Here’s my favorite section from Nancy’s press conference yesterday:

They mislead us all the time. I was busy fighting the war in Iraq at that time too, you know.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has violated the foremost rule of public relations: Nancy has made Nancy the story. First in our round-up of Nancy’s screwball P.R. mess is Steny Hoyer, who’s well-known not to be a dear friend to dear Speaker:

Hoyer questions Pelosi’s CIA charge,” from’s Glenn Thrush:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) isn’t exactly rushing to support Nancy Pelosi’s claim she was “misled” by CIA officials during a 2002 intel briefing on waterboarding.

Hoyer — a polished floor debater — was drawn into an extended exchange with Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on the issue this afternoon and said he didn’t have enough information on the briefings to draw a conclusion — and wasn’t inclined to doubt the CIA anyway. […]

[Hoyer on the CIA] “I have no idea of that, don’t have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. And I certainly hope that’s not the case. I don’t draw that conclusion.


Nancy Pelosi draws fire over CIA claim,” from’s Glenn Thrush:

[…] “The only mention of waterboarding in the briefing was that it was not being employed,” Pelosi said during a press briefing. The California Democrat said that the CIA briefers had given her “inaccurate and incomplete information.” Asked whether they’d “lied” to her, Pelosi nodded her head yes.

The Republican pushback came quickly.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, called Pelosi’s account “Version 5.0 from Nancy on what happened in that September meeting.”

Writing in POLITICO’s Arena forum, former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino said Pelosi had succeeded only in raising more questions.

“Is she suggesting that career government officials, those very CIA briefers, are the ones that ‘lied’ to her? What would have been their motivation for lying to her but others who got the same briefing not being lied to? Why does she suggest she was powerless?” Perino wrote.

A CIA spokesman said it is “not the policy of the CIA to mislead the United States Congress.” (Read more.)

Sean Hannity on Nancy’s varying stories:

Writes John for Powerline:

As the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza notes, Pelosi “would not have held this sort of press conference unless she and her inner circle believed that she was losing altitude — politically — on the issue.” But it seems clear that she has now gone too far. The matter cannot be left to rest with her assertion that the CIA “lied” to her and “misled the Congress of the United States.” The Agency will have to respond. And already, Republicans Pete Hoekstra and John Boehner have called on the CIA to release the Agency’s detailed notes on its briefings of Congress to Hoekstra as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

I don’t suppose anyone imagines that the CIA was foolish enough to lie to Pelosi and others about the use of waterboarding. On the contrary, it seems obvious that everyone in the chain of command was covering himself or herself by disseminating information about the harsh interrogations of three al Qaeda leaders. Pelosi has now opened the lid on a box that she will not be able to close. The CIA has no choice but to defend itself by demonstrating that she, not the Agency, is lying. Possibly Leon Panetta can save her, but at the moment, it is hard to see how this affair can end with Pelosi remaining as Speaker of the House.

Then there’s Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post, “The Torture Debate, Continued.” It’s notable that Krauthammer is a psychiatrist as well as a writer:


My column also pointed out the contemptible hypocrisy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is feigning outrage now about techniques that she knew about and did nothing to stop at the time.

My critics say: So what if Pelosi is a hypocrite? Her behavior doesn’t change the truth about torture.

But it does. The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important.

Our jurisprudence has the “reasonable man” standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.

On the morality of waterboarding and other “torture,” Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.

Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate’s Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider “transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies” (i.e., those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals.

So what happened? The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly reelected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions — our blindness to al-Qaeda’s plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama’s own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed “high-value information” — and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat.

And they were right.

You can believe that Pelosi and the American public underwent a radical transformation from moral normality to complicity with war criminality back to normality. Or you can believe that their personalities and moral compasses have remained steady throughout the years, but changes in circumstances (threat, knowledge, imminence) alter the moral calculus attached to any interrogation technique.

You don’t need a psychiatrist to tell you which of these theories is utterly fantastical.

  • Pingback: Michael Pflegers Amazing Journey » Blog Archive » Quick scan of the net - michael pfleger()

  • rickrickrick

    Pelosi needs to step down. She needs to hold herself to the same standards she holds others to. She is a BOLD FACE LIAR who has been exposed. There is nothing she can do to regain what little respect she had. The mere sight of her makes me want to hurl.But I am enjoying watching her squirm. Go AWAY NANCY.

  • j, there might have been a time i’d agree with your views but i have NO TRUST, NONE, ZIP, NADA IN THE DIMOCRATS TO DO ANYTHING THE RIGHT WAY MUCH LESS AN INVESTIGATION. give me a break, they’d totally fxxx it up.

  • J

    There are a lot of scumbags in the CIA. Why are we to believe the CIA documents released that are based on the “best recollections” of those meetings?

    The CIA was basically taken over by Cheney and the Bush adminstration. They drove a lot of good people out of the CIA.

    There is mounting evidence that they proceeded with harsh/torture techniques before any meetings with congress ever took place and in the 2002 meetings they did not specifically talk about what techniques were being used. I would tend to believe Pelosi way before a Cheney tainted CIA. For sure they tried to be very vague about revealing to Democratic law makers what they were actually doing.

    It makes complete sense that the Cheney tainted CIA would keep it hidden, at least in the beginning, as to what they were actually doing.

    Bob Graham is also now saing that he was not informed about any of these techniques and that the CIA provided him with false information.

    All of this is now pointing for the need to having a special council or a commission to look into all of this.

    The biggest BS is that it is now apparent that the real purpose of the torture was to try and get their victims to admit that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which would mean that torture was done for pure political reasons by Cheney and not for protecting the nation.


  • warehouse553

    Hillary must be really enjoying what is happening to that backstabber Pelosi. My only concern is that if Hoyer becomes Speaker, then that racist race baiting Clyburn becomes Majority Leader. I hope she declines to resign. Her presence may weaken the Democrat Party in 2010.

    • well warehouse, don’t look for clyburn to be a real “leader”. it isn’t in him. he is no wheeler/dealer type of guy who can take the blue dogs and leftists and get them to work together. in other words he is WEAK.

    • KmX

      LOl You should be happy if CLyburn becomes Majority Leader. He too wil have to resign because his racist blunders will be cause for alarm.

      THis is what happens when Democrats are not use to media scrutiny. Now that they are getting , they have no clue how to act under pressure. Hillary CLinton is brilliant. She let Nancy Pelosi made her own bed. hehehe

      Nancy Pelosi is yet to get the Sarah Palin treatment from the misoginyst liberal media men. The men always try to bring the women down.

      Anyone notice how MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS is going after Miss California who can’t even run for an elected office. But Marion Barry, John Kerry, President Obama and many other elected office holders who can impact gay rights, the media is leaving alone.

      Nancy Pelosi is toxic!!!!!

      • kmx, based on what you say, the media and pols will take their ire out on pelosi and the men will join in. not that she doesn’t deserve it. there is a special place in hexx for people like her who who no concern about anyone but themselves. she’d gut the cia and destroy the lives of countless innocent people to try and save her sorry self. we’d be lucky to get rid of her before she does anymore harm.

  • CG

    I have never liked Nancy Pelosi, never. I have been furious with her over so many, many things, like keeping impeachment off the table, ignoring serious and important issues regarding the economy and wars, merely because it might derail the nomination and election of Barack Obama; then her behavior in the primary regarding Clinton, then her behavior at the convention in Denver; then her comments against Clinton supporters when her book was released; and then when the subject of Hillary putting 18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling, Pelosi shot back that she broke the hardest and highest ceiling, the marble one. She is arrogant. And what about traveling privileges, legally at taxpayers expense, but over the top and leaving a huge carbon footprint. She has always been a politician, and a liar (but she is not alone – hard to name any politician who isn’t a liar). Pelosi is a despicable hypocrite… But listen to the Hannity video again, take Pelosi out of it, and listen to the lies and misinformation about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation, what these gentlemen are saying conflicts with the testimony of those who were involved in the interrogations, and who should ultimately be held accountable. We seem to be looking the other way because Nancy is an ass. Here is the Hannity transcript with bold face for emphasis and my comments in italics. Note: Everyone, Cheney, Boehner, Hoekstra, Bond and Pelosi, keeps saying release the documents, so let’s release the documents…

    REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MICH.): Well, I think it’s very obvious that what the speaker wants to do is she wants a mulligan. She wants a do-over. She knows that what she did in 2002, she’s now trying to rewrite history, say that she wasn’t informed, that she didn’t approve of this and that today she believes that waterboarding and the enhanced interrogation techniques were totally wrong. You know there’s lots of privileges to being speaker of the House. Rewriting history isn’t one of them.

    HANNITY: All right, Senator, your take on this. Do you think that the speaker of the House was, in fact, telling the truth?

    SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO.): Sean, it seems like the liberal Democrats for a while, they were trying to stab the CIA in the back. But Cheney and company did not when they outed Valerie Plame? Now they’re calling them liars to their face, and — well, I was not in on the briefing, but I have reviewed the notes that the CIA took contemporaneously. What they plan to say, what they did say. And it’s clear that they briefed her extensively on what had been done and what they were doing and included in those enhanced techniques was waterboarding.

    HANNITY: All right. Well, let’s talk about what the alternatives are, Congressman, because I think this is really important because we know that there is politics being played here and we’re playing politics with our national security, because she is insisting and Democrats are trying to make the case that this is a crime. But Eric Holder is obviously political and certainly she’s in control of all the congressional committees. So the question is, what are the alternatives to help get to the truth? Do you think this is a case for a special counsel? Congressman?

    HOEKSTRA: Well, I don’t think that this is a case for a special counsel, not at this point. You know I think this is where we hold Congress accountable first. Really? What about those who ordered the enhanced interrogations? Let’s get the documents released publicly that are the contemporaneous notes that were taken by people who were in the meetings. Let’s get the e-mails, the documentation of the preparation before the meetings that the CIA put together so that I think we can get a very clear picture of exactly what happened in these meetings because, you know, where they’re trying to put the blame, they’re trying to put the blame on the front line at the CIA. They’re trying to put the blame at the attorneys, at the Justice Department, and in reality, Congress, Republicans and Democrats, were part and parcel of putting this program in place because they recognize it was important to keep America safe. And you know what? The strategy worked.

    HANNITY: Well — and that’s the point but we found out earlier today, Senator, that in fact they’re not going to release the success of the enhancement interrogation program as has been requested by the former vice president, Dick Cheney. So they’re not telling the American people the full story. Is there a chance that they’ll ultimately end up and capitulate and release that information?

    BOND: I think this cherry picking has gone on too far. Yeah, like the cherry picking of intelligence to go to war with Iraq, and the torturing of people to make them lie to say that Saddam was in league with al Queda and that there were weapons of mass destruction. It — we have been told frequently that they got about half of the active and usable and human intelligence that they had on Al Qaeda from using these enhanced interrogation techniques. And even the current director of National Intelligence, Denny Blair, when he sent a letter to the intelligence community, he commended them on their efforts and said that they had — that these interrogations had provided very valuable information, but when that was released, somehow the White House took out his statement saying that they had been provided vital information and when I went through — I went through the script that was used for the briefing and it laid out at the time the kind of information that had been developed as a result of these enhanced interrogation techniques. And they did stop attacks in the United States and elsewhere. Release the documents, I want some verifiable proof of those assertions.

    HANNITY: Yes.

    BOND: … according to the notes of the CIA and I think it is absolutely deplorable to call to say that the CIA is lying when we have an oversight responsibility and we need to exercise that to find out precisely what went on, and I hope we can produce a report in our committee and I assume that Pete Hoekstra will want the House committee to make a report as well to the American people.

    HANNITY: Well, what about this, Congressman? What about a special counsel? What about having a grand jury? What about her, you know, in the spirit of getting to the truth, she could waive her congressional immunity? What about her swearing under oath what she knew, when she knew it? She can go through her conflicting statements that we have gone through here and get to the bottom line. We have one, two, three — well, first of all, two CIA directors, we’ve got a former vice president and others, our own counsel, Peter Goss. They’re all saying that what — that she was fully informed. Why not have her under oath finally get to the truth for the American people? And please, let’s get Dick Cheney, George W., Rumsfeld and Condi Rice to waive their immunity and testify under oath!!

    HOEKSTRA: Well, I think you’re absolutely right, that if we’re going to have oversight hearings in Congress or whether, you know, we go to a special counsel, I think that may be a little early going to that step and that far in the process, but I absolutely agree that the first witness that we should have should be members of Congress and right now that means that we should start with Speaker Pelosi. Then we should go through the other people that were briefed through the 40 other hearings. We’re not talking about two or three briefings. We are talking a period of briefings over six years with 40 different, separate briefings having taken place. Let’s bring that in. Let’s start with Congress before we go to the Justice Department and the CIA. This speaker has now said, you know, we’re going to prosecute people in the Justice Department, at the CIA. She’s now calling them liars. I mean what — the other we got to focus on here, Sean, is what we’re doing to the morale within the CIA and the intelligence community. So Cheney and Bush did not destroy the morale within the CIA? We are damaging the morale. We are hurting our national security by this debate going on.

    HANNITY: All right. Let me ask you this last question here. By specifically cherry-picking and informing America’s enemies of the techniques that we have used and not telling the American people how effective it has been in terms of our national security and saving lives, are we emboldening our enemies? Are we weakening our national security? I mean because this is a really serious charge. Congressman?

    HOEKSTRA: I think that what our enemies see today is they see weakness. As I take a look at al Qaeda, radical jihadists, what these folks understand, they understand strength. What they see from America today, I believe, is weakness. I do believe it emboldens them. Is this a crock or what, does this even make any sense? So radical jihadists are emboldened when we are weak, hmm, were we strong or weak when we invaded Iraq, when we tortured for lies? Honestly, radical jihadists are not selective, they are emboldened all the time, aren’t they?

    HANNITY: Senator? Last word for you today.

    BOND: Very clearly what the opinions that were released shows and will tell leaders of Al Qaeda, anybody else who’s an enemy of the United States, don’t worry if you get held or captured because what they do to you, the so-called techniques, is no worse than what we do to our military volunteers who go into the Marines, the SEALs, or pilot training. And they know that they don’t have to talk and what this has done, as Pete has said, is put the CIA in a CYA mode. That’s where they were before 9/11 and we are going to suffer because the intelligence community cannot trust Congress or their critics if they go out and do what they need to do to get the information to keep us safe. So Ali Soufan and others are wrong, the only way we can get the information to keep us safe is to torture with enhanced interrogations?

  • mel

    What has Obama successfully done throughout his political life, one thing, cause diversions in order to achieve alter motives!

    Case in point, the attacks on Hillary calling her a racist before the SC primary. Then drawing all attention to Palin with lies during the fall election!

    Objective, to take the WH!

    What has Odumbo done since, well:

    Insulted a great allie in Britain when the PM visited here, not even givig a worthy gift and cancelling joint press conference.

    Throws the country ito the biggest and most dangerous of borrowings with the heaviest of debts, forcing GM and Chrysler to follw Stalinist orders, yet giving banks free rides with massive money injections with no real stings attached.

    Apologized to everyone at the G20 sumit for the past actions of the US.

    Greets most G20 leaders with a who cares attitude, but bows to the head of Saudi!

    Releases sensative documents on waterboarding that fuels US hatred by Muslins.

    Meets with Leaders of America and seeks out the worst of worst, Chavez to attempt a friendship with!

    WH fly over of NYC by Air Force One and F-16 fighter.

    Sneaks biggest budget through congress to further bankrupt the country.

    Demands catholic religious items be covered at Georgetown U to make a speech there.

    Accepts to speak at a holy Muslin shrine.

    Releases photos of Iraq and Afgan prisoner tortures, before going opps and not allowing other photos released.

    Connect all the dots, look past Pelosi to the big picture and ask yourself what iis Odumbo doing and his alter motive really about?

  • Old Russian saying…You can tell same lie 1000 times but not change truth!

    Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”

    In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.
    In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..
    …..eventually they become same thing?!

    I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at

  • postmaster

    and you, Ms. Pelosi have never misled anyone? Good grief, woman, shut up while you can. For all of the lying politicians, you are by far the least believable, well, you and Barney.

  • madamsecretaryofstatehrc

    When the Obots are out inforce you know they are hurting.

    Can you imagine this woman deciding to call CIA liars? Interesting!!!

    Round one….CIA. Round two….CIA. I can’t wait for round three.

    Three rounds (strikes) and she is …….???

    • Doc99

      How long before Pelosi shifts the blame to Botox overload?

    • postmaster

      out? we should be so lucky!

  • ziggy

    The whole business about what Pelosi might have known is a political side-show. What the people desperately trying to keep the media focused on Pelosi realize is that moment this stops being about Pelosi, it’s all going to hit the fan.

    • ziggy

      …is that the moment this stops…

    • J

      You are exactly right….. who cares what Pelosi knew and did not know… the issue is that people in the Bush adminstration were breaking the law… and that is all that counts. period full stop.

      This Republican strategy to try and some how bring Pelosi into this is all an effort to take the focus off them… it will come back to haunt them as more and more of the public now wants a full inquiry…

      the biggest tragedy is that as more information is coming out it is possible that the only reason torture was used was to try and force dubious people to some how say that Al-Qaeda was link to Saddam to try and justify the Iraq war. Torture may have been used by Cheney for only political reasons…. which is unbelievable… and a true crime. Cheney should go to jail.

  • rancho
  • J_Gocht

    Despite all these political machinations in an attempt to define supposed obfuscation by another politician… I still must agree with Mr. Hoyer…

    “And I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done.” ~ Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

    I concur; let’s get down to the actual performance of skullduggery, rather than the fact it may have been disclosed to a certain politician on a date, uncertain…!

    Then yesterday; we learned from Colonel Wilkerson…

    ” –that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering “the Cheney methods of interrogation, simply shutdown.” [Five years ago?]

    The hell you say…it sure hasn’t been Cheney’s EIT’s keepin’ us safe then, has it?

    We’re talkin’ about some very serious “smoke blowin” on the part of olde Deadeye Dick…during that interview on CBS Sunday!

    A politician obfuscate, no way Jose…!

  • Doc99

    Krauthammer: Nancy Pelosi is now at war with the CIA.

    • Doc99

      WHoops … forgot the Link.

  • Al

    Nancy, Nancy, Nancy…there there now, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

  • candymarl

    Ms. Pelosi was busy fighting the war in Iraq? She was over in Iraq dodging bullets and roadside bombs? Who knew?

    • Turning to port aka TeakwoodKite

      No candymarl, I took it to mean she gave a speech that she had to recreate, ’cause no one can in which she was fighting against the Iraq war.

      Once Nancy became Speaker, Harmon was toast because she actually did write a letter of complaint titled “The Potomac Two Step”.
      Pelosi is a gutless wonder as a person and her ascension to her current “predicament” is borne of a strange confluence of self interest and fear.

  • J_Gocht

    Why again should Pelosi go…?

    CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate

    ‘…Where and what is the proof that “enhanced interrogation” really worked.”

    That would be nice, who yah gonna trust?

    • Benjamin

      Panetta’s letter is only a fancy way of saying that the documents would not be admissible in court unless there is witness testimony to corroborate the information.

      In Pelosi’s situation there is some documentary evidence, and there is a witness, Porter Goss, who can vouch for the information.

    • Turning to port aka TeakwoodKite

      Ok … I will bite….(reading link)…

      The pdf letter reveals nothing, other than the fact that Penatta is covering his ass. Basic rubber-necking politics.

  • Diana L. C.

    Pelosi needs to go! She’s under the bus and she deserves to be there–just as many of other O’s major stooges are. But only when the “straight man” is there will I be happy.

    The thing I do want is to get over this stupid argument and get to the real one. Where and what is the proof that “enhanced interrogation” really worked.

  • J_Gocht

    Senator Bob Graham…

    “[T]he whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question” — giving credence to Pelosi’s claims that she was given faulty information.
    “The irony,” said Graham, “is that the whole series of events in late September of ’02 were concurrent with the CIA’s release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn’t move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, ‘a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud’ kind of argument.”


    • Benjamin

      Everywhere I go, bots are trotting out old Bob Graham, but I’m afraid this isn’t going to help Pelosi.

      She has already admitted that she was informed about waterboarding as a result of the Feb.03 briefing. As to the Sep. 02 briefing, there is the testimony of Porter Goss who was there.

      • Turning to port aka TeakwoodKite

        Benjamin, Bob is that accounting temp, no?

        I read his book. It does not quite square with the quote above.

  • Anon

    I gotta confess. Watching this play out is just more than fun. I want to see another press conference. That was hot yesterday!

    • Benjamin

      I want someone to ask old Barry – the guy who is pulling all the strings here – what he things about his friend, Nancy. If he was honest, what would he say?

      OBAMA: If the CIA memos I’ve released have caused any problems for Speaker Pelosi then I sincerely regret it. She might be damaged somewhat but I think she’ll be fine as a much weaker Speaker.

      As you all know, I’m opposed to any truth telling or fact-finding concerning this very important, explosive issue. However, now that everybody is frustrated and angry, I really feel that we need to move on and not dwell on the past, so I can be above the fray.

      I’m sorry if the Democrats are frustrated and confused by my actions and are angry because there will be no investigations, prosecutions or public hangings. I’m also sorry if the Republicans feel like they’ve been publicly branded as war criminals.

      Have a nice day.

    • stock up on popcorn..gonna get even

  • Strawberry

    Interesting. When the whole Valerie Plame fiasco came to light, the CIA and the Democrats were BFF….my how times have changed.

  • centerground

    What didn’t Nancy know and when didn’t she know it?

    • jbjd


  • Tom Cat “wodie j” Jefferson Esq

    Pelosi, don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya…….

    Agree or not, Krauthhammer explains the reasoning for the enhanced interrogations better than anyone has so far.

    • Agree or not, Krauthhammer explains the reasoning for the enhanced interrogations better than anyone has so far.

      In what way? Krauthammer repeats the conventional wisdom opinion of every torture apologist I’ve heard and read so far — which is, by the way, strkingly similar to the rationale used by the Argentine military when they threw political opponents out of airplanes and “disappeared” tens of thousands of their own people. Actually, you can fill in the blank – Germany after World War I, Honduras, Uganda, Chile, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, Burma, Salem during the witch burning frenzy, Europe during the Inquisition…it’s amazing how easy it is to rationalize sadism and inhumanity in pursuit of “protecting the homeland/faith/fill in the blank”.

      • Tom Cat “wodiej” Jefferson Esq

        Your argument has no merit on this one as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps if one of your loved ones had fallen out of one of the twin towers or was burned to death on 9/11, you would not be so sympathetic towards the real sadists, terrorists.

  • beebop

    zero doesn’t do drama. she’s a dead duck.

    • Benjamin

      No – he just CREATES the drama, like he did in this situation, and then stands back.

  • if this gets that insufferable pelosi out the door, i say full steam ahead. get her sorry arse gone. she is a danger to the american people. think back to her “speech” before the first tarp vote. she is an idiot.

  • John Smith

    This is just a big distraction from the 3.6 T budget that congress is about to pass. Sure Nancy might go down when this is done but that won’t help us at all when the US gov will have to raise taxes dramatically to keep up with the interest payments and at the same time gas will be at $4 a gallon again.

    • Mamatx

      $4 a gallon gas will be a bargain when Obama’s cap and trade and energy policies are instituted. Within 4 years, this country will be completely bankrupted. You can’t borrow $.50 for every $1.00 you spend and impose confiscatory taxes on all businesses and produce a sustainable economy.

      But Pelosi is toast. She is either a liar or an incompetent hypocrite.

      • Docelder

        $4 a gallon gas will be a bargain when Obama’s cap and trade and energy policies are instituted.

        In that scheme, the energy component of it is secondary. This scheme could well be about anything really and turn out the same way, because it isn’t about the carbon. It is about income redistribution. The “sacred cow” status of carbon is just a cover for it.

    • you are so clever to see thru this sleigh of hand..
      i did too..don’t look here look over there.
      we are going to hoodwink and bamboozle you.

  • Hit_Escape

    Sen. Bob Graham proved the CIA made-up two dates where they said he had been briefed. The CIA conceded that their own dates were incorrect. Jay Rockefeller showed they tried to pull the same stunt on him. What makes you so sure that they aren’t lying about what they told Pelosi. Rewind the clock a few years and you’ll get Barry Goldwater telling you that the CIA lied to him about mining in a Nicaraguan harbor. I smell a CIA doing CYA for themselves.

    • Benjamin

      The Graham “bombshell” sounds kind of silly.

      “When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held,” Graham recalled. “And they contacted me and gave me four dates — two in April ’02 and two in September ’02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002.”

      The way I read this, on three of the dates Graham showed up but no briefing occurred. The CIA agreed with his finding. What Graham doesn’t tell us is whether CIA records say that was briefed when no actual brief occurred.

    • J_Gocht

      “And I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done.” ~ Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

      “In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency’s records on these briefings


      Now, if Barry Goldwater was still kicking, he might be more than tickled to remind the public again today; that he was also given a bag of tomato fertilizer, at an earlier time concerning obfuscations fed to him, over the mining of Nicaraguan harbors…

      Funny how that happens, from time to time…?

    • jbjd

      What we absolutely know is this. 1) NP said in 2009, the CIA informed her in 2002, when she was ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the Justice Department opined, waterboarding as a means of eliciting information from enemy combatants is legal. 2) NP said in 2009, she learned from her staffer in February 2003 that the CIA was using waterboarding. 3)NP said in 2009, Representative Harmon, then ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to the CIA in 2003 objecting to the use of waterboarding. 4) NP said in 2009, she has always objected to the use of waterboarding. 5) NP said in 2009, the reason she did not write a letter to the CIA in 2003 objecting to the use of waterboarding is that, she was not the ranking minority member of the Committee. 6)NP did not write a letter to the CIA objecting to the use of waterboarding in 2002 when she was ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee and the CIA informed her that the Justice Department had opined waterboarding was legal.

      NP was very clever about rationalizing not signing onto Representative Harmon’s 2003 letter to the CIA. As I see it, the only way to get out of not writing that letter herself, in 2002, is to insist that, just because the CIA told her that waterboarding is legal does not mean she could have assumed this was a tactic they would use.

      • Ellen D

        There seems to be weird rationalizing everywhere about Pelosi not objecting in a letter.
        “It wasn’t her job”.
        “It wouldn’t have changed anything”
        “It was top secret”.

        I don’t know about you, but if someone briefed me on something I thought was completely wrong, I would have written letters to everyone else who had the top-secret briefing saying – “You know that stuff we were all briefed on? I think it is flat-out wrong and I object to it and will have nothing to do with it.”

        Actually, except for the top-secret part, I think I have written letters like that, even if it wasn’t my job and wouldn’t change anything.

      • Benjamin

        I think the reality of this is: Nancy Pelosi in 2002 “did not” object to the EIT program that was being used. She has tried to cover this up, especially when the political winds changed and she became one of loudest anti-torture voices.

        Unfortunately, this information about Pelosi could easily be learned – by a White House with complete access to the CIA database. Nancy’s cover was blown because she got mixed up with the “wrong” White House in this case.