{"id":2161,"date":"2009-05-12T15:01:06","date_gmt":"2009-05-12T19:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jasetaro.com\/blog\/?p=2161"},"modified":"2009-05-12T17:22:46","modified_gmt":"2009-05-12T21:22:46","slug":"laughable-pelosi-didnt-object-to-waterboarding-in-order-to-respect-appropriate-channels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jasetaro.com\/blog\/2009\/05\/12\/laughable-pelosi-didnt-object-to-waterboarding-in-order-to-respect-appropriate-channels\/","title":{"rendered":"Laughable: Pelosi Didn’t Object to Waterboarding in Order to Respect “Appropriate” Channels?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is laughable… Madam Speaker if you’re going to lie at least try to make it convincing.<\/p>\n

From the Politico<\/a>:<\/p>\n

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn\u2019t protest directly out of respect for \u201cappropriate\u201d legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday\u2026<\/p>\n

[T]here\u2019s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 \u2014 five months after Pelosi\u2019s September meeting \u2014 CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah \u2014 including waterboarding.<\/p>\n

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA\u2019s general counsel to express \u201cprofound\u201d concerns with the tactic \u2014 going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally \u201capproved by the president.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing \u2014 and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cShe felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed,\u201d said the person. Pelosi \u201cnever got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a \u2018no response\u2019 from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bull, as Allahpundit notes<\/a> there was a lot Ms. Pleosi could have done:<\/p>\n

Other possible \u201cappropriate responses,\u201d right off the top of my head: (1) Pelosi could have demanded to be briefed personally to learn more about this alarming new development; (2) Pelosi could have written her own letter; (3) Pelosi could have co-signed Harman\u2019s letter; (4) Pelosi could have demanded a CIA response to Harman\u2019s letter; (5) Pelosi could have pressured the GOP leadership to inquire further; (6) Pelosi could have leaked the details about waterboarding to the press, which wouldn\u2019t have been \u201cappropriate\u201d per se but would at least have signaled the depth of her alleged concern. Instead, she let it lie. How come, Madam Speaker?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Is anyone buying this crap?<\/p>\n

Related<\/strong><\/p>\n