Political Hotsheet
May 15, 2009 1:56 PM

New Questions Emerge In Torture Debate

(CBS)
Nancy Pelosi is at the center of a political maelstrom because of her claims that the CIA and the Bush administration misled her about its use of harsh interrogation techniques. Now new questions are being raised that may help to focus some of the attention away from the embattled Speaker of the House and back on the agency and members of the Bush White House.

In an interview yesterday with The Huffington Post, former Senator Bob Graham said that the CIA had also failed to tell him about their use of waterboarding and labeled the agency's records of briefings "suspect." Graham was briefed in his capacity as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The former senator's claims could lend credence to Pelosi's charges that although she was told by the CIA that the administration considered waterboarding legal, the agency failed to inform her that the controversial technique was being employed.

Graham also said that the CIA gave him false information about the number of times he had been briefed on its enhanced interrogation methods. After checking the agency's record of his meetings against his own daily schedule and personal notebook, the ex-Florida senator said that the CIA agreed that no briefings had taken place on three specific dates that it had previously claimed that meetings were held.

Making the ongoing debate about torture murkier still, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the State Department, is claiming that the Bush administration used enhanced interrogation methods to help make a case for the war in Iraq based on a "smoking gun."

In The Washington Note, Wilkerson writes, "what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida."

Wilkerson also alleged that none of the harsh interrogation methods were employed during the president's second term because the administration had been burned by the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures. Consequently, Wilkerson questions former Vice President Dick Cheney's claims that President Obama's abandonment of such methods endangers the country.

All this hasn't silenced Pelosi's sharpest critic, of course. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was particularly vituperative in calling for an investigation into Pelosi's claims. Appearing on ABC Radio, Gingrich called Pelosi's behavior, "despicable, dishonest and vicious."

"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal," Gingrich said. "I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters."

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has also joined in on the Pelosi pile on. In an interview with Fox News, King called on Pelosi to resign and said that her charges against the CIA were "an outrageous accusation."
Tags:
Nancy Pelosi ,
Torture ,
Bob Graham ,
Lawrence Wilkerson
Topics:
Nancy Pelosi
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 35 Comments
by randysanders May 18, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
More bad news for the CIA. Whenever decisions are made concerning the enemy during war time activities, it is the military that makes these decisions, especially when concerning where and how "captured" enemy combatants are concerned. The CIA merely gathers "intel" in the hopes that this info will further the aims of defeating the enemy.

It is possible the CIA played a major role in the "acceptance" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but the military has its own "play book" when it comes to military campaigns. Of course, the Bush Administration would have made the ultimate decisions when it came to exactly how the miltary campaign would be carried out. I would assume that most high ranking military men would only suggest plans to the Bush Administration for how to wage their "war campaign". No matter what, the way most Nations perceived how America conducted themselves after 9-11 is that America didn't comply with existing "rules of conduct" becoming of a United Nation's member. The enhanced interrogation techniques implemented by the Bush Administration were found to be "forms of torture" by many UN Nations and they have yet to conduct an investigation of the Bush Administration (America).

As for the Debate of Torture, there shouldn't be one if the Bush Administration hadn't broken International Law conceived of by the Geneva Convention after WW2. They entered into a general agreement that the kinds of torture the Nazis used would never be allowed again. They even promised to one another that entering into a World War would be avoided at all costs by member nations. To let radicals who don't even believe in these tenets to "wage war" on any nation is neglecting ones duties for way too long. Since most of the perpetrators of 9-11 died in their "suicidal attack" of the Twin Towers, a more precise approach should have been implemented when trying to stop another attack instead of "invading another country" without proper planning" . The Bush Administration complicated matters by not using small precision teams in their efforts to stop terrorist instead of invading two countries with our own large forces. Instead they planned for large invasion forces. Defense foremost, a good offense uses precision tactics with minimal casualties. The Bush Administration didn't properly conduct themselves in their efforts to stop future terrorist attacks and terrorist activities on our nation or to protect other nations. They didn't even accept sound advice from members of the United nations. No the debate is a futile attempt by Republicans to convince Americans that the Bush Administration was very effective in everything they did. It is obvious to most American that the Bush Administration failed to meet the challenge.
Reply to this comment
by dhutch88 May 17, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
Leon Penatta called Pelosi a flat out liar. He is a Democrate, he ran the CIA. He is calling her a liar. THAT IS FACT>SHE WAS BRIEFED. She accused the Cia of lying and it backfired. Now whe is backtracking. Obama isnt even backing her, they want nothing to do with this.
Reply to this comment
by truth_police May 17, 2009 4:29 PM EDT
Let's separate the disingenuous gasbag, blowhard drivel from sincere meaningful dialogue. Will Boehner, Gingrich, or any GOP partisan support a congressional investigation into the matter? ANSWER: "No" -- they will fight "tooth & nail" against it, because they are NOT interested in the Truth of the matter. This GOP position is utterly inconsistent with their feigned pleas for more evidence, which can now only be construed as simply more insincere, disingenuous gasbag, blowhard drivel (a pretense), dispensed by the GOP for public consumption and invariably responsible for epidemic incidents of E Coli-tainted (fecal matter) food poisoning and contamination. People like Boehner, Gingrich and GOP partisans spread disease like wildfire when they refuse to wash their hands after they make this kind of an "in public" latrine dump. Only when the GOP wholeheartedly supports a congressional investigation will the public be able to discern any GOP sincerity in this matter.
Reply to this comment
by jedi0849 May 17, 2009 1:02 AM EDT
Their the Dems go again. Lying about everything. First this fake Glabal Warming arguement, then this fake Tourture arguement. Pelosi is a "Liar Liar, suit pants on Fire".

What is it about code pink tree hugers being so full of BS.

Also why are all Dem women so disgusting. Michele Obama (looks like a horse) Hilary Clinton (fatest legs ever) and Nancy Pelosi (I almost just threw up in my mouth even thinking about her.)

No wonder these women are all so angry. I would be angry too if I looked like them and try to survive on TV. hahaha
Reply to this comment
by ToolMangler1 May 16, 2009 9:16 PM EDT
The CIA exists to lie, manufacture desirable "evidence", destroy "inconvenient" evidence, and generally do the "scat" work of the president of the u.s..

Of COURSE they LIED! That's what they DO! They are GOOD AT IT!
Posted by p_syrus at 5:24 PM : May 16, 2009




The CIA exists to inform the government and the President of the situation in the world. The USA has a very large and capable armed service to do any necessary actions against a foriegn power. The CIA should not be involved in the 'doing' end of the equation. This allows to much room for illegal actions.
Reply to this comment
by p_syrus May 16, 2009 8:24 PM EDT
The CIA exists to lie, manufacture desirable "evidence", destroy "inconvenient" evidence, and generally do the "scat" work of the president of the u.s..

Of COURSE they LIED! That's what they DO! They are GOOD AT IT!
Reply to this comment
by j_mcdouglas May 16, 2009 8:10 PM EDT
The Party of Torture (Republicans) are desperate to blame Pelosi for their war crimes.

But it's really very silly.

When Pelosi knew Bush was torturing his hardly the point. Plenty of people in the military and the CIA knew they were torturing and didn't say anything until later because like with Pelosi, it was classified until Bush's DOJ revoked their legal opinions in January 2009 on their way out the door.

If Pelosi had squealed she'd have been as much a a Traitor as Scooter Libby is.

The point isn't who knew we were torturing. A LOT OF PEOPLE KNEW. Including about 40% of America (ie Progressives who actually read real news that's worth reading).

The point is who ordered the torture. And who believes in it.

That's Republicans.

Torture is a 100% Republican owned war crime.

But they're desperate to distract from that fact with irrelevant nonsense.
Reply to this comment
by j_mcdouglas May 16, 2009 8:06 PM EDT
It's hilarious that Americans are actually dumb enough to debate whether the CIA would lie to Congress... as if the last 100 years of lying just never happened.

Of course they lied. They lied to help Bush start an illegal war. They lied about the evidence. Even Bush blamed them for it... even after he told Tenet he didn't care if the Iraq evidence was true or not, he just wanted them to claim it was.

Of course they lied.

That's what they do. That's the CIA's job.

Just how stupid are Americans anyway?
Reply to this comment
by woodjd42 May 16, 2009 12:52 PM EDT
She should have left with Clinton, the other "Lying SOB", when he stepped out of office, but stayed when no one really took an interest in what SHE was doing. Instead again, they all focused on Hillary and gave HER hell for another 8 years, and completely ignored the Evil In Their Midst.
Posted by caligula1--2008

Don't forget the two biggest lying crooks of all, bush/chaney. I have chalenaged people before to name one thing they said that turned out to be the truth and so far no one has been able to come up with something.
Reply to this comment
by caligula1--2008 May 16, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
< The CIA reluctantly admits to destroying evidence on torture. What if Pelosi were caught destroying evidence that would automatically give her impeccable credibility? >

I'm sure, given the "Nature of Nancy", that something more or less like this has already happened more than once in her long and highly checkered career in the house. Her constituents don't care though as long as she keeps bringing in that free bacon, government cheese, and increased housing funding for those unable to buy a modest half million dollar home without the government urging banks to start rigging their credit ratings.

She should have left with Clinton, the other "Lying SOB", when he stepped out of office, but stayed when no one really took an interest in what SHE was doing. Instead again, they all focused on Hillary and gave HER hell for another 8 years, and completely ignored the Evil In Their Midst.
Reply to this comment
by rednomo May 16, 2009 8:17 AM EDT
Whose rules are we playing by?

The CIA reluctantly admits to destroying evidence on torture. What if Pelosi were caught destroying evidence that would automatically give her impeccable credibility?

***? Over
Reply to this comment
by rednomo May 16, 2009 8:06 AM EDT
The CIA would never try to mislead anyone...errr:

FOXNews.com
Monday, March 02, 2009


The CIA destroyed 92 tapes of terror interrogations, according to new documents, far more than had previously been acknowledged.

The figure was revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit in New York involving the American Civil Liberties Union. This is the first time a figure has been established in connection with the destroyed tapes, which showed enhanced interrogation techniques including water-boarding.

The acknowledgment of dozens of destroyed tapes came in a letter filed by government lawyers in New York, where the ACLU filed the suit seeking more details of terror interrogation programs.

"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety two videotapes were destroyed."

An official with the ACLU said the revelation "confirms that the CIA engaged in a systemic attempt to hide evidence of their own illegal conduct."

The official also said that the tapes' destruction shows that the CIA was evading a court's order to produce materials and documents related to CIA interrogations. The ACLU has been asking since December 2007 that the court find the CIA in contempt of court.

The tapes became a contentious issue in the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, after prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.

The letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.

But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel that viewed the tapes.

"The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs," states the letter.

John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, was appointed to lead the criminal investigation out of Virginia.

He had asked that the requests for information in the civil lawsuit be put on hold until he had completed his criminal investigation. Durham asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work, and has not asked for another extension.

FOX News' Catherine Herridge and Mike Levine and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Reply to this comment
by rednomo May 16, 2009 7:59 AM EDT
The Nancy Pelosi uproar is an absurd distraction from Bush administration culpability

By David Neiwert Friday May 15, 2009

Sean Hannity couldn't have been too pleased last night when his "All American Panel" -- which he usually manages to keep nicely docile -- took a decidedly liberal detour on the subject of Nancy Pelosi's charge that the CIA lied to her.

First, Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, pointed out the obvious:

Why do we think that she is the liar?

Regina Calcaterra, a Democratic consultant, promptly chimed in:

It's a smokescreen. I think this is a smokescreen by Republicans, because Republicans are concerned about Congress holding the Truth Commission, which you know is going to be the parallel to the 9/11 Commission.

Later, Hostin raises the really relevant point:

The issue here is that everybody knows that waterboarding is torture. And that was an approved policy. It is torture! Everyone knows that. And that was the policy of the Bush administration. Why don't we talk about that?

Indeed. Because on Planet Wingnuttia, claiming that "Nancy Pelosi knew about it too" justifies the policy.

The bizarre thing about making this a "he said/she said" issue is that we already know for a fact that the CIA lied to Pelosi about the torture.

Marcy Wheeler points out that (as she's been reporting for weeks,) we already have documentary evidence that "when the CIA briefed Pelosi and Goss on September 4, 2002, it told them that waterboarding was not being employed."

Yet this was in fact a lie. Because we also know from Lawrence Wilkerson that the CIA had been engaging in waterboarding since at least February of that same year. As Marcy observes:

While we can't be sure of the date when Cheney started ordering people to be waterboarded even after they were compliant, we know this order had to have occurred before February 22, 2002--because that's when al-Libi first reported on ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

... So sometime in February 2002--when Bush was declaring that the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda and when Bruce Jessen was pitching torture to JPRA--Cheney was personally (according to Wilkerson) ordering up waterboarding. The DIA immediately labeled the result of this session of waterboarding probable disinformation.
Reply to this comment
by woodjd42 May 16, 2009 5:45 AM EDT
Pelosi lies, her colleagues cover her lies, the CIA is lying...if there is anybody on Capitol Hill telling the truth, it's probably Obama's dog Bo...Pelosi has told so many lies that she doesn't have any idea of what the last lie really was, and Graham, well, he's just getting started...I think they should hold a private trial--nothing we have to watch for 6-weeks on the tellie--and prosecute most of congress. Just tell them to keep the cost down, we're freaking broke and this witch hunt is costing more every day it continues.
Posted by SperrySphere

I have no problem with going after Pelosi and the rest of congress for lying or even abetting or whatever since I agree that they all are idiots. However I presume that by going after Pelosi and the like you are agreeing that the acts of bush/chaney are criminal. Certainly you must agree that the bush/chaney administration are the ones that committed the crimes and congress only covered them up. I am sure then that since you want the ones in congress that covered it up and abetted the crimes, you want the ones, bush/chaney, that committed the crimes held accountable also.
Reply to this comment
by cjs_cnet_xyz May 16, 2009 2:18 AM EDT
People have lost their jobs. Many people have lost their homes. Yet, the bipartisan bickering takes center stage. While the whole issue of torture is important, the scale and scope of people's financial stability clearly overshadows misdeeds of the CIA. More investigations need to be performed on these financial institutions that mislead the public. More financial officials need to be locked up before we rule out any more waterboarding from occuring.
Reply to this comment
by SperrySphere May 16, 2009 12:28 AM EDT
Pelosi lies, her colleagues cover her lies, the CIA is lying...if there is anybody on Capitol Hill telling the truth, it's probably Obama's dog Bo...Pelosi has told so many lies that she doesn't have any idea of what the last lie really was, and Graham, well, he's just getting started...I think they should hold a private trial--nothing we have to watch for 6-weeks on the tellie--and prosecute most of congress. Just tell them to keep the cost down, we're freaking broke and this witch hunt is costing more every day it continues.
Reply to this comment
by boatdocster May 15, 2009 11:35 PM EDT
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was particularly vituperative in calling for an investigation into Pelosi's claims. Appearing on ABC Radio, Gingrich called Pelosi's behavior, "despicable, dishonest and vicious."

Gee, I thought Newt-less was talking about himself - holding up the Bible and claiming to be a holy crusade, prosecuting Clinton for getting a blow job; all the while Mr. "Holy" Newt is banging his aide while his wife was recovering from cancer, then dumps his ill wife to marry the aide. Class is in session: Sleezebag 210, GOP style.

Talk about despicable, dishonest and vicious - Newt is a charter member of that GOP club - "Do as I say, not as I do"
Reply to this comment
by novamba May 15, 2009 10:34 PM EDT
Nancy Pelosi has a field day and accuses the CIA of missinforming Congress, and when the CIA responds, the news is buried in some third page. Interesting.
Reply to this comment
by bradkt1 May 15, 2009 10:32 PM EDT
Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi wanted to have it both ways...they supported the Iraq war before they were against it. They didn't want to be accused of not supporting the troops. Pelosi is like many members of Congress who don't really want to know the details...just get the job done. Later, she could claim that she wasn'r told the whole story.

With that said, the Bush Administration co-opted these spineless Democrats because they were begging to be co-opted...and easy to co-opt. I don't believe that the CIA told Pelosi everything that she should have been told, but she didn't press the issue at the time. No one...no one appears to have asked the question "What are you doing with these detainees now?" That's why her claims about being misled ring hollow.. She never asked the questions that should have been asked in the first place.

That still doesn't make what the Bush Administration did legal...or right. It just makes Nancy Pelosi look like a fool...and the Democrats would be better off if someone else was the Speaker of the House anyway.
Reply to this comment
by Forbus56 May 15, 2009 8:03 PM EDT
Typical slanted article. "All this hasn't silenced Pelosi's harshest critic, OF COURSE".....Gingrich was particularly vituperative....also joined the Pelosi "pile on."

All the buzz words.Why no mention by CBS today of Leon Panetta's (one of those right-wing whackos, I guess) statement today that denied Pelosi's claims against the CIA?
Reply to this comment
See all 35 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Iran OKs 10 New Uranium Enrichment Sites

    (285 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER