Nancy Pelosi vs. the CIA

I would imagine that most of the people who follow this blog have been up on the controversy of Nancy Pelosi and the CIA. It seems the Speaker has taken the stand that she didn't know that waterboarding was part of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) being used by the CIA in getting the other planned attacks on the USA in the wake of 9/11.

We captured a treasure-trove of Al-Qaeda's top operatives months after the attacks and some of the highest operatives even boasted that BIGGER events were to come shortly.

Many of us forget the climate of the times. If you had asked most Americans, within the first year of the attacks, "do you think we will go into 2009 without a follow-up attack in the USA" probably 85-90% would have responded "NO!"

And there was good reason for that pessimism. In fact, there were several follow-up attempts that have escaped most American's consciousness. Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid was stopped mid-attempt, as were other plots like a multi-plane attempt to blow up planes mid-flight coming back from the UK.

Three Gitmo prisoners, two directly involved in the 9/11 plot, and another involved in the Cole bombing (remember that Clinton era attack?) were waterboarded. That's right. At one time or another, several hundred prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay and only THREE were considered to have such important information that it would require coercive action.

Let's leave aside whether this was "legal" or not for now. There as many positions on that these days as we have lawyers in the country (a lot).

What has been debated lately is this question: "What did Nancy know, and when did she know it?"

Beside the obvious Howard Baker-Watergate analogy here, it is important to remember that Mrs. Pelosi was NOT Speaker of the House at the time but was a key part of the Democratic house leadership. It's even more important to realize that because she was part of the opposition, it was MOST important for people like her to be briefed because the Republican leadership knew that having the support of the minority would protect them from criticism at that critical time right after the 9/11 attacks.

Again, let's remember the mood of the times. Few were questioning things like "how rough should we be on these guys?" The times right after the attacks was more like "how did this happen and why didn't we know?" And of course, most importantly, "how can we prevent this in the future?"

The CIA's EIT regimen was strongly monitored by both the Congressional Intelligence committees and the White House. I would imagine if there had been attacks, some of those who yell "torture" would be yelling "I thought you conservatives were supposed to keep us safe!"

Regardless, Pelosi has been saying, with varying emphasis and clarifications, that she was NOT briefed about the USAGE of EIT. She put an exclamation mark on it by slandering both the Bush Administration (expected) and the CIA (foolhardy) for being serial liars.

Wow. Mark Twain once said, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel" when referring to arguing with the press. Nancy has accused people who monitor conversations, take great notes, and perhaps even have her phone tapped!

Dumb.

To put an exclamation on this whole incident, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online sent a message to Gene Poteat, President of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Don't think that they are not keeping in "close touch" with some of their "old buddies" in government. The present officers are part of the executive branch of the US Government. The CIA exists to serve the president. That doesn't prevent some of them from selectively leaking information to suit their own agenda if it conflicts with their ultimate boss, Barack Obama. They sure did a number on Bush, leaking all sorts of doubts about the invasion of Iraq, before and after the event.

Here is what Poteat said to Geraghty, in response:

Those CIA officers chosen to brief the Congress, and especially the intelligence committees, are very senior, experienced officers, who well know the reputation and future of the CIA, as well as their own jobs, are on the line should they be perceived as not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Such restrictions, however, do not apply to members of the Congress when they then appear before the public.

As Chris Farley said famously in Tommy Boy: "That's gonna leave a mark!"

President Obama seems more inclined to insert himself in all kinds of areas that past presidents have not. Ask former GM President Rick Wagoner!

But I don't think Obama will stop the CIA from defending itself. Nancy has made life more difficult for him lately. And she has been acting like a Queen Bee. As far as Obama is concerned, there is only one royal family in Washington.