« | »

WP Invents Intel Officials To Back Pelosi

From an utterly mendacious Washington Post:

Definitive Account Of Briefings Still Elusive

Lawmakers Divided After Reviewing CIA’s Notes on Pelosi Session

By Paul Kane and Joby Warrick
Saturday, May 23, 2009

Sequestered in rooms buried deep within the Capitol and requiring top-secret clearances to enter, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have spent the past week leafing through documents at the heart of Washington’s latest who-knew-what-and-when saga.

But rather than emerging with clear agreement on what the memos reveal about the CIA briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received in 2002, and whether she was aware that aggressive interrogation methods were being used on terrorism suspects, lawmakers remain as divided as ever about the story they tell.

And unless those detailed documents prove to be more precise than some who have viewed them suggest — or until the CIA is willing to declassify them — it is possible that what Pelosi and other lawmakers learned almost seven years ago about the use of waterboarding and other techniques may never be definitively understood.

Republicans who have seen the documents say they present a clear case that Pelosi (D-Calif.) was told about the waterboarding of a key al-Qaeda operative, rejecting her accusation that the CIA intentionally misled her about the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning. "I came away feeling comfortable in saying the speaker owes the [intelligence] community an apology at the least," said Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.), a former FBI agent.

But Democrats, as well as some former intelligence officials, warn that the documents are far from definitive and reflect only after-the-fact recollections from CIA briefers who never intended to produce full transcripts of the sessions. "You can have a lot of interpretation either way," said Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), who said he "sped-read" the documents this week…

The differing interpretations of the briefing memos mirror the conflicting recollections of Pelosi and three other congressional leaders about what they were told roughly a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), the former representative who chaired the intelligence panel in 2002, has suggested that he and Pelosi left their briefing understanding "what the CIA was doing" and offering their support, while Pelosi said waterboarding and other aggressive techniques were mentioned only as legal tactics for future interrogations.

Even more deeply divergent are the recollections of Bob Graham (D-Fla.), the former senator who chaired the Senate intelligence committee in 2002, and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the panel’s ranking Republican. In interviews this week, Graham said waterboarding was never mentioned by CIA briefers in their meeting. But Shelby said that he and Graham were specifically told that the technique had already yielded valuable information.

The CIA participated in more than 2,100 congressional briefings and meetings during the 110th Congress — an average of more than 20 sessions a week. But the agency declined to discuss details of specific briefings, and a spokesman yesterday again dismissed suggestions that the agency gave lawmakers a misleading portrait of the interrogations.

"The CIA takes seriously its responsibility to provide information to the United States Congress," said the spokesman, George Little

Is this not another textbook example of the media’s mendacity?

Republicans who have seen the documents say they present a clear case that Pelosi (D-Calif.) was told about the waterboarding of a key al-Qaeda operative, rejecting her accusation that the CIA intentionally misled her about the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning…

But Democrats, as well as some former intelligence officials, warn that the documents are far from definitive and reflect only after-the-fact recollections from CIA briefers who never intended to produce full transcripts of the sessions.

The article goes on to quote a couple of Democrats, but nowhere do we see “some former intelligence officials” who back up Ms. Pelosi’s claims.

Indeed, even the Democrats cited do not speak to the CIA documents in question.

But rather than just leave it at the views on this being divided along party lines, the Washington Post wants to give the Democrats the edge by claiming “former intelligence officals” agree with Pelosi.

However, that is simply not true. Or at least the Post does not substantiate their claim.

In fact, the only former intelligence officials mentioned in the article are former CIA head, Porter Goss, and the CIA spokesman George Little.

And they say exactly the opposite of what Pelosi claims.

Meanwhile, our media masters wonder why they are losing readers.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, May 23rd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “WP Invents Intel Officials To Back Pelosi”

  1. proreason says:

    “And they say exactly the opposite of what Pelosi claims”

    As do all 7 of the people who have given their names as witnesses or fellow participants with the notorious liar Pelosi.

    Funny how everyone who agrees with her remains nameless.

    (btw, have I mentioned to the ladies of S&L that I am a tantilizing mix of Tom Cruise, Hugh Jackman, Ernest Hemingway and Pope John Paul II. Dozens of women have said I seem to combine the best attributes of all of them. The rumors that I am short, bald, obese and toothless are lies, damned lies.)

  2. woodmanthered says:

    It is a sorry mess that this woman has caused. What is the worse thing is that liberals and democrats will stick togather and dismiss real true information and with there comrades at msm they will continue to tell their story the way they see it and pretty soon most people will believe their side of it. It’s like no one really wants to know the truth anymore. It’s all down party line now. I am glad that party line does not affect my take on things but rather the truth does. Until this country gets over this we are going to be in a sad state.Nothing of any good will ever be come of this. This lady has lied and only a fool could not see it. I have never needed a note to refresh my mind of the truth.

  3. canary says:

    Guess it’s back to bed on her back for Pelosi.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »