Pelosi's Probably Right

I hope Pelosi takes serious note of the fact that people who she has been protecting took the first opportunity they had to try and bury her.

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle: Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

Nice to see somebody in the media acknowledge this like 3 days late. Of course you still left our David Obey challenging the CIA's assertion that a staffer attended a meeting that he was kicked out of but hey baby steps right?

It would nice if once in a while, the detective work necessary to parse mealy-mouthed lawyerspeak would happen at the beginning of the life cycle of a non-story instead of waiting till the thing had been rolling for a full week.
.
The story was never about Nancy Pelosi. The story is about Addington, Baybee, Yoo and Cheney.
.
And as an adiitional clue. Any sentence that leads off with "How could she possibly suggest that....." should immediately set off every BS detector in the building.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Pelosi's Probably Right
.
...and this controversy's probably completely meaningless.

The wingnuts got the MSM to go on a feeding frenzy against Pelosi. Instead of being journalists and questioning the reasons each party, Pelosi and the CIA, would have or shading the truth, the burden was placed on Pelosi to defend herself.
.
Now, we get the story that the CIA may indeed have been the one at fault. The situation reminds us why the press is simply not trusted to be a conduit of truthful information. Wingnuts cn get the press to chase after any shiny ball. The press has learned nothing from the poor performance that it collectively demonstrated in the run up to the war.
.
The press failed to place emphasis on the fact that Hoekstra himself had accused the CIA of lying.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/hoekstra_its_wrong_to_call_cia_liars_--_except_whe.php

Paul Dirks, at least she finally got there. So many still haven't. But you're right -- if she had even read comments here a few days back, she could have had a (dead-tree media) scoop. But, alas, JNS does not engage the incoherent rabble.

That's "engage with," naturally.

But "engage" alone works, too.

I really can't see how torture will help our image abroad and decrease security threats. I think that the US should pursue a strategy with more soft power including more efficient foreign aid. This will encourage people in less-than-stable areas to be productive instead of radicals, it will increase security, and it will alleviate needless suffering. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

Guess who is coming to Pelosi's defense.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/specter_cia_has_a_very_bad_record_when_it_comes_to.php?ref=fpblg

So is the MSM planning on trumpeting her vindication as loudly and widely as they did with the story that she supposedly lied? And what about that fact that this has all been a sideshow at best anyway? The real story is who decided that torturing suspects was okay in the first place and created a legal framework in which to do it.

incandenzah: When it's in the comments, it's "venting."

Art -- Ah! I see now. Thanks for the translation.

Uhhhhhhhh, didn't her story change? That pretty much seals her prevarication. And she didn't speak up at all about EITs.

But the CIA would NEVER lie to Congress or the American people! It's just unthinkable!

Thanks for correcting the record, JNS but really?!:
.
"Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don't trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?"
.
You're very young aren't you? It's the CIA. They don't do anything you can "trust" except deceive. That's their business.

JNS: I suggest a course of action: ask Newt Gingrich, Loudmouth Scarborough and the Feckless Mika if they have any comment to make on your take. These three loudmouths, aided by Mike Barnicle and assorted "journalists" pushed this bilge for days. Why not call Joe Scarborough and ask him for a comment?

[...] in Bush Administration, Congress, Daily life at 2:46 pm by LeisureGuy Jay Newton-Small writes in Swampland: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a tough week — much of it her own making. But in looking at [...]

Many reporters say that they should collect soundbites from both sides on an issue, throw in some speculation and innuendo, and shy away from finding out about the truth of the matter. Some critics charge that this is actually a f*cking terrible way to accurately inform anyone about anything.
-
It's a controversy! I guess we have to hear out both sides.

It is still pretty simple. Produce the damn documents, put them up on the "transparency" website we've heard so much about and the truth shall not be hidden.
.
They are all running like rats into the ocean to try to hide. They hide because none of them, Republicans or Democrats have the cajones to come out with it honestly to the American public. They are all protecting the individual hides and not committing one way or another on this issue.
.
What has happened to plain truth in politics? What has happened to all of the media hypes, and why are they not demanding to see it all spread out on the table? Everyone is in bed with each other and everyone is out to save their own skin.

That's interesting about what Panetta said. Of course, as Arlen Specter points out, the CIA hasn't been known for honesty, ever. And the Republicans sure never believed them when it was about the need to keep secret agents secret, did they?

So Panetta is saying "don't trust our records"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the people in the CIA write their records? What am I missing here?

[...] Pelosi’s Probably Right [...]

Rusty, it's not simple, because any information provided as part of such a security briefing is going to be classified, so Pelosi can't present it, regardless of whether her notes vindicate her or not. I happily concede that Pelosi was foolish to make such statement about the accuracy of her briefing, but neither the CIA or Pelosi can present evidence to support their cases. So we're all left interpreting rhetorical subtleties of the other people involved in these briefings in order to try and arrive at the real story.

Even if the rest of the media (thanks, J N-S) were ever to get around to focusing the substance of the issue, and (more unlikely) give it the same level of hype devoted to the manufactured controversy, the best that could be said is that days of energy and time have been diverted from addressing the freaking torture itself!