There’s a theory over at EW’s place I find persuasive to the effect that the Jane/Nancy thing didn’t come from the Rs, but from the same CIA element that got the NIE leaked. In other words, by exposing the dirt on the D’s, the spooks have removed the thing that Team Dick had hanging over the D’s heads. So now the D’s are freer to do the right thing than before. I guess until we, in disgust, replace them with better D’s at the soonest opportunity.

Hate to say it, but I found the theory very farfetched. One of the sources in the WashPo interview was Porter Goss, who served as the Republican Representative to the House Intelligence Committee…AND was the CIA Director when the tapes of the “interrogations” and other treatment of the detainees were destroyed. Goss was all over Pelosi…and I can guarantee you that he wasn’t one of those that had anything to do with the NIE. The phrasing by the authors of the Wash Po piece also cite an unnamed Congressional source who “was familiar with Pelosi’s views” who provided fairly detailed information about what she said and did at that that briefing.
The article didn’t say that this source was a “Democrat” or a “staffer”…so it could have been Goss, once again (making it appear that there are two individuals when in fact it was simply his “on the record” vs. his “off the record” responses).

But even if it wasn’t Goss, there is nothing that prevents it from being a Republican. And THAT source definitely isn’t a CIA source.

There is, parsimoniously, only one CIA official in that article. And that individual is most likely someone who was tasked to brief her. That could have been the formulator of the “interrogation policy”, or someone involved in the “interrogation”. This source is the critical “corroborator” of the “off the record” material…once again stating what was shown to Pelosi and Pelosi’s lack of concern expressed “at that time” (at the briefing). I suspect it was someone who crafted the policy as any actual interrogators would seem to be abroad.

That’s another reason why I don’t think that it was the same crowd that leaked the NIE. Steven Kappes was apparently opposed to the interrogation procedures and was asked by Goss, when he became director to fire a number of those in the Operations Division who were not “tough enough” against al Qaida. One of these was Deputy Director of Operations Robert Grenier, who was opposed to both the use of torture and Gitmo. When Kappes wouldn’t fire Grenier, Goss asked Kappes for his resignation…appointing Jose “Jack Bauer” Rodriguez (the one being fingered for the unauthorized destruction of the tapes) as his replacement.

So there is likely to be no love lost between Kappes and Goss. And Kappes, or another of his supporters, who might be involved in the leak of the NIE, would seem to be a different bunch than the ones who leaked the dirt on Pelosi. Essentially Pelosi is now in a position of being labeled a hypocrite if she opposes the continued use of waterboarding (”she was for it before she was against it”) which is perfect for someone who wants to MAINTAIN the BushCo policy. I don’t see how it helps at all the case for getting it banned.

After all, if one “releases” the information used to “blackmail” and it relates directly to the issue at hand then it diminishes the ability of the blackmailed individual to conceal that contradiction. And if Pelosi was actually keeping impeachment “off the table” because she was somewhat culpable in the torture policy…then how does this release actually “open up” impeachment. Rather it narrows the window even further. How can “torture” be a one of the Charges of Impeachment ? Because the leaders of both Houses of Congress “approved” of it.

Here is a reference to an article on this ABC interview. But further googling shows that the guy is an actor, etc.

Anyone got an impression and/or some better information on this stuff? Something is rather wierd here.

You may have picked up on his association with Paramount, who hired him as an advisor on “The Kite Runner”. He apparently went back to Afghanistan where he served b/w 1998-2004 to find out the social impact the film might have on the people and the kids, in particular. He came back with a none too positive assessment.

But if he wasn’t a former CIA agent then I’m sure someone would have made a statement about it. He’s been critical about Bush policy in a number of interviews.

But it strongly suggests that the “interrogation” of Abu Zubaydeh in 2002 took place in Afghanistan, rather than Gitmo or elsewhere.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14418/kiriakou.html

Hmmm.

After querying former intelligence officers and reviewing the letter from the U.S. Attorney’s in Richmond, Virginia, I can clarify some issues surrounding what’s what with respect to the question of the “destruction” of interrogation tapes and speculate on others.

For starters tt appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations. That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.

(Maybe I should actually use the Preview…)