« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Hoekstra Spokesman: Docs Will Show Pelosi Was Briefed On Waterboarding
So Nancy Pelosi has again denied that she was briefed on the fact that we had already committed waterbaording.
But now a spokesman for Pete Hoekstra, the chair of the House intelligence committee, seems to be telling Greg Sargent that as-yet-unreleased documents will prove once and for all that she was.
Greg reports:
Hoekstra spokesperson Jamal Ware says that Hoekstra is now seeking the release of the memos and notes that comprised the basis of the documents that came out today that claimed Dems had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques."He has seen documents that would clarify exactly what the Speaker was briefed on," Ware tells me, "including whether she was briefed on all enhanced interrogation techniques that had been used."
Asked if those techniques included waterboarding, Ware replied: "Yes."
Still, it seems to us that whatever the answer to that narrow question, it misses a more important one. What did Pelosi do in response to the briefing she received? After all, whether waterboarding was discussed as having taken place or only as having been approved for future use, it seems clear that Pelosi had enough information that she should have done what she could to raise some alarms. Of course, as she's pointed out, these were classified briefings, so her ability to do much publicly was limited. But what about behind the scenes?
We're looking into what's already known on this subject, and what's not, and will let you know what we find.
Josh
Zachary
We're also relying on Hoekstra's self-serving interpretation of memos and notes that may themselves be self-serving, as both Panetta's cover and Pelosi's remarks today suggest.
Remember, it's Pelosi who has called for a Truth Commission. So she's ready to have it all come out, not just this dribs and drabs stuff. Even if Hoekstra releases the backup materials, we'd then need further memos or testimony to put those materials into a context.
So let's go slow with this reporting and not jump immediately to "what could have Pelosi done behind the scenes".
May 8, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I not surprised that when Greg Sargent asked the CIA today about the background documents for the CIA chart, they didn't seem to know what Hoekstra was talking about.
In the newly-released documents detailing the torture briefings given to members of Congress, the portion describing Pelosi’s single briefing says she was told about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in general, but doesn’t specify whether she was told about the use of waterboarding. That was specified about some briefings given to others.
I asked CIA spokesperson Paul Gimigliano why. His answer: Because the notes and memos on the Pelosi meeting that form the basis for the docs didn’t allow them to go that far, meaning that they didn’t specify that she’d been briefed on waterboarding in particular.
See Greg for the CIA statement.
FWIW, Sam Stein at HuffPost has a staffer to another member of Congress who was briefed at about the same time saying that waterboarding wasn't mentioned at those briefings.
Maybe Hoekstra has another set of docs in his safe. Or maybe he's blowing smoke?
Another good argument for a Truth Commission.
May 8, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that:
"a spokesman for Pete Hoekstra, the chair (ranking member) of the House intelligence committee, seems to be telling Greg Sargent that as-yet-unreleased documents will prove once and for all that she was."
has a security clearance higher than a sitting Representative?
May 10, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoekstra is a Republican and the ranking member, not the chair of the Intelligence Committee.
May 8, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As incomplete and selective leaks are put out there to score political points, requiring partial denials that obviously leave things out, the need for some kind of complete investigation by this gawdaful mess by an impartial panel draws closer by the day.
I have two suggestions for members of the panel, for starters: Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice (soon to be former) Souter.
This panel should be done with the kinds of tools used in any legal adversarial setting, including subpoenas, but I'm not for prejudging hanging sentences until we see who did what.
But I don't really give a rat's ass whether a Democrat or a Republican are dirty. My working assumption is that dirt is non-denominational, as Bush/Cheney were brilliant a co-opting the Dems by making sure they had some culpability.
That's not our problem as a country now, though. This needs to be aired out, completely, and in such a way as the country can see that the conclusions and facts obtained are reliable and complete.
May 8, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
To get a better analysis of this whole issue, please see the last 4 posts at emptywheel (from last night through this morning - this allegation has been extensively debunked). See not just the posts but the threads. I've been following them last night and this morning. There is much to read. And it's a shame the ball was dropped over here:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
May 8, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoekstra, while on the Intelligence Committee, is the guy who gave a baseless story about the Democrats and FISA to Joe Klein. Klein reported what Hoekstra told him which caused a backlash to Klein who, by this time, had his tit in a wringer for acting like a stenographer, and had to write a mea culpa.
May 11, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink