About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times falsely claims Pelosi said she attended 40 briefings on harsh interrogation methods

May 09, 2009 2:45 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: The Washington Times falsely claimed Nancy Pelosi said she "attended" 40 briefings on harsh interrogation techniques. In fact, Pelosi said that "[o]f the 40 CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002."

17 Comments

In a May 9 article, The Washington Times falsely asserted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "noted" that the classified September 4, 2002, briefing she received on harsh interrogation techniques was "one of 40 such meetings she attended with lawmakers." In fact, in a May 8 statement, Pelosi said that "[o]f the 40 CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002" -- not that she had "attended" all "40 such meetings," as the Times asserted.

The article, by reporter Kara Rowland, further falsely claimed that a "Director of National Intelligence memo released late Thursday said that ... the waterboarding of al Qaeda terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah was discussed in detail" at the September 2002 briefing Pelosi attended. In fact, while the DNI memo states that the briefing included "a description of the particular EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] that had been employed," the memo does not state that waterboarding was among the specific methods mentioned during the briefing, as Media Matters for America has noted.

From Pelosi's May 8 statement:

"Of the 40 CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated.

"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007:

'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.'

"I had no further briefings on the techniques.

"My understanding of the briefing I received is consistent with the description that CIA General Counsel Scott Muller provided to Congresswoman Jane Harman in a letter dated February 28, 2003, which states:

'As we informed both you and the leadership of the Intelligence Committees last September, a number of Executive Branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, the use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law.'

"As reported in the press, a cover letter from CIA Director Panetta accompanying the briefings memo released this week concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."

From the May 9 Washington Times article, "Pelosi refutes intelligence memo":

The California Democrat is at the center of an intensifying debate on Capitol Hill over the Bush administration's interrogation policies, which critics condemn as torture. Defenders of the practices argue in part that Mrs. Pelosi and others in Congress were told at the time of the techniques and made no move to stop them.

A Director of National Intelligence memo released late Thursday said that Mrs. Pelosi was at a classified briefing in September 2002 in which the waterboarding of al Qaeda terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah was discussed in detail.

Mrs. Pelosi Friday stuck to her denial.

"As reported in the press, a cover letter from CIA Director [Leon E.] Panetta accompanying the briefings memo released this week concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate," she said in a statement.

She did not address previous comments she made that put her at odds with the report, but noted that the September 2002 briefing was one of 40 such meetings she attended with lawmakers.

Mrs. Pelosi said she was told some enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were thought by the Bush administration to be legal and could be used in the future.

*A tip from reader J.C. helped to contribute to this item. Thanks and keep them coming!

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Conchobhar (May 09, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
      2 1
      Forty or one out of forty, what's the difference? You were expecting facts from Sum Yung Moon's rag? Please.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sterling Dingleberry (May 09, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
      2 2
      Recommend you quit defending Pelosi, as she was/is up to her neck in this issue. Her claims strain credulity to its breaking point -- In other words, there's no need to continue defending her lies. She is not irreplaceable. The Democrats can do better.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by coolcowboy (May 10, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
        1  
        They aren't defending Pelosi. They are defending accuracy in reporting, something which the Washington Times (which I read every day) doesn't respect. If Pelosi is complicit then let the chips fall where they may. But don't sacrifice the truth.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (May 09, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
      4 1
      Next they'll claim she had on 40 pairs of briefs at the briefing. Whatever. It doesn't matter to he WT. Facts are the providence of the sane.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (May 09, 2009 7:40 pm ET)
      1 3
      One out of forty attended or one out of forty she didn't sleep through. Not a good record in either case, also would like to know what questions she may have asked up front in comparison to the finger pointing she is doing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 09, 2009 8:46 pm ET)
        1  
        If I take her at face value, sounds like the question was "are we doing this now, or is this just a hypothetical discussion?".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
          1 2
          If she thought is was a hypothetical discussion, she is a fool.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (May 09, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
        1 1
        She can't tell us - the info is still classified. She couldn't have told us, nor could she have done anything to stop it if she had been told.

        This is a ruse to distract us and foster the belief that it isn't torture because Dems say they wouldn't be complicit in the USA torturing. If Pelosi was informed about this, and did nothing, then the conclusion they want others to draw is that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the Bush Administration can't therefore be torture.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (May 09, 2009 9:58 pm ET)
          1 2
          She was informed about what was going on and her lack of objections was tacit approval of the policies. Are we supposed to believe that she thought she was being briefed about the opinions "just in case". And while she could not have told us about the briefings she certainly could have worked behind the scenes if she objected. She didn't. But I guess I am forgetting, she is a democrat and therefore is always telling the truth, and of course Clinton didn't have sex with that woman either.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (May 09, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
            2 1
            Got that rush line down I see. But either way, so what? Repuplicans are just scared little pee pee pants trying to play chicken by claiming they can drag democrats down with them if this proceeds. Lets play.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (May 10, 2009 1:56 am ET)
        2  
        Let's convict the murdering torturers first. Then we'll convict the finger pointers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
            2
          Maybe we should start with Clinton and Holder first, shouldn't we take it in cronological order. And should we now prosecute Obama for the killing of civilians with drones . That God our safety doesn't depend on people like you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (May 10, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
            1  
            What charges would you be leveling? Something beyond killing civilians with drones please.
            Don't believe your thinking this through. Conviction would give a presidence for quickly convicting shrub, 5 deferments, gonzo and a host of shrub admin chickenhawks. You really want that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
                1
              What I am pointing out is the lack of outrage when the Clinton administration was doing the very same things that the left is so outraged about now. Redition for example, and the apparent torture that accompanied the tactic was a Clinton policy that was just continued under Bush. And what is wrong with mentioning civilian deaths due to drone attacks, for years I have heard of all of the civilian deaths ( with mostly made up numbers) due to Bush policies, why not Obama policies.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (May 11, 2009 12:09 am ET)
                1  
                They were not doing the very same things thats why. As has been noted the subjects were not shipped in the expectation that they would be tortured. What possible reason would Clinton have had to torture anyone. Nomal police investigative technics worked will for him. I suspect a variation on the democratic people are just like the republicans meme that is so popular lately.
                You changed the subject on the fatalities from the drone attack. It was a hole I left for you to do so. You were speaking of charges in court regarding that. You have produced none. The horror of modern pushbutton war, collateral damage and such, takes us futher and futher off topic. But I might as well close that hole.
                Dispite some sucess on real terrorists, I'm not a big fan of the current methodes used to call in air strikes, drone, or air to ground. I don't believe we use a ground to ground system at preasent. Precision targeting is good but still does not replace feet on the ground. The WW2 late use of air power in close support of ground troops was very sucessful It had faults when the weather grounded the air wings and say something like night falling. The entire concept of air power in both Iraq and Afganistan needs some heavy rethinking. I believe its getting some attention now.
                Somehow I feel you are showing concern for the civilians in Afganistan because you feel you can use it as a stick. Several million dead and displaced Iraqis, this has escaped your attention somehow?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (May 11, 2009 9:51 am ET)
                  1  
                  Drones shooting missiles is a very disturbing trend. The idea that mistakes are not made is refuted by numerous instances of innocent people being killed by these strikes. Making war that remote is abominable, even more than bombs dropping from airplanes with a sitting pilot...

                  If people think we must conduct war, show it for all its barbarity--at least when people were slogging it out with swords, there was no question how bloody and awful it is.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (May 10, 2009 1:55 am ET)
      3  
      This will sound funny, but conservatives didn't use to make up a lie from nothing. In the past they would always misquote, crop a quote, paraphrase incorrectly, leave out crucial details, or apply bad logic to facts. They wouldn't simply state that black was white.

      Defeat and permanent exile are in the air.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace