Nancy Pelosi wants to have a “truth commission” regarding the torture of terrorist suspects. She’s not satisfied that her party controls both houses of Congress and the White House. She wants vengeance against those who disagreed with her [those evil Bush Republicans]. Careful what you wish for Madame Speaker – you just might get it.
On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Madame Speaker, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on “enhanced interrogation techniques” [EITs] including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress so briefed. Mr Goss said he and Madame Speaker were briefed about the interrogation techniques and that both he and Madame Speaker asked if the CIA needed any more support from Congress to carry out its mission. There was no indication of disapproval from Madame Speaker at this point. However, when things in Iraq went to hell, Madame Speaker suddenly found her voice.
At first, Madame Speaker stated "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. Any contention to the contrary is simply not true." On May 5th, CIA Director Leon Panetta "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." The operative word here is “had”, indicating that the techniques Madame Speaker claims to decry were already being used at the time she was first briefed by the CIA. When the CIA briefs politicians, they keep track of who gets briefed, what gets briefed, and when the briefing happened.
Madame Speaker then admitted that one of her aides was part of a February 2003 briefing during which he learned the CIA was using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Why didn’t Madame Speaker speak out in opposition to these techniques? As we used to say in the Air Force, “silence means consent.” Earlier this week she had a press conference where she had to rely heavily on notes and prepared statements to deny her knowledge or possible approval of EITs. I don’t know about you, but if I’m wrongly accused of something I didn’t do, I don’t need notes to get my point across. Then she claimed she didn’t act because she wasn’t personally briefed, only that she was told about EITs by an aide. Madame Speaker then claimed the CIA lied to her. I’m claiming that Madame Speaker is either lying about what she knew, didn’t comprehend what was briefed to her [which means she’s just plain stupid], or both. Taking on the CIA in a public forum is not a smart thing to do. They’ve had more than their share of failures in the past, but the folks at the CIA have experience in overthrowing governments, assassinating opponents, and damaging politicians they don’t agree with by leaking information about their activities.
That Madame Speaker knew about CIA torture doesn’t excuse those who actually DID the torturing, but if she agreed with what they were doing and didn’t do anything to stop it, doesn’t that make her an accomplice? Jane Harman, who replaced Madame Speaker as the ranking Democratic member on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express her concerns about the agency’s interrogation techniques. What did Madame Speaker do? Nothing. She claims she couldn’t object then. She claimed Rep. Harman was the “appropriate channel” for voicing her displeasure. She also claimed she was bound by secrecy laws which prevented her from speaking out. That’s an answer an entrenched bureaucrat would give you when you call him/her out for not performing one’s sworn duties. This is complete total bullshit. I’m sorry, but Madame Speaker was in a high position if authority, and SHE was the “appropriate channel.” Madame Speaker, have you ever heard of a “closed session”? From time to time, when Congress needs to debate sensitive matters, they turn off the cameras, lock the doors and throw out all the visitors so they can talk about classified information. This is the “closed session.” She was the House Minority Leader at the time. She had a pretty big soapbox on which she could speak out against what she thought was wrong. She has never been shy about getting in front of a camera. She could have proposed to cut-off funding for the CIA if they didn’t stop using the techniques she now claims to oppose. She could have asked for a closed session of the House to debate the manner. She could have tied up the House in legislative knots if she so desired. Yet she did none of these things. Is this inaction by Madame Speaker the behavior of someone who violently opposes something, or the sign of someone wanting somebody else to do the dirty work for for her for the sake of partisan advantage? Remember…silence = consent.
For someone to suggest that Madame Speaker couldn’t do much because she was in the minority forgets recent history. In the late 1980s, Newt Gingrich became the House Minority Whip and used his position to bring attention to the House Banking Scandal and the Congressional Post Office Scandal. He brought ethics charges against House Speaker Jim Wright about a book deal that circumvented campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. The ensuing inquiry resulted in Wright resigning his speakership. And by the way, his tireless efforts in all of these endeavors resulted in Republicans taking control of the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994. I am not convinced Madame Speaker did all she could to stop the torturing of terror suspects. Gingrich did a helluva lot more with less.
Is this a Republican effort to shield themselves from any responsibility and deflect attention from their own culpability regarding torture as some Democrats claim? Maybe, but if it is, it seems to be working pretty well. Given all that has come out this past week about Madame Speaker’s lack of urgency concerning enhanced interrogation techniques, do you think she still wants a “truth commission”? President Obama doesn’t, Sen Reid doesn’t. Steny Hoyer thinks it might be a good idea to learn what SHE knew and when SHE knew it. It’s not a good sign when your #2 doubts you. If she keeps embarrassing herself and shredding what little [if any] credibility she has left, and keeps the attention on herself instead of President Obama’s agenda, her speakership may not last much longer. Mr. Hoyer would gladly take over the speakership if the need arises.
