So basically what we have here on the torture issue is...

[dem629]

some evidence that those who ordered the torture may have told people about it. Major news!

But wait. Why, exactly, is that a valid defense?

Why are we letting this "defense" dominate the conversation?

My response: If other people in positions of power were told in advance and did nothing to stop it, fine, widen the scope of the investigation. There are varying levels of culpability, similar to a group of people being involved in any other crime. If someone knew about a bank robbery in advance, they're guilty of something, even if not the same crime as the actual bank robber.

I doubt the people trying to change the conversation and shift focus to Pelosi would agree to that, which would show their disingenuous intentions in the debate.

[pat_k]

1. kick