Sunday, May 10, 2009
Speaker Pelosi and the CIA briefings
What Speaker Pelosi knew about interrogation techniques and when she knew it probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) be an issue, but she somehow decided to go all Sgt. Schultz on the American people, and tried to play politics with it.
The lede of Saturday's WaPo article:
"A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.(emphasis added)
"Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.
"A Democratic source acknowledged yesterday that it is almost certain that Pelosi would have learned about the use of waterboarding from Sheehy. Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding and had objected in a letter to the CIA's top counsel."
I suppose that the Speaker still may have a technical out -- that she was not told directly by a Bush administration official that waterboarding had been used -- but as is the case with all of her explanations, it is all style over substance. As Porter Goss has stated very clearly, the leadership on both sides of the aisle knew about the program, as they should.
The odds are pretty good now that Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid see this issue as a loser for them. Will it quietly go away? If it doesn't, it is likely to inflict a bit more political damage on the Speaker. Who stands to gain from that? Sure, Republicans would not lose sleep over damage done to Speaker Pelosi, but is it possible that certain Democratic House Members seeking leadership positions (and who lost out after Dick Gephardt left and Pelosi stepped in as Minority Leader) would be interested parties?
CWCID: Hot Air
2 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Sun May 10, 09:59:00 AM:
The issue will be dropped. I think most Dem strategists realize that the only voters who react to brazen prevarication are those who are political junkies (like us)that constitute a very small percentage of the public.
Stir in a syncophantic media and voila - Ms. Pelosi was "misinformed" by the Bush administration.
Once again, this will support my point that voting should be a privilege earned rather than a right bestowed....as was originally intended by those who framed the constitution.
By 
, at
Sun May 10, 10:47:00 AM:
"but is it possible that certain Democratic House Members seeking leadership positions (and who lost out after Dick Gephardt left and Pelosi stepped in as Minority Leader) would be interested parties?"
I tend to think so. She has some value to the Republicans who can say, "see, this is the face of the democratic party in Washington", and know that it pays interest.
She doesn't really have a light touch and I think she has pissed off a lot of democrats with her imperial ways from the time she first became speaker. It's way too soon for a palace coup, but I'll bet there are a lot of ears listening for the opportunity. A good year for Republicans in 2010 is about all it will take.
M.E.
