What if the CIA is telling the truth?

[MadHound]

I know, I know, it is a common, and generally wise practice, to doubt the veracity of the CIA. I'm not a big fan of theirs either, in fact quite the opposite. But I also know that when the going gets dicey, the CIA likes to go into CYA mode. That's why I think that there's the possibility that they're telling the truth, and Pelosi, and others knew way back in the day that torture was going on.

They've also got documents to back themselves up with, memos, reports, that infamous chart. There are even people, currently anonymous, who were in that room and have a much different recollection of events than Pelosi did. Hopefully they will come forward soon.

Yet what does Pelosi have? Not much, which could very well be why she's trying to make this into a "he said, she said" type of confrontation, since most people reflexively distrust the CIA.

But frankly the case for Pelosi not knowing isn't good. She doesn't have anybody really backing her up, nor does she have any records to back her up either. Her statement yesterday, while bold, was also very carefully crafted, almost lawyerly. I've seen that type of statement before, and so have many of you. It is the type of statement that can later be denied on a technicality. Bush and Cheney were masters at that, so was Nixon, so are many high caliber politicians.

It is plausible that she did know. She was ranking House Intelligence Committee member at the time, so it is logical that she would be one of the people briefed on the matter. She was certainly in the loop about all those polite euphemisms for torture; "harsh treatment", "extraordinary rendition" etc. etc. Not to mention that her aide, Sheehy was positively briefed on waterboarding five months later in February of '03. Are we going to try and claim that he didn't report back to his boss?

Which brings up this question: Is this why Obama and a Democratic Congress seem reluctant to get into finding out the truth? Are they afraid that their investigation would bring down people like Pelosi? Sadly, I think that is exactly the case.

Which leaves us where, exactly? Denying the truth because it concerns somebody with a D behind their name? Acquiescing to sweeping this whole sordid mess under the rug when just a few months ago we were, righteously and correctly calling for the full investigation and prosecution of Bush era crimes? I certainly hope not. I hope that justice still takes precedence over politics, and the truth finally comes out, consequences be damned. Otherwise this injustice will continue to fester and drag down our country, far into the future.

[NNN0LHI]

1. They already admitted they lied

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/senator-bob-graham-the-cia-made-up-two-briefing-sessions/

Senator Bob Graham: The CIA Made Up Two Briefing Sessions

Bob Graham just appeared on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show. In addition to repeating earlier reports that he was never briefed on waterboarding, Graham revealed that the first time he asked the CIA when he was briefed on torture, it claimed it had briefed him on two dates when no briefing took place.

I didn't get Graham's exact quotes (and the quotes below are rough approximations), but when asked to respond to Philip Zelikow's assertion that members of Congress from both parties had been briefed on this program, Graham said that when he asked the CIA when he had been briefed on the program, the CIA gave him the dates of four briefings, two in April 2002 and two in September 2002, when they claimed they had briefed him about the program. But after Graham consulted his own records, he pointed out that on two of those dates, he had not attended any briefing. After Graham pointed this out to the CIA, they conceded their own dates were incorrect.

Graham then went on to repeat his claim that he had no recollection of being told about waterboarding Zubaydah or anything else about extreme interrogation.

[MadHound]

3. Still and yet,

What about Sheehy's briefing? Do you really think that he wouldn't inform his boss, Pelosi, about waterboarding? OK, so she didn't know in Sept, 2002, but rather in Feb. '03. Big whoop, five months.

I think that this is why, despite her dramatic statements yesterday, she is taking extreme care to do the legal, hair splitting verbal dance. She knew, long ago, and yet still did nothing. That's the big, glaring point of this, not whether she knew in Sept. or the following Feb.

[Barack_America]

36. No "and yet", they admitted they lied.

They have been established as liars on this point.

If they didn't tell Graham (ranking member on the intelligence committee) after they briefed Pelosi, why would they have told Pelosi?

And isn't the real story here why Graham wasn't briefed?

[NNN0LHI]

39. The CIA admitted lying

If that isn't good enough for you there is nothing else I can say.

Don

[kentuck]

2. You should never put those two words in the same sentence..

"CIA' and "truth".

[MadHound]

7. Trust me, I know that far better than most people on this board

Still and yet, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and most politicians aren't paragons of virtue these days, Pelosi included.

[leftynyc]

12. Do you trust Senator Graham

who has backed up Speaker Pelosi? A man who writes down what he had for breakfast. I'd say you may have a point if you ignore Senator Graham.

[MadHound]

18. Frankly there are few politicians in D.C. that I trust

In fact about the only one I can think of is Kucinich. The rest, well, they're politicians, and they all have lied and bullshitted to get to where they are. As far as Graham's records, one can lie with the written word as surely as with statistics, and yes, that goes for the CIA as well.

I just don't want to see people jumping to Pelosi's defense for partisan reasons, and again, this is why we need an independent investigation into all of this.

[csziggy]

64. But Bob Graham has no reason to lie and no reason to come forward

At this point. He is retired. He is not planning on running for office again. He could have just stayed out of this whole thing and kept his mouth shut.

Until Graham came forward, I was doubtful of Pelosi but since Graham confirms that the CIA is misleading about even the most basic facts, I am tending to think she is telling the truth.

[MadHound]

68. She could be telling the truth, about this specific date, this specific briefing

But the fact of the matter is that her aide, Sheehy, was most certainly briefed on waterboarding five months later, and if you honestly think that he didn't tell her everything about this briefing, well, there's this bridge I've got for sale.

It is highly likely that at some point in that five-six month period Pelosi knew about waterboarding, and sadly she did nothing. Whether she found out in Sept or Feb is almost irrelevant, the fact that she chose to do nothing is what's relevant. Graham could very well not be lying, but that doesn't mean that Pelosi isn't.

[leftynyc]

75. I agree with that

This screams for a special prosecutor. That said, I trust Speaker Pelosi waaaay more than the CIA.

[Mrs. Overall]

4. Nice try. A sure sign of desperation when implicit trust is placed in the CIA

as opposed to the Democratic leadership.

Oh noes, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Gore, Carter, JFK, FDR--all might be lying, too!!

[MadHound]

8. Democrats haven't lied before in their careers?

Wow, if you truly believe that, I've got some fine swam-er farmland to sell you.

Stop allowing yourself be constrained by narrow partisan politics. With the exception of a a very few select people, nobody in power in D.C. is clean and pure, and they've all lied repeatedly.

[Mrs. Overall]

17. No, I've just finished reading various articles about the CIA fabricating information/meetings

in order to pin the torture issue on certain key Democrats.

The GOP has come out this morning backing the CIA (they are weaving a scenario almost as impressive as yours).

[MadHound]

21. So Sheehy's account about his briefing on waterboarding is a woven scenario?

Pelosi's own aide is lying?

It really doesn't matter whether Pelosi knew in Sept '02 or Feb '03, the point is that she knew torture was going on, and did nothing.

[Mrs. Overall]

24. At this point, there are so many conflicting reports regarding meetings and content

(Graham is an example), that until there is a full investigation and disclosure, I tend to trust the Democrats over the CIA.

[MadHound]

27. Which brings about the next point I brought up

Is this why Obama and Congressional Dems seem reluctant to pursue justice and get to the bottom of all this? So that they don't implicate some of their own? If so, then they are making a travesty of justice.

Again, it is confirmed that Pelosi's aide was briefed on waterboarding in Feb '03. Do you honestly think that he wouldn't tell his boss?

[Mrs. Overall]

35. I'm not sure exactly what Pelosi's aide was told, but I do know that the continued

focus on Pelosi shifts the attention from the masterminds and perpetrators of torture--especially the fact that more insiders are now saying that waterboarding had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with building a case for war in Iraq.

[MadHound]

49. I agree that we should keep our eyes on the perpetrators,

However we shouldn't allow those who should have spoken up, but didn't, get away scott-free. The "good German" defense doesn't apply just to Germans or Nazis.

Justice should be meted out to all, no matter their party affiliation.

[TwilightZone]

10. Agreed.

Some people are so desperate to hang anything and everything on Pelosi that they're willing to take the CIA's word over hers and over Bob Graham's.

They'd probably believe Dick Cheney if he said something bad about her.

Oh, wait....

[Winterblues]

16. Those are all politicians you listed and we all know politicians are the most trusted people..

They would never ever lie especially to save their own skin or political well being,.. NEVER..

[Mrs. Overall]

20. It's not about those Democrats never having lied--it's about trusting a CIA under Republican

leadership over the opposing party (Democrats) when potential war crimes/prosecution are on the horizon.

Oh, but it's more fun to bash the Democrats when the opportunity arises, isn't it?

[Winterblues]

26. There was a reason "Impeachment was OFF The Table"

I wonder what that could have been....:shrug:

[Mrs. Overall]

29. I think there is a mountain of things we don't yet know about the run-up to the war in Iraq,

and it wouldn't surprise me if some sort of blackmailing and deal-making has been going on. But, if given the choice of trusting the CIA under Republican leadership or the Democrats in congress, I back the Dems.

[NNN0LHI]

31. Let me take a wild guess on that one

We didn't have the votes to remove anyone so an impeachment would have only garnered Bush and Cheney sympathy after they were vindicated by the Senate? Could that be it?

Don

[Winterblues]

41. Yep that is why NO investigations at all to even see if it were warranted.

Right...that's the reason of course....

[NNN0LHI]

43. And if it were warranted? Then what?

Then Bush and Cheney both get cleared of all charges in the Senate. Is that what you wanted?

Don

[RandomThoughts]

5. Then we would not be in war in Iraq.

Although my comment does not use the same tense as your question.

Truth should come out. And your point about finding truth gets to the many issues of why a nation needs moral high ground, for things just like this. So that they can be believed when making an argument in a world where you never know for sure, because people always have to pick the best argument based on an assortment of reasons.

[madinmaryland]

6. At this point, I have no idea what Pelosi or any democrat knew.

I do know that the congress was control by the ruthlessness of the GOP in 2003/2004. I would not be surprised if the GOoP'er set some traps for the Democrats, in case the Democrats at some point in the future were to take over congress and possibly the White House. Remember the conditions of that time.

This to me really looks like a trap set by Tom Delay/KKKarl Rove/etc.

[MadHound]

14. I have no real idea,

And you very well be right about traps. However I also know that in the bullrush atmosphere of the time, Democrats like Clinton, Pelosi and others were getting stampeded right along with the rest(witness IWR, Patriot Act, etc. etc.). This could have been another one of those instances where a Dem was simply "keeping their powder dry" and going along to get along:shrug:

This is why we need a thorough, independent investigation into all of this shit.

[GreenArrow]

38. "independent investigation"

Just out of curiosity, and assuming there is some sort of Democratic culpability/compliance, who would be capable of running a truly independent investigation?

[MadHound]

50. There are plenty of well qualified people out there who could do that

Just as with any independent investigation. Get people who aren't and weren't connected to the events and people involved, that's all.

[GreenArrow]

85. well, who for example?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your OP; I just don't think there is anyone from either party who isn't either neck deep in the issue or has some other vested interest which would preclude their taking a truly independent stance. (There may be a handful, but they are the last ones who would be selected for such an investigation.) The last major investigation was the 911 one, which was a whitewash. I would expect the same thing in regards to this issue. There are simply too many fingers, red and blue, in too many pots.

[babylonsister]

9. Bummer, dude. Maybe Pelosi isn't at fault. Maybe the CIA is corrupt

and has their own agenda.

[MadHound]

22. Maybe so, I don't discount that possibility

I also don't discount the possibilty that Pelosi is in CYA mode, especially when her aide has said that he was explicitly briefed on waterboarding five months later. Do you honestly think that he kept his boss in the dark?

[Baby Snooks]

42. Or maybe they both do....

Sorry but veracity is running very short in Washington these days.......

[sandnsea]

11. And why we don't go after the war lies

Too many complicit Democrats. Pelosi needs to resign her Speaker position.

[GreenArrow]

40. torture is a corrolary to the war issue

and why nothing will come of this.

[spanone]

13. what if pelosi is telling the truth....it doesn't matter, the crimes were committed

[cali]

15. way to get distracted by the shiny object.

whatever she knew or didn't know, she's a sideshow. bushco is the main event.

[MadHound]

23. Ah, let's have justice only meted out to one party,

Even though both parties were possibly complicit in the crimes?

Nice partisanship there, quite Rovian as a matter of fact:eyes:

[cali]

55. grab a clue. it's not about party. the same is true for repukes

who may or may not have been briefed. it's about focusing on the culpable parties- and that would be those who authorized, developed and carried out torture. duh.

[MadHound]

59. Culpability is also not speaking out when you should have

If Pelosi knew that waterboarding and torture were occurring, and didn't speak out then, well, she's culpable and should be punished for her inaction.

[cali]

60. sorry, but there's almost certainly no legal culpabililty

if she was briefed on the possible use of eaterboarding. it's a tremendous and stupid waste of time to focus on her. pathetic as shit to see that DUers can be played so easily by the pukes. just pathetic.

[MadHound]

63. Sorry, but I don't find it a waste of time to focus on those who knew and didn't tell

If for no other reason than bringing them to justice would set a good example for those in the future. This was the reasoning behind the prosecution of "good Germans" post WWII, and it's still a sound reason now.

This isn't, and doesn't have to be a diversion. We can pursue justice against Bushco, Cheney, and all others who either authorized, approved, or simply knew and did nothing about the torture that was committed in our names. The dead and tortured around the world demand this justice, and we the people need to see justice served in order to reclaim our name and place in the world.

[cali]

66. you're being played. it's sad to watch. n/t

[MadHound]

69. You're saying that I'm being played? That's a laugh,

Especially considering that you've lost all sense of perspective and reality since Obama came into office. You are willing to accept anything, excuse anything, ignore anything, so long as it's either said or done by somebody with a D behind their name. I used to respect and admire your logical and clear headed thinking, years ago. But no more, because you've more than demonstrated that you no longer possess either logic or a clear head when it comes to politics. You have become that which you, so long ago, hated, a partisan hack, willing to excuse anything, including war, torture and death just so long as it has a Democratic brand on it.

You think I'm being played? Go look in the mirror if you want to see who's getting played.

[cali]

71. do stop making shit up. it's pathetic.

I hardly support anything Obama does and I've been quite clear about that. I've criticized him on any number of issues and appointments icluding, of course, the blocking of the photos. Bestir yourself and use the search engine, sweetie.

Sorry you're full of it. And yeah, you're being played. Hardly a surprise. You're not in the least logical or able to analyze any given political situation.

[MadHound]

80. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

OK, I'll be nice and leave you with your delusions. Besides, I don't have the time to write the opus it would take to document what you've become.

"I hardly support anything Obama does," :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

OK cali, whatever you say:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I think I'll move on from here since talking with you has become so counterproductive.

[cali]

84. facts are facts, madhound.

of course you can't deal with facts so you won't do a search, but I've got quite a few bones to pick with Obama. That's just factual. too bad you can't deal, honey.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

19. The CIA

is the same organization that provided pre-invasion intel (supposedly) to W and gang. We know how accurate that was...........:shrug:

[MadHound]

25. And the Congressional Democrats are the ones who went along on issues such as

The IWR, the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, etc. etc.

Frankly virtually nobody's hands were clean at that time.

[anigbrowl]

76. Hmmm...no.

What you're saying here is that the it's CIAs fault we're in Iraq, and W and his gang fell for a deception carried out by the CIA. In other words, it's not the fault of W & co, it was the evil CIA that made them do it by scaring them with false intelligence.

How quickly we forget. Back when Bush was president, National Intelligence Estimates were published (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/sprj.nirq.tenet.wmd/index.html) which often showed that the CIAs risk assessments as far more cautious and nuanced than the administration would have the country believe. The public release of a new NIE was eagerly awaited by folks on the left because in many cases it provided evidence that W & co had twisted the truth to suit their own agenda. We complained loudly about the fact that people like Valerie Plame were outed as CIA employees for political ends.

The CIA is in the spying business. Someone has to do it and I have no problem with the US having a part of the government devoted to espionage and intelligence gathering. If you don't think that's a legitimate function of government then you're living in la-la land, every country of any significance has an intelligence corps, just as it does a diplomatic corps. It does not follow that because much of what the CIA does is secretive, they must be Bad Guys. However, the CIA has already been hauled over the coals (rather unfairly, I think) for the quality of their intelligence pre 9/11 and before invading Iraq. There is no particular advantage or benefit for them in starting a fight with the Democratic party. I do not believe in these tinfoil-hat assertions that they are some kind of shadow government or suchlike...which assertions always seem to come from the people who make the least logical arguments and the least effort to back them up with quality sources, but just treat the CIA as one of many bogeymen who are convenient to blame for everything from the weather on up.

The GOP would love for us to get into a lather of 'was it Pelosi at fault or the CIA', because either option would let the administration off the hook. The CIa still has housecleaning to do. At the same time, I'm not convinced that Nancy Pelosi was innocent of all knowledge because if people on DU or other places were speculating about torture (which we were, at the time), then she surely had at least as much information as was available to an ordinary interested person, not to mention the power to dicover much more. It is very possible that she hid behind procedure to avoid taking a public stand rather than put her own career at risk.

In the final analysis though, it was W's administration which sought legal opinions on torture and then authorized its use. Trying to load blame on the CIA because they are currently disagreeing with Pelosi over exactly who knew what when is like blaming the mailman for delivering a letter you didn't want to receive.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

89. It is never in the

best interests of the CIA to tell the truth.

[JitterbugPerfume]

28. Personally , I believe Pelosi

The Bush administration was known for excessive secrecy and keeping Democrats out of the loop . This should be a secret to no one

I say let the investigation begin , and the chips fall where they may. At any rate she was pretty helpless to do anything about it.

[babylonsister]

30. Who are you getting your talking points from, Kit Bond?

GOP backs CIA in dispute with Pelosi

By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Republicans are rushing to defend the CIA after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the spy agency of misleading her and other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding during the Bush administration.

The issue of what did the speaker know about the interrogation method - and when did she know it - has deepened the fault lines between the two political parties. Pelosi was unequivocal about a CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

"We were told that waterboarding was not being used," the speaker said Thursday. "That's the only mention, that they were not using it. And we now know that earlier they were." She suggested the CIA release the briefing material.

Pelosi vehemently disputed Republican charges that she was complicit in the use of waterboarding, and she suggested the GOP was trying to shift the focus of public attention away from the Bush administration's use of techniques that she and President Barack Obama have described as torture.

On Friday, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee contradicted Pelosi's claims and questioned her criticism of the nation's spy operations.

"I think it's a tragedy that we are seeing this massive attack on our intelligence community which has kept us safe," Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show where he questioned why Pelosi was "going after the agency and calling them liars."

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PELOSI_TORTURE?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[NNN0LHI]

32. I have been wondering that for a while now

[MadHound]

48. Why are you putting your blind faith in a politician who, just a few years ago,

Even you were lambasting? Does the CIA lie, sure, do politicians lie, most certainly. So don't put your faith in either one and instead call for a full, fair and open investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. What if?

Pelosi and other Dems who *knew* about illegal activities may eventually be prosecuted and/or forced from office in disgrace. But anything like that doesn't deserve to happen UNTIL the key members of the former Bush (mis-)administration have been thoroughly investigated and prosecuted as well. After all, if Pelosi, et. al are prosecutable due to simply being parties to a few select briefings by the ultra-secretive and Democrat-hating Bush (mis-)administration and hearing something or other about ILLEGAL activities, well, that kind of means that illegal activities were occurring and that members of the Bush (mis-)administration were responsible for them, right? The GOP's ONLY purpose in all of this is to distract our attention from what THEY WERE DOING, WHAT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR! We'll clean our house if and when we need to but the focus right now NEEDS to be on the people whom planned, authorized, and implemented such activities NOT on who might or might not have *known* that illegal activities were going on. The GOP attempts to distract/divide us from what THEY support(ed) seems to be working quite well if DU is any indication.

[Mrs. Overall]

37. Good point.

[plcdude]

44. exactly

I am for "let the chips fall where they may" but the point is there is difference between those that "made it so" and those that "let it be so". One is the perpetrator and the other is the accomplice. In order to determine who were accomplices one needs first to formally establish who were the perpetrators. So let's get back to the proper order of events here.

[opihimoimoi]

45. If Nancy goes, so do the BushCo

[Caliman73]

54. I agree with that too.

Investigations into any possible wrong doing from either the Executive branch, or Legistlative branch Republicans or Democrats need to happen. I am with the notion that you start at the top and at the people most visibly responsible for the decisions to torture. That seems to be the former president and vice president. After you get the big fish, you move on to those who knew about it and did nothing. Allowing the Republicans to dictate the tone of these proceedings is going to cost the Democrats. We should be the ones that are calling for and starting investigations. It should have already been happening.

[newspeak]

46. this is nothing but a fekkin side show

For those with short term memories, let's look at what happened after 9/11. Remember the anthrax attacks on two Democratic congressmen? Remember the complete shut out of Democratic congresscritters, while the media was playing their pro-*, rah rah rah, if you're not for the president then your with the terrorists? So some Democrats knew what was going on and told they couldn't say anything because of national security. I can see it now, at that time, a Democrat stating we're torturing people, we're going against international law and the complicit media either staying silent (not giving said Democrat a soapbox) or playing their master's talking points--this Democrat was supposed to keep their mouth shut-they're threatening national security--it's treason, I say, treason.

This obscene diversionary tactic is being enabled by the media--it doesn't matter if a Dem knew, what do you think at the time they could have done about it? Maybe, you don't realize how really dangerously corrupt the previous administration was and how far they would go to get their war on? I mean they were willing to break international law just to find a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida so they could loot the oil fields. They were willing to out a CIA agent and a whole network, to further their ME pipe dream. Taking out a few Democrats with the help of the media would have been a piece of cake.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Even without saying anything and "playing nice"

I recall that the Democrats were VICIOUSLY smeared for even the MILDEST criticisms of Bushco back then. I remember vividly the ads the Republicans ran featuring pictures of Democrats morphing into or somehow associated with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during the 2002 election. Remember Max Cleland? "El Diablo" Daschle? Dean? John Kerry? It was REALLY *dark* for us during THOSE days!

[MadHound]

51. If that is indeed the case,

Then you're making a bullshit excuse for gutless wonders. What you are positing is simply another variant of the "good German" defense, and it's just as inexcusable now as it was then.

[newspeak]

53. No, I'm not

if you think that the * administration wasn't a dangerous adversary and apparently still is, then you need to look at what was going down at the time. When a hearing on the Downing Street memos was convened in the basement because the Repukes had shut them out and only C-span gave attention to those hearings-how many people do you think actually took note? A hearing proving that we were LIED into Iraq--a war that put our soldiers in harms way and destroyed thousands of lives. Where's the outrage of the general public? Maybe you need to read about what happened to the "good Germans" that fought against Hitler and how many of those "good Germans", especially in parliament were eliminated? Why don't you let me know how Pelosi was going to get her message to the mostly complacent "good Americans" about the atrocities that were being done in our name? You actually think the media was going to give her time, especially when nationalistic fever was upon the general populace and let's face it, it was and still is *'s media? Actually, I believe she didn't know at the time the cabal was torturing attempting to connect Iraq with Al Quaida--she probably did know when *'s legal team was trying to put a legal face on it.

But, hey, let's divert attention from the REAL culprits. The Repukes sound like a bunch of three year olds--"well, I did it, but Sally knew about it and she didn't tell mommy so she's really at fault, not me cause she knew."

[MadHound]

62. You're letting paranoia run away with you

Do you honestly think that the Bush administration would have killed Pelosi, a sitting member of the House and ranking Dem member of the House Intelligence Committee if she had brought out the fact that torture was happening?

And frankly, even if that were the case, it still means that she's a gutless wonder. Sorry, but many many people have put their lives on the line to see justice done. It's called courage of your convictions. M.L. King had it, Malcolm X had it, many others have had it. If what you're positing is true, then Pelosi certainly didn't have it, she was simply being a "good German".

I'm not proposing to ignore what Bushco did, what I'm saying is that everybody, Bush, Cheney, and anybody who knew but remained silent, all need to face justice. The dead and tortured at Gitmo, Bagram, and elsewhere demand it.

[moondust]

52. Cheney's CIA?

The "Slam Dunk" CIA? The same CIA that had no new intelligence about WMD in Iraq since the mid 90s because there were no WMD programs there since that time or before?

No lie is too big to tell in Cheney's world and the CIA was working for Cheney.

[bottomtheweaver]

56. What if terrists really did demolish those mammoth money losers in Manhattan?

I can tell you for a fact: they didn't. The CIA is a propaganda function of big business, just like the GOP, and both of them depend on saturation propaganda for their continuing existence.

So put that thought right out of your head. They aren't, and they don't.

[MadHound]

65. I little clarity in your post would go a long way

What the WTC discussion has to do with this discussion, I don't know, and your rambling isn't easy to follow.

[bottomtheweaver]

72. What I'm saying is that lying and obfuscating criminal behavior, including its own,

is what the CIA does. Forget the propaganda about heroic spies. The CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" are a propaganda function of big business, a.k.a the MIC, a.k.a. corporate America, whatever you want to call it, and that's leaving out the covert operations like that business in lower Manhattan.

So, no, the CIA cannot be trusted, ever. Period.

[MadHound]

82. Thanks for the clarification

I'm not saying trust the CIA, in fact I think that I stated in my first sentence of my OP that I don't trust them. But they do have a certain predictability factor, an M.O. if you'd like, and this smells more like they're actually telling the truth on this one, and that they did indeed brief members of Congress on torture, if for no other reason that to cover their asses. They knew what they were doing was wrong and they wanted Congress to sign off on it.

[bottomtheweaver]

88. The only predictable MO the CIA has is twisting the truth to cover up its crimes.

As I said, you have to forget all that stupid crap about good spies and noble CIA motives. They are a bunch of liars, crooks, and murderers and Truman should NEVER, EVER have signed them into existence in 1947 because the whole concept is grossly illegal and unconstiutional.

Repeat: the CIA is an unconstitutional, un-American, illegal, and grossly criminal thug operation and should be abolished. JFK said that very clearly in 1963 and he was right.

[Cetacea]

57. I guess Bob Graham is lying, too?

http://www.friedpost.com/us/bob-graham-said-cia-gave-him-false-information-about-interrogation-briefings-796.html

[LeftHander]

58. I call this post spreading FUD. nt

[walldude]

61. With Bob Graham coming out I am more inclined to believe him

but I have been saying this and I'll say it again. Prison for the guilty and the Unemployment line for the quiet and complicit.

[ohheckyeah]

67. Regardless of what

Pelosi did or didn't know the Republicans and the Bush administration OWN the torture. This is just another spin attempt to take the heat off the Republicans.

Pelosi certainly isn't my favorite person but if she knew and had spoken out they would have ruined her. Not many politicians unfortunately have the courage to stand up and fight.

First it was "we don't torture". Then it was "enhanced interrogation techniques." Then it was "waterboarding isn't torture." Next came "ok, but it worked". And now it's "Nancy knew." Let's not be distracted from the real issue...the Bush administration instituted, enacted and defended torture.

[MadHound]

70. Nowhere am I stating that we shouldn't pursue justice in regards to Bushco,

I've been wanting that to happen for the past eight years. However I'm not willing to overlook complicity simply because it has a D behind its name. If Pelosi knew, then she should have spoken up then. If she knew, her silence helped enable the death and torture of many others, which she could have helped prevent if she had simply spoken up.

Where would we be today if this torture debate had taken place in '03? Hmm, fewer people dead, Bush impeached, Kerry in the White House, out of Iraq. All of these are possibilities, in fact probabilities. Actions have consequences, so does inaction. Pelosi should suffer the consequences if she simply stood by and did nothing.

[cali]

73. you're being an obedientt little dupe of the pukes.

spending all your time following their cues.

[MadHound]

78. And you have, sad to say, become irrelevant

Have a great day, and if Pelosi does go down, don't say you weren't warned. Now back to your normally scheduled cheerleading, already in progress:eyes:

[cali]

81. ok, now you're going from pathetic to absurdly pathetic. get a grip, dear.

[anigbrowl]

77. I'm with MadHound on this, and I don't think he's being a dupe at all

I attach the bulk of the blame to W's administration, which authorized torture, engineered the invasion of Iraq, and so on. However, I think we also need to be willing to examine the Democrats' role - in addition to, not instead of, the Republicans'. I don't think Pelosi is guilty of anything with legal consequences, but I do seriously wonder if she chose to hunker down and play careful politics when it would have been more effective and more just to stand up in public and call the GOP administration's bluff. If that examination brings her political career to an end, so be it.

I find it very hard to believe that all Democrats in Congress were so out of the loop that they had no clue anything illegal was going on. For that matter, even after the pictures came out from Abu Ghraib and so on, they played along with the 'few bad apples' approach rather than pinning the responsibility on the administration and tabling an impeachment motion when the political winds were blowing in their direction.

[ohheckyeah]

86. Are you forgetting the atmosphere

of the country at that time? If Nancy Pelosi had spoken out they would have called her a liar....they weren't going to admit it and roll over. Please, she would have been labeled unAmerican, unpatriotic terrorist lover and they would have destroyed her political career. And the pukes would have continued doing what they were doing. It wouldn't have made one damn bit of difference. This is nothing but a bunch of bullshit to divert the blame.

[Spazito]

74. Gosh, that is the equivalent of saying "what if the earth really is flat?"...

I know, I know, it is a common and generally wise practice to doubt the Flat Earth Society. I am not a big fan of theirs either, in fact quite the opposite. But I also know that when the going gets dicey, the The Flat Earth Society likes to go into CYA mode. That's why I think that there's the possibility that they're telling the truth, and the Ancient Greek scientists and philosophers knew way back in the day that the earth was flat.

Both your opening statements and mine are equally ridiculous, imo.


For someone who is "not a big fan of theirs" (CIA), you have put up a VERY vigorous defense while excoriating Pelosi, Obama and the Democrats. I find that fascinating to say the least.

[MadHound]

83. So you really think that Pelosi could be an innocent victim in this

Please, she's a politician, pull my other leg. Like all good politicians, and bad ones as well, Pelosi lies by reflex.

Tell me this then, do you honestly think that Pelosi's aide, Sheehy, wouldn't inform Pelosi that he had been briefed on waterboarding back in February '03?

There are lots of things to find fascinating around here. Watching people who were once fully committed to justice for all, no matter the cost, all the sudden go quiet when justice could very well be visited on one of their own is, sadly, fascinating to watch.

[Joanne98]

79. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[MzNov]

87. And HOW MANY visits did War Criminal Cheyney make to the CIA?

at these times in question??

He was at the CIA every time we turned around! He knew all of this would come out and he fixed up the documents very nicely to suit the Bush Crime Family's lies.

This is just unbelievable. I can't stand Pelosi, and she's not totally innocent of anything, but Cheyney's CIA is still in control and they've set her up quite nicely.

OBAMA, get rid of Bush's CIA operatives and Bush's U.S. attorneys, NOW !!!