Matthews falsely asserted CIA doc says Pelosi was briefed on "the use of waterboarding"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews falsely asserted that a CIA document stated that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the "use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah." In fact, the document stated only that Pelosi was briefed "on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah."
On the May 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, purporting to quote from a recently released Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) document, host Chris Matthews falsely asserted that the document stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was briefed on the "use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah." In fact, the document, which details "Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)," stated only that during a September 4, 2002, briefing, Pelosi was briefed "on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah [emphasis added]."
Matthews said that Pelosi "got a briefing on, quote, 'enhanced intelligence techniques, including the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah, the background on authorities, and a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed.' " Matthews then added, "So, she got it all." In fact, the document -- which was displayed on screen during the discussion -- did not state that Pelosi was briefed on "the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah," but only that the briefing included the "use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." From the May 8 edition of Hardball:
In a May 8 post to his Washington Post Co. blog, Greg Sargent reported that a CIA spokesperson confirmed to him that "[n]one of the notes and memos that the CIA is aware of about the briefing Nancy Pelosi got on torture specified that she'd been briefed on the use of waterboarding." Sargent further reported:
In the newly-released documents detailing the torture briefings given to members of Congress, the portion describing Pelosi's single briefing says she was told about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in general, but doesn't specify whether she was told about the use of waterboarding. That was specified about some briefings given to others.
I asked CIA spokesperson Paul Gimigliano why. His answer: Because the notes and memos on the Pelosi meeting that form the basis for the docs didn't allow them to go that far, meaning that they didn't specify that she'd been briefed on waterboarding in particular.
Sargent also posted the following statement from Gimigliano:
"The language in the chart -- 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' -- is faithful to the language in the records. Nothing is being hidden or hyped. If other people want to try to guess or interpret what the words 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' may or may not mean, they're free to do so. CIA is simply being true to the records. That's all there is to it."
From the May 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at this issue now. We have an issue facing us. Cillizza, you're first -- this is tough. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has been sort of caught, depending on how you read some of these reports. They put out reports from the intelligence community that she was -- it's a new CIA document that shows that on September 4th of 2002 -- that's way back when -- Nancy Pelosi and Porter Goss -- now she was ranking Democrat, he was chair of intelligence -- got a briefing on, quote, "enhanced intelligence techniques, including the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah, the background on authorities, and a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed." So, she got it all.
It's important to note that, of course, this is recently declassified Justice Department memo -- said that the CIA waterboarding of Zubaydah at least 83 times during August of 2002. That's a month before Pelosi got briefed. What do you make of that, Cillizza? It looks to me like, at least, in a splashing sense, people begin to believe now that she was warned that we were using those kind of techniques.
CHRIS CILLIZZA (Washington Post reporter): Chris, here's -- I was confused to be totally honest with you, so I called and talked to her office right before we came on to try and clarify. Here is what they say. They say essentially that, yes, she did get this briefing. She was told that these were the sort of enhanced interrogation techniques that could be used, had not yet been used, and that they were legal. That was it. She later in February of 2003, she was --
MATTHEWS: Did she object? Did she say that she object to their use?
CILLIZZA: That was not part of what they told me, so I'm going to answer you, no, Chris. But I think the distinction they are drawing is the difference between knowing about the possibility they will be used and then actually being used.
MATTHEWS: Well, this is where --
CILLIZZA: That's their difference, but I'm just letting you know that's where they're coming from.
MATTHEWS: Fair enough. We spent a lot of time, the producers and I, trying to figure this out before we came on tonight, but here the problem is. The CIA was using waterboarding in the month or two before this briefing. They'd used it 83 times. So either they told her erroneously that they hadn't used it yet or they did tell her they had been using it, and one of these two people is lying.
Pretty, weak, MM. Pretty weak, IMHO.
Pelosi and MM are debunked AGAIN in today's Washington Post (Saturday, May 9, 2009):
MM owes a CORRECTION and an APOLOGY!!
!
Pelosi said waterboarding was being discussed in the abstract and that they weren't taking place.
This if from the WSWS:
The document states she was told torture was used on Zubaydah which contradicts what she said but the WSWS goes on to speculate that she's the one lying because they find it hard to believe she wasn't told.
In the spirit of honesty, fairness and basic logic, would you please post your email address so that whenever something happens, I could send you an email to get the perfect clarification facts be damned.. Then, I will send it out to all my R and D friends so that no discussion will be wasted. This could revolutionize the world. But I am just guessing but is your address: DickCheney@myhome.HELL You can tell your Cheney, I won't tell...I'm afraid of waterboarding.
Of course, proof of either would be nice before we judge or start calling people names...PoopeyPants
The Bush Administration twisted the definition of torture to try to pretend what they were doing wasn't torture.
They say that our SERE trainers do it to our servicemen, so it can't be torture.
They say that Pelosi didn't object to it, so it can't be torture.
It's all part of the plan to pretend it wasn't torture. But of course it was.
Concern trolls.
So I guess to a simple mind like Chris', there are only those two possibilities? And this after the other Chris (Cilizza) just got done telling him something else. And if Chris Cillizza can call Pelosi's office to get a clarification, what were Matthews and his producers doing in trying to figure this out?
And why is this man on the air supposing things when he doesn;t have a clue? So many questions, so many hours of Hardball, and we'll never know the answer to this and the other nebulous queries on lil' Chrissy's mind.
lies for profit.
I understand the evil king dick cheney is going to be on television this weekend, CBS I think.
Prediction: he's going to say something provocative and baiting about...
a. "torture memos" or "enhanced or harsh interrogation techniques" or "waterboarding" or just plain old torture.
b. Guantanimo (or however it's spelled).
c. Intelligence supposedly gathered by the method of a., and/or at the place b. (and in the process, he'll mention the name of some toothless brainless idiot from Afghanistan most likely, who was too stupid to avoid being caught in a raid, and once in custody, was too poor or had no connections to keep from getting shipped off to Cuba of all places)
d. Nancy Pelosi.
e. All of the above, in some sort of confused but provocative and baiting mix.
I won't be watching though, because I couldn't give a rat's azz... that'll be the day, when I'm led around by the nose on this nonsense, led around by this spectacular array of Republican media hacks, and their king dick cheney.
Randy
So there it is. We have no moral ground to stand on because we are a bunch of baby killing machines with no regard for human life, therefore we have absolutely no say in anything political until we hash out this part of our legislation, right? We are a bunch of hypocrits.
So lets give you this perfect United States, just for a moment. Abortion is now illegal in this country, all of the abortion clinics are closed, and the procedure is banned from any and all hospitals, including RU486 and any other methods of terminating a pregnancy.
Now how do you enforce the law in these scenarios:
- Women who smoke or drink during their prenancy
As I was saying, what do we do in these scenarios...
- Women who smoke or drink or abuse drugs during their pregnancy endanger the health and life of their fetus. What do we do about these women who blatantly disregard the welfare of their unborn in this fashion? What do we charge them with if they are admittedly doing so in hopes that it will somehow terminate their pregnancy?
- Extreme excercise and even extreme weight loss are dangerous for the health and life of a fetus. What do we do about the women who compulsively exercise during their pregnancy? What if a woman is knowingly overexherting herself in excercise or has turned to bulimia and/or anorexia with the hope that it will somehow terminate her prenancy? Should she be charged with the attempted murder of her fetus? Do we strap her to a table for the remainder of her pregnancy to be certain that she is not going to be a further threat to her unborn child?
- There will be women who travel outside of the country to other countrys where abortion is legal to have their pregnancies terminated. Do we arrest these women when they return home for having taken an American citizen, even unborn (don't even get me started with fetal registration), across country lines to have them "murdered?" What about the airline or other travel agency that provides the conveyance to another country for the abortion? Should any airline that travels to these countries have women who are going there submit to a pregnancy test on their departure and return to ensure that they are not going there to have an abortion?
- There is a ship that sails international waters and provides abortion services to countries where the practice of abortion is illegal. It has parked itself in international waters just off the coast of Florida and is ferrying women to the ship for the procedure. How do we respond? The full force of the U.S. Navy? A barricade of ships? And what do we do if a ferry boat carrying women does not heave to?
- Care to take a guess as to what one of the top five choices women make when faced with an unwanted pregnancy? (drum roll) Suicide!!! That's right, for the low low price of illiminating abortions you can raise the number of suicides amongst women in your country!!! Sadly the figures are hard to trace on this, because suicide is typically not factored in to maternal mortality rates. However there was a study that was done over a twenty five year period that determined that roughly 8% of women who committed suicide were found to be pregnant. Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of the women who will commit suicide as a direct result of decreasing choices they have to make when faced with an unwanted pregnancy?
I could go on.. but we can start with these.
Any abortions done on fetuses that are of an age to live outside the womb are done on fetuses that have terminal birth defects or the mother's health or life is at risk, and her life is more precious than the life of the fetus.
So no, torturing a live human being is not equivalent to a legal abortion.
If you think abortion is tragic, don't have one. It's legal. Torture isn't legal. Why doesn't it surprise me that you apparently can't understand the difference between a legal medical procedure and a crime that's been made illegal all around the world by all legitimate, reasonable governments?
Argue all you like but either Pelosi is guilty of gross negligence due to apathy or dereliction of duty due to a lack of curiosity. How many of you, placed in her position would not question what other EIT's were to be used? I certainly would out of curiosity if nothing else! She won't be alone, by the end of this they'll have a whole group to parade around for the world press....way to go guys! Just what the U.S. needs in a recession, more embarrassment in front of the world audience, and proof that the government is in distracted disarray!
Randy
Your rebuttal is semantics, plain and simple... cut it any way you like it what we are talking about is plausible deniability. When the Bush admn. uses it, you scream for investigations for war crimes, when Pelosi uses it all of a sudden its o.k., believe me I don't care how many in the former admn. go down just as long as EVERYBODY who knew and did nothing goes down also. And as long as we're getting silly why don't we get the Clinton admn. for genocide in the unwarranted massacre of the Branch Davidians and the admn. responsible for the Ruby Ridge massacre and on,and on, see how stupid this kind of nonsense gets?! Leave it alone, let the former admn. sink into the past and concentrate on now for crying out loud!!!
Ruby Ridge took place in 1992, during the first BUSH Administration.
The Branch Davidians committed suicide and/or were murdered by David Koresh and his most fanatical followers, who set fires all over the compound when the Clinton administration attempted to end the standoff by going in. Anyone who blames Bill Clinton or Janet Reno for the deaths of those lunatics and their innocent children is just pathetic.
Also get your facts straight! The branch davidians where under investigation for possible child abuse allegations(nothing else) and were attacked by a large contingent of federal swat and local law enforcement...still unkown who fired the first shot, however the use of dangerous force was unjustified and how they approached the compound has been a disgrace since day one. Read the official reports instead of regurgitating protectionist talking points. Sheesh!!! I shouldn't even have to correct your posts either!
She was not complicit in that decision. She had no control over the decision to twist the definition of torture to allow the Bush Administration to torture people but claim they weren't torturing people. She could not stop it, and she couldn't even talk about it with anyone because it was classified. She's not responsible for the mistakes of the Bush Administration.
That is what irritates me the most, that all of a sudden she is using the plausible deniability to the hilt and nobody here seems too upset, for crying out loud, you guys strafed Shoes for pointing that out to begin with! Are we supposed to beleive the liberals/democrats are infallible?(not likely-they are just as corrupt as repubs)