Who is telling the truth - Pelosi or the CIA?

[Anonymous]

Can I presume that none of the posters here have EVER briefed Congress, whether it be directly to a member or through staff? I can safely assure you that agency employees (and no I don't work for CIA, but another non-security agency) provide accurate and truthful reports to Congress. If we didn't then, how can we (a) get appropriate funding, (b) see statutory changes we need, (c) avoid "pork" going in the opposite way of the public good that we, as civil servants must protect, and (d) ever be relied upon in the future when Congress requires our expertise? Whether she's lying about knowing what was happening is irrelevant to the fact that she and many others failed to stand up for those without voices when such interrogation techniques were employed.

[Anonymous]

The point of above was about decision made before the invasion of Iraq, which was, indeed, debatably a mistake. Obama apologists conflate all difficult Bush administration decisions/policies with the invasion of Iraq--imply that they would have done differently across the board--and continue to do the same or worse. Did you catch the editorial on the closing of Guantanamo in the Post today? Fantastically well-stated argument about the unintended consequences of the current lip-service to human rights and moral righteousness, and how much worse things are getting for captured insurgents and our own intelligence mission.

[Anonymous]

How does the fact that waterboarding began before the invasion of Iraq make Bush any less stupid and wasteful of the country's resources?

Richard Clarke's op-ed in today's WaPo shows that some people were foresighted enough to realize that Cheney and Rice were heading down the wrong road -- even in the middle of the trauma of 9/11. Furthermore Clarke argues that Cheney and Rice should have seen 9/11 coming and chose to ignore the warnings. Here are the final two paragraphs of the column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

"I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration's response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does the fact that waterboarding began before the invasion of Iraq make Bush any less stupid and wasteful of the country's resources?

Richard Clarke's op-ed in today's WaPo shows that some people were foresighted enough to realize that Cheney and Rice were heading down the wrong road -- even in the middle of the trauma of 9/11. Furthermore Clarke argues that Cheney and Rice should have seen 9/11 coming and chose to ignore the warnings. Here are the final two paragraphs of the column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

"I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration's response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

President Obama himself has not ruled out such techniques in the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. That was the situation they were in. How can he point fingers and say he would do differently?

[Anonymous]

10:29 again -- The point is that Richard Clarke, a national security insider, said he would do it differently and that it is in the best interests of the nation to do it differently.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry the left started it and it shows that we were in a time in this country where the need for security meant we have to do this and the left was right there in it until it became unpopular so no we aren't going to let it go.

Pelosi supports a truth commission to investigate and reveal who knew what when, and -- more importantly -- who did what when. Do you also support a truth commission or will you be ready to "let it go" before it reaches that point?

Jeff, I think you have asked the absolutely critical question on these issues. This whole thread is taken up with she lied/she didn't. I absolutely support a truth commission to investigate the decisions around detention issues and interrogation techniques. Such a commission should have a broader mandate than "who's telling a lie" or "what the timeline/actors of decision making were." It should evaluate the effectiveness or not of interrogation techniques, how many lives have been saved (or not) and what the impact is on US power and security in the future.

As a human rights activist abroad for years, one who has worked with other countries in their truth commission or war crimes processes and on detention/disappearance issues, I was horrified by Obama's early preemptive statements on investigations/prosecutions.

I personally will not "let go" of this issue before the facts are all on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry the left started it and it shows that we were in a time in this country where the need for security meant we have to do this and the left was right there in it until it became unpopular so no we aren't going to let it go.

Pelosi supports a truth commission to investigate and reveal who knew what when, and -- more importantly -- who did what when. Do you also support a truth commission or will you be ready to "let it go" before it reaches that point?

Jeff, I think you have asked the absolutely critical question on these issues. This whole thread is taken up with she lied/she didn't. I absolutely support a truth commission to investigate the decisions around detention issues and interrogation techniques. Such a commission should have a broader mandate than "who's telling a lie" or "what the timeline/actors of decision making were." It should evaluate the effectiveness or not of interrogation techniques, how many lives have been saved (or not) and what the impact is on US power and security in the future.

As a human rights activist abroad for years, one who has worked with other countries in their truth commission or war crimes processes and on detention/disappearance issues, I was horrified by Obama's early preemptive statements on investigations/prosecutions.

I personally will not "let go" of this issue before the facts are all on the table.

And I would like these questions to be explored / evaluated before decisions are made about Guantanamo or interrogation techniques. I don't mind putting said 'on hold', but dismissing them before evaluating effectiveness or asking how many lives are saved is irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

So folks who thought Pelosi was lying might want to rethink their opinion ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709503805414883.html