Pelosi Lies for Third Time on Torture

Version 1: I knew nothing at all about waterboarding. So you can understand why I didn't object.

Version 2: Okay, maybe I was told something about waterboarding, but only as a hypothetical future technique. I was never told we'd already waterboarded Zubaydah. So you can understand why I didn't object.

Version 3: Okay, maybe I did know all about Zubaydah being waterboarded, but Jane Harman wrote a letter of protest which I could have co-signed but I didn't, because I needed to "respect appropriate channels." So you can understand why I didn't object.

Coming soon:

Version 4: Okay, maybe I personally took part in waterboarding Zubaydah, but I swear I only held his forehead back and didn't pour any of the water. So you can understand why I didn't object.

Does anyone remember the good old days when flagrant lies and ludicrous backpedaling by a Speaker of the House warranted serious media attention?

I do. I believe the period in question lasted from 1994 to 2006.

Allah Asks... "Has anyone asked yet why, if “torture” was such an epochal issue, Pelosi was sending staffers to CIA briefings in her place instead of going herself? "

Of course they haven't. But if, a hypothetical future interrogation technique called "asking the Speaker of the House a pointed question and a follow-up" were employed, I think the truth might start to emerge.

I strongly suspect the CIA and Pelosi worked something out -- she wanted plausible deniability, and the CIA, which frequently provides just that, granted it to her. They worked it out so that Nancy Pelosi would know which briefings it might be compromising for her to attend personally, so she sent her aide, who could always claim later "I failed to properly brief my superior."

But with Pelosi demanding investigations into anyone who approved of torture -- a class that includes herself -- the CIA is no longer interested in maintaining the fiction.

Oh... And among the dozens of ways Pelosi could have registered her objections -- she could have tossed the matter to her senior legal advisers, asking them to research whether these techniques were legal or not, rather than taking the White House Office of Legal Counsel's word for it (and then later claiming "I was assured it was legal, but I knew it was illegal all along. Secretly, in my heart."

She could have then sent the analysis to the CIA and the OLC, asking them to respond to their own analysis.

She didn't.

She sent a staffer so she could actually get a full and complete briefing, but would later on be able to claim "I didn't attend that meeting," and of course demand the heads of anyone who okayed waterboarding. Except for herself.

Hey, she wasn't even there, man.

posted by Ace at 08:17 PM

| Access Comments