"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.
"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."
TPM's Spencer Ackerman's trying to say that this somehow throws Harman under the bus, but a number of TPM commenters (UPDATE: And now Emptywheel) have called him out on this (emphases mine):
RandyR wrote on December 10, 2007 10:42 AM:
This explanation seems reasonable to me. Members of the Intel Committee can speak to very few people about briefings. In Pelosi's case Harman is a natural confidant, no matter animosity on other issues, as I suspect Pelosi's briefing was pretty cryptic and Harman's graphic. A discussion would be reasonable and legal. A letter about the interrogation would seem in order.
---
Lisa wrote on December 10, 2007 10:59 AM:
How has she thrown Harman under the bus if Harman received the further breifings (and Pelosi didn't) and Pelosi supports Harman's letter to the CIA? You're making no sense. Pelosi's blog has Harman's letter to the CIA asking to declassify her letter. Can't imaginge Pelosi would want that on her website if she were throwing Harman to the wolves. Stop reading more into this than is there. And even more importantly, stop believing the CIA.
---
visitor wrote on December 10, 2007 11:25 AM:
It seems to me that Pelosi was involved in a briefing she says of what techniques were being considered for use and that had been deemed legal(???) by the DOJ or WH. How can you really object to something at that point in time so close to 9/11 and the terror climate of the time that supposedly they were going to use? Then later Harmon gets a briefing of techniques that they had now been using and objections arise.... I don't see a big todo here because you know as well as anyone else that what the admin says it is going to do rarely turns out to be what it does do. And I have no problems with any of these explanations. The big problem I have is who okayed the leak to the Washington Post to implicate and switch the attention to Pelosi and the Democrats rather than the fact of destroying the tapes themselves. Who is feeling the heat to allow this classified info out about the meeting itself and what went on at it? More importantly why are we all believing this leak as if it is the gospel truth anyway? They could be lieing just as easily as telling the truth yet everyone now rushes to blame Pelosi and the ruse has worked just as it was supposed to do - deflect to another messenger and forget the message
---
CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 11:40 AM:
"Two: Never mind the brief mention of Jane Harman's protest. Pelosi just threw Harman under the bus. It's no secret that the two Californians don't get along. But she didn't need to put the blame on her committee successor in her statement on this controversy."
Oh, bullshit. That's not a fair characterization of what she said at all. Who controlled the congress in 2003 and how did they run things? What else was Harman supposed to do besides file a protest? This was, no doubt, classified material we're talking about. It's not like she could have gone public with it.
And it's also not like Democrats have been sitting on their thumbs about this issue since they took over the House. To the contrary, they've been coming at it from every angle they can think of, given that they currently still don't have the muscle to shove any new law down Republicans' throats. Do you believe you'd be hearing as much about this issue as we are right now if Republicans still controlled the congress?
I didn't think so.
