Gregory: She either wasn't fully apprised personally of what was happening or she decided not to push back so that's the reality of the public record that we have so far. Now maybe if we go down this road maybe we will learn more, maybe we'll get a fuller accounting of what was contained in that briefing but what you've got right now are other people who were there..Republicans who were there saying look it was clear as day what they were asking for and what they were already doing.
Porter Goss says Pelosi should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." But he doesn't say she should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed had already been employed." Which is a critical part of her complaint--that CIA did not tell Congress that waterboarding and other techniques "were used" ... that "they were using that." This briefing is always described as occurring in "fall 2002." Even interpreting "fall" broadly to include all of September, that means the briefing took place after they had already waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in a month.
So whether or not Pelosi is arguing "waterboarding" was mentioned or not, even Goss appears to confirm one of Pelosi's main points. The CIA did not reveal this was already taking place. Even Goss' understanding, they revealed only that waterboarding "was to be employee' -- in the future.
Gregory: In 2002 there were no Democrats who were willing to stand up to the White House. Even Republicans - some Republicans I've spoken to who are sympathetic to the criticism about the treatment of these detainees say we know everything we need to know about what happened. There's nothing more that we actually need to discover...lets just move on.
Carlos: Hey David even though the Obama White House would rather this not be the conversation what in your mind would be one or several tipping points that would move this towards a full investigation where we spend a summer like we did back in the late 80s talking about the Oliver North hearings. What might lead to that scenario in your mind?
Gregory: How about nothing. How about if the White House has ....Look if the White House has the kind of political capital that it appears to have they're going to make it clear that they do not want this to be the discussion. They've got a lot of other things they want to talk about...
...but it's also beneficial in trying to find out what's going on...but just think we wouldn't have this discussion if we had just followed the law. Our law prohibits torture as well as international law. But the fact that this discussion is here and who said what is good. I have no idea who is telling the truth but I know it's very good for the country to get to the bottom of it.
You're right, maybe this will not lead to getting to the bottom of it because the administration is not all that interested in prosecuting the people who broke the law.