of today's wa po "expose" piece on speaker pelosi's non-objection to waterboarding, among other matters. . .

at the outset, i do agree that
there is ample room to criticize both
sides of the aisle on what was, or was
not done (harman gets a badge of merit,
however, for speaking up against it!),
during 2002 and 2003 on the rendition
and near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW is
making too much of too little here. pelosi
is by no means equal to cheney, yoo or
addington, in the rubric of how we came
to be where we are. this line of wa po
reasoning is simply a form of blaming the
cops for failing to catch the crooks. in
this case, though, the crooks (mostly) operated
in secret, with the protective mantle of
national security, and anti-terror efforts,
and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-
trolled affair -- on all committees -- and
minority views were simply tools to suggest
a democrat was unpatriotic, or worse -- non-
re-electable, as too "soft on terror."

note, in particular, my bolded portions
of the wa po story, below. there is clearly
an agenda being advanced here -- don't let
this obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-
ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . ."

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .'

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?
they make up a quote, don't attribute it -- but
suggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the "goss" mentioned
above, is of course, porter goss -- CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift
blame here -- and we should not be buying
it -- and certainly not in the breathless
tones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

yes, pelosi could have done more.

but this is entirely out of hand, folks.

just my $0.02.