- ‹ previous
- 1079 of 2798
- next ›
Pelosi: CIA Lied about Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi fights back against news reports that she was briefed on the torture of CIA prisoners in 2002:
In her first public comments on the matter since an intelligence report contradicted her recollections, Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters today that she was never told about the fact that waterboarding had been used on a terrorist suspect, even though terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded a month before she was briefed on the subject in Sept. 2002.
“The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed,” Pelosi said, reading from a prepared statement. “Those briefing me in Sept. 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.”
Game on! Two questions, though. First, why did it take you a week to remember this? Second, what about reports that one of your aides, Michael Sheehy, was briefed about waterboarding in early 2003 and passed the news along to you? Any comment on that?
UPDATE: Actually, it turns out that Pelosi did address the Sheehy issue. Details here.
She did address the aide briefing
She said her aide told her five months later that it had come up in an intelligence briefing, the committee she was no longer on. In effect, she was briefed on the briefing five months later.
Doesn't seem like a huge
Doesn't seem like a huge mystery or have a lot of relevance. They likely told her a lot less than they should have and, even if they used the term water boarding, to be briefed in this way is not remotely the same as democrats consenting to these activities. The most she could have done was file a sternly worded protest away in some executive branch archive.
This "democrats are culpable" distraction is a red herring which turned into fish fertilizer a long time ago.
On the other hand, we might actually learn something if they investigate Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the lawyers.
She just can't put down the
She just can't put down the shovel, can she?
kevin
Michael Sheehy wasn't her aide at the time he was briefed. See evie above.
Really annoying to keep seeing mistakes like this about the issue.
AS IF
Let's say that someone is lying, since we have two polar opposite claims, one side said she was told, the other side claims she was not.
So what? Does telling Nancy Pelosi that terrorists are being tortured somehow exonerate the Bush Administration from ordering torture?
OK, Pelosi is guilty of complicity. No problem. When do we start criminal proceedings against those that ordered torture, and then those that carried it out those orders.
Let them tell their story in
NurembergThe Hague how they were only carrying out orders.George W. a criminal?
No... say it ain't so!
LOL
Let's clear our a few Marijuana smokers from prison to make some room!
Some Questions
May be because I have not read enough regarding the details of this entire thing, but I am left with a couple of basic questions.
It seems the CIA has tried to incriminate key Democrats on torture. With Democrats in power, why, particularly when it appeared Obama was trying to disappear the issue for the CIA anyway and Cheney was a perfect fall guy for the entire historical episode?
Did the Obama administration expect Pelosi to remain mute since he is a democratic President? In other words, was this a serious political miscalculation?
If Nancy Pelosi is not being completely up front regarding the CIA briefing (or really, the lack there of), why? Is this a serious radioactive issue with her constituents (and she thinks the CIA does not have any goods they can reveal) or is there something else, like the ability to fight back now she is in a position of power, whereas before she was not?
Regardless, these developments do seem interesting.
Consider the source.
Perhaps this is 20/20 hindsight making things look clearer, but the mere fact that the Bush* administration admitted anything at all; not only to Congress, but to Democrats, must have been the absolute minimum that they felt they needed to disclose, and the assumption should have been that there was much more to the story. For certain, the fact that she would be reluctant to drag herself into any future investigation played into any disclosure that Bush/Cheney made, and if it can be done without serious collateral damage, she might consider taking one for the team.
What now?
It looks like we're back to square one in a sense. Obama doesn't want to deal with it because he's busy with other things. Holder would probably go along with that. Congress certainly can't investigate.
So, that leaves a special investigator and, if anything is referred for prosecution, a special prosecutor.
Will Republicans allow that? Who knows.
Resign
tagged as:- solution
90% of the country knew that water boarding was be used and that it was torture, bless her heart she was one of those 10% that didn't get the word. If she is that easily fooled and lied too, she should resign now. We need a speaker that above all else will not lie to us and has what it takes when she screws up to say so, loud and clear Not one that will run and hide and spread all this BS about how its not my fault. Do something for your country for a change, resign.
why is the question even
why is the question even about Pelosi?it should be about whether or not torture was used,who OKed it,and who carried it out.this is typical Republican strategy-turn things around and ignore the real issue.the sad part is,it usually works.