 |
|
To review:
Panetta: Contemporaneous CIA records show CIA briefed Pelosi on methods it was using on Zubaydah.
Goss: they told us methods they planned to use.
Pelosi: they told us methods and that they were determined legal and there were no disputes over their legality. They told me waterboarding was not being used. (not that it had been used -- 83 times).
Graham: CIA records said (falsely) they'd briefed me three times when they didn't. They never told me about waterboarding.
All these things do not contradict each other.
Panetta says the records show they briefed Pelosi on methods. Pelosi said they briefed her on methods they wanted to use and told her waterboarding was not being used. Goss says the upshot of the briefing was they wanted to use these methods (but he has not said they indicated they had already used waterboarding on Zubaydah 83 times). Graham: their records are inaccurate and they didn't brief me three times out of four at all their records say they did, and they didn't brief me on waterboarding (and you can check my hour by hour diaries in the archives).
(This question of the accuracy of the CIA's records would seem to be important. That it can be true as Panetta says that the records say something and it's also true as Graham has said the records are just plain wrong on key facts and details. Because the CIA record says something does not make it true. Panetta is saying it's true that our records say something, not that what the records say are true or accurate (and how would he know -- he just got there, he can look at the records but not know if they are accurate). They also say it's not the policy of the CIA to deceive policymakers. Of course, that's not the policy. Does it happen?)
Meantime: just think of the suggested time element here. Is there a difference if your babysitter comes home and says your kid is flopping around and may bump their head on the swing. But doesn't tell you the kid bumped their head on the swing that day and is in the ER? Did the babysitter tell you about a prospective incident? Yes. Does the time element matter? Yes. Would it be misleading to knowingly withhold the relevant information that the incident had already occurred? Of course.
Think of the suggested deception involved if the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in August and then only after go brief Goss and Pelosi in September, and tell them what? According to Pelosi and Goss, here are perfectly legal methods we'd like to use (in the future). And one of them is waterboarding. And according to Pelosi at least, not contradicted specifically by anybody directly that I've seen, they don't tell them that they'd already used waterboarding 83 times. (And no one anywhere is disputing that Goss and Pelosi and their staffers were not briefed until the month after the waterboarding was used anyhow.) Indeed they also don't appear to tell them in September 2002 that they have videos of AZ's waterboarding. Indeed, they tell them according to Pelosi waterboarding is not BEING used.
That would seem to be misleading.
Even if they say they'd like to use it in the future.
Finally Pelosi did learn in Feb 2003 from her staffer (not the CIA) that CIA had used waterboarding. (Indeed, that because of an IG investigation opened up in January about the apparently not so legal methods, the IG was reviewing videos of the waterboarding of AZ they did not originally tell her about. And by the way they planned to destroy the videos after the IG investigation was complete. Which they were asked not to do by Pelosi's successor Harman after the Feb 2003 briefing. And which were destroyed anyhow during Goss's tenure as CIA director. Goss who was in the briefing with Pelosi in September 2002 and with Harman and Sheehy in Feb 2003 when Harman said don't destroy the videotapes.)
Pelosi would like it all investigated.
Who doesn't want it investigated? And what are they afraid of?
Go read Marcy Wheeler on this, as always.
(WTH?. The ABC line up is incredible. Pelosi apparently declined to be on.)