What did Nazi Piglosi know, and when did she know it?

i'd be happy to see her testify, under oath.

just as soon as cheney, bush, tenet, goss, hayden and eric prince agree to do so with no conditions.

after all, what we all want is the WHOLE truth.

right?

Assuming she was informed, it would have been governed by security rules so she wouldnt have been able to acknowledge even that she heard anything. Your forgetting that point.

oh, that only counts for dick cheney and his merry men. silly farmer person!

Politicians on both sides of the isle need to hold Pelosi accountable and make an example out of her.

As I say, the guy running Gitmo should be a hog farmer. Pelosi could get a job as a hog....

oh. okay. so you guys aren't really interested in the Truth, you are just looking to screw a democrat.

what a surprise.

No thanks!

Famerboy and Cyclotroll may want to screw Pelosi, but I have much higher standards.

Wow, now theres a big jump in logic . You now claim that you have "STANDARDS".

You are nothing but a pinhead whose entire way of engaging folks is to begin with insults and no logic. Now somehow youre getting onto a subject re: sexual choices of others of whom you know nothing. Is that even honest?

Farmhand, from the gutter to you ain't up.

Keep you feeble thoughts and childish insults to yourself.

Oh boy, now Im being shot at with both watergun barrels. Really pitiful wawa. I have tertra who can carry on a meaningful discussion at your level. Youre not quite ready for us humans.

no matter where he starts from, he always winds up in the sex dept.

wonderin' if he's slappin' his "standards" as he types one handed.

House majority leader says hearings should probe Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim
she didn't know harsh interrogation methods were used on an Al Qaeda leader.

Check this out; now we've got Steny Hoyer claiming to want to know what Nazi Piglosi knew and when she knew it. Sort of looking for loyalty amongst cannibals or something like that.....

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/hoyer-wants-pelosi-facts-out-2009-05-12.html

You and I must have noticed that one at the same moment....

NO, since Pelosi IS in the chain of succession, she probably was often briefed on matters of security and defense. As such, she would be bound by the rules of secrecy and deniability. Ill bet that this fact has been discussed by Congress and itleaves the GOP Limp with "no satisfactionimminent"

it's funny.. so far cheney has stated that bush knew all about it and today said that he couldn't be sure that pelosi did know everything.

but i agree with you that in the end, the goppers are gonna find themselves in NoJoy Land on this one. if one has to testify, everybody will have to. and the list of who could authorize torturing..ooops! i mean, EITs is really short and would not include pelosi or hoyer. or any democrat at the time for that matter.

Pelosi is a damned liar as the following article makes clear-Those who are able to read and understand the article will note that the memos were released by OBAMA's designee as head of the CIA--Leon Panetta.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK MAY 11, 2009 What Congress Knew
Congress got 40 briefings from the CIA on interrogations.

On September 4, 2002, Porter Goss, then the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democratic member, were given a classified briefing by the CIA on what the Agency calls "enhanced interrogation techniques," or, in persistent media parlance, "torture." In particular, the CIA briefed the members on the use of these techniques on Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan the previous March.


AP
Abu Zubaydah was a name the future Speaker was already familiar with. That spring, information obtained from the terrorist had the FBI and other government agencies scrambling to prevent possible attacks on the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge. It wasn't clear whether Abu Zubaydah was being truthful. "He is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation," Ms. Pelosi was quoted in Time magazine. "He is an agent of disinformation." It is precisely for such reasons that the CIA resorted to its enhanced techniques later that year, after gaining legal authorization.

These days, Speaker Pelosi insists she heard and saw no evil. "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she told reporters late last month. "What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would."

That doesn't square with the memory of Mr. Goss, who has noted that "we were briefed, and we certainly understood what the CIA was doing," adding that "Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough. . Ms. Pelosi's denials are also difficult to square with a chronology of 40 CIA briefings to Congressional Members compiled by the CIA and released this week by Director Leon Panetta. For the September 4, 2002 meeting, the CIA's summary of the discussion reads: "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." We emphasize the verb tense to underscore the contradiction with Ms. Pelosi's categorical denials of last month.

Ms. Pelosi was replaced by Jane Harman as the Committee's ranking member, but the bipartisan briefings continued. On February 4, 2003, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were given a briefing in which "EITs [were] 'described in considerable detail,' including 'how the water board was used.' The process by which the techniques were approved by DoJ was also raised." The document also adds that Mr. Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, was later given an "individual briefing."

Nor was that the only time Mr. Rockefeller, who chaired the Committee from 2007 to 2009, heard from the CIA. The West Virginian was briefed at least 12 times more about interrogation techniques, legal authorities and other aspects of the program. The last, in June 2008, was offered to 10 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and covered "discussion of EITs and the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions. Specific mentions of waterboarding numerous time."

Yet in October 2008, following a Washington Post report on the existence of the OLC memos, Mr. Rockefeller disclaimed any knowledge of the opinions. "If White House documents exist that set the policy for the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding, those documents have been kept from the committee," said Mr. Rockefeller. "That is unacceptable, and represents the latest example of the Bush Administration withholding critical information from Congress and the American people in an attempt to limit our oversight of sensitive intelligence collection activities."

Amusingly, or almost, Senator Rockefeller's denial is flatly contradicted by his own report on the subject released last month, which notes that "On May 19, 2008, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency provided the Committee with access to all opinions and a number of other documents prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel . . . concerning the legality of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Five of these documents provided addressed the use of waterboarding."

So much for the canard that the Bush Administration didn't keep Congress informed. But Congressional Democrats are being equally disingenuous when they pretend they could do nothing about what they were hearing from the CIA. Members could, and sometimes did, object to proposed CIA actions and could stop them in their tracks.

More importantly, Congress had the power of the purse. Pete Hoekstra, the House Committee's current ranking member, tells us there was "pretty bipartisan support for the authorization bills and the funding bills," at least until the issue blew wide in the pages of the press. Latter-day opponents of the interrogation techniques, he adds, "never used a tool that was available to them if they wanted to stop them."

We suspect a last line of Democratic defense will be that the Members privately objected to the practices and made their concerns known to the CIA. That seems to be the case with Ms. Harman, who wrote the CIA just days after she was first briefed saying the interrogation practices raised "profound policy questions" and that she was "concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions." Ironically, Ms. Harman now finds herself a target on the left for the unrelated AIPAC non-scandal.

If there were other Members who objected strenuously to the techniques at the time, let's see their letters. Otherwise, perhaps the CIA should release whatever notes they kept of the briefings. Our guess is that's one pile of memos Speaker Pelosi & Co. aren't especially eager to declassify.