A bit of media criticism, with the priviso that I am not singling out "Today's Papers" over at Slate per se, but suggesting this sort of thing is representative:
The Washington Post leads with the latest in the case of What Nancy Knew—in this episode, CIA Director Leon Panetta rejected Speaker Pelosi's claim that his agency had not properly briefed congressional leaders in late 2002 about interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. ...
Accusations and conflicting accounts continue to fly in the CIA interrogation-techniques kerfuffle. Former Sen. Bob Graham* backs Pelosi, saying that the CIA did not adequately inform members of the Intelligence Committees of what techniques were being used on detainees at Guantanamo, while former CIA director and former Rep. Porter Goss said they were. Either way, it's like Kryptonite for the otherwise-durable Pelosi, although the NYT calls it "undisputed fact" that even if she had been fully knowledgeable about what was going on in September 2002, she would have been relatively powerless to stop it.
First, when you say "either way," are we supposed to forget that Sen. Bob Graham -- who some might think more trustworthy than Goss (at least canceling him out) -- BACKED Pelosi? He's mentioned in the very same sentence as two former CIA guys. Is this some sort of 2-1 decision deal?
Second, let's see how much CIA Director Panetta (no bias there) "rejected" Pelosi:
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques** that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
It was also not "our policy or practice" to torture. But, we are supposed to accept the word without a large grain of salt (it is like Kyptonite!) of what they said, even if Sen. Graham and Pelosi both say they misled or (in Graham's case) got details (like when they met him) wrong.
Anyway, saying something is "policy or practice" is really saying it is not "official" policy or practice. Only the fatuous (admittedly many) would take that to mean it wasn't done um unofficially. Finally, the guy said it was UP TO CONGRESS to evaluate. Pelosi supports a 'truth commission' authorized by Congress. Game, set, match! Wait ...
In another disappointment for left-leaning Washington watchers, Obama's expected announcement that he would continue to try terrorism suspects through the military commissions—which exclude certain types of evidence from consideration by the defense—drew cries of outrage from civil rights groups.
Slate should stop dissing center, right and libertarian Washington watchers that also support civil liberties and necessary government restraints. No really, they exist. They also don't like torture. Actually, some make it their business to remind us that "civil rights" really is just the concern of the right. The left are lying hypocrites. Thus, I think Slate should honor their service. (just a tad bit of snark there).
Anyway, as usual, Glenn Greenwald (that strong leftie! the left always opposes hate crime legislation, for instance) has a lot more on this sort of thing as well as Obama's latest "take out the trash day" release that suggests a bit of a disconnect with what he once seemed to say. A press query on the point made press secretary Gibbs look a bit too much like one of his predecessors, who also has that teddy bear look about him, actually.
---
* Rachel Maddow had an amusing piece last night on Sen. Graham's excessive note taking that leads one to trust him more than Goss, more than Pelosi for that matter. At least, all other things being equal.
** "Enhanced techniques" sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Enhanced can mean "to raise the value of" or "to raise to a higher degree." This either (especially using "techniques") sounds like a good thing or neutral.