WaPo, Pelosi, Waterboarding and Springing the Torture Trap

Emotions have been running high around here since last night's EZ writer diary about today's Washington Post story Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002.

At first there was strong condemnation of Pelosi for turning a blind eye to torture back in 2002, which now seems to have moderated by some to a view that the WaPo story was a Republican (I'll use Thug from now on) hit piece and that we need to stand together against this kind of attack.

So which view is correct? In my opinion both.

Here's my take on what's going on here. I'll try to keep this short.

Back in 2002 around the one year anniversary of 9/11, when the nation was being whipped up in a froth of warmongering and hatred, a very very short list of Democrats where given a super secret briefing on the Thug's plans to torture some people. Since it was classified they couldn't tell anyone else about it. Who knows what they were told, but it was enough to make them complicit. That was the intent of the briefing. It was a torture trap.

It's kind of like a crime boss movie where the new guy is brought in to witness a hit. At that point, he's got the choice to either go to the authorities or keep quiet. If he goes to the cops, you know who is going to be the next one for the meat wagon, and if he stays quiet, he's on the team. He's an accomplice. They own him. He can never get out, because all they need to do is unveil the evidence that he was inon the hit and up he goes for some hard time. He's trapped.

In 2002 Nancy Pelosi could have made a big fussy stink about waterboarding and the other torture techniques she was briefed on. I'm not sure what would have happened to her then, but I bet the Thug attack machine would have chewed her up. Remember it was classified, and the country was in quite a lather. So she held her silence, and she became owned.

How many times, over the last five years have the Thugs held the Torture Trap over Nancy Pelosi? Did they threaten it when Jane Harmon was up for the Intel chair? Does it have something to do with her pledge that impeachment is off the table? Do they have anything else on her? Who knows.

But yesterday they sprung the trap. Why yesterday? Well it was quite a week. On Thursday it became clear that Bush has been lying big time about the Iranian nuke capability. Before this NIE news was even out of the box, we learned that the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of waterboarding torture tapes. The Democrats are making all sorts of noises about real hearings this time and whoa... it turns out Nancy Pelosi knew about the waterboarding since 2002 and did nothing.

Now she refuses to directly address the matter.

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.

This undermines the efforts of those seeking the truth. At the very least Nancy Pelosi now needs to be candid and explain herself fully.

Is the timing of the WaPo story an effort to derail the investigations into torture? Sure it is.

Is Nancy Pelosi the target of a torture trap by the Thugs? You bet she is.

Does this excuse her complicity over the last five years. Heck no, she's supposed to be a leader.

Do we need to stand together and demand that the truth come out no matter who gets swept up into the dragnet? Absolutely!

One thing is for sure. As a community we should not sweep this under the carpet. Yesterday there were numerous calls to unrecommend the EZ writer diary because people were concerned that dKos was being suckered into Pelosi loathing by the Thugs. Now the story is front page on all media outlets except dKos, where it seems to have been declared off limits. I don't think that ignoring a story of this magnitude is the right way to go. Agree, disagree, discuss, expose, take a stand. If we are silent they win.

•  Law over partisan loyalties is what America needs

  I cringe when I read posts that claim no one can criticize the Ds because, well they are on Team D.

  Apparently this is a far more partisan community, than it used to be.

  We used to be able to legitimately critique the faulty thinking of those in the party without being told to STFU.

  If Pelosi or any other Dem was complicit in the High Crimes of this Admin they DO NOT deserve a free pass just because they have a D by their name.

  Not in my book anyhow.

  Those idiots in Congress take and oath. That oath is to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States".

  If that no longer matters to Dems anymore than it matters to the GOP, then this country is screwed and our Democracy is DOA.

  Our country, our Consitution, our Democracy and all who have died defending it are desecrated if at the end of the day, partisanship trumps all.

  If the Dems do it, its OK and if the GOP does it, its evil.

  Hmmmmm.........

  what political party does that sound like to you?

  by wild salmon on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:27:38 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi can be replaced as Speaker...

    ... by someone untainted by this scandal, and it must happen immediately.  There are plenty of capable candidates for the job.  The same goes for any other Democratic leader who was briefed in 2002 and still holds a leadership position in Congress.

    It's the only way to overcome the torture trap.

    by tbetz on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:30:59 AM PDT

    •  I fully agree

      but it also requires that those who are tainted, do the right thing and step down.

      Pelosi is too addicted to Power, she won't go without a fight regardless of how tainted or how much her duplicity damages the party.

      This news certainly puts a new light on the stampede of GOP resignations this year. They know what they did, what they enabled, what they condoned. They also seem to realize that a reckoning is coming on all of it.

      Will the Dems do the same?

      by wild salmon on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:45:00 AM PDT

      •  Forunately, House rules permit the Speaker...

        ... to be anyone, even a non-House member, meaning that we may cast a very wide net to find Pelosi's replacement.  

        Me, I'd like to see someone like Pat Williams drafted to do the job.

        by tbetz on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:54:12 AM PDT

  •  The critical word you use is "IF"...

    I agree, but I want to find out what the truth is before throwing her under the bus.  We are NOT EVEN CLOSE to finding that out yet.

    I'm fully behind finding out, let the chips fall where they may.

    by beemerr90s on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:47:10 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you both

      as well as with most of what MediaFreeze has to say in the diary. The WaPo revelations are extremely troubling, and IF Pelosi and Rockefeller were in fact briefed CLEARLY about the use of waterboarding or other torture techniques, and IF they did not raise objections in any way at the time, then they ought to do the right thing and step down, and apologize for their failure to act to uphold the law.

      All of that presumes that the information they had should have been enough for an intelligent observer to recognize that the law was being violated. Indeed, Harman's letter may be a sign that she recognized what the hell was wrong with the torture program.

      But at this point, it's also clear that the CIA is pushing back against legitimate criticisms of them. The CIA has a record of making claims about briefings to Congress that don't stand up to scrutiny. That may be the case here as well.

      So, as angry as I am regarding the allegations, I'm going to wait until we get clear information from other sources about what actually occured before I post on the issue. That's not to say that it's premature to discuss these things now. Just want to underline that some are holding their fire for now until we can figure out where exactly to aim.

      by smintheus on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:00:21 PM PDT

      •  & what, would you suggest, is an appropriate

        waiting time?

        by rasbobbo on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:05:36 PM PDT

        •  it depends on circumstances

          can't really predict how long it will take to get clarification, or to get enough info to be able to infer that we aren't going to get clarification. The WaPo report is sufficiently vague that I'm not entirely sure what the alleged briefings allegedly involved.

          by smintheus on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:34:23 PM PDT

          •  a day? a week? a month?

            surely your patience has some limit.

            by rasbobbo on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:53:36 PM PDT

            •  obviously

              a week is too long to wait for clarification. Are you opposed to others waiting to get some alternative evidence to what the WaPo is providing?

              by smintheus on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:15:30 PM PDT

              •  Sometime this week would be good...

                She should get back to the office tomorrow and figure out what she is going to say.

                I hope it is the truth.

                by MediaFreeze on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:47:05 PM PDT

  •  Well then...

    Those idiots in Congress take and oath. That oath is to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States".

    If that no longer matters to Dems anymore than it matters to the GOP, then this country is screwed and our Democracy is DOA.

    ...we are DOA, are we not?

    The humor here is that there are still those that hold on to the idea that the Dems represent a viable alternative to the Thugs.

    by Slagel on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:02:53 PM PDT

•  Thy tatooed the Dems with torture...

  and that's why impeachment's off the table, as Atrios noted.

  We have to face the fact that within our own party some of the highest people - Pelosi, namely, appears to have silently acquiesced to the reality of torture.

  by Mumon on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM PDT

  •  What do you mean by "the reality of torture"?(nt)

    by Yellow Canary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

    •  Waterboarding...

      Being silent about that - perhaps there's mitigating circumstances, but in general being silent about something like waterboarding is acquiescing to the reality of torture.

      by Mumon on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:47:52 AM PDT

  •  Which is why Rove can claim now

    that they went along with all of it and share the blame equally.

    You dance with the Devil and you are gonna get burned.

    Every time.

    by wild salmon on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:41:54 AM PDT

  •  Oh Please

    Pelosi 'appears' to be what? After one hit peice by the WaPo with all of these 'unnamed' US Officials and someone who is also un named who is 'kind of familiar with what she said years ago?"

    That's makes someone 'appear' to be guilty?

    I call it 'gossip' and I don't buy into it in life and won't buy into it over the weekend hit peice.

    by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:44:14 PM PDT

    •  Plausible scenarios:

      They show the Congress leadership this torture crap, and then they tell 'em its classified & will get into prison if they blow the whistle on them.

      I can see that.

      I can also see a scenario where they (even in 2002) have the mindset "The country's at war, you see, and we have to take extraordinary measures."

      The first one is fitting with the scenario that Bob Graham alluded to in other areas, and with a proper response might be forgiveable.

      The second one is more problematic, I think, because it is precisely the job of Congress, their mandate, their duty, to set boundaries and honor our rights even when the country "is under attack."

      by Mumon on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:51:22 AM PDT

•  Making accomplices complicit in law-breaking ...

  ... is, of course, a path well-worn by the boots of thuggery.  I happen to agree with you -- Pelosi is both wrong and taken advantage of.

  Such is life in the political arena.  Sometimes, one has to take a hit for the greater good.  Perhaps it is time for Pelosi to do so.

  Some thorough honesty is always greatly appreciated.

  by Yellow Canary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

  •  And some time

    to give her to respond to this hit piece from all of these unamed' US Officials and un named person who 'is familiar' somewhat with her, and coming from the WaPo?

    I think I'll wait to find out the REAL story because I don't think this is it at all.

    by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:40:54 PM PDT

•  It was classified.

  Nobody could talk about a single aspect without being charged with treason.

  The fact that Porter Goss is pointing his crooked finger in the direction of the Democrats and saying that they didn't object is evidence enough that the republicans are trying to wiggle themselves out of another corrupt situation.  The Democrats had no input, they were merely being informed.

  by nupstateny on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

  •  If this is true, just think

    of all the draconian deeds that we don't know about because they have not yet been leaked to the media.

    by wild salmon on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:40:50 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Jane Harman (D) Object?

    Didn't Pelosi say...NOTHING?

    Pelosi needs to be removed -- now.

    by STOP George on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

    •  Read the damn article

      When and IF Pelosi was 'briefed' it was in the planning stage, but we don't REALLY know because at this set up stage NO ONE is using names and it's all based on un named sources--give Pelosi time to reflect and remember what happened!

      From the article:

      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.

      AND that was in 2002 and shortly after that Harmon replaced Pelosi in 2003, and Harmon did, in fact, object.

      We don't even know what Pelsoi was briefed on, could have been something completely different that what Harmon experienced when it became reality--we don't know!

      I know I would never, ever, make a serious statment when something like this WaPo article comes out, recall they don't REALLY have such a good reputation when it comes to the Democrats, I sure would wait to reflect upon what happened way back then to ensure I got everything correct. Particularly coming from all these 'US OFFICIALS" who are UNNAMED saying so strange things on a weekend--the old Rovian trick--after years I've learned NOT to take this type of pathetic bait!

      AND PROFESSIONAL people understand and expect other professional people to take their time to compose a clear statement to respond to and not just shoot from the hip.

      This is a pathetic hit peice like the kind we've had over and over these years.

      by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:36:51 PM PDT

      •  I did read the damn article

        and I direct you to this little tidbit of information...

        "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," the Post added. "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."

        Also interesting to note -- that raises my eyebrows -- is this:

        Only Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) -- then the second-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who would supplant Pelosi in 2003 -- formally objected. Harman, who was set to lead the House Intelligence Committee when the Democrats retook the chamber in 2006, was pushed aside by Pelosi when she took over as Speaker, in what was seen as an element of personal rivalry.

        Now, given the fact that Pelosi is irrationally (IMO) opposed to impeachment (if she has nothing to hide) -- I would like some non-contradictory excellent explanations from Pelosi immediately if my suspicions are going to be allayed.  Already, Rockerfeller has contradictedhimself today.

        by STOP George on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:37:02 PM PDT

  •  hmm.

    by my lights, there've been over a thousand nights since then, and I doubt Pelosi et al. spent them crying in frustration. no, more likely they were at Village events like the one where Bush said "no WMD here...maybe they're over here!"

    and they were drinking and laughing. god damn them.

    by annagranfors on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:00:37 PM PDT

    •  Who watched 'Torture'?

      the ones i know of who did that watched torture were Republics--

      Bill Frist, Duncan Hunter, Mitch McConnell, they were up front about it said it was 'humane".

      by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

      •  Frist said:

        The senators didn't see the 14 new detainees and instead visited Guantanamo to learn of interrogation techniques he said. In his mind, the detainees are being treated in a safe and humane way.

        Republics are the REAL FREAKS in this side show!

        Disgusting!

        by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:59:00 PM PDT

•  I don't care who goes down the tubes

  for this; A political party is not a shield; nor is it a free pass.  
      I am opposed to torture; and I acept no excuses. Either you support the breaking of another human being by the use of pain-or you do not. It's that simple.

  by lyvwyr101 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

  •  Mitch McConnell, Bill Frist

    Watched it and said it was HUMANE--it's on record, now they are the bad guys--they've admitted it.

    by Wary on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM PDT

•  I thought I read that this was exactly the

  strategy used in the Lincoln assisination plot.  People were drawn in before they knew and couldn't get out.

  It's a con game alright.  What to do?

  by 88kathy on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 12:09:33 PM PDT

•  your speculation has a certain appeal

  that of seeming reasonable and all that, but as a lot of the comments show, there are a lot of "ifs" to settle out yet.

  It seems ok to me that daily kos isn't going arse over teakettle about this until some more of the facts are nailed down.

  by joe shikspack on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:42:04 PM PDT

•  Time for a new speaker of the house

  If Nancy is complicit and this is the reason for her keeping impeachment off the table, then perhaps a new Speaker of the House is in order for 2008 when Congress comes back into session. One who isn't tainted. Is that possible?

  by londubh on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 08:52:23 PM PDT

•  LOOK OUT! IT'S A TARP!

  er... I mean,  a TRAP!

  Please, spare us the embarrassment of trying to spin this as some sort of preconceived devious plan to hold Pelosi in a death grip by the short hairs. Her position has, and does, command her, as well as others, to be privy to this and a myriad of other things that are a matter of national security and operations. It doesn't make her part of the 'evil empire', but it makes her complicite in the Congress' inability to get a damn thing done after all the as yet unfulfilled promises she made while she was pulling the wool over our eyes before the last elections. She had knowledge, and she still has knowledge, and she still pulls the wool over our eyes.

  You actually think the people here are that stupid? Maybe your wishful thinking has overridden your common sense and blinded you to the truth.

  Gosh, I wonder what they have on John Murtha... he reversed himself said the Surge Is Working! Maybe that was a tarp too! ...dangit, I mean, trap!

  crud...

  I'm befuddled by the fact that anyone would even take the time and expend the effort to concoct such a hair-brained spin and post it. Please forgive me my impertanence.

  by Succhiamo on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 10:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Of course it was a preconceived trap.

    You invective is alarming.

    You don't think that the Thugs had the forsight to brief a chosen few, so that they could later say that the opposition knew?

    Of course they did.

    Your angry tone and condescension is unsettling, but otherwise not persuasive.

    by MediaFreeze on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:44:04 PM PDT

  •  Look bud

    I'm not saying she's any innocent.

    Like in the movie. She wanted to be made. She went to the hit. She walked the walk. She played her part.

    And I completely agree with your wool over the eyes indictment.

    by MediaFreeze on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:56:28 PM PDT