Why Everyone Should Read Greg Sargent's Blog

All day since Nancy Pelosi said that the CIA had misled her in her briefing in 2002 I have seen people from every political stripe question whether the CIA intelligence report proved that Nancy Pelosi had been briefed on waterboarding or if it hadn't. The point of contention is the wording of the entry where it say she and Porter Goss were briefed on techniques that had already been used. That's big because we now know that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded already by the time Speaker Pelosi attended that briefing. But the thing about it is Greg Sargent noticed that wording on the very day the report came out last week. And he didn't wait for Speaker Pelosi to make a statement. Instead like a REAL journalist he asked the CIA what it really meant:

In the newly-released documents detailing the torture briefings given to members of Congress, the portion describing Pelosi’s single briefing says she was told about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in general, but doesn’t specify whether she was told about the use of waterboarding. That was specified about some briefings given to others.

I asked CIA spokesperson Paul Gimigliano why. His answer: Because the notes and memos on the Pelosi meeting that form the basis for the docs didn’t allow them to go that far, meaning that they didn’t specify that she’d been briefed on waterboarding in particular.

Now can we find a way to get the MSM to report this so we can move on from this stupid sidenote? The CIA, in their own words, have no proof that Speaker Pelosi was specifically briefed on waterboarding. Now would be a good time to get the focus back on who ORDERED the torture rather than who was briefed or not briefed on it.