The GOP obviously thinks it has Pelois in the same position Nixon was in, where the coverup is worse than the crime. They're ignoring the fact that the Bush administration committed the crime and performed most of the coverup.

They're also ignoring the fact that many Democrats are quite willing to see Pelosi prosecuted if she actually broke laws or failed to halt the torture program. Not to mention Jay Rockefeller, so I won't.

*

I thought your party wanted to move forward, Al.

. . . the criticisms only make sense if you turn off your brain . . .

That doesn't bother Republicans. Apropos of an earlier post, Republicans are the people who think that reporting on the Bush administration's human rights abuses is more likely to aid the terrorists than the abuses themselves.

It's an amazing display of cognitive dissonance: I'm not guilty of any sins, and you're a sinner for naming the sins I have --- or for ignoring them, whichever happens to be the case.

You don't understand, there is no "scandal." Cheney proved that we didn't torture, and when we did use the enhanced techniques, it gave us valuable information that saved people's lives. Pelosi impugned the honesty of that group of brave patriots at the CIA and that proves that all the Democrats hate America. Or something like that is now the narrative of the idiots and the village, and so, the truth. Maybe not the facts, but the truth.

Republicans are demanding to know what Pelosi knew about the Bush administration's crimes and when she knew it, as if the failure to raise adequate objections was more important than the wrongdoing.

In other words, the GOP strategy now concedes the fact that the Bush Administration's actions were criminal.

What the Roverians were so masterful at during their eight-year rule was manufacturing phony issues and changing the subject to address that issue rather than whatever it was they were trying to avoid or hide.

That they are still now able to shift the emphasis from Bush's torture policies to Pelosi's knowledge, or lack thereof, suggests a frightening control of the media by the Rethugs. Puppet master Cheney has come out from behind the curtain, and he gets all the media face time he wants. How come?

Logic, logic, logic. You always go on about logic.

Remember, Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal and going after her is the duty of every right-thinking American.

Doubly dumb -- first for the reason Gregory lays out above, second because if Pelosi "survives" (as if she's under any real threat) ... doesn't that just reinforce how ineffectual the GOP is ... AND give Pelosi more of a patina of invulnerability?

By floundering around, Pelosi seems intent on giving the Republicans enough room to squeeze out from under a serious accounting for the torture regime of Bush/Cheney. Now, Pelosi is now being held "accountable" by the Republicans. Thanks, Nancy.

If Nancy Pelosi knew that the CIA was using torture, then surely Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Tenet knew a lot more about it.

There lies the hypocracy of this smokescreen. Gingrich, Boehner, Bond, and others are trying to draw attention away from the crimes of the Bush cabal by placing the blame of Pelosi. Suddenly, Pelosi is unAmerican and unfit for office!

Senators Bob Graham and Stenny Hoyer confirm Pelosi's statements. The CIA has been deeply involved in a number of scandals- Watergate, Iran Contra, and withholding videotapes on interrogation and torture from the 9/11 Commission. Tenet was part of the conspiracy by the Bush administration and was warned that "they could hang for this." The FBI refused to take part in the techniques used by the CIA. Why isn't any one holding the head of the FBI responsible for not speaking up?

Let's review the ever-changing Republican versions of the torture story.

We do not torture; the U.S. does not torture.

It's legal, but we do not torture.

Torture began before the Bybee/Yoo memos were written, but we did not torture.

The CIA rounds up suspects and flies them to black sites in foreign countries where they are tortured, but the U.S. does not torture.

It was a ticking time bomb situation; we were scared.

We expanded executive power to circumvent the checks and balances of Congress, wiretap and round up innocent Americans, and immunize leaders against criminality, but it wasn't illegal.

We asked legal counsel to reinterpret the law to legalize torture, but we don't torture.

"Enemy combatants" not covered by the Geneva Convention; we can torture, but we don't torture.

Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, Bagrahm are not in the U.S.; detainees are held against their will and have no rights, but we do not torture.

It's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation."

Waterboarding is not torture.

Stress positions, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, nudity and forced masturbation, sexual and ethnic and religious humiliation, dogs and leashes, walling, threats of death and anal rape, hanging by chains, bugs in boxes, simulated burial, physical beatings-- they are funny, anyone could endure that; it's not torture.

Forcing detainees to stand for hours until their legs and feet double in size? Donald Rumsfeld stands on his feet for 8 hours a day; it's not torture.

We only waterboarded 3 people; so, it was 300 times, but it's not torture.

We use waterboarding in the SERE program to enable our troops to endure torture, but waterboarding is not torture.

Dozens of detainees died (homicide) while in U.S. custody; but we do not torture.

We got valuable intelligence by waterboarding, but we can't prove it.

Abu Gharib was the work of "a few bad apples," but guards were instructed by the CIA to "soften up detainees" for the hard stuff; but it was not torture.

John McCain grilled the CIA and the DOD about the use of torture techniques in 2005, but the U.S. does not torture.

We paid people big money to rat out suspected terrorists. We rounded up people who just happened to be in the area of an attack. Bush bragged about the thousands of terrorists in custody. Only the "worst of the worst" were held at Guantanamo; they're all terrorists. Yet,only 5% have any link to Al Qaeda or terrorism.

The CIA briefed Nancy Pelosi on torture, she's the one to blame.

And slimy Newt Gingrich calls Pelosi's statemtne the "most dispicable partisan attack" he's ever heard. What a jackass!

I agree this is a ridiculous (but unfortunately effective) misdirection by the Repubs, and the media apparently will swallow anything. They love a he said/she said story - has conflict, an easy narrative for lazy people, and requires no background research to substantiate claims. (Of course, they could do some research to see who is closer to substantively correct... I kid, I kid).

But what is the party line around here - you team players admit Pelosi was briefed but they didn't use the word "waterboard," or that her conscience implored her to speak out, but she, torn, made a difficult decision not to?

Personally, I think the torture issue itself (while extremely important to prosecute, harshly, the architects and participants) is a bit of a misdirection itself. From Dems who supported this blatantly unjust, illegal, aggressive war, and want/wanted to look like they are/were giving some pushback to something, anything the Bush criminals wrought.

If you were a neo-con/liberal hawk, war-supporting leftie - politician, pundit, think-tanker or blog writer - and you wanted to differentiate yourself from the other discredited war supporters (belligerent racist conservatives, and smarmy neo-con AEI/Weekly Standard/TNR types) what do you do? You bleat about "planning" and competence and strategy and torture, the blunder of invading Iraq when the "real" terrorists were in Afghanistan and Pakistan...etc.

Torture is an abomination, don't get me wrong. There should be trials in the Hague. But who *didn't* think a war entailed this kind of thing, that the military does this kind of thing routinely, when they signed on for bombing and invading the muslim countries? War is heck.

One million innocent Iraqis are dead. Let's talk about that too. Let's see a list of the people who knew that Saddam was basically complying with the UN, that there were no WMDs, and what we *claimed* he had wasn't much, and he constituted no believable, nor imminent, threat even if everything we said *was* true.

These people approved of and helped sell the invasion of Iraq, while knowing all this. They include about 60% of Dem politicians and 98% of our media, blogs included. (All the little Thomas Friedmans can suck. on. this.)

It's not an either/or obviously - we can investigate the causes of the 1 million deaths AND the torture activities simultaneously. And the torture policies are more discrete crimes with smoking guns and less gray areas, making investigation more fruitful. But even still, there is something lacking from our cries for accountability for the crimes of the Bush era, and the silence is suspicious.

I've been one to agree with Obama that a side show distraction is non-conducive to moving the legislation and changes we need forward. But.............since the Republicans seem hell bent on dragging this on, I for one would like Obama to use this wonderful opportunity to say "since we have strong bipartisan support in the congress for an independent commission on the parties involved in the treatment of prisoners, I have decided such a commission will be made".

From Dems who supported this blatantly unjust, illegal, aggressive war, and want/wanted to look like they are/were giving some pushback to something, anything the Bush criminals wrought.

You do know that Pelosi voted against the Iraq War and has tried to cut its funding ever since, right?

That's why I'm not getting all of these anti-Pelosi howls from Democrats. She voted against the war. Calling her an "enabler" and saying you want Steny Hoyer to become speaker -- a guy who did vote in favor of the war -- makes zero sense to me. We have to get rid of a strong voice against the war and replace her with someone who supported it from the beginning to prove the war was wrong? Huh?

Pelosi's speech to the House of Representatives on Oct. 10, 2002.

Where did this meme come from that Pelosi supported the war?

I'm with about time, since we have strong bipartisan support for an enquiry into the Bush/Cheney crimes, let's do it!!!

The fact that the Republicans are going after Pelosi so hard only demonstrates that they can't think beyond electioneering. They push hard enough and there most definitely will be an investigation...and the results won't help Gangrene and his cohorts.
Another thing to consider: most likely that briefing was classified and it's illegal to repeat what one is told in a classified briefing. Conversely, if the briefing was unclassified, then the odds are that (then) House Minority Leader Pelosi wasn't told everything; ie, about just what constitutes "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Finally, there is no way in hell that I want that lickspittle piece of crap Hoyer as Speaker; which is probably what the Republicans are hoping for.

Another thing to consider: most likely that briefing was classified and it's illegal to repeat what one is told in a classified briefing. Conversely, if the briefing was unclassified, then the odds are that (then) House Minority Leader Pelosi wasn't told everything; ie, about just what constitutes "enhanced interrogation techniques".

My understanding is that at the time Pelosi was not House minority leader, but ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Gephardt was still minority leader until 2003.

No one really cares about waterboarding three of the 9/11 planners.

You think you're going to be able to convince people that only those three were ever waterboarded? No one else?

Good luck with that.

[Trolling deleted. Keep it up, and I will report the abusive habits of IP 96.255.203.60 to Verizon and you will lose your blazing fast fios connection. --Moderator]

Actually, the onus is on you to prove that more than three were ever waterboarded.

But that's the problem with conspiracies, my dear -- people talk. You really think that all of those CIA agents who think they might be looking at 20 years in jail are going to keep quiet if they can get reduced sentences for talking about who gave the orders?

I'm not expecting all of this to come out tomorrow. I'm expecting it to take a least a year for you to slowly come to the realization that you cheered on Bush and Cheney as they dragged the US down to the same level as the Soviet Union or Iran, and that you were proud and happy to have them turn us into a nation of torturers.

Republicans are lewdicrous and don't you love how Fox puts the 'duh' in propaganda?

The pre-Pelosi Republican mantra was that America did not torture and that if it did, so what, there was nothing wrong about that. Torturing the bad guys kept America safe for 7 1/2 years blah, blah, blah. But today, in their zeal to spread the blame around the GOP must now admit that there is blame to spread around. Torture must be wrong or else there is nothing to attack Pelosi about. Eventually, that admission will catch up with Republicans among people not already hypnotized by the FOX News Republican Noise machine.

[Trolling deleted. Keep it up, and I will report the abusive habits of IP 96.255.203.60 to Verizon and you will lose your blazing fast fios connection. --Moderator]

Agreed. One favor: please remove my IP from the comments; I've already had several attacks coming to my computer, whether from a bot collecting published IPs or someone else attempting to stick it to me.

What if Pelosi is playing a very shrewd game here? Kind of like Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men?" There is the possibility that the Bush administration will hang itself on this thing. Like, suddenly Cheney arches his eyebrows and shouts, "You're goddamn right we tortured them! I gave the order! And I'd do it again!"

I could certainly handle THAT truth.