I chose the (admittedly clumsy) terms "unheroic "and "evil" because that is the choice the GOP and the media is giving us with regards to Pelosi. Somehow, Pelosi was supposed to be omniscient and prescient and overcome a hostile majority (and press) to overturn an illegal and immoral secret practice sanctioned by the highest ranking members of the Executive branch. The fact that she failed to do this makes her (according to the coverage of and reaction to her press conference) "Die-Hard"-worthy criminal mastermind, while the people who dreamed up, ordered, executed and covered up the actual torture are given a pass.

What other pair of words better describes the choices?

You suggest that Pelosi and others might have been "ok" with torture as long as it prevented further acts of terror. That is certainly possible. But, I certainly hope that it isn't accurate. It's not a moral - or legal - position to hold. And it smacks of "It's not illegal when the president does it [ because the president is patriotically protecting the country]." It's simply not an excusable defense. If that really was the prevailing mindset, even in the scary days of late 2001 and early 2002, then the terrorists really did win.

A father or uncle or grandfather spending time with a girl or young woman in their family is not creepy. Girls need time with male role-models, especially as in their tweens and teens. They need time with men they can trust, have fun with, and look up to. (Obviously, the same goes for boys/women, and girls/women and boys/men).

I cherish the times I spent with my dad when I was a young teen. He'd take me to hockey games or to movies about girlish things. We'd be silly or serious - he helped diffuse tension between me and my mom, sort out what I wanted in a college, and give me fresh insights about boys.

These were not dates.

Dates are occasions designed specifically for a potential couple to get to know each other better, for the purpose of learning "do I want to marry this person?" Or, dates are occasions for established couples to cherish each other romantically. (Let's leave aside the fact that most teens don't actually "date" for now). A date is foreplay (even if it's not consummated until after marriage).

This isn't just a semantic argument, but a very important mindset. Calling a father-daughter outing a "date" infuses erotic tension into an event that should be completely devoid of eroticism. It's completely creepy.

The Pelosi pseudo-scandal is being addressed in War Room.

However, we can talk about it here too, if you like.

1. Pelosi has stated the CIA misled her and other member of congress in 2002. While I think it's unfair to say "The CIA lied", it;s certainly not unreasonable to say "these individuals in the CIA lied/obstructed/equivocated/misled/misrepresented the facts/stretched the truth/lied by omission." It's happened before. Remember Iran-Contra? Goodness, remember the torture video tapes, now destroyed, and the ever-changing number of them?

2. Pelosi is asking for the briefings to be made public. She's either confident her versions of events will be revealed in the briefings, or she's bluffing. Either way, let's read the briefings.

3. This was 2002 and 2003. Had any one of us ever heard of water-boarding? Who among us (or congress) would have known what to object about? The term wasn't in our common lexicon until 2005-ish. We know that during this period the administration routinely deceived congress and the public about many things related to the War on Terror. Why should we assume this briefing was any different?

4. Add to that, at this time, anyone who raised an eyebrow at the Bush administration was branded a terrorist-loving traitor. (Remember what happened to the humble French fry?) Plame-gate was sumer of 2003. That was the moment when America finally started to wake up and *question* the administration.

5. It's helpful to remember that 2002, Pelosi was minority whip. In 2003 she became minority leader. She wasn't speaker until 2007. A powerful position within the Democratic caucus, but not so powerful in the GOP-dominated House under GWB. The minority Democrats in the first Bush term were more greatly marginalized than today's minority Republicans. (Remember the Patriot Act invoked to chase down democrats on a plane?)

Should Pelosi and her congressional colleagues demanded more information? Questioned the legality of what was going on? Refused to rubber-stamp the process? Of course. But ... do any of us think that really would have changed anything? Really? Colin Powell couldn't change things. John McCain couldn't change things. What were Pelosi's chances of changing anything?

There were very few heroes in 2002-2003. But there's a big difference between "unheroic" and "evil." Let's not give Pelosi a medal. But keep her out of the stocks until we see credible evidence of actual wrong-doing (and then let's put her in line for punishment *behind* masterminds).

is kidding, right?

Can someone send them a dictionary?

Just so we're clear: more Americans have been killed serving in the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars than were killed on 9/11.

It has to do with suffering.

We know how much people suffer when tortured.

We assume an aborted fetus does not suffer.

It has to do with intent.

The purpose of torture is to inflict pain.

The purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is to limit (a more complex) pain.

The more curious question is to ask why so many rabidly antiabortion believers are perfectly ok with torture?

No one will take your bet.

But why do you seem to think Pelosi's crime (assuming all that is being said against her is true) is on par with actually ordering and executing the torture?

Did we execute the German civilians who said nothing when they saw the cattle cars roll through their town? Or did we save our ire for the guys who turned on the gas?