Frankly I really do not care what she knew or when she knew it. She was the minority Senator sworn to secretcy and her only avenue of protest was to the Majority Senator or the White House.
Base on Cheney's current 'we did not torture' tour, I can not imagine Cheney paying any attention to protests, and the Republican Majority set the agenda's in committees, and they protected the Bush Administration. So it comes down to this,... Was there a crime committed. Did we torture. If the answer is yes, then let the truth commissions begin! If you are confused about if we tortured, I suggest you consider the dead bodies of Prisoners head for questioning and the fact that a doctor NEEDED to be present during questioning. Do people really miss this blunt admission that damage was being inflicted! On May 17, 7:29 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > The lies of the CIA and Nancy Pelosi > 16 May 2009 > > Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi charges the CIA with > lying to her about torture in a 2002 briefing, a charge denied by the > agency. What it is certain is that she and the Democrats have lied > systematically to the American people to obscure their complicity in > the crimes of the Bush administration. > > On Thursday, Pelosi called a Capitol Hill press conference in an > attempt to clear the air about what she was told by the Central > Intelligence Agency and what she knew about torture. > > A CIA report released last week claimed that in a September 2002 > briefing, the agency had described torture methods, including > waterboarding, and informed Pelosi and her Republican counterpart, > Congressman Porter Goss, that they were being employed against Abu > Zubaydah, who by that time had been waterboarded at least 83 times. > > While Pelosi had given the impression that she knew nothing about this > torture because the CIA failed to inform her in the 2002 briefing, it > then emerged that she had been told about the active use of > waterboarding in February 2003—just five months later—by her senior > aide based on a subsequent briefing. > > In her press conference, the House speaker claimed that at the 2002 > briefing, the CIA reported that the Justice Department had issued > memos arguing that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation > techniques” were legal, but were “not being employed.” > > Pelosi went on to acknowledge that after she was informed that the CIA > was torturing suspects in February 2003, she did nothing, leaving it > to her successor as the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence > committee, Congresswoman Jane Harman, to write a letter to the agency > “raising concerns.” > > Her entire story strains credulity. Even if what she says is true and > the CIA did not inform her in 2002 that it was torturing Zubaydah, did > she really believe that the agency’s briefers were describing methods > of torture and Justice Department memos justifying them because the > Bush administration did not intend to use them? > > Pelosi advanced another alibi. “Like all members of Congress who are > briefed on classified information,” she said. “I have signed oaths > pledging not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I > have taken very seriously, and I’ve always abided by it.” > > Like all members of Congress, she also took an oath of office “to > support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” but clearly > that pledge took a back seat to defending the secrets of an agency > known throughout the world as Murder Inc. Her oath would not have > stopped her from denouncing torture in 2003, if she had really opposed > it. > > It should be recalled that in 1971 Alaska Democratic Senator Mike > Gravel, an opponent of the Vietnam War, took to the floor of the US > Senate to read into the record the so-called Pentagon Papers, a > collection of secret documents on the war, after the Justice > Department had obtained injunctions against their publication by the > New York Times and Washington Post. Gravel relied on a clause in the > US Constitution that protects members of Congress from arrest for > anything said from the floor of the House or Senate. > > It would not occur to Pelosi to invoke this constitutional privilege > because she did not oppose torture. It was not her oath of secrecy > that kept her quiet but her class position. Like the rest of the well- > heeled and thoroughly vetted members of the House and Senate > intelligence panels, she defends the CIA because the agency’s > assassinations, torture, kidnappings and other crimes are carried out > in defense of the interests of America’s ruling financial oligarchy. > > This is what makes all the more significant her statement at the press > conference that the CIA had lied to her and that “they mislead us all > the time.” It is an indication of the extent to which the attempt by > the Obama administration to make a partial disclosure of the Bush > administration’s record on torture and then “move forward” has thrown > the Democrats into crisis and opened up a bitter internecine struggle > within the state apparatus itself. > > Pelosi’s statement provoked a terse memo from Leon Panetta, Obama’s > appointee as CIA director. > > “The political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level > yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress,” he said. > “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. > It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against > our laws and our values.” > > In other words, the Democratic head of the CIA is defending the > practices carried out under the Bush administration and calling the > Democratic leader of the House of Representatives a liar. Nothing > could expose more clearly the role of the CIA and the national > security establishment as a virtual state-within-a-state, answerable > to no one. > > Its power has been strengthened by the two wars of aggression launched > under Bush and continued under Obama as well as the array of > repressive legislation from the Patriot Act to the legalization of > domestic wiretapping, illegal detentions and kangaroo military > commissions, all passed with Democratic support. > > It is this record that has emboldened the Republican right, which has > seized on Pelosi’s contortions on torture to make the case that nobody > in Washington has clean hands and any real investigation of torture > and the other crimes of the Bush administration would drag in the > Democrats as well. > > The point is valid, but it only underscores the fact that these crimes > were the product not merely of the rabid politics of the Republican > right, but of the deep decay of American democracy under the pressure > of capitalism’s crisis and the unprecedented growth of social > inequality. This is why they were supported by both major parties, the > media and the entire political establishment. > > Clearly, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration are > thoroughly compromised and cannot be entrusted with any investigation > of the crimes in which they were complicit. Any congressional > hearings, blue ribbon panel or “truth commission” as proposed by > Pelosi would be a whitewash. > > This cannot be accepted. The investigation and prosecution of all > those responsible for torture, wars of aggression and the other crimes > carried out over the last eight years is vital for the defense of > democratic rights and the moral health of society. If they are not > investigated and prosecuted, these crimes will continue and be turned > increasingly against the struggles of working people in the US > itself. > > The fight to hold accountable those who ordered, participated and > covered up for these crimes can only be seriously undertaken by > working people themselves as part of the struggle to build their own > mass political movement fighting for socialism. > > Bill Van Auken > On May 17, 7:40 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Q] - Uh-oh. Nancy Pelosi’s performance at her press conference re > > waterboarding has raised, according to the Washington Post, “troubling > > new questions about the Speaker’s credibility.” The dreaded T-word: > > “troubling.” > > > I doubt it will “trouble” the media for long, or at least not to the > > extent of bringing the Pelosi speakership to a sudden end — and > > needless to say I’m all in favor of Nancy remaining the face of > > congressional Democrats until November 2010. But her inconsistent > > statements do suggest a useful way of looking at America’s tortured > > “torture” debate: > > > Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding? > > > He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it > > now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the > > books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes > > gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a > > demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use > > should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent. > > > Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding? > > > No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in > > the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naivete) soul. > > Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing > > thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly > > believe about waterboarding? > > > Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back > > when, over six years ago. > > > Does she oppose it? According to Speaker Pelosi, yes. In her varying > > accounts, she’s (a) accused the CIA of consciously “misleading the > > Congress of the United States” as to what they were doing; (b) > > admitted to having been briefed that waterboarding was in the playbook > > but that “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or > > any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used”; (c) > > belatedly conceded that she’d known back in February 2003 that > > waterboarding was being used but had been apprised of the fact by “a > > member of my staff.” As she said on Thursday, instead of doing > > anything about it, she decided to focus on getting more Democrats > > elected to the House. > > > It’s worth noting that, by most if not all of her multiple accounts, > > Nancy Pelosi is as guilty of torture as anybody else. That’s not an > > airy rhetorical flourish but a statement of law. As National Review’s > > Andy McCarthy points out, under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant > > statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same > > penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed > > that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being > > used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
