Don't Resign Nancy

Republicans are keeping up their attacks on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Governor Huckabee forming a troika in calling for Pelosi's resignation because of her statements regarding enhanced interrogation methods and the CIA. These calls for her resignation truly stretch the bounds of credulity.

Let's look at the facts. According to the CIA charts that were recently released, the CIA conducted 40 Congressional briefings that discussed enhanced interrogation methods. The records indicate that Speaker Pelosi was present at only one of those briefings. The CIA notes make no mention of whether water boarding was discussed. That one briefing took place on September 4, 2002 and according to Pelosi, the CIA told her that they would use enhanced interrogation techniques but that the Department of Justice had concluded that all the techniques were legal. Pelosi also stated that if further methods were to be used, the CIA indicated it would come back to brief Congress about this. She maintains that at no time did the CIA tell her that they were utilizing water boarding.

In 2003, one of Pelosi's aides attended a CIA briefing with Pelosi's successor on the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Jane Harman. At that meeting, waterboarding was apparently discussed. After the meeting, Harman wrote to the CIA expressing concern about the techniques being utilized and Speaker Pelosi said she told an aide to let Harman know that she concurred with the letter.

Now for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who himself was the subject of 83 ethics allegations when he was Speaker and paid $300,000 for the cost of the investigation into one of those charges, to call for Pelosi's resignation is ironic at best. The very conduct in question -- the illegal use of waterboarding -- was promulgated by the Bush Administration, not Pelosi. The illegal activity should be the subject at the heart of the issue, not criticisms as to why Pelosi didn't intuit from what appears to be a vague briefing, to whistleblow about the use of the techniques.

Moreover, Gingrich claims that Pelosi should resign because she said the CIA lied to her and somehow that makes the country less safe. Questioning the veracity of CIA briefings and documents is actually very commonplace and has been done by the very same critics who are now attacking Pelosi. In fact, House Intelligence committee member, Republican Peter Hoekstra, said last year, on the subject of a different issue involving the CIA, "This issue goes to the heart of the American people's ability to trust the CIA. Americans deserve to know that agencies given the power to operate on their behalf aren't abusing that power or their trust." And Speaker Gingrich himself has targeted the CIA when in 2007 he described a National Intelligence Estimate document on Iran as "fundamentally misleading" and "a deliberate attempt to undermine the policies of President Bush by members of his own government."

Since when shouldn't Congress question the veracity of actions and statements made by an agency. Indeed, the very purpose of the Church committee, which in the 1970's was set up to investigate illegal activities by US intelligence agencies in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, was to have more Congressional oversight over our intelligence agencies.
Ultimately, the partisan attacks leveled by Gingrich et al are just that-partisan attacks that provide a harbinger of what is to come in 2012 when Gingrich and Hucakbee run for President as top contenders. Let's hope the country can focus in the interim on what's important-keeping America safe and adhering to the principles upon which this country was founded.

Comments

[S1m0n]

THe CIA doesn't have any contemporary documentation, either. Neither side kept minutes, or even a list of dates and attendees. Panetti's leaked document is nothing but staff recollections made long after the fact, exactly as authoritative as Pelosi's.

And in any case, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which both are correct; with the CIA briefers carefully talking around a difficult topic (which a war-crimes confession is always going to be) and thinking they've said what they had to say, while leaving the audience in the dark about the important part, which was that they had already started torturing prisoners and intended to torture more.

The CIA says they said it, and considering they knew what they were talking about, they're correct. Pelosi says they mentioned something about a legal opinion related to waterboarding, but didn't say that they were actually doing it. She doesn't know what the briefers were talking around, so she didn't get the message. Both think they're correct, and by their level of understanding, they are.

[mommadona]

Whole thing is NO one has clean hands or feet in this - no one.

Pelosi knows what she agreed to by doing nothing - she will live with that the rest of her life.

As she should.

Now, let the bricks fall where they may.
Soon and quicker, the better for all of U.S.

[plebeianswillrevolt]

Waterboarding aside, I think it is time for BOTH Pelosi and Reid to go.... Why? We need a mover and a shaker, not camera ready faker.

[iceroadtrucker]

Why? Why is all our outrage being spent fighting the Republicans dittoheads? We waste time trying to correct their generally obscene talking points and for what. We rush to the aid of a representative from the most liberal district in the country, who couldn't be bothered to sign, let alone write a letter objecting to these ghastly practices. The question of whether or not Pelosi knew torture was being used ends in '03, that's six years of tacit support to abhorrent methods that have left people (innocent ones, too) either mentally and physically traumatized or dead across the globe. When we defend people who are morally culpable to such heinous deeds because of mis-directed arguments, then we lose sight of the big picture. A lot of conservatives are trying to get Nancy to resign because they think it'll spite the liberals, it won't. Another democrat will become Speaker of the House, and SF will elect another liberal (and maybe one not opposed to single-payer health care).

[Nicas]

There's no question that Repubs are using Pelosi as a way to deflect criticism from THEIR OWN policies, so I agree on that.

The problem with Pelosi here is that she's the Speaker of House and she's accusing the CIA of lying to her. This is much different from Gingrich's statements in 2007 (many years after he held that title) and vastly different than the statements of Peter Hoekstra. How many leaders of jihad know who Peter Hoekstra is? Probably very few. How many know how Nancy Pelosi is? Every one of them.

Pelosi's accusations are allowing a terrorist leader to use the following at a recruitment tool: "Who cares of the US government has told the CIA that they can't torture? The CIA will just continue to lie and do whatever it wants!"

When Leon Panetta is out there asserting that the CIA did not lie, while Pelosi is claiming that they did, the credibility of the US Government is undermined.

[strangelet]

So, let's just play a little "what-if". What if Pelosi's recollection of events is, in fact, correct? BTW, Panetta has at most asserted that the "briefing lists" are as accurate as possible (and we know there were mistakes), given that they had to be assembled years after the fact from a few notes and recollections. It's not clear they even know what actual human beings were the "briefers".

So, just suppose Pelosi's recollection is correct. Is it then your view that she should just remain silent, or perhaps resign, so as not to "undermine the credibility" of the U.S. Government?

The credibility of the U.S. government was thoroughly undermined by the Bush/Cheney administration. Rebuilding it will take years. Rebuilding it will also require honesty, transparency, and probably the investigations that Pelosi, among others, is calling for.

Incidentally, you'll note that today the Army Chief of Staff has stated that we will probably have substantial combat forces in Iraq for ten years, despite the SOFA (and the President) that say we'll be out in 2012. Think your hypothetical terrorist recruiter could make use of that example of non-credibility? Should the COS resign? Or is that reserved for female Democrats?

[S1m0n]

Uh, the CIA of the day has already confessed to lying to the Secretary Of State. If Tenet was willing to bullshit the #3 in line for the presidency, why is the suggestion that he was lying to lowly opposition members of congress difficult to believe?