CIA: We Lied to Congress

posted by John Nichols on 07/09/2009 @ 06:59am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (76)

Subscribe Now

In May, at a point when congressional Republicans and their amen corner in the media were attempting to defend the Bush-Cheney administration's torture regime, their primary defense was: Pelosi knew.

The spin held that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, had in 2002 been secretly briefed about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Pelosi said the Central Intelligence Agency had failed to inform her about the character and extent of the harsh interrogations.

Pelosi accused the CIA of "misleading the Congress of the United States."

Republican senators screamed.

"It's outrageous that a member of Congress should call a terror-fighter a liar," howled Missouri Senator Kit Bond, the vice chair of the Senate intelligence committee. "It seems the playbook is, blame terror-fighters. We ought to be supporting them."

CIA officials denied lying to Congress and the American people, and that seemed to be that. "Let me be clear: It is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress," said CIA Director Leon Panetta. That is against our laws and values."

But, now, we learn that, in late June, Panetta admitted in secret testimony to Congress that the agency had concealed information and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001.

Some of the details of Panetta's testimony are contained in a letter from seven House Democrats to Panetta that was released Wednesday morning.

In the letter, the members (Anna Eshoo of California, Alcee Hastings of Florida, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Adam Smith of Washington, Mike Thompson of California and John Tierney of Massachusetts) wrote: "Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week."

The letter continued: "In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009."

Pelosi's critics are claiming that Panetta's admission does not resolve the debate about whether the speaker was lied to in briefings about harsh interrogations.

What does the CIA say?

That's where things seem to get confusing -- but, as we'll see, not too confusing.

Panetta "stands by his May 15 statement," CIA spokesman George Little claimed after the letter from the House members was released.

The problem is that Little also said: "This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up. As the letter from these ... representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."

So, officially, CIA director Panetta stands by his statement that: "It is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress."

But...

Panetta's spokesman is seemingly rather proud that "it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees" that the agency had in the words of the House members "misled members for a number of years from 2001."

Can we reconcile these statements?

Yes.

Panetta, who has only headed the CIA since February of this year says that "it is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress."

But he tells Congress that it was in fact the consistent practice of the CIA to lie to Congress during the Bush-Cheney years.

So what are we left with?

Perhaps a measure of vindication for Pelosi, but the speaker's wrangling with the Republicans is a distraction from the fundamental revelation.

Far more important is Panetta's reported admission that his agency has "concealed significant actions" and "misled members of Congress."

No matter what anyone thinks of Pelosi or waterboarding, there is a clear case for dramatically expanding congressional oversight of the CIA. Of course, more House and Senate members should have access to briefings -- and should have the authority to hold CIA officials (and their White House overseers) to account for deliberate deceptions. But that ought not be the first response to the latest news.

Step one must be to get to the bottom of exactly what the CIA was lying about.

Did it have anything to do with the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Afghanistan? Torture?

CIA defenders will claim that some secrets must be kept. Perhaps. But the Congress and the American people have a right to know the broad outlines of the deception -- and the extent to which it may have warped, and may continue to warp, U.S. policy.

Comments (76)

Pelosi was right?

We need to declare a medical emergency...some of our Right-wing friends may stroke out!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 07:53am
This is a good supplement to the wonderful NATION article, "The CIA's Truth Problem," which appeared in the June 22nd issue of this year.

I believe Constitutional reform may be the remedy to the problem of the increasing tendency of the Executive Branch to avoid the checks of the Legislative Branch by keeping it in the dark. Specifically, we should amend section 6 of Article 1, revoking the rule that no person can serve in the executive and legislative branches at the same time.

[In his book, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION (2006, p. 69), Sanford Levinson quoted James L. Sundquist as an advocate for this reform. Sundquist had argued that as servants in the Executive Branch, "[a]uthors of laws could be invited to take responsibility for their execution." Levinson added: "Just as much to the point is that they could report back to their colleagues about the actual operation of the laws with a credibility (and, not insignificantly, the potential power to do something about it) that ordinary executive branch officials lack when they are subjected to oversight through the ordinary congressional committee process."]

Here's my point: Unless some legislators can work inside the CIA, in order to spy on those who would spy on all of us, I believe the CIA will continue to usurp and exercise excessive power and to avoid responsibility, as it has throughout its history.

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 08:00am
Shocking, absolutely shocking ... that the CIA should dust off its congressional testimony from nearly 35 years ago, rvealing the same sort of crimes all over again, just to let us know who´s really in charge.

Yet another product model for export in the US global freedom biz.

Posted by sloper at 07/09/2009 @ 08:09am
".... just to let us know who´s really in charge."----Posted by sloper at 07/09/2009 @ 08:09am

BTW, can we make a rule now that anybody who uses the phrase "who's really in charge of this country"....is automatically suspect of irrelevancy?

We'll call it the "RESE Rule" after our old friend....heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 09:12am
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 08:00am |

Covert agencies are inherently paradoxical, but I'm not sure that inviting double-dealing into the mix would solve anything.

While Kucinich or Sanders might do that job admirably, you might just end up with someone in the legislative branch who will do the CIA's bidding more directly (think Jane Harman, but with higher clearance).

Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 10:02am
by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 09:12am...

Mask... are you sure you should use the term "suspect"?

Perhaps you REALLY mean "subjected to"...;^)

Really though... either we take this moment in history seriously -right now- and take our destiny into our own hands for the sake of Democracy, the peaceful co-evolution of our human condition, and a nurturing interface between our lifestyles and our biosphere...

Or we degenerate... perhaps permanently... into some 'more lasting' form of Capitalistic totalitarianism.

We must come together on this.

Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 10:22am
How do we know the CIA or Panetta aren't lying about lying?

Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2009 @ 10:24am
'Covert agencies are inherently paradoxical, but I'm not sure that inviting double-dealing into the mix would solve anything.'

Perhaps not, "snowball777," but what is it about our uniquely purist Constitutional separation of powers that guards against the collusion of authoritarians in our Executive and Legislative Branches? I can think of no structural remedy for authoritarian legislators like Jane Harman, but there is a political remedy: She can be voted out of office. Can we vote presidential appointees to the CIA out of office?

Moreover, I am unconvinced that the wall of ignorance that the separation of powers creates between the Congress and the Executive Branch -- usually to the disadvantage of the former and to the advantage of the latter -- protects us against authoritarianism anywhere in government. Ignorance is not strength, no matter who has it. If politicians themselves are ignorant of what other politicians are doing, this should be no consolation to us, the voting public, who consequently are made more ignorant than even the most out-of-the-loop politicians (such as Pelosi), until it is much too late for us to exercise the only power we have, the power to vote.

We should therefore not assume that the (comparative) ignorance of some politicians weakens them compared to us and thereby strengthens our position. On the contrary: it reduces the possibility of leaks and insures that no matter how ignorant some politicians are of what other politicians are doing, we the people will always be more so. I believe we need to make the boundaries between the branches of government as "leaky" as possible, so that more secrets will be revealed, even by accident, and so that more daylight may shine into the darkest corners of the CIA and do its disinfecting duty.

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 10:22am

No...I meant what I said....heheh

Throw in phrases like "nurturing interface between our lifestyles and our biosphere",too....LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:45am
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 10:27am |

I'm all for transparency, even in our intelligence agencies, but our con friends would have us believe that the 'wall of ignorance' is necessary for national defense.

I'd love to see these services performed in the light of day, but we'll need to get past the idea that this is not possible first.

Less central, more intelligent, please.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 10:53am
Panetta's a little worm who is so thrilled to be the "Top Spy" that he's done everything in his power to protect the agency against any kind of criticism or control by Congress...

His pathetic statement that "It is not CIA policy to mislead Congress" is so half-hearted and evasive that it means nothing!

Pelosi should haul Leon in front of a House committee to answer some hard questions...what has the CIA lied to Congressional members about...are they still doing it under the Obama administration...etc...

But I fear that Congress doesn't have the guts to actually stand up to Panetta and ask the questions that need to be asked...

Posted by wagonjak at 07/09/2009 @ 11:17am
Hell, things are getting simple these days. No Church Committee? No independent prosecutor? Soon guys like Panetta will simply say, "Yeah, I'm lying. Whadaya gonna do about it, sucka?"

Posted by DejaVu at 07/09/2009 @ 11:21am
The hypocritical & furious reaction of these Republican senators shows exactly who's bidding the CIA has been doing.

Sick and criminal.

Posted by zaknick at 07/09/2009 @ 11:37am
by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:45am...

Judging from your obvious yet consistently concealed affiliations... Mask... what we're SUPPOSED to hear is...

"relegated to"...

Hope you don't mind if we don't play it your way...

Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 11:47am
How do we know the CIA or Panetta aren't lying about lying?-----Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2009 @ 10:24am

abell, I think you guys should try BOTH....

"Pelosi is lying about the CIA lying to her..."

AND "Panetta is lying about the CIA NOT lying to Pelosi."

Seriously....no sillier or contradictory than some other right-wing talking points.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 11:47am

I'm sorry, ttr....how about this?-

Make love, not war. Hell no, we won't go. Fuck the establishment. Never trust the man. Give peace a chance. Power to the People. Drop acid not bombs. Live and let live. Your mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open. No one is free, even the birds are chained to the sky. I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours. Yesterday's just a memory, tomorrow is never what it's supposed to be. Bring it home, daddy-o. Sock it to me. Outtasight ! Right on. Groovy. Go with the flow. Far out, man. Heavy Cat Watch the fro. Jump the lines, man

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:04pm
LMAO!!!

oh the howling at poor ms. pelosi from the kneejerk right. HOW DARE SHE IMPUGN THE REPUTATION OF THE CIA! THE CIA WOULD NEVER LIE!!! (oh my...)

hell, as we all know, if the CIA tries to tell the truth (about things like the non-existence of links between bad guys we want to get, or the non-existence of WMD) to the wrong ideologue...

they'll demote ya, remote ya, or find some way to eff ya. the truth is a dangerous commodity with some folks...

but once again the "gotcha" industry of the right has...gotten itself...

yeah...the CIA has lied to officials. BIG BIG suprise, eh?

wow...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 12:09pm
#

The hypocritical & furious reaction of these Republican senators shows exactly who's bidding the CIA has been doing.

Sick and criminal.

Posted by zaknick at 07/09/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

actually it appears the CIA TRIED to tell W and Handlers what the real truth was concerning Iraq and the junta sent them back not to uncover truth, but to provide justification for an already decided course of actions...

but when a heavily ideologized and politicized junta starts inserting college repugnants and children of big donors as political kommisars at all levels of the apparatus of state tasked with hunting down dangerous professionals and truth tellers...

bad shit happens.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 12:28pm
but once again the "gotcha" industry of the right has...gotten itself...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 12:09pm

Too bad there is not a big enough gotcha industry on the left to undo the damage. Despite the continued howls from the right about a so called liberal media. I wager this will not make the nightly news on any major network, or talking head show. Yet when the repubs were lambasting Pelosi over "what she knew" it was all over, of couse with extra care given the issue by FauxSpews

Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 12:34pm
Everybody lied during the Bush Administration, but it leaked information like a sieve. Some of that leakage came from the Pentagon and various intelligence services. You need to watch Congress too! I saw Harman on C-Span making a speech at the Neoconervative American Enterprise Institute. You need to know who and why certain groups are supporting various members of Congress. Besides business interests, you have caucuses for various countries in Congress. Everybody is represented in Congress except for the American people . Some of those think tanks have connections with foreign intelligence services. You can trust no one, but there is enough open source information to check them out.

Posted by pjcasey at 07/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

it'll get a line or two perhaps...the average american schmuk likes his springer fights regardless of medium...

them repugnants build up arsenals of stones to fling from their glass castles well.

PALIN/SANFORD 2012!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 1:12pm
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:04pm...

Empty outdated jargon easily downloaded for the purpose of giving added emotional appeal and emphasis to 'impress' sixties-era 'targets'...

You are more indicative of your 'backers' than you know...;^)

You are a lot of fun though... thanks for posting your particular brand of propaganda-a-la-cliche mi amore!

Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by ttr at 07/09/2009 @ 1:14pm

Hey, I'm equal opportunity....Here's Sarah Palin's speech translated to English-

"Abusive liberal media family torment injustice ethics probes higher calling gone fishin' pitbull lipstick A-Rod impregnating Willow rapist Letterman bridge to nowhere $150,000 shopping spree snow machine and she can see Russia from her house."

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

like as such indeed!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 1:59pm
Pelosi was right?

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 07:53am

No. There is nothing mututally exclusive regarding the two statements: I told Pelosi the truth. I told a lie to Congress.

Pelosi knew.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/09/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 1:59pm

The even simpler version is this...

"I'm resigning as Governor because it's costing the state millions of dollars to investigate why we need more people like Trig playing point guard against Obama's policies!"

"doncha know?" optional.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 3:05pm
"...But, now, we learn that, in late June, Panetta admitted in secret testimony to Congress that the agency had concealed information and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001...."

If you think this is a vindication of Pelosi, you ARE WRONG. This concealed information HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TORTURE BRIEFING.

I believe you are trying to defend Pelosi-impeachmentis offthetable-stink. It won't work. You are mixing up the issues on purpose.

Perhaps this is what her cabal is also attempting to do.

Nancy Pelosi will eventually answer for her defense of torture tactics because she will be hounded until the day she dies.

How dare they torture in the name of Americans, using tax dollars?

Posted by tropical at 07/09/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/09/2009 @ 2:52pm

So, for SOME reason, they told lies to EVERYBODY BUT PELOSI...but told HER the truth.

I see. That does let you go after both Pelosi and Panetta and not ever have to backtrack or admit you were wrong.

Let's go with that.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 3:15pm
Being an independent, I have the luxury of not having to take sides. I've never feared the activities of our intelligence agencies because I don't make a habit of breaking laws. Nor do I associate with subversive or revolutionary types. We all need to ask ourselves if the activities of the CIA are subject to public scrutiny and if so, would such scrutiny render the agency impotent. I'd prefer to trust the professionals to keep us safe and let the politicians be damned.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:06pm
Why don't we ever hear about the NSA's role in 9/11 and how information that they had gathered could've prevented 9/11 from happening! But since they never shared their intel...what the hell was their raison d'etre?

The CIA knew, but didn't think it was important enough to share with Congress, or the White House? Last night I was watching a documentary about this issue. A former CIA agent said that if he had told what he knew, it would've been against the law, and he'd have to live with that the rest of his life. That's little solice for the families who lost loved ones.

Why haven't THEY (the NSA) been held accountable for their omission and G-d only knows what else! They've never apologized for their inaction, which, as we all know, resulted in 3,000 people losing their lives!

What a world!

Posted by ZsuZsu at 07/09/2009 @ 4:37pm
My newscast reported yesterday that the statements of Mr. Panetta had nothing to do with waterboarding. If that was his statement then it is possible that it had to do with the numerous other forms of torture that were practiced. It is even possible that misleading statements are indirectly related to torture. Example: reporting the number of prisoners that have died at Guantanamo without reporting the causes of death. If there will be hearings concerning Panetta's statements they will be conducted behind closed doors.

Posted by DieterHeymann at 07/09/2009 @ 4:56pm
We all need to ask ourselves if the activities of the CIA are subject to public scrutiny and if so, would such scrutiny render the agency impotent. I'd prefer to trust the professionals to keep us safe and let the politicians be damned.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:06pm |

While in a sense I understand where you are comming from you have to ask youself if the political appointess put in place to run the CIA are really unbiased public servants whose only goal is to insure the security of the US. You proclaim a trust of the CIA but then damn the politicians. Well, it is those politicians who appoint the people who run the CIA... There are security councils and closed door meeting in congress, so that the a vast majority of actions taken by the CIA are really not under public scrutiny. So the CIA becomming undermined is really not going to happen.

I strongly believe all of our government agencies need oversight, we should not place the NSA or CIA above the law. I don't like any corporation or government saying "trust me, we know whats best".

Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 5:17pm
BTW, can we make a rule now that anybody who uses the phrase "who's really in charge of this country"....is automatically suspect of irrelevancy?

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 09:12am

so who do YOU think is really in charge?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 5:57pm
Make love, not war. Hell no, we won't go. Fuck the establishment. Never trust the man. Give peace a chance. Power to the Peop......

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:04pm

how about "yes, sir, here are my tax dollars. please bomb whomever you choose. oh, and don't forget to give your buddies over at goldman sachs a few trillion. thanks."?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
How dare they torture in the name of Americans, using tax dollars?

Posted by tropical at 07/09/2009 @ 3:08pm

actually, that money's borrowed.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 6:07pm
I'd prefer to trust the professionals to keep us safe and let the politicians be damned.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:06pm

you mean like overthrowing the government of iran and creating some really pissed off enemies?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 6:09pm
There are some secrets that must be kept to a very small circle not to include congress. This is because congress is basically untrustworthy. There are more leakers there than...both dem and rep but mostly dems. Quite frankly I would trust the mafia before the dems in congress. At least the mafia is patriotic - after all they do have standards.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/09/2009 @ 6:52pm
so who do YOU think is really in charge?-----Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 5:57pm

Scariest answer in the world, FROSTY...

we are.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:54pm
Scariest answer in the world, FROSTY... we are.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:54pm

if only.....

my opinion is that no one is in charge. just a bunch of pigeons flocking here and there.

meanwhile, down at goldman sachs

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 8:04pm
Posted by Mask:

"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours."

--I said that.

Posted by onthehelm at 07/09/2009 @ 8:07pm
Did we expect anything different from an agency that makes it's living on lies? This is what the CIA does.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2009 @ 9:48pm
There are some secrets that must be kept to a very small circle not to include congress. This is because congress is basically untrustworthy. There are more leakers there than...both dem and rep but mostly dems. Quite frankly I would trust the mafia before the dems in congress. At least the mafia is patriotic - after all they do have standards.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/09/2009 @ 6:52pm |

Funny attempting at trying to make this tripe seem partisan while at the same time revealing your true meaning.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2009 @ 9:49pm
RE: CIA ...

Well, you want to look at this from several angles. First, if the Congress consists of the likes of Ensign, why should we tell them the truth? Second, CIA operatives did what the boss told them to do, no more and no less. Good foot soldiers under bad generals! ------------

Sen. Ensign's parents gave $96K to mistress's family By Reid Wilson | Posted: 07/09/09 08:02 PM [ET] Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) parents gave the family of the woman with whom he had an affair gifts totaling $96,000 after they learned of their son's affair, an attorney for the Nevada senator said Thursday.

Posted by HelenDAO at 07/09/2009 @ 10:03pm
That is the problem when power is too heavily on the Executive side, I mean the President...ooops, I meant the Vice President. When the system of checks and balances does not mean a thing.

CIA read fast how the system worked in the Bush era....oops again, the Cheney era. Read specially well what those guys wanted from our secret services: dirty jobs that would supposedly add to our "security". Result? Congress don't mean a thing.

I insist in my belief expressed in several posts. In the last century the country's supposed political balance has shifted severely to the Executive while Congress has remained to be only a decorative figure. The people must correct this, assigning to Congress a greater role that will guarantee and sustain our democracy.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/09/2009 @ 11:46pm
There are some secrets that must be kept to a very small circle not to include congress. This is because congress is basically untrustworthy. There are more leakers there than...both dem and rep but mostly dems. Quite frankly I would trust the mafia before the dems in congress. At least the mafia is patriotic - after all they do have standards.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/09/2009 @ 6:52pm

I like the qualifying of the statement of how both dem and rep are leakers.

As far as the CIA is concerned...A lot of creeps over there, doing things that have nothing to do with intelligence gathering, and have been for a long time.

That's a weird allusion to the patriotic mafia. If the criminals really are patriotic, what does that say about patriotism?

Posted by koroviev at 07/10/2009 @ 12:09am
Somehow, just somehow, it reeks with a supreme incredability that Obamanations pick for the CIA is somehow "setting the record straight" that Pelosi knew nothing about torture, waterboarding, and that NOW the CIA establishment is somehow lieing about her attending all those briefings where she was specifically told about it?!

Yep, someone is lieing, but SHE left for , where was it, China and was conveniently out of town, state, country where she could not be questioned further? Now she has conveniently found a way to convience others to make someone else the liar!

Say, someone close that barn door as the stink is something awful!!!!!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 12:09am
On the topic of organized crime...

AIG is on the verge of paying millions of $ in bonuses to various executives.

Fearing public backlash....

AIG requested that the Federal Govt. acquiesce to prevent public outrage.

Posted by koroviev at 07/10/2009 @ 12:25am
A LIE HAS ONE COLOR ONLY, OR DOES IT HAVE MORE?

What sort of a civilization is this wherein a LIE has so many colors and levels?

Correct me someone, please, I stand corrected.

A LIE IS A LIE, IT HAS NO PERSPECTIVE NOR ASPECTS TO IT. JUST LIKE A MISTAKE IS A MISTAKE.

If majority of the people realise this, pigs like ORIELLY and HANNITY would have no place in the society and would be scornfully rejected by the community for misleading, confusing and brainwashing every day millions of viewers and consequently dividing the country.

Its unbelievable Orielly's female producer filed a lawsuit against him for sexual harrasment, misconduct, and he teaches ethics, and speaks of virtues and integrity.

Posted by aleemsyed at 07/10/2009 @ 06:40am
Its unbelievable Orielly's female producer filed a lawsuit against him for sexual harrasment, misconduct, and he teaches ethics, and speaks of virtues and integrity.

Posted by aleemsyed at 07/10/2009 @ 06:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

Poor person you never heard of sexist femi-nazis LIES of victimization!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 07:37am
I see. That does let you go after both Pelosi and Panetta and not ever have to backtrack or admit you were wrong.

Let's go with that.

Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 3:15pm

Let's go with a hypothetical here.

Suppose that John Smith, a CIA agent, caught Mohamed Akmed and thought he was a terrorist. He beat Akmed and burned him with cigarettes, but Akmed wouldn't talk. So Smith abducted Akmed's daughter and raped her in front of Akmed, but Akmed wouldn't talk. So Smith murders Akmed's daughter in front of Akmed, and then murders Akmed. Then he tell Leon Panetta what he did.

Then Congress asks Panetta if anyone in the CIA has used torture and Panetta say, "Uhm, no."

Has the CIA withheld information from Congress? Yes.

Does this vindicate Pelosi, proving she wasn't briefed about water boarding? No.

You are basically claiming that because the CIA admitted to withholding information, that anyone who has ever accused the CIA of dishonesty must be right. That is asnine. Nichols knows this which is why he says the question isn't vindication but oversight.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 07:44am
I gotta run to a meeting, but I showed up this morning to expand on a comment from yesterday.

We talked about bias in the press. On the Rush/Hannity side I should have included Drudge.

This morning, Drudge links to a story and shows a picture of President Obama and French President Sarkozy supposedly scoping out the ass of a young girl. On the Bob and Tom radio show this morning, Tom (who's not partisian) said he's seen the video and if you watch the video, President Obama is helping someone down the stairs and that the picture is cropped in just the right way to create the wrong impression.

Presumably, somebody has notified Drudge by this point. I think he should take the picture down.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 07:55am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 8:04pm

That's why it's a "scary answer", FROSTY (to you, I mean).

Because it means what I said on the other thread with WOLF....your viewpoint simply isn't the majority viewpoint and in a democracy, that tends count.

and it's "scary" for you to think that, even if you're right, most people don't think as you do.

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 08:02am
I went back and read the links. There are newspaper articles in Italy, Denmark, Brazil, and the US claiming the Presidents were "caught" ogling.

The NY Post headlines the article, "Tail to the chief".

Eager to believe the worst

Now you know what it's like to be a Conservative.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 08:03am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 07:44am

Let's go with another "hypothetical", Darin.

Your partisanship is so intense, that you will leap through hoops to try to keep up your attack on Nancy Pelosi and blunt having to admit you were wrong and she was right?

Nawwwwww.....that's too fantastic. Let's stick with yours.

I mean, obviously a guy who posts on Drudge Report photos of Obama "scoping out a hot babe" is fair-minded and non-partisan, right?

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 08:06am
Mask, did you read what I wrote? Here's the conclusion

****************

I think he [Drudge] should take the picture down.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 07:55am

****************

I heard about it being out of context on the ride in. I was denouncing it as unfair. Is that the mark of intence partisianship?

Regarding Pelosi, the CIA has very specific details of the meetings with her and they have admission regarding what her Chief of Staff was briefed on. Even many of the liberal commentators tried to cut her some slack by recalling that in the mood following 9/11 a lot of people made bad judgements.

She knew, but she knows her followers would cruxify her so she lied. Whatever the CIA withheld from it's official reports to the wider Congress do not change what they told her alone.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 09:10am
Here's another update.

Drudge posted this from ABC News's Jake Tapper (who is harder on the President than most)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2009/07/when-in-rome.html

It explains the photo is out of context and contains a link to the video

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8049121

In the instant after the photo was snapped, President Obama takes the hand of the woman in the white and blue skirt immediately behind him and helps her down the unusually large steps.

Like I said, the photo is misleading and is unfair.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 09:22am
If anyone should admit they were wrong this morning, it is you, Mask. Care to apologize for jumping my shit when I was the one being fair and the opposite of partisian?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 09:25am

Darin, I apologize...you're absolutely right.

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:23am
Suppose that John Smith...

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 07:44am

darin,

is that what you hope the government is doing to "protect" you?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:16am
and it's "scary" for you to think that, even if you're right, most people don't think as you do.

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 08:02am

not scary at all.

i know most people don't think as i do (thank god!).

i just wish people would start thinking.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:19am
Quite frankly I would trust the mafia before the dems in congress. At least the mafia is patriotic - after all they do have standards.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/09/2009 @ 6:52pm |

Feel the patriotism.

Funny how he doesn't seem to feel the same way about "republicans" in congress .. republicans that cheat and lie to their wives, staff and family, republicans that serve on the same committees as the dems and get their campaign money from the same groups..

Partisan?

Nah, can't be.

------

Darin, is it POSSIBLE that if the CIA lied to congress in general, in violation of the law, that they MAYBE also withheld info from Pelosi? It has already been shown that the CIA lied about briefings held with other congress critters, in some cases those briefings never took place.

Is it POSSIBLE that you want to see Pelosi publicly humiliated because she is the democratic Speaker? Is it alos possible that you would rather see that happen than get to the truth?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 12:18pm
i just wish people would start thinking.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:19am

Silly boy!

Silly human..

Silly human race.

Created in God's image? Scary isn't it?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 12:20pm
i know most people don't think as i do (thank god!).

i just wish people would start thinking.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:19am

Not sure I get the "(thank god)", FZ...seems contradictory!??!??

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
life is contradictory.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/10/2009 @ 12:56pm

Breathe.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 1:15pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 1:15pm |

Seriously....this has GOT to be an "oldster" with a new nick.

Who does he remind you of?....Chimi?...Conshame?

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:45pm
Yet I, being far more knowledgeable about...well, basically fucking EVERYTHING people write about on this site, am restricted to a mere 1800 words per post. Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/10/2009 @ 1:43pm

Well somebody's angry and "feeling themselves" a little bit. I'll cry you a river.

Posted by k330k at 07/10/2009 @ 1:53pm
That Wednesday letter is baloney and it is the stuff Nichols can be relied on to feed on.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a column two days ago that in a classified June 24, hearing, Panetta's so-called new information was not about an antiterror programs the agency kept hidden from Congress, but one that had been considered, but was then abandoned. It never got off the ground. Such is the material Mr. Reyes claims his committee was "lied to" about the CIA in the Bush years.

Interestingly, Republican Pete Hoekstra offered an amendment in committee to require the CIA to make public an unclassified version of its records on Congressional briefings. The Democrats scotched that. They did not want to be accountable for what they had been told.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/10/2009 @ 2:34pm
Yet I, being far more knowledgeable about...well, basically fucking EVERYTHING

Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/10/2009 @ 1:43pm

Did you just say your more knowledgeable about fucking everything? If that is the case how do you fuck a porcupine?

Posted by Extraneous at 07/10/2009 @ 3:16pm
Very, very carefully...

Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 4:51pm
When Pelosi lies about lieing is she really lieing about telling the truth or truthfully lieing about her pathological lieing about lieing when she and the administration induce others to lie about her lieing lies?

This is getting confusing which means the Demoncrats are being successful in lieing about the truth that they insist on lieing about!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:23am

Thank you.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/10/2009 @ 7:55pm
You need to get off the Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal, Capitalist/Socialist mind-fuck merry-go-round. "Capitalist" European and Wall Street bankers CREATED "Communism," remember? Theoretically, we don't need bankers, OR their money. From now on, everything's "free." Get up, go to work, take what you need, and do it again tomorrow. Without money, the international banking system will die on the vine taking Capitalism and "Socialism" (the New Communism) with it.

Posted by MrMan at 07/10/2009 @ 8:24pm
The only "democratic" solution is to keep voting incumbents out of office until they get the message. Republicans and Democrats need to join hands at the grass-roots and work together to weed out corruption at the top. If we keep shuffling the deck it might at least slow things down. Personally, I don't think we have that kind of time. At best it's a holding action. At worst, well, it already is the worst, so just imagine more of the same with the volume turned waaaaay up.

With the release of free-energy Tesla techonology, the twentieth century could have been a Golden Age. Instead, central bankers gave us the bloodiest century in the history of the human race. The "Red Coats" are coming! It's the BANKING system, stupid!

Posted by MrMan at 07/10/2009 @ 8:47pm
I have much more to say, but I consider consecutive posts rather offensive and ignorant. So you will have to suffer my periodic digressions into the morbid world of Reality in 1700-1800 word islands of sanity in this sea of seething bullshit.

As always, you are welcome.

Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/10/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 1:15pm |

Seriously....this has GOT to be an "oldster" with a new nick. Who does he remind you of?....Chimi?...Conshame?

Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:45pm

a rabid penguin.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 8:56pm
Gah, Ilya is like a pitbull let off the leash. He doesn't even know what he's biting at he is just snarling at everything.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2009 @ 9:02pm