Nancy Pelosi on Torture | 04/23/2009 9:10 am
Nancy Pelosi Now Says Maybe 'Truth Commission' for Torture Crafters Is OK

It seems like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now thinks a "truth commission" may be needed to probe the torture allegations of the Bush administration.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, brought up this idea months ago, and few had the political stomach for it then — not even Democrats. Now, it seems, with all the focus on the recently released CIA interrogation memos and calls for prosecution, Pelosi seems more amendable to the whole idea. President Obama has left the door open to possibly prosecute the Bush administration lawyers who drafted the policies — including the use of waterboarding on the most dangerous terror suspects in custody, especially Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But even Obama’s national intelligence director, Dennis Blair, said "high-value information" came from the interrogations.
"It gives further impetus among members to have some kind of truth commission as to what happened," said Pelosi, who is also in a bit of a mess over what she knew about wiretaps on Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA. "I do not think immunity should be granted to everyone in a blanket way." She said the advantage to such a truth commission would be that "it removes all doubt about how we protect the American people is in a values-based way."
Many say the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. After all, Pelosi was one of a handful of Democrats privy to interrogation techniques back in 2002, and virtually no concerns were raised then. In fact, it was Democrats that controlled the Senate Intelligence Committee back in 2002 when all this was going on.
"Republicans also are being hypocritical — Dick Armitage? Really? You’re offended in 2009? Where was he in 2002? … Just like Nancy Pelosi. It’s the hypocrisy," MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Thursday morning. "Who the hell is crazy about having to figure out what Al-Qaeda is, where Al-Qaeda is?"
Armitage was second in command at the State Department under Colin Powell during the Bush administration. He told Al Jazeera English last week that had he known then what he knows now, he would have likely resigned.
"Isn’t it amazing that in 2002 when we were in danger, people were willing to look the other way on both sides?" Scarborough continued.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, said the fault should lie with the lawyers who drafted the language allowing such techniques, but wouldn’t necessarily go to bat for Pelosi.
"We don’t know which members said ‘does this go far enough?’ I’m not here to defend Nancy Pelosi but the people in the room said ‘the lawyers have said this is perfectly legal,’" McCaskill said on MSNBC Thursday morning, referring to that meeting some lawmakers had with CIA officials to discuss interrogation techniques in 2002. "I think giving these lawyers a pass is a big problem," since it’s their job to interpret the law, not to give somebody "the political answer you want," McCaskill added.























37 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
And I echo Mary’s comment - thank you…
DITR: excellent post. The last line "The left has nothing against torture. It just wants to choose the victims." is true for many issues, not just torture. What has really hit me in the last couple of days, is the justification from the so-called liberals on this site wrt: profiling by the Homeland (in)Security yahoo, Ms. Napolitano. They are totally for profiling vets for suspicion, as you know, as they consider vets a higher risk for extreme behavior.
It’s so selective, amazing really, how they can justify profiling, torture, wiretapping, etc when it applies to what they think they want.
And as far as the term liberal goes, I think we need a new one. Liberal implies that freedom is involved. It is NOT. I m not free to have an opinion, unless it is theirs. I’m not free to vote unless it is for their candidate. Off the top of my head I can’t think of one, but am open to ideas….