Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Nancy Pelosi on Torture | 04/27/2009 12:25 pm

What Did She Know About 'Torture'? Nancy Pelosi on the Defensive

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be on the defensive over what exactly she knew — and when she knew it — about the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The California Democrat befuddled some reporters, Republicans and others last week when she gave what Politico says were some "convoluted answers" to reporters about the interrogations. Now Republicans have jumped at the chance to pummel Pelosi’s insistence that she didn’t know what was going on. CIA Chief Porter Goss said she must be suffering from "amnesia" — since he was with her in 2002 when they were briefed by the CIA on the techniques.

Goss wrote over the weekend:

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.

A Pelosi adviser told Politico that the speaker knew the GOP was going to come after her, and that they likely will again once another batch of alleged torture photos comes out. No doubt that’s going to stir up yet another political mess about how the U.S. treated terror suspects.

The Washington Times reports today that Obama’s release of the CIA memos on interrogation techniques last week, and his recent acquiescence to a bipartisan review panel to look into those aspects of Bush’s presidency, has caused such a furor, even some congressional Democrats want it to just go away. Although, it seems Obama is backing off of that stance now, saying we need to insted look forward. And the newspaper agrees:

The politicization of policy differences has been a fact of life in Washington since the Watergate era, but in the past one could reasonably expect that such political warfare would end when a new administration commenced. Investigatory panels, such as the ‘Commission of Inquiry’ called for by Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, would represent an unprecedented escalation of political warfare in the American system. Proponents of such tribunals exhibit a spirit of political retribution not seen since the end of the Civil War.

What do you think? Should we have a so-called "truth commission" to look into alleged Bush-era misdeeds, or should the country move on and focus on other things, like the economy?

301 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Kelly In Texas

Yep Canuck…that Obama can do…spend taxpayers money…to the tune of 2 BILLION an HOUR.

All the non paying taxpayers should be outraged that Obama is spending the money that they were promised would be handed over to them…as a reward for voting for him….wait until they figure that one out…

By Kelly In Texas on 04/28/2009 1:50 pm
Diamond In The Rough
Michael Scheuer paints a scenario, where, in surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: "Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God’s permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities."  Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail.  Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing.  Reporting the interrogation’s results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: "What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?"

Americans should keep this worst-case scenario in mind as they watch the tragicomic spectacle taking place in the wake of the publication of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos.  It will help them recognize this episode of political theater as another major step in the bipartisan dismantling of America’s defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology.  George W. Bush’s democracy-spreading philosophy yielded the invasion of Iraq and set the United States at war with much of the Muslim world.  Bush’s worldview thereby produced an enemy that quickly outpaced the limited but proven threat-containing capacities of the major U.S. counterterrorism programs — rendition, interrogation and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks.

Now, in a single week, President Obama has eliminated two-thirds of that successful-but-not-sufficient national defense troika because his personal ideology — a fair gist of which is "If the world likes us more we are more secure" — cannot tolerate harsh interrogation techniques, torture or coercive interviews, call them what you will.  Surprisingly, Obama now stands alongside Bush as a genuine American Jacobin, both of them seeing the world as they want it to be, not as it is.  Whereas Bush saw a world of Muslims yearning to betray their God for Western secularism, Obama gazes upon a globe that he regards as largely carnivore-free and believes that remaining threats can be defused by semantic warfare; just stop saying "War on Terror" and give talks in Turkey and on al-Arabiyah television, for example.

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done.  In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, Obama told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families.    (TOF)

By Diamond In The Rough on 04/27/2009 6:33 pm
under stimulated
excellent post—may i use it?
By under stimulated on 04/28/2009 12:09 pm
Kelly In Texas

Diamond…so well done…

By Kelly In Texas on 04/28/2009 2:30 pm
MK P

 Oh……yes, ………Michael Scheuer……….it seems he wasn’t so keen on Bush either………..

In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as "Mike". He is portrayed as being occasionally frustrated with his superiors’ failure to aggressively target bin Laden.
By MK P on 04/28/2009 2:51 pm
starry Nite

The American people are conflicted over the issue of Torture.   Our security has not been weakned by the release of these memos.  The information was already availble in various reports.

The question of investigation or criminal prosectuion is not supported by a wide margin. 

There is a lot of complex issues and I would not want to be the attorney general.   This is a hell if you do or hell if you don’t.  Fire from the left and right.    

The conservative right supports Cheney/Bush .  Pointing the finger  at Pelosi doesn’t  matter.    Pelosi might have been briefed but she is not the issue.  Bush and Cheney were in charge and ordered the torture.  Pelosi would be an accomplice after the fact. Guilt by association ?

By starry Nite on 04/28/2009 12:27 am
canuck canuck
I wonder what kind of ‘moral’ argument would be given if the plot on the buildings in La and the bridge had not been found out in time? If one is gone after ALL are fair game - so let the games begin! We have nothing but money to spend on this garbage - we can just keep the printing presses rolling!
By canuck canuck on 04/28/2009 3:46 am
under stimulated
i don’t believe a thing that comes out of her arrogant mouth—but, the truth will come out
By under stimulated on 04/28/2009 12:12 pm
Mary Utrup
The one thing Nancy Pelosi is for full time is Nancy Pelosi. She will say or do anything that keeps herself in the spotlight and on the "right" side of the issue. I do not mean right as in conservative. I mean right in terms of the best possible angle. She’s a pity.
By Mary Utrup on 04/28/2009 12:20 pm