The whole thing is absurd anyways. The right is acting like the CIA is an agency known for uncompromising truth. The same agency that destroyed almost 100 video tapes of torture, presumably because it showed conduct that would infuriate people we don't want to infuriate, and turn the stomachs of Americans. In other words, they destroyed evidence to mislead the public, yet the right wants us to believe they would never mislead Congress. Ya, OK.

Step into my parlor, said the spider (Pelosi) to the fly (Boehner).

Well, maybe. On the other hand, the Republican Party won't have a chance at regaining the ground it has lost with the American public until it stops being thought of as the party of George Bush and Dick Cheney. A commission -- call it a truth commission, recrimination commission, whatever -- would probably expedite that.

The more detail about how the Bush administration made decisions that becomes public, the more Republicans in Congress and elsewhere will be tempted to want to distance themselves from it. Some of them will want to defend Bush and Cheney and their record at every point to the bitter end, but this is much easier to do when the discussion is about generalities (even better, when it is about slogans). In the short run, the GOP isn't going to be winning many elections outside safe constituencies anyway; in the long run, a truth commission might be the best thing for the party.

And this is being disseminated to the nation at large by exactly whom? NYTimes, CNN, CBS? And the vote in the Senate will be managed by Harry Reid? Well, it certainly will all come out soon, then won't it?

I say let's demand a full investigation of Pelosi. Make the CIA briefer testify under oath about what he knew, what he shared, who ordered the torture, what they were told to get from Zubaidah and others, and again how much of that did they share with Pelosi. Then bring on the other congressmen who were in the briefing. Make them testify what they knew and did. Did Goss stop the torturing when he became DCI? Did he tell Nancy? Did he get useful information without torture? Did he try? Did he tell Nancy? Bring on Panetta. "You say it is not the CIA's policy to lie to Congress. What agencies do have that policy, sir? Was Nancy briefed by career agents, or political appointees? Can you vouch for them?"

LOL! When I read that Michael Steele suggested an investigation into Pelosi Torturegate, I had to laugh. In spite of Steele's claims that each one of his statements is part of a carefully thought out strategy, it would seem that Steele has walked right into a trap. Will Steele retract his statement, claim that he misspoke, or defend himself as misunderstood? Republicans thought they were so very clever choosing a black man to head up the RNC, but this buffoon is a nightmare.

Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

Remember, the Bush Administration knows the whole story. The Democrats are on the outside looking in, with the only insider (Pelosi) not sure what she knew and when, if at all.

I'm betting two things: 1) an investigation will show Democrats knew what was going on, which is B) that they tortured three terrorists directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The GOP knows that most Americans will side with them: that you have to take it up a notch when dealing with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda killed thousands of Americans and would probably have killed more if not for the Bush Administration's relentless measures to keep the U.S. safe.

The Republicans have an uncanny way of sinking their own ship. Being for an investigation all along, I find this to be such an interesting twist. I've also heard Pelosi speak about this subject numerous times in the past. Reports show that she has been inconsistent in her answers. Maybe I missed something somewhere along the line and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found her story unwavering. She did seem a bit overwrought in the last press conference I viewed but, regardless, we won't know what transpired until the facts are out (I have no beef for or against Pelosi - just searching for some answers)...and it looks like we might get our wish with a little help from those quirky-jerky Repugs!

talk of "a trap" suggests that pelosi or some other democrat set this up to accomplish the goal of investigations of bush admin malfeasance.

if only that were true.

this is more like the republics (sic) have tripped over their own pant legs. congressional democrats are not celebrating their hapless opponents on this one.

"Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

Remember, the Bush Administration knows the whole story."

Yeah, but the GOP in Congress didn't know anything more than what the CIA told them -- the same lies that they told Pelosi.

They BELIEVE the CIA, so they think an investigation would nail Pelosi.

I don't think she brought all this down on herself to GET the investigation, but I could be wrong, in which case she has bigger huevos that ALL the men in Congress, combined.

This line of attack is based on a series of gross miscalculations. I don't think many Democratic voters who believe there should be an investigation of Bush era crimes care if Nancy Pelosi is caught up in those investigations or not. The right, in their drive to create boogmen (& boogeywomen?) on the left built her up in conservative media circles, but she remains an unremarkable figure figure to Democratic voters - I think I even remember seeing a poll where she had better name recognition with registered Republicans nationally during the last election cycle, because of their constant attacks against her. I just don't think that they get the idea that for some or most of us who vote for Democrats, the policy matters more than the politician - so I'm not going to reflexively support Nancy Pelosi or Jack Murtha or any politician if it contradicts what I think is right, legal, or just.

McGruber, torturing people in order to get them to tell you what you want to hear does not make anyone safe. We tortured Iraqi prisoners until they "confessed" that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots. That didn't make anyone safer. Count all the way from 1 to B as much as you want.

I'm still bemused by this GOP obsession with Nancy Pelosi. At one time they understood that she was just a boogieman invoked to scare the Conservative Right. But now they honestly seem to think that holding her hostage will make liberals back off the torture thing.

You know, this "going forward" thing was never going to work. The torture is too big a lump to be swept under the carpet. It was always going to be leaking out, week after week, regardless of the distaste of official Washington for deserved justice.

It is very civic of the Republicans to be moving the process forward faster than it would otherwise have moved. Regardless of how "free" we might be, we still live in an open society, and if Solszhenitsin was able to expose Lenin's and Stalins's crimes after decades of ruthless totalitarian secrecy there is no question that Bush's crimes were going to be exposed eventually, perhaps even actually prosecuted.

Coke to Jamobey.

Al-Qaeda killed thousands of Americans and would probably have killed more if not for the Bush Administration's relentless measures to keep the U.S. safe.

BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

Coffee out the nose!

Yes, as the SNL skit character points out, Bush took relentless measures to get Al Qaeda......for a few months..... after which time he began the sales pitch to ignore them and go to war in Iraq. What was it he said? Oh yes:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Jamobey - you're exactly right concerning Pelosi...Republicans have made Pelosi their bogeywoman when Dems as a whole don't hold any allegiance to her.

"Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?"

Their track record for thinking is pretty bad, mon ami.

"Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?"

Alternately, do you really think Pelosi would have accused the CIA of lying if she weren't pretty sure?

Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

Sure, they often think they'll come out on top. Whether they actually do come out on top, though, is quite a different story.

I just don't think that they get the idea that for some or most of us who vote for Democrats, the policy matters more than the politician - so I'm not going to reflexively support Nancy Pelosi or Jack Murtha or any politician if it contradicts what I think is right, legal, or just.

That's exactly correct, and another example of Republicans projecting their own MO onto others. They spent the last 8 years supporting the village idiot who wasn't even that conservative. They did this because to them, politics is just a spectator sport. They care no more about the fitness of the men they choose to govern than a Florida Gators fan cares about the academic success of his team's defensive end. Both abilities are just marginally related to what matters, which is winning ball games.

Naturally, they couldn't fathom that Democrats would cling to Pelosi as tenaciously as they cling to their own mediocre "leaders".

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Relentless! Relentless, I tell you! No stone left unturned!

Sorry, last sentence should be: Naturally, they couldn't fathom that Democrats would do anything other than cling to Pelosi as tenaciously as they cling to their own mediocre "leaders".

They spent the last 8 years supporting the village idiot who wasn't even that conservative.

I disagree about this "Bush wasn't even conservative" rewrite. Bush spent eight years using lies and deception to keep down the working and middle class and loot them in order to enrich the upper classes. Protection of the status quo -- that's the very essence of conservatism.

Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

As in, the GOP of McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Hafdan: Re the Republican obsession with Nancy Pelosi: Yes, it is a little hard to understand. The ridiculous New York Post Murdoch-owned tabloid ran a big political cartoon of Nancy with a big Pinocchio nose. As if even if she didn't remember that particular briefing quite correctly (and there is no evidence that she did not) makes any difference anyway. Remember the Republican obsession with Hillary and Bill? You know, how she personally killed Vincent Foster or whatever that story was? (it couldn't have possibly been a suicide linked to clinical depression exaccerbated by DC Republican insanity) The Whitewater witchhunt? Troopergate? Impeachment for god's sake? It's to a large degree part of the same thing. It's hippies vs. Young Republicans. To make matters worse, Nancy is from San Francisco. You know, the Summer of Love and Harvey Milk Gay Pride place. She may be a wealthy pre-baby boom establishment liberal, but she's about to seize their McMansion and turn it into a hippie commune abortion factory if given a half a chance, so she must be eliminated by any means.

It looks like his policies have worked.

Yep. As long as Bush kept flapping his arms, the tigers stayed away.

McGruber wrote: I'm betting two things: 1) an investigation will show Democrats knew what was going on, which is B) that they tortured three terrorists directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

See, even McGruber admits that Bush tortured, and that they're hanging their hats on the hope that some Democrats knew what the Bush Administration was doing (and if you can't spot the differences in those verbs, you're dumb enough to be a GOP troll), or at least that they can justify the torture by waving the bloody shirt of 9/11.

Shame on you.

McGruber wrote: "B) that they tortured three terrorists because they were responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

Fixed that for ya buddy.

His priority was keeping the U.S. safe. Bush knew Al-Qaeda was much more than just Bin Laden.

Is that why he dumped a trillion dollars into the fight against the Iraqi/Al Qaeda collusion?

Bin Laden might still be around, but he can't walk out of his cave to relieve himself without worrying about a Predator.
Posted by: McGruber on May 18, 2009

No instead he's rallied Taliban forces in northern Pakistan that now threaten a nuclear armed country's stability.

on top of that, everytime the Republicans have run against Pelosi they have lost. Nobody cares about the Speaker of the House, not when there is a Democratic President. Really, nobody. Honestly, nobody.

The Republicans only think she is relevant because Gingrich was tossed out and Wright and somebody else whose name escapes me. But those were anomalies -- speakers who made themselves into national figures instead of the partisan figures they are and should be.

Pelosi is not a national figure. Not. Sorry Nancy, but you are not. And Republicans who try to make her into one are not at all doing themselves a favor.

Once more, if the Republicasn want ot be credible, they need to move past Reagan, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Rush, et al. and into the 21st century when good governing is the game and a hand off approach to governing, lets give the rich more money, and culture wars pale in comparison to climate change, the world economy, mass starvation, and nuclear war in the middle east.

Welcome to the world, folks.

Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

LOL! You have far greater faith in GOP "strategery" than any sensible person. I don't see the Dems backing down one bit, including Pelosi. They're the ones calling for the truth commission, with Repubs just hoping to smear some Dems in the process.
Do you really think the big issue to come out of a truth commission will be what the Bush Admin did or didn't tell certain Democrats at certain times, as opposed to designing, justifying, and implementing an illegal torture program by the Bush administration?
Good luck with that! I suppose it could work as well as your plans for a permanent Repub majority, being greeted a liberators in Iraq, finding WMD, the Iraq/al-qaeda connection, etc., etc., etc. The record speaks for itself, and American voters won't be forgetting for a very long time.

Do you really think the GOP would be asking for an investigation if they didn't think they'd come out on top?

They may think they'd come out on top, but the last few years have demonstrated that Republicans "think" a lot of things that are not correct. They "thought" they were going to keep a Congressional majority in 2006 and lost both houses. They "thought" that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. They "thought" that Sarah Palin was an awesome choice for vice president. They "thought" that McCain would easily win.

At this point, the fact that the Republicans think this will be a win for them is pretty much proof positive that it's going to blow up in their faces.

Does it matter whether Nancy Pelosi -- who in September 2002 was neither Speaker (Dennis Hastert) or even Minority Leader (Dick Gephardt), but rather the Minority Whip and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee -- knew that waterboarding was being conducted by George "Slam Dunk" Tenet's CIA at that time? This is another in a series of political hush-puppies that the Beltway media seems so fond of chasing.

I would point out that at that particular moment, Ms. Pelosi was the leading voice in the House against the then-pending congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force to enforce U.N. mandates in Iraq, for which the vote would take place within three weeks of this supposed full-fledged CIA disclosure to Pelosi and then-Intel Committee Chair Porter Goss of the agency's use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

From a purely practical (if completely amoral) standpoint, why in the world would George Tenet disclose to one of the Bush administration's leading congressional critics that the CIA was waterboarding detainees in an effort to provide some sort of link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qa'eda? The whole argument that Nancy Pelosi was somehow in on the deal collapses like a house of cards over this very salient point.

That the Republicans can still push the buttons driving Beltway media outputs and panel discussions speaks to the compelling need for the Obama administration to address the issue of the late Bush administration's torture policies by commencing a wide-ranging legal investigation of the events surrounding this most lamentable and disreputable episode in our nation's recent history, with the goal of bringing the true perpetrators of this monstrous war crime before the bar of justice.

The Republicans want to fight over this? Very well. Then bring it on, and let's take it to where they live and breathe.

So the question: Did the CIA want a truth commission? Did the right even realize that they were playing right into the hands of the DFHs?

Maybe they think the DFHs will be DFHs and the country will revile them?

Could this all be a cunning plot by Pelosi to get an inquiry started on torture by not calling for one, in other words to make the repubs shoot themselves in the foot?

"Could this all be a cunning plot by Pelosi to get an inquiry started on torture by not calling for one, in other words to make the repubs shoot themselves in the foot?"

It would be nice to believe that, wouldn't it? But no, I think it is exactly as Matt Yglesias wrote. This isn't a clever move on Pelosi's part, this is a CYA move. She's backed herself into a corner, and this is the only choice she has left: claim she was lied to and call for an investigation.

This is the Democrats' years of being a completely useless opposition party coming back to bite them on the ass, combined with the GOP's years of being a bunch of partisan incompetents coming back to bite *them* on the ass. The only thing Pelosi has going for her right now is that enough of the country has finally seen how utterly feckless the GOP really is. That gives her enough political cover to raise doubts about the attacks being leveled at her.

McGruber makes me laugh. "Creating your own reality" isn't working anymore. I know you don't want your heroes to be guilty of craven, criminal activity but, sorry to say, they have already admitted such on the air. I know you don't want to believe that the congressmen(R)'s that are left are foolish and incompetent but they demonstrate that daily. I'm sorry for you.
But you make me laugh anyway.

I get sick to my stomach every time I see this issue presented in such political terms. Like talking about a man who raped and killed your daughter as if it was a long time ago and since your daughter can't be brought back anyway let's just get back to getting this bridge built because some of our most important witnesses are the bridge designers and an investigation would just hold things up.

People died, lives destroyed...and taken a step further...would demonstrate how we were also lied into a war resulting in death and displacement of millions.

These "Monsters" cannot even be compared to Pelosi...it's insulting.

Obama is trying to ignore 'crimes' committed intentionally, not 'policy mistakes' and we should start calling these 'high crimes' what they are...criminal activities by the Bush administration that by law must be confronted or there is no moving forward...just a larger hypocrisy.

The United States of Hypocrisy...not a nation operating by the rule of its laws or a democracy by and of the people.

Her's the perspective: "Sure Bush raped and murdered your daughter but he's the president, and when the president does it...it's not illegal."

Thank all that is holy that the GOP doesn't run our nation's police forces -- if so, they'd spend more time going after people who may have heard about a crime being committed instead of trying to find the people who, you know, actually committed the crime.

Also, can someone explain to me why conservatives (and trolls especially) act as if Bush took office 9/12/01? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure Bush was in charge for the 8 months leading up to 9/11, and did a fairly shitty job of keeping us safe on that day.

I realize they'd rather blame it all on Clinton -- or anyone else for that matter -- but it's a bit like saying Jeff Dahmer was a really great guy ... if you just ignore his entree preferences.