Following up on an earlier post this morning, there's very good questions starting to come out that point to what exactly the purpose of the Bush administration's torture policies were. Why, as Lawrence Wilkerson writes, did the torture stop in 2004, if it is so successful and necessary to national security? Why were questions about Iraq among the first put to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed when he was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003?
Meanwhile, Josh Marshall has the definitive rejoinder to pro-torture partisans eager to make this story about Nancy Pelosi:
Here's where we are. There are various documents and recollections from around through the news ether. Pelosi's accusers are saying she knew more than she admits. She says that many of these claims are false and the documents perhaps erroneous, and that she's been consistent and true to her opposition to torture. And then she says, and I think there should be a broad-ranging Truth Commission to investigate what happened, who's telling the truth and who isn't. You can see it here at about 3:45 in.I have no idea what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. It's possible she has legal culpability for human rights abuses committed under the Bush administration, and possible that even if she is not legally culpable she should be shamed into resigning. There's only one way to find out.
That says it all. She wants it all investigated.