Sargent and Maddow discuss whether CIA documents "are likely to help" Pelosi

There's no such place as "Standford..." what an idiot.

(What AN idiot NOT what A idiot) She is neither, she will improve. She is honest and her intentions are good.

It should do something for the American public to mobolize and confront these types of ongoings. If that is a fact, does our votes really count and who is running America. Follow the history of decision making in war times. I have a blog on Oprah.com, I asked this question before this incident.

That gives credibility to her statement. Does it change my position on her readiness to be in her position, NO! I said that I would do some research to find a little information out and so I gave it a shot: In my opinion the Republicans favor if not dominate the views of FOX reporting angles and so you will not be surprised to know that Deroy Murdock, a contributor to the National Review, has disclosed a sentiment that is reflective of the then administration. One which is in favor of "water boarding". During some of the same research, I found that that CIA suggest that waterboarding was mentioned in 2003, six months after the Pelosi briefing. The umbrella title was 'Enhanced Interrogations". The question then becomes, did anyone sign on with clarity and question what "enhanced interrogations" were? That is the job of the committee. You see, I am able to make mistakes like that because I have not been deemed capable and placed in charge of those types of departments. When you are put in a certain responsibility, especially where military is concerned, you should be G#$D#%N sure that you are equated with the role of the office and the oversights or attempts at deceptions. Another question, was it "strategy" for her , the other three women, and the one other Rep male to have been on this committee so that the signing on or the passing of the interrogation methods could be approved without objection? Porter Gross, who seems to not be bothered by the way the blanketness was eased then says, "respectively, Pelosi was briefed in 2004". "Respectively", here is the word game-you think you here retrospectively but it is not there, what is there is truth mind you because respectively implies to the degree which she should have beenn informed, not in hinesight as we conclusively have jumped. \
The CIA may not have lied as well- No one got clarity on what EIT's entailed thoroughly but they did follow protocal! They didn't give full disclosure. No one asked either. Gross seemed to be aware of something more indepth though. When you look at the individuals the CIA sought to give approval and sign off they did it with extreme effectiveness and forethought. The people they chose were etiher wounded in a previous war or predominately women who may not have been aware of the extremities-although perceived to know that the GOB's get er done their own way! It was being inclusive to something by ignorance and as we know, ignorance of the law does not make you exempt.

let us ask ourselves; why was there rounded and highly respected military persons assigned to this committee? Once again, America has used our own strategies of psychology and manipulation in house.