by Deb Cupples | As Damozel more than adequately covered last week, Republicans accused current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of having been briefed (six or seven years back) on the CIA's use of torture -- torture being a federal crime (see 18 US Code 2340), and crimes being things that the folks working in government agencies are not allowed to commit.
Speaker Pelosi denied that she'd been briefed in detail about torture (or specifically waterboarding).
This is interesting, given that in 2003 the CIA briefed congressional leaders, including Rep. Jane Harman, and included details about the use of the apparently criminal activity known as waterboarding. We know that, because Rep. Harman wrote a letter to a top CIA lawyer days after the briefing, expressing concern over the agency's apparent torture-related crimes.
I suppose it's possible that -- at the precise moment that CIA officials were telling Jane Harman about the waterboarding -- Speaker Pelosi was on a ladies-room break.
Oops: I got the timing wrong. It turns out that Pelosi and Harman were briefed on different days.
Reportedly, Ms. Pelosi was briefed in September 2002, and Ms. Harman was briefed in February 2003.
Oops again: last week's Washington Post claimed that Michael Sheehy (Ms. Pelosi's top aide) was at the meeting where Ms. Harman learned about the waterboarding. The speculation is that if Ms. Pelosi's top aide had learned of the CIA's apparently illegal activity known as waterboarding, the aide would have told Pelosi.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Sheehy was on an ill-timed bathroom break.
Yesterday's Washington Post quotes current CIA Director Leon Panetta as basically saying that Speaker Pelosi lied: that CIA officials did brief her on torture-related crimes back in 2002.
Given that Mr. Panetta was not even in the CIA back in 2002-03, I doubt that he has first-hand knowledge of what was or was not said during the torture-related briefings.
Perhaps the CIA folks involved in the briefing(s) taped or videoed the briefings. The agency certainly has the technology, and it wouldn't be the first time that the CIA secretly recorded people's conversations.
So, here we find ourselves relying on paper records (i.e., people's notes), which we all know are impossible to alter, right?
The upshot is that we're left wondering who's lying:
1) intelligence-community folks, whose very job tends to involve the art of deception; or
2) a seasoned politician, whose very job tends to involve the art of deception.
The odds on this bet seem to be on par with whether to put your roulette chips on red or black.
Buried toward the end of yesterday's WaPo article is a statement from ex-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL), indicating that CIA folks didn't bother to brief him on torture back in 2002 -- and that CIA officials' notes indicated that Graham had attended three meetings which Graham did not actually attend.
Mr. Graham commented: "That raises some questions about the bookkeeping of the CIA."
Yes, this does seem to be a major (albeit unsurprising) strike against the CIA's credibility.
On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi's credibility is hardly pristine. Just last year, the woman publicly spoke against giving retroactive immunity to Telecom companies that had violated federal law when helping the Bush Administration illegally wiretap Americans -- shortly thereafter, she supported amnesty for said criminals.
Perhaps the biggest stain on Speaker Pelosi's credibility -- at least in the eyes of people who favor accountability and lawful conduct on the part of government officials -- was her refusal to let the U.S. House impeach then-President Bush once Pelosi became House Speaker.
Before the Democrats swept the 2006 congressional elections, the woman seemed to promise us voters that the Dems would restore accountability if they took control of Congress. About 10 minutes after the Dems got control of the House and Pelosi got control of the House's agenda, Pelosi "took impeachment off the table."
Given all the false posturing and lies and partial truths, who knows what really happened? Big shrug.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Comments