Fox News Channel "Your World" Interview - Transcript
Interview
Fox News Channel "Your World" Interview - Transcript
FOX NEWS CHANNEL "YOUR WORLD" INTERVIEW WITH REP. MIKE ROGERS
(R-MI)
INTERVIEWER: BRIAN SULLIVAN
SUBJECT: HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF CIA INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
MR. SULLIVAN: Was she there? And did she know? Conflicting reports on whether or not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually did attend CIA meetings in 2002 on enhanced interrogation techniques. This is making headlines because Pelosi just denied having any knowledge of waterboarding and that it was being used. Republican leaders want documents released to prove that she did know, including my next guest. Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers joins us now.
Congressman, welcome to "Your World." The Washington Post citing a meeting in 2002. Apparently everybody in the room, including Nancy Pelosi, was briefed extensively on what was being done, correct?
REP. ROGERS: Well, I mean, that's certainly what The Post is reporting. And I think this is an issue of credibility. And the speaker has been calling for the release of all of these documents, many of which a lot of us, including the intelligence community, said, be careful what you do here, you're going to expose risk to our agents and officers who are around the world doing really dangerous work.
And she's kind of overheated that rhetoric, I would argue, endangering, to some degree, our national security prospects around the world. And for her to not be fully disclosing -- did she, did she not, did she know about -- and understand that it was important for our national security when nobody was paying attention, and now the world can see she's changed her mind, this is important to credibility. If you're going to call for those people's heads on a platter, we need to understand fully what she knew, when she knew it. And it's an easy matter to do. And I just think for a credibility sake for the speaker, I think it's important that she step up and allow those documents to be made public.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. And again, Pelosi's office fighting back as well saying that she may have been briefed on the legal justifications for using it, right? She's maybe trying to play with the language a bit.
REP. ROGERS: Well, again, it comes down to credibility. Did she or didn't she and now the justifications? You know, there are lots of methods. I am on the Intelligence Committee. I'm a former FBI agent. There are lots of ways. If something happens, even in a closed session that the most sensitive material is presented and in the custody of the United States, there are ways and processes and procedures to change things, to get involved in things and to make a difference there.
This notion that maybe she knew on the justification or maybe she didn't know there -- nonsense. She either knew or didn't know. She was in that briefing and got briefed. Even if it was the justification side of it, she has some obligation if she believed that was wrong to do something more about it. And the problem was we were a nation at war. I think it was certainly overblown when it was secret. And now that some of these techniques are public -- I disagree with that for a whole bunch of reasons -- but now that they're public, people are saying, well, maybe we don't find it nearly as bad as we thought it was. She's changed her mind. I just don't think that's right.
MR. SULLIVAN: And Congressman, if The Washington Post story is wrong and she was not there and knew nothing, she should have no problem with these documents being released. Or is it still a national security risk to have the documents be released regardless?
REP. ROGERS: Well, certainly it should be released to those who can determine, did she get briefed and did she not? If this is the point of contention and moving forward, trying to go after these people who risked their lives to protect their country, this is an issue. Had we just said, we're moving forward, we need to move forward, we're going to change the rules here a little bit and move forward -- different story. But that's not what happened. They're trying to recreate history and, quite frankly, in the process of that, release documents very selectively in order to prove their point. That's just wrong. Again, they're trying to ask these people to come up to Congress and testify about when they knew what and what did they know.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, they're trying to build a case. We know that. The far left is trying to build a case against these people.
REP. ROGERS: Well, then we ought to understand what the speaker knew, when she knew it, just to have the credibility restored. And if she's right, great, then let's get that out on the table so that we can move forward on what we hope is productive. It's really not productive for the folks who are out there trying to catch spies, who are trying to get information for people who are trying to kill Americans --
(Cross talk.)
MR. SULLIVAN: -- viewed as legal at the time. That's what I don't even understand about the whole stench, regardless.
REP. ROGERS: Absolutely.
MR. SULLIVAN: Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan, we've got to leave it there, Congressman. But thank you so much.
REP. ROGERS: Okay, thanks, Brian.
END.
Source