I don't know about you, but I'm standing with Leon

[masuki bance]

Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth

CIA Director Leon Panetta just sent a stern message to his employees defending the agency against Speaker Nancy Pelosi's criticisms.

His message: We didn't mislead Congress; stay focused on your job.
...
Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.


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


My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.


We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

Just sayin'

[cali]

1. he wasn't there. n/t

[iconocrastic]

62. He's there now. And he's a Democrat.

[jenmito]

79. YOU'RE here now. And you're NOT a Democrat.

[high density]

2. Good for you. I believe Pelosi. NM

[kiranon]

58. So do I. No reputable scholar will use anything the CIA puts out.

In my opinion, the CIA is not reliable and what the CIA says or writes or claims is slanted to suit CIA purposes.

[countingbluecars]

3. I'm standing with Pelosi. n/t

[movonne]

10. Me too...

[mwb970]

78. I'm with Pelosi as well. /nt

[Muttocracy]

4. Seems like Obama need to make more than a very brief press statement about all this

The speculation about the photos and the back and forth described in the OP are probably worse than just getting the truth out.

On edit - does Panetta trust the information left to him by his predecessors?

[masuki bance]

9. "The White House wants nothing to do with this Nancy Pelosi fight with the CIA."

The White House wants nothing to do with this Nancy Pelosi fight with the CIA.

Not long after CIA Director Leon Panetta put out a statement sticking by his agency, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dodged a question about whether Pelosi was right in questioning the CIA.

"I think you've heard the president say this a number of times: the best thing we can do is to look forward," Gibbs said. "I appreciate the invitation to get involved in here, but I'm not gonna RSVP,"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Gibbs_dodges_Pelosi_question.html

[Muttocracy]

15. I'm getting mighty tired of that "look forward" phrase. nt

[EFerrari]

5. It's a bad day when I have to chose to trust either Nancy Pelosi or the CIA.

I think I'll stand with the detainees still awaiting release.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Not me. Let's get this investigation going. nt.

[LaurenG]

7. Snarf* Sure Leon - I believe EVERYTHING the CIA's says!

In reality there is NO way I will believe anything they say without proof. I take no one in that organization at their word, no one. They made their bed and now they can lie in it.

[hedgehog]

8. What makes you think Panetta actaully runs the CIA?

[kiranon]

59. Exactly. Panetta is far from being in charge.

[Justitia]

70. One of the VERY BEST posts made on this thread. -eom

[lapfog_1]

11. So what are you "just sayin"?

Pelosi is a liar...

The CIA have proven to be liars by providing a list of "details" about the briefings, unfortunately, they forgot that former Senator Bob Graham is OCD and keeps a meticulous daily planner. On three dates in 2002 when the CIA claims to have briefed Bob... his daily planner shows that he was doing other things. Bob was famous for writing down EVERYTHING that happens to him in a given day, including where he ate lunch and what he ate. A high functioning OCD. Sort of like "Rain Man".

So... an agency that claimed the WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk" or the current Speaker of the House.

An agency who has made it a high art to deceive the Congress, various administrations, and the public... or a collection of Democratic Congresspeople and Senators.

I think I'll go with the Democrats.

Just sayin'.

[masuki bance]

12. So now Panetta is not a Democrat and is a liar?

Wow.

[LaurenG]

17. What, you expected him to admit they spread whatever misinformation

the Bush admin told them to spread. What else did you think he'd do? He's the head of an organization that LIES and misrepresents themselves for a living.

[blm]

24. so now you can explain how the fuck Panetta knows what was said at the time?

.

[lapfog_1]

25. Read his statement again...

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

Note the weasel words at the end. "it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened".

WTF?

What he said was...

1. It is not the policy of the CIA to lie to Congress.

That's a statement of policy, not a statement of what the facts are in this case.

2. CIA records indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of XXX

That's what the records that the CIA have that he is reading. He wasn't AT the CIA and did NOT attend the briefings. He is reading the CIA documentation of the events (documentation that is factually WRONG, as has been proved by not just Pelosi, but others that were in those briefings). That doesn't make Panetta a liar, just someone who is being taken in by the CIA lies.

3. He concludes with the lawyerly weasel words "its up to Congress to evaluate"... meaning that HE (Panetta) cannot vouch for the records the CIA produced, so if you want to believe some other set of facts based on other evidence, then go for it.

He isn't lying. He is trying to straddle the fence. He wants the loyalty of his new employees (sad to say, for the Darth Cheney moles in the CIA, Panetta will never get their loyalty), so he "stands up for them"... but at the same time, even HE knows that the CIA story is WEAK... so he adds the weasel words and restates "policy".

Again, this is the agency that told BUSH that WMDs were a "slam dunk" and let's not forget the Niger yellowcake. And that was just the tip of the iceberg on their lies and deceptions regarding Saddam / WMDs / Iraq.

If they had nothing to hide, and what they did was not torture, why did they destroy all of the valuable tapes (tapes that could be used at trial or tribunal to convict the "terrorists")....

[masuki bance]

32. Your belief is that they lied to Pelosi, but then briefed her staff

and everyone else about the use of waterboarding and EIT's?

edit for stuttering.

[lapfog_1]

34. My belief is that the repukes (and perhaps YOU)

are desperately trying to turn the attention from Darth Cheney ordering TORTURE to get directed intelligence (where the torture is used to get a statement that AGREES with a goal) that linked Saddam to Bin Laden... and therefore justify an illegal war.

That statement, if it's true (and I believe that it is), means that we invaded a country not on some mistake or misinterpretation, but is a clear WAR CRIME and was directed by Bush/Cheney in an effort to remove Saddam and lay claim to Iraqi oil. It was the world's largest armed robbery.

So this whole "what did Pelosi know and when did she know it" is a canard, a misdirection.

I don't believe that her staff would have been briefed. It is well known that when top secret (and the interrogation of high value terrorists using waterboarding would HAVE TO BE considered "top secret") briefings are held for the gang of eight (the four top ranking repukes and 4 top ranking Democrats), that those briefings are held at the CIA or at the White House and that staff members are NOT INCLUDED. And who is everyone else? Bob Graham also says that he was not briefed.

[masuki bance]

35. Pelosi herself said it

"...Pelosi said her aide Michael Sheehy, who attended that briefing as well as the September briefing, told her that agency officials said they had used waterboarding in some cases. "He said that the committee chair and ranking member and appropriate staff had been briefed that these techniques were now being used," she said yesterday. "That's all I was informed." "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404240.html



edit for formatting.

[lapfog_1]

36. She was also told, according to her, that warterboarding

was specifically NOT being used, when, in fact, it was.

There were a whole list of "enhanced techniques" that were probably included in the briefing that Pelosi did attend, many of which would not be "torture" according to our laws or international laws... that a staffer was told that "ET"s were now in use does NOT indicate that torture was now in place. That's conflating the conversations. Something that the repukes are famous for.

[masuki bance]

38. I think you may be getting confused. Pelosi says they did not tell her that

they were using EIT's and waterboarding and is accusing the CIA of lying when they said they did tell her. Her aide and other members of congress were all told that these techniques were being used, she herself admits that. Why would they only leave out Nancy, but tell her staff?

Does that sound plausible to you?

[lapfog_1]

42. No, you are confused.

She said that they DID describe many ETs to her and that waterboarding was not being used. She never said that other ETs were not being used. The CIA did mislead her because they now admit that they WERE waterboarding suspects prior to the briefing where she says they claimed they were NOT using waterboarding.

That an aide (who would NOT have been allowed in the meeting where these specific techniques were discussed) was told later that "ETs" were in place is not a contradiction... ET's do not imply waterboarding specifically.

BTW, is Bob Graham lying too?

And, of course, this continues to misdirect the scandal from Cheney to Pelosi, which is the goal, right?

[masuki bance]

47. ...

"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXc06gBGGAlR7Wy96JZiTUnlt_JwD9866EP00

[lapfog_1]

48. How come you never seem to answer any question I pose to you.

Your intent is to misdirect.

As has been pointed out, the Pelosi aide was not remarking on what was told to Pelosi, but to her REPLACEMENT on the intelligence committee.

But this is all a tempest in a teapot.

Did Pelosi authorize torture?

What could she (not as Speaker of the House, but as ranking MINORITY member of the intelligence committee) done to stop this? She is prohibited by law from revealing anything told to her in these briefings. Probably still is.

[vaberella]

65. That's not true. I saw her press conferences and her interview with Rachel.

She clearly said that she was informed that there was a possibility they could use those forms of interrogation. She said that clearly. She also said that they mentioned various papers that state that waterboarding wasn't torture. But she was NEVER told they were in practice and she hated the alternative (being torture tactics) and spoke out against them. She never said they informed of them and they never did.

[ieoeja]

39. Do you mind if I fill in the "..." to show what you chose to edit out?

"Five months later, on Feb. 5, 2003, after Pelosi had left the intelligence committee, the CIA briefed the panel's chairman and ranking minority-party member on the detainee interrogation program."

So according to Pelosi's aide, the CIA told the the person who replaced Pelosi that they had used waterboarding.

[lapfog_1]

45. A sort of important distinction.

This is all an effort to redirect the scandal to Pelosi.

Cheney ordered the torture.

The goal was to justify the war in IRAQ. An illegal war.

One of the first people waterboarded was the head of Saddam's secret police. A completely ILLEGAL ACT (he wasn't an "enemy combatant" nor a "terrorist", but a member of the military of a waring party... someone who should have been granted Geneva Convention Prisoner of War status, even under the rules and interpretations from the Bush legal staff).

The object was to get a confession, under torture, that Saddam and Osama were linked together and that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

[masuki bance]

46. Edit out? My point is that they were telling everybody else, including Harmon

and her aide, why would they choose to leave only her out? Other people at the Sept meeting plus contemporaneous notes, that Panetta stands behind, indicate that waterboarding was brought up as a technique that was used.

Again, does it make sense to you that they would tell everybody at these meetings about the EIT's, including waterboarding, that had been used, but leave out Pelosi?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiranon]

61. Agree. Keep your eye on the ball and not on this attempt to change

the subject. The issue is torture and Cheney, et al. and who ordered it done.

[lamp_shade]

13. He did what any good Director would do and I admire him for that.

He has thousands of very good people in his organization who are pretty upset right now about this whole mess and he needs to calm the waters. Congress will have to identify any "bad guys" (and I assume it's only a handful)... and he knows it. I wonder how Tenet would have handled this.

[polichick]

14. Hell, he wasn't even around then - hard to believe that the CIA under Cheney was honest.

[redqueen]

16. Wow.

[blm]

18. So if Obama declared the "White House doesn't lie" you'd agree Bush and Cheney are honest, right?

How the FUCK would Panetta know what the CIA c2001-2008 said and did was honest?

[babylonsister]

19. CIA: Please Don’t Take Our Word For It On Torture Briefings

Same story, different interpretation. Amazing that. :eyes:


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-please-dont-take-our-word-for-it-on-torture-briefings/

CIA: Please Don’t Take Our Word For It On Torture Briefings


Whoa, this is interesting. The CIA is now amplifying and repeating its refusal to promise that the recently-released documents offer a reliable version of how and when members of Congress were briefed on the use of torture techniques.

CIA director Leon Panetta sent a note today to CIA employees, which you can read right here. Here’s the key part:

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

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

That’s pushback against Pelosi, to be sure. But that’s not all it is. The agency also restated the agency’s earlier unwillingness to vouch for the accuracy of the briefing docs. He’s saying, in effect, that only Congress can determine the truth about what members of Congress were told.

That’s not a call for a Congressional probe. But it does seem like a suggestion that such a probe is the only way the truth can be established. If nothing else, the CIA is redoubling its efforts to distance itself from the political charges some are making — on the basis of CIA info — about who knew what and when about torture.

[TahitiNut]

50. Could it be that the "contemporaneous records" were falsified? Naww. Of course not.

After all, that was during the Cheney/Bush regime ... and we all know how they were about telling the truth, right?

:sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Bottom line: IT WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

She was legally bound not to share it with anybody, therefore her hands were tied. There is absolutely nothing she could have done regardless of what they told her.

[jberryhill]

21. That's simply not true

Evidence of illegal activities cannot be lawfully classified.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. There's nothing written in the law that says it can't

The National Security Act of 1947 says the President can classify whatever he wants. Harry Truman and the Congress back then weren't thinking of George W. Bush and the possibility that a President might try to cover up illegal activities.

And even if she maybe could've done something about it on that technicality, Pelosi couldn't consult with a lawyer because the information was classified.

[yodermon]

30. There *are* laws that say that "classification" cannot be used to hide illegal acts.

It was just posted on DU the other day. I'll look for it.

on edit: found it: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Truth2Tell/262

[Hippo_Tron]

53. An executive order is not a law

It is merely a presidential directive that is in effect until he or another president deems it otherwise. The President is therefore the final arbiter of whether or not something violates an executive order or does not.

[damntexdem]

22. She says, he says. No way to judge without the briefing memos.

Why take a stand in ignorance?

[rvablue]

28. At this point, I think we need to see those memos. At first, this seemed like some GOP smearfest

but now that Panetta has come out to defend the CIA, and given that he was not at the helm at the time of these briefings, I'd like to see some documentation so that I can come to my own independent conclusion.

This is getting all a bit convuluted and I'd just like to know the facts.

[LooseWilly]

67. I seem to recall hearing that the CIA memos are transcriptions of CIA recollections...

... and we all know what can happen with recollections (see: Alberto Gonzales).

What we need is to know who supposedly briefed Pelosi, so they can be dragged into a court or hearing to testify... and be cross examined... and only if that is hearing and consequent cross examinations are conclusive will there be a definitive answer.

Otherwise... we've just got Republicans throwing around CIA reminiscences, reminiscences that Pelosi is calling "bullshit" on...

[masuki bance]

68. Panetta states that the notes are contemporaneous.

[LooseWilly]

71. He also states that they can't be relied upon to be completely factual,

... and that the Congress will have to examine them and then decide for themselves what really transpired.

If they were contemporaneous, and beyond reproach, how would you explain that they were wrong in 3 of the 4 accounts of briefings of Bob Graham? And I think I've heard reports that Conyers is also disputing some of the CIA notes...

[masuki bance]

74. Who said they were beyond reproach? I was just correcting

your belief that they were recollections of the briefings.

[LooseWilly]

76. Thank you for the correction.

If they were contemporaneous though, that really reflects even worse on the CIA, if they could contemporaneously note 4 briefings with Senator Bob Graham, and somehow have gotten 3 of the 4 briefing dates wrong... contemporaneously. The more I think about your correction, in fact, the more doubt it shadows CIA notes with.

And then, a little elementary checking finds this gem: "CIA Director Leon Panetta suggested the information in the documents may not be 'an accurate summary of what actually happened' " (http://mediamatters.org/research/200905150004)

Hmm... maybe the CIA would've been better off if we'd let them continue to get the benefit of the doubt that maybe their notes were just recollections?

At this point, I'm thinking Pelosi has the credibility high ground...

[Vinca]

23. I'm still giving Pelosi the benefit of the doubt. Until this incident

she's always been a truthful person and Bob Graham's journal supports her story. In addition, Politico reports that Boner was interviewed on CNN in 2007 and said essentially the same thing, that the CIA mislead him. Apparently the CIA has been feeding BS to politicians for decades. According to Lawrence O'Donnell, Barry Goldwater complained about it back in the 1940's.

[grantcart]

26. well let me introduce you to Watergate and the famous "non denial - denial"

Whatever their 'policy' is Leon is careful not to deny Pelosi's charges.


Of course the CIA's policy is not to mislead Congress. If they had said that it was their policy then they would be prosecuting for lying to Congress.


Its a lot like saying our employee's policy not to steal from the cash register. That still does not account for the $ 100 that is missing.


I am sure it is not their 'policy' to get the dates of their briefings wrong, but as former Sen. Graham has proven, it still happens despite their 'policy'.

[rufus dog]

44. His wording is the key! well said

It is not my policy to call people lying sacks of shit, although chEEney is a lying sack of shit. easy peazy!

[Vattel]

77. he said "policy or practice"

[secondwind]

29. The purpose of the CIA is to be COVERT, they don't know about transparency.....

it's in their makeup!


I'M WITH PELOSI ON THIS AND WILL STICK WITH HER.

[azmouse]

31. Panetta has a job to do... but I don't believe him.

He wasn't there. Nancy was.

[asphalt.jungle]

37. He didn't say anything that needs believing or not believing

A lawyerly statement was released that didn't vouch for the accuracy of the CIA's documents and it didn't come out and say Pelosi was lying either. He's just stating his agency's principles, not whether he knows that they followed them or not.

I don't know how the topic starter can take out a position claiming to be on the side of Panetta when he didn't take out a position other than to restate his agency's principles. He couldn't possibly know what went on in 2002 because he wasn't there.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[PBS Poll-435]

63. I don't know about you, but I stand with GrovelBot

This guy is a fighter and won't give up.

[rufus dog]

40. I believe Panetta!

He stated "it is not our policy or practice to mislead congress....


Rufus Dog states, "it is not my policy to lust after hot women,....being a married man it is against my best interests to get caught staring when I am with my wife."

p.s., one of the benefits of being married for a long time, your wife points out the hot women.

[emulatorloo]

41. Senator Bob Graham backs Pelosi up. He is not a Liar. Boehner and the CIA are though. EOM

No offense meant at all, but get a grip.

Panetta has no clue about what went on.

[emulatorloo]

43. ---Ex-CIA Official: Agency Brass Lied to Congress About Interrogations---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5662757

[vaberella]

66. That's some crazy shit. n/t

[ljm2002]

51. "It is not our policy to mislead Congress"

I'm sure it is not part of their stated policy.

On the other hand, the CIA has a long and sordid history of misleading Congress and just about anyone else who came into contact with them, at one time or another.

Just sayin'

[ecstatic]

52. Even if she is lying, I WANT her to

lie. Nobody in their right mind should go down over BUSH'S crimes! She has every right to clear herself.

[masuki bance]

55. Bonus points for extra truth.

[Cha]

54. Wasn't George Tenet the head

of the CIA, then?

[Jennicut]

56. Leon has to act like he is protecting his CIA agents as he is their boss, but he is wrong

The CIA lies all the time, its just part of the job.

[GreenTea]

57. Right Panetta the clown has been head of the CIA for almost two whole month's, get fucking real!

Panetta must know everything huh, the lifelong criminals at the CIA surely would tell PANETTA EVERY SINGLE LIE & SECRETS. Gee, because they just love democrats at the fascist CIA.....AGAIN, get real...

Talk about Panetta kissing republican ass and the sickening head hunting, legal regime overthrowing assignations killers at the CIA....

The ONLY reason the CIA exists, is in business is to knock off government leaders, liberal ideologies for corporations to exploit for their imperialism....no other reason...the republican owned multinationals use the CIA as their own covert, secret tortuous terrorist military force, all paid for by our tax dollars and we aren't allowed any say or even the tiniest of oversight.

[JI7]

60. Leon wasn't there at that time , he just got there this year

[vaberella]

64. Well they admitted that they could have lied and they said there were 4 meetings

now trimmed down to 1 meeting. And I'm still supposed to believe them? Well Panetta is wrong on this and everything seems to exonerate Pelosi and keeps her clean while the CIA is a dirty dealer.

[Justitia]

69. F'in Hysterical. You forgot the sarcasm tag, because you cannot be serious. -eom

[JimGinPA]

72. This OP Has Only Been Posting Articles Slamming Democrats Since December

Just sayin'

[Binka]

73. Holy Shit Jim Let Me Shake Your Hand

Please remember alert is our friend. Just sayin' :hi:

[masuki bance]

75. You think Obama would side with Nancy or Panetta on this?

[Phx_Dem]

80. Amen, Jim.

:thumbsup:

[tomp]

81. the cia is not a "great institution". panetta is full of shit.

the cia is one of the most monstrous institutions known to man. sure, you may low level functionaries who THINK they are serving their country, but the institution itself is an absolute abomination. it could be argued that its actions are the most dangerous threat the u.s. has ever known.

again panetta is full of shit. btw, so is pelosi.