I call BS on the WaPo article and the distraction from the destroyed CIA tapes.

[ProSense]

The accusation from WaPo:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

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.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

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-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

The responses from Democrats accused according to WaPo:

Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.

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.

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.

"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. "I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly.

So McCain who sponsored that disastrous bill last year is given a shout out for having spoken out against waterboarding in private? WTF? The Internets is abuzz with stories about Democratic complicity.

From Andrew Sullivan:

Pelosi's response to the accusation is the weakest. Harman's the strongest - she claims she sent a classified letter in opposition in February 2003; Bob Graham says he was not briefed on the matter and mercifully now says that there is no doubt that waterboarding is torture. Rockefeller hasn't commented. At best, it seems to me, Democratic resistance to these war crimes was anodyne.

Here are recent comments from Democrats on Bush's torture program (made during the Mukasey confirmation debate):

Senator Leahy:

In refusing to say we do not waterboard prisoners, what do we do? We end up giving license to others. When the United States cannot state unequivocally that waterboarding is torture and illegal and will not be tolerated, what does that mean for other Governments? What comfort does that provide the world's most repressive regimes? How does it allow the United States, that hitherto has been a beacon for human rights, to criticize or lecture these repressive regimes that torture that way?

Some have sought to find comfort in Judge Mukasey's personal assurance that he would enforce a future, some kind of new law against waterboarding if Congress were to pass one. Even some in the press have used that talking point from the White House. Any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this President, a President who has not ruled out the use of waterboarding.

But the real damage in this argument is not its futility. The real harm is that it presupposes we don't already have laws and treaty obligations against waterboarding. As we know, when we enter a treaty, it becomes the law of the land. We have laws already against it. We don't need a new law. No Senator should, with any kind of clear conscience, abet this administration's legalistic obfuscations by those, such as Alberto Gonzales, who take these positions, or John Yoo and David Addington, by agreeing somehow that the laws we already have on the books do not already make waterboarding illegal. We have been properly prosecuting water torture for more than 100 years.

Vote for the nominee or vote against the nominee, but don't hide behind some kind of a cloak and say maybe we should have a law in the future. We have that law. This is as if, when somebody murders somebody with a baseball bat, they were to say: We had a law against murder, but we never mentioned baseball bats. Murder is murder; torture is torture. Our laws make both illegal, and our laws--but especially our values--do not permit this to be an open question or even one that depends on who is doing the waterboarding. We cannot say it is wrong when other countries do it but, of course, it is right when we do it because our heart is pure. That is a prescription for disaster. That is what heightens the risk to American citizens and soldiers around the world, and it gives repressive regimes comfort, and that is something I will not do.

I will not accept this fallacious argument. I will not accept this pretense that it is OK because we have not yet passed a law, when that has always been the law in the United States. It was in Theodore Roosevelt's day, it was when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after World War II for waterboarding, and it is today.

<...>

That is why I was so disappointed by Judge Mukasey's answers suggesting that he sees little occasion to check the President's power. I was disturbed by his insistence that, with regard to warrantless wiretapping and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the President has inherent authority outside of the statute and could authorize and immunize conduct contrary to the law. I fail to see a valid distinction justifying his assertion that the President could have the power of an executive override in the surveillance context, but not in the torture context, and I worry about where his reasoning could lead us.

PDF

Senator Boxer:

I have respect for Judge Mukasey's background, his dedication to public service, his reputation as a distinguished jurist, and as a good man. But when evaluating our Nation's chief law enforcement official, we must weigh far more than background and likability. Particularly now--particularly now--when we are following the disastrous tenure of Alberto Gonzales, particularly now, when we have lost so much more leadership in the world because of what is happening in Iraq, and, unfortunately, what has happened in Abu Ghraib, we need to look past likability and qualifications.

We must firmly believe our next Attorney General must always put his loyalty to the Constitution above his loyalty to the President. We have a President and a Vice President who have dangerously abused their Executive power and who have undermined the public trust. This is not a partisan opinion.

Listen to what John Dean, White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, wrote:

Not since Nixon left the White House have we had such greed over presidential power, and never before have we had such political paranoia. ..... History never exactly repeats itself, but it does some rather good imitations.

When an administration spies on its own citizens without a warrant, strips habeas corpus rights from those held by America, and fires its own U.S. attorneys for political reasons, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

When an administration thinks it can just ignore an entire coequal branch of Government, even using signing statements to reinterpret or disregard more than 750 laws that Congress has passed, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

When an administration silences its own officials, rewriting testimony, redacting testimony, shelving reports, refusing to let experts publicly speak the truth, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power.

I have seen this so many times with this administration. The latest time was with global warming experts whose truths the White House find ``inconvenient.'' And what did they do? They redacted testimony of the CDC Director, the Center for Disease Control Director, when we asked her to come before the Environment Committee of the Senate and tell us what would the health effects of unfettered global warming be. What would happen? The White House muzzled her by slashing her testimony. They gave all kinds of excuses as to why it was done. None of them were real.

Then, when I wrote to the President, and I said: Mr. President, we need to hear what Dr. Gerberding has to say about the impacts of global warming on the health of our people; Mr. Fielding, White House Counsel, wrote back: Oh, gee, we are not going to send you her original testimony you have asked for. Oh, no, that would be an abuse of executive privilege. Let me restate that: That would be an abuse of the separation of powers. And he asserted executive privilege. Imagine asserting executive privilege for something like the health effects of global warming. It is unbelievable.

So now we need an Attorney General who is going to be the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, not the one who is going to tell us: Oh, yeah, we just cannot do anything about it, Congress.

We need an Attorney General who is going to check this unprecedented abuse of power, not rubberstamp it.

<...>

Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law.

Waterboarding today is not a hypothetical. It is used in Burma against supporters of democracy. Waterboarding is an unconstitutional form of cruel and inhumane treatment. It is illegal under U.S. laws--from the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ``specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,'' to the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.''

It is illegal under international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, which are not quaint.

Those conventions prohibit cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment.

Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. Let me repeat: Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. What kind of statement are we hearing from Judge Mukasey ? Our law and our history are crystal clear, so why can't Judge Mukasey state in unequivocal terms that waterboarding is torture and that is illegal?

PDF

Senator Sanders:

For the last 6 years, it is clear that we have had a President who does not understand what the Constitution of the United States is about. What this President believes, essentially, is that he can do anything he wants, at any time, against anybody in the name of fighting terrorism. And he happens to believe the war on terrorism is unending. It is going to go on indefinitely. I think it is very important that we have an Attorney General who can explain the Constitution to a President who clearly does not understand it. Unfortunately, Mr. Mukasey is not that person.

In the last 6 years under President Bush, we have seen the National Security Agency start a program which allows wiretapping without first obtaining a court order, to my mind, in violation of the Constitution. We have seen personal records that have been extensively mined for data. How many millions? Who knows? Nobody in the Senate really knows. We don't have access to that information. It is massive amounts of data mining, in clear violation of the privacy rights and the laws of America under this President.

We have seen the phenomenon of extraordinary rendition, which has shifted detainees to prisons in countries abroad which allow torture. We have seen the firing and the politicization of the Office of the U.S. Attorney. We have seen detainees of the United States being denied the oldest right in the Western legal system--the right to habeas corpus. We are running a prison camp in Guantanamo where prisoners have minimal legal rights, which is an international embarrassment for us as we struggle against international terrorism. And we have seen many other assaults by this President on our constitutional rights and on the laws of this country.

We have a President who clearly does not understand the separation of powers; that the Congress of the United States is an equal branch of our Government; that the Judiciary is an equal branch of our Government; that the executive branch does not have all of the power.

<...>

I have heard some of my colleagues say, if we reject Mr. Mukasey , the President is not going to send us another nominee. That is the right of the President of the United States. But we have our rights as well. We have the right to demand an Attorney General who supports, strongly, the Constitution and is prepared to tell the President when he is acting against our Constitution. That is our right. It is about time we began to defend our right.

I can't blame the President for taking over the rights of Congress, if Congress is not prepared to stand up and fight back. I think that time is long overdue.

Mr. President, if you do not want to send us another nominee, that is your right. We have our rights as well. I will be voting against Mr. Mukasey . I hope my colleagues do as well.

PDF

In 2006, Kerry spoke out in opposition to the McCain, Warner, Graham bill on torture.

There are many Democrats on record who have spoken out about Bush's torture program over the past few years. As Kerry said: America does not torture. We know Bush does! So WaPo comes along and shifts the focus back to Democrats with this BS story. Why? This story has no relevance to the current discovery, which is the coverup of torture. Why would they destroy tapes showing them engaged in techniques that lawmakers saw and had no objections to? Reread the first few paragraphs of the the WaPo article again. What the hell does all that mean?The article claims the accused Democrats had no objection on that day to something the article vaguely reports, but then claims they've been objecting to it ever since. I call BS on this hit piece and diversion by the media. Let the investigation of this begin (and let the chips fall where they may):

Friday, December 07, 2007

Why'd They Do What They Did?

Marty Lederman

After all, haven't they learned from the experience of the past 35 years that it's not the crime but the cover-up that'll get you?

Yes, they have. Let's not lose sight of the big picture. This was not something they did on the spur of the moment. They vetted it with Rockefeller and Harman, for goodness' sake, and then destroyed the tapes after Harman urged them not to do so. And right after Judge Brinkema's orders started hitting close to home and Dana Priest broke the black sites story. (Check out this great timeline from emptywheel -- pay close attention to all that's going on in October/November 2005.) I retract what I said earlier: This was the CIA. They must have gotten DOJ approval (Gonzales, anyway) for the destruction. And the POTUS and/or VP, too. And all of these folks they knew full well what the fallout might be. And they knew about criminal laws involving obstruction. Most importantly, they were actually destroying what might be incredibly valuable evidence for future uses -- valuable for criminal trials, for intelligence investigations, for training purposes, and, most importantly, as a key tile in their vaunted, hallowed "mosaic" of evidence developed to construct an accurate story about al Qaeda.

And yet they chose to destroy anyway, after what must have been a lot of internal debate. Which goes to show that . . . the cover-up is not worse than the crime, and they knew it. Those tapes must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious criminal conduct. Conduct that would be proof positive of serious breaches of at least two treaties. Conduct approved and implemented at the highest levels of government.

Remember, this was late 2005. By this point, they all knew damn well that "the Commander in Chief has the constitutional authority to violate the Torture Act and the Geneva Conventions" would not be viewed as a very compelling defense. Worse yet, their other defense would have been: "A 35-year-old deputy assistant attorney general by the name of John Yoo orally advised me that this was legal."

Obstruction of justice, and the scandal we're about to witness, was a price they concluded was well worth paying.

Lawmakers didn’t object to waterboarding in ‘02?

The Washington Post reports that in Sept. 2002, a bipartisan group of four congressional members — including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — met to get a “first look” at the the CIA’s harsh interrogation practices:

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. <…>

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.

The Post reports the CIA gave about 30 private briefings between 2002-03 on its interrogation practices. Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) said “he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics.” In Feb. 03, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) filed “an official protest about the interrogation program.”

UPDATE: John Aravosis suggests the story was leaked by the Bush administration to embarrass Pelosi.

Congress Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

By: Nicole Belle on Sunday, December 9th, 2007 at 6:30 AM - PST

When I first read this report, I admit that I got angry. Then I got smart. Look carefully at the names named in this report. Isn’t it interesting that the WaPo reporters made sure to point out the Democrats in attendance when Congress was still operating under a Republican majority? Hmmm….who do you suppose could have leaked this story to the press to perhaps deflect from their own negative stories?

No matter how you slice it, there’s some serious ’splaining that needs to be done, but the lopsidedness of this article makes me more than a little leery of its accuracy.

more

Begin the accountabilty: torture, FISA and Whitehouse's revelation, Iraq and all the Bush admin's llegal activities of the past seven years!

[Perry Logan]

1. It is exactly so.

[blondeatlast]

2. No attributable direct quotes; unnamed witnesses?

Even the quoted Republicans disputed what was fed to them by the reporters?

Critical thinking fills the WaPo story so full of holes it just floats away...

K&R.

[gaiilonfong]

3. self delete double post n/t

[gaiilonfong]

4. Read Digby's analysis it is great.

She is one of the BEST writers in the blogosphere and is always fair.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/accomplices-by-digby-yesterday-on-cnn-i.html

[liberalmuse]

12. Very good article.

Pelosi was sworn to secrecy, but it was about an illegal policy being carried out by the Bush administration. Why didn't she use the power of her office (Congresswoman) to demand an investigation? Because she approved of the policy. Wow. What has happened to America when even the supposed opposition leaders are complicit with war crimes?

This may be a distraction, but we do know these Congress members were fully briefed on the interrogation techniques, yet kept silent. Therefore, it is a distraction that bothers me very much.

[creeksneakers2]

28. She couldn't call for an investigation because Democrats were

in the minority. If she tried to even bring the issue up in 2002 the GOP would have been all over her for protecting terrorists. She'd be stuck either saying she had no evidence of torture to begin with or illegally disclosing what she knew.

Pelosi did what she could.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among the lawmakers who attended the briefing, issued a statement on Sunday saying that she eventually did protest the techniques and that she concurred with objections raised by a Democratic colleague in a letter to the C.I.A. in early 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/washington/10intel.html

Pelosi should have objected sooner but the mob mentality quick conclusions drawn here on DU wrong too.

[sallyseven]

39. No you do not know that congress members were

fully briefed. You only know what the administration wants you to know. The Washington Post has been co-opted by the administration and Robert Woodward the sycophant bush lover. They are trying to CYA so they drag the dems in. Don't believe anything this administration says because it lies all the time. If you think that the dems are always wrong like many on this board do then try the repuk party. Notice they do not quote the repuke leaders that they claim were briefed.

[ProSense]

24. Well written yes, but

from the premise that the WaPo article has validity. The McCain mention alone is enough to question the motivation behind this article! To reiterate, this is nothing compared to the torture coverup. It's smoke to screen the Bush admin from direct fire. Did the MSM do a big investigative piece about the coverup today?

If I have to criticize the Dems, it will be about their hesitation to launch a full-scale investigation of Bush and his cronies on the issues mentioned in the OP.


Thanks for the recs everyone!

[KingFlorez]

5. Recommended

Good post

[Mojorabbit]

6. Pelosi declined to comment

Until she does I reserve my judgement but it does not look good that she did not immediately comment.
I will wait and see. I hope she did not approve of waterboarding.

[blondeatlast]

7. Have you actually read the WaPo story? I wouldn't comment on it either.

Full of hearsay, unnamed witnesses who won't speak on the record, and so conveniently timed with the tape destruction revelation--which W hasn't commented on--hm...

[Mojorabbit]

8. Yes I have

and if I were in her position and was being accused of this, I would have held a press conference saying it was a pile of shit if it was not true.

[L. Coyote]

10. "They lied to Congress, a direct CRIME." If Pelosi fed these TROLLS every time a hit happens,

California would need more acorns! And Pelosi ain't that nuts! But plenty of suckers are, so they just slide this BS out there so their ignorant lackeys have talking points and are prepared psychologcally, and with counter points, for the forthcoming, "They lied to Congress, a direct CRIME."

That will be next weeks revelation, mark my words. That is why this pre-spin is being flaunted.

[Mojorabbit]

27. It is the Washington post

and she is a politician. I am waiting for her statement.

[creeksneakers2]

29. The Times has a comment in another story

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/washington/10intel.html


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among the lawmakers who attended the briefing, issued a statement on Sunday saying that she eventually did protest the techniques and that she concurred with objections raised by a Democratic colleague in a letter to the C.I.A. in early 2003.

[Mojorabbit]

40. When was eventually

I wonder. I really really am hoping she took a stand against this.

[gratuitous]

9. The congressional delegation was given "a virtual tour"

As soon as someone can explain what in the fuck that locution means, I'll be happy to comment on the story. Do they mean "a virtual tour" in that they were shown carefully screened and selected films clips? An animated simulation? A presentation similar to Colin Powell's to the UN before Chimpy launched his invasion? And was the presentation in September 2002 (was it on the 11th, by any chance?) precisely what the CIA has been engaged in since then, since the U.S. launched hostilities against a country that didn't attack us and was no threat to us?

I call not just bullshit, but extreme bullshit. Mountain Dew-strength bullshit.

[blondeatlast]

13. Taht was my first clue. Hell, I just bought a new homw and took LOTS of "virtual tours,"

the reality was universally quite different.

I can't believe how DU is falling all over itself to hang our own when there is a massive administration cover-up occurring right before our eyes.

[blm]

11. Excellent work, as usual, ProSense.

The big named bloggers would do well to pay attention to your research.

[ray of light]

15. So would editors and 'journalists' too. Excellent post Prosense.

[blm]

23. heheh...I've just about given up on most 'journalists' these days.

Longtime employees at newspapers have been quitting like crazy lately - just as planned, imo. The conditions have been MADE worse for those employees who were in the news business for the right reasons.

[blondeatlast]

14. ONE MORE REC to expand some DU minds, people.

what we have here is an excellent example of the power of reading a news story critically...

[NanceGreggs]

16. WOW!!!

EXCELLENT post!!!

:kick: and REC'd!

[annabanana]

19. kickerooni!!. . . . . .n/t

[scarletwoman]

17. k&r -- thanks for all the good work you've done. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but I'm not willing to be

suckered by dirty tricks from the right.

sw

[gateley]

18. K&R --

[G_Leo_Criley]

20. Thank you ProSense -- K&R

:kick:

glc

[paulk]

21. k & r

:thumbsup:

[spanone]

22. You know what's amazing. this was the headline in our Nashville, tn. paper

the wapo story was headlined in my paper....Pelosi Knew....that's what it said.

like i've said. even if pelosi DID the torturing herself, it has no bearing on the tapes being destroyed.

[leftist_not_liberal]

25. Where there is secrecy there cannot be democracy

all the rest of this is picking fly shit out of pepper.

This ain't no democracy.

Secrecy is Never justified. It is just a tool of the ruling class.

And oh yeah, about those "tricks from the right" - that would presume there is actually a left in this country. There ain't.

It is a charade by capitalist millionaires all angling to protect their corrupt games.

Now back to the fly shit...

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Yesterday I predicted that the corporate media would tar Dems with torture to discredit the NIE

I know this makes no sense at first, so bear with me. If you can not discredit the message, you discredit the messenger. The NYT threatened to reveal a two year old story about how the CIA had tapes of torture session that it destroyed in 2005. In response the CIA had to reveal the story be true. The problem with this revelation is it put the Bush administration back in the hot seat again for ordering torture that was unethical and might be illegal and was certainly unpopular. Therefore, it was important to the WH to make torture a bipartisan issue. That was why I said yesterday we would see the media whores paint torture as a Democratic and Republican scandal. This would change the focus of any investigation and prosecution (the WH hoped) based upon its leak to the NYTs about the CIA tape destruction to the issue of obstruction of justice the crime for which Scooter Libby was convicted. This would eliminate any jeopardy for the WH, since only the CIA destroyed tapes. Harriet Miers told them not to.

If Congress aggressively pursued charges against the CIA for obstruction of justice, then the WH could portray the CIA as a corrupt lying organization more intent upon its own pr than protecting the nation.

Today, in the WaPo and in the NYT you can find editorials in which the two stories--NIE and the torture tapes--are already being spun into one--just as I predicted yesterday.

So, Pelosi is being media lynched by the WaPo as part of a NeoCon, Bush-Cheney effort to put Iran back on the table as a GOP political topic for the 2008 campaigns and so that they can start planning their war.

Here are the links:

Here is what I posted yesterday about what was being planned for the Dems:

The White House will be exonerated. The left wing bloggo-sphere will be convinced that Bush-Cheney got away with another crime, but what can you do? It must be the fault of the wimpy Democratic Congress. Congress will be pilloried in the press for knowing about it a year ago, but not doing anything about it. (By “not doing anything about it”, the press means not holding a loaded gun to the head of a NYT editor and forcing him to run the story before he felt like running it.) So, the public will be left with the impression that politics is a dirty, sordid business, and that Democrats are as corrupt as Republicans---which is exactly what the GOP wants Americans to believe.

Here is what I posted yesterday was being planned for the CIA and NIE:

And now, for the second and most important reason why the NYT and the White House wanted this two year old story broken now. If the CIA is discredited in public as a criminal enterprise, then the Republicans will be able to call the recent NIE a bunch of lies. Americans tend to see things in black and white. Early this week, Bush was a villain and the intelligence community was the hero. Now, the CIA is the bad guy. The press will be free to portray the CIA as a bunch of lawless rogues who do whatever the hell they please, based upon this one episode---and with their character reduced to an oil smear on the information highway, it will be oh so easy for the Republicans to convince at least their own base and a handful of Independents that you can not trust anything those spies do, even their intelligence estimates of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/105

We all know what was written about Pelosi (the most recognizable Congressional Dem today) in the WaPo

Now here is what the WaPo has in its opinion section today about the NIE and CIA

Hayden's appointment 18 months ago to replace the hapless Porter Goss, who replaced the devious George Tenet, began the chain of events that led to Monday's breakout of the analysts. The Air Force general immediately told associates that his mission was to reestablish the agency's credibility, which had been shredded by the failure to detect both that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons in 1990 and was not in 2003. That meant "low-balling" -- or being extremely conservative -- on intelligence estimates to restore confidence, Hayden remarked. Disclosures last week that the CIA had destroyed two videotapes of "severe interrogation techniques" being used on terrorism suspects show how far Hayden has to go and the need for a congressional ban on such practices.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/106

I knew what kind of propaganda was coming, because there was only one possible script these guys could be following with the story they were setting up.

If you can not discredit the message, you discredit the messenger. Remember this. It will help you understand a lot of what you read in the papers.

[candymarl]

30. I think this stinks

Remember how Pelosi said impeachment was off of the table as soon as she became Speaker? Why? No one had even broached the subject. We progressives/liberals were so busy patting ourselves on the back about a female speaker we almost missed that. Articles of impeachment have been introduced in the house by Dennis K. yet Pelosi has blocked them. Why? I'm an old time liberal and I ain't buying it. This may be a distraction about the destruction of the CIA tapes. If some Democrats knew about these tapes/activities in 2002/2003 why didn't they tell us? There is no law that says you must keep illegal activity secret. Jane Harmon (D) admits she knew about the tapes and sent a "strongly worded" letter to the CIA telling them not to destroy the tapes. Heck, us stupid rank and file folks knew this administration was lying from day one. The Democratic law makers in DC that were being locked out of meetings when the Repubs were in charge didn't? They believed the briefings, the same briefings, that ginned up the Iraq war/occupation? Either they are stupid or gullible. No one can swim in the DC cesspool that long and be that dumb. These are professional politicians. It's their job to know what's going on. It's their job to be skeptical. Yet they all forgot the lessons they've learned all of these years in the Congress and Senate? Please.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. "They all do it" and "Divide and Conquer" are two patented GOP dirty tricks

right out of their play book.

This WaPo article would be an excellent example to include in a textbook of GOP political propaganda since it is effective at Divide and Conquer politics. In this thread which is expressly intended to counter the 1001 Anti-Pelosi threads at DU today I have counted 4 different posters who have showed up to denounce Pelosi. That is Divide and Conquer in action.

And it is They All Do It, the insidious method which the GOP uses to excuse its crimes---if Abramoff bribes 20 Congressmen, the FBI raids one Democrat's office so the press can talk about a bipartisan climate of ethical corruption in Congress---and also to make Democratic voters discouraged and apathetic as in "Pelosi is just the same as Cheney" or "Gore is just the same as Bush" or "Hillary is just the same as Bush". Meanwhile, Republican voters are all told that Democrats are Satan incarnate, and so they hustle to the polls in disproportionately high numbers.

This story is a veritable Trifecta of GOP Propaganda, since it allows the White House to bring the issue of torture to the forefront without having to risk criminal prosecution or impeachment or public censure for itself, since it can use the "They all do it" defense now. Now, torture will mean only one thing---obstruction of justice charges against Dick Cheney's enemies, the folks at the CIA who sent his boy, Scooter Libby to jail on obstruction of justice charges.

[L. Coyote]

32. Finally getting around to this REC. Too many BS alerts.

If the troll works on overtime is any clue, this is a really huge story :rofl:

[autorank]

33. Quite a post. Read it all. There should be punishment of Bush-Cheney

and it should happen soon. Regardless of the motivation to release this material and the identity of those who released it, what happened happened, and everyone directly involved gets their share of the responsibility. The clear responsibility falls on Bush - Cheney and their henchmen. Those who agreed formally or by their silence have a lesser role. Party is not the issue. This is a national disgrace. The entire war effort is a burden that we will carry for decades. Look at my sign line picture to get one of the major dimension of the crimes committed, 1.1 million dead Iraqi civilians...due to this war. And then there are the inexcusable deaths of our own soldiers. "Who struck John?" or "how hard?" is not the point.

This will not lead to the punishment of anybody in the near term other than a few sacrificial lambs. Look at the torture scandal. Who was punished? Service people who were told what to do, that's who.

Why is that? Because so very much of this was endorsed by a majority of the members of Congress. If you try Bush-Cheney and company, a truly vile crew, you will have endless releases of information on the step by step endorsement of this and that effort. All that's really needed is the votes on war funding but there would be much more. How long would the accusers last given the counter attack?

It's a double bind from which the "rulers" can't escape and for which we continue to pay. Partisanship is important in the particular case. This is Republican insanity. In the larger cause of responsibility, it's irrelevant.

[Solly Mack]

34. "Let the investigation of this begin (and let the chips fall where they may)"

Agree


Members of my government are arguing over who knew what when about TORTURE.

About WAR CRIMES.

The whole BS game of who knew what when and who's more responsible or who is equally to blame is an admission of the torture and the war crimes committed.


Let's NOT overlook the admission inherent in all the bullshit going back and forth.

The CIA is saying they water-board (which IS torture and torture IS a crime against humanity and such IS a war crime) and that certain Democrats knew... and such 'methods' were part of the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that Bush and Cheney both brag about, support, and defend - and that the CIA also told them (Democrats) about their secret prisons...and that no one objected.

Bottom-line defense being presented by the those 'leaking' this is - if no one objected, then how could they have been doing anything illegal? - which leads to the parallel defense - If we (CIA) are doing anything illegal then so was everyone else who knew about it

The 'leak', meant to muddy the waters of blame, complicity and accountability, carries in it the admission of war crimes by the CIA.





I am beyond disgusted.

Like ProSense said - investigate (and prosecute) and let the chips fall where they may

[jonnyra]

35. The real distraction is this...

While we start yet another thread on yet another release of more incriminating evidence of crimes committed by our elected leaders we are all refusing to discuss the obvious...this nation is in ruin. The truth is whatever the corporate decides. The laws are made up as we go along by the criminals breaking them. The economy has been destroyed, our mfg base is gone, endless war and fear, religious zealotry, bigotry.

7 long years of this and no end in sight. We have no reason to believe any democrat other than perhaps Kucinich will really change anything. We were bamboozled by the dems in 2006 and have no reason to believe it will be any different if a dem wins the white house. We have no reason to believe the election will even be a truthful reflection of what the public wants...it will be rigged and fixed and tampered with and we all know it.

We are a nation in ruin. Our constitution means nothing. We have become a pig nation bent on consuming ourselves to death while our elected officials trample us into the muck trying to get to the trough. I dont give a shit who knew what and when anymore. It does not matter. The nation is ruined. Truth is gone. Thats the story...thats what we refuse to admit. Thats what we are being distracted from recognizing and speaking out about. There will another big story about more lies and crimes by our elected leaders and there will more threads with everyone trying to figure out the truth when in the fact the truth is this...this nation has been ruined by 7 years of right wing propaganda, rampant consumerism and religious bigotry.

Merry Xmas

[Richard Steele]

36. You make a lot of sense, ProSense. Rec #37. nm

[cartach]

37. When you cut through the

rhetorical bullshit, the main question still unanswered is exactly how and to what degree were they briefed? Was it a whitewash or the straight ,full facts? What would make anybody think they were fed anything but a whitewashed, watered down version of the actual by the CIA or been led to believe that the techniques had not been fully implemented as yet? There would have been too much risk of a protest if all the grisly facts had been laid out. Sounds to me like the CIA was testing the waters and at the same time feeding the minimum amount of information,not enough to upset anyone,but just enough so it could be claimed in future that full disclosure had been made.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Is this a diversion and distraction? Yes it is. But, they are war criminals too.

"enhanced interrogation" etc. I'm sorry but everyone in government who knew about the torture, regardless of the euphemisms used to not call it torture, is a war criminal if that person did not act to end the criminal behavior. Pelosi et al aided and abetted the Cabal in their war crimes. You can twist and turn and squirm and spin, and I agree completely that leaking this information was done by the Cabal to divert attention away from them, but the fact remains, unpleasant as it is, that our party leadership is wound up in this and that that explains, at least partially, why impeachment is off the table, why the investigations are going nowhere.

[fascisthunter]

41. Bingo

If people want things to really change for the better, they better be willing to place politics by the way side and hold their own accountable. Until then, nothing will change.

[redqueen]

43. That's how it seems to me as well. (nt)

[mogster]

42. Se also this analysis of the WaPo article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3813141&mesg_id=3814410

Putting pressure on Pelosi to keep up the heat on impeachment procedures is one thing, to demonize her as the torture queen is just not right.
We need to keep our hats on and hold the Republicans accountable for the political situation. They're getting away unscathed in that WaPo article :hi: