Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that she was NOT told that the practice of harsh interrogation tactics, including the use of waterboarding, had actually taken place at the CIA briefing she personally attended in 2002. She insists that she was told of the practice but only that it was a possible technique not that it had indeed been used.

She goes on to say that she was only informed that the practice had taken place when she was briefed by an aide who attended a briefing in her stead in 2003. How very odd that Madame Speaker only admits to knowing of the practice when someone within her own private circle of advisors relayed the information. How very odd that Madame Speaker admits to knowing only when denying it at that point would mean opening up the possibility of a close aide being questioned about what they reported to her.

I find the inconsistencies in the several different versions of the stories Pelosi’s has told to be damning on their own. But what I find most curious is not what was done but what wasn’t done. And I find it equally curious that nobody so far is questioning it.

If Speaker Pelosi was only informed in 2002, as she alleges, that waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation were only possibilities, why would she seemingly avoid the next briefing and send an aide instead? If in fact these techniques were discussed as being possibilities in 2002 and if these techniques were viewed at that time as illegal, as Democrats are now claiming, wouldn’t one of the most powerful people in the House of Representatives make it a point to attend this briefing in person? If the CIA had briefed the Speaker in 2002 of the possibility of carrying out illegal activity wouldn’t that Speaker have objected strenuously and made sure at the next briefing that no such action had taken place? Madame Speaker did none of those things. She conveniently stayed away in what certainly appears to be an attempt to keep her hands clean. And if she felt she needed to stay away it was because she already knew what was being discussed.

In an effort to smooth some ruffled feathers at the CIA Pelosi is now claiming that it was not the CIA but the Bush administration that misled her. How that is possible as it was the CIA holding the briefings is beyond me. And why is it that only Speaker Pelosi feels she was personally misled? Why are there not a gaggle of Democrats claiming the same subterfuge? Could it be that after a total of forty briefings by the CIA to members of Congress, only Nancy Pelosi can claim bad information with a straight face? Or could it be that the other Democrats are not quite as foolhardy to believe they can convince Americans 6 years after the fact that they were clueless?

The latest Democrat misdirection play is to begin a publicity campaign calling for the disbarment of 12 key Bush administration attorneys. But once again what is not being discussed is the key to the issue.

Why now? Why six years after Speaker Pelosi admits she became aware of the harsh techniques? Why now when all of these attorneys are no longer in a position to do any more supposed harm? Even if I believe that Speaker Pelosi only found out in 2003 that supposed illegal activity was in fact taking place I would have to find it unconscionable that she and the rest of the Democrats allowed this practice to continue unchallenged and only now after the Bush administration is no longer in charge do they choose to begin disbarment proceedings.

It is becoming apparent that the Democrats led by their Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are spinning out of control on this issue. The harder they try to deflect attention to the evil Bush administration the deeper they are digging the hole they are mired in.

If Republicans can step away from the stupid slick slogan campaign they seem to be stuck in and begin to actually appeal to the voters common sense by asking these questions this blatant attempt to mislead the public could seriously, and perhaps permanently, damage Nancy Pelosi’s future in politics.

And THAT is change I can believe in.