When Pelosi first addressed the question in late April, she said only that those present at her 2002 briefing were not told that the practice had been employed.
"We were not — I repeat, were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.
Then, when the records and recollections of others seemed to contradict her, she "clarified" her statement:
Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.Now, it's that mean 'ol CIA that is at fault:
On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.So you see...it's not her fault. Apparently, either the CIA lied by omission ("We were not told..."), or by comission ("explicitly telling her...")
But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.
"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part," Pelosi said.
So...if she didn't know anything about waterboarding, then why would she be trying to "change the policy"? After all, doesn't one have to know about a policy in order for one to set about changing it? If she is telling the truth about the CIA explicitly telling her waterboarding was not used, then just what policy was she trying to change?