Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding in 2003Fellow witnesses of the primal crime -- no wonder Jane and Nan loathe each other so much.A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.
Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.
A Democratic source acknowledged yesterday that it is almost certain that Pelosi would have learned about the use of waterboarding from Sheehy. Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding and had objected in a letter to the CIA's top counsel.
Comments (6)
a top aide. i wonder when she started angling for speakership.
Posted by hapa | May 9, 2009 1:37 PM
Posted on May 9, 2009 13:37
It's pretty clear, from Gore's capitulation to Bush, or Clinton's capitulation to Greenspan and Rubin, that the Democrats and Republicans have been following the same game plan for years. And the Democrats' cringing complicity during the entire Bush regime, pathetically explained as necessary in order to win some future election, attests to the fictional nature of the idea of two parties, of vastly different ideologies, struggling mightily for control of our destinies.
Posted by hce | May 9, 2009 4:43 PM
Posted on May 9, 2009 16:43
pathetically explained as necessary in order to win some future election, attests to the fictional nature of the idea of two parties, of vastly different ideologies, struggling mightily for control of our destinies.
There can be no doubt at this point. I've wondered if the prog blogs are filled with ringers or just the truly clueless. Don't know which is worse.
Posted by dc | May 10, 2009 5:43 AM
Posted on May 10, 2009 05:43
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf
protocols of the hmos
Posted by op | May 10, 2009 8:16 AM
Posted on May 10, 2009 08:16
Protocols of the elders: How is it that I agree with half of this stuff, and the rest is completely insane?
An old prof of mine once stopped me in the midst of a rant against capitalism and said "but Earwicker, think of the millions of people who enjoy Mozart now, who wouldn't have a hundred years ago!"
Posted by hce | May 10, 2009 11:49 AM
Posted on May 10, 2009 11:49
Technically, of course, you have to stand against something in some slight degree before you capitulate to it. I see no evidence that any major Dembot fits that description.
Posted by Michael Dawson | May 11, 2009 1:21 PM
Posted on May 11, 2009 13:21