Friday, May 15, 2009
Felonius Pelosius: Lying Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi claims that she was "misled" on torture and WMDs. Kansas City Star:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged Thursday that U.S. intelligence officials had misled Congress about the use of torture on terrorism suspects.
...the House leader said, "The CIA was misleading the Congress. And at the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said the intelligence does not support the imminent threat."
On December 16, 1998 - then a Congressional Representative - Madame Botox said the following:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
"The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction..."
We are told by Liberals that Pelosi is a brilliant woman. A naturally intelligent and educated woman. But over and over again she seems to claim that she was misled by one thing, one person, one agency or another. Then, she contradicts herself by being on the record in 1998 acknowledging that Saddam Hussein "has been engaged in" the development of WMDs. Not that he is just beginning or experimenting with WMDs, no no no - she said "has been engaged in." Quite a difference.
I am always amused when Liberals talk about W. Bush and his ginning up war with Iraq and the pretext of WMDs. These same Liberals forget that for, at least, the final two years of Bill Clinton's second term all they did was gin up WMDs and Saddam Hussein's goal to acquire chemical and biological weapons. If anyone set a pretext for war with Iraq, it is all the Democrats on record from 1998 to 2000, only, as usual, the Libs now try to rewrite history and distance themselves from their own words.
Pelosi now resorts to the Usual Standard Operating Procedure that Liberals use when caught in their own web of lies: "I was misled." (Cue sound effects of baby crying).
Pelosi knew. She knew. She was briefed, more than once. And now she's trying to rewrite history for her own political livelihood. al-Reuters:
The [CIA] issued a chart saying Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Porter Goss, the committee chairman at the time, were given "a description of the particular EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed."
A besieged Pelosi told reporters she had only been told that the Bush administration had legal opinions that concluded the use of these procedures were legal, not that the tactics had been used. "The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed," she said.
The CIA said then it had not used them yet when in fact they had already been used, Pelosi said.
Goss, however, wrote in The Washington Post on April 25 that he and Pelosi and their counterparts in the Senate had been briefed that "the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists."
"We understood what the CIA was doing," he said.
CIA spokesman George Little stuck to the agency's language. "The language in the chart -- 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' -- is true to the language in the agency's records."
Republicans accused Pelosi of not having her story straight. "The speaker has had way too many stories about this issue," said the top Republican in the House, John Boehner. He said it is "hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress."
Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.
A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.
Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned.
Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:
-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
-- We understood what the CIA was doing.
-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.
I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.
Yes, as recently as last month, she insists she was not informed about waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques. Karl Rove writing at WSJ.com:
When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."
The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.
In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."
Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.
We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded.
So, let’s have a hearing and get it all out there, shall we? Then watch the rats scatter who attacked Bush for protecting the country from terrorist attack… but who clearly knew what was going on five years before we heard a peep out of them
I agree, let's watch the democRATS scatter. Release the doc's, televise the hearings. Let's go!
I like your blog. Interested in reciprocal linking? No need to feel obligated to say yes.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.