Bob Graham Says CIA Has Admitted to Errors in Breifing Records, CIA Not Talking
According to former Senator Bob Graham, who’s best-known for his incredibly meticulous note-taking, the CIA has made mistakes in its account of briefing sessions to him and has admitted the error: “On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was clear that no briefing had taken place, and the CIA eventually concurred in that. So their record keeping is a little bit suspect.”
Obviously, that raises the question of whether or not there might be mistakes in the CIA’s official record of its briefings of Nancy Pelosi. After all, if I had a legal mandate to brief people about something, but was also under orders from the President of the United States to participate in a cover-up of an illegal and barbaric campaign of torture, I might fudge my records. Spencer Ackerman tried to do some reporting: “I asked CIA spokesman George Little whether Graham is telling the truth and he declined comment.”
That’s very strange. Presumably the CIA either did make this concession to Graham, in which case their account of what transpired vis-a-vis Pelosi is suspect, or else the CIA did not make this concession and Graham is slandering them. Seems like the public ought to know which.
75 Responses to “Bob Graham Says CIA Has Admitted to Errors in Breifing Records, CIA Not Talking”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 15th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Heck, the cover letter from Panetta, the CIA Director, on top of the CIA’s reports about its briefings included a statement that the CIA cannot confirm their accuracy.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I am shocked, shocked, that anyone would consider that a noble, truth-telling institution like the CIA would dare release somewhat inaccurate information based on the desires of the Executive administration’s desires.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Well, to be fair, Cid, there was also a rather large purge of those deemed to be insufficiently loyal to the Republicans carried out a few years ago under Porter Goss.
So…there’s that.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
CIA obviously has some of their “facts” wrong.
But it’s the kind of thing where the most reliable source for them, their records, are unreliable. That means they don’t, and can’t know, either way. They know they don’t know and they know they have no way of knowing if Graham knows — or not. They have no reason to doubt him but they can’t confirm or refute him because … they know they don’t know.
They can’t even know if their own people know and were dishonest or if they were simply mistaken. Unless, of course, they’ve got some other records we don’t know about. But, then again, if they did, we’d probably already know about it.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Joe from Lowell:
And there is also this, from James Fallows at MY’s old haunt:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php
May 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I don’t believe for a moment in this “briefing errors” stuff. I am convinced that the senators were told about waterboarding, and since it was pre-Abu Ghraib and there was no media/netroots coverage about torture, it simply didn’t register with them as something to question. When it did become an issue, the senators were in a no-win position, so they did nothing in the hope that it would go away as an issue, or that the briefings wouldn’t come out. Now they’ve come out, and they’re falling back on “bad briefings.”
They’re politically implicated, and should be primaried out–but obviously there’s no comparison, in terms of legal exposure, between someone who was summarilybriefed on something illegal (and lacked authority to stop it) and someone who came up with the illegality in the first place.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Does this mean Iraq didn’t have WMDs, or is the case against Saddam still a “slam dunk”?
May 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
This all seems academic, since Pelosi has admitted that she knew about the waterboarding by 2003 at the latest. And then she voted to fund the waterboarding in 2004 and 2005.
So what’s Pelosi’s next story going to be? That she admitted to knowing about the waterboarding (and then funding it) before, but that she lied about her admission?
May 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Seems like the public ought to know which.
Seems like the public ought to know a lot of shit.
Why oh why (#7) above asks the key question.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
So what’s Pelosi’s next story going to be? That she admitted to knowing about the waterboarding (and then funding it) before, but that she lied about her admission?
She’s saying she knew but felt she couldn’t much about it, which is disappointing but realistic and I imagine is the truth. At least she’s asking for a truth commission.
What I want to know is why Republicans are too chickenshit to call torture by its right name and instead use the weaslewords “enhanced techniques.” Be a man about it! Instead they want to have it both ways.
Politically, Republicans would like to talk about this because they have nothing else going their way except the government debt caused by their crisis.
The CIA/government never “misleads”? Has Republican Senator Bond never seen the X-Files?
May 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Well, the entire time everyone was talking about Niger and yellowcake (and Dick Cheney et al were outing a CIA undercover agent and destroying an organization which had spent years gathering WMD intel for the U.S.), everyone who wanted to knew that Iraq already possessed thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of yellowcake uranium, and a few more from Niger wouldn’t have meant squat, but everyone wanted their war and no one wanted to discuss the obvious, as it got in the way of their war.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
She’s saying she knew but felt she couldn’t [say?] much about it, which is disappointing but realistic and I imagine is the truth.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi is unfamiliar with the Constitution, which allows her to say anything she wants.
Funny how torture is sooooooo very heinous and terrible that Nancy Pelosi knew about it, funded it, and never objected at all, either publicly or privately.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Politically, Republicans would like to talk about this because they have nothing else going their way except the government debt caused by their crisis.
Your analysis is way too sophisticated. The Republicans are attacking Pelosi for the same reason one kid screams “Jimmy stole a cookie too!” when you catch him with chocolate chips smeared all over his good shirt.
Pretty much all the grown up Republicans have bailed out already. This is a party of sixty year-old spoiled children in three thousand dollar suits.
Note that you just and I and a half dozen other sensible people just wasted ten minutes each writing about Nancy when we could have been discussing Dick Cheney’s war crimes indictment. Means the Republican strategy is working, right?
May 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Rich in PA,
I don’t know–Graham has always struck me as a fairly straight up guy, at least as politicians go.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Rule of Law, bitchez!
May 15th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Apparently Nancy Pelosi is unfamiliar with the Constitution, which allows her to say anything she wants.
Unless, of course, the situation is more ambiguous than that, and she’s taken an oath to uphold the law, and she signed a security agreement that makes it a felony to speak about a briefing or related document.
Really, if she had spoken up in violation of that agreement, she’d be in jail right know, not having the awesome power of the Unitary Executive to ignore any law whenever she felt like it.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Apparently Nancy Pelosi is unfamiliar with the Constitution, which allows her to say anything she wants.
Apparently Al believes 18 USC 793(d) is invalid under the First Amendment. Personally, I wouldn’t rely on Al’s legal advice.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I’m not one to defend George Tenant, but he never said the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 2002 was a slam dunk. He was asked if the administration would be able to sell the story to the American public, and he said THAT would be a slam dunk.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:24 am
By the way, I’m pretty sure like most of the stupid stuff the GOP hacks have tried recently, this Pelosi gambit is backfiring.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:26 am
He was asked if the administration would be able to sell the story to the American public, and he said THAT would be a slam dunk.
No way that could ever happen, what with our intrepid and independent press.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Latest Republican talking point: people with access to classified information who know about wrongdoing have a duty to publicize it! Just ignore all of that stuff we wrote about the New York Times committing treason by breaking the wiretapping story.
I’m just glad that there is absolutely no chance this talking point is going to disappear into the mists of time, never to be heard from again, as soon as it loses its political usefulness, only to be replaces by a completely contradictory point.
Because that never happens.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Well, at least we know Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration thought that public officials ought to be able to release whatever information they want on classified CIA information, even their undercover personnel, but I didn’t know that they thought Democratic Congressional leaders had the same powers as the magic Fourthbranch.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Apparently Al believes 18 USC 793(d) is invalid under the First Amendment.
No, I believe that 18 USC 793(d), and every other law, is inapplicable to statements made by Pelosi in the House, under Art I, Sec. 6: “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
If the Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee doesn’t give up her security clearance, it must mean she didn’t object to anything she was told.
Sure, that make sense.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Al,
Fair enough–under Gravel I think Pelosi probably could have given a floor speech revealing whatever she was told and not been successfully prosecuted.
Nonetheless, I also still think it is a likely a court would hold that 18 USC 793(d) trumped 18 USC 4 in this case, and that such a speech would not in any event satisfy 18 USC 4, such that Pelosi was not legally obligated to make that speech. Which would make this a moral and political issue, not a criminal one, but I am fine with people examining Pelosi’s conduct on those grounds.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:07 am
No, I believe that 18 USC 793(d), and every other law, is inapplicable to statements made by Pelosi in the House, under Art I, Sec. 6: “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
No, I believe that 18 USC 793(d), and every other law, is inapplicable to statements made by Pelosi in the House, under Art I, Sec. 6: “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”.
Whoa, did you think this one up yourself or did you get it from your constitutional law professor? Security rules and laws involving congresspeople are non-enforcable?
So, we should never risk telling a congressman or senator anything that might fall under our secrecy laws, because they can spill the beans on the floor of the house no matter what the law says or whatever agreement or oath they signed.
This is nearly as good as the Unitary Executive and that Diplomatic Immunity thing that guy invoked so he could gut-shoot Mel Gibson for free in Lethal Weapon II!
May 15th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Security rules and laws involving congresspeople are non-enforcable?
With respect to their “Speech or Debate in either House”, yes.
So, we should never risk telling a congressman or senator anything that might fall under our secrecy laws, because they can spill the beans on the floor of the house no matter what the law says or whatever agreement or oath they signed.
As I understand it, that is one of the reasons that the super secret information (such as the information that Pelosi got on the interrogation program) is provided to only a limited group of Members of Congress. Presumably the enforcement mechanism against Members of Congress for violating secrecy restrictions is political, not criminal.
I still do not understand the current Democratic justification for Pelosi’s knowing about torture, not saying or doing anything to object to it, and then affirmatively voting to fund it. It’s almost like she did not seem to think it was so bad.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Al, I presume that Pelosi gave a floor speech against torture somewhere around the time the house passed a bill that would codify the rules of interrogation in the army field manual into law for the CIA. Bush, however, vetoed it. Once again, the Republicans find themselves ordering war crimes. Saying, “the Democrats might have heard about it at some point!” doesn’t have any relevance as an argument. The criminals here are in the executive branch, not ’03s minority members in the legislative branch.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:48 am
But Al, she didn’t order it. She only funded and approved it. Nuance, baby.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Context is everything. This is during the runup to the war in Iraq. And remember that the CIA had lied about Iraq.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
She only funded and approved it.
Evidence?
The funny thing is that once we’ve pointed out the absurdity of the “but pelosi heard about it when she was a member of the party that didn’t control the house!” the right-wingers are resorting to the “she funded and approved it!” claim which is untrue on its face because the president’s orders and Yoo’s beliefs cannot be opposed by the legislative branch except by means of impeachment.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:54 am
If we ignore the part where she pushed through a bill banning it, and didn’t approve it, why, she didn’t do anything at all to stop it.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
But the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when and what the nature of the briefing was. I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used.
Uh?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Feigning confusion is probably your best play at this point, judd. Good call.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Pretending the Speaker of the House is telling the truth is probably your best play, as well.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Three incontrovertible facts:
1. The CIA is lying.
2. Nancy Pelosi is a lying dimwit.
3. Anyone who cannot admit either fact 1 or fact 2 is a twit.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Rich in PA;
I lean toward accepting Graham’s story over Pelosi’s and the CIA’s. But I think your point about the Abu Ghraib pix may be key to the context. Given the atmosphere during the first briefing, (9/11 was fresh, and dissenters were being pummeled) it’s easy to imagine Pelosi posturing “butch” and going along to get along. Until the Abu Ghraib pix added the show to the CIA’s tell, I doubt Pelosi understood the brutality she was actually party to. Perhaps unlike Graham, she panicked and her defensiveness makes her look guilty. Some Democrats are so intimidated by the GOP bullies, they lie because they think the truth won’t be beleivable. Contrast Pelosi’s gyrations to Graham’s just confidently laying it out. I’m not suggesting giving anyone a pass, I’m just saying, to my eyes, Pelosi’s self-serving behavior after the fact, is more damnable than the what she’s being accused of.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
to my eyes, Pelosi’s self-serving behavior after the fact, is more damnable than the what she’s being accused of.
And yet, both are orders of magnitude less damnable, to the point of near-irrelevance, compared to the conspiracy in the executive branch to justify, order, and execute the use of torture.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I am pretty sure Pelosi didn’t cover herslef with glory in this matter, but I don’t think everyone realize how detailed Bob Graham’s note taking is. If his notes say he didn’t have a briefing and the CIA says otherwise, I am going to go with Graham on that.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
re: ostap’s three incontrovertible facts.
The absolute clarity OxyContin provides must be damn near irresistible.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Tyro, Agreed
May 15th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
For people who don’t know what a freak Bob Graham is please follow this link:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
May 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
If his notes say he didn’t have a briefing and the CIA says otherwise, I am going to go with Graham on that.
It’s been speculated that his compulsive note-taking made him too eccentric and radioactive to be chosen by Gore as a VP candidate, without which he would have made a good pick and made Florida a lock for a Gore-Graham ticket in 2000.
it’s nice to see his notes have proven useful.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Pelosi knew about the waterboarding no later than early 2003. When did she voice support for a bill banning the practice? How many times did she vote in favor of funding the CIA between early 2003, and voicing support for a bill banning the practice? I legitimately don’t know the answers to these questions, and many others which I’d like to see posed to a lot of people. The best forum to do so would be first in front of a grand jury, and then likely a criminal jury. The sooner an indictment is brought against someone, as high up the ladder as possible, presumably first againt someone from the Executive Branch, the sooner the fog can begin to be blown away.
I highly suspect a Truth Commission would simply be a politically useful tool for partisans, and an outright criminal trial, with evidence and testimony entered in open court, and subjected to cross examination in front of a jury, would be a much more useful tool for the taxpayer, in terms of knowing what was done with their money.
If it is the case that Pelosi is highly compromised, it is not unreasonable to surmise that Obama knows this, sees her as political liability for the 2010 midtermand anyhow, and thus would favor putting a shiv between her ribs now, so she will have been long gone from news cycles a year from now.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
vote in favor of funding the CIA between early 2003
And she voted in favor of a bill to pay the president’s salary! Which proves that she supports George W. Bush for president! OMG!
Weak, Will, weak. It’s this sort of crap that is the reason you’re regarded as such an apologist tool.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Yes, Tyro, I know you think it is weak to demand that people elected to Congress not vote to fund agencies which the member of Congress knows are engaged in criminal wrongdoing. That’s what makes you a thug.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
How many times did she vote in favor of funding the CIA between early 2003 . . . .
That’s not really relevant, because it wasn’t just the CIA involved, it was also the DOD and outside contractors. In general, it is basically impossible to address an issue like this in such a roundabout fashion: you have to legislate directly, because there are too many discretionary parts of the budget that could be used (and even then, who knows–I personally think the existing laws were perfectly adequate, and just got ignored).
May 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Will Allen, it makes about as much sense as arguing that her votes in favor of bills that funded the salaries of the white house and the justice department were evidence of her support for torture, karl rove, and george w. bush. It’s a hackish argument that is as disingenuous as anything I’ve ever heard from republicans… over the last week.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I know you think it is weak to demand that people elected to Congress not vote to fund agencies which the member of Congress knows are engaged in criminal wrongdoing.
Which would include the DOD, DOJ, several White House offices, the office of the Vice President . . .
. . . again, this roundabout approach makes no sense to me.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I’m doing no such thing. Let’s put her, her accusers, and everyone else with even a passing knowledge of this sorry episode under oath, and get to the bottom of this.
Bluff called.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
That,s a valid point, DTM, which is why it is important to know when Pelosi voiced support for a bill banning the interrogation techniques. However, a member of Congress plainly has responsibility to vote against funding any agency or department which the member of Congress know is breaking the law, and intends to keep breaking the law, whether it is the DOD, CIA, FBI (an agency with a long and storied tradition of lawbreaking), DEA (frequently a real criminal organization, in my view), etc., etc.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
However, a member of Congress plainly has responsibility to vote against funding any agency or department which the member of Congress know is breaking the law, and intends to keep breaking the law . . . .
I think in such a situation, the member of Congress should do whatever they think is most likely to end the law-breaking. It seems likely to me in many cases that casting a vote against an appropriations bill would be neither necessary nor sufficient to that end.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Tyro, that is because you are too dishonest or ignorant to admit that members of Congress frequently threaten to defund agencies which behave in a manner which displease the members of Congress. I guess you are such a hack that you would argue that a member of Congress threatening an agency’s funding over where the agency is building it’s facilities is commonplace, but it can’t be expected that a member of Congress would utilize such a modification tool in response to observed lawbreaking. That’s what makes you a cheerleader.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Will Allen, the normal means of doing so, particularly with the FBI, is to pass laws stopping the FBI from doing such things — like passing bill that pelosi sponsored — and creating oversight boards like the FISA court. You have invented a standard which has never before existed for the purpose of continuing to act as a republican shill and grind the anti-pelosi ax you were handed by the right wing.
Your argument is as dishonest as it is stupid. Though I would have found it funny if Congress simply refused to appropriate money for Rove’s salary. But your argument could just as easily claim “OMG Pelosi is a Bush supporter.” I don’t know whether your association with right-wing talking points have resulted in permanent brain rot, you were always that stupid, or you’re just “lying for the cause.” Either way, it’s a sign of a character flaw that’s simply not tolerable in civilized conversation, and the sort of behavior we see from you is the reason that the Republican party and republicans in general are held in such low regard by the public.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
DTM, if there is credible evidence that Pelosi began working on legislation to ban the practices shortly after learning of them, that would hugely mitigate any votes she cast in favor of funding government agencies which she knew were engaged in the practices. I don’t think any of us are very well-informed as to these facts at this time.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Will Allen, you are making the inherent claim that Pelosi’s funding of the White House is evidence of her support of george w. bush. The argument makes absolutely no sense. Pelosi, in any case, was in the minority and not in a position to defund anything. It was bush who vetoed a bill to codify the illegality of torture used by the CIA.
It’s much like the disingenuous, “Obama voted to continue funding for the war in Iraq, so he can’t criticize the war!” BS we heard from dishonest republicans. The argument, however, didn’t go over too well at all. Once again, your pathology is a hallmark of modern republican “arguments” which you are deluded into thinking “work” because you right-wing friends praise you and your liberal “friends” are tired of screaming at you when you vent your uninvited stupidities. I can see that explaining, very slowly, what is wrong with your argument does not work because you’re too caught up in the conservacult, and the damage may be permanent. I only point out that your arguments are invalid and merely the result of a bunch of talking points you’ve been fed and aare dutifully repeating. This is “lying for the cause” on your part.
It may be that Pelosi did not make herself a target in the way you think she should have. But she did oppose torture and did try to get rid of bush, while you, bush, and rove took opposite paths. I’m not sure what defense of yoursself you’re making. This sounds like a lot of CYA on your part from someone who gets repeatedly spanked for your poor arguments. Part of it is that you have a bug up your ass about Pelosi because she kicked the asses of the Republicans whom you spent so much time shilling for. Freaking out about her using disingenuous arguments isn’t helping your case. In fact, it makes you look like the typical fool of the Republican variety.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I have to laugh at myself for my years of giving short-shrift to complaints about the MSM. Mostly, I assume, because of the right wing’s absurdly relentless liberal media meme. As a result,I was slow to realize how captured the media are by the party in power. I’m not sure what it says, that the media are still enabling the GOP’s misdirection, Pelosi being the case in point. Perhaps only that the power shift was so big and so sudden, they’re having difficulty moving out of the loser’s locker room. The focus on Pelosi is mind boggling.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Tyro, it is not “normal” for the Executive Branch to be engaged in, while fufilling it’s role as the branch which controls military affairs and foreign policy, what a reasonable observer may conclude is a war crime. The Legislative Branch, when it finds the Executive’s conduct in these matters sufficiently objectionable, has the most powerful tool at it’s disposal, which is to defund that which it objects to. If you weren’t so ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or some combination thereof, you’d note that this is precisely the tool used by Congress when it found the Executive’s preferred policies so objectionable with regard to Indochina in the mid ’70s.
You are simply a cheerleader, with big, puffy, pom-poms. How nice for you.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Tyro, it is not “normal” for the Executive Branch to be engaged in, while fufilling it’s role as the branch which controls military affairs and foreign policy, what a reasonable observer may conclude is a war crime. The Legislative Branch, when it finds the Executive’s conduct in these matters sufficiently objectionable, has the most powerful tool at it’s disposal, which is to defund that which it objects to. If you weren’t so ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or some combination thereof, you’d note that this is precisely the tool used by Congress when it found the Executive’s preferred policies so objectionable with regard to Indochina in the mid ’70s.
You are simply a cheerleader, with big, puffy, pom-poms. How nice for you.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Oh, OK. Just as long as you’re not establishing impossibly high standards in order to achieved a pre-ordained outcome of making critics of the Bush administration seem unworthy of having their criticism taken seriously.
You know, like when you used to write that Matt and all other Democrats need to stop criticizing Bush’s torture regime because they didn’t declare Elliot Spitzer to be a just as bad as Dick Cheney for telling a suspect that New York state’s prisons were unpleasant.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Congress refused to fund the Pentagon in the 1970s?
You sure about that?
For pointing out the failure of your logic, I suppose that I’m also waving pom-poms.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
You are simply a cheerleader
Actually, I’m simply an opponent of torture rather than a supporter of it and the politicians who ordered it. But you supported precisely those politicians in the white house who ordered it. And now you’re trying to retreat to “both sides do it! and in any case, the democrats are worse!” as you usually do. It’s a shame that the republicans have to turn their supporters into liars for them in order to get those sweet, sweet tax cuts you guys love so much.
This is no different than, as joe points out, “pelosi funded the pentagon, so she support the war in iraq!”
May 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I’m doing no such thing. Let’s put her, her accusers, and everyone else with even a passing knowledge of this sorry episode under oath, and get to the bottom of this.
I agree. Bluff double called, or something.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Will Allen voted for Bush in 2004, and did so knowing about the torture.
He did so because he considered keeping the Iraq War going to be more important than ending torture.
However, while his actions doesn’t in any way detract from his moral standing, Nancy Pelosi’s vote to fund the CIA demonstrates her active support for torture, and she cannot criticize Bush and Cheney.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Will, Tyro,
I’ve always wondered about both of you (and some other people I could name, such as Al) – does either one of you have, like, a job? If so, how do you spend hours a day on the internet arguing with people you consider idiotic cheeseballs?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Will Allen, in the previous thread on torture, someone pointed out that plenty of republicans were probably briefed on this as well. We don’t know what they were told. But you’ll notice that Democrats, such as myself, aren’t making hay about what people like the Republican chair of the intelligence committee knew or didn’t know. Why? Because the relevant criminals involved are the people who justified torture, ordered it, and carried it out. The question is why you have a bug up your ass about what a member of the minority party heard. The Democrats have much less interest in the issue because it’s clear to them who the malefactors are, plus, we don’t need to distract from the fact that the white house was involved in torture.
Some republicans members of the house might have heard about it, too, but they went on to vote for and endorse bush, so their moral failure is self-evident. I don’t feel the need to obsess over them, as they didn’t order torture. They merely supported and voted for the president who did.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Al, I presume that Pelosi gave a floor speech against torture somewhere around the time the house passed a bill that would codify the rules of interrogation in the army field manual into law for the CIA.
Yeah, after the fact of the waterboarding became public!
Obviously the point is that she was perfectly fine with waterboarding – she knew about it and approved of funding it – while it was non-public. It was only when it became public that she became embarrassed by her support of it, so she changed her position.
The entire issue is that the Democratic politicians “outrage” with respect to waterboarding is completely phony, and purely for political effect. We know that they were perfectly happy that the Bushies waterboarded people… right up until the time when it became public and they thought they could score some political points.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
James Fallows has no doubt Graham’s honesty. See: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php
May 15th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
DTM, if there is credible evidence that Pelosi began working on legislation to ban the practices shortly after learning of them, that would hugely mitigate any votes she cast in favor of funding government agencies which she knew were engaged in the practices. I don’t think any of us are very well-informed as to these facts at this time.
Fair enough.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Will Allen, your whole “she voted to fund a government agency!” is an abjectly bullshit argument, but it’s what you’ve been reduced to in the constant struggle with the bug up your ass about pelosi. You don’t see democrats getting more outraged about what republicans did or didn’t hear than what the bush administration actually did. This has been a dishonest argument from the start from right wingers who want to distract from the issue. Any legal liability for torture falls on the president, not on pelosi, and not even on the republican congressmen who might have been briefed on vague things by the CIA (whose claims turn out now to be false). This is all about republicans continued obsession with pelosi– an obsession that they didn’t have when it came to actual malefactors such as Bush. This is only some moral preening on your part to distract from the misdoings of the Bush administration. You can’t talk about the Bush administration, all you can talk about is Pelosi– why? What is your problem?
All I hear from you, Will, is your screeching about Pelosi. You are too much of a coward to criticize Bush. again. You didn’t even come up with the outrage against Pelosi on your own, you are simply repeating it as a tool of the right wing who demands that you lie for them, again. This is a reason why republicans are, generally, unrespectable when it comes to political arguments. You don’t really have a leg to stand on, here.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I guess the question is then, Tyro, why did she change her story so often if it wasn’t even an issue?
Again, it’s not an issue for me, I could care less. But you should be pissed.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Apparently unlike you, Tyro, I think we have co-equal branches of government. Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, is fully complicit in anything it knowingly funds. Period. The purpose of the oppostion party, when it is in the minority, is to oppose that which it perceives to be wrongful, including not voting to fund it.
Yep, Joe, I voted for Bush in ‘04. I would have voted for FDR in 1940, even if I knew he had been breaking the law with regard to the Neutrality Act, and I would haved voted for him in 1944, even though it was obvious at that time that he was engaged in war crimes. To vote for President is to vote for a criminal, and to vote for President who will wage war is to vote for a war criminal.
Excuse me, but where did I write that Pelosi couldn’t criticize Bush or Cheney? I don’t object to her saying anything which crosses her mind, and I as I wrote above, if the facts show that she began working to end what she says is unacceptable, upon learning of it, then what she says carries a lot of weight. If, however, she chose to support funding that which she says is objectionable, and only objected to it when it was politically expediant, then what she says is trivial. That is why I favor criminal trials, starting with
people as high up as possible in the Executive Branch; it is the surest way to find out who did what when.
Yes, in regards to Indochina in the 70s, Congressional Democrats voted to cut off funding for government action which they wished to see stopped.
Finally, yes, I’m rather cynical about people who denounce the Bushies for their torture regime, while they defend state politicians, when those state politicians use the torture regimes in their state prisons for the state politicians’ political benefit.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Yeah, Tyro, I’m so out to get Pelosi that I have written multiple times now that if the facts show that she started to work to end the practices when she learned of them, then her votes to fund the activity are hugely mitigated. You, on the other hand, are such a pathetic cheerleader that you won’t even concede that Congress is complicit in the actions it chooses to fund.