Pelosi Knew About Waterboarding in 2002: Media Frenzy to Follow?

Photo of Jason Aslinger.

The Washington Post reported today that select members of congress were briefed by the CIA in 2002 about enhanced interrogation techniques. Included in the briefing was current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). 

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

According to the article, the CIA gave congressional overseers approximately 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding, other harsh interrogation methods, and virtual tours of the CIA's overseas detention sites.

Then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-FL) was also a party to the briefings.

"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

The article cites to "several officials familiar with the briefings" who recalled the meetings with a deep concern of future terrorist attacks.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "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.' "

As to the Speaker herself, Pelosi declined to comment to the Washington Post.

But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

This report comes after many months of criticism by congressional Democrats about enhanced interrogation methods administered by the Bush Administration. Democrats have repeatedly complained about waterboarding, calling it torture (and making it a one-phrase rallying cry akin to "Halliburton" and "Abu Graibh"). They have also complained about clandestine detainment facilities. Some objected recently to the appointment of Attorney General Michael Mukasey solely because he wouldn't declare waterboarding to be torture. And just this week, Democrats have reached full fury again over some destroyed interrogation tapes.

So with all this outrage over torture, it is quite a revelation that the House Speaker knew of waterboarding all along, and even approved of it (if you believe the Washington Post, hardly a conservative pamphleteer).

What is even more interesting is an examination of some of Pelosi's statements since 2002.

Pelosi issued a press release November 16, 2005 titled: "Torture is not Consistent with American Values." In it Pelosi states:

When we put our young men and women in harm’s way, we always owe the American people the truth, and that is what the Congress is asking the President for: the truth.

I served many years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know we endanger our own troops and personnel when we use torture, because it can be used on them. The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is worthless – it is uncorroborated and it is worthless. We have the know-how, the personnel, and the resources in our country to protect the American people in a way that protects our values, that reflects the priorities of our citizens. And that means not using torture.

(Pelosi repeats here statements about the uselessness of torture in the eighth minute of this video.)

A later press release by Pelosi (December 16, 2005) once again condemns torture, but also speaks of getting the facts on clandestine detention facilities.

Yesterday, the House took a critical step toward redeeming the standing of our country in the eyes of the world by endorsing a prohibition on torture. Today, the House took another big step toward improving our world standing by voting to get the facts on charges that the CIA has run, and continues to run, clandestine detention facilities at which torture is practiced.

Congress has failed to conduct proper oversight on the detainee mistreatment issue. In many cases, there has not even been an effort to collect the information necessary to determine the scope of the problem so that effective corrective action can be taken.

Just two months ago, Pelosi was interviewed by Fox News, during which Pelosi evasively indicated that waterboarding could constitute torture.

"There is a legal definition of torture that I believe this would fit. And the president says it would not," the California Democrat said. "Again, we have to see the degree, and what he is talking about. Because, again, to answer on the basis of something that's been reported in the press that the president has deemed is not torture, it's just not -- I just can't give you an informed answer on that."

(Watch here to see Pelosi at her squirmy best avoid the question as to whether she was briefed on waterboarding.) 

The Washington Post article raises a lot of questions about what Nancy Pelosi knew, and when did she know it?

At the very least, somebody in the media should ask Pelosi directly if she was present for these 2002 meetings? Was she briefed about waterboarding and clandestine interrogation facilities? Did she tacitly approve of these procedures? And if not, what steps did she take to condemn them (other than self-serving press releases and attacks on President Bush years after-the-fact)? Why did she question the existence of clandestine detention facilities in 2005 when she was briefed about them in 2002? When did she first decide torture was useless? Is waterboarding torture? (These are just a few questions that come to mind, but certainly the trained experienced mainstream media will come up with more.)

The media spent the weekend over-reporting the destruction of some CIA videotapes that depicted waterboarding. With regard to these tapes, MSNBC reporter Patty Culhane on Saturday specifically asked the question [paraphrasing]: "What did they know, and when did they know it?"

If the Democrats are furious about the destruction of waterboarding tapes in 2005, then wouldn't they be even more upset to learn that the House Speaker learned about (and approved of) waterboarding in 2002?

These would be great questions for the media to ask congressional Democrats and the Speaker herself. But will they?

—Jason Aslinger is a private practice attorney in Greenville, Ohio.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not holding my breath

I'm not holding my breath but if the MSM has the guts to broadcast this, it will show those Dems for the hypocrates they are. BTW, they should ask Bill Clinton if this was done under his watch.

Bill Clinton???

 Perhaps, if Clinton had done some waterboarding, we wouldn't have had 9/11!

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

Good Question For Your Liberal Friends

I've thrown this out to some lib friends a few times, and they've all refused to answer. Give it a try:

"If 9/11 could have been prevented by waterboarding, would you have approved of it?"

Did Nancy do a Jay

Did Nancy do a Jay Rockefeller to cover her butt......lol.

 

I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.

 

Well, well, well.

Well, well, well.

Mrs. Pelosi, after bashing the Bush administration over this for more than a year, what did you know, when did you know it, and what do you have to say about it now?

Her Speakerness: (Waving hand): Oh, nevermind.

Dems Hypocrisy Won't be Noted

 I'm surprised the Post actually printed this article.  I doubt, however, they will push the Democrats on their obvious politicization of this issue.  I was amazed at the amount of briefings they had and the subjects covered.  They had video of the secret prisons, etc.  Does anyone wonder how the NY Times got their information? 

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

This has been all over some

This has been all over some blogs I have spent the day on.

Even the dark side isn't cutting her any slack on this.

 

Unfortunately, Speaker

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi denied she had knowledge of
waterboarding during an interview on October 7, 2007, with Chris Wallace on FOX News:

Well, in order to know if I'm briefed about it, I'd have to be
briefed about it now.(????). What exactly is the president talking about? Yes,
let me get my credentials right out there. I'm the longest-serving member of
Congress on the intelligence committee, both on the committee and ex officio as
a leader. So we have been briefed on some tactics used by the administration...
There is a legal definition of torture that I believe this would fit. The
president says it is not.

Although Speaker Pelosi had problems with "torture" techniques
in October 2007, she said nothing about waterboarding back in 2002.

 The tasty part

 The tasty part is, but not for Pelosi, is Code Pink will once again be burning her toast and serving her coffee in the morning.

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

From all the commentary on

From all the commentary on this I have seen today the ONLY dem who has their butt covered on this one is Jane Harmon.

Snatches/renditions. Policy established by Clinton/Gore

Everyone is full of hate -- at Bush -- for the waterboarding. And for the policy of extroadinary rendition. That's were we snatch up the bad guys, then send them someplace, like Egypt, where they they really get tortured. Apparently since Bush has taken over, we've cleaned up the act a bit. But just when did that chapter come from...

Richard Clarke's book (Against All Enemies, 143-4) (my Bold):

- Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore:.. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Gore, having his way with Clinton, so Clinton, via PDD #39 ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extroadinary rendition.

And they do this waterboarding -- all 3 cases of it -- in GitMo. I think the Democrats supported that place as well:

CNN. Jan 27, 2002 -

CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: And now for a closer look at our top story.. Rumsfeld and a team of senators visited the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to inspect the camp and the Afghan prisoners and CNN's John Zarrella has more.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: I just want to ask our friends who are so ready to be critical to take another look because I'll be very candid with you, I would much rather be here in an eight by eight with a breeze than locked down in Fulsome prison in California.

Same story reported on Fox news:

..They came to get a firsthand look at the facilities and procedures used in handling the 158 prisoners being detained in 8-by-8 foot, open air cells.Feinstein [D.] and the other senators told reporters after touring the camp that they agreed with the Bush administration's handling of the prisoners and saw nothing to suggest mistreatment. Inouye [D.], in fact, said they are being treated "in some ways better than we treat our people."

Feinstein said she once worked at a California prison and has visited many others around the world. To those abroad who have suggested the Guantanamo Bay prisoners have been treated improperly she said, "Take another look..."

Glass house, meet flying stone

We've known for many moons about Mrs. Pelosi's hypocrisy and this is just another sign of it.

She ain't gonna be the Speaker of the House much longer. 

 

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck!  -Professor TP&C

This is news that the MSM

This is news that the MSM will quickly displace with some teenage brat getting out of a car without her underpants on.

Moreover, the defeatocrats have used this issue to hit this administration from all sides.  Yet, they refuse to propose legistlation that would clearly define what torture is; that, as defined, was against the law; and what the penalties are for breaking that law. 

Tick tock, tick tock . . .

 

This has been the case all

This has been the case all along. All of the top dims know the truth. Their thirst for power, with a big dose of hatred for Bush, is more important than our Nation.

I know that's not breaking news, but it's the state of the situation. You have a party full of morally and ethically challenged, no good, treasonous losers. And they have the nerve to piss and moan when someone "questions their patriotism". Hell, that ain't even a question, is it? There isn't a drop of patriotism among 'em!

They would all sell our Nation out in a heartbeat if it would benefit them. Madam Speaker, and her henchmen, Murtha and Hoyer should enjoy their reign, as it will come to an end come November '08! God willing!

Right...then they were

Right...then they were panicking, now it's "Oh, nevermind."

Remember, when President Clinton talked about the first WTC attack in 1993, he said "someone did something very stupid" and warned against "overreacting."

If we are complacent about another attack now, it's because Democrats and the MSM have spent six years burying the horror of that day. They think we're too emotional to ever see pictures of what happened. Hollywood has even taken shots of the WTC in the NY skyline out of movies, for crying out loud. They've tried to airbrush the event out of our consciousness; is it any wonder that people just want to "move on" and don't feel any urgency about another attack?

From there it's easy to progress to: Heaven forbid we should "overreact" and use aggressive interrogation methods.

Knew about it?

Knew about it? It was probably her idea!

Good grief, she'd waterboard Bush if she thought she could get away with it.