Comments (40)

danger wrote on December 10, 2007 10:14 AM:

I guess I won't feel so dumb supporting Cindy Sheehan in a primary challenge against Pelosi.

TheraP wrote on December 10, 2007 10:14 AM:

So the question seems to be not only what happened on Harmon's watch... but if this was so secret no one could discuss it, then how did Harmon happen to discuss it with Nancy?

Just asking...

Knott Spencer wrote on December 10, 2007 10:17 AM:

I don't understand how she threw Harman under the bus. Maybe there's some internal DC code here? Elaborate, please?

I mean, what could one reasonably expect Harman to have done beyond an official protest, in the media climate of 2003? Every path leads to her resigning, being forced to resign, or being prosecuted as a traitor.

And Pelosi says Pelosi was informed of the protest letter at the time and concurred with it, so she'd be throwing herself under the bus, too.

N. R. Murray wrote on December 10, 2007 10:28 AM:

Well, now we know of one of the things that the Bushies have on Pelosi that might be a reason she is keeping impeachment off the table. Wonder what the rest are. Corrupt.

R.L. Mendez wrote on December 10, 2007 10:31 AM:

So much for the idea that women in leadership roles will bring ethics to politics. They should both resign. Pelosi and Harmon have been nothing more than lip service to the criminals in power and Boxer and Fienstein are also weak and deceitful when it comes to standing up to Bush. The American people simply don't seem to care and if you read the comments on this you find that many are willing to give up our vast history on the issue on torture even though they don't like Bush. It may be the one signal that says the Republic has failed.

R.L. Mendez wrote on December 10, 2007 10:33 AM:

Harmon could have called for hearings. There are lots of things that she could have done to bring this to the full Congress for debate. It is folly to believe that they didn't know they had options.

phred wrote on December 10, 2007 10:33 AM:

Spencer --

I'm a little puzzled about the number of people briefed. Originally, I think it was only the Gang of 4 (ranking Rep and Dem on the intelligence committees in both the House and Senate). Then later on, it may have been the Gang of 8 (which includes the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and ranking members).

So why does the Post list 6 people (4 Dems and 2 Reps)? Are we missing a couple of names or is the lopsided number due to differently people occupying posts in the Gang of 4?

I would really appreciate it, if you would clarify this. Thanks.

lambert strether wrote on December 10, 2007 10:39 AM:

I thought I knew my Constitutional stuff pretty well, at this point -- I've always loved antiquarian documents -- but last I checked, there wasn't a "media climate" exemption in the oath of office for representatives. Did I miss it? Or is that in there with the "we got stampeded" exemption?

Spencer wrote on December 10, 2007 10:42 AM:

Phred,

I'll write this in comments because I'm not sure whether to put this in this post or the previous one. But the Post means to say that the four chiefs of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate were briefed. In 2002 that was Graham, Richard Shelby (I got this wrong; will update), Goss and Pelosi. In 2003, when we know from Harman there was another briefing, that was Rockefeller, Roberts, Goss and Harman, owing to membership switches. Thanks for the reminder on this.

Knott Spencer, it's a matter of interpretation, and you make good points. I was reacting to Pelosi's use of Harman in her response, something she didn't really need to do.

RandyR wrote on December 10, 2007 10:42 AM:

This explanation seems reasonable to me. Members of the Intel Committee can speak to very few people about briefings. In Pelosi's case Harman is a natural confidant, no matter animosity on other issues, as I suspect Pelosi's briefing was pretty cryptic and Harman's graphic. A discussion would be reasonable and legal. A letter about the interrogation would seem in order.

Matt wrote on December 10, 2007 10:58 AM:

A few questions: Was Pelosi told that they planned to use waterboarding? (I suppose she also will hide behind the Bush/Mukasey Bullshit that we don't want to alert our enemies of our methods.) Was Harmon told they had used water boarding? Did Harmon tell Pelosi why she wrote the letter? What did Pelosi do if she was told?

Pelosi said she knew at the time Harmon wrote the letter that she had done that. Did she know the contents? What did she do?

From all it appears, everyone in positions of authority knew we were going to torture people and let it happen. But even now, because the idea of torture is so alien to American ideals, we can't even get anyone to admit water boarding is torture. Maybe if we can have Pelosi agree that that is the case we will at least be off to a good start.

I suggest the next thing to do is ask Harman what she told Pelosi. Nothing like two enemies going at each other.

Lisa wrote on December 10, 2007 10:59 AM:

How has she thrown Harman under the bus if Harman received the further breifings (and Pelosi didn't) and Pelosi supports Harman's letter to the CIA? You're making no sense. Pelosi's blog has Harman's letter to the CIA asking to declassify her letter. Can't imaginge Pelosi would want that on her website if she were throwing Harman to the wolves. Stop reading more into this than is there. And even more importantly, stop believing the CIA.

bejammin075 wrote on December 10, 2007 11:08 AM:

Why would she protest (weakly, in a letter) the interrogation techniques if she believed they were legal?

Doesn't make sense.

rita wrote on December 10, 2007 11:25 AM:

Do we know what techniques were discussed in the first briefing? Is it possible that the techniques discussed were sugar-coated by the CIA in order to gain acceptance? Is it possible that what was conveyed to these original 4 was different than what happened in practice? Did they receive assurances that everything was in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? (Remember at that point, we did not know that both Bush and his henchmen were so distrustworthy. Also the Congress reps present did not have the luxury of discussing this with their own staffs, including their own lawyers.) I am not pleased with the lack of forceful and effective opposition but until more facts come out I am willing to give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt.

visitor wrote on December 10, 2007 11:25 AM:

It seems to me that Pelosi was involved in a briefing she says of what techniques were being considered for use and that had been deemed legal(???) by the DOJ or WH. How can you really object to something at that point in time so close to 9/11 and the terror climate of the time that supposedly they were going to use? Then later Harmon gets a briefing of techniques that they had now been using and objections arise.... I don't see a big todo here because you know as well as anyone else that what the admin says it is going to do rarely turns out to be what it does do. And I have no problems with any of these explanations. The big problem I have is who okayed the leak to the Washington Post to implicate and switch the attention to Pelosi and the Democrats rather than the fact of destroying the tapes themselves. Who is feeling the heat to allow this classified info out about the meeting itself and what went on at it? More importantly why are we all believing this leak as if it is the gospel truth anyway? They could be lieing just as easily as telling the truth yet everyone now rushes to blame Pelosi and the ruse has worked just as it was supposed to do - deflect to another messenger and forget the message

donviti wrote on December 10, 2007 11:31 AM:

the great thing about the Democrats being in power now is that we will slowly start to see just how bad ALL of our leaders are and that they aren't exempt from the same BS we have seen over time, they just aren't AS bad as the GOP.

like someone said in another thread.

times like these make me glad to be
'Merican.

victoria wrote on December 10, 2007 11:36 AM:

Now is the time for us to call for her resignation.

Anyone with me on this? If yes, please respond to victoria2dc at gmail dot com.

I've had ENOUGH of this woman!

CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 11:40 AM:

Two: Never mind the brief mention of Jane Harman's protest. Pelosi just threw Harman under the bus. It's no secret that the two Californians don't get along. But she didn't need to put the blame on her committee successor in her statement on this controversy.

Oh, bullshit. That's not a fair characterization of what she said at all. Who controlled the congress in 2003 and how did they run things? What else was Harman supposed to do besides file a protest? This was, no doubt, classified material we're talking about. It's not like she could have gone public with it.

And it's also not like Democrats have been sitting on their thumbs about this issue since they took over the House. To the contrary, they've been coming at it from every angle they can think of, given that they currently still don't have the muscle to shove any new law down Republicans' throats. Do you believe you'd be hearing as much about this issue as we are right now if Republicans still controlled the congress?

I didn't think so.

Brian wrote on December 10, 2007 11:47 AM:

This is a great example of why I am no longer a registered democrat and no longer give money to the DNC. Only individual candidates for me, thank you.

There is very little principled leadership left in this country :-(

Mary wrote on December 10, 2007 11:49 AM:

It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred emph. added

So, Harman gets a super classified briefing and sends out a super classified letter to the CIA, and yet it "was" Pelosi's understanding "at that time" that the briefing took place and the letter was written?????

How did that become her "understanding" at that time?

Isn't it really the case that the Gang of 8 got the briefings, not just the intel crew? And just how did Pelosi "concur?"

It certainly appears more and more likely that the reasons we are not getting full and adequate investigations is because the Democratic leadership in Congress is trying just as hard in their own way to block it - not because "the people" are not behind it, but because they want to cover up their own roles.

sailmaker wrote on December 10, 2007 11:52 AM:

Send a single party (no 'Publicans) anthrax, give them a virtual tour of Gitmo and the gulag, brief them on 'legal' torture technics, make sure they are not in power, swear them to extra secrecy (or they are for the terrorists, weak on national security for life, and possibly treasonous), make sure they can not convene a closed door session of the house or senate, and how much of an open response to torture should we really expect?

Actually, I think we ought to censure Pelosi for not breaking out the investigation tools on January 10th, 2007.

CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 12:03 PM:

Hmmm. Doesn't look like the blockquote tags worked in my previous comment above (this board could really use a preview function). That first paragraph was a quote from the main article above though, if that wasn't obvious to anyone.

Phoenix Woman wrote on December 10, 2007 12:11 PM:

What RandyR Said.

Considering that:

a) this story was deliberately broken on a weekend, when Congressional offices are closed and information isn't passed along as it is during the week (in fact, a DKosser calling to check on this earlier this morning found that the staffer she talked to had no idea what was going on, much less that Pelosi had made a statement)

and

b) Pelosi was distracted by family events (her seventh grandchild arrived Saturday)

I'd say that this response to the Goss-Rodriguez Protection Project is about as good as we can expect.

phred wrote on December 10, 2007 12:20 PM:

Spencer --

Thanks for the clarification on the Gang of 4 above. I appreciate it!

ella wrote on December 10, 2007 12:23 PM:

Never underestimate the power of the Bush administration to divert our attention from the real issue by playing on our attention deficits. Don't forget who actually committed the crimes here, folks.

theWalrus wrote on December 10, 2007 1:18 PM:

Obviously, this leak is yet another WH dirty trick to take the heat off of THEIR lawbreaking.

That said, Pelosi should be immediately stripped of her Speakership. Out! Get rid of her. We must weed out weak, ineffectual, Bush-enabling Dems. They do not speak for the majority of Dems out there.

parrot wrote on December 10, 2007 1:23 PM:

Personally, given that "impeachment is off the table" is that she was briefed and was a party to a criminal conspiracy to subvert the rule of law. Why else would impeachment be "off the table"? Thank the House Leadership for waterboarding our Constitution. I hope they get what they so richly deserve--kicked out of office! And prosecuted...let's not neglect that either. The Republic has the lowest level of moral leadership in quite some time under this bunch.

BernieO wrote on December 10, 2007 1:25 PM:

How does this throw Harman under the bus? You are reading into this statement because you are aware that the two don't get along, but there is nothing in the statement to support your conclusion.

What else could Harman have done? She was in the minority and not allowed to reveal this kind of classified information.

chabuka wrote on December 10, 2007 1:59 PM:

It sure "feels" to me that we have some lying and complicity going on here..besides Pelosi and Harmon..who else knew, or "heard something about it" and did absolutely nothing...? Now I know why, "impeachment is off the table" if impeachment were put on the table...(the last thing Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer want is a Congressional Impeachment hearing, because they are in it up to their necks, I suspect.) How many, besides Pelosi might have a Congressional or Justice Department indictment of "criminal co-conspiracy" served them ? And would any hearings be even remotely bi-partisan? I see real fear on the faces of some of "our" representatives..

Rich in Fla wrote on December 10, 2007 2:11 PM:

I agree with other commenters that Pelosi didn't throw Harman under the bus.

Please see Emptywheel's take on this.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

Basically she says that Pelosi got generally briefed on techniques deemed legal for use in the future while Harman got briefed on specific techniques in use.

Kind of puts things in a different light.

Lets all take a deep breath.

Outstanding wrote on December 10, 2007 2:21 PM:

"the great thing about the Democrats being in power now is that we will slowly start to see just how bad ALL of our leaders are and that they aren't exempt from the same BS we have seen over time, they just aren't AS bad as the GOP." (from donviti)

I find this a very refreshing statement. It opens up the true soul of a Progressive. Underneath all that objectivty is a bigoted belief that their politicans really are so much moral than the others.They don't hire assasins, keep bribes in the freezer,let donations cloud their vision (why no tort reform?),or lie under oath,- do they? They probably are not invested heavily in all those evil big businesses like oil and pharmaceuticals.Or rip people off by giving expensive speeches.

Wow, just because they agree with you regarding all that government should or should not be doing,you actually believe they are less corrupt?

There are no rakes for muck that thick!

visitor wrote on December 10, 2007 2:26 PM:

Lest anyone forget why impeachment is off the table, does the name President Cheney sound great to you?

JubleJohnson wrote on December 10, 2007 2:28 PM:

Pelosi shifted responsibility to Harman.It's why we need an independent prosecutor.Or we progressives must get rid of each of these corportae corrupt Dems.Look, for many of their(Corrupt Dem leadership) supporters to blame the media next for bringing this to lite.Corrutption is wrong more some when it done by those in our party.No excuse should be made for these evil forces.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:19 PM:

Speaker Pelosi's complicity in torture degrades her office. She is unfit for public service.

po wrote on December 10, 2007 3:24 PM:

Could these "briefings" also be why certain Dems in Congress are pushing for telecom immunity? If they knew about waterboarding, rendition and all the other fun and excitement ushered in by the Bush team (apparently pre- and post-9/11), then why wouldn't they also have been told about warrantless spying?

I'm afraid we're all going to be very, very disappointed when the smoke clears at who knew what when.

just joe wrote on December 10, 2007 7:23 PM:

I don't see that she threw Harmon under the bus. She just progressed the idea that she thought any techniques used had been considered legal and that when her replacement had learned they were used she immediately sent a letter in protest which she agreed with. How is that throwing someone under the bus. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
That aside...all of them knew and said nothing...using their oath of secrecy to justify their cowardice of defending constitutional rights that were being violated and laws of human decency that they knew were being violated. By saying nothing they allowed it to be continued when they had the opportunity to stop it. What violation of national security would have occurred if the public were made aware of these torture techniques? The only reason for an oath of secrecy was merely so it could be continued. If the public had known it would have been stopped. There was no danger to national security to tell the public this was happening. Their oath of secrecy..."We're torturing people...ssshh...don't tell anybody 'cause that would cause.......(what can you think of here) to our national security." See what I mean...Cowards who let it go on because they didn't have the guts to put a stop to it. Just like Pelosi doesn't have the guts to impeach..."it would interfere with policy making"...translated means "I might have to do something".

Mickey T wrote on December 10, 2007 9:30 PM:

Not until Jan 20, 2009 will I rest until we Impeach all these Bush criminals. If the Democrats don't Impeach soon, then we need to start voting them out one by one. It's Unconstitutional to take Impeachment off the table. Impeach Pelosi first, then Harry Reid next. Then the rest of them. These Democrats think that once they get the White House in 2009 people will forget their actions but they're wrong. Democrats better do something and stop giving lip service to "We the people". What makes them so sure they will win in 2008?

EkaterinaMatveeva wrote on December 10, 2007 11:57 PM:

5 ùåíî÷êîâ, ìàìà ïîõîæà íà ëàéêó, íà ôîòîãðàôèè 2 ñïðàâà äåâî÷êè!!!
î÷åíü æäóò ëþáÿùèõ õîçÿåâ, ïîìîãèòå ìàëûøàì îáðåñòè äîì! èì ïðèìåðíî 3-4 ìåñÿöà, íàêîðìëåííûå, íà âèä çäîðîâûå,î÷åíü àêòèâíûå, èãðèâûå, æäóò ëþáÿùèõ õîçÿåâ!! äî 9 äåêàáðÿ ìîæíî èõ çàáðàòü, ïîçæå èõ îòâåçóò è âîçìîæíî óáüþò, êèíóò íà çàâîä ÷òîáû íå ìåøàëèñü â ïîñ¸ëêå.. ïîìîãèòå îáðåñòè äîì ìàëûøàì! Îíè æå áóäóò áëàãîäàðíû âñþ æèçíü ÷òî èõ âçÿëè ñ óëèöû...

Òåëåôîí: 8-926-324-55-72, Êàòÿ. Ùåíî÷êè î÷åíü æäóò âàøåãî çâîíêà!

http://shenki.fromru.su/flashcard/DSC06137.JPG
http://shenki.fromru.su/flashcard/DSC06356.JPG

Ìîäåðàòîð ïîæàëóéñòà íå óäàëÿéòå âåòêó, ïóñòü ïðîâèñèò õîòÿ áû ïàðó äíåé :(

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 3:18 AM:

Pelosi "I knew very very little. What is your question?"

curiousgeezer wrote on December 11, 2007 1:45 PM:

"Remember at that point, we did not know that both Bush and his henchmen were so dis-trustworthy."

HUH? And something else Rita, I'm beginning to think Ms.Pelosi has had much more than her share of benefits, when it comes to doubt!

Also, I don't think the weak label applies any more! I'm goin' with chabuka and Mickey T, GET THE ROPE!