# Why Pelosi? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484 "2009-05-15T02:09:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/61 "2009-05-16T00:52:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …Wasn’t aware I had to respond to you… By no means! You’re entirely at liberty to answer or not. If I were to have put forth such a crippled argument, I might be as reluctant as you to defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/62 "2009-05-16T01:33:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > By no means! You’re entirely at liberty to answer or not. If I were to have put forth such a crippled argument, I might be as reluctant as you to defend it. You personally would have to have an argument with legs before you could call it crippled. Nancy opened her mouth before thinking and she’s getting it thrown back in her face. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/63 "2009-05-16T05:16:25Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > If I have to choose between believing the CIA or believing Pelosi, I believe I’ll choose to believe Joe Isuzu. Good answer!!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/64 "2009-05-16T13:23:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You personally would have to have an argument with legs before you could call it crippled. Nancy opened her mouth before thinking and she’s getting it thrown back in her face. With all due awe, I am a bit unfamiliar with your argumentative style, which appears to be a series of bald statements supported entirely and solely by your own personal authority. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/65 "2009-05-16T14:22:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Wasn’t aware I had to respond to you. This thread is about Pelosi and her foot-in-mouth disease that only allows her to talk after the fact. Maybe she feels its safer now that the Undisclosed Location has obviously been vacated? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/66 "2009-05-16T14:25:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > With all due awe, I am a bit unfamiliar with your argumentative style Silly man. It’s well known that superpowers _make **their own** reality._ ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/67 "2009-05-16T15:12:10Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Actually, It’ll take a serious congressional investigation to decide whether Pelosi, or the CIA lied about waterboarding. … > > … Congress should get started on this _soon._ It may be that the planets will force a full investigation no matter how much Obama wants to avoid having the potentially hyperpartisan distraction. Just because each side’s partisan elements are convinced that it will hurt the other side more - The Right may be stuck with having called for an investigation to find out what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, feeling that anything to embarrass the leader of the Democratic House will besmirch the complete Democratic “brand” and make them look better in comparison. The Left of course is quite willing to … ah hell, here comes the cliche again … throw Pelosi under the bus … in the interest of what they perceive as justice and in pursuit of punishing what they believe were the crimes of the Bush administration. Neither side’s leadership may really want it, for multiple reasons, but they may find that they have accidentally painting themselves in with no other way to go. For the little it is worth, I suspect that Pelosi did indeed get told something and did indeed feel that her role in her position at that time was constrained to letting the more senior committee member speak for the Democrats with that one letter of protest. And that she really regrets what she has said this week but is stuck with it now. IOW probably her choice at the time was not ideal but not awful but her portrayal of it has been disingenuous to some degree and poorly played out positioning her as a poor person to lead the charge for investigations. She will weather this but her position as a power broker will be much decreased. Funny thing is that the one who will benefit from this the most is Obama. This will mean that Pelosi will have less ability to stand up to him and Rahmbo as they shove agendas down the throat of Congress. To preserve herself she will now much more often just fall in line. And an investigation that Obama would have loved to just not have happened will happen over his objections - which will leave him looking all the better to the new independents who have recently left the GOP but who do not yet ID as Dems - while satisfying the Left that he at least eventually allowed himself to be forced into doing it. Better to be lucky than good, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/68 "2009-05-16T16:12:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Better to be lucky than good, eh? Yes. It’ll be very odd if the right’s attacks on Pelosi end up putting Cheney behind bars, with Obama honestly\* able to look all wide eyed and innocent about the proceedings. * * * \*Honestly is shorthand here for “in a way which is believable to the independent voters.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/69 "2009-05-16T16:23:22Z")
Cheney will never suffer any consequence worth the word, no matter what. Even if it could be proved that the missing videotapes of torture were stolen so he could whack off to them, ain’t never, ever gonna happen. If he isn’t an atheist, he really ought to consider the advantages for one in his position. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/70 "2009-05-16T17:56:15Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I am glad to hear that you have totally made it to your post-partisan era. > However, anyone who believes that the Republicans as a whole have any post-partisan sympathy whatsoever for Nancy Pelosi is a fool who has not been paying attention to the news. She is the enemy, thus any logic, any lies are permissible so long as they lead to her destruction. Can you honestly claim the GOP’s motive is any better than that here? Have you any evidence for that position? I’ve sure not seen any. Sorry, I haven’t assigned any motive to the GOP, which is OK since it had nothing to do with the point I was making. The GOP can be wide-eyed innocents, simply wondering how their good friend Nancy will help dispel their confusion (and surely she will!); or they can be two-faced, disingenuous evil pricks, who have no interest in the resolution of this issue other than destroying Pelosi. None of that changes the fact that Pelosi fucked up royally and created the scenario that permitted her current distress. The question is the same, regardless of the questioner’s motive. Pelosi simply has no good answer, cause there isn’t one. The Pubbies needn’t admit torture (which was the point I was originally responding to) to pummel their Pelosi pinata. They don’t even need to hide their animus. The question isn’t rendered irrelevant if we concede the Republicans can’t stand her. Not sure why you think that’s important, or why an admission of such would make the point different. Let’s go out on a limb and assume the evil Pubbies can’t stand Pelosi and want her destroyed (I know, I know, it’s a stretch). That changes the non sequitur she created, how exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/71 "2009-05-17T19:17:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > With all due awe, I am a bit unfamiliar with your argumentative style, which appears to be a series of bald statements supported entirely and solely by your own personal authority. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. Pelosi stuck her foot in her mouth and is now [backpedaling](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tries-to-backpedal-on-cia-criticism-2009-05-16.html). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/72 "2009-05-18T01:16:19Z")
If you can’t trust the CIA ,who can you trust? Anybody else. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/73 "2009-05-18T20:26:17Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > That is true; at _that_ meeting. I’m guessing there was more than one meeting with the CIA and the topic of enhanced interrogation. > > I’m assuming lots of people knew, but Pelosi is the target because she has name strength to encompass the entire Democratic Party. If by your own admission the basis for your knowledge is “guessing” and “assuming”, that doesn’t seem like a strong basis for beginning the speculation as to others’ motives. Even if other people share your assumptions, it makes a lot more sense to focus on people that are _known_ to have been informed about the matter, rather than to focus on people that one might guess or assume knew about it. So I don’t see any room for your speculation, pending actual knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/74 "2009-05-18T22:47:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If by your own admission the basis for your knowledge is “guessing” and “assuming”, that doesn’t seem like a strong basis for beginning the speculation as to others’ motives. > > Even if other people share your assumptions, it makes a lot more sense to focus on people that are _known_ to have been informed about the matter, rather than to focus on people that one might guess or assume knew about it. So I don’t see any room for your speculation, pending actual knowledge. The basis of my knowledge was the article you linked too. “_The CIA said the briefing included Pelosi and then-Florida Rep. Porter Goss, who was Intelligence Committee chairman at the time and later became CIA director. Two House aides also attended. The CIA account said the subject was enhanced interrogation techniques and the particular techniques used on Abu Zubaydah. Five months later, on Feb, 5, 2003, after Pelosi had left the intelligence committee, the CIA briefed the chairman and ranking member on the detainee interrogation program. Pelosi said her aide Michael Sheehy, who attended that briefing as well as the September briefing, told her that agency officials said they had used waterboarding in some cases_” That’s 6 people in that article. [This article](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture) suggests many more might have known as well. “_An unclassified chart released last month by the CIA describes a total of 40 briefings for lawmakers over a period of several years on enhanced interrogation techniques_.” ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/75 "2009-05-19T03:35:41Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The CIA’s memo that they briefed people like Graham is a lie. There is no reason to believe that the CIA, which broke the law by torturing, would not fabricate evidence to indicate that they informed government officials fully. But if the CIA believes that Pelosi broke the law by being informed of the torture, I say prosecute her if she broke the law. If the government can torture, cause deaths during that torture (murder), lie about it, destroy evidence, cover up evidence and manufacture evidence obscuring it and the war the torture was designed to justify, then it is not a government of liberty, but a government of lies. What? I thought the whole story was that the CIA did indeed brief members of Congress earlier in the Bush admin and that members of both parties were in agreeance as to allowing for, ahem, “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Pelosi was part of that group. And further, I thought the uproar was over liberals like Pelosi now claiming ignorance after the fact of torture when they were complicit to begin with, but only objected when it was politically expedient. Is that way wrong? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/76 "2009-05-19T03:47:14Z")
Note to self: Read entire thread before posting… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/77 "2009-05-19T13:21:32Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > The basis of my knowledge was the article you linked too. > > “_The CIA said the briefing included Pelosi and then-Florida Rep. Porter Goss, who was Intelligence Committee chairman at the time and later became CIA director. Two House aides also attended. The CIA account said the subject was enhanced interrogation techniques and the particular techniques used on Abu Zubaydah. > Five months later, on Feb, 5, 2003, after Pelosi had left the intelligence committee, the CIA briefed the chairman and ranking member on the detainee interrogation program. Pelosi said her aide Michael Sheehy, who attended that briefing as well as the September briefing, told her that agency officials said they had used waterboarding in some cases_” > > That’s 6 people in that article. I would look at the same thing another way. It appears from this paragraph that the CIA was consistent in briefing only the chairman and ranking minority member of the intelligence committee, who brought along their aides. These would have been Pelosi & Goss at the time of the programs inception and others (Harman?) at a later point. There’s no inference here that other members of the intelligence committee were briefed as you suggested earlier - to the contrary. > [@](#): > > [This article](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture) suggests many more might have known as well. “_An unclassified chart released last month by the CIA describes a total of 40 briefings for lawmakers over a period of several years on enhanced interrogation techniques_.” See above - assuming the SOP remained constant, these would have all been occupiers of the same position. In any event, Pelosi’s knowledge would have predated theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/78 "2009-05-19T17:45:15Z")
[Source: “EIT” Term Wasn’t In Use When Pelosi Was Briefed](http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_in_use_when_pelosi_was_brief.php?ref=fpa) > [@](#): > > Almost every briefing described in the document – including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that’s directly at issue – refers to “EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn’t used until at least 2006. > > That’s not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.” In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn’t until 2006… Out of scope references like this are not good programming practice, and _will_ be flagged by any decent compiler. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/79 "2009-05-19T18:57:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I would look at the same thing another way. It appears from this paragraph that the CIA was consistent in briefing only the chairman and ranking minority member of the intelligence committee, who brought along their aides. These would have been Pelosi & Goss at the time of the programs inception and others (Harman?) at a later point. There’s no inference here that other members of the intelligence committee were briefed as you suggested earlier - to the contrary. > > See above - assuming the SOP remained constant, these would have all been occupiers of the same position. In any event, Pelosi’s knowledge would have predated theirs. You’re probably right. I don’t like parsing these articles when no one really knows what’s going on and I got sucked into that. The intelligence committee, consists of the House & Senate (two separte ones, I found this out the hard way); I would be interested in who on the Senate Intelligence Committee knew; as they have much more powers than the House Committee. I would guess part of the “40 briefings for lawmakers” was directed to Senators/Congressman in general. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484/80 "2009-05-19T22:27:26Z")
[Things don’t seem all that clearcut in the He Said/She Said](http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-wont-say-whether-panetta-disputes-pelosi-claim-she-was-lied-to/): > [@](#): > > A spokesperson for the CIA is declining to clarify whether CIA director Leon Panetta is disputing Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the agency lied to her about the use of torture. > > It has, of course, been widely reported that Panetta smacked back hard against Pelosi’s claim in that note he sent to CIA employees last week. But as Politico’s Josh Gerstein pointed out yesterday, a close reading of Panetta’s note shows clearly that he did not directly dispute Pelosi’s allegations. > > The crux of Gerstein’s argument is that Panetta said: “It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.” That’s a statement of current policy and intent, not a rebuttal of Pelosi’s claims. And the part of Panetta’s statement that does address what was said in briefings is too vague to be conclusive. > > So I asked a CIA spokesperson whether it was the CIA’s position that Pelosi was not lied to, as she has claimed. The spokesperson declined to elaborate, instead saying that Panetta’s note would have to speak for itself. > > To be clear, this doesn’t prove one way or the other whether Pelosi was in fact lied to. She very well may have been told of the use of torture. Still, it’s sobering to think that while it’s been widely reported that Panetta disputes Pelosi’s allegations, this may not be at all true and may never have happened at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pelosi/496484.md?page=5)