CIA's Panetta Owes Pelosi an Admission and an Apology

posted by John Nichols on 07/10/2009 @ 7:55pm

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

Subscribe Now

Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta owes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an apology -- or, at the very least, a clarification.

In May, when Republicans claimed she had been briefed in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency about the Bush-Cheney administration's torture regimen, Pelosi said: Pelosi accused the CIA of "misleading the Congress of the United States" for years.

CIA Director Leon Panetta denied the charge in blunt language.

"Let me be clear: It is not our practice or policy to mislead Congress," said Panetta. "That is against our laws and values."

That was a blunt statement.

Unfortunately, Panetta was wrong.

Now, he needs to be just as blunt in setting the record straight.

According to Friday's The Washington Post:

Four months after he was sworn in, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta learned of an intelligence program that had been hidden from Congress since 2001, a revelation that prompted him to immediately cancel the initiative and schedule a pair of closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill.

The next day, June 24, Panetta informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the program and the action he had taken, according to Democratic and Republican members of the panels.

The program had not merely been hidden from Congress.

It was kept secret -- perhaps because it involved illegal spying on the American people -- as part of a deliberate plot to keep the House and Senate in the dark about a gross violation of the CIA's mission.

"Instructions were given not to brief Congress," explained Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

In fairness to Panetta, he does not seem to be the bad guy here.

Piecing together what we now know, it appears that the director may have been lied to by CIA staffers.

After learning about the secret program, Panetta did shut it down.

Then he briefed key members of Congress.

He gets points for those moves.

But he now needs to make it clear that what he said in May was wrong.

Panetta does not have to beat himself up. He can explain that he was. himself, a victim.

But Panetta owes Pelosi, the Congress and the American people an admission that his statement of two months ago created a false and unfair impression.

He could say: "It was the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress."

He could say: "The CIA violated our laws and values."

Or Panetta could just keep things straight and simple and say: "The Speaker was right."

Comments (76)

Do the Democratic `thing'.....nail the CIA to the wall....as `reward' for keeping the country safe since 9/11!

Posted by Happy at 07/10/2009 @ 9:58pm
What's funny about this is hearing people trying to justify the CIA lying to Congress. Why do you think the founders put the control of money for defense in the hands of Congress. It was meant to be for oversight. Someone in Congress should know about what's going on in the CIA. And if the CIA repeatedly chooses to keep Congress in the dark then why should they continue to give them money?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:09pm
Keith Olbermann nailed this ealier on his program where one of his guests brought up the fact that Panetta was back pedalling because something big was about to take place and he's covering his own ass now.

There's a report that has been written that the Bush administration was going beyond wire tapping, but evidently whatever it was they were doing is so classified that they can't say exactly what it was they were doing. Here's the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_go_co/us_domestic_surveillance

Now, for all of your right wingers out there who hate big government and don't want big brother intruding on your lives, how do you go about explaining this? If Bush was that worried about our security, why in the hell didn't he read the pre 9/11 report that we might be attacked instead of going on friggin vacation. So instead post 9/11 after effing up to the nth degree, he and his midnight administration decide to break a bunch of laws, bend the hell out every rule on the books and hide everything they did by pleading the 5th and saying...."I don't have any recollection of that".

Yep, truly an all American values administration there for you. I don't know what they'll say about Obama yet, but it's becoming more and more clear about what history will say about W, Cheney and the rest of the crooks in that administration.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:16pm
Do the Democratic `thing'.....nail the CIA to the wall....as `reward' for keeping the country safe since 9/11!

Posted by Happy at 07/10/2009 @ 9:58pm

Ya, the CIA kept us so safe from an attack from Saddam (the guy who didn't have any weapons of credible threat). Saddam was misleading about his weapons because he was afraid of an attack from Iran....that was reported by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Saddam. So, what exactly did the CIA keep us safe from? Can you name one thing? There isn't one incident yet that they can say thwarted an attack of any kind on the U.S. The one attack they possible could have stopped they didn't because W was more worried about his vacation.

If these so called secret spying techniques being used were so successful they could say that something truly had been foiled, but that is not the case is it? Even the FBI came out and said that nothing substantial came from the evidence of their double secret spying program that is so secret nobody can talk about it.

So, aside from breaking the law, not reporting to Congress (which is part of the CIA's job, not to undermine the speaker of the house or Congress itself).

Happy, you are a complete blithering ditto head. You are defending an agency that's run amok and placing itself above the law and even a branch of government it is supposed to report to. Get a clue.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:27pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:16pm

It seems John Yoo did not even tell his boss what he was up to, Bush was the only one that signed off on Yoo's legal theories. We also know now that Yoo had multiple factual errors in the reports he gave to Bush. We also can surmise that it was Bush, the compassionate conservative, that pressured Ashcroft in his hospital bed.

Bush went around the Constitutions Fourth Amendment that is supposed to protect citizens from their own government.

And the neo-cons defend this!

It just never stops. No matter what comes out, no matter who get's caught with a hooker, the neo-cons blame "the left" for the mistakes of their own. then HAPPY claims the intellectual and moral high ground, simply because he calls himself a conservative.

simply amazing.

HAPPY, if you must take a stance, do it on your own moral -fairground-, with the rest of the clowns.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 11:54pm
for LARRY:

http://thoseshirts.com/asi.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 12:30am
ha!

Having weathered an incursion by Krispy Kreme from the south, Dunkin' Donuts is about to meet an invader from the north in New York City's next battle of the doughnut chains.

Between Friday night and dawn on Monday, the Riese Organization intends to convert 13 Dunkin' Donuts stores into the city's first Tim Hortons restaurants, including early-morning, high-traffic shops like the one in Pennsylvania Station and another next to the New York Stock Exchange. The switch may surprise regular customers of the shops, said Dennis Riese, chief executive of the Riese Organization.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 12:33am
"Do the Democratic `thing'.....nail the CIA to the wall....as `reward' for keeping the country safe since 9/11!"

in conservative parlance, "safe" = preventing another terrorist attack, but still allowing the country to slide into a great depression; lose two unnecessary wars; destroy our international reputation; destory the working class; ruin the environment; reward polluters; spy on its own citizens; imprison and torure innocent people; murder innocent civilians; etc, etc.

sounds to me like safety is a tad overrated.

Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2009 @ 01:41am
in exchange for "safety," the americans got all of the above (awful things).....

yes, panetta owes pelosi a BIG apology.

Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2009 @ 01:42am
Gah, Happy proves more and more every day what a partisan and bigoted idiot he is.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/11/2009 @ 04:39am
Love is NEVER having to say you're sorry.

And DC is such a love fest, just ask the families of a million plus Iraqi & Afghani dead -- not to mention the millions of Vietnamese dead & crippled -- how much the US has loved them & their freedom.

Sorry? Apologize? Beg forgiveness? Ask Bill Clinton to come back on stage with his lip-biting, that's about as good as a US apology ever gets.

Posted by sloper at 07/11/2009 @ 04:56am
The CIA lied ??

The CIA ??

Naw, come on,

not the CIA.

Posted by bleedingheart at 07/11/2009 @ 05:24am
Misdirection and obfuscation: that's all this is.

Does anybody remember WATER BOARDING? That's what the flap was about. Bush's lawyers opined that WATER BOARDING didn't meet the definition of torture. The Left opined that it did.

So to cover their use of WATER BOARDING the CIA told the world that Sen. Pelosi (and her chief of staff) were brief on the planned use of WATER BOARDING to which Sen Pelosi responded, are you sure that's enough?

Pelosi denied having any knowledge about the use of WATER BOARDING. The CIA called Pelosi a liar.

The CIA released specific details about the meetings where Sen Pelosi and her staff were briefed on WATER BOARDING. So, again, Sen Pelosi claimed the CIA was lying. She wanted to create a "he said/she said" dynamic so that her supporters could continue to support her despite the overwhelming evidence that she knew about the use of WATER BOARDING all along.

Now Sen Pelosi has in no way been vindicated. There is incontrovertable evidence that she was breifed on WATER BOARDING and her denial of such makes her a bald-faced lair.

Whatever other programs were considered and hid from Congress, that doesn't change the facts about Sen Pelosi's knowledge of the WATER BOARDING program.

This attempt to pretend there is no difference between "Sen Pelosi" and "Congress" and that there is no difference between WATER BOARDING and any other programs that were considered and dumped without ever being used is an attempt at misdirection and changing the subject.

Sen. Pelosi has not been vindicated. If you think the existence of a never used program absolves Sen Pelosi from culpability for the WATER BOARDING program, it is because you are desparate for any excuse to believe her. That is the definition of "Kool Aid drinker".

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 06:43am
Posted by Happy at 07/10/2009 @ 9:58pm

I thought Dubya kept us safe, HAPP?

LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/11/2009 @ 07:01am
It's not only about waterboarding, "Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll." It's about multiple abuses, some of which have killed prisoners of war in prisons managed by agents of the United States government. Read Glenn Greenwald's excellent exposés, and then we'll have an INFORMED debate.

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/11/2009 @ 08:33am
This country wouldn't even need an organization like the CIA if the needs of empire, political and cultural hegemony and oligarchy did not demand it. In that aspect we are much like Rome in it's last days.

If we truly want security then we must eliminate or severely curtail the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Right now something is happening in geo-political politics that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago. China and Russia are having talks about where they may have mutual self interest in curtailing U.S. military empire and hegemony.

When you think about it. Can anyone blame them?

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 08:38am
Instead of debating who is lying to whom amongst a den of liars, perhaps we should be addressing the disease instead of the sympton.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 08:48am
"We found the wmd's"

But, Bush never lied. Right Darin?

"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address � 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address � 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address � 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney � �Meet the Press� 3/16/2003

By all means let us parse Nancy Pelosi's and CIA language to find an out, at the same time we make excuses for Bush's lies. It is a core value.

----------------------

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 12:30am

Nah, I want to see Larry in his XXX-large "Palin, God,Guns and Glory" shirt, while he derides those that claim Palins supporters cling to god and guns as being out of touch with reality.

GUFFAW!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:07am
It's not only about waterboarding,

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/11/2009 @ 08:33am

Sorry to get all Clintonian on you here, but what do you mean by "It's"?

You see, when most Americans hear "Pelosi and CIA" they immediately think of the very public accusation of lying over the water boarding comments. So when a headline blairs, "CIA owes Pelosi an apology: Pelosi Vindicated!" they immediately believe the story is about the accusations of lying around lying about water boarding.

It is as if the 32 point headline blairs, "Charles Manson Vindicated!" and then in 1 point type says, "Prison Cook Admits to Spitting in His Food". Ninety-nine percent of Americans are unaware of his contention that the prison cook is spitting in his food.

But what the headline does do is enable the sycophants to continue believing Manson was railroaded by a corrupt prosecuting attorney. By saying Sen Peolosi has been vindicated and that the CIA owes her an apology, Nichols is enabling the Kool Aid drinks to continue their self delusion that the CIA is evil and Sen Peolosi is pure.

It is cynical and dishonest and I don't like it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:09am
"When I asked the CIA when was I briefed, they gave me four dates, two in April and two in September of '02. On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was clear that no briefing had taken place, and the CIA eventually concurred in that. So their record keeping is a little bit suspect."Sen Graham

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:24am
Hey Crabman Continued

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/ SB124715167300918369.html

James Taranto make and excellent point on the distinction between a prediction and a statement of fact.

During the 2008 campaign, and number of Republicans made the prediction that Cadidate Obama would raise their taxes if elected.

The AP said these people are LIARS!. Candidate Obama's stated Plan calls for no tax increases what-so-ever on people making less than 200,000 (250,000 for couples).

So the AP took their predictions and called them liars because they were at odds with candiate Obama's stated campaign promises.

Well, as it turns out, President Obama has raise a number of taxes on people making less than 200,000.

So the Predictions were correct, the the people making predictions were branded liars because their prediction was at odds with candidate Obama's stated plans.

Every one of Bushes statement were true. Iraq bought aluminum tubes that could be used to refine uranium. The fact that they didn't refine uranium doesn't make the statement a lie.

Iraq did have UAVs that could deliver biologial weapons. The fact that they didn't use them to delive biological weapons doesn't make the statement a lie.

Saddam did seek unranium in Niger. The fact that he failed to procure uranium does not make the statement that he sought uranium a lie.

By sending the head of this old Nuclear Weapons program to Niger to inquire about uranium is in fact reconsituting his nuclear weapons program. That is a true statement.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:34am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:07am

Hey Crabman

Every one of those statements is true except VP Cheney's. He later clarified that he meant to say, "reconstituted nuclear weapons PROGRAM". He forgot to say "program". We can never know whether the ommision was intensional or accidental. All we have is his claims.

Nevertheless, with the inclusion of the word "program", that statement is correct.

Now, many of those statements are incorrect, but that doesn't make them lies. Suppose I say, "I think the Cubs are going to win the World Series". That is a lie because I don't believe the Cubs are going to win the World Series. But if I said , "I think the Yankees are going to win the World Series." That would be a true statement because I actually believe that.

If the Yankees lose the World Series, that doesn't make me a liar; it makes me wrong.

Continued Next Post:

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:34am
We know Bush lied about spying on Americans, both in the context of obtaining warrants and about the reach of his programs.

We know Alberto Gonzales lied about his hiring practices.

We know John Yoo made misstatements of facts. We know his legal theories have been shown to be weak.

We know Cheney lied on multiple occasions about multiple scenarios.

We know George Tennet misrepresented the facts.

We know the CIA mislead and withheld information from congress, Panetta admits this.

We know the CIA's records were either wrong from the start or were doctored.

But, those that would have us follow Moses' Laws would have us concentrate on Pelosi's words, not those of serial liars. These people trust the CIA, Bush and his justice dept over all else, regardless of what has come out.

They would rather attack Pelosi, as she is a favored target of ridicule, than hold their own up to similar standards as they apply to Pelosi.

Palin is NOT a quitter!!! Just because she quit... Nancy Pelosi blah balh ...ACORN blah blah.... Rev Wright blah blah...

"Devil he told me to roll

Devil he told me to roll roll roll roll

How to roll the log tonight

Nobody's fault but mine

Got a monkey on my back

M-M-Monkey on my back back back back

Gonna change my ways tonight

Nobody's fault but mine "

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:36am
"Iraq bought aluminum tubes that could be used to refine uranium"

Check again Smart Guy.

"a set of technical experts from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories reviewed the CIA analysis and disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were far from ideal for this purpose. In fact, the dimensions and the aluminum alloy were identical to those of tubes acquired for rockets by Iraq in the 1980s. Furthermore, the Iraqis had developed and tested centrifuges before the first Gulf War that were much more capable than those that could have been built with the imported tubes. The DOE experts also pointed out that if these tubes were actually intended for centrifuges, there should be evidence of attempts by the Iraqis to acquire hundreds of thousands of other very specific components, but no such evidence existed. This critique of the CIA interpretation was seconded by the State Department's intelligence branch and, independently, by an international group of centrifuge experts advising the International Atomic Energy Agency.

As Dr. David Albright, a weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, DC, has noted, "It bespeaks something seriously wrong that a proper technical adjudication of this matter was never conducted. There was certainly plenty of time to accomplish it""

Where is this "growing fleet" of unmanned drones capable of delivering the KNOWN stockpiles of 20,00 liters of Anthrax?

Obama told us straight out that he was going to REVERSE Bush tax cuts for the top.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:46am
I guess by Clintonian logice, yes they 'could" have been used to enrich uranium...

but then again bleach and chlorine COULD be used as a wmd as well, therefore any plant in Iraq that produced these cleaning agents WAS in fact a wmd facility. Al Qaida did have people in Iraq, but Saddam hated them, BUT, just because they were there PROVES that Sadam was in cahoots with them.

that's OK Darin, you are perfectly fine holding Pelosi to a different standard than Bush and Cheney. We expect it from neo-cons, who will gladly give up freedom from federal govt intrusion into their lives to "protect their freedoms" from govt intrusion into their lives.

Have a nice day hating the left, which apparently is a good portion of your country.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:51am
"Iraq did have UAVs that could deliver biologial weapons."

Really?

Got proof of that?

Bush also said "We found the wmd's"

If I make claims based on incomplete information, and I have good reason to believe that information may not be accurate, I could be a liar, a propagandist or just plain wrong. What I would not be is honest or a straight shooter.

At best you follow "leaders" that were wrong about multiple MAJOR items. If you "feel" better, thst is fine by me.

If it feels good, do it.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:56am
It seems a moot point to me concerning who lied. They all lie or at least misinform. Politicians are more than a little like their CIA counterparts. CIA operatives are trained to lie and spread disinformation. Politicians quickly learn to do the same.

The solution involves giving them as little as possible to lie about in the first place.

We should know that the Bush Administration lied. They are Republicans. They lie as easily as they breathe. Of course Americans were spied on. Of course most of those were Democrats in high places. If you think they were spying on you however, you overestimate your own importance. And if you think the Democrats don't lie you are very naive. You are not even a pawn in the game of global power.

The debate on who lied to whom is a joke to members of the liars club and just serves to give the "intellectuals" something to keep them occupied while they all rob you blind.

Wake up and rub the sleep out of eyes. Get dressed, take a shower, have a cup of coffee and as a people with mutual interests find a way to outsmart them.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 10:01am
"Iraq bought aluminum tubes that could be used to refine uranium"

Check again Smart Guy. Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:46am

Hard to deal with that sort of ignorance isn't it crab?

I know, I went to lunch with a fellow truck driver this week who did not know about Osama bin Laden or that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. He did not know that the Bush's and the Bin Laden's were thick as thieves.

He did not even know that Saddam Hussein was dead. He thought he was in prison in Guantanamo and was responsible for 9/11.

I find this sort of thing all the time. Most Americans do not even know where Iraq is. And my fellow driver thought Iran and Iraq were the same thing because they started with an "I".

Go figure.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 10:20am
I believe that is why the elitist oligarchs in this country are trying to destroy public education. It is much easier to fool the people if they are uneducated.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 10:23am
That is also why any totalitarian regime or wanna be totalitarian regime eventually will round up the intellectuals, teachers and scientists and execute them.

Who do the neo-cons attack? They attack education, science and teachers of higher education.

You see it on this blog daily.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 10:29am
Spot on all around CHAOS. Never misunderestimate the oligarchy.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 12:37pm
obamagarchs unite!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 2:18pm
When dubya was prez there was a perpetual piece on this site about the Patriot Act.

Dubya was listening to our phone calls, reading our emails and text messages and on and on.

Finally the "press" brought up the surveillance issue again in the past couple of days and this rag is still worried about Palin.

Hey Katrina, what about the Patriot Act?

Obama could stop it with one phone call.

WTF!!??

Let's have a (another) speech.

END THE PATRIOT ACT!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 07/11/2009 @ 2:21pm
By saying Sen Peolosi has been vindicated and that the CIA owes her an apology, Nichols is enabling the Kool Aid drinks to continue their self delusion that the CIA is evil and Sen Peolosi is pure.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:09am

are you drunk?

that's representative pelosi...

but you are right: both are to blame.

darin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 2:35pm
darin:

"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 2:49pm
END THE PATRIOT ACT!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 07/11/2009 @ 2:21pm

Nah. Why do that when you can expand and legalize govt. spying?

America, as it's greatness was explained to me in my youth, is dead.

Posted by Malcontent at 07/11/2009 @ 2:57pm
What's surprising about the CIA lying to Congress? The surprise, for me, is President Obama's position on the subject of CIA disclosure to Congress.

"In a letter published by his Office of Management and Budget, Obama claimed in a letter to Reyes:

The Administration strongly objects to section 321, which would replace the current "Gang of 8" [the eight largest intelligence agencies] notification procedures on covert activities.… Unfortunately, section 321 undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the President as embodied in Title V of the National Security Act regarding the reporting of sensitive intelligence matters -- an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President's responsibility to protect sensitive national security information. Section 321 would run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests. In addition, the section raises serious constitutional concerns by amending sections 501-503 of the National Security Act of 1947 in ways that would raise significant executive privilege concerns by purporting to require the disclosure of internal Executive branch legal advice and deliberations. Administrations of both political parties have long recognized the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the Executive Branch's legal advice and deliberations. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto." -Source:http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/election/1397

Posted by neruda09 at 07/11/2009 @ 4:45pm
The CIA is in the secrets business.

Where is the water cooler on the second floor?

SECRET. NEED TO KNOW ACCESS ONLY.

They protect secrets. They also create secrets just in case they run out of the original ones.

They are also in a unique position. They can use blackmail to gain a desired result. I have no proof of this, but they are in the perfect profession to justify it's use if it ever is needed as an option.

In our society, the bastions of respectability are falling by the moment. Almost as soon as you say "That can't happen", it does. Just ask Aldrich Ames.

Posted by ficheye at 07/11/2009 @ 4:50pm
It is truely amazing how first Pelosi and now other Demoncrats are bold faced LIEING just to gain politically! Now they have even enduced Panetta to LIE about LIEING!

"Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden angrily struck back Saturday at assertions the Bush administration's post-9/11 surveillance program was more far-reaching than imagined and was largely concealed from congressional overseers.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Hayden maintained that top members of Congress were kept well-informed all along the way, notwithstanding protests from some that they were kept in the dark.

"One of the points I had in every one of the briefings was to make sure they understood the scope of our activity 'They've got to know this is bigger than a bread box,' I said," said Hayden, who also previously headed the National Security Agency.

"At the political level this had support," said the one-time CIA chief, jumping foursquare into an escalating controversy that has caused deep political divisions and lingering debate on the counterterrorism policies of an administration now out of power.

Hayden was reacting to a report issued Friday by a team of U.S. inspectors general which called the surveillance program in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks "unprecedented." The report also questioned the program's legal rationale and the excessive secrecy that enshrouded it.

Hayden, who in 2001 designed and carried out the secret program, told The AP he is distressed by suggestions that Congress was not fully informed. He said that he personally briefed top lawmakers on the entire surveillance operation and said he felt that they supported it.

Posted by BigPasture at 07/11/2009 @ 5:58pm
The Bush surveillance program has been contentious since it was first revealed, raising concerns about the extent of secret activities undertaken since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and the potential violation of civil liberties. Indeed, the report released Friday said that most of the information gathered under the wider program ultimately did not have any connection to terrorism.

It was so secret that few members of Bush's inner circle were "read in" on the program. Even John Ashcroft, who was attorney general at the time, got an accurate description of one surveillance activity only two years after he first certified it as legal. And his initial request to brief his chief of staff and deputy on the program were refused by the White House.

Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the report released Friday pointedly said that any continued use of the information gathered in the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."

Bush authorized the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority of a secret court in 2006, and Congress approved most of the intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the remaining and still-classified aspects of the wider surveillance program is not clear from the report.

In the interview Saturday, Hayden called the program extremely valuable and said that it served as an early warning system to help prevent further al-Qaida attacks."

Watch the Demoncrats and Pelosi keep stooping lower than dirt in vain attempts to look good!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/11/2009 @ 6:00pm
America, as it's greatness was explained to me in my youth, is dead.

Posted by Malcontent at 07/11/2009 @ 2:57pm

perhaps you were given the wrong explanation.

the greatness of america is in her people.

and there are more of those than ever.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 6:39pm
Posted by BigPasture at 07/11/2009 @ 6:00pm |

And what of Peter Hoekstra, who is saying the same things, is on the intel committee, and is....a Republican?

And aren't pastures dirt, for the most part?

Posted by snowball777 at 07/11/2009 @ 6:52pm
Sorry, but an omission is not a lie especially when dealing with the vermin in the congress. The last person owed an apology is the owlish twit Peloci. She is the one who denied being told about enhansed interrogation techniques when she clearly was. She still owes the CIA an apology for Her lies.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/11/2009 @ 8:06pm
And aren't pastures dirt, for the most part?

Posted by snowball777 at 07/11/2009 @ 6:52pm

and so are you and i.

the plant sucks in the dirt to get bigger.

the plant makes an apple.

you eat the apple.

you are made of dirt.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 8:46pm
Sorry, but an omission is not a lie especially when dealing with the vermin in the congress. The last person owed an apology is the owlish twit Peloci. She is the one who denied being told about enhansed interrogation techniques when she clearly was. She still owes the CIA an apology for Her lies.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/11/2009 @ 8:06pm

I don't know if you bothered to read the article, but the point of it is to show that it's a possibility that if the CIA has ben routinely lying to Congress then she may have actually been telling the truth.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/11/2009 @ 9:41pm
Sorry, but an omission is not a lie especially when dealing with the vermin in the congress. The last person owed an apology is the owlish twit Peloci. She is the one who denied being told about enhansed interrogation techniques when she clearly was. She still owes the CIA an apology for Her lies.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/11/2009

So, was there an omission or not? Or, maybe it doesn't matter because the vermin of the US Congress don't deserve the truth anyway.

But, since it's Pelosi, she must be lying and that's inexcusable. No lying, lies are bad...unless of course it's the CIA and they're lying to Congress.

Posted by koroviev at 07/12/2009 @ 12:56am
#

Do the Democratic `thing'.....nail the CIA to the wall....as `reward' for keeping the country safe since 9/11!

Posted by Happy at 07/10/2009 @ 9:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

How about the alternate course of action of doing the Republican thing "keep lying so that the people will finally believe you..."

In a country where the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land...guess what? even a secret agency must abide by it. And by the way? Did the CIA do something to prevent 9/11, even when some staff were warning of these amateur pilots? Better intelligence is better use of the resources... not spying the American people.

Are the Reps for a Nazi America? Sure they seem to be in vary many ways. ( Libertarians, watch out your friends!!)

On the contrary, we are for the upholding of the Constitution and the law. I would like to be safe, but I know that this is a relative category - not an absolute- and I might die any day either in an accident or say, from a cardiovascular incident. What I won't bargain with is that I'd like first to be free. All about our Founding Fathers is around freedom, and so negating freedom is negating America. And since the Reps are promoting and doing so, they are the ones that don't love America and should be held as unpatriotic!

(Pssst, they really love only their pockets!!).

Posted by Frank42 at 07/12/2009 @ 02:25am
Hey obama supporters!! Are you feeling violated at this point? At least Hillary had the courage to say NO to bush's FISA bill that your coward obama bent over for and voted YES!!! He is a pathetic excuse for a Democrat. . . He alone wears that banner of the FOOL!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/12/2009 @ 03:04am
Posted by Frank42 at 07/12/2009 @ 02:25am

This made no sense.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/12/2009 @ 04:49am
ON THE CHENEY REVELATION ABOUT A SECRET PROGRAM CONGRESS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. Former Vice-President Cheney was, and remains above the law, it seems. If this is true, the whole basis of the American jurisprudence--a nation under law, that there is equality under the law, is bull shit. Attorney General Eric Holder and Congress have a duty to prove it. Finally, we also now know that the CIA is indeed an "invisible government." Dr. Sam

Posted by drsam8 at 07/12/2009 @ 08:50am
and so are you and i. the plant sucks in the dirt to get bigger. the plant makes an apple. you eat the apple. you are made of dirt. Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 8:46pm |

just trying to figure out why Rio was self-hatin' on dirt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wYYGLOUUXQ

"..nothin' but a walkin' sack of earth, nice to meet you, how do you do?..."

Posted by snowball777 at 07/12/2009 @ 10:02am
hey snowbert,

saw 4 seconds of the video and my son asks, "what is that?".

guess i'll watch it later......

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 10:13am
snowbert,

THIS is trippy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146336.stm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 10:13am | Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 10:21am |

My 1 week-old does not present these problems just yet.

At least they're not letting people hunt the pachyderms and it seems less injurious than the goat-petting, pony-riding norm.

Speaking of ponies...my father once brought home a mini-pony...which would've been okay, if we hadn't lived in Dearborn at the time.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/12/2009 @ 10:37am
What I won't bargain with is that I'd like first to be free. All about our Founding Fathers is around freedom,...

Posted by Frank42 at 07/12/2009 @ 02:25am

Please enlighten us as to how you were NOT free under Bush/Cheney- regardless if what the CIA did or did NOT do, legal or illegal?

Next, tell us, will the average Joe Plumber have more or less `freedom' under CapandDie, nationalized health care, doubling of the nat'l debt, CapandDie, higher taxes, more regulations, restrictions on free trade, more empathy-based (vs. the Constitution) Supreme Court, etc.?

You maybe in the wrong Party!

Posted by Happy at 07/12/2009 @ 11:38am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/12/2009 @ 10:37am

one week... congrats!

dearborn?

as-salaam alaikum!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 12:07pm
Happy-Both parties have been in power and we still have the same freedoms that we have always had and we will not end up with fewer now.It is funny,though how the partisan rhetoric is identical any time the other party comes into power.First they they say it when a republican is in power and then you guys repeat the same rhetoric that they said when the other party comes into power.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/12/2009 @ 12:14pm
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 07/12/2009 @ 12:14pm </i>

Bingo. It's classic scare tactics. Do policies make a difference as far as our liberties are concerned? Sure they do. Are they likely to be earth-shattering? No, not really.

So, to sum up:

Republicans aren't Hitler Democrats aren't Stalin

This should be fairly intuitive.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/12/2009 @ 12:23pm
http://www.businessinsider.com/subprime- construction-shanghai-edition-2009-6

must see.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2009 @ 12:27pm
"Now they have even enduced Panetta to LIE about LIEING!"

Oh, yeah, that MUST be it. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Into the ignore bucket you go...

Posted by Balrog at 07/12/2009 @ 4:14pm
Focusing exclusively on programs of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ignores the bigger crime committed during the Bush/Cheney years; i.e., that the Central Intelligence Agency & Dick Cheney actively covered up the fact that Al Qaeda is an operation of the Saudi intelligence services and their masters in the British SIS (commonly called MI6). America was attacked on 9/11 by these Brits and the Saudis, that is now an established fact (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html). When is Congress going to investigate the real purpetrators of 9/11. Oh, I know, many of you still think we have a "special relationship" with Britain, and that our fellow English speakers could not possible have done what I am alleging. And you are correct about most Englishmen and women. But what you are ignoring is that there has always been a sector of the British upper classes that have hated America's role in the world. And within British intelligence there are those intelligence masters with a "portfolio" that is distinctly anti-American. Dick Cheney and the Bush family have close relationships with these British and Saudi intelligence masters, and have had for many years. Britain has trained, funded and been behind just about every Muslim terrorist group for years. (Go back and search the press reports since the London trained Ayatollah Komenie started the era of Islamic terrorism. If you don't believe this, just look at all the Muslim terrorist groups who have had and still have have their headquarters in London, all protected by the "big sister at Six. This is what our Congress and our Media should be in an uproar about. Not simply that they were not told or not fully told about what the "little sisters" at Langley may or may not have done.

Posted by perryfellwock at 07/12/2009 @ 6:46pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/12/2009 @ 6:46pm

I can't tell if you're a wing-nut leftie or a wing-nut rightie.

So, now MI6 is responsible for 9/11? I thought it was the Jews/Arabs. Or the CIA.

Posted by twillie at 07/12/2009 @ 8:06pm
Instead of calling people names, why don't you examine the facts. Saudi intelligence is controlled by MI6, and has been ever since Britain established Saudi Arabia. The Al Qaeda purps Saudis (as is Ben Laden). Ben Laden was trained in London. The lawsuit by the families of the victims of 9/11 have established that Saudi intelligence ran the Al Qaeda perps. Everyone, truly familiar with the western intelligence community, knows that a section of MI6 is staunchly anti-democratic and anti-American. These same MI6 intelligence masters have long standing connections to Dick Cheney and his wife (check out the history of the Congress of Cultural Freedom (an MI6 operation with some CIA and Cheney connected foundations involvement). It took the 9/11 families lawsuit and the freedom of information act to disclose what Bush and Cheney were covering up (or at least a portion of it). I may be wrong, but all of this needs to be investigated by the Media and Congress. And I am neither right wing nor left wing; simply an American who wants to know the truth. What are you?

Posted by perryfellwock at 07/12/2009 @ 9:44pm
All I want to know is how many and whose heads in the CIA will roll and when.

Posted by tonyvera at 07/12/2009 @ 10:14pm
Hard to deal with that sort of ignorance isn't it crab?

Posted by chaoszen at 07/11/2009 @ 10:20am

Let's go to the tape.

***** Post #1 *****

"Iraq bought aluminum tubes that could be used to refine uranium"

Check again Smart Guy.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:46am

***** Post 2 *****

I guess by Clintonian logice, yes they 'could" have been used to enrich uranium...

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2009 @ 09:51am

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

Crabman concedes that the tube could have been used for enriching uranium.

You know, a toothbrush can be used to make a shank and kill a man. Now, whether that is it's intended purpose depends upon whether it is in the hands of a boy scout or a convict serving 10 consecutive life sentences.

But irrespective, the statement, "A toothbrush can be used to make a shank and kill a man" is a true statement.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/13/2009 @ 08:11am
Sen Peolosi has been vindicated and that the CIA owes her an apology, Nichols is enabling the Kool Aid drinks to continue their self delusion that the CIA is evil and Sen Peolosi is pure.

It is cynical and dishonest and I don't like it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:09am

Durwood, Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house....that would be the house of representatives. The senate is where senators work. The two houses make up congress. I believe I learned that in the 3rd or 4th grade.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/13/2009 @ 10:55am
Sen Peolosi has been vindicated and that the CIA owes her an apology, Nichols is enabling the Kool Aid drinks to continue their self delusion that the CIA is evil and Sen Peolosi is pure.

It is cynical and dishonest and I don't like it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:09am

Durwood, Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house....that would be the house of representatives. The senate is where senators work. The two houses make up congress. I believe I learned that in the 3rd or 4th grade.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/13/2009 @ 10:55am
t is cynical and dishonest and I don't like it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/11/2009 @ 09:09am

Hey Durwood, Who gives a crap what you like or don't like?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:59pm
"It took the 9/11 families lawsuit and the freedom of information act to disclose what Bush and Cheney were covering up (or at least a portion of it). I may be wrong, but all of this needs to be investigated by the Media and Congress. And I am neither right wing nor left wing; simply an American who wants to know the truth. What are you?" Posted by perryfellwock at 07/12/2009 @ 9:44pm

By all means, provide us with a link that shows the Saudi/MI6/ Cheney connection. Since its FOIA related, it should be readily available. I promise no more name calling until I have a chance to peruse it. But I must warn you, this blog can be rather unkind to outre' conspiracy theories.

Posted by twillie at 07/13/2009 @ 6:26pm
Okay, I've been reading all of your postings, the "regulars" as it were, for months. With this latest series of responses I have no doubt that all of you are engaging in nothing more than an act of intellectual masturbation. Nothing that any of you has offered in response to this article has added anything of significance to the subject; the postings are utterly devoid of critical substance.

Rather than well-reasoned discourse and reflections on what is a serious issue for this Country, each of you continues to "jerk-off" to the private whisperings of your own muse – the turgid reflections of your own pre-determined ideology.

Come on people, it matters not what Pelosi knew or didn't know. What matters is the fact that the laws of our Country were trashed in the service of our government's war on terror, and that we, those whose consent gave them the power to govern, were lied to. This fact is without dispute.

Anything less than serious reflection on how we, the American people, permitted our Administration to steal our democracy, and how we are going to prevent such a usurpation of our power in the future, is without consequence. This is the heart of what really matters, not what Pelosi, or anyone else knew, or didn't know - and certainly not the seminal ramblings of a few self-appointed, self-righteous bloviators.

Posted by markedc at 07/13/2009 @ 9:15pm
Posted by markedc at 07/13/2009 @ 9:15pm

Applying what you just said to the article would mean that the article itself is not significant compared to what "matters is the fact that the laws of our Country were trashed in the service of our government's war on terror, and that we, those whose consent gave them the power to govern, were lied to."

Meaning that an apology to Pelosi means nothing in the grand scheme of things unless that apology is directed to the Speaker of the House (the position not the person) for misleading or lying to the Speaker and/or the House of representatives.

What should anger everyone is that the CIA, under orders of the vice president, was told to withhold information about a program from Congress. Now, why would the VP want to withhold information like that from Congress other than the fact that Congress may not fund such and endeavor or the fact that the project may be illegal. Either way, the Bush administration did what it apparently did many times and that was to side step the standard legal way of doing things and circumventing the system when it served their purposes.

That is why laws and procedures exist. So that this sort of thing doesn't take place and yet here we are.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/14/2009 @ 08:58am
TO TWILLIE: This is my last blog commentary on the subject as I do not wish to get involved in a pissing contest with someone who hides behind a screen name. And are comments aren't important anyway. A full article in The Nation exploring these issues could be. The above referenced New York Times article should get any journalist worth his or her salt going on the story. There are many, many, many reports on the British and Saudi hands behind the 9/11 attacks if anyone cares to look and not just dismiss them as "conspiracy theories". FYI, just one of the many documents now in the hands of the lawyers for the 9/11 families is an FBI document clearly showing that FBI special agent Steven Butler knew his informant Abdussattar Shaikh rented out rooms to two of the 9/11 hijackers and was paid with money from a secret British account held by the British/Saudi "al-Yamamah" agreement which paid for the 9/11 attack (and probably for much of Al Qaeda's activities). As to Dick Cheney's work with MI6 just research his wife's and his connections to the British Smith Institute, run by, among others, MI6 executive Baroness Meta Ramsay or his and her long-time involvement with the Congress of Cultural Freedom. And there is a lot more in the papers now possessed by the 9/11 families. P.S. the Obama administration is now doing everything they can to protect the Saudi's by trying to close down the lawsuit. But the genie is now out of the bottle and even they and dismissive commentators such as yourself may not be able to continue covering up the truth. The documents are there, the leads are there, now all it will take are some journalists with backbone to report on it a way, you can't dismiss it as "conspiracy theories". The New York Times article is a start.

Posted by perryfellwock at 07/14/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/14/2009 @ 09:14am

Thank you for the article from the NY Times. It is ironic to say the least that the Bush family was occupying the executive office when 9/11 took place. A very powerful American family so cozy with the Saudi royal family. Any type of investigations could easily be headed off with the president squelching them not that the royal family already doesn't yield a lot of power in our government already.

The state department making a statement such as it did saying in effect that it would be detrimental to foreign relations to look into possible records of payments to terrorist groups that may have attacked the U.S. is amazing and seriously in conflict in nature. Kind of makes you question where their loyalty stands doesn't it?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:37am
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/14/2009 @ 09:14am

"Thank you for the article from the NY Times. It is ironic to say the least that the Bush family was occupying the executive office when 9/11 took place. A very powerful American family so cozy with the Saudi royal family. Any type of investigations could easily be headed off with the president squelching them not that the royal family already doesn't yield a lot of power in our government already."

Spare me, wolfgang. The Saudis were tight with the Clinton administration, too. Not surprising, since the Saudis provide a (relatively) stable supply of the fossil fuel that drives the US economy. Take that away, and the US is toast. There won't be any rich to "stick it to" anymore.

The article repeats many Michael Moore 9/11 charges. Its old news. Plus, read this key paragraph:

"The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups."

So, it's hard not to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory.

And Perry: How about that link to documentation of the Saudi-MI6-Cheney connection? What you call a "pissing contest", I call a debate. Why in the world did you come here if you didn't want to debate? So, come on, join the fun. But first, how about that link?

Posted by twillie at 07/14/2009 @ 9:13pm
HERE IS THE THING, DID THE FORMER VP AND CIA HOLD BACK STRATEGIC MOVES OF A COVERT NATURE FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMM? THAT IS THE QUES.THE QUES IS NOT PELOSI AND WHO IS TRYING TO GET WHO. THAT IS A COLLATERAL ISSUE WHICH IS BEING USED TO GET AWAY FROM THE LAWFULL ISSUE. DID THE CIA AND THE VP KEEP INFORMATION SECRET THAT HAD TO DO WITH OUR FREEDOMS AND COVERT ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THE VP AND CIA COUDENT AFFORD ANYONE STOPPING WHAT THEY WERE DOING? THOSE ARE THE QUES THEY DEFINITLY DONT WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO IN FRONT OF A SPECIAL COMMITTEE. WERE NOT LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO START MORE WARS WERE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO END THEM. JOE CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS

Posted by CITYLIFE9 at 07/16/2009 @ 12:32am
How can you take Panetta's statement and extrapolate that Pelosi was lied to and the US people were spied on. Please stop and find the facts before over reacting.

It now appears that Panetta's comments had nothing to do with the issue of weather or not Pelosi was misled. The secret program had nothing to do with the treatment of prisoners.

Also, the program was never about spying on US citizens. That was simply a crazy unsubstantiated rumor started by this bog. Rather the program was about assassinating Bin Laden.

I personally don't fully understand the rules pertaining to informing congress on such a program. There appears to be some leeway in the rules that even Obama and Pelosi don't agree on.

On a different note, if Bush did not have a plan to try to kill Bin Laden then he was not doing his job. Personally, I want our government to have a program to kill our enemies. If Pelosi and Panetta have stopped this program; please encourage them to restart the effort ASAP. These are not foreign dignitaries or representatives of foreign governments who deserve some diplomatic protection. These are self acknowledge terrorists who want to kill you, our families and me. I hope my government is out there trying to protect us. That is job #1.

Posted by MassConservative at 07/16/2009 @ 11:56am