Bob Graham: I Wasn’t Told About Waterboarding Or EITs In My Briefing
Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me.
Graham’s assertion — his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied.
“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before.
Graham is the only other Dem aside from Pelosi to get briefed in 2002, so they are both in effect asserting that no Dem was briefed on the use of EITs that year. The date of the next briefing was in February 2003.
Graham claimed he would have remembered if he’d been told about the use of torture. “Something as unexpected and dramatic as that would be the kind of thing that you would normally expect to recall even years later,” he said.
The documents released late last week state that Graham, then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, were briefed on September 27, 2002 and given a “description of the particular EITs that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah. The document says that Pelosi received a similar briefing earlier that month, though the letter accompanying the doc acknowledges that the CIA can’t vouch for its accuracy.
Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it “highly unusual” for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. “I don’t recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present,” he said. “That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold” on the info.
Graham, however, was circumspect on what was actually discussed, saying only that “the general topic had to do with detainee interrogations” but didn’t include any reference to EITs or waterboarding.
Graham’s claims come as evidence remains mixed about what Pelosi knew and when. Though she has denied being told that torture was being used, the CIA docs claim that a top Pelosi aide was told about it in the spring of 2003.
The CIA declined comment on Graham’s claim, but a U.S. official said: “CIA records indicate that several people, including former Senator Graham, were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.”
******************************************
Update: Here’s a rundown of some of the remaining unanswered questions about the torture wars.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Thank you for that, Greg. It now corroborates what Pelosi has been saying about that briefing.
Thanks, TheraP. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone covers it.
Wait, didn’t Pelosi say in an interview with Rachel Maddow that they weren’t allowed to bring their staff into the meetings? They couldn’t even bring in anything to write with according to what she said as far as I can remember it. That was one thing I had questions about on that CIA breakdown of the briefings. Were those staffers on the time line actually allowed into the meetings? Or did they just escort the members of Congress to the meeting?
I placed a link to this at emptywheel.
TPM has linked to you also!
OK I found it, the interview of Speaker Pelosi by Maddow I mean.
.
.
I think there is another quote so I am going to look for that one as well.
“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them.”
We did he have to go with the “do not recall” line? Shouldn’t his denial have been a bit stronger?
I’d like to think that these guys weren’t briefed (at least not fully) but I don’t totally trust them to come clean about it if they were. I’m afraid that this statement just reinforces those feeling.
sgwhiteinfla: Staff are listed as present at both the briefing for Pelosi and the one for Graham. See this post by emptywheel and download and read the pdf that lists those the CIA reports were briefed: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/08/breaking-news-cia-manipulating-briefing-process/
TheraP
.
Thanks but thats my point. Staff are listed as present but both Pelosi before and now Graham are asserting that it would be absurd for staff to be allowed into such a briefing where such high level stuff was being discussed. When you think about it allowing staff in would make no sense however there they are listed in the CIA account.
“It’ll be interesting to see if anyone covers it.”
It is interesting to see that ABC news did not ask Graham anything.
Now can you put in a call to Pat Roberts? My guess is no one has asked him either.
sgwhiteinfla:
Which strongly suggests, doesn’t it, that the briefings were “pretty brief” and did not touch on such sensitive info? So we now have Pelosi and Graham and the CIA document, all suggesting the same thing. Later briefings may have been different, but this suggests that at this early date Dems were not read into the torture process.
I remember a TV piece on Rumsfeld – where he was discussing interrogation techniques – and while I do not recall “waterboarding” I remember mention being made of sleep deprivation & being forced to stand for extended periods of time. That’s torture.
I don’t remember if it was 60 minutes or what – but it was when he was SecDef.
TheraP
.
Well thats one possibility but what I meant to point out in my last comment but forgot to was that after the intelligence report came out last week I know of at least one story surmised that Nancy Pelosi would have known about waterboarding from a staffer of hers who supposedly attended one of the briefings where the report says waterboarding was discussed but doesn’t list Pelosi as a participant. First of all it wouldn’t have been allowed even though she was the Speaker of the House. Second of all it cast doubts on the report itself. In what world would a staffer be trusted with that high a level of information?
sgwhiteinfla:
Pelosi was not Speaker in 2002. Just a ranking committee member. If those who were briefed could not communicate with each other, then how she learn something from a staffer?
TheraP
.
I am not talking about in 2002. Let me try to say it coherently. Wait I think Greg actually linked to the story I am talking about.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967.html
.
Now the story is about an aide being at the meeting in early 2003 where supposedly waterboarding was mentioned. Again I am starting to wonder if that aide would have actually been inside such a meeting anyway. But even if they were then they would have been bound by rules that would have precluded them from telling what they knew to Nancy Pelosi regardless of her title. But here is how the story is spun.
.
.
Now remember from the quote I posted above from the Rachel Maddow show Speaker Pelosi said she couldn’t even discuss these issues with her national security advisor nor any of her staff. So how does this story about her learning about waterboarding from Sheehy stand up to any level of scrutiny?
Fascinating to me is that Southern Illinois was hit with an inland hurricane on Friday afternoon and no in the whole country was told about it. We’ve got some big damage here and I don’t think it’s been on the national news at all. An inland hurricane a thousand miles away from the nearest ocean. Talk about climate change.
This says it all:
.
See, what Pelosi was told in 2002 or some aide was told in 2003, or what Graham was told whenever, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the so-called battle over the “effectiveness” and “legality” of the methods. It actually serves to detract us all from the so-called “battle over the effectiveness and legality of the methods.” And there is NO DOUBT about the illegal nature of the suffocation by water and other methods. sheesh. It’s only a “flash point” because the Republicans are throwing up the shiny object of Pelosi, which liberals are only too happy to bash. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Stupid question, but has anyone contacted the staff who are listed as present to ask them whether waterboarding, etc. were discussed in those meetings?
So, doesn Cheney have a “Mole” in the CIA releasing bogus memo’s to the media to help cover the Bush administration butt?? Or maybe even cover the CIA’s backside?
this man has earned the creds to be believed.
I guess the key word is EX-senator. Let’s hear from current senators. Does anyone really believe anything Pelosi says?
Put these boobs on the witness stand under oath.
I’d point out that Pelosi’s comment about not having aides present was in the context of discussion about NSA domestic wiretaps. So it would be interesting to see if the CIA would list staff being present on that sort of list.
Perhaps these briefings were considered not as bearing highly classified information, but, as suggested by Pelosi and now Graham, as “prospective”…this is what we are thinking sorts of briefings. In that case aides, particularly with security clearances (i.e. Committee aides, not personal aides) might be present.
Why would the aides be listed as being briefed if they were NOT? Do they list chauffeurs? Other staff who may have accompanied her to the portal? If they weren’t indeed present why suggest that they were?
Margaret, kiss my backside. Senator Graham is more intelligent and respected than at least 40 current members of the Senate. He has never been under an ethical cloud in all his years of public service. If he says it didnt happen, it didnt.
It is so easy to commit truthiness; much easier than to lie. To commit truthiness you only need to reveal a tiny bit of marginally related information and cover it with a pile of sh… irrelevance.
All they had to say was “we’re putting some pressure on them”. Later, if necessary, we can use this to justify saying that we disclosed what we were doing and no one complained. This is the core of truthiness. If someone didn’t fully grasp the situation and ask for more details, that’s their fault. If they did we could have gone into the patriotism rant.
Since Graham is well known for meticulously keeping a diary on everything he does every day, including what he ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner, his statement about not being briefed on waterboarding and other tortures used against detainees has tremendous credibility.
I’m no fan of Pelosi, but in this case I believe she is also telling the truth. The Bush-Cheney administration was lying to Congress and the American people about what they were doing and why they were doing it.
They tortured to obtain “confessions” which would bolster their false claims that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda. They needed the false confessions to justify their invasion of Iraq, not to protect the American people from terrorists.
Given these memos were written during the Bush/Cheney reign, how do we know they are even authentic.? How do we know that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the fabrication of these memos so the memos could be use in the future as cover for Bush and Cheney?
If they could destroy memos without any sense of guilt they could surely fabricate them as well.
I Would Bet the Farm, that these CIA Documents were as Rock Solid Full of Integrity as the Evidence they Trumped up for Bush/Cheney to go invade IraQ was.
Isnt the CIA trained to work in espionage, subterfuge, …lies, falsification, and fabrication?
Mark, You are so typical. Yawn
Thank you Justina! The last two sentences are the whole enchilada. It NEVER was about protecting the U.S., it was about a rationale to allow the U.S. to invade Iraq. Once we get that understood, everything else clears up!
Nancy Pelosi, December 9, 2007:
“I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. ”
Jane Harman, February 10, 2003:
“It is also the case, however, that what was described raises profound policy questions and I am concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions. I would like to know what kind of policy review took place and what questions were examined. In particular, I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?”
Greg, you’re in denial. Are you able to see that yourself? Can you pull yourself out of it?
I think in the biz it’s called a Scoop.
Kudos Greg,
…and bookmarked.
C
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/bob-graham-i-wasnt-told-about-waterboarding-or-eits-in-my-briefing/
Greg,
I know that you are left of center from your work at TPM, but I thought you dropped all that when you come over to this site? I only see you posting info that damages righties and protects lefties. Are you even aware you are doing this? Do you care? Or did they hire you on as an open lefty?
Margaret, you are so childish stomping around in the Republican school yard mud puddle. So typical of everything that is wrong with your out of power, irrelevant, criminal, treasonous Party of NO.
Chris M, ditto to you too. You’re covered in your own mud slinging.
Ever try addressing the message instead of smearing the messenger?
Justina wrote: “Since Graham is well known for meticulously keeping a diary on everything he does every day, including what he ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner, his statement about not being briefed on waterboarding and other tortures used against detainees has tremendous credibility.”
I have to agree with Justina, not only because of her assertions, but because Graham has always been the consummate statesman, both as US Senator and as Governor of Florida. It’s too bad he wasn’t so well known outside Florida, because he would’ve made a fine President.
Although I might disbelieve Pelosi, I have to believe Graham. If he says he wasn’t briefed, then he wasn’t briefed.
This is a really good site, Greg. I notice an elevated level of intelligent reasoning, significantly above the norm, going on in the minds of the posters (as well as a great scoop on your part).
But then again, that’s where we are at historically, too. Imagine being on the shore of the Bosphorus when the earthen plug that made the Black Sea an inland lake gave way at the end of the ice age — the event that probably gave rise to the story of Noah’s flood. That’s where we are vis-à-vis the epic Bush/Neocon lie machine.
yea, and he didn’t set the stage for the economic collapse by repealing the Glass steagal act that says banks should only handle money, mortgage houses should only handle loans and insurance companies should only handle insurance and all of it shouldnt be bundled and traded on Wall Street.
Justina wrote: “Since Graham is well known for meticulously keeping a diary on everything he does every day, including what he ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner, his statement about not being briefed on waterboarding and other tortures used against detainees has tremendous credibility.”
UNless he LIED! But a senator would never do that right?
Nancy Pelosi first said she was told that these techniques had been approved, but not used. That is a razor-thin difference. Surely she should have assumed they’d been approved so they could be used. The reason this has all gone on and nobody is investigating anything seriously or prosecuting anyone seriously is that they were all in on it. Anybody who thinks Pelosi or any other Democrat in the leadership (and I am one) is above this is extremely simple-minded.
Actually, I’m not in the leadership. A bit of bad writing. Sorry.
hard to believe that Pelousy, Hoaremon, Raid, and GreyHam all now are having the same selective alsheimer’s about their briefings.
either the GOP fabricated the memoranda about these briefs, or these top DEMS are lying to save their own butts.
far as I’m concerned, both are perfectly and totally plausible. I don’t trust the DEMS any more than I do the GOP scum, they’re both on the same page doing KabukiTheater as far as I’m concerned, and this is all a show to keep your eyes off the real ball, and that’s the new guy the Obombaton picked to head up ops in Afghanistan, who aided in the ‘cover up’ of the Pat Tillman murder by his own fellow soldiers.
people, wake up, will you? can’t you tell when you’re getting a whole lot of smoke blown up your rectums?
Good writing=) Hope to definitely come back soon:)
Neat site=) Hope to definitely come back soon.
For the best and hottest local strippers come visit http://strippers.corpchaos.com We have the best in Male and Female entertainment. If your a dancer and want to join us we are looking for girls from every where in the US.
1990 events developing reconstructions 2001 points
doi ces intensity occur number causes extinction total
i just purchased some prada sneakers online for my daughters bday. I hope that I’ll get them on time.
I found this funny video site with 2 original video’s up here are the teaser
” How to ruin somebodies wedding in 10 easy steeps”
” 10 Things you don’t want to do on your first date”
Check it out link is in my signature.
Hi
So, Subject – ap all american team football
What Do You think?
Hello,
Have You seen this schwetty balls
? What do You think?))