Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pelosi Biographer: Why I Believe Her On the CIA and Waterboarding

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:10 AM
Original message
Pelosi Biographer: Why I Believe Her On the CIA and Waterboarding
http://calbuzzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/pelosi-biographer-why-i-believe-her-on.html

Pelosi Biographer: Why I Believe Her On the CIA and Waterboarding
By Marc Sandalow
Calbuzz Special Report

snip//

This much is clear. Someone is not telling the truth. Either the Speaker of the House or someone at the CIA is lying or badly misrepresenting what transpired. Only those with the highest security clearance can know for certain what happened behind the steel-encased safe rooms under the dome where briefings take place.

Nevertheless, here are four solid reasons to believe Pelosi's account.

1.CIA director Leon Panetta wouldn’t hang Pelosi out to dry. Pelosi and Panetta have worked closely together for three decades. They met when Pelosi was chair of the California Democratic Party and Panetta was a young congressman from Monterey. When Pelosi came to Washington in 1987, Panetta was living with Reps. George Miller, Marty Russo and Charles Schumer and along with Pelosi were part of a Tuesday night dinner clique. Panetta squeezed into Pelosi’s car for hair-raising dashes to National Airport on many Thursday afternoons as the Northern California delegation raced to make the last flight back to San Francisco. He accompanied her on dozens of flights, recalling her demand for extra gobs of hot fudge on the sundaes they served on cross country flights. Pelosi urged Panetta to run for governor in 1998, and her daughter made up “Panetta for Governor’’ hats. Panetta has new obligations as CIA director, and he made clear his professional loyalties when he issued a statement Friday saying it is not CIA policy to lie to or mislead Congress. But the statement did not say that Pelosi was lying nor did it specifically contradict her claim about the contents of the Sept. 2002 CIA briefing. If the CIA has internal documents which show Pelosi is wrong, it is hard to image Panetta wouldn’t have warned her off.

2. Her story is consistent with other Democrats. Senators Jay Rockefeller and former Senator Bob Graham of Florida each received briefings during the same time period as Pelosi, and, like her, say they were not told about waterboarding. Graham -- who political junkies might remember was passed over as a possible running mate for John Kerry in 2004 in part because of his seemingly pathological habit of keeping a meticulous journal -- went back and checked his records and said that three of the four dates the CIA claims to have briefed him are wrong.

3. Pelosi is a creature of protocol and her account follows protocol. Why didn’t Pelosi do something dramatic to stop waterboarding when she – by her own admission – found out about it in February 2003? Conservatives say it is because she already knew and was complicit in its practice. Some of her own supporters on the left accuse her of being spineless. For anyone who prowls the halls of Congress – which Pelosi first did as a toddler when her father represented Baltimore’s Little Italy – her response was completely in line with her role as the House Democratic leader. Pelosi says she first learned that waterboarding had taken place from her aide Mike Sheehy in February, 2003. Sheehy told her that Rep. Jane Harman, D-LA, who had taken Pelosi’s spot on the Intelligence Committee had been briefed on the use of waterboarding, and had written a letter voicing her objection to the White House. Pelosi’s response: Good. She supported Harman’s objection. It would have been illegal for Pelosi to have exposed the secret practice. It would have been poor form for Pelosi to have overruled Harman and insisted that she write the objection herself. And it would have been foolhardy to believe that either of their objections would have made a difference. Only months before, Pelosi had led 60% of the House Democrats to vote against the war in Iraq, insisting that evidence from other intelligence briefings did not support President Bush’s claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. The White House response hardly suggested a willingness to heed the warnings. The only recourse available to Pelosi was to rally a majority of the House to pass legislation banning enhanced interrogations techniques. Which is exactly what she did, a year later. Bush promptly vetoed the legislation.

4. Pelosi is not a liar. During 21 years' reporting for the San Francisco Chronicle, I encountered elected officials whom I regarded as friendly sources who looked me in the eye and lied. Pelosi is not one of them. Pelosi can be awkward, suspicious and at times disdainful of the press. She shunned me when I wrote her biography, refusing to grant me a single interview. But I have never seen a shred of evidence of her being untruthful. She is a meticulous woman who speaks carefully, even if it doesn’t always come out in complete sentences. Longtime staffer Mike Sheehy was with Pelosi in the Sept 4, 2002 briefing in which Pelosi adamantly insists she was told waterboarding had not been used. She would not have said so without Sheehy’s concurrence. Columnist Charles Krauthaumer noted Pelosi’s uncomfortable performance and tortured syntax at a news conference last week, calling it proof that she was not telling the truth. Clearly Krauthaumer has never been to a Pelosi news conference before.

Of course the political consequences of this episode may hurt Pelosi regardless. Shouts of “what did Pelosi know and when did she know it’’ ring through Washington at a time when Democrats want to be talking about cap and trade, health care and education. Democrats would rather attention be focused on President Obama than Pelosi. The headlines look bad for the Speaker. The facts, however, do not.


Marc Sandalow is the author of “Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi’s Life, Times and Rise to Power." He is now an analyst for KCBS-radio and KPIX-TV, director of UC Merced’s Washington Program and director of journalism programs at the University of California’s Washington Center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Makes sense
I just can't stand that Pelosi allows herself to be a distraction. I believe her for what it is worth.. and support her and Obama..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I am not sure she "allowed herself" to be a distraction - When the Republicans make NOISE, the media
broadcasts it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Weren't many Democrats calling press conferences to which no press came?
Edited on Wed May-20-09 11:47 AM by aquart
They refused to cover us. They refused to report anything that wasn't in line with GOP talking points. Isn't that why the internet became the news source for so many of us? We had NO voice in the MSM. We had Jon Stewart, and then the miracle of Olbermann.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yeah it is interesting - Dems were not allowed near cameras or microphones for a long time
EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. I want the nonsense about "it would be illegal to discuss the
classified information pertaining to torture" meme/excuse stopped.

It hurts us all, it allows them to keep the information classified (like those photographs).

The executive order defining classified information and making it illegal to discuss information as contained in such briefings, "information cannot be deemed classified to "conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency."

That they told her and/or others that she could not discuss the briefings is just more evidence of how they mislead congress.

To properly investigate and prosecute the wrong doings the issue is simple and needs to be broadly conducted.

Torture is a crime, who authorized and approved it, who facilitated it, who made the continuation of the torture program possible, despite concerns voiced from within, who tortured and how many were victims of torture.

I don't believe Pelosi is guilty of a thing, I think that Pelosi and others need to give the republicans what they want, a thorough investigation into the torture practices and procedures of the USofA. I think the investigation will lead to prosecutions for the crimes associated with the torture, to include murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You cannot have every congresscritter hold the power to unilaterally de-classify information.
It's a good rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It is no rule.
There is no unilateral declassification.

Congress critter X, just want you to know we have AQ suspects and we are abusing them, we are interrogating them and we are waterbaording them but you cannot do a thing, this is a classified briefing.

For all of Harman's faults, she had the courage to send a letter objecting to the policy. Whoops was that letter a violation, was talking about the letter and knowing about it a violation?

Stop letting them frame the debate, stop framing it to be concerned about congressional protocol.

The CIA, by law, cannot torture, to tell congress they tortured during a briefing and call the briefing classified is to violate the law and the protocols.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC