FNS: Newt Gingrich Questions Pelosi's Version
It may be one of the biggest scandals in US history: the "they said/she said" power play between the CIA and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. As more and more information comes out to show just how sadistic and truly tortuous our "interrogations" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydeh were, the need to spread the blame intensifies.
So naturally, the best expert on this issue is the disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, only too happy to tighten the noose around the neck of Pelosi a little more.
WALLACE: House Speaker Pelosi continues to deny that she was ever briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques that were actually used against Al Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah.
But a newly released list of congressional briefings -- and let’s put it up -- says that Pelosi received, quote, “a description of the particular EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, “that had been employed,” this just a month after Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times.
How do you explain the discrepancy?
GINGRICH: Well, I think she has a lot of explaining to do. I don’t. She clearly -- she’s now changed her story again and said well, she’d been reassured they were all legal. So initially she didn’t know about it, had not been briefed. Then she had been briefed, but it wasn’t clear. Now she’d been briefed and, in fact, had been told it was all legal so she didn’t worry about it.
I think she has, you know, a lot of explaining to do. I think on national security matters, she has an obligation either to say nothing or to tell the truth. And it’s pretty clear in this case she’s not telling the truth.
Newt Gingrich: Judge, Jury and Executioner. But there's no partisan gain here. Let's be clear: If it in fact does turn out that Nancy Pelosi knew that they had waterboarded Zubaydeh 83 times over the space of 30 days and said or did nothing, let's not excuse it or whitewash it. She has to accept responsibility for her actions.
BUT...and this is where Newt is disingenuous...there is no evidence that the CIA was truthful in their informing Pelosi and moreover, quite a bit of past history of being less than forthcoming. There is absolutely no reason why we should accept the CIA's version as gospel, especially considering how politicized it was during the Bush administration. In fact, it appears that the CIA didn't even inform Pelosi of their use of waterboarding until AFTER Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded:
Here's what Greg found in looking at the documents:
But the documents are inconclusive on a key charge being made by Republicans — that she had been told of the use of waterboarding, one of the harshest and most controversial torture techniques."EIT" refers to "enhanced interrogation techniques." As you can see (graphic of document at the site), the document says that on September 4th, 2002, she was briefed on the "use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah" and a "description of the particular EITs that had been employed." It’s the only time Pelosi was briefed.
This does not say whether she was told specifically about waterboarding. By contrast, elsewhere in the documents, descriptions of other later briefings to members of Congress repeatedly specify they’d been told about waterboarding.
What's more, as Greg points out in a follow up, in the letter to Congress that accompanied the document release, Panetta said that the documents might not actually be "an accurate summary of what actually happened" because they were "memorandum for the record" based on the "best recollections" of staff. So as Greg says, "the CIA isn’t willing to vouch for the accuracy of the info about the briefings in the docs, and that only further inquiry will produce a reliable recounting of what happened."
And now, moving on to the bonus round: Let's talk about cretins who lead an impeachment caused by a president's infidelity, while cheating on his 2nd wife.
Newt is a slime bag in his own right, so he is in no position to cast stones. However, Pelosi needs to go. Her support of Bush's torture and wiretap policies make her a poor choice for serving in congress, let alone as house speaker. If she had any honor, she'd resign.
to replace her?
She's been worthless ever since she stepped into her position. No guts to take on Bush, now we've got "whoops, I guess I did know that the feds were wiretapping Congressmen after all" and "Oh gee, I guess I did get some memos about 'enhanced interrogation' how about that?"
Get a real liberal with real courage for Speaker, not this cover-my-own-ass, small bark no bite empty suit.
Everyone knows the only infraction that causes someone to resign is flying a plane over Manhattan. Everything else is permissable for the last ten years.
traditional in times of conflict, which is almost all of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crim...
Can we choose "none of the above"?
Still, I'd love to know why impeachment was "off the table."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
There is one way that Speaker Pelosi could clear all of this up, and that would be to begin criminal indictments of all persons responsible for authorizing torture techniques...................
..............any time now Ms Pelosi..............any time now..........
'Talk to the hand'
under oath
let the chips fall where they may
if this brings down both parties...so be it
Was newt there at the time of the briefings? NO! Has Newt seen the documents? NO!
Sit down and shut up, Newt your time has come and gone!
Evidently, Jane Harmon wrote a letter that is coming back to verify that Pelosi knew more than what she is saying she knew.
John Rothmann, talk show host on KGO Radio (San Francisco) devoted most of Saturday morning's program to this subject. The archive can be found at http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=49920
You can listen to or download one hour at a time. The program is 1 am to 5 am. The link is good for one week.
The only way now is forward.
I really don't know wtf is going on with Pelosi.
I really don't know why she said that impeachment was "off the table"
I guess it makes perfect sense though for her to take impeachment off the table for war crimes ... if the impeachment would prove that the Speaker of the House was also complicit in those war crimes.
Conyers would make an infinitely better speaker.
Good enough 50 years ago, we'll dust it off and tune it up.
What a definitive step back into the family of man backing the notion that all men are created equal.
The Principles, executive ,Judicial, press and traitors who tortured have to stand before the nations that we tortured. They may have more mercy then we've exhibited lately. The Principles if convicted must not be allowed to claim to be American Citizens and jailed in the bowels of Iraq. They will be allowed to talk among themselves but no communication with the outside world until there's a one line death notice at their demise. They must be stripped of every ill gotten gain they now possess.
For speaker I'll take the MAN in a boy's body Dennis K.
however, what could the intelligence committee do even after being briefed?
all the briefings were classified
once the briefing was over, no one could talk about it
the entire thing was insane
but fuck newt
Investigate her ass, too. Since when does bipartisan agreement nullify law?
This Republican talking point is an appeal to the same corruption that got them kicked out of office. They assume that, if they can hang these crimes around the necks of Democratic politicians as well, then the Democratic Party will obstruct justice in the same way the Republicans did.
Pelosi has some explaining to do.
John Rothmann, talk show host on KGO Radio (San Francisco) devoted most of Saturday morning's program to this subject. The archive can be found at http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=49920
You can listen to or download one hour at a time. The program is 1 am to 5 am. The link is good for one week.
What say we deport all of the CIA and Congress to Gitmo. If they're doing any work at all important they can continue it from there. Then they can regain admittance to the US only after proving their innocence of any activities related to the torture of human beings. I know we usually look at cases of crime, even sick twisted perverted crimes like torture, as the suspect being innocent until proven guilty. But considering we're talking about the CIA and Congress and the torture of 'suspects' here I think this isn't that unreasonable.
add blackmail to the list of republican transgressions.
He's got his nerve. He serve one wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery. He was cheating with an intern, while condemning Clinton for his transgression. He's been married 3 times. Shut-the-eff-up, Newt.
Who amongst us could actually say they'd be surprised if this party of Whack-jobs and reason-depraved losers actually started to call for an investigation and possible investigation of Pelosi over this?
There is literally NO bottom that is too deep for these scumsuckers to reach.
The only thing this proves is that the CIA is incompetent, why release something you cant vouch for and why cant they keep clear records, especially about this?
Newt is a tool. And Pelosi is obviously NOT telling the truth.
...what did the person from the other side have to say?
[That's a rhetorical question].
It's almost funnier if she _didn't_ know about the torture and we assume she did. If she didn't know, she gave Bush a pass for years not because she was trying to save her ass legally, but because she thought it was better for her career to let Bush do whatever he wanted. Which is shallower and more evil?
I've never been a fan of, or trusted, Speaker Pelosi.
For too long, I've heard the same rumors everyone else heard about Nancy and Paul Pelosi's investment portfolio being heavily weighted in the military, industrial complex. Just like Dianne Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum. This would certainly help explain why Pelosi blithely announced, "Impeachment is off the table," seemingly more committed to protecting the lawlessness of former President Bush than following the duties as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
This really isn't about Newt Gingrich or FOX News. It's about the CIA releasing a 10 page memo stating they briefed then-Rep. Nancy Pelosi and then-Rep. Peter Goss, the first two members of the House in 2002 about torture. This would mean Pelosi said nothing for nearly 8 years. Very troubling and if true, if Pelosi is lying, she needs to step down as Speaker immediately.
Combed hair.
...truth. Granted, I think it needs to be looked at as well. Anyone who knowingly approved of torture in this past administration, including Congress....needs to be held accountable.
But this dip shit wouldn't know "truth" if it jumped up and bit him in the face.
Anyone from the right wing nut factory shouldn't even be bringing up the notion of somebody else not being honest. That's their trademark.
Well Newt, I assume the usual answer you found acceptable from Bush will suffice here:
She can't speak about an ongoing investigation.
She'll get back to you in about 4 years though.
So why did they release the report at all? It sounds pretty worthless. Certainly somebody recorded what Congress was told.
Just more goddamned obfuscation.
Bottom line here is that if Pelosi knew about isn't as bad as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfelf giving the green light for these tortures. Sure Pelosi needs to be held accountable and when she is held acountable it will be the Bush administration who will go to jail. Pelosi may lose hr job but that may not be such a bad thing.
yet another member of the party of Hate and mis direction keep try to confuse the issue. We know the Racist Nazis OParty (RNC) alook with thye American Traitor (cheney) and the DRAFT DODGER (limbaugh), are about PERSONAL agenda and it has Nothiong to do with the statement and released documents.
Let the Prosecutions begin I want these Murdering Lieing Cheating Anti American republicans in JAIL.
But I certainly don't assume she's telling the truth, and the fact that she is a Democrat has zero bearing on whether I believe her or not. Sadly, the burden of proof for elected officials in this country (in the media, not in court) is on them to prove they are telling the truth and the other guy (or side) is lying. Otherwise, I remain skeptical of all of them. You reap what you sow, and American politicians have been such a dishonest bunch for so long, that none of them deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, in the case of Gingrich, I know what a lying scumbag he is. I also know that there is no subject about which Newt won't yammer on endlessly even if he has no idea what he's talking about. That means there is no reason to pay any attention to Gingrich on this subject (or just about any other subject).
So, is Pelosi telling the truth? I have no idea, but I definitely believe she would lie, especially to save her own butt.
Since the truth isn't exactly the lingua franca of politicians, I will reserve judgment on Pelosi until she can offer definitive proof that she's telling the truth.
He's the Republican party's Herb Tarlach minus the plaid suits.
In 2002, Pelosi was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and the 10-page CIA memo released last week says she was told about enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.
Aides present at the time said the briefing was detailed and graphic and she didn't raise any objections to the use of torture. One U.S. official present during the 2002 briefings said, "In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to September 11 and people were still in a panic. But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"
Sorry, but this isn't leadership and is why the shit is rising to the surface.
Why anyone would believe Newt on anything is beyond my imagination and given what the CIA has done during the bush years gives me no reason to trust them either.
I don't care what Pelosi knew. I really don't.
What matters to me is that those who designed it, those who attempted to legalize it and those who put it to use on prisoners are imprisoned and punished. Period.
The newly released CIA memos do not refute what Nancy Pelosi said earlier about her one 2002 briefing with Porter Goss.
She said she was briefed on EITs.
Waterboarding is not mentioned in her briefing entry...although it IS mentioned with regard to the subsequent members of Congress' briefings. No other specific technique is mentioned in her briefing entry, either. Certainly none of the techniques that were in the news when Pelosi made her earlier statement about them and about which she referred in that claim.
All indications are that there are NO memos that indict Nancy Pelosi or other Dems as being briefed by the CIA on the full specifics of the EITs in question or their actual use where the Dems supposedly simply "signed off on them" (whatever the hell that means) and did not follow up with a request for an investigation.
If such memos existed, Dick Cheney would have made damn sure they were leaked to and reported by The New York Times BEFORE last November's election. Right there along with the supposed CIA memos that Cheney claims show that their torture techniques elicted information that saved American lives in a way that could not have been elicited faster and easier through ordinary interrogation methods.
The fact that Cheney DID NOT get any such memos "leaked" to or reported by The New York Times before last November's election is the best proof there is that no such memos exist.
"WALLACE: House Speaker Pelosi continues to deny that she was ever briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques that were actually used against Al Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah."
Nope. Pelosi never claimed she wasn't briefed on EITs. She never claimed she wasn't briefed on the use of EIT on Abu Zubaydah.
She claimed she wasn't briefed on the then current use of waterboarding (the newly released CIA memos don't refute that claim).
She also claimed she wasn't briefed on the then current use of "these EITs" that were all over the news at the time, i.e. insects put in a confined area with the detainee, heads bashed against the wall, faces slapped, etc. (the newly released CIA memos also don't refute that claim).
There is nothing in the newly released CIA memos that refute what Nancy Pelosi claimed earlier about her one 2002 briefing with Porter Goss.
And the fact that the CIA cannot even vouch for the accuracy of the "who" and the "when" in those memos draws into greater question the "what" exactly anyone was briefed on anyway.
Let's see the recollections in the CIA records (unsubstantiated third hand hearsay at best) comes from people who have a vested interest in claims that Madame Pelosi knew. These are records of the "recollections" of people who face prosecution as war criminals unless they can smear the Democrats and stymie these investigations.
At worse Pelosi knowing is kinda like the Holocaust revisionists claims that FDR and/or Rabbi Wise were as responsible for the holocaust as Hitler or Eichman.
Pelosi is the new target. They want to take someone down. Hopefully, their strategy won't work. Pelosi was one of several members of Congress who were briefed about torture. Not sure what they could have done about it. I doubt that the Bush administration went into too much detail, and those who were briefed would have been sworn to secrecy. Even if they protested through private channels, the Bush administration would have ignored them. These briefings would have occurred during the first term of the Bush administration when the Bush administration ignored everyone, even their Republican allies. However, it is disturbing how much the Democratic leaders of Congress worked with the Bush administration in order to avoid looking like they were obstructionist -- basically helping Bush to implement the policies.
I hope Newt keeps spewing the stupidity that habitually comes out of his ignorant mouth and give the Dems so much fodder to use against his ridicious run for Prez.
If you read the actual CIA memos (very brief notes really) it appears Pelosi and Goss' one briefing, the first of all of the briefings to members of Congress, is the ONLY one where virtually no details were discussed about waterboarding or, according to Pelosi's earlier claim, "these other enhanced interrogation methods" that had just been revealed when Pelosi made that earlier claim (i.e. waterboarding, face-slapping, head bashing against the wall, insects in small, coffin-like enclosures, etc.).
I believe Nancy Pelosi. I believe that her and Goss' briefing DID NOT include a clear message that waterboarding or any of "these other enhanced inteterrogation methods" (the ones that were all over the news at the time of Pelosi's claim) had been used or were being used but only that the administration had gotten what they felt was legal clearance to use them if necessary.
HOWEVER, what the CIA then did with all the briefings subsequent to Pelosi and Goss' first and only briefing is very, very, very interesting. Those were the briefings where more detail was given and, apparently, members of Congress were told they were currently using them.
If I didn't know better (sarcasm), I would read that approach to be an attempt by the CIA/administration to make all the attendees who were briefed AFTER Pelosi and Goss, the first briefing, to naturally conclude that THEIR (Pelosi and Goss) relative lack of concern or alarm by what they were told (not told, really) meant the methods were not so extreme as to get much Congressional support for opposition to them.
In other words, the CIA soft-peddled the first briefing for Pelosi and Goss so that THEIR lack of alarm and concern about what they were told would set the tone for all the subsequent briefing attendees' response to what they were told as well...not knowing that the subsequent briefings went into greater detail than the one Pelosi attended. "If what I'm hearing didn't bother Pelosi and Goss enough to walk out of their briefing red with rage, then there isn't any point in my objecting to what I heard with rage without full support of Pelosi to do something about it".
"[...] just how sadistic and truly tortuous our "interrogations" of [...]"
I think you meant to write 'torturous.'
Comments are closed on this entry