After Nancy Pelosi finished stammering her way through a 15-minute press conference earlier today, many journalists on Capitol Hill were left shaking their heads. They still had no definitive answers.
Pelosi has been under fire recently for making statements about the CIA's interrogation of enemy combatants that are inconsistent with the record. Specifically, Pelosi claims to have known nothing about the practice of waterboarding key terror suspects to obtain information vital to US national security. Other House members who served with her on the same committees and who come from both sides of the aisle are disputing her claims, however.
Pelosi's press conference was designed to put out the fire of speculation, but instead of dousing the flames with a steady stream of water, she poured 10 gallons of gasoline on it.
As far as press conferences go, Pelosi's was as bad as they get. One of the most disturbing parts was the complete left field question that came from a reporter who may very well have been planted among the press corps by Pelosi's handlers. Clearly, this guy's job was to change the subject to health care when things got too sticky. Trouble was, things got so sticky so fast that his question -- so blatantly off-topic -- was actually booed by the rest of the journalists in attendance (Pelosi couldn't even ignore it, and asked the reporter, "Did they just boo you?").
The worst part of Pelosi's press conference was Pelosi herself. There was the stammering, of course, but the House Speaker also committed several other press conference sins.
Not only was she argumentative, she answered difficult questions by constantly re-reading her written statement -- a big no-no, as any seasoned public relations specialist will tell you. Stay on message, but don't keep reading (or referring) to your statement. One of the main reasons for this is that doing so can backfire -- as it did in Pelosi's case. In her nervousness, she wound up shuffling the pages of her prepared remarks out of order, and her attempt to answer a particularly difficult question at one point resulted in a painfully awkward silence.
If Nancy Pelosi was NOT lying, she deserves an Academy Award for appearing as though she was. Her body language, her breaking voice, her allegations of dishonesty by the CIA and the Bush administration, and even her awkward attempt at an escape all point to deception. It was, in a word, ugly.
Pelosi claims members of the CIA approached her and other Congressional members and said "they wanted to use enhanced interrogation techniques." For a reason that Pelosi didn't explain, these same CIA officials chose to mention the one technique -- waterboarding -- that they were not using ... rather than the ones they were using.
Asked whether she was complicit in the use of these interrogation techniques because she had been made aware of their legality, Pelosi took on an air of indignation:
"This was a policy that was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration," she said. "It does not make me complicit."
Pelosi accused the CIA and the Bush administration of "misleading the Congress of the United States" and of going out of their way to lie to her specifically.
"My statement is clear, let me read it again," Pelosi said. "'I was informed that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was that it was not being employed. We now know -- what they didn't inform us then -- that there were other opinions within the executive branch that these interrogation techniques were not legal.' They didn't tell us what they were doing."
Knowing that it probably won't happen, Pelosi called for a "Truth Commission" to get to the bottom of the interrogation issue. Should Congress call her bluff, however, the House Speaker might wind up being interrogated herself.
Join Me on Facebook |
Get My Twitter Updates 
Photo © Alex Wong/Getty Images
Comments
Nancy Pelosi would not know a “truth commision” if it hit her over the head. I think this may be the first political “casualty” of the new administration
Are we missing something here….What Ms Pelosi was told/remembers is irrelavent – this is bad Partisan politics…The question is: What have we been paying Ms Pelosi to do. She was she was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She went to one intelligence breifing – ONE! She obviously didn’t care about 911 or a way forward. Why would she only attend one briefing at this critical time for the country? I suspect that if she truly cared about the nation and not herself….she might have paid attention to what was told to her. And to imagine she’s 3rd inline and yet can’t do her job now.
Geeze….We went from Chaney, Rove, Gonzales, and Rice to Palin, Boehner and Gingrich with a smattering of old fashioned hate from Rove and Chaney. Could it get any less believable than that. How those GOP snarling dogs love to fill news stories with their vile, hate filled, frothing lies.
Who was at the meeting when Pelosi met with CIA officials? Lets hear from those present during the meeting and not a bunch of people professing to know something when they weren’t even there.
Interesting that conservatives are focusing on what Pelosi knew about policies SHE DIDN’T CREATE, APPROVE OR IMPLEMENT. On one hand the grand puppeteer,”tricky” Dick Cheney, is saying torture is a good thing (Is anyone reminded of Gordon Gecko in “Wall Street”’s “Greed is good” speech) and on the other they are trying to demonize Pelosi for not speaking out against these tactics. You can’t have it both ways, fellas. The fact is it was the Bush administration that thought up, created quesitonable legal cover for, and implemented a regime of torture interrogatons that so shock the American conscience that our image as the Good Guys in the world is going to be damaged for decades. It is not a question of who knew, but who DID.
Scooter went to prison for lying.
Poor Gingrich, he is still trying to horn in on the big time. Since there are no records of the meetings, there is no proof as to who said what. But, looking at all the secrecy and national security bonk preached by the Bush administration, I’ll believe Pelosi before any republican.
It’s just time to peel this onion completely, let the chips fall where they may, let’s have it all out. The American public knows what lies were told by this administration. Let’s verify them. Maybe we can get the country back on track and shut the republicans mouths.
Nancy Pelosi is a liar. The Liberal Left, that insist there is some greater issue at hand, do not seem to understand the implications. Get her out of the “Speaker” position so we can have some faith that somewhere down the line there is someone capable of taking on the job of President. She’s making Joe Biden look brilliant by comparison and Barack Obama looks even better. I sure hope the Secret Service does a good job in protecting him from harm because if we were to get down to Pelosi being in command we’re doomed.
People, please don’t make fun of her shaking during the conference. It might be a serious side effect of Botox.
This is ridiculous. (1) What is the relevance of Nancy Pelosi to the breaking of laws with regard to the use of torture? Pelosi did not devise the means of enhanced interrogations, she did not approve the use of torture, she did not direct others to use enhanced interrogation techniques, she did not administer the torture, she did not in any way participate in the despicable and immoral practice of waterboarding (essentially depriving someone of oxygen) in order to try to establish links between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaida (as opposed to the pathetic legal rationalizations used to permit such “enhanced interrogation” being limited to protecting the US and its citizens from the threat of an immanent attack), and Bob Graham has testified that the CIA cited bogus dates for his own ostensible briefing, and that he too had been misled by the briefing he had received. Let’s remember that this is the same CIA that insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. (2) On what basis does Newt make the assertion of Pelosi’s lying and deception? Was he present? Does he have the evidence of all the relevant parties at hand? Does he have access to the CIA briefing summaries? On what basis does he arrogate to himself the capacity to make this judgement? and (c) What relevance does this mob of Republican attack dogs have to the central questions regarding the moral and legal implications of torture and the impact of this sad chapter on our national character and international reputation?
Here’s what you’re missing, Bob:
1)You’re assuming waaay too much in your question. First of all, there is no conviction, and therefore no “breaking of laws,” and you presume “the use of torture” was employed, when that is the very subject of the larger debate. Pelosi’s relevance to the discussion is that she attacked the interrogation techniques and claimed she was kept in the dark about it, when in actuality she was not. Graham asserted that three of the four dates he was given were incorrect. His exact quote is as follows:
“On one date, Sept. 27, ‘02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation.”
Further, he claims that there was NO discussion of waterboarding, which is in DIRECT contrast to Pelosi’s statement: that waterboarding WAS discussed — only to say that they weren’t doing it (which, frankly, makes no sense, since most times these briefings are held to discuss what is actually happening, not what is NOT happening). For me, Mr. Graham lacks credibility, however, and I am reticent to believe him. If he were a Republican making the same assertion, I would be more willing to believe his “testimony.” Unfortunately, his own political motivations muddy the waters in this case.
What DOES interest me, however, is that the CIA is now being led by a different administration, yet it still stands by its contention that it informed Ms. Pelosi of the interrogation tactics, and that is much more credible to me for two reasons. First, the CIA has nothing to gain by doing so, and Second, in this new era of “apology” and “transparency,” in which every agency willing to admit fault while under the “grip” of the Bush administration is given a pass by the Obama administration, it seems more likely that the CIA would cave and suffer through the humiliation of Ms. Pelosi’s vehement attacks, rather than defend itself. As I said, the agency has nothing to gain by defending itself and everything to lose by arguing against Ms. Pelosi’s allegations.
2)So far, the only other member to have come forward about the briefings of the committee upon which Ms. Pelosi served is Mr. Graham. As a former House Speaker himself — and a very plugged in politician — I imagine that in the four short years following his departure from the House, Mr. Gingrich still had a few solid ties. I would also imagine that a few of those ties would include the Republican members of the committee which was briefed by the CIA and upon which both Mr. Graham and Ms. Pelosi served. I am sure that Mr. Gingrich’s statements are based primarily on what these other members have told him, which I would find more reliable than comments made by a liberal Democrat protecting a fellow liberal Democrat whose only desire at the time of these briefings was to ensure the election of a Democrat as president.
But there’s something else that strikes me as amiss here. Graham is the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Pelosi was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Typically, these two committees receive separate briefings from agencies like the CIA. I find it difficult to believe that they would have deviated from protocol at such an important time (especially since the briefings are held to ensure all members have ample opportunity to ask questions). This means that even if what Graham says is borne out to be the truth, it says nothing about Pelosi’s claims that she and her fellow committee members were kept in the dark. Therefore (and especially), I would take the word of a former Republican HOUSE member who wasn’t there, over the word of a former Democratic SENATE member who wasn’t there any day of the week.
Bring on the investigation! I want to see Pelosi’s lying lips quiver some more. She’s brought this all on herself. 1) being a ranking member and not attending all the briefings (too busy fighting a war in Iraq…oh really, on the front lines or against the war in general? Don’t the CIA briefings have some importance to the war in Iraq to the Queen Bee?) 2) not asking questions if she didn’t understand (real scary, not to mention it makes her look stupid and likely distracted as a high ranking member of the Intel committee (can you just show up and do your job?) 3) lying about what she knew when she knew it 4) accusing the CIA of misleading her and Congress (this one will bring her down). Pelosi has one- handedly put this nation in a grave national security position. No one on the Left would ever see this. They see attacks on her as not deserved. The DEMS are addicted to power no matter how much they get. And, they will lie (all of them, the biggest offender is Obama, himself) , cheat (ACORN), and steal (Sandy Berger) to get it. For some reason the Democratic base and mainstream media thinks this is OK. Are we becoming a nation with no morals? They want to regulate everyone but themselves (back to that power thing again). Pelosi should apologize for her despicable actions, demoralization of our troops, divulging these interrogation tactics that no one in their RIGHT MINDS would ever think were real torture tactics, and step down. She has proven that she is not fit to serve in this or any position since her agenda far outweighs that of our national security. What a B _ _ _ _!!
Gingrich is a moron and not apart of the process anymore so he likes accusing people crimes he is guilty of.Gingrich acts like the CIA wouldn’t lie,I believe that is in their job desciption!
This is just one more partisan distraction from the DESPARATE republicans who LIED many, many times to get us into this war and should be investigated on war crimes. Let’s really look at who the liars have been from the top down and investigate them all. How about the big fat lies that led to a preemptive war or the LIARS that have implemented the torture under the name of “enhanced interrogation.” These are HUGE lies that appear to be off the table because we’re too busy with these stupid political distractions from Limbaugh , Cheney, and now Newt. What a disgrace to our county.
I’d like to see Nancy impeached. And then after that, maybe we can consider Obama!