Pete, I agree entirely with your take. And I would only add a few additional points.

As a preliminary matter, let me say if the Democrats thought the CIA was out to get them before, they better barricade their offices now. Calling out specific officials for lying to Congressional leadership is serious stuff and I don’t expect those accused of lying to take this meekly.

Moreover, her colleagues aren’t buying it. (And one is left to ponder if this isn’t going to go down as “the worst press conference in history” and a training video for politicians and spokespersons on what not to do if you want to quell a controversy.) This report suggests what is in store:

I think the problem is, the speaker has had way too many stories,” [Minority Leady John] Boehner said today of Pelosi. “They were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were… It seems to me, they want to have it both ways. They can’t have it both ways.

And Sen. Lieberman is having none of her “the CIA lies all the time” canard.

There are a few problems, to say the least, with her tale. First, other lawmakers will say they were told precisely what was being done, so why did the CIA “lie” just to Pelosi? Second, there may be notes and other documentary evidence (Rep. Pete Hoekstra seems to think there are) debunking Pelosi’s tale. Third, we were told Pelosi agreed with Jane Harman’s letter protesting waterboarding, which would be strange had she been told there was no waterboarding. Fourth, why is the “I was lied to” defense coming up only in May 2009? Fifth, don’t we really need her and others’ testimony under oath to get to the bottom of who is deceiving whom?

Let me hazard a guess on this one: the latest spin is not going to put the matter to rest.