What Two Officials Informed WaPo About Pelosi? Bush Gets Heat & All Sudden DU'ers Trash Pelosi

[KittyWampus]

on the basis of ANONYMOUS info pushed by the WaPo.

Some two officials.

Now who would benefit by having Pelosi and other Democrats trashed and BLAMED at the same time Bush and the White House come under scrutiny for torture?

How convenient for Bush.

How gullible and READY some DU'ers are to trash any Democrat.

[rodeodance]

1. and this am Fox news said it was Dems that pushed for even harsher tactics!! now how

did this come to be--chris wallace sun show

[FVZA_Colonel]

13. It's hard to believe that even Fox News could make the inference

that the two people who pushed for harsher tactics had to be Democrats.

[L. Coyote]

2. Unless, of course, they just made up the part about the two officials! Plus, who cannot see

through such total BS. The authors even included the disclaimer in the last sentence, to be sure to clarify that the front-loaded inferences were in fact BS.

"In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it." "

BULLSHIT ALERT: This story is not what it is presented as on DU. Just the opposite.

This is a propaganda piece, probably engineered to aid a cover-up of CIA failing to comply with the law and fully informing Congress of their war crimes. Now, that is easy to believe!

Read the whole story before you buy the bullshit Pelosi bashing. Excerpt:

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.

[KittyWampus]

3. Thanks for the further input. It's times like these DU needs to get a grip and examine

how info is presented and processed here.

When I say "Reactionary Screamers" it's not meant as an insult but a descriptive epithet.

[L. Coyote]

4. If you are not FOOLED by the M$M propaganda, REC this thread and others

and IGNORE those who are selling the Pelosi Snake Oil of the Day BS.

Kick and Rec this counter punch too:
Feingold: "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented
Dec-09-07 by L. Coyote


The WA Post article places a lot of SPIN up front, and gets to the facts in the last line:

In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it."

What are the questions we should be asking instead of bashing Pelosi because a couple of Rs want to?

First, "Why is a propaganda piece like this running now?" SIMPLE. Bush has been caught with his hand in the War Crimes cookie jar, and he is deflecting blame. "But, Nancy didn't say not to" isn't a valid excuse, just a GREAT talking point for all the freeper talk shows, and for their Dem basher friends.

Second, "Is this a pre-emptive leak because the CIA was in violation of the law by NOT fully informing Pelosi, et.al.?"

I'll go with both of the above, Bush and the CIA committing crimes, and this is the after spin--lies, distraction, false blame-- the usual propaganda.

What I don't get is why people do not read the whole article and apply a little critical reason before running off to the House floor with a noose yelling for Pelosi's neck! I might understand that kind of crap from Karl Rove .....

============
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

[Elidor]

5. I agree

It's a hit piece. I'm already unhappy with Pelosi, but I'll wait to see what she has to say for herself. The story is unsourced, and I find that suspicious, doubly so because it's in the WaPo.

[grasswire]

6. never forget the WaPo connection to the CIA

Never, never.

[spanone]

7. all hearsay....a washington post hit piece..total bullshit story

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.

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full.


POSTED THIS EARLY THIS AM http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2433354&mesg_id=2433354

[librechik]

12. very slippery section indeed. And could mean anyting.

ridiculously poor journalism.

[frustrated_lefty]

8. Who cares about the hit-piece?

Until she puts impeachment on the table, her name is mud.

[blondeatlast]

15. If you don't care about shoddy, biased journalism, you may as well be one of the 30%.

They like simple solutions to complex issues, too.

[NanceGreggs]

9. Thanks for posting this!

:kick: and REC'D!

[Stinky The Clown]

10. K&R

And to the people who screech before they understand what might actually be going on ...... shut the fuck up.

[Kingofalldems]

11. Sleeper freeper jumped right in on this one--saw a thread this am

Sleeper freepers= long time Duers who have never criticized a repub. Trash any and all Dems whenever they get a chance.

[blondeatlast]

14. Exactly. The story is chock full of gaping holes, yet some DUers are eating it up like

ice cream.

I thought we were generally smarter than the 30%, but I'm beginning to see how the 30% is fooled.

[mogster]

16. True. Look at this analysis

I posted yesterday in another thread. The WaPo story is full of anonymous sources, repub statements and glittering generalities.
---------------------
""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."

"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."

""In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"

In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings. That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision.

It's 'some people say' revisited. And the Republicans -- which are after all responsible for setting in motion this program, and responsible as a party for carrying out the human rights disaster called the 'war on terror' -- comes out as heroes, while Democrats comes out as the bad guys.
-----------------------
More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3813141&mesg_id=3814410

Dan Eggen is a curly head Norwegian soccer player, and he scored some goals. This Dan Eggen didn't score a goal, he took a rightwing corner kick, and you can see all the anonymous US officials jumping to score on it.

In addition: there are two CIA-related stories floating at the moment; this story and the story about the NIE. The NIE story died, while the story trashing Dems floats.

This is such a prime example on how modern propaganda works. One very damaging document appears, and instantly another story comes along to take the heat off. We must learn.

Not that Pelosi doesn't deserve a kick now and then, of course ;-) But it's the general tone and total rejection that is too much, and it takes the focus off the Republicans.

[blondeatlast]

17. Excellent point by point analysis of what's glaringly wron with the story.

You should post it as a stand-alone. I would very happily recommend it. I was thinking of doing the same kind of analysis, but yours is excellent.

[mogster]

20. Thank you, blondeatlast

I posted it in two threads and also in my journal, I hope that would be enough ;-)
I appended it to the ProSense thread instead, it's on the top list just now.
Thanks again.

[Truth2Tell]

18. Yes it's a hit piece... BUT

Pelosi was set up for it when she was told about this information. They wanted her to know about this stuff so they could pull this exact shit when they were good and ready. They were sufficiently confident that she wouldn't use the information to destroy them at the time.

They can only do this to her now because she fell into their trap. She took the bait and stayed silent. They've likely been chuckling over at Rove HQ about this for the last few years. Gee, I wonder why Pelosi doesn't speak up... chuckle, chuckle...

[Supersedeas]

19. the Post has no problem deflecting blame away from the WH, notice that?

[Malikshah]

21. Pelosi's enabling of the regime is reason enough for "trashing"

Although I prefer to refer to it as calling someone out on their willful negligence and dereliction of duty.