suddenly, with middle class voters about to be shellacked, they are Bush's "tax cuts for the middle class". Such is the nature of change in DC.
Of course this rhetoric is simply to set up the mother of all lame duck battles between the Pelosi House and the incoming leadership. The Dems were smart by not showing their hands on this issue before the election as some wanted and now they hold a tremendous card going into 2011. If the GOP wants the current rate extended fairly and for everyone they'll have to cut a deal. But can they afford to be cutting deals before they even get the gavel? Any deals will be criticized not only by the Dem-media complex but by the Sarah Palin-Tea Party complex. In many ways this battle will set the tone for the 2011 Congress and how they are viewed. So strap in...
PS, the above-linked article from 2007 contains some real gems about Obama worth highlighting...
"It is irresponsible to be continually borrowing from the next generation. At some point something's got to give," he said.
Yes, but only in terms of tax cuts, not political payoffs and pet projects. And..
He also talked about creating a more efficient system by instituting 'PAYGO,' which would mean that if tax cuts were given, it would only be able to happen if there was a way of retrieving that loss.
"If you are going to cut taxes, you have got to find a way of paying for it," he said.
PAYGO is in effect yet he wants to extend the middle class cuts. Are they paid for? He's also ignoring revenues back to the Treasury when people have more money to spend. And..
Many people don't know who Obama is yet. According to Patrick, Obama is from Kenya and his name is Swahili. It is a good thing that one of the other issues that Obama wishes to address when he becomes president is the shameful mud slinging that goes on during an election, and he suggests that if the campaigning was paid for with public funds it would eliminate a lot of the sniping. He also suggested that TV stations cover the campaign for free with designated time slots.
From Kenya? Birther alert! Mud-slinging? Punish your enemies! As to the public money, apparently that was only for McCain. And finally..
Given that Obama rhymes with Osama and Barack sounds decidedly Muslim or Arabic, although he is reported to be a devout Christian, the media could be used as a tool to destroy his campaign purely based upon his name. So, reforming the election process and dragging political campaigning out of the gutter could pave the way for a more civilized election, in theory, but Obama will have to get in to the Whitehouse first.
Yes, but before reform to a more civilized election we first must get the car out of the ditch and make the opposition sit in the back of the bus and take away their Slurpees, all due to the irresponsible actions of the previous administration!
John Boehner's comments on raising the vesting age of Social Security to 70 could take the GOP two ways: thrill of victory or agony of defeat, but to win they have to take a stand. After all, the campaign president is doing his thing.
Pelosi and crew have predictably reacted like Dem automatons by playing the fear card, evidently thinking that by accusing Boehner of touching the political third rail it will be the death knell for the GOP in 2010. But their reaction sounds more 1980 than 2010:
"The House Republican Leader John Boehner and his GOP colleagues want to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and cut benefits in order to pay for George Bush's war and their failed policies of the past," House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said in a written statement. "Democrats will not stand for this."
As if Clyburn has any clout after his ridiculous conspiracy theory about Alvin Greene, but anyway, the boilerplate is old school--old, one-room schoolhouse old school. There's a new breed of swing voter in America today who never thought they'd see social security proceeds anyway and don't like the Dems spending their grandchildren into unsustainable debt. Just today the CBO announced our debt-to-GDP ratio is now the highest since World War II (when we were last fighting for our very survival). Yet the Dems act as if the economy is recovering and everything is fine.
We know Madame P has already dismissed the tea party as a bunch of nazi cranks; and we know she's out saying they are going to retain the House because they don't take any race for granted; but having a cavalier attitude about spending says otherwise. It's not like her poll numbers are very high and it's not as if the G20 members didn't just slap Obama and his Keynesian stimulus buddies upside the head.
Miss Nancy also knows Boehner's proposal was silky smooth in that by exempting people within 20 years of retirement it diminishes the typical third rail outrage from the targets of the scare tactics--old farts who vote. If it won't affect grandpa and grandma it's not as big a play while at the same time playing to the tea party mantra of 'stop spending, stop spending'.
Bush tried to reform SS by painting it as a personal account that could be placed into markets. The reason the Dems reacted so rudely..
...is because most of them see the program as a clever tax/redistribution scheme allowing politicians to do exactly what Pelosi is trying to do now--hold it over the population, and not a personal pension program. It's the same place they are trying to take the nation's health care. It's pretty clear their preferred reform--should they ever publicly express anything--would be to means-test the "rich" while also removing the pay cap, in effect publicly announcing it as a tax/redistribution scheme for everyone to see.
Yet they can't, because that too is part of the third rail. There's supposed to be a lock box. So Boehner needs to be asking the Dems just how the devil they plan to fix the problem. Ask and ask often. That forces Pelosi to either admit to the ponzi scheme or back off, or dig her hole deeper.
Whether Boehner has the toughness to do that or whether electricity is still coursing through his sun tanned veins remains to be seen--maybe Palin will have to come to the rescue again or better yet, Chris Christie. Or maybe more tea parties. But somebody has to smack this ball. If the Dems retain the House without losing many seats the GOP is toast. They have to either retake one house or come very close, because we know the same media now covering for Obama on the economy (and everything else) will call it a mandate for socialism otherwise. So it's only the future of America at stake.
The verdict is partially in--the Stimulus bill designed to stave off disaster appears to be stimulating political paybacks and politicians more than the economy.
So how did we get here? Here's Nancy Pelosi explaining. Pay close attention as to how she answered Wolf Blitzer's question as to whether there would be any "pork" in the Stimulus Bill...
As everyone knows, the bill had zero earmarks but was chocked full of pork. She knows most people don't understand the difference in terms. A history lesson as we move forward.
This RNC ad is causing all kinds of consternation:
It's a given that many Democrat politicos are happy with the innuendo because it represents a rope thrown to them by the RNC and a chance to go back on the attack. The conservative debate is more interesting. Allahpundit has apparently gone into a cage match with Darleen at Protein Wisdom and others over the wisdom of this...I agree with Allah here.
Everyone knows there's a double standard in play. It's not going away any time soon. Certainly the RNC knows, or should have after the Magic Negro flap, but they appear either tone deaf or outright suicidal, unless they were deliberately trying to provoke outrage so one of their own moderates could stand up and look moderate (is this him?). Not sure Steele is that conniving, but it would be a play to the target audience here--moderates, whether they were targeted or not.
And that's the perspective that needs to be understood here. Unless they were preaching to the choir for donations the crux of the Pelosi flap was the disgust over a House Speaker lying over a national security issue for political gain. So the counter is a childish schoolyard reference, or the perception thereof? Great. The Bond theme without Galore would have been fine--it was clever. Maybe it doesn't go viral but what good is a viral video if it backfires? Surely the Sunday talking heads will appreciate the backdrop for their interviews with General Powell.
There is one consolation here. The RNC shrewdly released this after Madame Speaker said she'd have no further comment on the issue. Now, if she comments it'll represent a further comment and the press (Fox and Tapper) can fire away again. So there's your silver lining, such as it is.
MORE 5/24/09
The old guard was on TV today knocking down the twin bogeymen Cheney and Limbaugh. General Powell claims he's still a RINO, reminding us he voted for both JFK and Carter. Too bad Bob Schieffer didn't go into how he felt about the Carter vote as compared to his recent decision.
The General keeps harping on the need for a big tent but apparently his tent is too small for religious conservatives like Palin or even a man partially responsible for the Republican victories of the 90s. So exactly what would Powell's circus look like? Would it stand for bigger government, as he recently suggested? If so, how is that an adherence to any form of Reblicanism known to mankind?
Those so willing can take a journey with me to explore some of his reasons for supporting Barack Obama:
"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
In other words, symbolism over substance, because Obama didn't have much substance. One could say Powell was only playing an angle--that he knows today's politicians aren't judged on who they are, but who they appear to be (otherwise Nancy Pelosi would be back on the Berkeley teaching circuit right now). But does he really think that fancy oratory is a primary requirement for a president over and above the real substance that McCain embodied?
As to campaign details, recall his thoughts on the mention of William Ayers:
"Sen. McCain says he a washed-up old terrorist — then why does he keep talking about him?" Powell asked.
Funny, since it darn near took a court order to get McCain to acknowledge him. He was hiding from the media and the Obama campaign was disenginuous about their relationship. As Powell admitted, Ayers was an issue, yet it was only after Palin brought him up on the stump that McCain relented. Powell did not need to come down on the side of the Marxist in that spat. The fact he did suggests there was an emotional reaction to the bashing of Obama.
More specifically as to Sarahcuda:
And the party has moved even further to the right, and Gov. Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."
What, by taking on members of her own party in Alaska or spreading the state's oil wealth? Those aren't exactly old-style moves. Perhaps the small town comment really got under his skin or maybe he even took it as racist, which would represent another emotional reaction. Or maybe it was convenient.
"This Powell endorsement is the nail in the coffin," said one Republican official, speaking anonymously to offer candid thoughts about the party's nominee. "Not just because of him, but the indictment he laid out of the McCain campaign."
Indeed, it was a devastating public jab. But it's not as if the General had no motive for the throwing the sucker punch.
Here's the Speaker of the House telling everyone she was never told about waterboarding:
"Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening," she told reporters. "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."
Here she is admitting she was told, by an aide, in 2003, sort of:
A Democratic source acknowledged yesterday that it is almost certain that Pelosi would have learned about the use of waterboarding from Sheehy.
Pelosi repeated that she had not been told about the use of torture techniques, despite the claim in the recently released CIA documents that she had been. “I am saying that the CIA was misleading the Congress,” she said.
“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people,” she said in a statement issued by her office. “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.
And finally, here's her spokesperson on the defeat of a House resolution to start an inquiry into her accusations of CIA lying:
"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.
How much more international embarrassment can America take? The terrorists are going to start appearing sympathetic by comparison.
Not sure if, as Hot Air says, she's standing by her "comment" that the CIA lied--since it was non-specific it could have been her statement that Bush lied or that she lied. Anyway, it's clear they've handed her a new story and she's stickin' to it. What an embarrassment for our country.
In the continuing saga called Pelosi, is Colonel Wilkerson perhaps morphing into Colonel Mustard? His contention that Tenet invented new data about al-Libi before the Feb 2003 UN briefing--data that put his boss General Powell over the top for going to the UN--seems now to be debunked by Maureen Dowd's own paper:
The unraveling of the Qaeda story in Iraq, still under way, took on some of the drama of an espionage thriller when, following the murder of Mr. Foley, the Qaeda deputy to Mr. Zarqawi suffered a lapse of communications discipline, a coalition official said. As he drove across northern Iraq to the Turkish and Syrian frontiers, he could not resist using his satellite phone to call Mr. Foley's murderers to congratulate them and to tell them he was on his way to meet with them.
''The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder,'' Mr. Powell said. In December, Jordan said it had two men in custody who had confessed to killing Mr. Foley on the instructions of Mr. Zarqawi.
Unless Cheney death squad members were in the car waterboarding him into using his satellite phone to give up intel, linking Baghdad to al Qaeda, I'd say this looks like strike four for Colonel Wilkerson.
But not so fast. The question of Zarqawi in Iraq and terrorist ties was quite contentious and something Powell later apologized for (and apologies for the left wing narrator):
Notice the General isolated Tenet from blame for not being given 'burn notices' about faulty intelligence, which appears contrary to his current stance. How many would bet that Powell really backed Obama as part of his ongoing war on Cheney?
Anyway, the notion that Zarqawi's Iraq AQ network was planning attacks in Europe might have been true:
British intelligence officials in Iraq are questioning an al-Qaeda operative after information relating to the 7 July London bombings was allegedly found on his computer drive.
The man, who has not been named, was captured by US forces last month. He is understood to have had a portable computer drive on him that showed 'knowledge' of the attacks that killed 56 people.
There was also evidence that Zarqawi was tied to former regime elements, something al-Libi told us early on. The government would have been negligent not to pursue these leads based on the long track of intelligence dating back to the Clinton years.
One could possibly make the argument that CIA analysts were trying to cover their rears after the WMDs failed to materialize but it seems ridiculous for them to lie to Pelosi, Goss or anyone else in 2002. If anything they were probably embarrassed for being fooled by the Iraqi Intelligence Service all those years or others like Curveball, but that would not have come in 2002.
One of the Green Room guys at Hot Air has unearthed a comment from Miss Nancy in May 2002 regards our friend Abu Z:
Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. "He's not b.s.ing us on everything." Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation."
Zubaydah was the only top-ranking AQ fish we'd captured at that time and his complicity in past acts was well-known before Bush arrived, perhaps even to a long-time member of the House Intelligence Committee. Tenet described Abu as someone who thought he was more clever than his interrogators. The passage of time has softened Abu's rep but we have the internets!
In early 1999, Hijazi and Abu Hoshar contacted Khalil Deek, an American citizen and an associate of Abu Zubaydah who lived in Peshawar, Pakistan, and who, with Afghanistan-based extremists, had created an electronic version of a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of Jihad. They obtained a CD-ROM of this encyclopedia from Deek.
This encyclopedia apparently contained counter-interrogation techniques, some of which were probably familiar to Zubaydah. His history also included coordinatng the Millennium attacks, as explained by 60 Minutes II in late 2001:
Other holy sites were on the hit list: a hill near the Dead Sea where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Thousands of pilgrims were expected there. Another target: Mount Nebo, which Moses climbed to see the promised land. But the top target was the Radisson hotel in downtown Amman, its 400 rooms fully booked by Americans and Israelis for the big millennium party. Jordanian agents got word that the man known as Abu Ahmed the American was boasting there wouldn't be enough body bags in Jordan to hold all the corpses.
Everything was set. The planning had been completed, the explosives were hidden in Amman. Abu Ahmed the American was about to return here from Afghanistan. It might have come off if Jordanian intelligence hadn't intercepted a phone call on the evening of Nov. 30 from Osama bin Laden's lieutenant in Pakistan to the cell in Amman. The lieutenant spoke in code. His words were: “The grooms are ready for the big wedding.”
The message had come from Abu Zubaydah. Osama bin Laden's chief recruiter.
The story goes on to recount the American version thwarted by an alert border guard spooking an over-anxious Ahmed Ressam (any mention of the Millennium plot always brings to mind Sandy Berger's socks caper and why he wanted that after-action report so badly).
And while this history doesn't serve as a smoking gun as to whether Pelosi was briefed specifically on waterboarding in September 2002 it does serve as a reminder of how dangerous and important they believed Zubaydah was at the time and how it was seen as key to get information from him before something else happened. That would explain why Pelosi and Goss asked the CIA whether they were 'doing enough' during that meeting.
It also serves as an example of how the public perception has changed in eight years. We've either reverted completely to a 9/10 frame of mind, squabbling over moral questions that would have given few pause when officials were scrambling to stop further horrible attacks, or Bush actually won the GWoT when nobody was looking, nullifying future threats. History, intelligence, and common sense would suggest neither--the public is surely still aware of threats, moreso than before 9/11. But after seven years of war and the Democratic propaganda against it they're confused as to the real enemy.
CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, but it is up to Congress to reach its own conclusions about what happened.
As Kit Bond said on Morning Joe, CIA briefers don't brief legislators on what they might do. It seems a done deal, although Maguire's a bit wobbly. So is Allahpundit, although such trepedation comes from being burned before:
I know, I know — “it’s not that she condoned waterboarding, it’s that she lied” — but if the left forces her out, it won’t be because she’s a weasel. It’ll be because she didn’t have the moral acuity to throw caution to the wind after 9/11 and shrug off the odds of more attacks all so that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed wouldn’t be pretend-drowned. Click the image to listen.
Based on their track record of using this stuff for political gain it's fairly unwise to accept that any of them want Pelosi gone without a pound or ten of flesh in return.
And that pound or ten probably involves prosecutions for torture, so let's travel back and see what the DCIA said about all this in his tome about Zubaydah. Keep in mind ole Abu predicted we'd find Zarqawi in Iraq during his interrogation in Egypt, so not everything he said was available for recanting. Also keep in mind we sent a specialist from Johns Hopkins to save Abu's life after he took three gunshots from the Pakistani police during his capture. So here's Tenet from page 241, with my emphasis:
Now that we had an undoubted resource in our hands--the highest ranking al-Qa'ida official captured to date--we opened discussions with the National Security Council as to how to handle him, since holding and interrogating large numbers of al-Qa'ida operatives had never been part of our plan. But Zubaydah and a small number of other extremely highly placed terrorists potentially had information that might save thousands of lives. We wondered what we could legitimately do to get that information.
..snip..
CIA officers came up with a series of interrogation techniques that would be carefully monitored at all times to ensure the safety of the prisoner. The administration and the Department of Justice were fully briefed and approved the use of these tactics. After we received written Department of Justice guidance on the interrogation issue, we briefed the chairmen and ranking members of our oversight committees. While they were not asked to formally approve the program, as it was conducted under the president's unilateral authorities, I can recall no objections being raised.
..snip..
Like many of the al-Qa'ida detainees, Abu Zubaydah originally thought he could outsmart his questioners. He would offer up bits and pieces of information that he thought would give the impression of his providing useful material, without really compromising operational security.
But Abu Zubaydah ultimately provided a motherlode of information,
..snip..
A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney.
So the CIA came up with the techniques, not Cheney. This also stands opposed to FBI expert witness Ali Soufan. Let's also keep in mind that Zubaydah was part of the 'system blinking red' warning that Tenet gave Rice in summer 2001 about pending attacks, one which the left used to accuse Bush of failing to connect dots.
Yet somehow, after the 9/11 dust settled, Zubahday became mentally unstable and overstated--perfect for setting up the torture canard. And somehow Pelosi developed a sudden moral epiphany she had been hiding for years. Sorry, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for this stuff maybe it's the ones who were politicizing it. The war isn't even over.
MORE 5/15/09
While it seems that Panetta is involved in a low-level war with Pelosi, maybe both are still just covering their rumps. His letter today did not specify that CIA briefers specifically told Pelosi and Goss that waterboarding had occurred, only that it was a tool. There was probably a wink-wink in there that both understood at the time, which could be why Goss is so upset and why Nancy is holding the fort with Clintonian word parsing darts in hand.
Panetta is throwing it back to Congress (as he should) without providing the actual noose, which will have to come in the form of a writ, presumably through Nancy. Meanwhile Obama is nowhere to be found on this. Maybe he's out having a smoke near the swingset.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials.
"My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe," Pelosi said in a statement.
The loyalists and perhaps some in the media will buy her "Bush lied" diversion, but will the Democratic leadership? Meanwhile, where is Obama? While the entire country is looking back his official posture is that he's looking forward, even though he lit the match by releasing the OLC memos. I suppose you can't blame him for hiding in the tall grass since so far only the token Fox guy has bothered to notice. We'll see if the Sunday pundits can find him.
