Rep. Harman Claims She Was Not ‘Fully Briefed’ On Secret Torture Memos

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/07/harman-not-fully-briefed/

Rep. Harman Claims She Was Not ‘Fully Briefed’ On Secret Torture Memos


In a press briefing this week, President Bush and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino claimed that members of Congress had been “fully briefed” on a classified CIA program that sanctioned the use of harsh interrogation techniques. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller disputed this claim on Friday. This morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she too was not briefed on the secret memos.

At a town hall meeting with the Democratic Club of Westside Progressives in Los Angeles yesterday afternoon, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was asked about her knowledge of the secret “torture memos” revealed this week by the New York Times. Like Rockefeller and Pelosi, Harman said she was not “fully briefed”:

We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.

At the time of the secret approval to the CIA in 2005, Rep. Harman was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the “Gang of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.

At the same town hall meeting, Harman revealed that an unidentified Republican member of Congress told her that if President Bush were to attack Iran, then even he would vote for impeachment.

– dday

This post was submitted through our Blog Fellows program. Make your own contribution — and get paid for it — by clicking here.

[aquart]

1. She wants sympathy for her lack of curiosity?

Show me the links to the articles where she spoke out about being stonewalled and given inadequate info for proper oversight. I know how hard it was for Democrats. But too often it looks like they made it easy for the Republicans to lie to them.

However, I don't know her so perhaps I'm judging too harshly. Who has better knowledge of her? Correct me.

[robinlynne]

2. She was a pro-war candidate. She shifted in 2006, when her seat was challenged

by a progressive candidate, and she now knows that her earlier right wing positions mean she will not stay in office. She now is listening more to her constituents, holding town halls, voting against the war, and standing up more for democratic ideals.
You can thank Marcy and progressive democrats of america for this change.
(and the moral of the story is that challenging right-wing dems can have wondrous results. Harman would not have spoken out like this pre- 2006 election.)

[Canuckistanian]

3. That's a good point

Harman hasn't exactly been a "whistleblower" on intelligence disclosures.

In fact, she's been damned near silent on the events of 2003 prior to the invasion.

[babylonsister]

4. I agree, if the Dems knew about these memos but weren't briefed, why

didn't they scream bloody murder to get their hands on them?

[Frances]

5. I don't like some of the Dems

but I don't know how they could have known that these secret memos existed, the key word being secret. As I understand it, someone leaked the memos to the New York Times and that's how the Dems found out about them.

[babylonsister]

6. Jane Harman and Pelosi both claimed they weren't 'fully' briefed; that

indicates to me they were partially briefed, and knew there was more they weren't being told about.

[Frances]

7. I don't have enough information to make an informed

argument.

For example: Does not fully briefed mean that they were briefed and they thought they had been told everything? And they found out later that info had been withheld?

[babylonsister]

8. You're right; that could also be. I'll shut up now.

:D :hide: