Is it me ...?

« What to do with a million tea bags ... | MrSmith1's Blog | Sen. Edward Kennedy R.I.P. »

May 15, 2009, 3:18PM

"CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects ..."

... Is it me or is there something absurd about Leon Panetta telling congress that, according to their records, the CIA is telling the truth. Aren't they in the record-forging, fake-document-creating business?

13 Comments

| Leave a comment

I am so glad you posted this! I've had exactly the same thoughts. The CIA and truth/full disclosure is not a likely pair. Now that's an agency that needs better oversight!

Ironically I believe this is truly of CIA/CYA!

Posted by Aunt Sam
May 15, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

Or as the guys on Seinfeld would comically add: "Not that there's anything wrong with that ..."

Posted by MrSmith1
May 15, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

Who did the briefings? What did they know? Did they tell all they knew? Or withhold some of it? Are they complicit in lying? Or were they trying to implicate Congress in a cover-up? Or what?

Unless we have documented proof of what the briefers knew and how much they told of what they knew, and who briefed the briefers, then I'm sorry, I'm not buying the story. The story, as yet, has too many holes to be filled. Too many unanswered questions.

If we have no proof of what the briefers knew or how they presented what they knew, then why in the heck are we allowing people to try and nail the Dems?

There seems to be some evidence that repubs were told more or briefed more often than Dems. Why was that? By whose orders?

Let's get the facts first - documented facts. We need an investigation!

Posted by TheraP
May 15, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

Panetta is starting to piss me off, to use the common vernacular.

ALL IS POLITICS

Posted by dickday
May 15, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

I just put this same comment elsewhere:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/15/fox-reports-absence-of-presidential-finding-clear-violation-of-law-yawns/#comment-158217

All I can say is: If the CIA was smart enough to have preserved tapes of its interrogations at that point, why was it not smart enough to preserve tapes of its briefings?

These are spooks! They might have known this would come back to bite them. It would have been so simple to compare the tapes of one with tapes of another!

Now we’re left with transcripts of interrogations. And briefings, where those briefed were not allowed to take notes. And no proof, so far as we know, of what they actually were exposed to.

This, to my mind, is nonsense! It sets people up if one party can take notes or has “the record” - but I want proof of that - and the other party is not allowed any record except recollection.

It’s nonsense! The unfairness here is beyond belief!

Imagine students in a class not allowed to take notes. Then subjected to an exam. And the professor claims they were “exposed” to the material. When none of them has any notes!

They could not take notes or talk to each other. Can somebody please agree with me this is nonsense?

Posted by TheraP
May 15, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink

all this back and forth political nonsense.

Until a prosecutor is asked to direct this play, it's all staging and lights.

Posted by tpmgary
May 15, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well put.

Posted by TheraP in reply to a comment from tpmgary
May 15, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink

To me he says this:

"I believe we briefed truthfully, but I'm appointed by Obama so I'm passing the buck to the Democratic Congress - so they can select a label that's more suitable to them now that Pelosi is in trouble"

Posted by Lalo35adm
May 15, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

Or Panetta has just placed a few dishonest CIA employee's heads on the chopping block.

As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned.

Porter Goss, "Security Before Politics", Washington Post, April 25, 2009

Posted by PseudoCyAnts in reply to a comment from Lalo35adm
May 16, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

Really?

"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business."

"My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore THE NOISE and stay focused on your mission"

In my book, this is as far as the Obama's appointed CIA-director could go to say that Pelosi is a serial unethical irresponsible liar.

Posted by Lalo35adm in reply to a comment from PseudoCyAnts
May 16, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink

We have Porter Goss, who engaged in a politicsed purge of The CIA after the 2004 Presidential, on record equivocating in an April 25 Op/Ed. We have Bob Graham, generally known for his honesty backing up Pelosi.

We have Pro-Torture Senator Christopher 'Kit' Bond making political hay out of this, along with The clown, Rep Pete Hoekstra, comrade of LooneyCon Curt Weldon who accompanied him on a secret tryst in Paris with Manucher Ghorbanifar, and has accused the Congressional Research Service of having a liberal bias.

Yeah, let's bring it on. What's the worst that can happen? I'm no fan of Pelosi's.

Posted by PseudoCyAnts in reply to a comment from Lalo35adm
May 16, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink

Good post!

Posted by oleeb
May 16, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thankfully there were more than just two people in the room. So it shouldn't be a case of what Pelosi says versus what the CIA agent said. With more than two people in the room, I don't think TheraP's point is really anything to worry about.

Posted by MiddleClassBill
May 16, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

Is it me ...?

13 Comments

Leave a comment

MrSmith1

Favorites