Only Nan is Telling the Truth

Dday has written a spirited defense of Nancy Pelosi, although he assures us, quite unconvincingly, that's it's not because she has a "D" after her name.

Bullet point number one is that "CIA agents are a group of professional liars." Here he references an ABC news story that claimed Abu Zubaydah was only waterboarded once, and started to cooperate after being waterboarded for probably 30, 35 seconds. This misleading version, which ricocheted around the media, came from a former CIA agent who was not present at the interrogations and who still insists that at that time he believed Zubaydah had been only waterboarded once. To Dday this is evidence of a disinformation campaign by the CIA rather than bad reporting by Brian Ross, who used unverified information from a source who had only partial knowledge of what was going on. The question is how does this in any way get Nancy Pelosi off the hook? How do reports by ABC which later turned out to be inaccurate prove the CIA is lying about what Pelosi knew and when she knew it?

Ddays next bullet point in his defense of Pelosi is that she was briefed "after the torture was committed." Even if this were true, how would that exonerate her? Wouldn't that make her an accessory after the fact?

Furthermore, Dday argues, if Pelosi had known about the torture what was she to do with the information? Innocently, he asks: Didn't the system in place tie her hands? Was she to illegally leak what she had heard? (As if she wouldn't have done that in a millisecond if she thought it would help her and her party politically.) Evidently she could have done what Jane Harmon did and write a letter to the CIA's top counsel. But Pelosi apparently did nothing.

Reading further we learn the CIA briefing documents in question are "dishonest and discredited." Oh, really? Is that because Republicans are using them to hold Pelosi's dainty little feet to the fire?