Nancy Pelosi has been under the media microscope this week regarding her knowledge of enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically waterboarding, in the months following 9/11. Pelosi's seemingly endless series of contradictions on the subject has led the media to probe: "what did she know and when did she know it?" But another question could easily be posed to the media itself ... "What took you so long?"
The precipitating event in this scandal is a December 9, 2007, Washington Post article titled: "Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002," in which the Post pointed a finger directly at Nancy Pelosi ...
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
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.
...
Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. 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.
That same day, December 9, 2007, yours truly posted an article here titled: "Pelosi Knew About Waterboarding in 2002: Media Frenzy to Follow?" I wondered out loud whether the media would run with the Washington Post story - and even offered some follow-up questions for the media's consideration.
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)? ... 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.)
For the most part, these questions were not asked in December 2007, and the story quickly died out. But, for whatever reason, the media are now on the job again. It is interesting to finally see some of these questions being asked - seventeen months after-the-fact.
—Jason Aslinger is a private practice attorney in Greenville, Ohio.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Coincidence
May 16, 2009 - 14:13 ET by KC MulvilleI said the exact thing in a post minutes ago, just before I saw this item. Glad to see that others are as cynical as I am.
Why is it suddenly coming to a head? The cynic in me is very suspicious of the Obama Administration, likely Rahm Emanuel, as the driving force behind the leaks. This is attack by slow cuts, and Pelosi's own neuroses are magnifying her problems.
Well, in my opinion it's
May 16, 2009 - 14:21 ET by bigtimerWell, in my opinion it's coming to a head now because of the memos the O-Team released, not releasing the memos Cheney wanted released, therefore Cheney is going to go and defend and talk about this, which led us to good ol' Pelosi....who cannot lie very well, heck she has a hard time when she speaks normally...when she lies it would be comical if it wasn't such a serious issue.
The msm cannot ignore this anymore...try as they might.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Tempest in a teapot. If
May 16, 2009 - 14:27 ET by LumenNationTempest in a teapot. If she was briefed, and had gone public with her objections, everyone here would be screaming for her to be tried for treason. And whether she was briefed or not, it was still the WH that authorized the torture, not Congress.
ln... What part of she
May 16, 2009 - 14:34 ET by bigtimerln...
What part of she DIDN'T object do you not understand?
I'm not going through the rest of how all this worked, you already know that full well, as far as I am concerned you are just one of our newest TROLLS.
Others can feed you...I'm not going to.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Hmmm... KC in his post below
May 16, 2009 - 15:31 ET by LumenNationHmmm... KC in his post below says she DID object. You guys need to get your stories straight lol
But that's what she did
May 16, 2009 - 14:39 ET by KC MulvilleShe was briefed, and she did go public with her objections. That's the whole point.
And what are we doing now? Are we accusing her of treason? No. We're making loud objections, publicly, that her behavior was completely political. But no one is accusing her of treason.
No, I mean if she had gone
May 16, 2009 - 15:29 ET by LumenNationNo, I mean if she had gone public then, in 2002. Like walked out of the meeting and said "I've just been informed, in a top-secret briefing, that..."
You guys would have been all pitchforks and tiki torches
Appropriateness
May 16, 2009 - 15:55 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, it would have been inappropriate then, just as it was inappropriate for her to make political hay out of it. It was inappropriate.
“If she was briefed...”
May 16, 2009 - 14:44 ET by needleOh Brother! What is the point of discussing serious matters with someone who cannot even accept a fact like that?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Well first of all, it's not
May 16, 2009 - 15:35 ET by LumenNationWell first of all, it's not a fact, it's an allegation. Second, Bob Graham says he backs up her story. So right now it's a "they said/she said" situation.
Now, I happen to believe that she was, in fact, briefed. But I repeat -- what difference does it make that she was informed the WH was breaking the law? She had no veto power. It was the WH that authorized torture.
Lumenation is the williams411 troll.
May 16, 2009 - 16:14 ET by JWFwilliams411 went down swinging just like Nancy Pelosi and LumeNation will go down swinging.
Anyone takeing bets on who goes ape-poo bananas first? My money says Nancy lasts longer than LumeNation does.
JWF...Yep, obvious he
May 16, 2009 - 16:26 ET by bigtimerJWF...
Yep, obvious he was a troll from day one here....and one that had a familiar ring...although I was thinking of someone different since I don't even recall will411...he must of been one I just glazed on over....he won't be around long...plus I'm sure he has back-up user names at the ready, they just keep on a coming.
You would have thought the trolls would want to take a rest since the election, but heck, they have been busy as a hive of bees.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Funny, you never hear a
May 16, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Chris NormanFunny, you never hear a liberal offer a "he said-she said" defense for a conservative (which, in this case, isn't even applicable). If it's a conservative, the accusation is the same as guilt. And as for the charge doesn't matter, liberals usually call for the Republican's head if the accusation is once failing to tip a waitress.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Like when the Republicans
May 16, 2009 - 16:43 ET by JerLike when the Republicans rushed to manufacture a "scandal" over the bogus "Hillary-didn't-tip-the-waitress" claim in Iowa a couple of years ago?
Jer
Sure because we all know
May 16, 2009 - 16:56 ET by general companyThat lying about your briefings and calling the CIA a bunch of liars is certainly the equivalent. No to mention the harm it has caused to our inteligent community. Your party and the folks in it are as currupt as we have ever known, good thing you dont mind?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
g c.. You're right, there
May 16, 2009 - 17:45 ET by Jerg c..
You're right, there is no equivalency, and I by no means intended to suggest as such. I simply noticed and pointed out the minor irony of Chris's "waitress-tipping" comment.
As far as the larger issue of torture/enhanced interrogation, my position--which is at odds with that of most on the left--has been frequently noted here for months. I also was confident the CIA briefings would prove to be an embarrassment for Democrats in general and Pelosi in particular--especially after listening to a thorough and prescient discussion on Scarborough several weeks ago.
I'm not sure whether I have expressed my personal opinions of Pelosi [and Harry Reid] on the main boards here, but I know that I at least have by PM to Blonde in which I said they both were serious liabilities for the Democrats and I hoped they would be ousted.
So the answer is "On the contrary, I do mind."
Jer
Very good
May 16, 2009 - 17:57 ET by general companyHope others in you party are taking notice as well.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Jer,
May 17, 2009 - 12:08 ET by Chris NormanJer,
Thank you for proving my point. That "trumped up" scandal against Hillary sure didn't go anywhere - since I didn't even hear about it. Now, if it had involved a Republican, it would've been a news item for several days, on SNL the following Saturday, and Chris Matthews would still be talking about it.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris...
May 17, 2009 - 17:55 ET by JerThe "trumped up" tipping scandal was all over the internet, including [I'm pretty sure, but haven't checked] NewsBusters. The reason it died out relatively quickly was because it turned out to be, well, "trumped up".
Jer
edit. BTW, if you had a nickel for every time I responded with "the Republicans did it too" and I had a nickel for every time you said "if this had been a Republican" we would both be very wealthy men. :-)
Chris
May 17, 2009 - 18:07 ET by MrShyI've also never heard of the "Hillary-didn't-tip-the-waitress" scandal.
And again, what Pelosi has done here has no equal or precedent. It's been unbelievably blatant and egregious lying, purely done for political/partisan reasons in the years since 9/11, during a delicate and dangerous time when our country was waging a war to defeat Islamo fascism.
She's an absolute disgrace.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy [and Chris]...It was
May 17, 2009 - 20:20 ET by JerShy [and Chris]...
It was during the Iowa primary campaign--Nov. 2007. Google it. It was, as I said, all over the internet. [And other news media as well.]
I thought there was even a blog item about it on NB. I haven't found one...so I may have been mistaken about that.
Jer
I heard about it Uncle Jer.
May 17, 2009 - 20:52 ET by JWFDon't recall too much. Not my team. But it does speak to MSM bias. Their guy was Obama, otherwise we would not have heard about this at all.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Ace of Spades noticed it.
May 16, 2009 - 16:35 ET by JWFWe had one good troll free day. The Day Nancy friggin Pelosi wigged the hell out.
We need more democrat meltdowns - the only things that freak trolls out.
JFW...I Second that
May 16, 2009 - 16:44 ET by bigtimerJWF...
I Second that Motion!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Ok, how about this, you
May 16, 2009 - 17:06 ET by LumenNationOk, how about this, you f#^*tard:
I swear to God I am not and never have been "Williams411". I have no idea who he is or was, I have never met him, posed as him, communicated with him, idolized him
I swear on the life of my only child.
I swear on the life of Barack Obama and all that is holy about him.
I give you my word as a gentleman.
Now, you can continue this silly distraction in the hope that no one realizes I proved you a liar in the first degree...
Or you can engage me like a gentleman.
Your choice. Are you a man? Or a louse?
Are you wiling to debate on issues? Or will you continue to hide behind false accusations, so no one will see the "wizard" is just a two-bit carney con man?
Man up.
Yeah...
May 16, 2009 - 18:16 ET by jdlybrand... you're a real gentleman. Chuckle, chuckle, snort, snort.
jdl... A royal pain in
May 16, 2009 - 18:21 ET by bigtimerjdl...
A royal pain in the arse is more like it...if people just wouldn't feed these trolls all the time they would maybe leave....but that is a big maybe, and I don't have any room to talk. ;-)
I hope he's gone soon though...people leave because of this continuing BS.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I swear
May 16, 2009 - 20:13 ET by UpNorthon the life of Obama and all that is holy about him? That alone needed a spew alert. After calling someone a F^*%tard, you really shouldn't claim to be a "gentleman". It really does shoot your argument right in the foot. By the reaction, I think someone hit Lumen's nerve.
DimNation, Exactly What Planet Are You On?
May 16, 2009 - 17:24 ET by Junk Science SkepticShe was in attendance at the briefing, by her own admission, and as documented by incontrovertible records of the session.
The CIA does not go to Capitol Hill and give briefings just for fun. They do it on any borderline issues for CYA purposes. The CIA goes in and says "we're going to do x" and if Congressional committees object, it's back to the drawing board; if the committee doesn't object at that point in time, then "x" has been made de facto legal by Congress, and the CIA can go on its merry way doing "x" until such time as a public law is passed making it illegal.
The time to object was during that initial briefing. The botox queen herself was the "appropriate channel" for making the objection. The intelligence oversight commitees have plenty of ways to enforce their objections without going public or disclosing any sensitive info.
Hell, any average two-year-old can lie more convincingly than this stupid left-coast twit.
As far as you ass-hattery of trying to equate humane interrogation techniques resembling the log-flume ride at Six Flags, to anything even close to torture, you are being ignorantly offensive to the millions who have actually been tortured to death by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, and Ahmadinejad.
Torture is crushing an 8-year-old's arm for stealing a loaf of bread.
Torture is a botched public hanging for drug smuggling.
Torture is forcing sand down the throat, beating with a 2x4, and driviving over the head of a person that you think cheated you on a $5K grain deal.
If you ever came out of your mother's basement and got your news from somewhere other than The Daily Show or the Kos kids, you might begin to have a clue about the real world.
Anybody who claims to have a problem with what happened at Gitmo is either an animal who can't distinguish between the discomfort of one and the death of many; or a liar who is twisting facts for some cheap partisan political gain.
The sick, twisted freaks on the left have overreached on this one and made their power-mad agenda clear to even the most feeble-minded of voters. Enjoy your one-party rule for another 19 months, because you're going down in flames in 2010. Never mind how weak and leaderless the GOP is, the middle-school student council will be able to kick your butts after this stunt.
Most of your post was just
May 16, 2009 - 17:29 ET by LumenNationMost of your post was just a spittle-soaked rant not even worthy of the homeless schizophrenics on Broadway that I pass on my way to work every morning, so I feel no need to respond.
But this...
you're going down in flames in 2010
Well... I'll put a note in my calendar to contact you and laugh.
Told ya so.
May 16, 2009 - 18:19 ET by JWFwilliams411 is feeling so at home again he feels free to insult anyone he wants with impunity just like before.
"Debate The Issues?"
May 16, 2009 - 23:09 ET by Junk Science SkepticKinda funny how the only issue DimNation will debate is whether he's living in his mother's basement, or in a box next to his homeless buddies on Broadway.
Thrown out by his own mother? It must suck to be him. Guess I hit a nerve there.
Wonder if his PDA can get reception inside his new cardboard crib?
No spit in this
May 16, 2009 - 18:48 ET by general companyThis is how it is done
The CIA does not go to Capitol Hill and give briefings just for fun.
They do it on any borderline issues for CYA purposes. The CIA goes in
and says "we're going to do x" and if Congressional committees object,
it's back to the drawing board; if the committee doesn't object at that
point in time, then "x" has been made de facto legal by Congress, and
the CIA can go on its merry way doing "x" until such time as a public
law is passed making it illegal.
The time to object was during that initial briefing. The botox queen
herself was the "appropriate channel" for making the objection. The
intelligence oversight commitees have plenty of ways to enforce their
objections without going public or disclosing any sensitive info.
If you cant understand that, then why should anyone respond to you?
Perfectly said, JSS
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
JSS... Thank you...you
May 16, 2009 - 18:55 ET by bigtimerJSS...
Thank you...you spoke volumes for millions of us out here.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
WHEN she WAS briefed
May 16, 2009 - 19:52 ET by FastEdshe could have obejected, without loosing any secrets - and - you forget that she felt it was more important to have demolibs elected to congress, INSTEAD of taking care of the country, y'a know, that part of the swearing in that says " . defend the Constitution (and the people who actually believe in it)". She could have at least shown up a few more times to these briefings, talked to the briefers, asked and objected. Congress was briefed - had she done her JOB, then there wouldn't be this little teapot tempest. Oh, and these folks, they don't happen to like us very much, so's making them feel uncomfortable is/was ok with me.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Nothing will happen to Pelosi
May 16, 2009 - 14:40 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHmmm, let's see, she's a democrat, she's a Bush basher, she falseley accuses Bush and the Bush CIA of torture without a shred of proof. Looks untouchable to me.
Just my opinion.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
DFTT... Bingo! I just posted
May 16, 2009 - 14:43 ET by bigtimerDFTT...
Bingo!
I just posted somewhat the same sentiments on the poll thread...she's a democrat...she won't be removed.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Bigtimer
May 16, 2009 - 14:54 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsYep, look at the thread about Nina Totenberg of NPR. They are beginning to wash away Pelosi's sins. Pelosi must have stepped on someone's foot so the MSM was engaged to make her 'uncomfortable'.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
"she won't be removed"
May 16, 2009 - 15:03 ET by needleI sure hope not. The longer this bundle of damaged goods is holding down the speakership, the better. Ordinarily I would not say that; but considering how misguided and irresponsible this particular Congress has already demonstrated it can be, the more it is hobbled the better. BTW, I am beginning to look forward our daily installment to this soap opera. The fact that Nancy P has NO SHAME, NO CONSCIENCE, and NO PERSPECTIVE is certainly not news; but watching her advertise this fact with all the brashness that she can muster is, I must say, entertaining and salutary in a perverse way.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
needle... I agree with
May 16, 2009 - 15:18 ET by bigtimerneedle...
I agree with you about the damage she is doing to her party the longer she stays, but then again look at the $$$ machine she is for her party...for me the longer she stays the better the ads and such for the right side of the aisle in the up-coming mid-term elections, and of course the big one in '12....she is good feed for the right.
It will be interesting whatever happens down the road.
If she us lying through her teeth, which she is in my opinion, I think she is subject to charges brought against her...they would be if this was a republican and the Speaker of the House called the CIA regarding what she/he was briefed about liars etc. is a very serious charge to make.
Of course we all know the word parsing the dems will play, as they always do.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
See my later post
May 16, 2009 - 19:45 ET by FastEdshe'll stay, people will forget, she'll get re-elected, and re-screw us -
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Pelosi should name the
May 16, 2009 - 15:30 ET by snaggletoothiePelosi should name the people in the CIA that lied to her and give testimony against them. If she will not do that she should apologize and resign from the House. I am tired of her being so nice and covering up for them.
Enjoy the show. This is a Democrat problem.
May 16, 2009 - 15:38 ET by JWFI have forums. I have comments here. Waterboarding is legal. Waterboarding does not meet the legal definition of torture.
The Professor at Legal Insurrection sums it up nicely.
This presents a problem mostly for Democrats. Republicans who were briefed on the interrogation methods at least will be consistent, for the most part, in maintaining that the methods were lawful and useful. No Republican is going to be harmed politically by the revelations because most Americans support these methods against people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If leaks of a Justice Department report are to be believed, there will be no prosecutions. Republicans are safe politically and legally.
For Democrats, however, the damage could be significant. Nancy Pelosi already has lost a great deal of credibility from her changing stories. Dozens of other Democrats, including such senior Senators as Jay Rockefeller, apparently also were briefed on the interrogation methods and either were silent, approved, or encouraged the policy.
The irony is that a full blow investigation and hearings will turn mostly on what the Democrats knew, and when they knew it. The Republicans mostly couldn't care less if they were "blamed" for keeping the country safe even if it necessitated waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 to prevent further attacks. When faced with sacrificing a city versus using harsh interrogation methods, most voters would opt for harsh interrogation.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/dems-lack-waterboarding-exit-strategy.html
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Seventeen months isn't so
May 16, 2009 - 15:49 ET by Chris NormanSeventeen months isn't so long when you think about all the MSM has to go through to actually cover a Democrat's problems. There's:
- Clearances from management (the DNC) to cover it,
- Coordination of how they'll cover it with other MSM networks
- Matching the length of coverage with other MSM networks
- Coordination of the phrases they'll all use with other networks
- Careful appraisals of potential damage to the Democratic Party
- Preparation of a defense and excuses for the Democrat in question
- Trial runs of the coverage in front of their friends in the salons of NYC and Georgetown
And lastly:
- The okay from George Soros.
Yes, when you think about it, "coverage" in only seventeen months is a miracle!
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The only "coverage"
May 16, 2009 - 19:44 ET by FastEdis the one on the UP, as in cover up. How else can you call this pithy "reporting". There still isn't one of them willing to come here, at NB, and debate what they call reportage - the socialist cowards!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Pelosi
May 16, 2009 - 16:20 ET by jessieHjessieH Two wrongs do not make it right. Both the dems & the reps lied to the people. Who is to blame? WE are. WE elected these inept polititians. It is up to US to change it. I say " do NOT re-elect the ones that lie." I know, the list is long but WE have to start somewhere. Pelosi lied. Dodd lied. Reid lied. Frank lied. THe question is where do WE start?
Second time I have seen this
May 16, 2009 - 19:07 ET by general companyin the last week
Both the dems & the reps lied to the people.
While I am for removing all curruption from DC and even tossing the Repubs first, I am not aware of any corrupt Repubs currently serving,,, could you mention who you are refering to
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Pelosi New Story
May 16, 2009 - 18:57 ET by slickwillie2001In case anyone has missed this, Princess Nan has a new position on this as a result of Panetta's shot, -she is now stating that it was the 'Bush administration' that lied to Congress about waterboarding, and she has all kinds of respect for the workers at the CIA, etc, etc.
Pelosi Responds to Panetta Comments: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
Simple posturing; this should not work, unless her friends in the liberal media decide that this is the end of the controversy. This doesn't change which people gave her the briefing, or what their notes say. It's still those briefers that she has attacked.
Waiting for the next round.
Has anyone else had the question
May 16, 2009 - 19:40 ET by FastEdIf people lied to congress, would they be held in contempt? Would such a lie be a felony?
On another note, loony eyes paloonie won't step down, won't be asked to leave, won't have an investigation - due to the fact that she is running the most ethical congress since the republic was started. Using this logic then, Bush will still be blamed, the shame will be on those who followed orders, and in a few days, the whole "affair" will be forgotten, Barry will get his wishes and the rest of us will continued to be tortured by the social liberals in congress. (Too bad there aren't any real repubs who will take on these loosers - and while Rome burns, our taxed paid representatives make believe they have our best interests in mind)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Hey Fast Ed... Wished I
May 16, 2009 - 19:48 ET by bigtimerHey Fast Ed...
Wished I didn't agree...but I do.
Great to see you this evening...miss your posts here.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
OFF topic
May 16, 2009 - 19:55 ET by FastEdbt - have crazy schedule - pm me, have some questions
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
It seems
May 16, 2009 - 22:14 ET by RESTLESS 1As though the 0 is tired of taking orders from pelosi. A spot under the bus has been cleared and her name is on it.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Just For The Record
May 17, 2009 - 08:53 ET by ShanghaiRayWith the exception of the CIA not lying to Congress and the President I really don't care who else the CIA lies to. In fact, I am more than happy to have a CIA that steals, cheats, lies, assassinates, undermines, connives and a host of numerous other dastardly deeds our ENEMIES including but not limited to any UN official, terrorists, commies et. al.
"For the most part, these
May 17, 2009 - 16:35 ET by ckc1227"For the most part, these questions were not asked in December 2007, and the story quickly died out."
Campaign season was about to kick into high gear. Couldn't have any stories that would detract from the "Bush and Republicans are evil torturers", and certainly none that would tie democrats to that same "torture".