Pelosi's War

The San Francisco Chronicle recently quoted the Speaker of the House as saying that her motto is: "The best preparation for combat is combat." It would seem that Pelosi has acquired herself a war with the last agency on Earth that she should engage: the CIA. After weeks of repeatedly changing her story, Ms. Pelosi came out swinging: 'Pelosi waited for her regular weekly press conference to address the issue, after a trip to Iraq had left unanswered for nearly a week media reports fueled primarily by GOP sources making accusations. "Yes, I am saying that they are misleading - that the CIA was misleading the Congress," Pelosi said. She said she would "be very happy" if the CIA would release the notes from the 2002 briefing so that everyone could see for themselves. She repeated her call for a "truth commission" to air the facts.'

The press conference was almost painful to watch, with the Speaker fidgeting, shuffling her notes, practically wringing her hands and clearly contradicting not only her prior statements but her own statement of a few minutes earlier. The Washington Times article title declared, 'Lady's got ants in her pants.' More interestingly, the article took at look at the kind of defense Pelosi's increasingly desperate press conferences has raised from her own side of the aisle. All except her most partisan supporters seem to be more interested in a self-CYA than in fully backing their Speaker, even if they're not quite ready to throw her off the train. 'Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attempted to defend the speaker with the argument that what someone said seven years ago must be measured against the temperature of the times in the wake of 9/11, when nearly everyone was terrified of a "second wave" of attacks. But Democrats have to be careful with this line of argument, lest they arouse speculation about just why there has been no "second wave."'

The liberal bastion SLATE Magazine, while expressing apparent admiration for Pelosi's toughness, seemed a little concerned over the tenor and mood of the latest press conference. 'Pelosi is on the attack because she's been on the defensive. Republicans charge that she's a hypocrite. She wants a truth commission to examine the role of Bush officials who authorized enhanced interrogation techniques (some of which amounted to torture), but she was in the loop when those techniques were first discussed and didn't cry foul. ... Pelosi said the CIA account was wrong and then went a step further. She said briefers in that meeting explicitly said water-boarding was not being used. We now know that at the time Abu Zubaydah had been water-boarded 83 times. Pelosi charged the agency with deliberately misleading Congress as part of the larger effort to mislead the nation in the run-up to the Iraq war. [As if that was relevant] ... At some point the president may be asked what his view of the Pelosi matter is. It's a tricky spot. He doesn't want to get in the middle of a he said/she said debate. If he defends Pelosi, he alienates the CIA. That relationship is already tender because Obama released Bush-era torture memos against the wishes of the CIA, whose agents participated in the torture. On the other hand, if Obama defends the CIA, he undermines his leader in the House and angers her liberal supporters.'

Laughing at the Speaker (something increasingly easy these days, alas, although she lends herself to a good soundtrack) is all well and good, but what is the real significance of her almost manic behavior? Does it really matter if she calls the CIA a bunch of liars, and spends yet more precious time ragging on the Bush Administration? Does it matter when she obviously flounders, 'parses' her answers, and blames her aides? Does it matter that the Administration has selectively released memos to make its own case, but refuses to declassify documents that may demonstrate the efficacy of the programs in question? In fact it does. Certainly it matters that the person third-in-line for the Presidency is showing herself up as a hypocrite and a liar. It matters that the day after Pelosi attacked the CIA and declared them to have lied to the Congress (a federal offense), she tried backtracking in response to Leon Panetta (no friend of the Bush Administration) shot back in defense of his agency. The New York Times thinks this is merely a rare stumble in Pelosi's stride. 'Mr. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California and a longtime associate of Ms. Pelosi, issued a statement that said the agency’s “contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that C.I.A. officers briefed truthfully,” a rebuttal of Ms. Pelosi’s claim on Thursday that intelligence officials had lied to her.The deepening dispute over what Ms. Pelosi was told in September 2002 has challenged her credibility and raised new questions about whether she passed up an early opportunity to expose the Bush administration’s harsh treatment of detainees.'

But an even more significant argument remains, and once again, Charles Krauthammer has nailed the issue. He began his most recent part of this discussion by revisiting the argument that there are exceptions that would allow torture. 'That moral calculus is important. Even John McCain says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable. One therefore has to think about what kind of transgressive interrogation might be permissible in the less pristine circumstance of the high-value terrorist who knows about less imminent attacks.' Krauthammer then advanced his argument with specific regard to Pelosi. 'On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the existing circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider "transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies" (i.e. those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals.'

The problem that Krauthammer raises with Pelosi's backpedalling is her attempt to bite the dog she earlier fed. If she had the courage of her convictions, she would have followed the lead of Rep. Jane Harman, and put her name to the protest letter, rather than later claiming 'but I concurred.' Instead, she now pretends that she wasn't willing to go along with whatever it took to ensure there was no further attack. It was the right decision at the time, and she should be willing to stand by it. Instead she's proving herself to be a coward, and in the process, Pelosi and her supporters are contributing to the demoralization and handicapping of the CIA. That won't be helpful in the future as we try to avert other attacks. Of course, that's the optimistic view. The more cynical view is that Pelosi is so incompetent, that she has no idea what she's being briefed on and what her role as Speaker is. Her pretense that she was really accusing the Bush Administration, not the CIA (who does she think developed the intelligence and briefed her on on it), doesn't make it clear which of these views is the more correct.

There's an even greater opportunity looming for the Democratic leadership to stumble over conflicting ethics and party demands; that of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. Already, certain Congressional members are backing out as fast as their lips can move, as is made clear in the Wall Street Journal article entitled 'Democrats Discover Gitmo's Virtues.' '''We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.' Hey I don't blame them, I don't want suspected terrorists in my backyard either. But it's foolish and hypocritical to yell and scream about the evils of GITMO, and then refuse to accept and deal with the consequences. 'This was not part of the Obama team's calculation. It figured it would get its bucks and make its calls. Releasing specific plans for where it intends to land these detainees will cause geographic uproars. But six weeks ago, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions sent the first of two letters to Mr. Holder demanding to know the administration's legal authority for transfers, given that the federal Real ID Act prohibits admission to the U.S. of any alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive a response.'

President Obama's response to the growing issue over what to do with the detainees seems to be a delaying action; he's reviving the military tribunal system for some of the detainees, much to he dismay of his more liberal supporters. The New York Times reported that the lack of a suitable detainment policy for the Guantanomo prisoners and the revival of the military tribunals (along with the expansion of the action in Afghanistan and Pakistan) is creating a rift within the Democratic party. From the Guardian: 'Defendants will be given the opportunity to pick their own lawyers and be provided with more protection if they do not testify. The decision to persist with the tribunals was immediately attacked by critics. "It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's no detainee at Guantánamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. "Human rights campaigners point out that during last year's presidential campaign Obama called the tribunal system "an enormous failure" and that he vowed to "reject the Military Commissions Act". But the president's aides say he never rejected the possibility of using military commissions altogether, if they could be made fairer.'

The problem with hypocrisy is that it always shows up in the worst way at the worst time. The Democrats are going to have to come to terms with that before they effectively govern.

Nancy Pelosi Can't Keep Her Stories Straight

Most parties involved, except Nancy Pelosi herself, now says that she was thoroughly briefed on the design and employment of enhanced interrogation techniques (or torture if you prefer), and that she should have understood that fact (makes you wonder why she was on the Intelligence Committee if she couldn't understand a briefing by the intelligence community, but that's a separate issue). If she truly believed this to be an immoral action, even if she didn't quite grasp the fact that we had already used waterboarding, she should have objected. It would have been her moral duty as a senior leader. Now she's just burying herself in excuses.

According to ABC: 'ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News. The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques. The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.'

The NYT reports that: 'The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the first full listing of briefings, appears to call into question the assertion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.'

I and many others wrote extensively about Porter Goss' editorial in the Washington Post stating clearly that he and others understood the briefings, and that Pelosi was derelict in her duty (or deficient in her comprehension - which is worse I wonder?) in not stating any objections at the time. Will Pelosi own up and take ownership or will she just keep finding excuses? I'm betting on the latter - she has no courage for the first.

Hypocrisy at its Shining Best

There are times when Charles Krauthammer is at best supercilious and at worst self-absorbed, but his May 1 article, 'Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible' is the Krauthammer at his best. It's a hard-hitting look at the hypocrisy and double-dealing in Congress (particularly within the Speaker's office) over the 'torture memos' and push to investigate those involved.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works. ...

... Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

Krauthammer is dead on the money in this case. Rep. Pelosi is a perfect example of the CYA culture in Washington. The one where all principles are up for sale, even patriotism, and when the fact that they were sold cheap is exposed, blame someone else. I lean toward the argument, expressed in the opening paragraphs of the article, that there are unique exceptions that would permit torture for very specific goals. However, I can respect disagreement on this issue, and wouldn't condemn an opposing view. If one takes that opposing view however, it's important to ensure that one maintains it as a consistent principle. Pelosi sold out, pure and simple. She's been caught with her pants down, and now it's someone else's fault that she didn't understand future possibility versus present (apparently she skipped the lectures in school on verb tense). Krauthammer has the right of it here as well, holding Pelosi responsible for not doing everything she could to stop the CIA and the administration if she believed so strongly that these methods were absolutely and always wrong. Instead, she offered support and greater funding. She's not a liberal - she's simply a sellout.

UPDATE - Porter Goss: No Cover from the Obama Administration

UPDATE 2: Porter Goss published a damning OpEd in the Washington Post this morning. In it he explicitly condemns members of Congress (no doubt, he was particularly referencing Pelosi) for convenient memories.
In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers. ... Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience. ... The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

The Congressional leadership needs to 'man-up,' now, before their own words and deeds are released by name for the public to examine. Those in glass houses need to be careful of what they throw.

UPDATE 1: To further illustrate the confused message coming from the administration, read both the President's call on the CIA to change their wicked ways, and his assurance to the agency that its members have his full support.

ABCs Jake Tapper published an article yesterday in which he cited a number of current and former CIA officers who shared their concerns that the Obama Administration is now on a path that leaves them exposed and 'without cover.' A former lawyer for the agency, Mark Lowenthal was one of the sources:

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

Even though President Obama has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who were operating within the four corners of what they'd been told was the law, Lowenthal says members of the CIA are worried. "They feel exposed already, and this is going to increase drumbeat for an investigation or a commission" to explore detainee treatment during the Bush years, he said. "It's going to make it much harder to resist, and they fear they're then going to be thrown over."

The officers have good reason to fear this, if history is any guide. The Washington Examiner related the story of Ted Olson, who provided legal advice to President Reagan. Olson became the subject of a long-running independent counsel investigation for providing legal advice that later became politically unpopular among members of Congress. The investigation took up years of his life, went nowhere in the long run, and damaged his reputation. There's a great danger that the current thirst for 'truth' turns to a thirst for vengeance. Persecuting those who did their jobs believing their actions to be legally correct and acceptable, and possibly endangering members of the military and intelligence communities who are currently deployed when further exposures are made, is irresponsible at best. Giving a pep talk to Langley won't reassure officers who have done a dangerous job for years, and expected to be covered by the White House, no matter who holds the presidency.

The way that the administration seems to be handling this issue has, at times, appeared almost schizophrenic. Stephen Hayes exposed some of the confusion in the recent edition of The Weekly Standard. The gravest concern raised in his article is not the apparent internal debate in the administration, and between various factions of the Democratic Party, but rather than selective leaking of the memos and possible investigations, will be only for political gain. That possibility should concern any citizen.