The CIA has been in the news a lot latey, claiming that the entire Congress (but especially Nancy Pelosi) knew exactly when the torture started and how it was being done and that they (she) had approved it and it just wasn't their fault. Following orders, you know.*
Ms. Pelosi is not very popular across America, although she does not seem to have a lot of trouble getting re-elected to her seat. I don't pay a lot of attention to the hoopla surrounding her. She is from a different state and I can not vote for her or for her opponent and I have a difficult enough time following the bozos.. I mean, politicians, in my own state.
But this is the same CIA who fed us information on WMDs. Non-existent WMDs. WMDs which led to a war that has cost this country far more than any dollar amount could explain.
Plus, there is old Newt screaming about her. Screaming that there should be an investigation into what she did or didn't know. Can that be proven at all, either way? Why isn't Newt screaming about those who have ADMITTEDLY authorized the torture?
And why isn't anyone other than NPR carrying this story about former FL Senator Bob Graham?
former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, is also disputing the CIA's version of the briefings that he received at the time.
Graham is known as a meticulous note-taker and has maintained a daily log that fills hundreds of spiral notebooks
I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."
Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held."
He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation."
Because corroboration of her story makes her seem slight less insane? Sen Graham does go on to say that waterboarding and other torture techniques were not mentioned. At.All.
And he makes the same connection I did above about the CIA and the WMDs, but does a better job of it.
Maybe the CIA needs to rethink its approach to this issue and go back to pointing the finger at those who authorized this stain (one in a long line) on America.
* The military are required to follow orders, but only those considered "lawful" and active duty military personnel can be prosecuted for following "unlawful" orders, as can be seen by the Abu Ghraib scandal. If 18 or 19 kids are supposed to be able to tell the difference, why aren't the grown up in the CIA being held accountable?