CIA lying to Congress

[Michael]

Apparently when Nancy Pelosi mentioned this a few months ago, the Republicans considered this allegation to be equivilent to treason.

Now that the evidence that the CIA has been systematically lying to Congress is piling up, the Republicans don't seem to be very concerned at all.

This kind of partisanship is the kind that really gives Washington a bad reputation.

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.

The Republican members of the same committee apparently don't seem to believe the matter is worthy of comment.

Source-NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp)

Btw, check out the NY Times headline on the story. They manage to turn a clear-cut revelation by the Director of the CIA into a partisan allegation by the Democrats. No, there's no attempt to deceive here, no, none at all...

There are dozens of sources reporting on this issue.

I'm guessing this is a non-story that will be gone tomorrow. Episodes that prove Republican mendacity are never popular in Washington media circles.

[partofme]

Apparently when Nancy Pelosi mentioned this a few months ago, the Republicans considered this allegation to be equivilent to treason.

Now that the evidence that the CIA has been systematically lying to Congress is piling up, the Republicans don't seem to be very concerned at all.

This kind of partisanship is the kind that really gives Washington a bad reputation.



The Republican members of the same committee apparently don't seem to believe the matter is worthy of comment.

Source-NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/politics/09intel.html?_r=1&hp)

Btw, check out the NY Times headline on the story. They manage to turn a clear-cut revelation by the Director of the CIA into a partisan allegation by the Democrats. No, there's no attempt to deceive here, no, none at all...

There are dozens of sources reporting on this issue.

I'm guessing this is a non-story that will be gone tomorrow. Episodes that prove Republican mendacity are never popular in Washington media circles.

I heard on the radio this morning one republican member of the committee said that he thinks it's just a matter of the democrats playing political games. It's one thing to say one member of congress is doing that but to say that several are seems to be less likely and quite risky.

[Evangeline]

They'll just claim Panetta is a partisan Democrat and never apologize to Pelosi for their smears. Republicans really disgust me.

[The Drunk Girl]

I read the article yesterday in the NY Times. Although I am not big into politics I wondered why this seemed like such a surprise: the CIA lying...hmm

[Donkey]

The absolute lack of accountability that the CIA assumes and that we, apparently, give them without questioning is terrifying.

[Lily]

It occurs to me that in a very real way, the terrorists have won some pretty big victories in the War on Terror. Just look what the U.S. has allowed to happen because of 9/11: the CIA lying to Congress, illegal wiretapping of its citizens, torture, the alienation of allies, expensive wars, domestic threat levels, air travel watch lists, silly security measures at airports (one of my favorites -- taking off your shoes before boarding a plane. what?), increased use of metal detectors everywhere, the demonoizing of all things Muslim....

One way to defeat terrorism is not to participate in being terrorized. In that regard, the U.S. has failed miserably.

[Michael]

It occurs to me that in a very real way, the terrorists have won some pretty big victories in the War on Terror. Just look what the U.S. has allowed to happen because of 9/11: the CIA lying to Congress, illegal wiretapping of its citizens, torture, the alienation of allies, expensive wars, domestic threat levels, air travel watch lists, silly security measures at airports (one of my favorites -- taking off your shoes before boarding a plane. what?), increased use of metal detectors everywhere, the demonoizing of all things Muslim....

One way to defeat terrorism is not to participate in being terrorized. In that regard, the U.S. has failed miserably.
I've been trying to make that argument since 9/12.

The US government has worked very hard to ensure that the 9/11 terrorists would win.

[Donkey]

Well yes. Though I would submit that the CIA was an evil machine long before 9/11.

[Americano]

Panetta has always been a politician/bureaucrat. He knows shit flows downhill and should be professionally capable of damage control by blaming predecessors. He doesn't view the CIA as anything but a successful political career move into a bureaucratic status, appointed by the current POTUS and to serve at his pleasure. His next career move would be heading Homeland Security if that cabinet chair stumbles.

I find it difficult to understand why Americans would be shocked to learn the CIA, supposedly known for deception, was swayed by reigning political influence when reporting to congress. When living in a country noted for policy direction controlled by special interests, where is the naivety coming from? Certainly not apathy......

[Lily]

I've been trying to make that argument since 9/12.

The US government has worked very hard to ensure that the 9/11 terrorists would win.

So have I. This latest news, the CIA subterfuge, only underscores the fear-mongering that permeated the previous administration's handling of 9/11.

Well yes. Though I would submit that the CIA was an evil machine long before 9/11.

I would agree with you; however, if this story had come out pre-9/11, I don't think people would be so apathetic. I'm not even sure "apathetic" is the right word, it's beyond that. People are actually denying and in some cases defending the CIA's actions. God forbid a terrorist explodes some device on public transport. I fear this nation would run for the nearest rabbit hole and never emerge.

[Lily]

This just in... and although I'm not a big fan of unnamed sources, somehow I don't find this all too surprising.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress during the Bush administration on direct orders from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, current CIA director Leon Panetta told members of Congress, a knowledgeable source confirmed to CNN.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly ordered the CIA to withhold information about counterterrorism.

The disclosure to the House and Senate intelligence committees about Cheney's involvement by Panetta was first reported in the New York Times. Efforts to contact Cheney for reaction were unsuccessful late Saturday.


CNNSource (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html)

[Michael]

Well yes. Though I would submit that the CIA was an evil machine long before 9/11.

The infamous Church Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee) did in fact prove that fact back in the 1970s.

And most of the regulations put in place at that time to prevent the CIA from engaging in future illegal acts were systematically either removed, ignored or bypassed by the Bush Administration.

This all part of a clear pattern of the 'attempt to deceive', by Bush Administration officials. It all seems part of the attempt of the Bush Administration to turn the 9/11 attack into a pretext for a war of conquest in Iraq and to establish a 'permanent state of war' for the US Government to operate within.

A policy of propagation of lies requires a policy of suppression of truth.

[KSigMason]

Intelligence is such a strange beast. I will leave it there.

[Donkey]

Intelligence is such a strange beast. I will leave it there.
I'll take it a step further: the US intelligence community is a deformed and mutated beast that should be put down out of mercy/public interest.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The infamous Church Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee) did in fact prove that fact back in the 1970s.

And most of the regulations put in place at that time to prevent the CIA from engaging in future illegal acts were systematically either removed, ignored or bypassed by the Bush Administration.

This all part of a clear pattern of the 'attempt to deceive', by Bush Administration officials. It all seems part of the attempt of the Bush Administration to turn the 9/11 attack into a pretext for a war of conquest in Iraq and to establish a 'permanent state of war' for the US Government to operate within.

A policy of propagation of lies requires a policy of suppression of truth.

The two guys who were a part of the Ford Administration at the time of the Church Commission who prevented them for access to most of the CIA's records were none other than...






Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

No wonder the CIA lied their asses off for these two.

[Lily]

The two guys who were a part of the Ford Administration at the time of the Church Commission who prevented them for access to most of the CIA's records were none other than...






Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

No wonder the CIA lied their asses off for these two.

I swear I heard a big gong go off in my head when I read that. Hahaha!

[Michael]

... Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

These two names tend to pop up a lot if you research official US ties to Saddam's regime in Iraq, they also pop up with the infamous 'Team B' group (and the fictitious Soviet arms buildup) from the late 1970s, and PNAC in the 1990s.

They've been around a while. Lots of damage in a thirty year career span for the pair of them - hindsight has put them on the wrong side of just about every issue they focused on of course.

[Donkey]

These two names tend to pop up a lot if you research official US ties to Saddam's regime in Iraq, they also pop up with the infamous 'Team B' group (and the fictitious Soviet arms buildup) from the late 1970s, and PNAC in the 1990s.

They've been around a while. Lots of damage in a thirty year career span for the pair of them - hindsight has put them on the wrong side of just about every issue they focused on of course.
Except when Cheney said not to invade and occupy Iraq... :erm: the first time.

[Michael]

Except when Cheney said not to invade and occupy Iraq... :erm: the first time.

True to my statement, Cheney has been on the wrong side of every foreign policy issue.

In hindsight, the US should have invaded Iraq in 1991 when it would have been legal to do so.

If Cheney opens his mouth, you can safely bet he's going to be wrong.

[Donkey]

True to my statement, Cheney has been on the wrong side of every foreign policy issue.

In hindsight, the US should have invaded Iraq in 1991 when it would have been legal to do so.

If Cheney opens his mouth, you can safely bet he's going to be wrong.
You think that would have been good strategically?

[Michael]

You think that would have been good strategically?
I would say it would have been less bad than the present strategic situation.

All things considered, I think a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 would have been more successful and less problematic with UNSC mandate than one in 2003 without UN support.

The key problem with the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is the fact that it was an illegal war justified by US domestic political considerations alone. That in itself created many of the problems for the US in Iraq.

[Lily]

I would say it would have been less bad than the present strategic situation.

All things considered, I think a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 would have been more successful and less problematic with UNSC mandate than one in 2003 without UN support.

The key problem with the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is the fact that it was an illegal war justified by US domestic political considerations alone. That in itself created many of the problems for the US in Iraq.

Not to mention that the post-invasion planning was practically nonexistant. Iraqi citizens immediately looted the country, taking everything, including that which was nailed down while those in the White House ignored calls for Marshall Law. Disbanding the Iraqi Army left hundreds of thousands of men out of work, unable to provide for their families, angry men who felt betrayed by the U.S. and knew where all the ammo dumps were located. Is it any wonder that the insurgancy ramped up shortly thereafter? Talk about FUBAR.