Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA

[turbo]

I agree that Panetta will keep on the straight and narrow with the truth. On the other hand, I don't believe he will go out of his way to dig up incriminating evidence on any former officials.

We are in agreement here. Panetta won't go out of his way to dig up the dirt. That is a horrible position for an honest man, and I believe that he was a good choice if he can live with the choices he will have to make.

The CIA has for decades engaged in corruption, undermining governments, propping up dictatorships, etc, using terror and intimidation to keep people in control. Central and South America in particular have been their playgrounds for a long time. If you are approaching 60 years (I am) it won't be hard to remember patterns of kidnappings, torture, murders, "disappearances" and other actions in those regions that weren't "officially" sanctioned but happened anyway as "regretful actions". Reagan got reckless and used the Israelis to funnel weapons stolen from the US arsenal to the Iranians (are I&I still mad at each other?) in order to finance an illegal war in Nicaragua. He should have just black-budgeted the whole war, like was done in other instances, and let the CIA run the show. BTW, I voted for RR the first time around and held my nose and voted for his opponent after it became apparent that he was a puppet of the neo-cons.

I like Ivan's new sig. Is it possible for conservatives to gather enough Independents to hijack the GOP and leave the neo-cons and religious right sitting in a pitiful little corner fighting for the crumbs?

 

[LowlyPion]

I like Ivan's new sig. Is it possible for conservatives to gather enough Independents to hijack the GOP and leave the neo-cons and religious right sitting in a pitiful little corner fighting for the crumbs?

I doubt it.

Painting in broad strokes, I'd say the neo-cons are pretty much uncompromising about the issue of Pro-choice. And they are the ones that have co-opted the party to serve their main social agendas. Independents on the other hand are for the most part not so motivated by the anti-abortion rhetoric even though personally perhaps being mostly sympathetic to pro-choice. (The latest Gallup polling, while showing a pro-life preference majority for the first time, apparently doesn't show any will to prohibit women from deciding, in any numbers that would likely expand the GOP.)

Until the neo-cons get frustrated enough by repeated failure at the polls, I don't see the tone of their polarizing rhetoric, or their interest in sharing the tent being particularly encouraging to the idea of returning as a majority party. Being anti-abortion is looking like a monkey trap that they just can't let go of.

 

[turbo]

Pelosi is taking some pretty tough licks from the GOP for daring to suggest that the CIA might not have told her the whole truth. What universe have those people been living in all this time? Bob Graham is a well-respected conservative Democrat and his account of his (single) briefing mirrors Pelosi's account pretty well. Are the GOP's attack-dogs going to go after Graham, too? I don't see that happening. My read on this is that the concentration on Pelosi is meant to keep the Dems on the defensive and paint them as a party willing to sacrifice national security by pursuing the torture issue. Analysts in the mainstream press are already floating this angle, but are a bit shy about calling out the GOP for their indignant posturing on the issue.

If Obama is right, Democrats could be perceived as harming national security. That would be a major stumble that could give the Republicans an issue in next year's congressional elections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_go_co/us_interrogation_democrats_analysis;_ylt=AhmAq0oRBIALGKadCuornNKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM1amFpYWVtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTE2L3VzX2ludGVycm9nYXRpb25fZGVtb2NyYXRzX2FuYWx5c2lzBGNwb3MDOARwb3MDMTMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXNkZW1v

The GOP has no popular issue with which to rally support, and the core of the party has become quite cynical and out of touch. We all know that torture is illegal and immoral, so it is unseemly for the GOP to paint all of Congress with complicity in the Bush/Cheney/CIA program. Where are the conservatives? Are there any left? Ellen Goodman included a nice Goldwater quote in today's column - one that shows just how far the Republicans have drifted from conservative values.

When "pro-choice conservative" sounds like an oxymoron, remember the words of "Mr. Conservative," Barry Goldwater:

"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders on the religious right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

Where would he be today? What would Dick Cheney say? Barry, get thee to a gulag.

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/good090514.htm

 

[WhoWee]

This seems to be the popular sentiment

She's either incompetent or a liar

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2009230846_nancy_pelosis_torture_knowledg.html

 

[LowlyPion]

This seems to be the popular sentiment
She's either incompetent or a liar

I think what you are seeing is that it is a complex semantical issue revolving around a common confusion where the GOP is more than happy to equate EIT's to waterboarding, where waterboarding was but 1 of 10 EITs employable.

We have no recording of actually what was said.

What we have is apparently some notes - kept by those who are incented to describe things favorably to support their position that Congress was fully informed.

What we also have is Bob Graham that, claims that he was not made aware of these EITs - and the description in the briefing notes being the same as that provided to Pelosi.

Is the consensus then that Bob Graham and Nancy Pelosi are lying?

We also have Leon Panetta saying that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead. What else can he say if he wants to run the Agency with any effectiveness? What we do not have is Leon Panetta saying that they have the tapes of the briefing. Nor do we have anyone who has reviewed what the CIA would make available privately, offering up any case that Pelosi is possibly mistaken.

 

[WhoWee]

I think what you are seeing is that it is a complex semantical issue revolving around a common confusion where the GOP is more than happy to equate EIT's to waterboarding, where waterboarding was but 1 of 10 EITs employable.

We have no recording of actually what was said.

What we have is apparently some notes - kept by those who are incented to describe things favorably to support their position that Congress was fully informed.

What we also have is Bob Graham that, claims that he was not made aware of these EITs - and the description in the briefing notes being the same as that provided to Pelosi.

Is the consensus then that Bob Graham and Nancy Pelosi are lying?

We also have Leon Panetta saying that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead. What else can he say if he wants to run the Agency with any effectiveness? What we do not have is Leon Panetta saying that they have the tapes of the briefing. Nor do we have anyone who has reviewed what the CIA would make available privately, offering up any case that Pelosi is possibly mistaken.

Actually, what we have is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, second in line to be President of the United States making accusations that specific persons employed by the CIA, on specific dates, made specific lies to Congress. She needs to present her evidence to a prosecutor to charge these people with a specific crime...most likely Contempt of Congress...then take the stand (under penalty of perjury) and testify against these persons.

Forget about politics. If an employee of the US lied to Congress, they MUST face the consequences...PERIOD!

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, what we have is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, second in line to be President of the United States making accusations that specific persons employed by the CIA, on specific dates, made specific lies to Congress. She needs to present her evidence to a prosecutor to charge these people with a specific crime...

What evidence would you suggest she presents? She wasn't allowed to take notes, keep any records or talk to anyone about the briefings ... so what exactly do you want her to present?

Besides, seriously, is this the first time anyone's accused the CIA of lying? Did you ask for a criminal investigation when Hoekstra accused the CIA of lying to Congress (last year)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What evidence would you suggest she presents? She wasn't allowed to take notes, keep any records or talk to anyone about the briefings ... so what exactly do you want her to present?

What's more, the Republicans like Boehner know that but keep calling for proof.

I suspect that Pelosi purposely created the controversy in order to get the Reps to support an investigation.

 

[turbo]

The Pelosi-bashers conveniently "forget" that compulsive note-taker Bob Graham has proved that the CIA briefing timeline is wrong. The CIA claimed to have briefed him 4 different times about EITs. In fact, Graham proved to them with his notes and schedules that 3 of the "briefings" were fictitious and that the single briefing that he did get was not a top-level briefing at which secret programs could be discussed, but a lower-level briefing that was attended by aides.

The CIA's inflation of the frequency and depth of Graham's briefings is reason enough to believe that Pelosi is telling the truth and the CIA is lying (again) in order to cow her so that she will drop her intention to investigate the trail of persons responsible for justifying, authorizing and performing torture. Many members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have accused the CIA of lying, deception, and failure to "be forthcoming" over the years. It seems that the GOP is ginning up an extra dose of false righteous indignation and "patriotism" to protect themselves from being associated publicly with King George, Cheney the dark prince, and their minions.

 

[WhoWee]

Pelosi said they (CIA) mislead Congress all of the time...she MUST have proof or woudn't make such reckless claims...or would she?

 

[turbo]

How about just a few examples?

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=1111278

In 1982, Congress passed a law prohibiting the administration from ousting the leftist regime in Nicaragua. The CIA kept trying to overthrow the Sandanistas. CIA Director Bill Casey testified frequently before oversight committees Congress about the agency's covert action plans, during which he was often misleading. "Casey was guilty of Contempt of Congress from the day he was sworn in," Robert Gates, former head of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, told Weiner. When the Iran Contra Scandal began to break, Casey lied to Congress, denying that they had traded arms for hostages with Iran.

 

[WhoWee]

How about just a few examples?

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=1111278

My contention is this...if you stand in front of Congress and tell a lie...you need to be prosecuted.

The Speaker of the House has made a specific charge...it needs to be prosecuted.

If there are other (current) incidents, they should also be prosecuted. Forget about politics...nobody is above this standard.

 

[turbo]

My contention is this...if you stand in front of Congress and tell a lie...you need to be prosecuted.

The Speaker of the House has made a specific charge...it needs to be prosecuted.

If there are other (current) incidents, they should also be prosecuted. Forget about politics...nobody is above this standard.

Pelosi has asked the CIA to declassify the briefings - instead, they released a purported time-line pertaining to the briefings, which Panetta claims was taken from people's recollections and may not be accurate. In the case of Graham's "briefings" it was certainly not accurate at all. He only got one lower-level briefing, not the 4 briefings that the CIA claimed. They may have thought that since Graham is out of politics, he'd keep his head down - if so they were wrong.

Now, perhaps you explain how Pelosi could make a legal case against the CIA with no transcripts, no notes, and no corroboration from her staff. Such a case would go nowhere and then be trumpeted by the neo-cons as "proof" that Pelosi was lying. Asking Pelosi to make a case against the CIA with only hearsay is the biggest tar-baby trap that she could possible fall into.

 

[LowlyPion]

Forget about politics...nobody is above this standard.

Funny how this is exactly the current Right Wing talking point.

So of course it is about politics.

Is the Right Wing in their ardor to press this point equally as anxious to see those in the last administration that misled the country ... that stood before the Nation and the World ... and initiated a war on fabricated and incomplete and coerced information and ill-analyzed suppositions resulting in the very quagmire they claimed they would avoid with their brilliant "surgical" incursion?

And yet in the end, here we are with a bill from the china shop for Iraq, they broke it, and now it's on our tab. They made it wholly dysfunctional. And now all of Humpty-Dumpty-Haliburton's horses and men still haven't put it back together again. But they sure have skimmed a lovely profit in the process I'd be thinking.

And now Dick Cheney is eager to have History see him as a hero? Yeah. You bet.

 

[Gokul43201]

My contention is this...if you stand in front of Congress and tell a lie...you need to be prosecuted.

The Speaker of the House has made a specific charge...it needs to be prosecuted.

Based on what evidence? It would just come down to a "he said ... she said" dispute. That's why it can not be prosecuted in any meaningful way.

Honestly, I would be thrilled if this whole thing were investigated from the bottom up, but I just don't see it getting anywhere.

 

[WhoWee]

Funny how this is exactly the current Right Wing talking point.

So of course it is about politics.

Is the Right Wing in their ardor to press this point equally as anxious to see those in the last administration that misled the country ... that stood before the Nation and the World ... and initiated a war on fabricated and incomplete and coerced information and ill-analyzed suppositions resulting in the very quagmire they claimed they would avoid with their brilliant "surgical" incursion?

And yet in the end, here we are with a bill from the china shop for Iraq, they broke it, and now it's on our tab. They made it wholly dysfunctional. And now all of Humpty-Dumpty-Haliburton's horses and men still haven't put it back together again. But they sure have skimmed a lovely profit in the process I'd be thinking.

And now Dick Cheney is eager to have History see him as a hero? Yeah. You bet.

This has always been my point of view...if you lie to Congress >>> go to jail...no exceptions.

 

[turbo]

This has always been my point of view...if you lie to Congress >>> go to jail...no exceptions.

So you want Powell and Gonzo behind bars? How about anybody else that led us into the Bush/Cheney war based on lies?

 

[WhoWee]

Now, perhaps you explain how Pelosi could make a legal case against the CIA with no transcripts, no notes, and no corroboration from her staff. Such a case would go nowhere and then be trumpeted by the neo-cons as "proof" that Pelosi was lying. Asking Pelosi to make a case against the CIA with only hearsay is the biggest tar-baby trap that she could possible fall into.

I can't argue with that.

 

[WhoWee]

So you want Powell and Gonzo behind bars? How about anybody else that led us into the Bush/Cheney war based on lies?

Turbo...I don't care who is punished..let the chips fall...just make sure the playing field is fair.

There has to be accountability in Washington...if you don't want to put EVERYONE that lies to Congress in jail...at least take away their perks and pensions...enough is enough.

 

[WhoWee]

Under what circumstance would it ever be acceptable to lie to Congress?

Some standards should not be negotiable or flexible.

Politicians and government employees answer to us...the taxpayers.

Likewise, recipients of our tax dollars should also be held more accountable.

 

[LowlyPion]

Under what circumstance would it ever be acceptable to lie to Congress?

Ask the CIA.

They apparently have some experience in this regard.

 

[WhoWee]

Ask the CIA.

They apparently have some experience in this regard.

And this is Nancy Pelosi's chance to "get them"...all she needs to do is take the stand.

Of course, she still needs to worry about this
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
and the recent report from CIA sources of other trips...to use your phrase...the plot thickens...

 

[LowlyPion]

And this is Nancy Pelosi's chance to "get them"...all she needs to do is take the stand.

Of course, she still needs to worry about this
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
and the recent report from CIA sources of other trips...to use your phrase...the plot thickens...

Is this the next right wing faux issue to try to attack Pelosi with?

They really have nothing then, if they are going to start slinging stones at Fact Finding trips. I'd say that's really a sad strategy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course, she still needs to worry about this
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
and the recent report from CIA sources of other trips...to use your phrase...the plot thickens...

If they want to charge Pelosi with something for her Syria trip, they should also charge the rest of the delegation that went with her (4 dems, 1 rep). But more importantly, they should first charge the 3 reps that made a trip to Syria, a few days before the Pelosi group.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003647048_pelosi02.html

JERUSALEM — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that Israel will engage in peace talks only if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.
...
Three Republican congressmen — Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt — were in Syria on Sunday, where they met with Assad. They said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

How far off-topic do you want to drag your own thread?

 

[LowlyPion]

In Mrs. Pelosi’s defense, CIA managers do not give fist-pounding briefings. They mumble, they dissemble, and there’s a lot of “on the one hand . . .” Its enormous numbers of employees have led to briefings being handled by groups, with vague chains of command, so that it may have been difficult to pin down what was said, when it was said, and who was in charge.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM4NjlkNDNlMjJlZjliZjI4OWY5MmQxODZjYjI1MmI

From an ex-CIA guy.

— “Ishmael Jones” is a former deep-cover officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is author of The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, published last year by Encounter Books.

 

[mheslep]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM4NjlkNDNlMjJlZjliZjI4OWY5MmQxODZjYjI1MmI

From an ex-CIA guy.

And for which the previous paragraph was

Mrs. Pelosi and other partisan Democrats have always taken at face value anything the CIA has leaked that has put Republicans on the defensive. The CIA’s leaks on interrogations, the Plame incident, and its faulty intelligence on Iraqi WMDs may have contributed more to Democrats’ electoral victory than any other single interest group — more than ACORN, more than the teachers’ unions. Until now, Pelosi has thrived upon CIA dysfunction, and she has ignored the need for broader systemic change at the CIA, change that is necessary to protect the lives of Americans and our allies.

 

[LowlyPion]

And for which the previous paragraph was

Your point is ... ?

That Pelosi knows the CIA dissembles and uses it when it suits her purposes? So?

As opposed to the Cheney Bush brain trust that used knowingly unverified information from the CIA to drag the country to war?

It certainly fails to invalidate her claim that the CIA dissembles and deceives Congress. It certainly fails to suggest anything but that her account about not being properly informed about the waterboarding is the likely true situation.

 

[LowlyPion]

With regard to Pelosi, I noted this little sidelight.

The Republican National Committee published a 007 knockoff ad tastelessly linking Nancy Pelosi to kitty Galore. Now it seems they are trying to backtrack from their faux pas. They have removed the video from YouTube, and now are exercising their copyright to it in order to suppress it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/RNC_asserts_copyright_to_remove_Pelosi_video_again.html

Someone needs to tell them that exercising copyrights doesn't unring the bell. Maybe if they manned up and admitted their patently clear poor judgment in making and airing the ad in the first place, they could put it in the rear view mirror?

The result now is a new ad to the music O Fortuna evoking atomic weapons and trying to implicate by inference Pelosi.

Is the idea that putting out a string of stupid ads, will somehow diminish the boorishness of the first Pelosi attack ad?

 

[LowlyPion]

Say it ain't so. Maybe Pelosi wasn't harsh enough?:

Democrats Say C.I.A. Deceived Congress
WASHINGTON — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed "significant actions" from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

... Mr. Reyes wrote that the committee "has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html

 

[LowlyPion]

Looks like the CIA had some help in withholding information from Congress. Now we find that not only did they intentionally withhold, but were ordered to do so by Dick Cheney.

Senator: Cheney and alleged secret CIA program 'a problem'

... Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told the "FOX News Sunday" program that Panetta testified that "he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Maybe Cheney's remarks about the Obama Administration making America less safe is really more that America is becoming less safe for him, if he gets called to account for ordering the CIA to break the Law.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe Pelosi will have a chance to testify afterall?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26396.html