Reply #3: I remember after that interview between Pelosi and Racheal

[RandomThoughts]

I said I thought Pelosi was credible. Interestingly a part of this clip is questioning that interview. My thoughts is that in a sit down with the Bush administration(or through correspondence), the plans and ideas of what were legal were discussed with some in congress. So they were aware that the administration thought, or created a defense to be able to do what they wanted to do. Opponents in such a conversation could say they do not think the 'arguments' for torture are credible, but would not have direct information on the actions implementations. However it is reasonable that they could have thought Bush Administration might use them, but did not have the direct information to show they were being used if they did make the items public.

It is obvious that at some later point it makes sense that congress would have known some of it was going on. For instance after Abu Grabi, anyone that knows of the techniques described would see they matched methods in the leaked photos.

However, the ways in which the Bush administration held contempt for congress, or anyone on on the democratic side, gives a plausible argument, that once they said what there position on what they thought they could do, (the argument that they could do it), they would not say they were doing it, even if it was suspected.

Bush and Cheney were not known for sharing any information, nor volunteering information on things they were doing. Especially with people they considered political opponents. So it makes sense that once they said what they thought they could do, they would not volunteer details on what they were actually doing.

If they did, it would be to provide cover by being able to claim mutual culpability. But they would not need to have shared info to make that claim. They could just do what they always did, using the same techniques of 'saying whatever they want regardless of truth'. They could always make claims of culpability without the reality of culpability.

I figure some in congress knew, but were never told in a way that was official, so they could not make the argument to the public or in congress to try and stop it without a political roasting by the other side. If someone spoke out, Bush/Cheney could show that those talking did not have details of use, or proof, Hence the reason for them not being told details of the use, only the argument for use.