NYC Letter: Pants On Fire V

Day 95 of CHOPE

Let's start here:

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th) of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence], has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

SHE IS JUST THAT STUPID
Not Even Trying To Be Credible

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss (R-FL, 14th), who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

Ms. Pelosi, a seasoned legislator, does not believe that the law provides an adequate basis for enforcement nor that there is an inherent expectation of enforcement in the law itself. The missing sanction appears to be Ms. Pelosi's personal approval on any given day for any given law.* Barring that, it's just nice having this stuff on the books.

Here is Peter Hoekstra (R-MI, 2nd), ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

It was not necessary [for President Obama] to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Nancy Pelosi was fully briefed as to the legality and use.

And again, Mr. Hoekstra:

I believe — and I don't want to be disrespectful to the speaker of the House, but if she wasn't — if she believes she wasn't briefed or wasn't informed on these issues, it's clear she just wasn't paying attention.

And again, a less forgiving Mr. Hoekstra:

As for charges the lawmakers could have sought to cut off funding if they disapproved of the tactics, she noted that the Appropriations Committee ultimately has that authority.

But Rep. Peter Hoekstra, currently the ranking Republican on the House intelligence panel, described her comments as the "lamest of lame excuses," saying she could have gone to then-Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt to discuss her concerns.

"The minority leader has the same type of clearances that she has," said Mr. Hoekstra, of Michigan. "Guess what - so does the president."

... "Last time I checked, the appropriators were part of the House of Representatives," he said when asked about the intelligence panel's influence over funding decisions.

The public grandstanding on CIA interrogations is not about the legality of the methods. It is superficially about moral limits. (In truth it is a sloppy political genocide being waged by Democrats against the defunct Bush administration.)

Even granting Ms. Pelosi's disingenuous self-exculpation, why, as she concedes, during any of the briefings did she not raise an objection then that would attest to a foundation for her current objection? Ms. Pelosi:

But don't leave anybody with the impression that some of the things that they were doing, that there was something that was tacitly or in any way received approval from us because we were bound by our commitment not to speak outside the meeting.

No secrecy limit pertains to the briefings themselves in which Ms. Pelosi never once raised an objection, explicit or tacit. Nor did she explicitly or tacitly or kinda-sorta voice her disapproval.

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

But someone did object within the secrecy limit:

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA, 36th) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-FL) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-FL, 14th) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

... Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

How did Ms. Harman, who served in the same capacity as Ms. Pelosi and was subject to the same secrecy limit, manage to protest within the constraints of secrecy where Ms. Pelosi had no recourse but to squirm and curb her conscience?

In May 2007, four months after Democrats regained control of Congress and well after the CIA had forsworn further waterboarding, four senators submitted written objections to the CIA's use of that tactic and other, still unspecified "enhanced" techniques in two classified letters to Hayden last spring, shortly after receiving a classified hearing on the topic. One letter was sent on May 1 by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI). A similar letter was sent May 10 by a bipartisan group of three senators: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Hagel (R-NB) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Where in all this is Nancy Pelosi's classified letter of protest? Her sub rosa conscience?

Before we leave Ms. Pelosi, more double-talk:

And that really is not -- it is a bad idea [scil., secrecy], and for that reason some members don't even want to be briefed because they want to make the fight.

Ah, how do the members know to object to programs or actions disclosed in classified briefings without, um, attending the classified briefings?

Really. She is just that stupid.

CHOPE.

Stupid. Stupider. Nancy Pelosi.

------------------------------------
* Both sacred and profane.

Posted by Damian at April 25, 2009 08:45 PM