Lies Wide Shut

posted at 9:36 am on July 10, 2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh

On June 26th, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX, 82%), sent a letter to ranking Republican member Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI, 88%); Reyes claimed that two days earlier, in a classified briefing by CIA Director Leon Panetta (a hyper-partisan Democratic former House member), the director admitted the CIA routinely misled and even lied to Congress under George W. Bush:

Exactly what actions Panetta disclosed to the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 is unclear, but committee chairman Silvestre Reyes said that the CIA outright lied in one case.

“These notifications have led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to,” Reyes wrote in a letter Tuesday to Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the committee’s senior Republican. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Reyes said in the letter that he is considering opening a full investigation.

(A CIA spokesman says Panetta denies saying any such thing in his briefing; see below)

Then yesterday, somebody on the committee or at CIA leaked a second letter (obtained by Politico), sent by seven other Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, also to the director; in it, the seven echo Reyes’s claim: That Panetta testified that “top CIA officials” concealed CIA operations from Congress and “misled them over the span of last eight years.” (For the full text of this second letter, see the end of this post.)

But of course, all eight accusers coyly refuse to say exactly what the CIA is supposed to have misled them about; they just allow the nation to draw the “obvious,” but not necessarily accurate, conclusion.

Democrats are using this bit of fluff to prop up the wobbly Squeaker of the House, insinuating — with no lawful way to debunk it — that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%) was truthful when she said the CIA “never told her” we had already waterboarded a terrorist detainee and planned to waterboard a couple more:

In the letter [from the seven], Democrats demanded that Panetta correct a statement he issued on May 15 — just after Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading her during the Bush years about the agency’s use of waterboarding techniques — stating that it is not the CIA’s “policy or practice to mislead Congress….”

Democrats refused to say today what exactly Panetta told the members during the June meeting, citing the need to keep sensitive intelligence information classified. But committee members said they were appalled to learn from Panetta that the CIA had been misled them over the span of last eight years….

Asked if the letter should silence debate about whether she was fair in her characterization that the CIA had misled about its use of waterboarding, Pelosi shot back, “I didn’t know there was any question about propriety.” [sic -- "propriety?"]

And here is another one of those remarkably convenient coincidences that seem to crop up with great frequency in the Pelosi Congress:

[Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ, 100%), one of the seven signers] said that the release of the letter [from the seven] was timed to coincide today with the start of debate on an intelligence reauthorization bill. Among those issues up for debate is whether the number of lawmakers briefed on the CIA’s actions should be expanded.

How amazing that the letter from the seven insinuators was sent nearly two weeks ago, but leaked only yesterday, just before the hearings… during which Republicans intend once again to demand that Speaker Pelosi either put up or shut up — that she either show some evidence to back her accusation that the CIA lied to her, or else retract her bizarre claim and apologize:

Reyes and other committee Democrats sent Hoekstra a letter saying that CIA Director Leon Panetta had acknowledged that senior CIA officials have misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001. But a GOP spokesman has suggested that the letter was timed to deflect a controversy involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s knowledge of CIA interrogation techniques.

Hoekstra told CBS’ “The Early Show” on Thursday that it appears that Reyes is “working on the political equation.”

Meanwhile, Pelosi herself is busy ducking questions and pretending she had no knowledge of the leaked letters and didn’t orchestrate them to save her own shaky reputation and increasingly untenable tenure as Squeaker of the House:

It’s been almost two months since Pelosi claimed the CIA lied to her about what interrogation methods they’d used on detainees. That accusation prompted Panetta’s statement defending the agency.

Since then, the speaker has refused to take any more questions on the subject. While Pelosi took numerous questions today, she deflected most and left matters in the hands of the House Intelligence Committee….

[House Minority Leader John] Boehner [R-OH, 92%] renewed his call today for Pelosi to either “put up the facts or retract her statement and apologize” to the intelligence committee.

Nobody privy to the actual intelligence, not even Reyes and the seven dwarfs, has explicitly claimed that Panetta said the CIA lied about briefing Pelosi or anyone else on waterboarding; but neither can anyone explicitly dispute it without winding up in la calabooza. And for that matter, Panetta’s spokesman denies that Panetta said any such thing in the first place; from the Politico piece:

CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is “completely wrong.” He added, “Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement.”

The charge — that one of these supposed “misleadings” was whether Pelosi and other Democrats were briefed on waterboarding — is inuendo, based upon unavailable evidence that cannot be checked or validated in any way. It just hovers overhead as an a priori accusation: unverifiable, unrebuttable, irrefutable. Well, who can argue with that!

The Democrats get to wallow in triumphalism: See? We Democrats had no inkling we were torturing detainees; we surely would have stopped it if we knew; so don’t blame us, it’s all George Bush’s fault! And Republicans are stymied, since the only way to rebut the claim is to leak classified intelligence.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are using this alleged (and denied) “misleading” to demand that henceforth, the CIA must brief every member of both House and Senate Intelligence Committees on every CIA action; from the Washington Times piece:

House Republicans oppose at least one provision in the intelligence authorization bill, and they have an unusual ally: the White House.

Obama’s aides have said they will recommend he veto the bill if it includes a Democratic-written provision requiring the president to notify the intelligence committees in their entirety about covert CIA activities.

Under current law, the president is only obligated to notify the top Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate and the senior Democratic and Republican members on each chamber’s intelligence committee.

Democrats want to open the briefings to all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees unless committee leaders agreed otherwise. That would be about 40 lawmakers, depending on shifting membership rosters, instead of the eight required by law.

They claim the Bush administration sought to undermine congressional oversight. However, the White House is concerned that briefing more lawmakers might compromise the most sensitive U.S. intelligence operations.

Gee, you think?

To demonstrate the insanity of this proposal — pushed by congressional Democrats and opposed by Republicans and President Barack H. Obama — all we need do is take a look at some of the Democrats on the two committees.

When Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV, 94%) was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (he is still a member but no longer chairman), he was one of the leaders in abusing his intelligence access to perpetuate the “Bush lied, people died” meme; he repeatedly stated that no prewar intelligence supported the idea that Saddam Hussein had ongoing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs — even though he himself had earlier stated the exact opposite, and despite a wealth of intelligence indicating exactly that, published in the committee’s own report on pre-war intelligence during Rockefeller tenure.

Rockefeller also agreed with a CBS interviewer’s question, on September 9th, 2006, that “the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.”

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, 100%), Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, 90%), all current members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — Feinstein is the chairman — wrote a letter in July, 2007, demanding a “special prosecutor” be appointed to investigate then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for perjury… because of a trivial difference between Gonzales’ testimony and that of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller over the exact subject of a hospital-room discussion between Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft three years earlier.

Mueller, who was not present during the conversation itself, gained the impression afterwards that the discussion had been about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP); but Gonzales testified to Congress three years later that it was about a different but similar surveillance program. And for that, four Democratic senators wanted to send Gonzales to federal prison — the three mentioned above, plus Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%).

To complete the humiliation, the very next day — July 29th, 2007 — the New York Times published a story revealing that the subject was not, in fact, the TSP… it was the “data mining” surveillance program. So Gonzales had been telling the truth all along, and it was Mueller who misunderstood which program was under discussion. None of the senators who had called for Gonzales to be jugged for perjury ever apologized, including the three who today sit on the Senate Intelligence Commmittee; they just quietly dropped their demand.

This bespeaks such unseriousness of purpose — at a time when the Iraq war was flagging, Gen. David Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy was just starting, and more than ever we needed our government to show solidarity and steadfastness — that I question whether any of these three should even be allowed to serve on such a delicate and supposedly bipartisan committee as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Turning to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the current chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA, 82%), flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position; the quiz included such tricky, unfair questions as whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. (Reyes’ answer: “They are probably both,” followed by “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”)

Note: The CNN site is a shambles; when you first go to the link, you may see nothing but black where the text should be. But I discovered that if you click inside the text area, then Select All, you should be able to see a ghostly image of the selected text. Thank goodness for the “multiple layers of editing” we find in the elite news media.

The next ranking Democrat on the committee is Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL, 100%)a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting a $150,000 bribe, then perjuring himself when caught.

Yep, there’s a reliable, trustworthy, expert gaggle of folks that I’d love to see be constantly apprised of the most vital, ongoing, and heavily classified CIA operations. American’s national security would be vitally compromised if congressmen like Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Alcee Hastings weren’t allowed to fully exert their “oversight authority” over our primary intelligence-gathering agency.

Let the full committee in both houses see everything. Better yet, why not the entire Congress, all 435 of them? Why should we slight former vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy (D-VT, %) — who leaked an intelligence report, unclassified but still strictly confidential, to a CBS reporter, so compromising himself that he resigned from the committee?

Heck, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps telling us, “Information wants to be free.”

Full text of the letter from the seven insinuators to the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta

June 26, 2009

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505

Dear Director Panetta,

You recall, no doubt, that on May 15, 2009, you stated the following in a letter to CIA employees:

“Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and values.”

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. This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.

In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009.

Sincerely,

/s/

Anna G. Eshoo
Rush D. Holt
Alcee L. Hastings
John F. Tierny
Mike Thompson
Janice D. Schakowsky
Adam Smith

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Morale at the CIA must be booming with this stuff going on. Mark Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation) is going to file a FOIA on this matter. That ought to be good. It’s time to take the Queen Bee out of there.

suzyk on July 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Do you suppose Pelosi thought that she’d still be defending herself over this clear lie? What is different this time? Democrats lie all the time and Barak Obama even makes up false stories about how he met the First Ho. Why is Pelosi forced to defend herself now. I’m not complaining just curious why she didn’t get away with it this time. Could it be that Panetta is working his Clinton contacts behind the scenes.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM

This was on the local radio station web page yesterday – they ran a poll: “Who do you believe?”. The CIA got 88%.

Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Morale at the CIA must be booming with this stuff going on. Mark Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation) is going to file a FOIA on this matter. That ought to be good. It’s time to take the Queen Bee out of there.

suzyk on July 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Way past time. Pelosi needs to be gone before BHO can be impeached. 3rd in line is too close for comfort, IMO.

zeebeach on July 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Reyes us an idiot always has been. This is nothing more than an attempt to provide cover for Pelosi and gain some stature in the demecratic party.

You watch. There will be no investigation,as that would require recorded facts and testimony. The letter is out there and the MSM is running with it. Mission accomplished.

HoustonRight on July 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Penatta is Obama’s wormy little hand puppet and all in the CIA should be enraged by his pandering and lying. As for Pelosi . . . she’s nothing more than a phony, self serving leftist.

rplat on July 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM

That is one convoluted situation, though there seem to be openings aplenty on which to attack the ‘rats.

Of course the MSM whores are going to sound the air-raid siren and devote full attention to bolstering the ‘rat claims and make sure that the public only hears that Dubya was a torturing, murdering, imperialistic fascist who tricked everyone.

Bishop on July 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM

suzyk on July 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I don’t know who to root for in this little drama. Nancy Pelosi is corrupt and evil but the CIA is a nest of Bush-hating liberal careerists and the whole Valerie Plame farce. Pelosi needs to be taken down a few pegs but the CIA deserves to be led by an intelligence professional not a political hack from the Clinton years.

It really is a toss up but in the end I’ve got to go with the spooks. The CIA delivers something of value to national security. Nancy Pelosi endagers that same national security on a daily basis.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Alcee Hastings? Theres a credible source.

ctmom on July 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM

How much would it suck to be a covert agent with the CIA right now? As if their job isn’t dangerous enough already.

BadgerHawk on July 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM

What’s up with the percentages? Is it “what percent of a total asshole is this Rep?”

Jaibones on July 10, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Reyes us an idiot always has been. This is nothing more than an attempt to provide cover for Pelosi and gain some stature in the demecratic party.

HoustonRight on July 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM

It’s good to remember that Reyes was Pelsoi’s hand-picked crony for the job over Jane Harmon who (despite being a far left California liberal) did have a resume that would support chairing this important committee. Reyes- not so much.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 9:48 AM

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Excellent point! I had forgotten all about that. Thanks.

HoustonRight on July 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM

The CIA will protect itself; expect their own documents to be leaked which show that not only did Pelosi know what was going on but signed-off on it.

Nobody expects the Central Intelligence Agency!

Bishop on July 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Circling the wagons today,
-
Circling the drain tomorrow.
-
Or someday soon.
-

esblowfeld on July 10, 2009 at 9:52 AM

So as I read it, they are trying to get Panetta to fall on the grenade for Pelosi. Either that or this is planned from the get go?

I never understood the pick of Panetta to run the CIA. Maybe now it makes more sense.

Panetta will “begrudgingly” admit just how horrible the CIA is and was under Bush so the Dems have their scapegoat.

Again, as it’s been said before by others, morale must be sky high at the CIA when your leader is marching you towards the gallows.

Thunderstorm129 on July 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

When Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV, 94%) was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (he is still a member but no longer chairman), he was one of the leaders in abusing his intelligence access to perpetuate the “Bush lied, people died” meme; he repeatedly stated that no prewar intelligence supported the idea that Saddam Hussein had ongoing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs — even though he himself had earlier stated the exact opposite, and despite a wealth of intelligence indicating exactly that, published in the committee’s own report on pre-war intelligence during Rockefeller tenure.

And even though Saddam Hussein himself stated that he pretended to and lied about having WMD programs in order to fool the Iranians. The only way to fool the Iranians, who share a long border with Iraq, would be to fool the entire world.

And given the way Democrats in this country routinely leak classified material, I wouldn’t mind the CIA lying to them. Serves them right.

rbj on July 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

I feel bad for Panetta…they set this guy up to be the fall guy…When he got hired.

tomas on July 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

If the CIA doesn’t do damage to those that are accusing them, or vice-versa, then both should be shut down as dangerous to the American people.

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Great post.

I heard bits on the radio about this, but this is the first exposition of the facts I’ve seen. I think this ploy to exonerate Pelosi is even worse than her initial crime, which was to lie to the American people about the briefings she damn well DID receive prior to the Iraq invasion.

In a way, you have to give Democrats credit for sticking to their marketing promise this time:

They’re transparent as hell.

jeff_from_mpls on July 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM

The veracity of the letter’s contents are irrelevant. The letter will serve its intended purpose which is delay and confusion, blah, blah, blah.

Its most important function will be to sure up the base. Months from now when the truth is out all folks will remember in talking points was this letter. It will be used as evidence by the MSM that Bush and the CIA lied us into war etc.

While Pelosi and Reid will someday get their comeuppance it is very foolish to keep saying they are stupid. They are a whole lot more politically sophisticated than any current Repubs.

I did not say truthful.

patrick neid on July 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM

When this country gets hit by another terrorist attack, these records need to be put in front of every AMERICAN in the Country. Not if but when, that is from our intelligence agencies. These career bureaucrats think they have immunity? What they are doing is criminal, they are undermining the security of the country. They put their own self interest before the country. I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE NOV 2010 ELECTIONS. We need to clean house.

Dr Evil on July 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Mark Levin had Rep. Hoekstra on his show last night.

According to him, the CIA revealed that there had been an Operation in the planning stages, but that the Operation was canceled, when it was deemed it would not be effective. The Operation never left the initial planning stage.

That’s what they are getting their panties in a twist about. It’s like throwing a single french fry into a group of pigeons. They don’t care what it is, they just want to consume it and crap it out in another form.

Links:
Michigan Rep. Hoekstra calls Democrats’ CIA letter ‘bizarre’
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090709/POLITICS02/907090452/1024/POLITICS03/Michigan-Rep.-Hoekstra-calls-DemocratsCIA-letterbizarre

Mark Levin interview (starts about 20 minutes in):
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

Tyrs Fury on July 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM

kind of like no expects the Sanish Inqustion?

This is just an examle of Pelosi’s ego getting the best of her. She can’t leave this alone and has do do her Machavellian scheming to get revenge, as it were. Trouble is, she snt very good at scheming. This also displays why she tempermentally unfit for the seaker’s job.

catlady on July 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM

If this women ever told the truth about anything her face would freeze forever .

thmcbb on July 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I feel bad for Panetta…they set this guy up to be the fall guy…When he got hired.

tomas on July 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

It’s pretty bad.

Panetta is the guy from Crete who has to admit that “all Cretans are liars”.

Logical vertigo ensues! Are you lying now, Mr. Secretary Panetta?

Bertrand Russell, call your office.

jeff_from_mpls on July 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Reyes is full of ***t.

2nd Ammendment Mother on July 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM

The Democrats are going to try to ruin our country from top to bottom. Nothing is off limits with their evil mentality.

mobydutch on July 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Pelosi meets tar baby. That’s her story and she’s stickin’ to it.

Fletch54 on July 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM

I don’t think I feel bad for Panetta. He was an outrageous pick to head the CIA in the first place. His appointment to me seemed like positioning one of their operatives on the inside so as to start a witchhunt at the CIA. Panetta gets away with it by feigning indignation at the suggestion he ever “did that” or “said such things”, all the while he was in fact doing and saying those things. After this, I think he’s a rat and a traitor in the CIA.

Thunderstorm129 on July 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM

It really is a toss up but in the end I’ve got to go with the spooks. The CIA delivers something of value to national security. Nancy Pelosi endagers that same national security on a daily basis.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM

i agree completely, and why is a political hack running the cia and not a military man or a ex spook?

SHARPTOOTH on July 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Panetta defends us against those who hired him?

A small miracle.

Thank you Leon.

CIA, si.

Pelosi-istas, no.

profitsbeard on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I feel bad for Panetta…they set this guy up to be the fall guy…When he got hired.

tomas on July 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

He deserves whatever he gets from this mess.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

These democrats need to be gone. What a bunch of corrupt flunkies. Given enough time, they will completely ruin the country.

saiga on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

how very convienent that the CIA are only liars between 2001 and now? Hmmmmmmm….

Panetta is a schmuck….

cmsinaz on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Delighted to see Nancy back on the hook again. Couldn’t happen to a nicer gal! Would be nice if our elected reps. dealt more in honesty and less in politics. Pipe dream!

jeanie on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Great piece Dafydd ab Hugh!

The word is getting out, even to deep trenched Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is a treacherous human, lowest of the lows. I can still hear Hannity warning us prior to the mid-terms of 2006 “if you don’t want to wake up and hear the words Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house.” Hannity and others warned us what a treacherous woman this is, and how bad she would be for our country.

Oh well, we were warned equally as well about Obama, and we all know how that worked out.

Keemo on July 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Haul Panetta up to the Senate and make him accountable…he is so loved by the far left they would be in a quandrary.

Pelosi will dodge, but Panetta has to answer.

In his grilling, the truth about Pelosi will come out…and it will split the ranks of the liberals.

right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM

More evidence that Democrats in Congress have little concern for our national security.

Thank you, Dafydd.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Panetta defends us against those who hired him?

A small miracle.

Thank you Leon.

CIA, si.

Pelosi-istas, no.

profitsbeard on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I don’t think so. I think Panetta’s on the inside giving the Dems this stuff while outwardly acting shocked and upset. Again, his choice as head of the CIA was by far the most bizarre cabinet appointment I saw.

Thunderstorm129 on July 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM

My wife hates it when I do this (she calls it fraternizing with the enemy) but I listened to NPR All Things Considered 7/9/9 and thoroughly enjoyed Nancy P getting annoyed with Melissa Block.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106423346
On this page, there is a link to audio of the interview. The comments are priceless.

Grunch42 on July 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Nah, this couldn’t have be orchestrated. The Democrats wouldn’t have done something so sneaky, so underhanded, so dishonest. After all, Nancy promised ‘the most honest, the most open, the most ethical Congress, evah!’. Hahahahahaha!!!

GarandFan on July 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM

He deserves whatever he gets from this mess.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM

He deserves whatever he gets in this friendly fire incident, but after some reasonable amount of time under water the Republicans should save Panetta from drowning and remind everyone who the adults are.

But let us not waste this opportunity, either. Let’s pin Pelosi and her little band of leftards like a big pinko plastic tail onto the Lord of the Donkeys – O’Bonehead.

Jaibones on July 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM

DOBBS: Well, then CIA Director Panetta fired back in a letter to the CIA personnel, saying, “Let me be clear. It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.”

Let me ask you both, first, if I may, Congressman Issa, do you believe the CIA did mislead Speaker Pelosi?

REP. DARRELL ISSA, (R) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: No, I don’t. I think that Porter Goss, who has said he was briefed in real time and continuously briefed, is probably more accurate in the memory.

More important, when Speaker Pelosi says “they mislead us all the time,” I think that the FBI and other organizations need to investigate, because “all the time” implies multiple felonies. And that’s what we’ve been trying to cut through is, if it’s all the time, every one of them is a crime. Let’s get it done.

And I think that’s where Speaker Pelosi crossed the line. Not that she didn’t remember being briefed, which none of us can know, but the idea that she would just blithely say that the CIA lies to us all the time. That’s demoralizing for the premiere intelligence agency.

Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Isn’t Rockefeller the one who found the back dated letter in his safe explaining his concerns over the enhanced interrogation practices even though he expressed no misgivings when briefed? These people are amazingly transparent and eventually the constant attempt to cover their hindquarters will come back to bite them.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM

This is just an examle of Pelosi’s ego getting the best of her. She can’t leave this alone and has do do her Machavellian scheming to get revenge, as it were. Trouble is, she snt very good at scheming. This also displays why she tempermentally unfit for the seaker’s job.

catlady on July 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM

I think it is more a case of Pelosi having to keep telling lies than her not wanting to leave this alone. She got up there and said the CIA lied to Congress in one of her trademark hissy fits. Then when the CIA fired back with proof that she was a liar, she had to keep telling lies more so that she wouldn’t have to admit that she lied. Now, it’s gotten enough traction she has to go into damage control mode and get her lackey Reyes to circulate a letter so full of innuendo it is a farce.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Whose job is it to be covert and clandestine, and whose job is it to be open and transparent? This is a total role reversal and national security is at risk because of the traitors in congress.

fourdeucer on July 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Thunderstorm at 10:08 AM-

Panetta’s on the inside giving Dems this stuff…

I’m hoping his loyalty to the country trumps his party affiliations, especially as they call him a liar, now, too.

I thought he was a strangely unqualified choice for CIA head (just as Obama was for POTUS), but Panetta may turn out to be someone who turns on the Dem leaders as he learns how much good the Agency has done to keep us safe since 9/11.

Whatever undermines Pelosi and Barry is fine by me.

Because they undermine us all.

profitsbeard on July 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM

i agree completely, and why is a political hack running the cia and not a military man or a ex spook?

SHARPTOOTH on July 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM

My opinion is that the filthy liar in the White House put a political strategist in the job for the simple reason that all intelligence matters in this failed administration are viewed with the political consequences as the primary concerns. Put another way, Obama is more concerned about the political consequences (to him, of course) of waterboarding terrorists. Nevermind what information might be obtained, the filthy liar is going to put partisan and parochial politics above national security. To do that, you need a like-minded politician at CIA instead of a an intelligence professional.

highhopes on July 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM

This is a loser for the donks. Surprised that they would double down on this but pelosi ain’t none too smart. She is real mean and a diehard socialist but not much more than a room temperature IQ.

jukin on July 10, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I’m inclined to say, ” a pox on both their houses” – the CIA for leaking during the Bush years and Pelosi for, well, being Pelosi.

On the other hand, nobody is all bad:

Pelosi vetoed the Michael Jackson resolution.

And the CIA did some awfully fine shooting from the grassy knoll.

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:18 AM

the director admitted the CIA routinely misled and even lied to Congress under George W. Bush:

Fine, let’s have a bi-partisan investigation. Heck, shouldn’t the FBI get involved?

Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM

If Misspeaker Pelosi is correct, CIA staff have conducted multiple felonies, doing so routinely, over the course of years.

So, where’s the investigation of such high crimes in our government? There is none. What is the FBI doing about this? Nothing. Is the President looking into this? No. Are the House or Senate investigating? No. So, every part of our government which has investigative, administrative or oversight authority over such criminal activity is silent.

Except for one. In the House of Representatives, there is a partisan attempt to back up Nancy’s unproven self-serving slander with more unprovable self-serving slander against our national intelligence community.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

And the CIA did some awfully fine shooting from the grassy knoll.

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:18 AM

WTF!

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM

My question is why are the Democrats so insistent on protecting a woman who is clearly so out of touch with what is going on, she will resort to out and out blatant lies to try to push her own insane agenda through?

Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than an albatross hanging from the neck of every Democrat in Congress. Instead of circling the wagons around her, they should all be heading for the hills, because it is her actions that are going to bring down the curtain on her Party’s control of Congress next year.

pilamaye on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Does anyone know what the percentage means next to the representative’s names?

shick on July 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM

If Misspeaker Pelosi is correct, CIA staff have conducted multiple felonies, doing so routinely, over the course of years.

So, where’s the investigation of such high crimes in our government? There is none. What is the FBI doing about this? Nothing. Is the President looking into this? No. Are the House or Senate investigating? No. So, every part of our government which has investigative, administrative or oversight authority over such criminal activity is silent.

Except for one. In the House of Representatives, there is a partisan attempt to back up Nancy’s unproven self-serving slander with more unprovable self-serving slander against our national intelligence community.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Exactly. I say start the investigations… but you and I both know that’s not going to happen.

Upstater85 on July 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM

There are 535 members of Congress.

JohnJ on July 10, 2009 at 10:39 AM

pilamaye on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

It doesn’t make much sense does it? I can’t picture her as an asset to anyone.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM

How smart is Pelosi? Pick a fight with Treasury. Pick a fight with DOD. Pick a fight with State. Maybe, just maybe have a small argument with Justice. Never start a public fight with the CIA.

CC

CapedConservative on July 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM

They’re all a bunch of lying, cheating, win at all cost bunch of excrement heads. We can’t believe anybody in that town because they all want to cover their asses.

Kissmygrits on July 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Don’t mess with Crazy Nancy. She’s an historic figure, dontcha know? Dem feminists will go rabid if the wussy Dem males try to push her aside.

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM

How smart is Pelosi? Pick a fight with Treasury. Pick a fight with DOD. Pick a fight with State. Maybe, just maybe have a small argument with Justice. Never start a public fight with the CIA.

Not smart. But she’s a scrappy little lassie.

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM

There will be another 9/11 with this circus in town.

txag92 on July 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM

I can’t picture her as an asset

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM

You put two to many letters there.

Or, is that the feminine form of the word?

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

There will be another 9/11 with this circus in town.

txag92 on July 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Dick? Dick Cheney?

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Pelosi has forgotten the First Rule of Holes–Stop digging!

If she were smart, she would let this drop and hope that the general public forgot about the issue.

But now she has others to keep digging.

Steve Z on July 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Dick? Dick Cheney?

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I wish Dick was back.

txag92 on July 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM

When pMSNBC had this a a huge “BREAKING NEWS ALERT” with Andrea Mitchell doing the reporting I knew it was a bunch of lies.

SouthernGent on July 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I always see her as the minus et word. I don’t understand the perception of her minions.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Wow. That was a lot of work in that post! Well done.

drjohn on July 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I don’t understand the perception of her minions.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM

They’re simply overcome by the Misspeaker’s fabulous good looks and intelligence.

Don’t be jealous.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM

If somebody tries to use this to vindicate Pelosi, all you have to do is ask one simple question: What did the CIA lie about, precisely?

Jim Treacher on July 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM

But now she has others to keep digging.

Steve Z on July 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM

The thing about digging holes is that without shoring eventually there will be a cave-in. I think Stretch has dispatched these stooges to shore-up the hole she finds herself in.

thomasaur on July 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Don’t be jealous.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM

LOL! I’ll try not to be but it’s tough.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Oh it’s worse. Turns out the House/Sen Intel Committees LIED to the public in their reports (well, reports prepared by staff) in their claims about what was found re AQ from detainees:
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2009/07/former_civilian_senior_intelli_1/

Another reason for conflicting reports that Degn pointed out is both the chain of command in the U.S. government’s many agencies and compartmentalization of information (“need to know”). Degn said he saw firsthand how these two factors led to vital wartime information being “watered down” before it mades its way to official reports and investigations.

Degn’s recollection of detainee testimony and many discussions within the Iraqi MOI roughly matches the document based work of…

scottm on July 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Ummm, if the CIA lied, does that mean that Bush didn’t lie?

Which is it?

…because we KNOW that democrats never lie.

/

perroviejo on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Can you just imagine Joe (nobody messes with Joe) Biden keeping his mouth shut over SECRET information from the CIA? L.O.L. (tears in my eyes laughing so hard.)

Herb on July 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM

These Democrats might as well be working for a foreign intelligence service and who knows, maybe they are… because they are inflicting real damage on our intelligence community.

CP on July 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Big Lizard, very fine, comprehensive post. I hope you continue to inform us on this subject.
I seem to be the only one who doesn’t understand what the percentage numbers associated with the congress persons means. Would someone elucidate?

burt on July 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM

The thing about digging holes is that without shoring eventually there will be a cave-in.

thomasaur on July 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I thought she used botox injections.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM

If somebody tries to use this to vindicate Pelosi, all you have to do is ask one simple question: What did the CIA lie about, precisely?

Jim Treacher on July 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Yet another reason why you are not a journalist.

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM

These democrats will not pursue this or investigate this because they know she is lying… period. This letter is going to be trotted out as proof she wasn’t, just like they know that Obama is for gay marriage, even though he says he isnt. The convuluted mind of a liberal. It is isn’t what you do or say, it’s what they know you “mean”. Morons every one.

momof2 on July 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I think this statement of Pelosi is so bad, the Republicans should raise their voice, and demand investigation.
We should, at every opportunity, demand that Pelosi “serious” allegation be fully investigated, and that we are behind her in that investigation.
This is a “bi-partisan” attack, and both sides should fully explore how “evil” the CIA is.
We should state “We are very concerned” that the Speaker has been lied to and fully support her in correcting this problem. We must bring these “liars” forward and make them answer questions, and state the truth.
Give her the rope to hang herself…

right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

My question is why are the Democrats so insistent on protecting a woman who is clearly so out of touch with what is going on…

pilamaye on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

This poor excuse for a RC woman (makes the rest of us look bad) must have locked files with dirt on everyone in the House. It can’t be her sex appeal….

Shepherd on July 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

For those speaking against the CIA, history proves to be a safe and strong nation, you have to have entities like the CIA. I am not advocating for the current makeup of this CIA. I would prefer we had the good old CIA back. You know, the good old days when they were out there gathering intelligence, having it properly analyzed, and killing the bad dudes we never had to know about. I am 100% for killing the scum sucking terrorists in whatever form they exist in, and let us say settling scores with those who harm Americans, or any of our allies.

In this case, I say go spooks nail her ass! Proceed with vigor, and leak her to death.

However, the real popcorn moment is what everyone seems to be missing here. LyingLeon, is a Clintonista. I believe he was given this job because IF this Administration had to throw him under the bus it would be no big loss. What I am detecting is a war within the DNC itself between the Clinton wing, and the President Chutes&Ladders wing. Just look at what is going on between Zero, and HRC. She contradicted him regarding Iran. She in many ways has allowed him to go solo only to watch him crash, and burn with some of these foreign policy disasters. HER fingerprints are not on this mess.

Some might be saying HRC is being marginalized, but the Clintons wrote this playbook President Skateboard is following. Granted he made some charming improvements, but I believe Hillary is WAY smarter than the President, and all the children around him. I think this is a Spider and fly deal developing here. And don’t think Leon does not know this too!

freeus on July 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Flesh it out and flush her down.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM

You need to start putting these peoples email addresses in your posts.. We need to start emailing these morons and TELL them they are.. Nicely of course.

I tried to find the environmental czars(Browners) email address and nada..

reshas1 on July 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM

This is pretty entertaining to watch.

ikez78 on July 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I can’t believe this bulls***. If the Republicans can get their sh** together, they might actually be able to clean the floor with these people in 2010 or 2012. This is pure insanity. I can’t believe the evil that comes from these people. They just don’t care who they hurt, defame, or slander. What a bunch of worthless human beings. They even oppose Obama on giving briefings to everyone in Congress. Agggghhhhh this is so infuriating. I want these people’s heads!

Oh, and to quote Natalie Maines: “I’m ashamed Reyes is from Texas.”

NathanG on July 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I misread the title as Wide Eyed Slut.

Coronagold on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Maybe the reason Pelosi has had so much botox injections and plastic surgery is because nobody would know when she was lying. Stupid b****.

NathanG on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Who would ever believe Panetta is honest?

Would Pelosi ever consider trying to be honest?

seven on July 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I misread the title as Wide Eyed Slut.

Coronagold on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Heh. That was funny. Funny because it’s true.

NathanG on July 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I can’t picture her as an asset

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM

You put two to many letters there.

Or, is that the feminine form of the word?

Loxodonta on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

You spelled it wrong, it is: assette

jarhead0311 on July 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I can agree…sort of. I seem to remember the Valerie Plame as a lier. :D

lwssdd on July 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2