Does Fox News want to boot Pelosi from the speaker's chair?
SUMMARY: Fox News personalities have called for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step down as speaker because of the controversy over what the Bush administration told her about its use of harsh interrogation techniques.
In recent days, Fox News personalities have called for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step down as speaker because of the controversy over what the Bush administration told her about its use of harsh interrogation techniques. For example, on the May 14 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, contributor Dick Morris stated, "This is not the time to be without a speaker of the House of Representatives. And Nancy Pelosi will not be able to devote her time and attention to the Obama legislative program if she's defending this. It is in the best interest of the American people that this not serve as a distraction and that she step down." Morris later added, "At the end of the summer, we're going to be talking about how Speaker Steny Hoyer is no improvement over the former speaker, Nancy Pelosi."
Similarly, earlier that day on America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros stated, "I think the Democrats need to come out and call for her to tell the truth or resign, because she is really -- she's hurting her colleagues." When Kelly asked Tantaros, "Is it that bad? Are we at the point where a resignation demand should be made?" Tantaros responded, "Absolutely. And I think her colleagues need to do it. I think they need to call for her to either come out, tell what she knew, when she knew it, testify. If they find her to be lying, then she needs to step down."
Additionally, on the next day's edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly asked Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of Pelosi: "[C]an she be held accountable, if indeed the American public believes that she lied, if the members of the House believe that she lied, and on top of lying, she then threw our CIA under the bus? What can be done to take away the speakership? What would be the procedure for that?" The same day, the supposedly unbiased Fox Nation also posted the headline "Watch Nancy Twist in the Wind: Is Her Speakership in Jeopardy?"
From the May 15 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Did you see the Nancy Pelosi's news conference yesterday afternoon? Happened around 11 o'clock, right as our show ended. Did you see it? The speaker of the House opening a whole new can of worms in the back-and-forth over interrogations and the war on terror. Now she continues to try to explain her own contradictory statements and took it a step further yesterday by sending the CIA actively lied to the U.S. Congress repeatedly about what they were doing.
PELOSI [video clip]: They did not brief us that these enhanced interrogations were taking place. ... They never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used.
We were not -- I repeat, were not -- told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel -- the Office of Legislative Counsel opinions that they could be used.
No, I wasn't informed. I was informed that a briefing had taken place. You have to look at what they briefed those members. I was not briefed then. I was only informed that they were briefed, but I did not get the briefing.
KELLY: Well, this has created a huge firestorm, not just for Republicans but among Democrats as well, at least some of them. And now some Republicans are calling her comments outrageous. Some are talking about her losing her speakership over this.
Congressman Steve King is on the House Judiciary Committee. He joins us live this morning. Congressman, good morning to you.
KING: Good morning, Megyn.
KELLY: I don't know about you, but I watched this and it was stunning. I mean, it was stunning to see her out there trying to defend herself. I've never seen her quite so rattled. And now there are some who are saying given her statements all over the board on this, and an open accusation that our CIA has been lying to the U.S. Congress, that she needs to step down from this speakership. What say you?
KING: Well, Megyn, it's an outrageous accusation that she's made against our brave CIA officers. And if she believes that the integrity of the office of speaker of the House of the United States can trump the truth or trump the records that are out there -- that seems to be the case. I mean, it is utter arrogance to think she can roll back the truth. And we need to know, when was Nancy Pelosi briefed? I believe it was in September of 2002. I think she knew in advance. What did she know, when did she know it?
I believe she didn't react to that. I think it was acceptable because she understood then that the nation was under threat and under attack, and then for political reasons, spun this thing all the way around. There's got to be credibility in the office of the speakership. And we have seen speakers lose their gavel for far less than calling the CIA a bunch of liars. So let's get the data out.
KELLY: You know --
KING: If the president can release the interrogation documents, we can release these documents on the briefing.
KELLY: You know, Congressman, whatever people think of the CIA, there is no question that the men and women who worked there had a huge hand in keeping us safe for the past several years. It's one thing to talk about interrogation techniques and so on and so forth -- these people actually had to do it. Whether you think is right or not, there's no question that they helped prevent another attack on American soil. Instead of going out there and calling them patriots or thanking them for keeping us safe, she publicly calls them out on the carpet and says they have lied repeatedly. Now, if she really believes that, Congressman, are there not procedures that she should be following with the Department of Justice?
KING: She's at some point going to have to face the truth, Megyn. And she should have -- if she believed the CIA was lying, she should have brought this issue up a long time ago. We've known about this for a long time. She is not making this statement because now she's indignant that the CIA lied to her, according to her allegations back in September of 2002. She is squealing because she's caught out in the open with a statement that's clearly not factually true. It's not a question of whether Nancy Pelosi told the truth, it's if and when she told the truth, because I can't verify that she did. I think we can verify that the CIA did. And those documents need to come out, and then let the Democrats decide if they want to stand and defend the speaker of the House, who is undermining our national security actively, without any reason except to protect her own political hide.
KELLY: Now, you know, the polls so far -- and they were taken before this whole Nancy Pelosi dustup -- said that the American people don't want a truth commission. They want to go forward, they want what the president wants, which is go forward and not spend all this time and money in the U.S. Congress looking backward. Now, I don't know how they feel in the wake of the Pelosi scandal. But my question is, if they feel the same, and they still don't want a truth commission, what can be done? I mean, can she be held accountable, if indeed the American public believes that she lied, if the members of the House believe that she lied, and on top of lying, she then threw our CIA under the bus? What can be done to take away the speakership? What would be the procedure for that?
KING: Megyn, I would just tell you that it lies in the hands of Democrats. As long as they will support Speaker Pelosi, she will be the speaker. When their seats become vulnerable -- if they're afraid that they're gonna lose their seats because they vote for and defend this kind of activity that undermines our national security -- at that point, they'll find themselves a new speaker.
That's what it comes down to. It's pure, raw politics. She's been playing politics with our national security. It was this speaker, Speaker Pelosi, that brought over 40 votes to the floor of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress that were designed to un-fund, underfund, or undermine our troops in Iraq in an attempt to bring about a result there that would be the exact opposite of what our troops and President Bush have achieved today.
So this is an enemy of national security that holds the gavel of the speaker of the House, and now she's accusing the CIA, the people who have kept us safe over all these years to be a group of liars who willfully and calculatedly lied to the United States Congress. It is outrageous, and the American people need to speak to their Democrat members of Congress and ask them to come up with a new speaker.
KELLY: Congressman Steve King, thanks so much for coming on with your insights in it. We appreciate you being here.
And aside from that, we, the rank and file democrats, don't get to decide who is Speaker of the House, and only the folks in CA in Pelosi's district can take her out as a rep.
Well, you're not. If I were a Republican I would vote for single payer, too.
She said he lied. Prove she's lying. That is the next step here, not her proving that he lied. It's her word against his.
Bu - bu -but . . . the SotH was not the one who authorized torture . . .
That was your boobies, Dubya and Cheney . . .
You are not so go back to NewsBusters.
"Coming out and accusing the CIA of lying to her with no proof isn't the sort of leadership qualities I would support."
How could anyone suggest the CIA is not being truthful? THe shock and horror. You know why they exist do you not? Who knows the specifics of this exact scenario but I will say, who cares if she did get briefed on it? President Obama has ended the practice and that is what she has wanted. She will lose her speakership if the DCC takes a hit in 2010. Until then the Republicans can whine all day everyday, what else is new? Obama will stay above 60% thank you very much.
If she really didn't know what they were doing and other committee members did then she's just not good at her job.
If she knew but is now lying about it, then she's a villain and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. As a partisan I'd rather see her stay with the protection of her party until the voters get a chance to express their opinions. But as a patriot I'd rather see competent leadership and would support her stepping down.
Sounds like these FOX reporters think she's guilty and place country ahead of party. Those scoundrels!
Since Snoopy doesn't behave that way, you don't have any point. Liberals, in general, do have a more evolved way of handling political philosophy questions. That's part of being a liberal, and is not part of being a conservative, and being someone who resists change like conservatives do by definition!
Can anyone imagine how the employees of the CIA are reacting to being called liers?
Obama [or maybe it was the teleprompter] must have given Leon the go ahead to publicly contradict Pelosi and stand up for the people that work for him. The administration is not supporting her. If this doesn't die down in a hurry, she will be out.
It's possible to envision scenarios in which no one is lying. Here's one: CIA agent (Briefer) informs Pelosi that they had received authorization and legal opinions allowing them to use EITs against terror suspects. Pelosi doesn't ask "Have you used these techniques already?", and CIA doesn't volunteer that information, but the briefer is aware that the techniques have been used. Briefer makes notes of the meeting, writing something ambiguous, like "Interrogation Tactics briefed". Six years later, Briefer has moved on from the CIA, and the people going over his notes misinterpret them when preparing the document Panetta sent to Congress.
Alternatively, the Briefer(s) might have mentioned having used EITs with only some of the "Gang of 8", and their notes either don't reflect that only some members were so briefed, or recognize that only some members were made aware of the usage, but attribute this to the wrong members. This could have occurred if the only way a member would have found out about the usage would be if they asked "have you used EITs to date" (in separate briefings), or if a member got a follow-up briefing.
I'm not saying that Pelosi is right or wrong. I'm saying that there's not enough evidence to know either way. Not only is it a "he said, she said", but there's a possibility that neither are lying.
How do you think they felt when Bush told everyone we invaded Iraq because of bad intelligence he received from the CIA before he invaded that country? Should he have resigned as well for insulting someone?
Which legal standards Yu's, Bybee's, Or maybe Rove's, Chenny's, Gonzales, Surely not Shrub's?
Details, describe those circumstances that mean we get to act like total immoral animals. I asked once about instances of captured american troops. You didn't feel able to reply then. Can you do so now? What's your metric on cruelty and inhumanity anyway?
Unless these and your following talking points get the details your future identity here will change from concern troll to clown troll. Your choice. Identify the moral giants of the Republican Party don't be shy.
Not only guilty but those Faux Gnus heros have alreagy convicted her and are drooling over sentencing options. When was that trial again? The defense was defeated by what evidence?
But as a patriot I'd rather see competent leadership and would support her stepping down.
Patriots aren't apologists for torture. You're no patriot. You're UN-AMERICAN. Get that?. You're basically everything that the real patriots fought against 200+ years ago. You're the Tory. You're the oppressor. You're the torture apologist.
Now put in your "24" re-runs and j**k off to another torture scene.
If their is no CRIME being commited, the how could she be LYING about NOT KNOWING about a CRIME BEING COMMITTED?!
If she says "I didn't know there was a crime being committed." To say that this is a LIE is to say that SHE KNEW a CRIME was being commited. Which in turn admits that A CRIME WAS BRING COMMITTED!!!
If she ahs anything to answer for for, we'll get to that eventually. In the meantime, we really should focus on the CRIME first. And that would fouce squarely on REPUBLICANS and the BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION. On AFTER we have each and every one of those bastards in prision should we even WORRY about "Who else knew."
Punnish the CRIME first, THEN worry about the "conspiracy."
Just as I was ashamed that Bush was my president, I am now ashamed that Nancy Pelosi is my Speaker. Doubly so, because she's a leader of my Party.
I don't know who's on deck behind her, if it's Steny Hoyer or whomever, but I cannot imagine it wouldn't be a serious upgrade.
She either knew there was torture going on and did nothing (she wouldn't even add her name to Rep Harmon's letter of protest) in which case she needs to step down or she didn't know and was oblivious because lots of other people knew - and still needs to step down. Her excuses are weak, she's parsing, she's stuttering and she's making the entire party look bad.
She comes off as nothing but a desperate CYA politician. Shameful.
Are you saying that the CIA doesn't lie? Doesn't make things up? How disgusted where you when Bush accused the CIA of not providing good intelligence, and that they made things up? I seem to remember not too many folks being outraged by this.
Look, like it or not, Pelosi didn't do anything wrong. In 2003 she was not in a position of power to do anything about torture, even if she wanted to.
There is really no evidence either that what Pelosi is saying is incorrect either.
She has nothing to cover her ass for. That's the part you guys keep forgetting.
Evidence, if you ever want to get arround to showing any.
You're already stated that it was the Speaker who lied. You accused her of claiming that the CIA had lied. You also implied that its not like the CIA to lie to congress.
Where the hell did you live before you moved to this country? The CIA has a long history of deception, falsification and fabrication.
And by the way, rank and file members of political parties have nothing to say about who becomes or is removed from the Speaker of The House position.
She says that she was not informed, and anyone who says she was informed is lying. She doesn't need proof to defend herself. Her accusers need proof to prove her wrong and prove she is lying.
That's another thing those on the right are doing - putting the burden of proof someplace it shouldn't be.
Youpeople really need to stop swilling the kool-aid.
I'm all for opening the can of worms and prosecuting more than just enlisted personnel.
Let's start investigating and prosecute anyone and everyone involved. I think everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Democrat or Republican, but have no problem with any guilty party answering for any crime whether that person is the Speaker of the House or the ex-President of the Untied States .
I can't keep up with GOP logic.
And a scared, frustrated liar is a BAD liar. she's nto doing wellhere at all. She was complicit and like so many others before her, when the heat goes up, she'll find her way under the bus with a push on the back from Obama.
Ms impeachment is off the table is pushing what retroactive criminalization. What did the voices in your head tell you. The details in all their horridly fascinating glory please.
Thank you for that incredibly relevent history lesson on petards.
Produce a little real evidence, if you can get past your egregarious bearing of false witness. I know its so exciting to rip people you don't like, but as the little lady said,"Where's the beef?"
So, what is this nonsense about "retroactive criminalization"?
Torturing people was always a crime. The Bush Administration twisted the definition of torture to pretend the torture they were approving and inflicting wasn't really torture.
The Bush Administration were the ones lying. If lying bothers you so much, one would think that this really offensive lying about torturing humans would really upset you. It seems clear that Pelosi believes she was never told that they were actively torturing people when she was briefed, so even if what she said wasn't true, she was not lying. It's undeniable that the Bush Administration was trying to deceive by changing the definition of torture to CYA their torturing of detainees. Why don't you seem incredibly outraged at those lies?
Oh, and that's a rhetorical question. We know why you don't accuse the Bush Administration for their lies.
You should check any presser by Sarah Palin -- or, for that matter, Bubble Boy Bush . . .
With a solid Democrat House majority and an almost filibuster-proof Senate, Pelosi is irrelevant and only serves as to impede any sense of bipartisan agreements, which Obama wants.