Candid and bold as always dijamo. You force us to face the truth we don't want to, because it interferes with the story line that we on the Democratic side of the aisle were ignorant of what was going on. People write about bold writing. To the extent that writing in anonymity can be bold you have demonstrated what it is dijamo, because you don't run with the herd when your conscience tells you not to do so. Well done.

Bruce

The CNN report cites one unidentified 'source'.

It appears at this point that it's who said/she said. Waiting for specific factual documentaion providing clarification before I condemn or defend.

Aren't blogs supposed to contain...text? Or is that because Nancy left you speechless? ;)

dijamo,

Thanks. This is statement that caught my attention from Politico:

Pelosi “never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a ‘no response’ from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done.”

This is truly scary. At that time Pelosi should have stood together with Harmon (as should all Congress) and demand response. This is horrific example that self interests usually supersede standing up and speaking out (even when that is what you are mandated to do)!

Thanks for the links and 'rest of story' to date. I will be writing Pelosi today with copies to others in Congress, et al.

Greatly appreciate. Rec'd.

If this was a Republican, would you need the source to be fully identified? Why has pelosi's defense changed from I had no idea it was being used, to she had no forum for protest? Come on. The folks on our side of the aisle should be held accountable for their inaction too. The Denocratic leadership rolled over time and time again for GWB and those failures in any truth commission should also be explored in full.

Pelosi can defend herself quite publicly and forcefully. She has not come out to deny it and these are sources from within Pelosi's camp that are releasing this info. If it's not true she can come out with another we were not I repeat her "We Were Not! I Repeat Not ever told Waterboarding Was Used!" statement.

I thought this was about Pelosi?

I wait until I have a source other than a news organization reporting. Just because they report doesn't make it true. I've learned the tricks of the trade of news organizations from the inside.

I took part in anti-war protests before the war started to try to persuade our Congressional leadership before voting for Authorisation for the Use of Military Force. I supported Hillary despite that vote which I always thought was wrong, not because of it. More for her pogressive stances on domestic issues like healthcare, foreclosure relief, etc... but I've always said she is not perfect.

That said Hillary stood up to the criticism and defended her position (as did Keryy and Biden and Edwards and etc etc etc). Had she (and democrats in general) had all the information, they would have voted differently. Pelosi had the information re: detainees being waterboarded after the fact... and did nothing. Harman took more action than she did and that says a lot. Then afterwards, she denies ever knowing and wants to spread blame everywhere else without accepting any personal accountabilty for her inaction.

A Truth Commission should include EVERYONE involved including the minority that abdicated their responsibility to be a check against the abuse of executive power.

"If this was a Republican, would you need the source to be fully identified? " Yes, I would, otherwise somebody could just be pulling smoke out of their ass.
And let's face something here, the deomcrats were in the MINORITY, this stuff is CLASSIFIED, and the Republicans were blocking anything from teh Democrats at every turn, WHAT WAS PELOSI SUPPOSED TO DO DIFFERENTLY?
I welcome a well-reasoned response from anybody.

Anybody? Anybody? Buehler?

Awesome, Dij.

Be ready to be called a Republican, an attention whore, and a troll.

There are so many articles on TPM wondering why the GOP and their followers always seem to move in lock step yet fail to see the same issue on the other side of the fence.

Washington is Washington and to think that it's easy to tell which party a power player is a member of is total naivete.

Thanks for shaking the collective here. As you know, only Nixon could go to China.

People are kept in line in their jobs by fear of losing them. That holds for the lowly secretary and the Washington politician. (The most common excuse you will hear is "I'm just doing my job")

In my life I have been fortunate enough to meet 2 people who have risked their careers, livelihoods, and family security for 'doing the right thing'. I consider that a huge number and feel fortunate.

Most individuals wouldn't risk even 1/100 of that.

In reality, Pelosi is only mandated to act in the way you state if she risks losing her job by not acting. This statement explains most of politics in general.

Is reactionary really better than complacent?

Is that same true for news stories you find on MSNBC? Do you wait to hear it reported elsewhere? It's not like CNN is a bit player.

PS How many here rush to judgment based on DailyKos? I remember the Sarah Palin kid story ran like wildfire through TPM.

Consistency is everything and the mark of a disciplined mind.

That would be a great point if it were leaked from the CIA. This is not the CIA hatchet job re: AIPAC on Harman that most folks took as the gospel truth with sourcing that is much less substantive because Harman is unpopular. As noted above there's no dispute about the February 2003 briefing anymore. Her aide was certainly notified and if those sources are wrong, where are her very vocal denials. All I hear are crickets.

The point of a Truth Commission is.. to.. tell.. the.. truth - the whole truth, not just the parts that make your party look good. I don't think Pelosi has the guts to come forward and admit she lied. She'd rather clam up and join Obama & Harry Reid in abandoning hope for a Truth Commission not because of principle, but because of her own self-interest. She'd rather have no Truth Commission than one that also investigates her inaction or embarrasses her. Power over principles. And that is giving the CIA and Cheney just what they wanted.

"If this was a Republican, would you need the source to be fully identified?"

Yes.

While I do believe that the D side of the aisle in Congress contributed to not only torture but the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, I need authentic sources in order to corroborate specific names because there are still so many Bush moles in government. The media grew so lax with anonymous sourcing that there is no credibility with them any more.

Agree with your general points completely. I was speaking in the context of your statement contrasting positively the content (with followup commentary) from the thread's author and the behavior of the GOP followers (presumably in not questioning the actions of Bush).

Dija draws an absolute conclusion and attacks her own party's leadership based on an anonymously sourced article in an environment where we know burrowed Bush officials are working for the benefit of Dick Cheney - and we know Cheney's weapon of choice is selectively (misleadingly) leaked intelligence information.

That, to me, seems as reactionary as the republicans were complacent. I'm trying to get less wordy ... apparently it doesn't work for me.

"For once the TPM community will have to come to the realization that you can simplify the world based on someone's political party membership."

For once, huh? Do you actually read what you write?

"There really are 99 different opinions in the Senate, not 2, for example."

There are as many opinions in the TPM community as there are members of that community. Try applying the same criticism to your own work before levelling it at others.

Gotcha! (e.g. "understood") ;-)

...because there are still so many Bush moles in government.

Do you have a source for this?

How can you definitively say "a source close to Pelosi" is or is not affiliated with the CIA?

More to the point, we know leaks (and on-the-record reports) against Pelosi have come out sourced to the CIA that are of questionable accuracy. With that in mind, regardless of direct affiliation to the CIA, a certain level of skepticism is warranted when the leaks continue. Porter Goss is also heavily involved and has many allies that could easily be construed as "close to Pelosi".

What I can't figure out is if the President's covering up torture, it's every congressperson's duty to do what they can to stop it. I'm sure as House Speaker, she'd at least have no qualms about speaking up now.

Oh wait. Deja vu all over again.

Dickday raises an interesting dilemma. If a member of the legislative branch is given top secret, confidential information, and that information reveals a violation of law and/or the constitution, what is the member of Congress supposed to do? One thing, I imagine, would be to go to court under seal, although the court might not assert jurisdiction and call this a "political question", which has been used on many occasions by the federal courts in our judicial history to avoid intervening in squabbles between the Congress and the Executive. In any event, I think that's where legislators could have gone, to the judiciary, were they aware of violations of the law. There is no indication that anyone, including Harman, who wrote letter, even considered sealed injunctive remedies in the courts.

Another thing, Josh seems to be saying on the front page that, by focusing on the lack of congressional oversight and what could be really ugly hypocrisy by the House speaker and perhaps others, we are taking away from the issue of torture itself.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/focus_people.php

Is not the issue of congressional oversight inextricably linked to the issue of the illegal torture administered under color of federal law? Can anyone explain to me how there is no such linkage?

What the fuck? Bruce, I love you, honestly, glad to see you around, but let's be real - the courts were letting all the torture stuff bleed through, even if it were possible to get Gonzales' DoJ to bring the case forward. We had the perfect storm, Republicans controlling 3 branches and politicizing every element of it. How many arguments did Bush's thugs lose with the judicial branch in 2003? See, you can't compare normal court precedent and normal politics with the events of 2001-200? because they're just off the scale, they don't compute, kinda like that 2000 Supreme Court decision or the current Coleman battle. Really, half the judiciary was bending over backwards to make sure we knew that suspected terrorists had no rights. I do think a Senator or Representative should have self-immolated on the Capitol steps, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that going through normal adult channels would have had any effect whatsoever.

The name of the game: Spread the blame.

I bet Porter Goss and dick Cheney are sharing a cigar and laughing about this. With selective leaks they somehow pin the whole torture thing on NANCY PELOSI, a SanFran liberal who opposed the Iraq War. LOL. Think about it. And this from the GOP/CIA assholes who still defend and celebrate torture every fucking day on national tv. Torture: It's wonderful, but it's the minority Dems fault. WTF?

Politico: Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if water-boarding had been personally “approved by the president.”

What Harman sent was pretty much a pro forma CYA letter. She asked for the letter to be declassified to defend herself on the question of destruction of the torture tapes. She does suggest the tapes be kept but not for the reasons she implied (though she says it would "look bad"). Neither does she "profoundly" reject water-boarding and other EIT. She just asks for assurances that it had been approved at the highest level.

This is as "alarmed" as she gets in the letter: "It is also the case, however, that what was described raises profound policy questions and I am concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions."

That Pelosi has subsequently tried to latch onto this letter as a defense of her lack of oversight while on the Intel Committee is pretty weak.

Is that same true for news stories you find on MSNBC? Do you wait to hear it reported elsewhere? It's not like CNN is a bit player.

In the famous words of Oprah: Don't play me small.

PS How many here rush to judgment based on DailyKos? I remember the Sarah Palin kid story ran like wildfire through TPM.

--Please show me where I said--typed-- one character, specifically about Sarah Palin's baby, and I will gladly accept responsibility. I know you will not find one word, letter or sentence about her baby from my keyboard or blog because it was of no interest to me.

Consistency is everything and the mark of a disciplined mind.

--Most definitely. That's why I wait at least until the story "cycles" through the wash (news) at least three times. Experience taught everything I need to know about news organizations.

--The question remains: Who is the confidant and what information did Mr.Sheehy give to Pelosi and how did he give it to her? Where's the proof?

Would this be the courageous Nancy Pelosi who promised one thing on the last FISA Amend. then ducked behind the lectern while her boy Steny Hoyer brought out the real bill with telecom immunity and expansion of spying powers? Or the Pelosi who either supported or rolled over on the Patriot Acts I and II, PAA and FAA (FISA), DTA, MCA or any of the other infringements on civil liberties? Or the one who took impeachment "off the table" before she even took the gavel? Or the one who would not even broach the idea of defunding or credibly threatening to end the illegal war in Iraq- you know, the war that she courageously voted against?

Your point may be a good one, but also remember that Nancy was a Congressional leader at the time of that vote and certainly was a leader in the Democratic Party. After all, she was in a short period of time elected Minority Leader. National public opinion would have mattered to a national leader. She was one.

As TheraP writes, you make excellent points, but I think where we disagree is that you seem to assume that going after Yoo and Cheney et al. is made exceedingly or insurmountably difficult when we focus on the failure of those in Congress charged with oversight, and we look the other way when those folks, in this case Speaker Pelosi, appear to have been less than candid in terms of what they knew and when. I don't think the two wrongs are mutually exclusive, nor do I think it detracts from the wrongdoing of the Administration--except perhaps in a political sense (i.e. it does give some political cover to folks like Yoo and Cheney). But, in the end, what is our goal here? I think that, if the goal is preventing such abuses in the future, it is a huge and gaping error to ignore the failure of the legislators charged with oversight.

Hey Des. Always a pleasure. I think you're right, and I kind of say the same thing in the comment that you respond to I think, i.e. that the prospects of obtaining relief through the courts would have been slim.

Nice to see you back posting CT. Cheers.
Bruce

One of the things that keeps people from paying attention to politics is that the majority of our politicians are "Republicrats." Take away the "Rs" and the "Ds" and sometimes its hard to tell the Republicans from the Democrats. Many, if not most will lie cheat and steal, be grossly hypocritical, accuse people of doing the very things they are doing, talk out of both sides of their mouths, etc, etc, etc.

If we are going to be offended by what the Republicans did, we have to be offended by what the Democrats did as well...

One of the things I will NEVER forget is the way NOW just slunk off into the shadows in the face of Bill Clinton's escapades. If a Republican president had done what he did they would have chewed his face off...but for a Dem, they just quietly went away.

I'd hate for us to do that now...If Dems are complicit in this torture stuff, they need to pay the price, as well.

Good post, Dij

Ok, Zip gets the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site, given from all of me to all of you. I mean I had to look the damn thing up:

Enantiodromia (Greek: enantios, opposite + dromos, running course) is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.

wow

What scares me is that Q evidently knew what it meant too.

Thank you for passing along the definition, Dick. I was lost ... ;)

Ya make me feel so Jung
Ya make be feel like
We're almost done
Epics are sung
And Cheney is dung
And...

THE END

Really! I thought it was Calvin & Hobbs, so what do I know? But I can hum a really cool ditty ...

Hi, Bruce. My, admittedly slight, understanding here is that these were briefings (initially) to the top four members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that were formed to oversee and prevent the kinds of abuses pre-'70s (I believe all members are supposed to be briefed). It is their job to act as watchdog. The executive has several oversight panels like the Inspector General but are not always independent as you’d suspect. The intelligence agencies are required by law to report in advance any major actions or changes they are going to undertake. The congressional committees do have the law behind them as far as oversight and can have investigations and hold hearings.

Ultimately, I believe, they only have the threat of defunding intelligence operations if neither congress nor the judiciary backs them up. But if even the minority members object to actions (i.e. torture) and make clear that they believe those actions are illegal, that would probably be enough to at least get someone along the line to stop and reconsider (to save their own ass down the road if nothing else). The Committees are charged with overseeing and halting any abuses or illegal actions. Again- that is their job.

But what allowed Bush to run this country as a dictator for eight years was the“good people keeping silent” on committees, in both houses of congress, in agencies, the press, etc. No one dared challenge them for fear of looking weak. Those that did, like Feingold or Kucinich or Murtha were called traitors in so many words.

This week the Cheney family proclaims that releasing the photos of torture would endanger our troops and would be “siding with the terrorists.” And, hey, apparently that boogieman still works his ol’ black magic!

Does anyone think Muslims reading their local news or Al Jazeera viewers have been, until now, uninformed about US abuses? Nevermind that everyone in the world knows what we have done. Nevermind that everyone has seen the Abu Ghraib photos. Nevermind that invading Iraq and raining destruction on an innocent Muslim population was as big a boon to Al Qaeda recruitment as possible. But the administration still argues that more pictures of the same are going to endanger the troops and safety of Americans at home.

Perhaps they shouldn't be trying that soldier who, with his buddies looking out, raped the 14 y.o. Muslim girl and then killed her and her family. Might piss off some people if it gets out in the press. Endanger the troops. Make America less safe. What d'ya think? Let him go. Put the past behind us. Move forward.

CT, I was giving an example of hypocrisy, not suggesting that we turn the discussion about Nancy Pelosi into a lecture on the sexual repression of Americans.

And since we're nit-picking, it isn't "conflating to" it is "conflating two."

cluck, cluck...

;-)

Not to belabor it, but you state, "I think that's where legislators could have gone, to the judiciary, were they aware of violations of the law. There is no indication that anyone, including Harman, who wrote letter, even considered sealed injunctive remedies in the courts."

Which seems to indicate you think we had a still functioning judicial branch at that time, which evidence seems to refute.

When someone doesn't do their job properly, the boss can fire them. However, most people in this country have little control over politicians unless you live in their district. It's like the old story about term limits: everyone likes them, except for their politician!

And because everything is based on Seniority in the Senate, it makes sense to constantly vote in your Senator.

Jason and I have made this point multiple times that incumbents generally get re-elected and that's a major problem with holding people accountable.

It's a conundrum for sure!

You'd rather not agree with me?

You really do have no sense of humor!

I'll remember to put a smiley in for you next time.

This is an old story. There are *lots* of dollars spent on black projects that because of their secrecy have little or no oversight. Many of the black projects are given to major corporations (e.g. Lockheed, for example) and basically assume the honor system in producing things.

How secrecy is used in an open society is a generally interesting question. Kissinger claimed (and rightly so) that it was necessary to have secret negotiations with the Chinese before Nixon could go over there. But as we know, secrecy is often abused as well as a cloak for appropriate oversight.

Hell, if she is so paralyzed by politics, she could have still pulled a "Deep Throat" and handed over the memos and goods to Seymour Hersh!!!

Again and again, I see Dems flashing the same blind spot for one of "ours". The way we used to despise seemingly intelligent Republicans in their defense of their Party and Bush.

I have contempt for Pelosi but not personal animosity. However, I'm all FOR holding her feet very very close to the fire (am I descending to the "dark side" figuratively??) because I want to send the message to ALL, Dems or Republicans, politicians or voters, that torture and tacit support of it, is above all, IMMORAL, and everyone tainted by its rot SHOULD be held accountable. There's no grey areas, none whatsoever.

"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." 4/23/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1635icvGnjo

Being advised by her Intelligence Aide (as has been reported by press accounts) is second hand knowledge which means that previous statement is inoperative. She has her weekly briefing with the press today. Let's see if she continues her denials or moves to squash the issue out of self-protection and drops any further discussion of a Truth Commission.

You won't get Yoo or Cheney if Democrats are so in fear of being embarrassed by their own inaction that they fail to have a full Truth Commission. Own up to what was known then. Instead of lying about what she knew, make a full statement about the whole truth. Move forward with the investigations since being advised of what was happening did not mean she had the power to do anything about it. Distraction over.

Excellent reference AA. Thanks. Thumbing through this interesting thread this morning I guess many of us (certainly yours truly) have conflated a couple of issues, exclusive of what I think we all agree is the principal point, namely that under the previous Administration we have here in Torturegate yet another example of a blatant disregard of the United States Constitution and a dangerous extension of executive power. In the end, and I refer everyone to my good radical and unyieldingly consistent Texas buddy Don Key down yonder :), it makes us look bad in the eyes of the world and in particular with the much of the muslim communities across the globe.

But there are two additional and absolutely significant issues that dijamo's post raises. First, as you focus on, there is the issue of how we guard against abuses of executive power, and how this limited and secret oversight definitely did not work in this instance. Second, we have the garden-variety politician, this time, Nancy Pelosi, apparently caught lying to us. Now, recognizing that anonymous sources are often suspect, there is more than enough here to suggest that the Speaker has been dishonest on a pretty gosh darn significant issue. And, with respect to all, including our host Josh Marshall, anyone who claims that the issue of Pelosi's candor or lack thereof should be ignored and not taken seriously for whatever reason, has failed to convince me that they are motivated by anything but down and dirty and ever so typical and dangerous basic political partisanship.

Nice work Don. See my response to AA above.

TPM got around to the CIA/GOP leak campaign finally:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/whats_behind_cia_decision_to_release_torture_brief.php?ref=fp1

Dijamo, you are a total sucker. we'll spend weeks going after the then minority leaders (Harman last week, Pelosi this) for not doing enough to stop it, but you miss the big picture: This campaign is protecting the impugnity and rational of the torturers themselves - Cheney, Goss, etc.

If the torturers win the media campaign, I pin some of the blame on gullible people who completely forget about blaming the torturers, and instead get sidetracked by a deliberate CIA campaign of leaks/smears.

Bob Graham said the same thing.

I think you are a willing tool of the GOP.

It's kind of a GOP-Uberleft smear campaign, based on innuendo and rumor.

Perhaps there's an analogy with the Fascists in Spain teaming up with Communists to root out the Social Democratic faction.

Pelosi is a classic red herring. So was Harman. This is a sideshow to distract.

"They are using this pressure on Pelosi to get her to back off."

Exactly. And it's working! Because gullible people like you jump at the bait they've dangled. Porter Goss and Dick Cheney are probably having a cigar joking about how some selective smears/leaks (no proof either! just innuendo) can dupe the lefty blogosphere to attacking Nancy "Opposed the Iraq War" Pelosi, of all people!!!

It wouldn't work if she had just been honest about the level of her knowledge instead of actively lying about it. Nothing you say addresses that point which is the point of this whole blog. She handed them this attack on a silver platter, and in defending her lies you weaken the case for this investigation being about more than a partisan witchhunt because you only care about the failures of those on the opposite side. But you are too gullible to see this because all you care about is raising the rah rah flag for Pelosi.

So much of what I'm reading here is speculative and is based on information that is likely complete baloney. We have little trustworthy information to go on; so far the whole episode seems to be playing out well for the pro torture interests and I see a lot of thinking here that is indicative of a successful propaganda/disinformation campaign.

One factual point:
The protocol of CIA briefings on sensitive intelligence do not allow ANY STAFF to receive such information. I doubt that Sheehy was EVER at any of briefing where the specifics of what torture had been done was discussed.

And:
"First of all, the aide in question, Michael Sheehy, worked for Harman at the time. Second, the briefing list does not actually specify that waterboarding was covered in the briefing. Third, the briefing was highly classified, and Sheehy wasn't working for Pelosi, so the idea that he would have at that time or any point in the future (he eventually returned to work for Pelosi) divulge the secrets of the briefing would violate federal law - is that the impression the WaPo wants to give?"

( http://d-day.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-is-gunning-for-nancy-pelosi.html )

I suggest you all spend some time reading what emptywheel has to say about these various leaks and the now-known-to-be error ridden CIA description of the torture briefings:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

Straight from Speaker Pelosi herself:

"Five months later, in February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.

"Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller by the new Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, the appropriate person to register a protest.

Complicity with blackmail:

Imagine there's a town where a thug is robbing and killing people. Just when it looks like he is about to get caught, photos of the accuser is released, showing her involved in an affair.

You would be the person in the town square, holding up the photos, saying "Did she cheat?"

I'd be saying take the toothpick out of your eye before you go after the guy with a two by four in his actually.

You can, or you cannot simplify the world based on someone's party membership?

I see, since I am a member of TPM cafe, I must also read D-Kos religiously and I must share the every liberal opinion espoused on other site? Again I am being (mis)under-estimated but I always have been. That's cool because it gives me a chance to disabuse others of what they think they know what I think and what I am going to do.

I simply asked a question which remains unanswered.

"second hand knowledge "

Nope. Still lying, huh! And the context of that quote is re her actual briefings. Of course she found out SOMETIME.

Do you even know what that person "her aide" told her when she was no longer the Ranking Member and thus no longer privy to briefing details?

If that is your best evidence, you have no basis for saying that she lied or misled anyone with a working brain.