For once, a prominent Democrat may not get to "have it both ways." Or will she?
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently thought she could. With the recent release of Bush Administration memos on the "enhanced interrogation" of terror suspects, Ms. Pelosi sought to stake out a position consistent with her party and its leader, Barack Obama. Practiced at judging the political winds, Speaker Pelosi wasn't about to contradict Mr. Obama's ban on the enhanced techniques, which he has classified as torture.
Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, she had once done just that, and--ironically enough--a mainstream media outlet had the proof. In December 2007, the Washington Post detailed briefings provided by the CIA for senior members of Congress; the sessions detailed interrogation techniques approved for use on suspected Al Qaida members. Among the attendees was the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Nancy Pelosi.
The briefings began in September 2002 and continued on a regular basis for several years. One intelligence official told the Post that key members of Congress received at least 30 presentations on the subject. Ms. Pelosi was a regular participant until she was replaced on the intelligence panel by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California.
According to the Post, Senators and Representatives who attended the briefings were highly supportive of the advanced interrogation measures. During the first session, one lawmaker asked CIA officials if the techniques were "tough enough." Some accounts of that session suggest that the question came from none other than Nancy Pelosi.
Additionally, there is no record that the future speaker ever voiced objections to the interrogation program and the tactics used. Back in those days, the Post reports, the prevailing attitude was simple: 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people."
But attitudes on the Hill began to change in 2005, after details about the interrogation program--including water-boarding--began to leak out. Democrats expressed shock and outrage over the interrogation techniques, but never admitted that senior members of their party had been briefed on the measures years before.
Now, Ms. Pelosi's past acquiescence on the program is catching up with her. But rather than admit she was briefed on the interrogation measures--and voiced no opposition, the Speaker is offering a rather slippery explanation. Speaking with reporters in Washington, Pelosi claimed that she was briefed on the legal justification for water-boarding by the Bush Administration, but was never notified that the practice was actually being used.
That's a rather incredulous claim, and it directly contradicts the Post account from 2007. Intelligence officials present at the briefings report that Congressional leaders received detailed information on the interrogation program. At least one session provided a detailed description of the water-boarding technique, but it brought no immediate protests from elected officials in attendance. Indeed, only one lawmaker--Ms. Harman--filed a formal protest against water-boarding after participating in one of the briefings.
Speaker Pelosi is also claiming that confidentiality rules prevented her from discussing the interrogation effort and mustering support against it. But that argument is something of a red herring. True, Senators and Congressmen are required to sign confidentiality agreements, but when was the last time that one of them was actually prosecuted for disclosing classified information? Had Ms. Pelosi been sufficiently outraged, she could have simply followed the time-honored Washington technique of leaking to the media, with little fear of punishment.
Fact is, Pelosi and her colleagues deserve credit for supporting the interrogation program to save American lives. As former CIA Director George Tenet has observed, the coercive techniques used on senior Al Qaida officials generated better information than the other sources of his agency, the FBI and the National Security agency--combined. Recently-disclosed information suggests that the interrogation effort prevented a "second wave" of major terrorist attacks against the United States. That's one reason that Congressional leaders signed off on the program, until it became politically advantageous to oppose water-boarding.
Normally, no one bats an eye at such hypocritical behavior--as long as it involves Democrats. But Speaker Pelosi is actually being challenged on what she actually knew about interrogation measures, versus her more recent (and modified) recollections of the program. How long the challenge will last is anyone's guess, but if anyone deserves to squirm, it's that current, feckless occupant of the Speaker's chair.
Ms. Pelosi shouldn't't be allowed to have it both ways on the interrogation issue. The intelligence community deserves a little consistency from those who control the purse-strings and provide Congressional oversight.. But sadly, the speaker's ever-evolving position is par for the political course in Washington. Field interrogators and those who developed the debriefing program should be very, very afraid. Very soon, the debate over "What Nancy knew" will shift into a political witch-hunt, aimed at "punishing" those who used coercive techniques on captured terrorists.
Some of those operatives will likely go to jail. And Nancy Pelosi will be a prominent voice in the political chorus, urging punishment for those who executed the policy--but not the politicians that endorsed it.
Comments