Congress and Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.'
By KARL ROVE

Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded. Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy wants an independent investigation of Bush administration officials. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers feels the Justice Department should investigate and prosecute anyone who violated laws against committing torture. Are these and other similarly minded Democrats willing to have Mrs. Pelosi thrown into their stew of torture conspirators as an accomplice?

It is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced. She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans. It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

'We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.

Chad Crowe
All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to shout out the evils of Guantanamo, shout aye! "Aye!" All Democrats in favor of doing what would be necessary to close Guantanamo, shout aye! . . . What, nobody?

On day two of his presidency, Barack Obama issued an executive order to shut down, within one year, the Gitmo prison that still houses 241 detainees. Four months later, he may be about to be handed his first defeat of a major campaign promise, and by his own party. Faced with the actual politics of bringing terrorists to U.S. soil, congressional Democrats are running for the exits.

President Bush never closed Gitmo because, put simply, the options were to transfer detainees to foreign countries or to transfer detainees here. Attorney General Eric Holder in April embarked on a "please take back your bad guys" road show through the very European countries that had sermonized about America's offshore prison. The Brits and Germans sent the president their regards and promised to think about it.

That leaves the U.S. as the destination for Gitmo inmates, and Republicans have slowly but consistently turned Gitmo into a debate over Democrats' ability to handle national security. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been hitting on Guantanamo since February, warning that the administration's decision to put "symbolism" over "safety" might result in Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al Shibh coming soon to a neighborhood near you. House Republicans last week released a chilling video showing footage of 9/ 11, mug shots of the aforementioned murderers, and the question "How does closing Guantanamo Bay make us safer?"

Public outrage has already inspired officials in Louisiana, California, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia (for starters) to introduce or pass resolutions to stop terrorists from being sent to their communities. Playing off this, the House GOP introduced legislation that would prohibit the administration from transferring Gitmo detainees to a state without permission from that state's governor and legislature. They then dared Democrats to vote against this "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act."

Democrats don't dare. The House instead last week yanked from an appropriations bill the $81 million Mr. Obama wants as a down payment to begin the process of shuttering the prison. Worried that even this didn't provide enough cover, they also inserted language barring detainee transfers to the U.S. until at least October.

Appropriations chief David Obey explained that the only reason Congress didn't provide the money is that it first wants to see the administration's "plan." In truth, Democrats don't want to touch this debate -- certainly not now, in the middle of the what-Nancy-knew-and-when discussion. So they're kicking the can back to Mr. Obama.

The Senate is also set to deal with an appropriations bill, and Democrats are growing very wary that Republicans will introduce some awkward amendments that will force them to actually vote to bring terrorists to the U.S. Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now saying he, too, would first like to see some "specifics" from the administration.

This was not part of the Obama team's calculation. It figured it would get its bucks and make its calls. Releasing specific plans for where it intends to land these detainees will cause geographic uproars. But six weeks ago, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions sent the first of two letters to Mr. Holder demanding to know the administration's legal authority for transfers, given that the federal Real ID Act prohibits admission to the U.S. of any alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive a response.

The administration might have the ability to shuffle some funds and do this unilaterally. But it is already four months into its one-year deadline, and transfers take time. The other option is for the administration to start triangulating, blaming Congress for not funding the program, and pushing back the deadline.

If so, Guantanamo will join the growing list of security tools that President Obama once criticized as out of keeping with American values but has since discovered are very in keeping with protecting the nation. Wiretapping, renditions, military tribunals, Gitmo -- it turns out the Bush people weren't a bunch of yahoos but often thoughtful defenders against terrorism. This is all progress, though America might wonder if it could have been spared the intervening drama.

Write to kim@wsj.com

In one of his first moves after taking office, US President Barack Obama signed an order banning harsh interrogation techniques used since 9/11, which critics have consistently denounced as torture. This includes ‘waterboarding’. As we now know (or should know), this was not just crumbs thrown to a certain segment of Obama's supporters a la Bill Clinton's random 'don't ask; don't tell' affectation shortly after he took office.

No, this was a part of a far more ambitious ploy. It was the opening salvo in the strategy we now see being executed: the criminalization of Bush administration policy and subsequent legal action that will most certainly result (either here or abroad). Obama cannot appear to be too eager for this to happen – but he obviously wants it badly. It is key (in his view) to presenting himself as legitimate - the genuine article - to his specifically targeted international audience which includes Iran, Cuba, Venezuela among others (the U.S. be dammed). In the end he will say that he couldn’t have stopped it, even while pouring gas on the fire.

This is why Cheney is speaking out now. He has seen the writing on the wall – and he does not fancy prison. As things progress, we’ll be hearing from others as well: Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld, etc. But they won’t be able to stem the tide. We’ll also be hearing from a cadre of turncoats, attempting to save their own skins.

Whether or not the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials and advisors will actually materialize, is yet to be seen. Some may want to dismiss the prospect of such unpleasantness as ‘Democrats overreaching’. I am not so optimistic. Who would have thought that American-style capitalism would give way to full-blown socialism and many of its consequences in less than three months’ time? Already most on our side are resigned to it and making excuses. “Capitalism was bound to fail anyway (along with democracy),” they say.

Those who are banking on Obama’s inexperience and perceived missteps do so at their own peril. This man is out to re-do America in ways unimaginable to Americans who have never indulged in reading Alinsky, Marx, Engles, Trotsky, Ayers and the like. Most Americans have never attended a black liberation (theology) church service. They have no idea of where all this is leading. The time to stop Obama is now. Already there are more than a few of us looking around, saying, “What the hell happened?”

Corliss (or anyone)-
I hope you are right. But where do you see the evidence of this? Polls? conversations with friends?

I have seen a bit of this myself--people who I think voted BO in are starting to question a few things but I will be happier if I see it reflected in some legit polling.

Do you think this will affect '10 elections, '12? Is Hillary waiting in the wings for BO to founder or overreach to the left? Dick Morris seems to think so.

*This is from 12/10/2007 "The Nation":*

According to the news reports, Pelosi has no complaint about waterboarding during a closed-door session she attended with Florida Congressman Porter Goss, a Republican who would go on to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts and Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham.

"The reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," recalls Goss.

How encouraging? It is reported that two of the legislators demanded to know if waterboarding and other methods that were being employed "were tough enough" forms of torture to produced the desired levels of mental anguish to force information from suspects who, under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, cannot be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

Was Pelosi one of the "tough-enough" cheerleaders for waterboarding? That is not clear, as the speaker has refused to comment directly regarding her knowledge of torture techniques and encouragement of their use. Another member of the House who is closely allied wit Pelosi did tell the Post, however, that the California Democrat attended the session, recalled that waterboarding was discussed, and "did not object" at the time to that particular torture technique.

It is delicious to watch Pelosi twisting in the wind, caught up in her own lies. It must amaze her that, after a career built on lies, she is finally being held to account for one. That is only supposed to happen to Republicans, in her view.

Beyond the human drama of the fall of one unusually corrupt politician, the affair highlights the fact that most of the Congressional Democrats who are howling about waterboarding now knew about it then, and approved. Back then America's security mattered to them, as it did to every other American. Now, it is just one more political chip to be played to gain power. This fact must now be obvious to any American who is paying attention (admittedly a minority).

Due to the potential of Waterboarding-Gate to harm Democrats, I expect this to be hustled off the front pages of the compliant press fairly soon. If the Mombasan Candidate could keep the Waterboarding Weapon pointed only at Republicans, the circus would go on and on. But now, chiefly due to Pelosi's big mouth, and inability to lie convincingly, it is going to be squashed in my opinion.