Pelosi's faulty recollections

Washington Times Editorial:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reputation has been damaged in her dispute with the CIA over her prior knowledge of torture of terrorist detainees. It is a self-inflicted wound.

The speaker could have shown a little humility early in the process after press revelations in 2007 exposed that she had been briefed in 2002 on CIA interrogation methods. Instead, she deflected her culpability by saying that she had been briefed only on methods to be used "in the future." As late as April 23, after the release of the George W. Bush administration's "torture memos," Mrs. Pelosi stated: "We were not - I repeat - were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

...

A close reading of her prepared May 14 statement shows that Mrs. Pelosi gave ground. The statement notes that she was "briefed ... on some enhanced interrogation techniques," which neither confirms nor denies that she learned about their use. By omission, she abandoned the stance that she only was told what might be done in the future, with the exception of the politically charged practice of waterboarding.

Therein arises the central factual dispute. Mrs. Pelosi clings to the position that waterboarding was only mentioned in the 2002 briefing to make clear that the technique was not being used. However, a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum revealed that Abu Zubaydah had been subjected to waterboarding in August 2002. Mrs. Pelosi says the failure of the briefers to reveal this the following month constituted "inaccurate and incomplete information." The intelligence community begs to differ.

Waterboarding aside, we have yet to hear Mrs. Pelosi say which interrogation methods she did learn about. Nine other enhanced techniques were approved for use on Abu Zubaydah: attention grasp, walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation and insects placed in a confinement box. How many of these techniques were described in the 2002 briefing? Did Mrs. Pelosi's silence on the use of these methods constitute tacit approval? Was "bug in a box" another of those methods Mrs. Pelosi thought was reserved only for future use?

Mrs. Pelosi has tried to establish a pattern of deceit by saying the CIA was misleading Congress "at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction." This claim opens the door to examine other examples of the speaker's penchant for shifting her stories based on political expedience. In June 2006, she said there "was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never." However, on "Meet the Press" on Nov. 17, 2002, she stated that "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Mrs. Pelosi cannot claim she was under the spell of Bush-era politicized intelligence because she had made similar statements before Mr. Bush was in office. On Dec. 16, 1998, in the wake of air strikes against Iraq ordered by President Clinton, she stated: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. ..." If there is a pattern of deceit, it is not on the part of the intelligence community.

...

Her 1998 statement shows the dishonest bad faith arguments Pelosi and other Democrats have made against the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. It is hard to have any respect for someone like Pelosi who politicizes national security through fraud and deceit. She should be kept around as an example of what is wrong with liberal Democrats when it comes to national security issues.

USA Today in an editorial says, "Pelosi's meandering accounts stretch credulity. It's the height of hypocrisy to call for a "truth commission," then fail to tell the whole truth yourself. But even more important is what this episode reveals about Congress' dangerously partisan scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies...."