the other side of the 'isle'? Where were they voting, in the Bahamas? The fact is, Pelosi didn't authorize torture, she didn't carry it out, she didn't start the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and she didn't destroy the global economy. This is a diversion organized by the CIA and Cheney to put Pelosi in front of their crimes. Who said real men don't hide behind women? You, of course, just hate women and Democrats in equal measure. Not content with harping on about Hillary Clinton's backside when she dared to run for president you and your kind have moved on to debating Pelosi's nose as if it is an ideology or a law someone passed, because she dared to become speaker. Why don't you spend an equal amount of time talking about how fat Cheney is or criticising Leon Panetta's nose? It's because of people like you that women are such easy targets in politics.

Senator Bob Graham said the CIA told the media they had given him four briefings on torture but he said that three of the dates they put forward proved to be days on which no briefings of any kind are given. The fourth date they put forward, Graham checked his diary and found that people were present at the meeting who didn't have the necessary security clearance to receive such briefings. They lied about Senator Graham and they lied about Pelosi. They are professional liars, after all and I would have thought by now that it would be obvious why they need to lie about almost everything.It's what criminals do.

make me laugh. You really do.

Pelosi called for investigations because she thought no one would know she and others on the Democratic side of the isle KNEW about the torture going on.

Once they showed they were able to PROVE she and other Democrats KNEW about the torture, she backed off in a hurry.

Now, I can pretty much guarantee you there will be NO investigations. Why? Because BOTH parties knew it was going on and BOTH sanctioned it. So NEITHER can point the finger at the other because BOTH are guilty as hell...and both sides KNOW and can prove it.

This "female" is such a fraud. And her nose just keeps growing and growing. She makes Pinnochio look like he walked into a brick wall.

But I do have a sense of who has what to gain.

So, no the fact that the CIA said something doesn't make me just line up and salute. But by the same token, I don't give Pelosi any rope either.

I look at this situation as a whole. I ask why the current CIA might have cause to embarass Pelosi in this way. I ask why the current President might have cause to do the same, since such a cheap ploy as a bold faced lie is likely to cause greater scrutiny from the top, and cause the current Persident to remove his current cloak of protection from those in the CIA who were involved in this dark time.

Likewise, Pelosi's evolving story hurts her credibility on this. The CIA has been consistant in what they said and who they said it to. Ms. Pelosi has given multiple versions of her thought process and understanding at the time.

So, again, it's not that I trust the CIA, it's just that I have less trust for Pelosi on this one issue.

Oh, and to wontgetfooled again. Give it a little time, let Pelosi hang on the wire a little while longer, the investigations are coming. You may not get anyone in the stocks for it, but you will get answers. There just needs to be enough of everyone's blood in the water that everyone is willing to jump in.

which (or whose) "CIA" are we talking about?

Because it should be evident to anyone who's been paying close attention that the CIA was factionalized on the issue of supporting torture (and then concealing it's use, and then attempting to duck the consequences of the exposure of the program)- and on other issues as well, related to the policies the Bush administration sought and/or enacted that, to employ a euphemism, "pushed the envelope" as in terms of challenged the traditional norms of civil liberties protection in this country, and the respect for modern post-medieval norms of humane treatment and human rights, even when faced with political movements prone to employing violent and deadly means in pursuit of their goals.

There has been general agreement across the political spectrum in Washington that suppressing and eradicating the threat from violent terrorist organizations is a worthy goal- only rightwing extremist propagandists assert otherwise (with approximately zero proof for their claims.)

But it's plain that there was a lot of dissent and discontent in this country about some of the courses of action embarked on by President George W. Bush and his top advisers during his term, both at the grassroots level of public democracy, and both behind closed doors in places like the CIA and the Pentagon- and even in the field.

I think characterizing the present controversy with oversimplifications like "Congressional Democrats vs. the CIA" amounts to a misleading account of the actual dynamics of the situation. More light is needed on the history of these policies, and who ordered what. The Bush administration's torture, surveillance, and the advance propaganda manipulations in support of their planned invasion of Iraq were initiated, supported, and carried out by individuals holding personal responsibility for their acts- not by acronyms such as "CIA", "NSA", or "USAF."

OK..Let's make a deal. The Republicans can go ahead with their little charade and investigate Pelosi..in return for Obama and Congress having full reign over investigating the criminal wrongdoings of Bush, Cheney, et al. Of course, they won't have a chance of finding anything based on their already flimsy evidence and Pelosi will go free. And millions of Americans will get their wish...that American Presidents are not KINGS and as such are subject to the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America.

FAIR is FAIR.