(1)
Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002. Today he weighed in on last week’s controversy over whether Nancy Pelosi was or wasn’t briefed in September 2002 about the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah.

To recap, the CIA made some absurdly half-hearted assertions which essentially said: our records show that Pelosi was briefed that we were using waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah, but we cannot vouch for the reliability of those records.

Nancy Pelosi issued forceful denials. In the absence of any other evidence, most people whose opinion I respect were inclined to believe Pelosi. In part, this was because of the CIA’s totally bizarre position on the issue.

Bob Graham’s statement yesterday reinforces Pelosi’s denial. But let’s remember that it can hardly be considered an independent and disinterested confirmation. Graham has exactly the same incentives as Pelosi to misrepresent the truth, if he was indeed briefed about the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah. However, some of the details he furnishes clearly bolster the credibility of his claim.

With that caveat, here’s what Graham said:

Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me.

Graham’s assertion — his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied.

“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before.
[...]
The documents released late last week state that Graham, then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, were briefed on September 27, 2002 and given a “description of the particular EITs that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah. The document says that Pelosi received a similar briefing earlier that month, though the letter accompanying the doc acknowledges that the CIA can’t vouch for its accuracy.

Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it “highly unusual” for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. “I don’t recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present,” he said. “That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold” on the info.

(2)
Here’s some further absurdity from the CIA on the subject.

The CIA letter we learned about last week, which disclaimed responsibility for the accuracy of its records, starts:

This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques.

That “most thorough information”, though, only represents the “best recollections” of individuals, as recorded in MFRs (memorandums for the record) written well after the fact.

And here’s what the Washington Post reported last Saturday:

“I have every belief that either (Pelosi) or [Harman] were told waterboarding was going on. I have no doubt that the Democratic leadership on this committee in the House knew it was going on,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who has been the top Republican on the intelligence panel since fall 2004.

Hoekstra, who requested the history of agency briefings of members of Congress, is also seeking notes made by the CIA during each briefing, documents that he said last week include “a very precise accounting of the substance of each briefing.” He said those memos would detail “not only the specific information provided, but also the degree of bipartisan consensus that existed with respect to the programs in question.”

In a letter to Hoekstra, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the classified memos describing what was said at each briefing would be available at CIA headquarters for review by congressional staff, according to an agency official.

So this is how the CIA operates? When key members of Congress are briefed on politically explosive matters with respect to which the CIA is hyper-keen to cover its ass, detailed notes are made during each briefing which represent a very precise accounting of exactly what was said and the degree of bipartisan consensus that existed with respect to the subject of the briefing. But when it comes to dates, locations, names of the members of Congress who were briefed, the best information available is the unreliable later recollections of CIA personnel who were present.

Why would anyone find it ludicrous that the CIA is able to keep a straight face as it says: “Hey, we know exactly what we said; we’re just not sure who we said it to, when or where. But we do know exactly what degree of bipartisan consensus these unknown attendees displayed.”