Current Article

CIA vs Pelosi, Who’s Lying?

By Larry Johnson on May 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM in Current Affairs

Let’s start with Mark Twain. I think his wit captured the essence of Nancy Pelosi:

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

At a minimum we have learned that Nancy Pelosi is dim witted. When she is told that waterboarding had been approved for use she is completely incurious about why approval is needed for a technique that has not or will not be used. What would Nancy say if her husband came home and “briefed” her on a magazine article touting the benefits of sexual liaisons with twenty five year old girls. Would she be equally clueless about why her man thought this was a nifty piece of information? Is this why Twain concluded that idiocy is a synonym for Congress?

So Nancy Pelosi, in one of her versions of what transpired, insists the CIA said they had been authorized to waterboard but said nothing about doing it. Do I have this straight? If Pelosi had been briefed by Adolf Eichmann that he had authority to establish death camps to murder Jews she would have been surprised if he actually acted on that authority?

Cut me a break. She could have settled this very simply–create a truth commission and put people under oath. What did the CIA actually tell her and the other ranking members of Congress? Her failure to answer simple questions in a coherent manner now makes this a critical matter.

Does the CIA always tell the truth at briefings, as claimed by Leon Panetta? Well, that depends on what the meaning of “truth” is. I personally have sat in briefings for members of Congress where we only answered the questions we were asked. We did not offer up everything we knew. For example, did the CIA ever tell members of Congress that some terrorist suspects had been sent off to third countries where they were subsequently tortured? I doubt it. Were members of Congress ever told that the CIA had videotaped some of the waterboarding? I doubt that too.

A CIA briefing from folks representing the operations side of the CIA normally is not an exercise in full disclosure. Ops folks are not the kind of people who feel the need to pour out their heart and tell you everything you want to know. They tell you what they think you need to know and tend to be technically responsive to questions. In other words, they will abide by the letter of the law but not necessarily the spirit.

The only thing we know for certain is there is no coherent explanation about what the CIA told the Congress. This is real simple–put everyone under oath. Who knew what when? And who was told what when?

I see three possible story lines.

Story One–The Bush Administration, with the full complicity of the CIA, deliberately lied to Congress and kept them in the dark about what was being done to suspected terrorists.

Story Two–The Bush Administration, with the participation of the CIA, told ranking members of Congress what it was doing to suspected terrorists on the condition that they kept their mouths shut. But they told them only broad outlines, steered away from specifics and the members of Congress happily agreed to the bliss of ignorance. They refused to ask questions that would give them answers they did not want to know.

Story Three–The Bush Administration recognized it would need bipartisan political cover and told the ranking members of Congress everything.

My money is on “Story Two.” But at this point it is speculation. We need to know the truth. Unfortunately, the Democrats now in control of Congress appear to have no more interest in pursuing truth than did their Republican predecessors.

Diana L. C.

My bet is on Story Two also. As you said and as all of us witnessed, especially after 2006, N. Pelosi does not have a clue how to react to informtion she is given or questions she is asked. Her making that that rant out of the blue against the Republicans over the economy before the election, and after getting the bailout passed should have been a clear indication that she is a little bit into dementia.
James Guglielmino

Larry, giving the previous administration’s total absence of willingness to testify before Congress, including ignoring subpoenas, why do you think that it would have allowed anyone to testify at a truth commission?

Also, while I don’t like Pelosi much, I don’t care to have anyone cut down if it isn’t deserved. If she is lying,
she should be discovered and dropped like a rock but you and Panetta will both have natural default positions of defending the CIA. (and should)

Have you addressed the issue of Bob Grahm’s journal? I have brought it up before here but not seen an answer. How do you explain a mistake/”mistake” like that by the CIA and not give Pelosi’ version more credence?

http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

You have not had a consistent, coherent, calm account from Pelosi. She has a different account almost every time she speaks. Graham was not at her briefings. House and Senate are on different sides of the Hill.

Did the CIA brief the Hill in September 2002 that DOJ had blessed waterboarding as an interrogation technique? Yes. Did any member of Congress have any question or qualms about why you needed to “authorize” something that was not going to be used? That is what does not make sense.

If Congress was told about the authority then they had sufficient information to know what was coming next and declined to ask any tough questions, apparently.

ConfusedAmerican

Well what ever Obama has Nancy seems to be getting it . I never saw so much stuttering in my life as with Nancy’s last speech about waterboarding.
Nancy would be better off just shutting the H#LL up..
Hmmmm maybe that is why she was stuttering so much — Just maybe she has stuck her foot in her mouth so many times its now stuck….

Jim Nelson

Nobody’s seen Graham’s journal except, supposedly, a University of Florida archivist. In other words, nobody’s proved anything.

Cindy

Quel dommage, Monsieur Jimbeaux.

SHV

So Nancy Pelosi, in one of her versions of what transpired, insists the CIA said they had been authorized to waterboard but said nothing about doing it. Do I have this straight?
**********
With that statement by it self, as a senior government official, she could be prosecuted for a war crime.

Additional Protocol 1 to Geneva Convention 1949:
(breach=war crime)
” if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

Jane

As a note, the US has not ratified Protocol 1 (even though it is a signatory) and the US would never allow itself to be brought in front of the ICC.

If only we were more cooperative with international law tribunals *sigh*

Craig Della Penna

Since we’re quoting Mark Twain, here’s another one of my favorite MT quotes (and quite apropos here):

“America has no natural criminal class… excepting Congress.”
jwrjr

Agreed – story two is the most likely of the three. Story three – if you believe that can I interest you in a bridge?
http://www.madinthemiddle.blogspot.com churl

I vote for Story Two; political critters are always good at not following their noses to the source of a stink.
postmaster

Nancy Pelosi missed the perfect opportunity to just shut up. If she was told, ‘we have authorization to bomb Iraq, would she really think it wouldn’t happen?

Or we have authorization to spend 1 trillion dollars, does she think they won’t? One would think that in a briefing or any kind of meeting if you hear something that you’re not sure of, common sense would dictate that you ask for clarification, no?

This woman has been out to get the ‘former’ administration from the get-go….hope someone hands her her butt!

http://noquarter foxyladi14

i think they will.

Cindy

My favorite quote (from Kit Bond) this week:
“The CIA doesn’t hold briefings in order to tell you what they’re NOT doing.”
TeakwoodKite

Democrats now in control of Congress appear to have no more interest in pursuing truth than did their Republican predecessors.

Why am I not surprised, Mr Johnson?

For the longest time I have not been able to resolve how, if told the “broad outlines” of what was being done in our names, what obligation a person has to keep classified what is clealy outside the law. Putting “notes to self” in an office safe is not speaking truth to power.

Next we will be hearing from those who were complict in this debacle calls for reforming the CIA.

NoBamaNoWay

exactly; it’s times like those that separate the women from the girls and the men from the boys. f*ck “classified-” if OUR government is about to do something criminal and insane, members of congress have an obligation not only to resist, but to inform the american people so that WE can resist.

HARP

Princess Pelosi wouldn`t know the truth unless it came in the form of botox.
KmX

WHen the Bush Administration let those 16 lines go in the UN speech about Uranium deposits from Niger, the CIA leak info that they were not telling the truth. I think Nancy Peolosi is learning the hard way what the Bush administration also learnt. Don’t mess with the CIA!!!!
mountainaires

Pelosi has disgraced herself; but I’m disappointed by the sense that the American people don’t seem to care much about holding our torture policy up to the light and examining it, much less holding anyone accountable for it.

It won’t go away, you know. It will keep coming back to haunt us, if we don’t deal with this issue. We’re forever tainted by the poison of the past 8 years and the only way we can cleanse our “reputation” is to publicly investigate and hold people accountable. Obama’s presidency will be tarnished by his unwillingness to uphold the laws faithfully–his oath of office.

OT, but a good read:

Obamas Lived Way Above Their Means

May 2, 2009 edition of the Daily News:

President Obama’s troubling mantra: In debt, we trust

By Richard Henry Lee

Saturday, May 2nd 2009

It is no surprise that President Obama supports unprecedented spending and borrowing in the federal budget since he has never suffered any consequences from the excessive spending and borrowing in his private life.

And I’m not just talking about the First Lady’s $540 sneakers.

A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate.

During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet. During a stop in Ohio, she said, “I know we’re spending – I added it up for the first time – we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth.”

Let’s examine how tough things were for this couple using various public records.

Read the whole thing…They were reckless, but were saved like “Jack and the Magic Beans!”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-lived-above-their-means-for-years

Flashback!

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune reported in 2006 on that land deal with Rezko:

Obama bought his home at a $300,000 discount. Rezko bought the adjoininglot from the same sellers at full price. One got a juicy bargain. The other overpaid.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/nov/02/news/chi-0611020249nov02

Ben LaBolt, Obama’s spokesman said the Obama’s were “flush with cash” when they got that sweetheart deal on their mansion in Chicago with the help of political fixer–now convicted criminal–Tony Rezko.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/02/obama-got-sweetheart-deal-on-home-loan/
standard

I love the quote!
mel

Pelosi stated that Oaths are taken by members of the comitees to not divulge anything at the briefings to anyone even colleges!

This being the case, how come no one including Pelsi has brought up the fact that , again as Pelosi described, she first learned after her not being on the commitee, in March 2003 by an aid who was told of the latest briefing the commitee was told that Waterboarding was used!

Therefore, someone broke their oath and should be impeached for doing so, and Pelosi as a member of Congress is negligent in her duties and deserves impeachment as well! Since March 2003 for Pelosi to not bringing charges of breaking an oath on the member who leaked out the information that her aide passed on the her, makes her as guilty as the congress person who leaked the info and broke the oath!!
ziggy

I also suspect some variation of Story Two was most likely the Bush administration approach. “Some variation” covers a lot of ground, however. It’s possible to tell people things in ways that will only be fully understood in retrospect.

I’m not clear about the extent to which the CIA became an extension of White House policy. They seem to have clearly modified the content of intelligence reports at the behest of the Bush administration during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. To my mind at least, this raises a serious question concerning the completeness and accuracy of information they might have provided to Congress concerning interrogation policies.
Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

Any way you look at, Pelosi is being dishonest alotg w many other Democrats. I believe most of them knew what was going on and they went along w enhanced interrogation because Americans wanted justice for 9/11. It was politically correct to agree. Now that they have full control, they are trying to act innocent. They are no better than Bush and Co.
Ellen D

OK, so it’s obvious that no are questions asked because no one WANTS to know.

It used to be called “plausible deniability”. The problem is with the “plausible” part.

As Larry points out, if someone raises a topic that is beyond the pale, we have to query why NO questions were asked.

As Sherlock Holmes said, the significance was that the dog DIDN’T bark.

Ellen D

Whoops – typo – “no questions are asked”.
ziggy

Suppose the topic of waterboarding was brought up during a committe meeting as something the administration had determined to be an option in some hypothetical “ticking time-bomb” situation? One could pose a scenario lifted directly out of an episode of 24 that would pretty much short-circuit further discussion, if the impression was given that the option was reserved for such an extreme contingency.

We don’t yet know anything about the actual context in which “enhanced interrogation” was mentioned, or by whom. Who else was present at the meetings in question besides Pelosi? What do they recall being said?

http://! stodgie

ziggy, please! you have spread yourself out so far, you’ll never make it back to human form.

ziggy

I’m just pointing out that we don’t have much in the way of factual information yet. I really don’t know what it means that the dogs didn’t bark.

Diana L. C.

I never did know why the “dogs didn’t bark.” I clearly remember myself pulling my hair and making snide comments during the entire Bush years about how Congress was just letting his administration get away with lots of Cr#*p. I sort of understood that since before 2006 when the Repugs controlled Congress that it was hard for the Dems to make any progress.

But…..it just seemed that the Dems sat on their hands the whole time and didn’t want to appear hysterical or whatever. No one really ever stood up it seemed just to make a statement about any of the things Bush was doing to mess with the Constitution by totally enlarging the power of the Administrative Branch. I would have liked a few rousing speeches at the time.

There were, I think, plenty of people like me who would have whooped and cheered just to have someone say something in Congress.

But the real disappointment was the lack of courage after 2006, especially in the House.

I remember the first meeting between Bush and Pelosi. As I watched video of it on t.v., it appeared she was acting sort of like a little PTA lady meeting with the principal of a school. I wanted her to show that she was going to be watching and speaking, since she is the Speaker.

That’s the main thing I am angry with Pelosi about. I do want a truth commission, as she seems to want, but I don’t want it to be just a witch hunt against the Repugs. I do want it to lead to a clear national statement about torture and a reprimand of some type to all who had a part in putting it in place, including the American public. Congress needs to be put on that list, too–Repugs and Dems.

There are so many things George Bush’s administration was guilty of, and everyone seemed to look the other way while he had his way.

I spent the day after the first bomb dropped on Baghdad curled up almost in a fetal position, knowing what a disaster was beginning to play out. I had the clear sense that many people thought I was crazy to have that reaction. I had people say to be that it really was justified, but when I asked why, even they couldn’t tell me why.

I remember–and here Fox was the worst–the horrible cheerleading on the part of the embedded reporters. Sure, you want to support our brave troops. BUT what in the hell were they doing agreeing to be embedded? How in the H*#L were they going to be able to be objective?

I didn’t like the way Daddy Bush controlled the media in little briefing rooms watching video game style films of the fighting and not being given access really for much else (Blitzer was the biggest boob at that time.) That was just as bad. We din’t learn of some horrible things that occurred during Desert Storm until long after it was over.

I watched the documentary The Control Room after the statue of Sadaam was pulled down with about ten other people in the audience of the local art theater. Boy did it show how staged the early part of the invasion was for the American public. How many other people in the U.S. bothered to watch that documentary?

Until the entire country wakes up, this type of inability to speak truth to power will continue.

Sadly as a recent retiree from the public schools, I don’t see the younger generation coming up having any knowledge or care to do it. The few kids who don’t like the power structure’s lack of ethical foundation are in many cases the ones who just don’t play along, drop out, and turn bitter and feel alienated and disgusted with society in general. They’re considered crazy or wrong-headed by most people, but I often thought they were the kids who were really doing some thinking about the nature of hypocrisy and truth.

There’s my rant!

http://! stodgie

diana, if there is a so called truth commission, you and every american will live to regret it deeply.

http://deleted Betsy Buzz Ross Latte

Yup. A truth commission is a possible entity that would be in the wrong hands in a heartbeat.

Not under Obama’s watch, no, no , no, no, NO!

TeakwoodKite

Ziggy can real information be non factual?
And in my best George Carlin voice…”How much do you need?”
or “Not knowing why the dogs didn’t bark, doesn’t mean they’re not a junkyard dogs.”

And lastly…who is “we”?

jbjd

Oh, you mean, like, ‘Our rules say our nominee has to be Constitutionally eligible for the job; and BO showed us his COLB from HI. How were we supposed to know that HI law allows a foreign born baby to obtain HI registration providing his parent is willing to swear she lived in HI for one year before he was born?’ (Now that this is ‘common knowledge’, what are they going to say in 2012?) (Doesn’t really matter; by that time, we will have changed state election laws or, prepared timely challenges to having his name on the ballot.)

http://! stodgie

nancy looks so patheticall stupid, i am appalled that a total idiot like that is speaker. i always get the impression the only thought that ever makes it through that webb of nonsenical thoughts in there is her thinking “aren’t i just so special!”
Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

One thing is for sure, you don’t call the CIA liars.
Quit fucking sticking up for this worthless, disgraceful woman! PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HONEST DON’T KEEP CHANGING THEIR STORY.

Diana L. C.

Or they can’t remember–I am serious about her possible dementia.

http://deleted Betsy Buzz Ross Latte

Nancy doesn’t remember having dementia or what the CIA told her. LOL!

Mandelay

Looks like any of the three story lines worked for the Democrats to win the 2008 election as long as they kept quiet and “went along.” After watching both sides spin the story lines, I would not trust any of the “truth” coming out of the “truth commissions.” These people have been in office too long. They are corrupt. Term limits in Congress — long overdue.
TexasMirth

Who else was present at the meetings in question besides Pelosi? What do they recall being said?

Why must we only rely on what is recalled by those who were present — are there not minutes of the meeting that would solve this mystery once and for all? If Pelosi is lying through her teeth, which I believe she is, based on the various versions she has given of what occurred, she should not be Speaker of the House. Period.
http://noquarter foxyladi14

honesty is always the best policy…honestly

ConfusedAmerican

Do you really think that Nancy understands the meaning of honesty….
http://! stodgie

honesty isn’t possible in dc!

I’m a Linda too

LJ wrote: At a minimum we have learned that Nancy Pelosi is dim witted

AND…that she will sell out anyone to protect and give cover to her ass. That includes our very men at the CIA doing work she would never do AND btw, doing what she and her fellow members did when they outted Valerie Plame. Played politics over national security, TWICE.

I’m betting it’s scenario number two as well, with some aspects actually tetering in to number 3.
Patience

I just saw Hal Holbrook in Mark Twain Tonight. When he said the famous lines about Congress he got roaring applause.

Pelosi’s demeanor indicates lying to me. Therefore I vote for Story 3.
Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

I vote for Story 3.

jbjd

Me, too.

Retired

My straightforward solution? Since Congresswoman Peolsi has clearly and unabmiguously accused career CIA officials of lying to her, she identifies that individuals who are liars. They come forth with their contemporaneous MFRs declassified, and the public gets to read them. It’s hard to see what those MFRs might contain that is still sensitive subsequent to the President’s release of the fourn DoJ memos. Then the public decides who is telling the truth.
Doc99

The Over-Under on Pelosi
justaguy

But Pelosi is pushing for a truth commission, something that makes it seem unlikely that this is an abject lie on her part. If it were, why try to open things up for greater public exposure?

That, and the fact that the CIA has already had to walk back statements that it made about briefing Sen. Grahm make me suspect that there’s more to this than Pelosi being cravenly dishonest.

http://! stodgie

pelosi isn’t pushing for a truth commission for herself. she plans to conduct it. geez!

TeakwoodKite

stodgie ya mean Nancy is really gonna see a proctolagist this time?

http://! stodgie

smile! all the proctolagists are booked for months, no for years in dc i hear!

smithy

I vote for story three. If it was story two she would have gone for impeachment.

Story three and truth commission – you will be absorbed from your sins if you confess the truth to the commission and you will receive no punishment as a result.
Jim Nelson

“But Pelosi is pushing for a truth commission, something that makes it seem unlikely that this is an abject lie on her part. If it were, why try to open things up for greater public exposure?”

It’s been a while since a “truth commission” was about getting to the truth.
cb

I don’t care what Pelosi was or wasn’t told. All of this is a diversion from the actual war criminals, Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfled et al. THEY are the Administration criminals that broke the law and engaged in torture. I’m sure Pelosi was briefed but so what? Don’t you get it – Congress had no power during Bush regime to do anything and they did nothing. It was a Fascist government. Put the focus back where it belongs, on Bush/Cheney. It would help if Pres Obama would allow the war criminals to be prosecuted; our Constitution and respect for international law is more important than his desire to get along with everyone and be bipartisan. Enough about Pelosi already.

http://! stodgie

cb, don’t start that bull here. and don’t try to whitewash pelosi. this is not a obama worship center. so what? hell fire cb, please get your act together and then come back. pelosi is a lying self serving nitwit who is putting my country at risk. well, yawn, sorry to bore you. i know american idol so much more interestinging so get back there and leave discussion to the growups.

TexasMirth

Enough about Pelosi already.

Sorry, cb, but she doesn’t get off that easy. And as far as a “Fascist government” goes…I think we are seeing that NOW with Obama far more than we ever have in the past. This guy is in a league all his own, and that’s where our focus ought to be: on what is occurring right now!
ziggy

You know why America might have trouble dealing with the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Because a couple of those truths are these:

A majority of American voters failed to see George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for what they were to begin with; and

They still failed to figure it out after a four year demonstration of unitary executive theory gone wild.

It’s easier for a lot of people to blame Pelosi than to face the fact that they, as voters, are responsible themselves.

Apparently fear trumps reason. Scare us badly enough, and we’ll pretend we don’t see when a president throws constitutional checks and balances and fundamental American principles straight out the window.
CG

The Man Who Knew Too Much?
A Convenient Suicide in a Libyan Prison

Little noted thusfar by the newspapers of record in the United States, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the al-Qaeda operative tortured for the United States by the Egyptian secret police, died in a Libyan prison this past weekend of what has been called a “suicide.”

For those who only vaguely remember al-Libi’s name, al-Libi is the al-Qaeda person picked up at an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and extraordinarily rendered to Egypt to be tortured at the United States behest. Al-Libi is the one reported to have linked al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein in a false confession that was the result of this torture that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases. President Bush used this “evidence” in a speech on October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati in his push to get Congressional approval of the resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq. Al-Libi later disavowed that “evidence,” but by then we were in Iraq. When the al-Libi torture was revealed, the comment was made that the people at the highest levels of the U.S. government (Condi Rice and Dick Cheney) did not doublecheck this “evidence” but took it at face value. Why? Because, this false confession was consistent with their vision of the world.

As former Vice-President Cheney continues his “torture apology tour” asserting that “torture works” in the way the French General Massu defended the torture he ran in Algeria during the Algerian War (nothing new under the sun for anyone with a memory), it is clear that the al-Libi case is a difficult one for these apologists for torture. Al-Libi’s false confession that was exploited as propaganda to lead us into the Iraq War confirms to us that torture works only in the sense that it breaks the person tortured. As has been repeated so many times, a person tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop. Tying al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in a false confession was al-Libi’s way to stop the pain.

But to have al-Libi say that in giving evidence in a criminal prosecution would be terribly inconvenient for many present and former operatives and members of the United States government. After all, al-Libi’s words found their way into former Secretary of State’s Colin Powell’s infamous presentation to the United Nations in the run up to the Iraq War.

In what had happened in his body and mind, al-Libi truly was the “man who knew too much.” That is why it is totally appropriate that Human Rights Watch has called for an investigation into the circumstances of his “suicide” in a Libyan prison. It is clear that having al-Libi truly disappeared is too convenient for too many people who have besmirched American honor in a perversion of rule of law that came from panic and improvisation.

Let us fully investigate how good old Muammar Gaddhafi got al-Libi into his prison system from CIA detention and what were the circumstances of al-Libi’s death. It smells of the “car accident” or “fell out the jail window” type of deaths that dissidents have had in other countries in Africa. Except this time, the person is an encumbrance from lawless leaders of America, not some tin-pot dictatorship.

If we insist, they will prosecute these lawless leaders. We need to insist. I am tired of the dithering and I am tired of these thinly veiled efforts to make evidence disappear and people disappear to hide their tracks. Bring light. Bring light and let the chips fall where they may.

Let us be clear. At 53 years of age, I simply never imagined I would have to write these kinds of things to Americans about torture by our government in my life. Torture under guise of “we do it to our soldiers in training” is torture. That torture is not just waterboarding, but the full panoply of actions that we are learning has been done to people in our names. Bring al-Qahtani out of his hole in Gitmo and let us see the before and after footage on him in case you doubt he was tortured. Moreover, an alleged common law defense of necessity as recently suggested by an author here would at best be very narrow. It is not the kind of broad necessity doctrine that would have the effect of making torture legal because someone can argue necessity. It does not work that way. Moreover, our treaty law would trump mere common law and thus such a defense.

They are grasping at straws (but they are powerful). Please stop the nonsense by high-level civilians and generals desperate to avoid prosecution. It is time they take the fall and not the grunts who did their bidding. Keep our honor clean.

Benjamin Davis is a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law
Dave

Pelosi is a moron, she couldn’t tell the truth if it was on a teleprompter in front of her. She is a vindictive Bitc*. Totally a waste of flesh. After the next election, we should be rid of the evil wicked witch of the west.
gumsnapper

A couple of interesting articles.

Did Rahm okay Panetta’s smackdown of Pelosi?
Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/05/what_did_rahm_know.html

And NYT finally admits it spiked story of Acorn/Obama connection:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/05/18/nyt-finally-admits-it-spiked-obama-acorn-corruption-story
Ladydawnelle

A better question would be Which Group is more LIKELY to tell you the truth?

I guess then it would depend on the question and the “mission” at hand.
sjc-tx

Just throwing it out for a question…, but…

What’s wrong with waterboarding?

ziggy

Nothing at all, once we accept that repeatedly putting a human being we’ve rendered totally helpless into a state of extreme physical distress and mortal terror is perfectly OK.

All we have to do to be OK with this is to get comfortable with the idea that we ourselves have become terrorists on the most personal level imaginable.

We can accomplish this by using the same convenient rationalizations that any terrorist uses: The persons targeted for terror are our evil enemies, and the end justifies the means.

sjc-tx

Hmmm.. First I would respond by asking , have you ever been waterboarded?

Second I will state IMHO, calling it ‘terrorism’ or us ‘terrorists’, is naive and shows a poor understanding of terrorism.

Thirdly, do you understand jihad?

Fourth, how old were you on 9/11?

ziggy

Nope, I haven’t been. Nor have I been subjected to the rack, thumb screws, or electrical shock. (Electrical shock might be a good alternative to waterboarding, since it can also be applied without leaving marks on the body or causing permanent physical harm.)

What I understand about “jihad” is that most people don’t really have a clue what the word means. It doesn’t refer primarily to warfare any more than “patriotism” refers primarily to warfare, although warfare can be motivated by either. I understand that radical Islamists and their dysfunctional interpretations of jihad represent a very real threat. I also understand that to some extent this has become the far right’s new boogey man, now that the menace of global communism is not such a credible menace.

I was 51 years old on 9/11. My illusion of safety wasn’t destroyed by that event because I didn’t have an illusion of safety to begin with. I was born in the shadow of WW-2. I remember seeing the first hydrogen bomb tests on television. During my childhood nuclear annihilation seemed like an any-day-now possibility. My family sweated out the Cuban missle crisis because my father was an Air Force major, a pilot, and still in the ready reserves. My own childhood ended with a year on the ground in Vietnam. It sometimes surprises me that we’ve lasted this long.

termo

“Story Two–The Bush Administration, with the participation of the CIA, told ranking members of Congress what it was doing to suspected terrorists on the condition that they kept their mouths shut. But they told them only broad outlines, steered away from specifics and the members of Congress happily agreed to the bliss of ignorance. They refused to ask questions that would give them answers they did not want to know.”

Then how did Jane Harman lodge a protest about waterboarding with the CIA if specifics were not being given? Great analysis.
QUEENIE

Don’t good lawyers always say..

DON’T ASK QUESTIONS YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO!!

That would be my bet on what Congress stuck to..they knew what the answers would be ..so they didn’t ask the right questions deliberately.

Same as the 9/11 commission ..they didn’t ask the questions that would have mattered to get the real truth..therefore ..white wash

If there is another commission and any dems are complicit ..does anyone here really believe we will get truth?????????

Truth lies with truthful questions.

We will never see truth with a commission..we never have and we never will!
http://www.igormarxo.org Igor Marxomarxovich

Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”

In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.
In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..
…..eventually they become same thing?!

I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org
Mr.Murder

Evidence presented by prosecutors during Libby’s trial has detailed Cheney’s role in directing Libby and others to selectively leak or declassify intelligence information to discredit Wilson, other administration critics, and the CIA, while defending the Bush administration’s actions.

One such instance was when Cheney — with the direct approval of President Bush — instructed Libby to leak to the press portions of a still-classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Such a disclosure, Cheney and Libby hoped, would prove that the CIA had provided the White House with erroneous intelligence. Later, Cheney directed Libby to leak portions of a highly classified CIA debriefing of Wilson upon his return from Niger — which Cheney and others mistakenly thought was a CIA cable.

The Times’ Miller testified that during a June 23, 2003, meeting with Libby — the first time that she said Libby had shared information with her about Plame — he “appeared to be agitated and frustrated and angry” about what he described as a “perverted war of leaks” initiated by the CIA against the White House.

The main justification for invading Iraq had been that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. But with inspectors unable to find any evidence of an Iraqi WMD program, the White House blamed the CIA for faulty intelligence. Senior CIA officials, in turn, said that the White House had often misrepresented accurate intelligence information.

It was during that volatile time, on July 6, 2003, that Wilson wrote his New York Times op-ed alleging that the administration had distorted intelligence information about Iraq’s purported attempt to procure uranium. When Cheney and Libby learned that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and might even have played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission, they perceived his allegations as one more effort by the CIA to shift blame away from the agency.

Four days later, on July 10, 2003, Mary Matalin, a senior aide to Cheney at the time, warned Libby that Wilson was a “snake” and that his “story has legs,” Deputy Special Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said in court at Libby’s trial.

The 2003 timeline is the problem, not Pelosi’s recollection. Go ahead. Push hard. Cheney tried to headhunt Congress over Sen.Shelby’s leak of the 9-11 intercepts, even though it appears Shelby was acting on their implied outcome to provide an opportunity in waging battles over airwaves for intimidative purpose.

Matalin then suggested a course of action, according to Zeidenberg: “We need to address the Wilson motivation. We need to be able to get the cable out. Declassified. The president should wave his wand.”

Two days later, on July 12, 2003, Cheney and Libby flew together to the Norfolk naval base in Virginia, where they attended ceremonies to christen the USS Ronald Reagan.

On the way home on Air Force Two, the two men sat alone in a front compartment as Cheney counseled Libby on what to say to the press. One bit of advice: Provide reporters with details of the CIA debriefing of Wilson’s Niger mission.

The vice president told Libby that the president had waved his wand.

Upon landing at Andrews Air Force Base, Libby and Cathie Martin, a press aide to Cheney, searched for a private room so that Libby could call Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters. Later from home, he also spoke to Judith Miller.

It was toward the end of conversations with both reporters that Libby told them that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, Miller and Cooper testified.

Before the trial, Cheney denied that he ever authorized anyone to provide information about Plame to the media — or that he even suggested such a thing. But FBI agent Deborah Bond testified that on the return trip from Norfolk, the vice president might indeed have talked with Libby about revealing Plame’s CIA connection to the press. “Mr. Libby told us he believed they may have talked about it but he wasn’t sure,” Bond told the court.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0215nj1.htm
Mr.Murder

The 2003 timeline is the problem, not Pelosi’s recollection. Go ahead. Push hard. Cheney tried to headhunt Congress over Sen.Shelby’s leak of the 9-11 intercepts, even though it appears Shelby was acting on their implied outcome to provide an opportunity in waging battles over airwaves for intimidative purpose.

<my words. The blockquote ended up placing my link in it instead of the comments from that link which follow this quote by me.

Apologies.