Comments on: Breaking News!! CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!!

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 09 May 2009 21:17:46 +0000

the argument there was nothing I could do , no one I could tell is almost as bad as “I was just following orders” I had thought from the beginning that there might be some missing dates of briefings not yet released.

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 09 May 2009 21:09:21 +0000

Wish someone would support an investigation into her families war profiteering. She does seem to hold her finger in the wind a great deal. Voted for the war resolution, Mukcasey, Kyl Liebermann. Wears far too much bling during hearings.

Tone it down Diane we do not want to see your blood diamonds or other fancy bling

By: Leen

Leen — Sat, 09 May 2009 21:05:19 +0000

Follow the integrity! What integrity?

By: Rayne

Rayne — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:57:21 +0000

Let’s say for a moment you’re a Democratic leader in Congress.

Why would you publish that polling if there’s any chance at all something could change public opinion inside an 18-month window?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:28:26 +0000

Yeah, okay, I see you had already locked in on what I am saying. I smelled biscuits and bacon in the kitchen and that diverted my attention for a few minutes.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:24:15 +0000

And see that is my point. The remedy IS provided. If Pelosi, or any others that had an inkling (Rockefeller, Graham and Harman come to mind eh?) wanted to make a mark they could have simply made a stink about not getting the briefings and the limited hangout Gang of Four versus the required Gang of Eight. That type of advisory in the well could have really laid down a marker all by itself and would not even have cause the furor that would come from a more detailed statement.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:15:10 +0000

I agree that walking out of the meeting and to the floor might not only have taken cojones but also would have been a mistake. There was a lot of follow up that she could have done, including written, classified requests for additional briefings, ability to access input from aides or to have DOJ rep participate and answer questions, etc.

But there are point in time where I don’t think it would have taken that make more limited reveals. Once she moved to leadership, and in particular in the lead up to the Iraq war when there were a lot of quesions being raised on intel anyway, she could have said on the floor that she received briefings as ranking member on Intel that she realizes are not being given to the full Gang of 8 or full intel committees and that she believes they should be — that would have put the WH in the posture of either making it look like they were hiding something or having to spread out the briefings. It also wouldn’t have “revealed” the torture program and might have opened the door in closed briefings to questions about the use of torture on sources for the war run up.

During Abu Ghraib she could have made a similar statement - that intel heads got briefing on troubling Presidential assertions that might have an impact on what was done by soldiers at Abu Ghraib and she thinks that info should be made available to the full committees and possibly declassified in full - she could even say that if soldiers were facing criminal charges she believes the content of the briefings might be necessary for their defense — again, without actually going into the specifics of the briefing she could have made it very difficult for the admin not to make info available and made it look very complicit if it didn’t and there’s every chance that instead of a backlash, she would have had broad support. Then there was when the torture memo came out… lots of different points in time and circumstances and lots of “how much, how little” options on what she might say on the floor.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:59:10 +0000

CQ had a piece up yesterday about the look-sees at changes to the process, which are needed.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp.....0003106593
But in it, they have Nancy playing helpless: “‘If you want to take it to another place, who do you call, the chief justice?’ Pelosi, D-Calif., asked rhetorically “ and I left for them:
And yet the Constitution provides a pretty unrhetorical answer, doesn’t it? ” They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” At any time she could, on the floor, have said that she had been given a briefing that troubled her and she was not being allowed to have access to legal or other assistance or to ask follow up questions and she was publically asking the WH to adjust their briefing procedures so that the full intel committee and later in some form all of Congress be given access to what she had been briefed about.

Republican disinformation about whether or not she actually knew about waterboarding being done at the time (fall 2002) or only that the President was claiming the legal right to is a bad thing. So is Democratic disinformation about the Constitution.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:51:13 +0000

No - I am not assuming she was or wasn’t told about waterboarding and I never say that. That’s the whole point of the post I linked - that it is kind of a silly point to dwell on that aspect. I’m saying the whole discussion as gone to that narrow item - did Pelosi know about application of waterboarding - and that distracts from all the broader discussion that we should be having.

The things I have said are all the things that you admit are correct - she was told the President claimed he could legally torture and with that knowledge she was presented over and over with situations where she should have or could have put that knowledge to some kind of use. So did others. And the discussion should be about all those situations and the Failure to put that knowledge to use.

So you take something I never have said (that I’m assuming she was told about waterboarding being applied to someone - which I’m not) and then the things that I actually have said (”Yes, they told her they had legal authority to torture. Yes, she had the ability under speech and debate to go to the floor of the House and reveal this”) to conclude:

But your stance, frankly, pretty much plays inot the hands of hte Republicans trying to use precisely your attitude to make it less likely they’ll investigate torture.

I call bull on that. Spending a load of time, energy, effort etc. on the issue of whether or not Pelosi got briefed in Sept 2002 on the President being able to legally torture v. the President actually engaging in torture does not somehow make it “more likely” that all the other questions that aren’t being asked will get asked. And my saying that all those other questions should start being asked, with less obsession over “protecting” Nancy, does not make it “less likely” that torture will be investigated.

By: Nell

Nell — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:41:50 +0000

I’ve already heard from a highly credible source with strong ties to at least one member of the House Judiciary Committee that the key reason impeachment was not an option was that it did not poll well. The American public, via polls, told members of Congress they did not want impeachment. WE might want it, but a majority of Americans indicated they didn’t.

Sorry, not buying unless the polls and their internals are made public. There were almost no public polls on impeachment before 2007; the press refused to ask the question (in sharp contrast to the Clinton mess, where they began polling on it at the first hint of dirt).

And the frequent, public polling of the question itself changes the political climate, as your highly credible source must know. So unless s/he can produce the numbers, that’s just more squid ink.

Pelosi watched the Abu Ghraib grunts get blamed for something she knew full well was a policy from the top, and didn’t make a peep. No complaints about the lack of a presidential finding, or the inadequate and separate briefings, nothing.