Don't tell me this is another case of trying to rewrite history!

This story is moving so fast that if people simply take a nap, they may wake up to find a Special Prosecutor is already in hot pursuit!

Aren't you (and the former intel pro) missing the point here? If the supposed reliability of the CIA briefing docs is based upon the claim that they were "contemporaneously" recorded -- and therefore more accurate than Pelosi's memory, many years later -- then doesn't the fact that the docs use a term that was not in common use until many years later suggest that these docs were recently created?

At a minimum, this renders the documents much less trustworthy. And it suggests that they were possibly fabricated long after the events they supposedly record in order to attack Pelosi's version.

Wonder if Fox is going to retract their claims on Pelosi now. (sarcasm)

Great find! keep digging.

The Bush/Cheney Torture Enablers (as usual) want it both ways: They want to hold the CIA responsible for its many errors surrounding flawed intelligence (which it clearly sought) surrounding Iraq's WMDs. And they want to hold it harmless and perfectly honest in its memory of the Congressional briefings. (Though Panetta doesn't.) And since the CIA is (theoretically) expert in the business of disinformation, with a history (Helms, Casey, et alia) of lying to Congress, why the debate?

This sounds like it hits the nail on the head - the actual CIA briefing notes are still classified and the CIA has refused to release them. The "document" in question is a declassified summation of those notes made at a later (when we don't exactly know) date.

Pelosi is telling the truth - the CIA did not say at the 2002 briefing that waterboarding was being employed. What she is afraid of--as her performance last week suggests and this source confirms--is that she didn't follow up at the briefing and probe more deeply about what exactly was being done. This was 2002, the days of piss-your-pants fear of terrorism, with Republicans lording their alpha-male "response" to 9/11 over Dems and well on their way to wiping the floor with them in the next two elections. Minority members like Pelosi weren't about to make waves and ask questions, at least as long as the CIA wasn't standing up there and admitting they were waterboarding the bejeezus out of people (and I believe Pelosi, Rickefeller and Graham--they didn't admit to it in those briefings).

If this is correct, Pelosi is telling the truth and the actual notes back her up. And once the truth is out, Newt and Boehner's completely over-the-top statements will finally show them for the fat braying jackasses that they are.

The way this story is worded implies the CIA back-dated the term "EIT" onto briefing documents before the term was widely in use in 2006.

Bush can't even remember when Paul Bremer told him that he, Bremer, had unilaterally decided to disband the entire Iraqi Army, which happened the day after Bremer arrived in Baghdad in 2003.

So Pelosi is supposed to remember verbatim what plausible deniability BS the CIA told her 6 years ago, and without notes being allowed to be taken?

Senator Graham (former D-Fl) said the CIA did not allow anyone to take notes of any 'briefing'.

He said CIA just this month listed meeting dates they had with him, but his careful kept schedule from 2003 showed the 3 meetings out of four never happened (he was interviewed on NPR a couple days ago).

If I were in Congress I would demand CIA briefings, if they are deemed of any use whatsoever, be written and video recorded.

"The former intel professional, no partisan defender of Democrats, faulted Nancy Pelosi for not pressing harder in the briefing to determine exactly which techniques had and hadn't been used. "The extent to which members ask questions should drive what's going on," said the former intel pro. "It's your job to ask."

Granting that - how do you know what questions to ask?

Everyone at the hearings would have known that the US had signed the Geneva Convention against torture, that torture was illegal under US laws, and that the military strictly prohibited torture under its SOP. So, why would there be a need to ask the question. "Are we torturing our prisoners?" When they already knew the answer, and had no notion that Bush was rewriting our laws and ignoring our treaty.

The msm will totally ignore this story which is the real storty because the republicans dictate all of the msm moves

Here's a question for the CIA - did you explain to the Congressional leadership the exact methods of torture, on how many suspects and how many times? Did you explain in detail that one suspect was waterboarded 83 times, and that the U.S. military executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American soldiers just once during WWII?

Using the Google shows use of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in November 2005:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Not that this alters anything about your post other than it was apparently used slightly earlier than your source discusses.

April 2009 - Representative Pete Hoekstra (R - MI) requested information from the CIA about the briefings of members Congress

May 7, 2009 - CIA released "the document" which is a table showing meeting dates, locations, briefers and attendants. Uses the term "EIT" as shorthand for who-knows-what. The document I assume was written between April and May of this year.

The document lists briefers as "Not Available" several times on page 3, and once on page 5:

9-4-2004: first date in document
3-7-05 through 11-8-05: briefers NA
9-19-06: briefer NA
3-12-09: last date in document

What the heck was happening in Bush's world in 2005 politically and what was happening within the CIA?

As Eric will tell you that's why we don't allow hearsay documents as evidence in a court of law

I don't think the available evidence supports your source (although the CIA Briefing document is full of crap). On 28 Jan 2003, George Tenet signed off on a document that included this:

Unless otherwise approved by Headquarters, CIA officers [redaction] may use only Permissible Interrogation Techniques. Permissible Interrogation Techniques consist of both (a) Standard Techniques and (b) Enhanced Techniques.

You can see this document at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/cia_3684_001.pdf

That’s not quite EIT, but it’s pretty close and suggests the phrase may have been used internally even earlier.

This is something I noticed in google search trends, which doesn't give you a first citation, but a general sense about the frequency of an idiom's usage on the net.