Marley, I agree. I’d quote you if the quote button was working. You’re not showing up on preview either. The CIA is behind this, I bet. 
Nitpick: Pelosi has no position in the Senate.
Sure she was - she was elected Minority Whip in 2001 and then got elected Minority Leader after Gephardt resigned in 2002. So at any point in this discussion she was in the House Democratic leadership.
One thing I don’t see her being called on is, according to her mumblings yesterday, SHE wasn’t actually briefed, but her top aid was. She was just told about the briefing from him. Is that right? If so, then she is fucking incompetent. The point of having an aid go is not to then later claim, “Oh, I was unaware. I wasn’t there.” She should either step down for incompetence or that aid should be grilled publicly. Though the latter doesn’t get in the way of the former.
No, it is a different point.
You cannot make the case that Pelosi did nothing about Bush’s torture policy without admitting that Bush had a torture policy.
Mr. Moto, as you well know, it is easy to confuse Pelosi and Reid. 
Thanks for the correction.
Right you are; I think she was the whip at that point but not yet minority leader. The few stories I have about this just said she was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee at that time without mentioning anything else.
You are missing the point and apparently didn’t read what I wrote. The point is (i.e., the political strategy) this: It WASN’T torture, but merely an acceptable interrogation technique, as evidenced by the fact that Pelosi didn’t say “boo” when she became aware of it.
I don’t see that at all - one of them has quite a bit of virile fortitude and the other is the model of dainty and ladylike leadership.
What’s the point?
To distract, to change the subject of the debate.
To make it clear that spending great amounts of energy trying to pursue and punish those responsible for crimes during the last administration will come at a cost, decreasing the ability of this administration to get other things done.
Honestly I’d love to have some kind of truth commission on this, but I care more about many other items. We really cannot now afford the luxury of looking backwards.
The point is a) to distract; b) to make any threats of investigation into a game of “Be careful what you ask for”; and c) to make Pelosi look bad.
I hope it all comes out. If some Dems, such as Pelosi end up get pulled into Cheney’s wake, so be it, as long as it is reflective of the truth.
You say that now, but the next time this happens, people will say there’s nothing to be done about it because the last time, nobody even investigated to find out how it happened.
This is pretty much it. Pelosi is at the apex of her career and has everything to lose. (20+ members sit on the committee, she was chosen out of those for name recognition); To use someone from the Senate who was on the Sentate Intelligence Committee (I will use that info above!) was John Edwards. Why isn’t he being grilled? No political career = no voters to worry about.
Now the flip side, we’ll use Cheney. Political career is done. He’s old. He’s a few years away from a massive coronary. He’s in legacy preservation mode. He has no problem defending his actions and speaks openly and calmly about them (none of it under oath, so I have no reason to believe). But the perception of honesty comes off much better than Pelosi is.
But this is all silly drama. This story is at least 6 months away from actually paying attention too and learning anything from it. It’s all spin and roaches scrambling. It’s in the Us Weekly phase of the facts/reporting.
And why would these stories be harping on the intel committee membership and leaving the leadership post out of it? Especially since her membership in the committee was ex officio - she was on it because she was the Minority Leader, just as she is now on it by virtue of being Speaker.
Pretty much this
But to believe that, we must believe that Pelosi is a nice upstanding lady, rather than the Godless she-demon from homosexual California that we know she is.
Nope, that strategery doesn’t hold water, so the strategery must be to claim that one of the leaders of the democrat socialists supported torture.
I don’t think the GOP’s attack here is any better thought out than the invasion of Iraq.
While you can debate that waterboarding and fuzzy caterpillars are torture there is nothing about those techniques that are deadly nor has Pelosi suggested anything as such.
She shot her mouth off knowing the spending bill she wrote would blow up in her face and she needed a diversion. She didn’t stop to think that the CIA could shove it right back at her. Now she looks like an idiot AND the spending bill legacy is in the news. Little miss “I’m so important I need a 757 limo to fly home” is learning the hard way that the information superhighway is no place to play in traffic. Every memo she ever sent or received, and every meeting note regarding the CIA is sitting in electronic storage.
The CIA is run by a Democrat from the Clinton administration. The GOP is just sitting in the wings with a leaf blower laughing and fanning the flames.
While I do think there is value in elucidating what happened and how it happened I have absolutely no belief that a process of finding who to blame will serve the goal of preventing a next time.
What happened?
We know what happened and we know how.
The highest powers on the land explicitly endorsed our forces working “from the dark side”, the message was clearly sent that the ends justified any means along the lines of “24”, the enemy was “otherized” and those who looked like they might be enemy along with them, soldiers without much training or supervision were given the task of finding out information from these others without any check on the dark side that is within each of us, many who should have spoken up or at least spoken up more loudly were not brave enough to do so and were placed in circumstances that made speaking up even more difficult and less likely to accomplish much. Yeah, we know what happened and how. The human capacity for cruelty was unleashed without checks and justified in the name of a noble cause.
It may make some of us feel better to have a few bad people to blame, and there certainly are those bad people - who gave the orders, who ignored basic human values, who distorted the law, who did the deeds … but there will always be those people among us no matter how severely these particular ones are punished or not. Justice would be served by identifying them, but we do not need the names to know what kinds of safeguards we must have and how what we did have for safeguards failed us. There will always be the potential for many more of us to become those people too. We need better safeguards. No doubt. When things have settled down we need to build them.
But right now we have a national body that is critically ill, with multiple systems near failure. Get past this crisis time first.
whoa there, insert a period or two next time. First off, it was the CIA, trained in interrogation techniques, and not untrained solders. The abu grab situation had nothing to do with codified procedures and was prosecuted as such just as any other war crime. Second, There were checks and balances in the interrogation techniques and they were spelled out in the briefings to Congress.
My impression is that only the committee chairman and ranking minority member were briefed. See e.g. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/14/pelosi_moves_to_the_fore.html?wprss=44