Panetta screw up?

But according to a half-dozen sources, including several very senior, recently retired CIA officials, clandestine-service officers, and Cabinet-level officials from the Bush administration, the real story is at once more innocent—Panetta was mistaken; no law was broken—and far more troubling: an inexperienced CIA director, unfamiliar with how his vast, complicated agency works, unable to trust senior officials within his own agency, and desperate to keep his hands clean, screwed up.

Amazingly, people on this board were able to figure it out...
 
Amazingly, people on this board were able to figure it out...

shhhh.... don't tell anyone... you might ruin another of their fairy tales.... and I want to hear BAC's version of this before you do that. I mean, who knows, maybe he will come out and say '2nd law of Thermodynamics' and pretend that justifies his position.
 
shhhh.... don't tell anyone... you might ruin another of their fairy tales.... and I want to hear BAC's version of this before you do that. I mean, who knows, maybe he will come out and say '2nd law of Thermodynamics' and pretend that justifies his position.
Well, it is science. We should just add some random "Law of Gravity"s and maybe one or two "General Theory of Relativity"s to our posts it will make them "science".
 
Well, it is science. We should just add some random "Law of Gravity"s and maybe one or two "General Theory of Relativity"s to our posts it will make them "science".

Just make sure you don't use any peer reviewed pieces from experts in the given industry... cause those are just links.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/spy-agency-fiasco/full/

interesting read... I wonder why we aren't hearing more on this?


We probably aren't hearing more about it because pieces like this that lack pretty much any information that is actually attributable to specific individuals aren't going to fly at any newspaper absent multiple levels of confirmation of the information from sources that don't have a dog in the hunt.

Relying on information from former Bush Administration officials to reach the conclusion that former Bush Administration officials didn't break the law is, well, slightly suspect.
 
We probably aren't hearing more about it because pieces like this that lack pretty much any information that is actually attributable to specific individuals aren't going to fly at any newspaper absent multiple levels of confirmation of the information from sources that don't have a dog in the hunt.

Relying on information from former Bush Administration officials to reach the conclusion that former Bush Administration officials didn't break the law is, well, slightly suspect.

such a good little apologist.... maybe they will give you a cookie with your kool-aid today.
 
such a good little apologist.... maybe they will give you a cookie with your kool-aid today.


SF - Check out the sourcing in the piece and tell me where I'm wrong. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but I've learned never to take the word of anonymous sources that have an interest in covering their own hides:

But according to a half-dozen sources, including several very senior, recently retired CIA officials, clandestine-service officers, and Cabinet-level officials from the Bush administration, the real story is at once more innocent—Panetta was mistaken; no law was broken—and far more troubling: an inexperienced CIA director, unfamiliar with how his vast, complicated agency works, unable to trust senior officials within his own agency, and desperate to keep his hands clean, screwed up.

As I said, relying on Bush Administration officials to exculpate themselves isn't really going to get you very far. The article very well may be 100% correct, but I'm not going to take the word of the same officials that may have violated the law to reach the conclusion that they didn't violate the law.
 
SF - Check out the sourcing in the piece and tell me where I'm wrong. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but I've learned never to take the word of anonymous sources that have an interest in covering their own hides:



As I said, relying on Bush Administration officials to exculpate themselves isn't really going to get you very far. The article very well may be 100% correct, but I'm not going to take the word of the same officials that may have violated the law to reach the conclusion that they didn't violate the law.
"including" does not mean "solely comprised of" and it mentioned far more than Bush Administration officials.
 
Bumpers:

The CIA hired private contractors at Blackwater USA in 2004 as part of a secret program to kill top-level members of al-Qaida, a person familiar with the program said Wednesday.

The contracts, which were unsuccessful, were canceled several years ago, the person told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.

The New York Times first reported the program late Wednesday on its Web site.

The Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials, said Blackwater executives helped with planning, training and surveillance for the program. The program never resulted in the capture or killing of any terrorists suspects, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. It was never fully operational, and was canceled by then-CIA Director George Tenet. It was restarted by his successor, Porter Goss, and canceled again this June by CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Panetta then informed the congressional intelligence committees about the program for the first time the next day.

The officials told the Times that the CIA's use of an outside company for a potentially lethal program was a major reason Panetta called the emergency congressional briefing. The House Intelligence Committee last month launched an investigation to determine whether the CIA broke the law by not informing Congress about the secret program as soon as it was begun.

Blackwater, a North Carolina company now known as Xe Services, has come under heavy criticism for its alleged role in a September 2007 shooting in Baghdad's Nisoor Square that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

It was unclear whether the CIA had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill al-Qaida operatives or just to help with training and surveillance. Government officials said bringing outsiders into a program with lethal authority raised deep concerns about accountability in covert operations, the Times reported.

The CIA has regularly used contractors for intelligence analysis and operations, former CIA Director Michael Hayden told Congress last year. Contractors participated in the secret harsh interrogations of terrorist suspects, he said. Contractors are no longer allowed to conduct interrogations, Panetta told Congress in April.

The Times reported that the CIA did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including founder Erik D. Prince.

"Director Panetta thought this effort should be briefed to Congress, and he did so. He also knew it hadn't been successful, so he ended it. Neither decision was difficult. This was clear and straightforward," CIA spokesman George Little told the AP. "Director Panetta did not tell the (congressional) committees that the agency had misled the Congress or had broken the law. He decided that the time had come to brief Congress on a counterterrorism effort that was, in fact, much more than a PowerPoint presentation."


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ne...red_others_to_try_to_hit_al-qaida.php?ref=fpa
 
Sorry, but your first mistake was using talkingpointsmemo. All data should thus be ignored. Especially 'a person' and 'government officials'... aka 'someone walking by who thought he heard something' and 'the coffee boy outside of Congress'.


It's an AP article, hotshot.
 
Back
Top