Understanding the fallout from Nancy Pelosi vs. the CIA

June 4, 11:52 PMPolitical Buzz ExaminerJames Hyde

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Political Buzz Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

AP Photo

Understanding the fallout from Nancy Pelosi vs. the CIA isn’t as simple as who is telling the truth and who isn’t. The fallout goes far, drilling deeply into the political realm and short-circuiting plans (temporarily, at least) to delve into the Bush Administration’s actions during the War on Terror—yet another waste of taxpayer money in the name of payback.

The longer the wait, the less the American people will be willing to support spending millions of dollars on vengeance and to make all Republicans look complicit.

In fact, the tale of what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it has turned into a political Greek tragedy, not just for her and the Democrats, but also for the CIA, an agency hard at work foiling terrorists. She is alleged to have sucker punched the “Company” at a time when it neither deserved nor needed it.

From a political standpoint, there’s been a growing rumble of dissent among the people about all of the spending done by Obama and Congress, especially the stimulus package that most members of the House and Senate admit they never read before voting on it. If Obama’s economic plans fail, that contingent, added to growing outrage over the government’s takeover of banks, Chrysler and GM, etc., may lead to a pro-Republican backlash in 2010. They could retake the House and/or Senate. At that point, no investigation of Bush will go forward. That’s why Pelosi’s ill-advised antics may cost the Democrats. Why?

Prior to Pelosi’s now famous meltdown performance in front of the press, plans were being made about which members would sit on a “Bush whacking” subcommittee, and exactly what mission they’d be tasked with completing. But when Pelosi, held that press conference (see below), she was obviously trying to stomp out a flaming bag of dog waste of her own creation. That brought the “Get-Bush-Cheney” post administration putsch to a stop so sudden, the air bags deployed.

The drama began when Pelosi, adorned in high anxiety, was first asked questions about her version of when she was briefed on the use of EITs and in what context. The Seattle Times  and AP reporter Julie Hirschfield, among other sources, put together a timeline that sheds light on exactly what transpired.

On September 4, 2002, the records show that Pelosi, then the minority leader on the Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Peter Goss, a Florida Republican and committee chairman, together with two Senate peers (a group known as the gang of four), were fully informed by the CIA about the EITs. CIA records describe the subject of the secret briefing as "enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah . . . and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.”

The emphasis here is on: “a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.” It’s past, not future tense, as Pelosi claims.

Pelosi says she heard about the EITs, but was told they had not been deployed. However, inasmuch as Zubaydah had been waterboarded at that point, and inasmuch as Pelosi was told that the EITs were legal and had been “employed,” her assertion that the 2002 briefing had discussed “EITs not yet in use” flies in the face of reasonable deduction.

Regardless, all of this (whether EITs were in use or not) served up the perfect opportunity for Pelosi to send a letter to a wide range of people, including George Tenet, CIA director, Condoleezza Rice or President Bush himself protesting the use of waterboarding. Further, if she objected to any EIT, she should have voted against funding for it, but didn’t have the guts to do so because America’s nerves were still raw from 9/11 when the vote came before the House. She voted for self-preservation under the guise of patriotism to protect her career instead of voting her conscience.

According to Porter Goss, while she failed to make her objections known during the meeting, she pulled a sleight-of-hand maneuver.

The video above shows just how much Pelosi "objected" to what she'd heard at the 2002 meeting.

Political Buzz Insider Explanation

Obviously, Pelosi realized that political opponents could use a complaint of any kind against her. She was not yet Speaker of the House, but harbored ambitions to become speaker when the Democrats retook the House. Nothing could emerge in 2002 that showed she wasn’t being a team player, or her chances to be speaker would go up in smoke, and/or she might not get re-elected.

Politicians in this position sometimes secretly pen and file away memoranda that express how they really felt at the time a vote was held, and what they knew when briefed. It’s politically motivated, patently dishonest and really fools no one except for the public if it’s author hands it to the press.

After the 2008 elections, at least one of Pelosi’s memos surfaced according to Porter Goss in an Op/Ed article he wrote for the Washington Post, but it attracted little if any press attention because it was as transparent as air. Pelosi's memo objection was a supercilious attempt to look as if she had never supported waterboarding. In fact, what it boils down to is proof that Pelosi lied when she voted yea on important and popular War on Terror measures that would later turn unpopular. It allowed her to say, “See, I really opposed waterboarding from the beginning.”

Returning to the timeline, on February 5, 2003, a top aide, who was briefed with Porter Goss, Jane Harman of California, and two Senate colleagues, told Pelosi that EITs, including waterboarding, had been used.

This gave Pelosi opportunity two to fire off a protest letter. Nothing, although she admits she secretly endorsed (due to the sensitive nature of the topic) the protest letter that Jane Harman did send the administration.

On December 9, 2007, Pelosi, who had ascended the Speakership, publically admitted for the first time that she was indeed briefed on the EITs in 2002, but contends that she first learned of their use in 2003 when the aide reported it. This conflicts with the CIA’s account that she had been briefed about methods used on Abu Zubaydah in 2002.

On April 23, 2009, Pelosi denied that she was told at the 2002 briefing that EITs, including waterboarding, had been used.

On May 14, 2009, facing the press corps, Pelosi (in the video above) was clearly rattled the minute she entered the room. As The Washington Post tells it, she used her hands liberally, sweeping, circular gestures as some form of body language begging to get the press to believe her account on the merits of her spinning hands. She was about as flustered as a startled cat with a tail the size of a feather duster.

Her demeanor was symptomatic of someone who had suddenly lost all confidence, had the self-esteem of a slug, and as she scrambled through her papers to find her written responses to questions, she appeared to have the intellect of an oyster as she babbled to herself about finding the appropriate page.

She claimed her story is correct and the CIA’s is not. That provoked a reporter’s question on the minds of all: “Are you saying the CIA lied to you?” Pelosi, seeing the opening, took the bait and said, “yes,” the CIA had misled both her and Congress.

It’s an irresponsible, unfair and cheap shot accusation in support of which she provided no proof, and continues to refuse to provide proof. She also deflected further questions about it. As The Washington Post describes the mob scene after the accusation, she tried to “crab walk” her way out of the room, but returned to the podium to answer other questions. Her aides finally rescued her from the press briefing.

Had this been a Bush Republican, the press would have been all over it. But, characteristically, the left-leaning news outlets let her off the hook, and the story lost its legs…temporarily.

Later that day, George Little, a CIA spokesperson asserted that the CIA’s description of Pelosi’s 2002 briefing was "true to the language in the agency’s records."

According to The Seattle Times, on the next day, CIA Director Leon Panetta, fully realizing the damage done to the morale of his agency, circulated a letter to all CIA employees saying that the CIA officers holding the 2002 briefing gave the lawmakers the truth about EITs and that it was up to Congress to figure out what happened.

Since then, as noted, Pelosi won’t discuss the issue, but by making the statements she did, any investigation about the EITs used by Bush will now involve putting her under oath and investigating her, too.

As the excitement about and suspicion of Pelosi began to ebb, she suddenly faced a new challenge to her credibility in a sterling Op/Ed piece in the Washington Post.

Porter Goss, the other House member at the 2002 meeting, wrote up his account of what the CIA told the assembled, and it differs from Pelosi’s account enough to get House Republicans to launch a measure for a bipartisan investigation of the speaker. The Democrats defeated it, but House Minority Leader John Boehner is not going to give up on getting the truth. He’s admonished Pelosi to, come clean, admit she was mistaken and apologize to the CIA. Someone who has nothing to hide would step forward and say she told the truth and stands by it. No reply, as expected.

In his article in the Washington Post,

Goss wrote: “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.

He continued, “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.”

While the call for a bipartisan investigation has failed, the cause is not without life. The Democrats are quietly miffed at Pelosi because she’s tied their hands on a Bush digging expedition, which, if held, will require her to testify. The Democrats don’t want to put her under oath. If she tells the truth, she admits she lied. If she lies, she would be committing perjury. That could involve some jail time. Regardless, the public has a right to the truth, especially since Pelosi is Speaker of the House and only two heartbeats away from the presidency.