Pelosi's Deeper Problems

Yesterday, I wrote this post regarding House Democratic Speaker Frisco Nan's lies regarding her awareness of the methods American CIA interrogators were using to pry information from high-value terrorists.

I simply wrote,

"But perhaps the best unexpected consequence came when Frisco Nan began telling tall tales in an attempt to distance herself from the mess.

You see, some years ago, upon gaining membership in the House Intelligence oversight committee, Nan, along with others, was briefed on, and concurred with the CIA's methods. Other House members, including then-member, later CIA Director, Porter Goss, have corroborated the stories that Frisco Nan was present, understood the methods were being used, and even asked if they went far enough.

Nan, on the other hand, went on record this week claiming that she never realized these methods were actually being applied. In turns of phrase that have been described as "Clintonian" in their opacity, shifts of timeframe and tense, Nan has attempted to claim she 'knew nothing,' in order to avoid being caught in the net with which she herself is trying to ensnare well-meaning Bush officials in the Justice Department."

But then I viewed Glenn Beck's Friday Fox News program today, and realized the situation is both much simpler and, for Nan, much stickier.

I was just considering that others could contradict Frisco Nan's contentions that:

-She didn't know the methods were being or would be used, only that they might be used.
-Anyway, the briefings were not seeking comment, permission or response, only outlining the methods, as if no input were welcome or required.

But Beck and one of his guests pointed out how much worse this mess is for Nan. And for a very simple reason that escaped me yesterday when I wrote that post.

There must be minutes of the Congressional briefings. If Frisco Nan objected to these methods, upon hearing them described, in whatever context, surely she must be on record as having said something like,

'Well, whether you ever actually do these things or not, as a member of Congress, I want to go on record as stating my objections to them.'

Or,

'As I understand this briefing, we are not being asked permission or to give a response to these methods, but, as a member of Congress, just let me go on record as objecting to these methods.'

Failure to produce such documented objections, on the record at the time, effectively will prove Frisco Nan is lying now, when she claims to have: not known about the methods, or that they were actually in use, or that Congressional feedback was sought.

Very black and white, if you will. Either Nan objected, on the record, or she did not. She can't have it both ways.

And, if briefed, and she did not object, then she is in the same position as those Bush administration officials whom she seeks to put on trial.

Really, this woman is not very intelligent, if she could not see this coming as a result of her attacks and push for show trials. And I do think that's the truth. She's not intelligent.

She's purely politically motivated, evil, and way, way out of her depth.

As Beck contends, and I suggested in yesterday's post, this could well blow up into career-altering proportions. But, then, it wouldn't be the first time a Democratic Speaker had done this, would it? Anyone recall Carl Albert, Jim Wright, or Dan Rostenkowski?