What If No One Is Lying? And Is It a Crime?

"Maybe the CIA wasn't lying then, and Nancy Pelosi isn't now."
.
And, "maybe" when pigs fly we might get down to the bottom of the entire fiascal, including transcripts of when and what Nancy knew about all of it.
.
I for one am very tired of the whole she said, he said. The we need to know who is and who isn't telling the truth, what was determined at the time, and then we can move forward.
.
As usual, Karen is placating and covering up, rather than asking the questions, and demanding on behalf of the American public about the events. Had Woodward and Bernstein took your approach, Karen, we wouldn't know today about Watergate.
.
If Drudge had not broke the story on Lewinsky and Clinton, this sordid affair would not be known.
.
It is simple Karen, just do you job. If you don't want to, move out of the way and let someone else do it for you.

KT: Thanks for the article. You may have hit the nail on the head. The CIA could very easily have mentioned waterboarding but not come right out and said they were practicing it. They might have believed that by bringing up waterboarding that they were saying it was being used. It's not like they volunteer information and spell everything out. If Pelosi didn't actually ask if they were waterboarding captives, they might have felt no obligation to say that they were. This could be their version of "If you don't ask, I'm not going to tell".

And, perhaps you do not find holding your representatives accountable Karen, a high priority. I personally find lying in this case a more severe action. Had you added lying to the possible "torture" meme, then hands down I would be calling out Bush and Co for their actions.
.
There are certain expectations that Americans have, or at least a few of us have and that is the expectation that our representatives are honest, fair, and keep our best interests at heart.
.
Pelosi's integrity is in great question, and I strongly support anyone who will question her on what she knew, when she knew it. Or, is this just more of the political game, and if she is now against the tactics used in 2003 to 2006, show us where she spoke out against it as she is vehemently doing now.
.
This woman is 3rd in line for the Presidency. You cannot cover that fact up Karen, no matter how hard you try.
.
Stop the flip flopping, and tell the truth Nancy. Say what you mean and mean what you say. It is easy to do, and you will have the respect of the American people for doing so.

This could be their version of "If you don't ask, I'm not going to tell".
.
To use an example from the past in the auto industry, does this mean that Ford was blameless for failing to correct or notify the public about the fuel tank defect in the Pinto, that it was simply the fault of the buyer for not asking if the fuel tank design was faulty?
.
After all, I can't prove they intentionally withheld that information? It MAY have been a simple mistake.
.
Give me a break.
.
That rationale could be used to justify giving only the most rudimentary of briefings. Just say "We have a program". It's YOUR fault if you don't know to ask the right questions to be able to flesh it out.
.
Where would it stop, Karen?

Update: The same Dave Obey, who had this recently added to his record.
.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/stimulus-includes-plum-lawmakers-son/

KT: I read in your update that the CIA had listed a man as attending the briefing when in fact he did not. Isn't this proof that the CIA has lied? I'm certain this is the first time they had EVER released erroneous information. I demand a full congressional investigation. The very future of our nation depends on getting to the bottom of this scandal. Heads should roll.

It would indeed be a positive step forward if a special investigator were appointed to find out what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.
.
Of course, since it involves the CIA's use of torture to obtain "confessions", the special prosecutor would have to call in about 3/4 of the Bush administration to testify. And this whole process might drag out for several years, perhaps taking on the appearance of a "truth commission". Perhaps charges will ultimately be filed, against Pelosi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., etc.
.
Sadly, such an investigation would be a flame for the MSM moths, who would stop reporting on efforts to turn the economy, health care and foreign policy around.

i do think that frost has a point, that sometimes politicians and bureaucrats speak two different languages.
.
And my point would be that that's intentional. I think both are quite capable of putting the information in terms that the other would understand if they wanted to be plain about it. (Remember Richard Feynman at the Challenger briefings? He found a way to make the arcane easy to understand.)
.
They can use the "language" difference to obscure and cover. And I have no doubt that, given the turf differences, they are quite willing to do so.

Hi Karen,

Not sure if you'll notice my comment between rustyreturns' righteous rambling, but I just wanted to say that I think your theory might be closer to the way this affair went down than anything else I've heard thus far. I've read alot about the history of the CIA, and something like what occurred above is not without precedent. Though I don't think Nancy Pelosi helped herself much during that awful press conference.

Consider:
.
1. What Nancy knew and when she knew its not the main issue here.
.
2. We would not be having this conversation to begin with if the law was not broken with respect to water boarding and that was the CIA. The CIA has destroyed evidence after it was requested by a Court Order. So if you think they are above misleading by omission or out and out lying you are kidding yourself.
.
3. If water boarding was effective or not is also not the issue here. It was against the law.
.
4. It does not matter if the CIA is lying or Nancy is lying. The CIA broke the law when it called in government contracters to water board.
.
5. Having said all that Nancy as a seasoned politician should not have allowed herself to be trapped by own self into saying that a government agency is lying at a news conference. Bad optics.

Meanwhile, a lot of effort that should be directed at the actual story  (remember? Torture and its unlawful/political uses by the Bush Administration) is instead invested in this sidebar. Just what the Republicans and criminals (but I repeat myself) want.

Karen,
.
I'm also worried that this "speaking different languages" will translate into "we just can't understand what was done here- it's too hard to explain so the common people can follow it" as a justification to drop any investigations and just "move on".
.
With, of course, the obligatory promise to "never let this happen again".

Hey, I know! Let's have a special prosecutor investigate who authorized torture, who tortured, who knew about, and who tried to cover it up later. Wouldn't that be awesome? Personally, I'm not losing too much sleep over the idea that Pelosi might get swept away in the process, but the Republicans are just blowing smoke with what Pelosi knew when.

As a career government employee, I can say that the briefing was possibly nothing more than a CYA session. They briefed her on the minimum amount of information they could and felt that they had done as much as they NEEDED to. They may have answered Pelosi's questions IF she had asked the right ones. She didn't ask the right questions so now we have a she said/ he said situation. FlownOver is correct in saying that this isn't the main story. We're just trying to be convinced that this, and not the actual torture, is somehow the real story. Smoke and mirrors.

People can go on and on about this stuff. One thing is clear. The law was broken. You can't change the law with a secret memo. I understand people were scared and still are, but the fact remains the law was broken by the highest levels of our government.

As a career government employee, I can say that the briefing was possibly nothing more than a CYA session. They briefed her on the minimum amount of information they could and felt that they had done as much as they NEEDED to.
.
sacredh,
.
Exactly right except, as far as I am concerned, you can drop the "possibly" modifier in the first sentence.
.
Been there. Give the minimum of information then, at a later date, say you would have given more information if they had asked. Circumstances just dictated that the briefing had to be abbreviated at that time. (Understand that I have to put my tongue firmly in my cheek to be able to type some of this crap with a straight face but I was military for 20 years and am well versed in governmentspeak.)

OR Maybe the intelligence report nor Panetta's statement say what the media said it says. I have already went through both statements on another thread but one thing is clear, neither the intelligence report nor Panetta's statement last week actually refute Speaker Pelosi. I would draw you to the memo from Panetta last week that said the CIA briefed "truthfully". Notice what he didn't add? The word "fully". Also the word "description" is the key to understanding why neither document refutes Speaker Pelosi's story. Further the CIA itself admitted that they could not assert that Speaker Pelosi had been briefed on Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded because the notes didn't go that far. All of the links to the source material can be found here.
.
http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/2009/05/light-bulb-moment.html
.
So you see there is another reason why both the CIA now and Pelosi could both be telling the truth. Its because the CIA never said Pelosi was lying to begin with. That was just how the media reported on the report and on Panetta's memo
.
I will also point out that so far the Republican in the meeting with Nancy Pelosi will not refute her account either. He will just say she "should have known" that they were using the techniques. And finally to top it off I will repost the link to the interview that Pete Hoekstra did Sunday with FoxNews where he backed off his position that Pelosi is lying after going to see the briefing records at the CIA.
.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=5121466&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
.
And of course that goes along with 2 other Dems involved with briefings of this kind saying they too weren't told about the EITs as described in the report. And now David Obey pointing out that the report infers something that didn't happen.
.
So MY question instead is this, "What if the CIA was lying back then and the media instead chose to focus on Pelosi?"

Insofar as Nancy Pelosi is calling for a thorough investigation and her critics may or may not be, I'd say the more details we learn, the better it is for everyone.
.
The fact that the media is obsessing over Pelosi however means that they have been successfully thrown off the scent of the actual story. Leave it to McClatchy to be the lone voice in the wilderness (as they also were in 2002-03) when it comes to actually following where the evididence leads:
.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/68315.html
.
This entire situation is an exercise in Mass Distraction. First off, there is no doubt that the fact and content of the Congressional breifings of that period were in direct preparation for this moment. If we examine the voting records and statements of key Democrats during all the debate over FISA and the NSA spying programs, it's clear that they and the administration shared knowlege that made the Dems vulnerable if they chose to buck the administrations obvious interest in keeping their illegal activity under the radar.
.
Under that circumstance, Pelosi's current behavior is puzzling, but if it leads to Dems and Rebublicans all agreeing that we should decassify as much information as possible from the 02-03 period, then that can ONLY be regarded as a good thing.

When the republican apologists agree to a "Truth Commission" that has the power to indict those who ordered torture, as well as those who new that torture was being conducted and did nothing about it, then and only then will I believe that they are seeking the truth and not using Nancy Pelosi as a smoke screen.
.
So KT if you and your fellow villagers really want to get to the bottom of this story start asking the republicans and democrats if they want a "Truth Commission and when they say no ask why and publish their responses.

As I said, lying, cheating, stealing and other various sorts of corrupt behavior is apalling. But, when it is a democrat, you simply see people on here condoning the behavior.
.
She is a democrat, a very powerful democrat yet to boot. Karen is simply using the liberal MSM blatantly to cover up for her. It is that simple.

KT:
.
It is certainly possible that the folks at the CIA, on Sept. 4, 2002, thought they had given Pelosi a full picture of what was actually happening, and it is also possible that Pelosi did not wade through the bureaucratic language and ask a specific follow-up question.
.
At what point does it stop being the responsibility of the people doing the briefing to make the information they are providing understood, and become the responsibility of the person being briefed to understand what is provided?
.
This being the government and all, I would imagine that there would be a set of policies, guidelines or regulations spelling out the duties of the parties to official transfer of information, much like there exists for official secrecy. Do you know if that conjecture is true, or could you point us in the direction of someone who does?
.
After all, how can anybody say who "knew what, when" , if there is confusion over what "knew" means?
.
By the way, none of Pelosi's problems have anything to do with the fact that these people committed crimes for which there needs be prosecution, no matter who becomes implicated in the process --something that the liberal base of the centrist-overtaken Democratic Party fully understands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
.
projection: a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people.