So, the CIA Did Lie to Congress

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
This could get interesting:

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.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, referred to Mr. Panetta’s disclosure in a letter to the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, Congressional Quarterly reported on Wednesday. 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.”

In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.

A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine “a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.” Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.

The question of the C.I.A.’s candor with the Congressional oversight committees has been hotly disputed since Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to disclose in a 2002 briefing that it had used waterboarding against a terrorism suspect. Ms. Pelosi said the agency routinely misled Congress, though she later said she intended to fault the Bush administration rather than career intelligence officials.

Since then, Republicans have called Ms. Pelosi’s complaint an unwarranted attack on the integrity of counterterrorism officers and have demanded an investigation. Democrats have rebuffed the demand.

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”


Of course, instead of "rocking the boat" and investigating past CIA practices Obama will want to "look forward" and oppose bills designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Hopefully, Congress will be able to find the backbone that it tossed out years ago and take back some of its institutional authority. I'm not optimistic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
 
This could get interesting:




Of course, instead of "rocking the boat" and investigating past CIA practices Obama will want to "look forward" and oppose bills designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Hopefully, Congress will be able to find the backbone that it tossed out years ago and take back some of its institutional authority. I'm not optimistic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Its time to start prosecuting people for crimes like these.

We can hold CEOs responsible for the actions of every employee in their company. Why can't we hold the elected leaders responsible for the actions of their subordinates?
 
This could get interesting:




Of course, instead of "rocking the boat" and investigating past CIA practices Obama will want to "look forward" and oppose bills designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Hopefully, Congress will be able to find the backbone that it tossed out years ago and take back some of its institutional authority. I'm not optimistic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

thats funny dungheap, in the other thread you seem to support obama fighting this, saying the law required him to.....why the sudden change of tune?
 
thats funny dungheap, in the other thread you seem to support obama fighting this, saying the law required him to.....why the sudden change of tune?


As I said last night, better wing-nuts please:


Unless President Bush is a time-traveler, this isn't the continuation of the Bush policy but a mere continuation of the policy that has existed for decades. And there should be absolutely no surprise that Obama wants it to remain the policy. And really, it isn't an administrative policy at all but is the minimum that the U.S. Code requires.

I understand full well that Congress wants to change it, and for good reason. I support the efforts to change this rule and for Congress generally to reassert its prerogatives as an institution. I hope the under the leadership of the Democratic Party the institution of Congress would work to take back much of the power that Congress has ceded to the Executive Branch over the years. It can start by passing the Intelligence Bill as it is and overriding any veto by Obama.
 
As I said last night, better wing-nuts please:

funny you didn't quote this post....

It isn't even Bush policy. It's what the law requires and has required since, I believe, the intelligence committees were created.

and onceler, if you think debating is getting gotcha moments, go take a course on debating and get your facts straight and while you are at it, instead of lame one liners, go back to that thread and answer the two posts i gave you since you complained about someone else NOT answering yorus...you're not a hypocrite are you?
 
"and onceler, if you think debating is getting gotcha moments, go take a course on debating and get your facts straight"

Your m.o. on the board is gotcha moments. It's the entire impetus for your posting.

And the DH quote you're trying to "get" him on contains no opinion. He posted his opinion on the matter from yesterday, and it's crystal clear.
 
you're so full of meadowmuffins onceler, as if you don't try and show people they're wrong...why did you ask tu tu to respond that post huh????

Hey, Tutu! I was waiting for your response on the other thread...you know, where you wondered how Obama could even look himself in the mirror now, after breaking his promise not to raise taxes so many times?

I was looking for an example. One example. I'm sure you'll hop right on that....

oh yeah, a gotcha moment....you're full of shit dude, and you're a hypocrite to boot, nice going, no wonder you won't address the two posts i asked you to....
 
you're so full of meadowmuffins onceler, as if you don't try and show people they're wrong...why did you ask tu tu to respond that post huh????



oh yeah, a gotcha moment....you're full of shit dude, and you're a hypocrite to boot, nice going, no wonder you won't address the two posts i asked you to....

How does that compare?

Tutu said Obama shouldn't even be able to look himself in the mirror, because he has raised taxes so much. Is it asking too much for a little backup on that?

That doesn't compare at all to what you're doing here, which is - as usual - misrepresenting what someone said, to try to create a false "gotcha" moment (I won't use the straw word, since I know you don't like it).

You're not too brainy, Yurt...
 
How does that compare?

Tutu said Obama shouldn't even be able to look himself in the mirror, because he has raised taxes so much. Is it asking too much for a little backup on that?

That doesn't compare at all to what you're doing here, which is - as usual - misrepresenting what someone said, to try to create a false "gotcha" moment (I won't use the straw word, since I know you don't like it).

You're not too brainy, Yurt...

^LOL^

yours is a gotcha moment, becuase if she can't back it up then what onceler....gotcha, you're wrong and you honestly going to sit here and claim to the board that you've never "got anyone"....LMAO....you've never shown anyone their wrong....

i did not misrepresent anyone words liar....i even quoted his full post...if he did not mean his words that way, then let him explain it, but his words are clear

i'm extremely disappointed in your bullshit this morning, you can do better, now go eat some wheaties and get filled up before you spew anymore weak crap
 
"yours is a gotcha moment, becuase if she can't back it up then what onceler....gotcha, you're wrong and you honestly going to sit here and claim to the board that you've never "got anyone"....LMAO....you've never shown anyone their wrong"

Wow...are you really this stupid?

Tutu ACCUSED OBAMA OF RAISING TAXES, and reneging on his promise. Why, he did it so badly that he shouldn't even be able to look himself in the mirror!

I'm merely asking for some examples of that. You think that compares at all to your fabricated "gotcha" scenarios, where you basically accuse people of saying, thinking or feeling opinions for which there is no reference point?

Wow; not sure what to tell you, Yurtie.

I still stand by my challenge to Tutu to offer some sort of backup for her assertion...
 
I only know what I saw on the news last night.

The fact that its a letter signed by Democrats hardly leads me to any concrete conclusions. It could be a partisan letter, defending their house speaker, which exaggerates possibly benign statements Panetta made. Maybe Panetta indicated that CIA did "mislead" congress, but misleading has multiple layers of meaning. It could have been as benign as mere incompetence and insufficient briefings by CIA. That wouldn't be neccessarily an intent to "lie" to congress. It could just be bureacratic incompetence and laziness.

On the other hand, I fully recognize the CIA has a sordid history in this country. From spying routinely on american citizens, at least until the Church Commission, to more recently torturing prisoners.

But, I really need a little more than a letter from a handfull of democratic congresspersons to really have a firm idea of what the nature of this "misleading" was.
 
I only know what I saw on the news last night.

The fact that its a letter signed by Democrats hardly leads me to any concrete conclusions. It could be a partisan letter, defending their house speaker, which exaggerates possibly benign statements Panetta made. Maybe Panetta indicated that CIA did "mislead" congress, but misleading has multiple layers of meaning. It could have been as benign as mere incompetence and insufficient briefings by CIA. That wouldn't be neccessarily an intent to "lie" to congress. It could just be bureacratic incompetence and laziness.

On the other hand, I fully recognize the CIA has a sordid history in this country. From spying routinely on american citizens, at least until the Church Commission, to more recently torturing prisoners.

But, I really need a little more than a letter from a handfull of democratic congresspersons to really have a firm idea of what the nature of this "misleading" was.

But there's not only the letter from the Democrats. There is also the response from the CIA:

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”
 
"yours is a gotcha moment, becuase if she can't back it up then what onceler....gotcha, you're wrong and you honestly going to sit here and claim to the board that you've never "got anyone"....LMAO....you've never shown anyone their wrong"

Wow...are you really this stupid?

Tutu ACCUSED OBAMA OF RAISING TAXES, and reneging on his promise. Why, he did it so badly that he shouldn't even be able to look himself in the mirror!

I'm merely asking for some examples of that. You think that compares at all to your fabricated "gotcha" scenarios, where you basically accuse people of saying, thinking or feeling opinions for which there is no reference point?

Wow; not sure what to tell you, Yurtie.

I still stand by my challenge to Tutu to offer some sort of backup for her assertion...

as i stand by my request to dungheap about what the law says. he claimed obama had no choice in the matter, it was what the law required, i asked for evidence of this and he has not provided it, the only thing he provided was that it was up to obama and i also provided such....i am asking dungheap why he is now against it, when yesterday he said obama was just following the law....

you're just so full of it you can't see you're doing the same thing...
that you think this is simply a gotcha moment baffles me. and i noticed you "coveniently" ignore the question that you've never gone after someone when they are wrong...you just proved what a hack you are, good for you but no one else....
 
I only know what I saw on the news last night.

The fact that its a letter signed by Democrats hardly leads me to any concrete conclusions. It could be a partisan letter, defending their house speaker, which exaggerates possibly benign statements Panetta made. Maybe Panetta indicated that CIA did "mislead" congress, but misleading has multiple layers of meaning. It could have been as benign as mere incompetence and insufficient briefings by CIA. That wouldn't be neccessarily an intent to "lie" to congress. It could just be bureacratic incompetence and laziness.

On the other hand, I fully recognize the CIA has a sordid history in this country. From spying routinely on american citizens, at least until the Church Commission, to more recently torturing prisoners.

But, I really need a little more than a letter from a handfull of democratic congresspersons to really have a firm idea of what the nature of this "misleading" was.

They are privy to information you may never know and obviously they know something the CIA doesn't want you to know.

Did the CIA inject itself in Iranian elections and support the opposition?

It's not like there isn't a history.
 
Last edited:
This could get interesting:

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.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, referred to Mr. Panetta’s disclosure in a letter to the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, Congressional Quarterly reported on Wednesday. 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.”

In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.

A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine “a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.” Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.

The question of the C.I.A.’s candor with the Congressional oversight committees has been hotly disputed since Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to disclose in a 2002 briefing that it had used waterboarding against a terrorism suspect. Ms. Pelosi said the agency routinely misled Congress, though she later said she intended to fault the Bush administration rather than career intelligence officials.

Since then, Republicans have called Ms. Pelosi’s complaint an unwarranted attack on the integrity of counterterrorism officers and have demanded an investigation. Democrats have rebuffed the demand.

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”


Of course, instead of "rocking the boat" and investigating past CIA practices Obama will want to "look forward" and oppose bills designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Hopefully, Congress will be able to find the backbone that it tossed out years ago and take back some of its institutional authority. I'm not optimistic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Hmmm, let's see what comes down from the White House first before passing judgement. As for the Dems in the House and Senate, I'm with you.....they better get their collective butts in gear.

What's going to be entertaining is watching the neocon GOP fall all over themselves trying to justify all their hubris and hysteria instead of just admitting they were WRONG and Pelosi was right.
 
I only know what I saw on the news last night.

The fact that its a letter signed by Democrats hardly leads me to any concrete conclusions. It could be a partisan letter, defending their house speaker, which exaggerates possibly benign statements Panetta made. Maybe Panetta indicated that CIA did "mislead" congress, but misleading has multiple layers of meaning. It could have been as benign as mere incompetence and insufficient briefings by CIA. That wouldn't be neccessarily an intent to "lie" to congress. It could just be bureacratic incompetence and laziness.

On the other hand, I fully recognize the CIA has a sordid history in this country. From spying routinely on american citizens, at least until the Church Commission, to more recently torturing prisoners.

But, I really need a little more than a letter from a handfull of democratic congresspersons to really have a firm idea of what the nature of this "misleading" was.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/panetta-acknowledged-cia_n_228321.html
 
Back
Top