The right always misjudges the left on one thing. They always beleive were as slavishly devoted to our elected politicians as they are. If the "investigation" showed Pelosi was "in on" torture, we'd throw her overboard in a minute.

I doubt we'll have to, though.

Let's see...that's i BEFORE e, isn't it?

tell me again how this country got so stupid as to have the media and the "risible hypocrites" we have here?

okay, okay, the circus came to town years ago... but can it please leave now?????

Did anyone or any report from the CIA actually claim that they told her these techniques had been used? No one is denying that she was at a briefing and that EIT were discussed. We also know now that these EIT's were used before the briefing.

It seems to me that the debate about what was said in this briefing comes from Republicans only, and yet I haven't heard any of them actually claim they knew about prior use pf EIT.

Sorry, I've posted this on a couple threads below, but it totally backs Pelosi's claim re CIA truthfulness--

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php

"More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)

So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof. "

I'm trying to remember specifics, but wasn't one the major RW talking points running up to the war was that career CIA officers were Arabists and striped-pantsed Nancies trying to undermine our courageous President's efforts to save the country from imminent attack from Saddam Hussein?

I before e, except after c, or when sounded like a, as in neighbor and weigh... but there are other exceptions: species, science, sufficient, ancient (in which i comes before e even though it follows c), and seize, weird, sovereignty, feisty, kaleidoscope, keister, forfeit, geisha, gleization, gneiss, obeisance, peignoir and sheik.

The most common sounded like a exceptions are beige, deign, eight, feign, feint, freight, heinous, inveigle,rein, reign, surveillance, veil, vein, and weigh.

LOL -- not many chances to do that.

Now, the REAL trivia question: there are two words in the English language that use the vowels a, e, i, o, and u (and even sometimes y) ... in that order.

Facetiously is one of 'em.

What a lot of Republicans don't understand is that those of us who believe in the rule of law are more than willing to let the chips fall where they may. If some Democrat is implicated or even a bunch of Democrats are implicated along with the Republicans they should all be held accountable.

you want the simplest answer: the members of the GOP are not that bright. There is not one member that can stand up and articulate a coherent argument against the Dems that does not run afoul of Rush. So, instead, they slavishly go after each news cycle as if that was the goal of an opposition party. Fools. Idiots.

eric

The right wing has typically ignored the report from Bob Graham, they are on a course of trying to destroy Nancy Pelosi,the funny thing is although I have never been partial towards her I am now feeling like I want to support her!

She is playing the GOP for suckers. We know Pelosi wants a Truth Commission and that Republicans don't, right? So how do Democrats get Republicans to agree to a Truth Commission? By giving Republicans something to gain by it; mainly, the possible downfall of Nancy Pelosi. She is dangling herself out there as bait and the Gooper Guppies are biting at it hard.

The fact that Newt and most every Republican near a microphone is having a hissy about this issue suggests that there is an awful lot to hide on their part. They recognize that the activities and machinations of the Sith Lord are about to have the cleansing power of bright sunshine directed on them, and they are circling the wagons. Smoke and fire and all that.

Let's hope a true reckoning comes to pass, if not for the truth to come out, at least to reinstill in the minds of Americans that yes, we do indeed follow the Rule of Law around here, instead of just speak at doing so.

I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," Gingrich said.

Really? Why not? President Bush and Co-President Cheney did. If they can, surely the Speaker can.

Did anyone or any report from the CIA actually claim that they told her these techniques had been used? No one is denying that she was at a briefing and that EIT were discussed. We also know now that these EIT's were used before the briefing.

I have a hard time believing that anyone, including Pelosi, could attend a briefing about EIT's without asking what exactly EITs entail.

That would be the first question for anyone that's not brain dead.

So, let me get this straight.....these Repubs are claiming that they along with Pelosi WERE briefed on the use of waterboarding and other EIM? And they didn't question anything about it? Even though they were the majority party at that point? And the legal memos were not even drafted at that point, so there was no real justification for breaking the law? And they STILL did nothing about it or raise any questions?

And, how exactly does ole' Newt know what Pelosi was briefed on? How does he know that "she lied"?

Sounds like Newt didn't get enough attention in the last week or so.

Why is he interviewed anymore?

 If they can, surely the Speaker can.

Like Hastert?

"Tons of yellowcake puchased from Niger. It's there. It's stored and in barrels and it's marked. No question about it." Recorded July 20, 2003.

Pelosi and Gingrich both want an investigation. Great! Sounds like it could cover the issues that both of them would like to see covered.

Newt's a partisan hack who accuses anyone on the left of the same partisan hackery. If he can convince enough people Nancy's "lie" is a partisan stunt to make the GOP look bad, it renders her argument moot on the folls who'd believe him. Thus any attempt to get anything done or uncover any truths is painted as a partisan act, and "they all do it," everyone's a partisan hack so why bother voting if they're all the same.

And then newt and his scumbag ilk win. Because their base will always show up to vote. The trick is to disinterest & disenfranchise everyone else.

Here's hoping that type of dog no longer hunts.

I doubt she was briefed about "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It's much more likely the briefing was described as an ongoing effort to keep her informed of developments in the global war on terror, and that the focus was on the clear and present danger posed by al-Qaeda and its alllies, with the constant flow of new information from very dangerous prisoners.

The utter inversion of this thing is exemplified in Delete's idea that if Pelosi was asked "what was the title of the briefing report?", she'd be forced to say something like "Um, Why Waterboarding is Necessary", the way Condaleeze Rice had to admit that the briefing report a month before 9-11 was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US."

But in that case, the intelligence community was jumping up and down with its hair on fire, trying to get Bush's attention.

In Pelosi's case, the LAST thing they wanted was for her to say -- wait, what's that mean?

So that's how she was briefed -- it was all misdirection, just like this spat.

it was all misdirection, just like this spat.
theAmericanist

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the other a-e-i-o-u word? Huh? :)

Fox News' Megyn Kelly, always a paragon of journalistic integrity, asked Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) this morning

An idiot asking a question of an idiot about something another idiot (Gingrich) said. It's like a black hole of idiocy! No rational, coherent, intelligent thought can exist there.

And of course, 8 years of Bush-Cheney lying that resulted in thousands of deaths...that's no biggie.

If ever there was an expert on dishonoring Congress, it's Newt Gingrich.

The liberal left will nominate their perfect candidates to run against the right-wing Obama now that Obama has adopted the defense and war policies of George W. Bush. In four year Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee will be the Democrat standard bearers. Two perfect crackpots to lead a party of crackpots.

why yes, mhr, i noticed just the other day how obama had reauthorized torture as an instrument of national security policy....

i think when we ask why are the newt gingrichs so insane, we should always remember how insane the mhrs who follow them are.

"what about the other a-e-i-o-u word? "

Abstemious.

I'm sorry, but there's no question that Pelosi cost herself heavily with the press. She was bobbing and weaving and gasping. "They didn't tell me they were waterboarding, they told my staff. It's not the same!"

alan vanneman, who cares? we already know that pelosi wasn't exactly a profile in courage at that moment, but very few were.

torture wasn't her policy, and she supports a full investigation. how the little minds of the press react beyond those two core facts should cut no mustard with anyone.

Let me get this right: the same person who said impeachment was off the table, and who worked overtime to pass Bush's Iraq War spending even though the Democrats were in the majority, is now somehow on the right side of history? Give me a break.

I say feed Pelosi to the Republicans. Let them pile on. Then elect someone as Speaker of the House that still respects the Constitution and will fight for health care, an end to the war (s), a return to the rule of law, etc. It will serve them right.

As for Pelosi, she is nothing more than Bill Frist in a skirt. (OK, that may be going too far -- but it felt good typing it.)

As Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out on Morning Joe (yes, it's a bad habit, but KO's not on at that hour, nor is Rachel), Goldwater also accused the CIA of lying to him many years ago.

It's not like they have an unimpeachable record of integrity and truth-telling here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the other a-e-i-o-u word? Huh? :)

Acheilous, anemious, caesious, annelidous, arsenious, acretinous, abstemious.

In four year Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee will be the Democrat standard bearers.

That Dennis is always getting more cred from the GOP than he ever does from Dems. Must annoy him to no end.

Newt, like a lot of his generation of Wingers, has been demonizing anything "liberal" for so long that it's part of him.

Reasonable people tend to assume that the constant propaganda spewed by

For real quality commentary on the modern Republican, hire on a veteran divorce court judge. The kind of gut hatred that warps people into spewing like this happens in very, very bad marriages.

Didn't Newtie get mad about having to sit on the back of a plane? And he's fulminating about "trivial politicians"?

This whole story is like that mustard thing. I just don't know why it's supposed to matter.

Evidentally, Leon Panetta is now calling Pelosi a liar:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cia-director-fires-back-at-pelosi-2009-05-15.html

Steny Hoyer is probably ordering new drapes...

Evidentally, Leon Panetta is now calling Pelosi a liar:

Is he calling Senator Graham a liar too? Might want to be careful with that, since Graham actually took notes. Good luck.

I see that Delete This Now! beat me to it but here's alittle more detail.

"WASHINGTON — CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, but it is up to Congress to reach its own conclusions about what happened."

As we all know, Panetta was a former long-termed House Member. So for him to publically undercut the Speaker on this in such clearcut language means that the CIA briefers must have the goods on her.

Looks for Obama to throw Nancy under the bus for "the good of the party" don't you know. lol

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php

"More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)

So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof. "

Is Bob Graham part of some anti-CIA conspiracy with Pelosi? I guess our resident wingnuts will figure it all out.

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

And he should know, since he lowered the bar when he was Speaker.

"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

Anyone remember Mr. High-n-Mighty's comments back in 1994, concerning the woman (Susan Smith) who murdered her children:

"'Slightly more moving our way. I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things.' Gingrich concluded, 'The only way you get change is to vote Republican...'"

Yep, nothing partisan about that.

CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully ...

Did anyone expect agency records to show anything different? There needs to be a full investigation of what happened, and throw everyone it implicates under the nearest bus.

Acheilous, anemious, caesious, annelidous, arsenious, acretinous, abstemious. - shortstop

You know, I was expecting an answer like that. But I thought it would come from exlibra, and that they wouldn't all be English. Thanks. :) You too, theAmericanist.

CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully ...

Lying by omission.

I'm sure the information the CIA chose to reveal was true, just incomplete, like forgetting to inform Pelosi that they'd already used the torture techniques they were talking about.

LOL -- of course, shortstop epitomizes anemious.

LOL -- of course, shortstop epitomizes anemious.

We do get quite the high winds here along the lakefront -- not that the correct definition is the one you think you're snarking about.

There are actually quite a few more, Danp. But while we're encouraging the (sadly for the quality of his posts) unabstemious theAmericanist to give the bar stories he's been telling for 20 years (about half of which tales are hilariously factually wrong, judging by what he shares here) a dusting off and a tuneup -- I hear this new Google thing is really something -- I didn't want to, you know, shove it in his face. Oops!

The CIA lying? No way. Really? They would absolutely not falsify records; you know, like Saddam buying yellow case from Niger, WMD's in Iraq, a false video of a plump, right-handed OBL. They would never lie, no, sir. They are such bastions (or bastards) of unquestionable truth and integrity. We should never lose focus on those who set up the procedures and those who condoned torture just like Bush and Cheney, no matter who they are. This sore will not go away until is is brought in the open and treated. You can't hide it under a bandage. Obama (and Panetta) may try, but they are going to have to deal with this.

Gingrich: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

Oh, Newton Leroy, have you forgotten the Clinton impeachment?

Shortstop, you're pitiful.

As it happens, though, I never get to brag on this, so I will not lose the opportunity: when I was in high school, which was a loooong time ago, the principal told me out of the blue that there were just two words in the English language with the vowels in order... and 'facetious' was one of 'em. He bet something, I forget what, that I couldn't tell him the other by the end of the day. (I think now he was just trying to get me out of the hallway: late my senior year. Ah, pedagogical technique.)

I thought it over (which folks had to do in those days when a computer filled a room and had less power than a Blackberry), and realized two things: first, that it had to be an "ious" ending, and since a was the first vowel, it wasn't ba...ious, or c...ious, etc., cuz I felt reasonably confident that I would have known the word if it was. There really aren't many words constructed like "facetious".

I figured it had to begin with "a", cuz that was where the widest scope for a word with the vowels in order would be -- I didn't know any combination of syllables that fit, beginning with any of the consonants and then "a", but of course beginning with "a" meant all kinds of possibilities. So I just found a dictionary and started at the beginning.

I found "abstemious" on, I think it was page 3 of the big Webster's.

LOL -- some of us use Google as a tool, not a substitute for thinking, shortstop. And for somebody who bitches at folks for their conduct online, well...as noted often before, you're a hothouse flower.

(When I noted you epitomize arsenious, that was ... ironic, cuz irenic, you ain't.)

The CIA isn't a walking, talking person. Pelosi was briefed by an individual. If possible, she should name names. Let the two-time adulterer Gingrich defend the integrity of George Tenet, Porter Goss and whoever was in the room. This "the word of the CIA is impeachable" nonsense is exactly that.

And everybody is right--these clowns in the media have changed the subject. Let's remind folks about the credibility of Newt Gingrich, both in his public and personal life. His espoused opinion is nothing more than spit.

LOL -- some of us use Google as a tool, not a substitute for thinking, shortstop.

Okay, we give up. What are you using for a substitute? We see the results of the not-thinking part clearly, but we don't yet know what your stand-in of choice is.

(When I noted you epitomize arsenious..

Um, you called me anemious, as I noted when I tried to help you out with the correct definition. Have you a memory-affecting arterious blockage?

Have a good weekend, our fracedinous friend. Shoot for placentious, not arsenious. It'll open up a whole new world for you.

LOL -- you're right.. I forgot that I had left it to your own sweet self to demonstrate how poisonous you are.

Why is it so hard to believe that the CIA lied? I have two friends in the CIA (a married couple) and they hated the institution while under Bush/Cheney. It was run by a series of yes men who doctored information to make it say what Cheney/Addington wanted it to say. Those clowns saw lying as a virtue, but now the corporate media and the likes of Gingrich, Scarborough and others accuse Pelosi of being the liar? They're projecting again.

I have two friends in the CIA (a married couple) and they hated the institution while under Bush/Cheney. It was run by a series of yes men who doctored information to make it say what Cheney/Addington wanted it to say.

Tell Valerie she looks fabulous.

Sorry Susan. I wasn't referring to Joe and Valerie.

As we all know, Panetta was a former long-termed House Member. So for him to publically undercut the Speaker on this in such clearcut language means that the CIA briefers must have the goods on her.

And by "publicly" you mean "in an internal CIA memo that was not meant for distribution to the general public that was leaked to the Hill," right?

You guys really need to read these things all the way through before you post them.

"In four year Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee will be the Democrat standard bearers."

That Dennis is always getting more cred from the GOP than he ever does from Dems. Must annoy him to no end.
Posted by: shortstop

i didn't think kucinich was getting credit from anyone at all, excepting, i hope, his wife.

hubba-hubba!

your pal,
blake

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

As we all know, Panetta was a former long-termed House Member.

"CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully..."

That's a NON-DENIAL DENIAL.

If Bob Graham's notes are complete, how did Jane Harman learn that these techniques had been used by the CIA?

Ron Byers: What a lot of Republicans don't understand is that those of us who believe in the rule of law are more than willing to let the chips fall where they may. If some Democrat is implicated or even a bunch of Democrats are implicated along with the Republicans they should all be held accountable.

Pelosi just didn't care until it became politically expedient to feign outrage. That's a lesser infraction than Scooter Libby's overt perjury to the FBI, and likely to be punished (if at all) only by her constituents. And it's a lesser infraction than the enhanced interrogation techniques themselves, which Congress can now debate and approve or disapprove in public. If she were telling the truth now, she wouldn't have to keep changing her story.

Let the investigations proceed.

But she HASN'T changed her story. The RightWing just keeps SAYING she changed her story.

It's the CIA that has back peddled and changed their story and made non-denial denials.