On the other hand, the GOP doesn't want the truth commission, but they want to check out Pelosi's claims about the CIA. That's the same contradiction in reverse.

What this reveals is that it's all nothing but political games. Big surprise, I know.

There may have been some Democrats and Republicans, in 2002, who thought Jesus was coming back before 2009, but he didn't. Waterboarding was a felony before 9-11, and it was still a felony after 9-11.

"You forget the times during which these events occurred. I'm sure that you'd feel differently about waterboarding if you or someone you loved had been in one of the buildings that planes were crashed into."

I don't forget anything. And what I remember is how many dead American soldiers there are as a result of Bush/Cheney, plus the extra bonus of making the country less safe. It ain't a matter of how anyone "feels", it's about law and order and respect for the Constitutional framework of our democracy.

"It's my opinion that, as loud-mouthed and critical as Pelosi is, that she was as frightened as most Americans after a terrorist attack here in America and supported waterboarding at the time. Only when the political tide turned did she change her mind. And for some reason, she wants to get America all riled about something she had a part in."

You have no information, other than buffoonish Villager talk, disproving anything Speaker Pelosi said. None of the Bush crimes are about Nancy Pelosi…they're about Bush/Cheney.

It's okay to investigate Pelosi's answers in a press conference….but it's not okay to investigate the authors and implementers of a new lawless torture regime.

Just so we're clear on where we stand, right?

That's radical right wing extremist talk, larry.

She actually has said that she knew about waterboarding after September 4. She said nothing to anyone about any issues she had with it, although she reports that she 'supported' a letter sent by her successor on the subject. Supported a letter, a year after she knew that waterboarding was being used, in her own words. If she'd gone to the press about any of this while it was happening, I might be more inclined to believe her. It just looks like political posturing so many years after the fact.

Yes, I want Pelosi to give us something to indicate whether she's telling the truth. When we have evidence that she was actually misinformed by the CIA, then something can be done about that. Lying/misinforming a congress person is a criminal offense. But, thus far, all we've seen from Pelosi are unsupported accusations. If she's going to scream foul, then she should be able to proceed with prosecuting those who lied to her.

I don't want to investigate Pelosi, necessarily. I really don't think there's anything to investigate, except whether her claims are true. When are you ever going to get it, Chip? Did you do that poorly on the reading comprehension sections of your achievement tests? "Cause, man, you don't seem capable of comprehending a simple sentence. I'll spell it out AGAIN, call it Tory's Opinion for Dummies. I think that an investigation of Pelosi's charges is warranted. If she's telling the truth, which she could be, then the CIA was lying to her on a matter of national security. Those who did so should be prosecuted. If she's stretching the truth for political gain, then she should just come out and admit it so that the entire nation can stop worrying about whether she was lied to and start worrying about the whole torture issue.

I think that there were both Democrats and Republicans who didn't think that waterboarding was torture in 2002. You forget the times during which these events occurred. I'm sure that you'd feel differently about waterboarding if you or someone you loved had been in one of the buildings that planes were crashed into. It's my opinion that, as loud-mouthed and critical as Pelosi is, that she was as frightened as most Americans after a terrorist attack here in America and supported waterboarding at the time. Only when the political tide turned did she change her mind. And for some reason, she wants to get America all riled about something she had a part in.

What I asked Tory, was whether she supported an investigation into all aspects of Bush's torture regime.

Still waiting for an answer. I know of no Republicans who want an investigation. So, which is it? Does Tory want an investigation of Pelosi or an investigation of torture?

But, then again, I guess it serves your purpose to be intentionally obtuse, huh?

"As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed.""

That's pretty clear. It takes an act of willful ignorance to disregard it. Panetta directly contradicted Pelosi.

And if you consider Pelosi calling the CIA liars to be a distraction, you're nuts. If the CIA lied to Congress, that is a serious crime. Pelosi accused the CIA of committing a crime.

The Constitution says the government should regulate commerce, not run it. The Constitution also says that specific powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states or the people.

Get around that.

Workers have the right to organize….and the WAY they organize is their business, not the employer's.

Americans auction the spectrum space to big media and their close corporate sponsoring buddies ride the monopoly. Add political incest into the mix and American voters might wind up being propagandized into a war. Never know. The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is just. FOX is a prime reason to regulate further.

We've already introduced national health care with Medicare, something needs to be done about climate change and we don't have enough oil under our ground to make much of a dent.

So I have no idea what Constitutional violations you are referring to.

If there is even one Democrat who cares about the U.S. Constitution, I'd love to hear about it. I haven't heard one voice yet about that.

Rev, you and Frank can go on and on about torture this and torture that. But if you knew your kids or the baby in that picture were going to be raped and then murdered and you had the perps accomplice in your possession, You would do whatever it took no matter how long it took to get the information you needed to get that child safely back to your home. Even if it took a year or 2 as long as there was hope…you wouldn't quit. Unless you would rather make friends, buy them dinner and take them for a visit to Obama's favorite cab driver.

Cheney didn't say to cherry pick, that is your assumption. Cheney said to open the investigation but to be sure all of the briefs and memos are released. Not cherry pick like the Dems have done. Are they afraid there may be a WMD for the Dem party hidden in there? I think so.

But this…

"Most Americans are all for a "do whatever it takes to protect us" type of defense and most agree that our leaders should do what they gotta do to protect us.."

..is simply mob rule. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. The Founders made their decision….now it's up to our generation to make our decision. I'm for the rule of law. So far, everything I've seen from Republicans and conservatives on torture….just like during the Plame case….is that they want a nation of men.

" It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress."

That sentence has no meaning, whatsoever. It's not my policy to steal from my neighbors. Not my policy. Doesn't mean I didn't or won't.

"Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

This is a call for an investigation. Congress, "ultimately", must decide "what happened." He sounds really confident, doesn't he?

Funny, in your comment, I never saw an answer to whether you wanted an investigation. Is that a no?

Let's see how serious you really are about truth, Ms. Bug. How about an investigation to find out the truth? How about it?

You talk about and chastise Reps for protecting liars and criminals yet you defend the people that have caused this whole thing. Why?

"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice–indeed, my direction–to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is–even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

Leon E. Panetta"

I see nothing that can be misconstrued. I think he's saying, in essence, we told Pelosi the truth. We are too busy trying to protect the country to get caught up in political games. Let's continue to operate with honesty and integrity, keeping ourselves above political chatter, because the mission of the CIA is too important to allow ourselves to get distracted. That's what I read. Pelosi knew what was going on; the CIA is not in the business of hiding the truth from its bosses.

You remind me of a guy I used to know. Are you by any chance from Cinti, Chip?

That said….I want all of this investigated, do you? Would you be in favor of a full independent investigation into every aspect of the torture issue?

Leon Panetta was named as Obama's pick for the CIA in January of this year. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/06/nation/na-obama-cia-panetta6 He really has no reason to lie about documentation of meetings that occurred 7 years before he became CIA director. He could have jumped on the bandwagon of Blame Bush, and no one would think anything of it. But he didn't. If Skippy (or is it Chip? Is that why you're so zealously defending Pelosi?) could explain that one to me, maybe I can see why you think she's being honest?

stating that records, "indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of (terrorist suspect) Abu Zubaydah, describing `the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'"

Records from the same guys who told Graham, just recently, they had briefed him on 4 separate occasions…when in reality, he was only briefed once….something the CIA now readily admits.

I want a thorough investigation of everyone involved. Others want to direct attention away from the real culprits by disingenuously pointing the finger at someone they claim lied.

Educate thyself…

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/senator-bob-graham-the-cia-made-up-two-briefing-sessions/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/16/the-two-torture-tape-suspects-the-pelosi-briefing-and-the-panetta-statement/

Give her time. Some of the more successful politicians get to be pretty good at it.