Liberalism IS a mental disorder!

"Nancy Pelosi has more integrity in her pinky than Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have in their whole bodies combined."

Some congressional idiot made that claim to a bevy of media cameras gathered for a press conference designed to help the flailing Speaker of the House try to save face. Of course the Congressional idiot wishes he never had said it now, following the release of President Obama's Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta that put forward in no uncertain terms that Ms. Pelosi was the one lying to Congress, the administration, the media, and "We the People."

Leon Panetta also made clear that the CIA had truthfully, and fully briefed the speaker as to the techniques used, that she was in attendance, acknowledged the techniques, and had no problem with them at the time.

Thus the history books will say, began the downfall of Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House.

It's one thing for her to try to pretend that the only voices contradicting her abhorrent memory of certain events were from the GOP. But when the new face of the Democratic establishment labels her a liar, she's got more trouble on her hands than anyone in her party wants at this stage of the game.

Obama will be content to let her twist, and if necessary die in the wind because his agenda has nothing to do with protecting her name and legacy as Speaker. But Pelosi's actions do cause thoughtful observers to wonder why she chose the path she did. Pelosi didn't just tell untruths, she accused the very important organization of the CIA of committing in essence mass conspiracy--against only her. That the CIA would feel the need to go to such lengths to simply create the illusion that someone was not being fully transparent with the American people, would be sort of like trying to kill cockroaches with bazookas. It would get the job done, but a little excessively.


It's simple. Liberals believe that nothing that comes out of their own mouth can ever be classified as a lie.

In the reality of liberals there is no objective record of fact or substance, only shades of interpretation. The fact that she was at the briefing didn't mean she was physically there, or if it did and she felt emotionally disconnected from what was being discussed, or if her mind wandered, then she wasn't REALLY there, was she?