Garrison, just to let you know there's at least one high IQ type, highly educated, and very well informed on these issues, who agrees with you. As you probably know 62% of the American publc agrees with your position. As for the letters here (which apparently are vast majority against you), well, that tells you something about the posters/readers of this site. And their hero (and mine), the president, agrees with you also, I believe, but has fumbled the ball. Incidentally, I agreed with the Nixon pardon immediately, and of course there were many who would've preferred to see the country in lockdown for a year or two during his prosecution, if those were the only choices (they were). A lot of people like to chest thumb their morality....that's not the exclusive province of conservatives. As for me, I'm an outlier -- I decide issues on their merits. good luck with that re this torture investigation issue. Have a nice summer.

Nancy Pelosi agrees that year ago in her official capacity she was informed that waterboarding was a possible technique. Others say she was told more, that it was a technique in use or about to be used. Her version makes no sense...she says she didn't speak up because she didn't know it would be used. So why tell her about it, in her watchdog capacity? Congress' failure to restrain these practices, which are among the worst things in the world according to most posters here, is a serious crime. Peolosi and just a few others were informed, per custom and practice and possibly laws. She did nothing, even on her version, which is not credible. But on her version, she should have made waves -- did she? Nancy Pelosi must stand trial with the others.

...she was just as willing to risk the Democrats' chance of taking the White House as he was. And her bashing of the "other woman" is pathetic...that woman owes Elizabeth and her family nothing. If it makes Liz feel better to call her names, then Liz has a character problem. Overall, book apparently confirms what seemed likely: Liz cares about being the first lady, period...the rest is a bunch of hurt feelings, big deal.

Don't they count? Oops...sorry to be offensive.

You know, the one that says Obama is going to use military commissions after all....I'm waiting Glenn, seriously.

n/t

This is not a comment on Sykes -- I didn't hear her. What I'm interested in is the endless liberal/Democratic/progressive comparison of their people with Bush/Cheney, etc. If the latter were bad, why always cite them as in "they did it too, neeny nah nah". During the campaign we heard "Bush didn't have foreign policy experience either". This isn't logic, it's the kind of idiocy we get from politicians on all sides. Are liberals better than conservatives? In my opinion yes, but I don't like political types because they have no allegiance to facts or truth. I say let them rule; just don't want to hang out with them.

There's a reason why Obama, not Glenn or a similar thinking person, is president. Presidents deal with protecting our country even at the expense of what some purists see as principle. Obama doesn't see US torture becoming public (at the least) for the foreseeable future, and right now he has two wars to wrap up one way or the other, as well as the usual national security concerns. Glenn apparently is devoted mostly to fighting for principles....fine, don't mean to sound patronizing, good job Glenn, but stay as far away from the levers of power as possible. I want to live. And keep Romero in beer, or something; the man makes you look like a hard-nosed realist.

I meant, of course, Obama doesn't foresee NEW instances of torture, i.e., committed since he took the reins, coming to light for the foreseeable future.

This is a joke, right? After what the Democrats and their supporters said about Bush in the last six years or so of his administration, you can't take some heat from a Republican? I know, you're talking about the "transition" period, but what's special about that? Criticism should be legitimate at any time. If Cheney's points stink, that will be made clear, as is already being done on salon.com and elsehwhere. Democracts have to be able to take it as well as dish it out. And what about the possibility that Cheney thinks he's helping his country? Joan doesn't even allow for that. Well, there are more than Liberals in this world.

The people who really feel strongly against the Bush -- now also Obama -- policies, are an unimportant minority. Once you understand that, the rest is easy.

Presidents have access to info denied ordinary citizens. Maybe Obama knows something Glenn and the rest of us do not. We'll never know perhaps, but at least there's a possibility, especially if Obama strikes you as an intelligent, highly decent man. And it's hard to fight the lack of attacks since 9/11, so Glenn's strategy is not to mention that. I don't blame him. Sure, there's no proof on what causes events not to happen, but what president wants to change things and take a big chance? Always easier to be a critic than a creator or governor. Not saying critics aren't very important, but how 'bout at least a nod to these possibilities?

No, Russ Feingold and Rachel Madow do not command a political majority. Congress will accede to Obama's wishes here and elsewhere on national security proposals. I understand that activists have to pretend they believe they have power, or all hope for them is lost, and occasionally the projection of belief might sway a few souls here and there, but c'mon, Glenn, express your strong disapproval but don't act like your nuts.