New Developments III

[Greg]

Panetta Tells Lawmakers CIA Misled Congress Post-2001

James Rowley

July 9 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said that CIA Director Leon Panetta told lawmakers the agency has misled Congress since 2001 about “significant actions.”

In a letter to Panetta, the six legislators said he had “recently” testified that “top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress” and “misled members” from 2001 until this week.

The letter, released by the lawmakers yesterday, didn’t describe what Central Intelligence Agency actions were at issue.

The agency went to the panel with the new information, CIA spokesman George Little said in a statement last night. “As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees,â€

The House committee’s chairman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes of Texas, said in a statement last night that “in rare instances” CIA officers “have not adhered to the high standards” that the agency sets for “truthfulness in reporting” to Congress.

Reyes, who wasn’t among the six lawmakers who signed the letter to Panetta, praised the CIA chief’s “recent efforts to bring issues to the committee’s attention” that “had not been previously conveyed” to it.

Reyes Letter

Reyes was blunter in a July 7 letter to the panel’s top Republican, saying that the CIA had lied to the committee at least once.

Information Panetta gave the panel June 24 “brought to light significant information on the inadequacy of reporting to the committee,” Reyes wrote to Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.

The information provided by Panetta “led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notification and (in at least once case) was affirmatively lied to,â€

The CIA’s revelations “may well lead to a full committee investigation” of the agency’s conduct in reporting information to Congress, Reyes said in the letter.

The CIA is required by law to notify Congress of covert intelligence operations.

Reigniting Debate

The disclosures concerning Panetta’s testimony may re- ignite a debate between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans over her claim earlier this year that the CIA misled Congress in 2002 about harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists.

At the time, CIA Director George Tenet was leading the U.S. intelligence effort against al-Qaeda in the wake of the terrorist group’s 2001 attacks on the United States. Tenet was appointed director of the CIA by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and continued to serve until 2004.

The letter from the Democrats called on Panetta to “publicly correct” his May 15 statement, following Pelosi’s claim, that “it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.”

The letter was signed by Democrats Anna Eshoo of California, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Mike Thompson of California, Alcee Hastings of Florida and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

Misleading Information

Pelosi, a California Democrat, charged in May that when she was a member of the House intelligence panel, the spy agency gave her misleading and inaccurate information about whether it had waterboarded suspected terrorists. The CIA has acknowledged that it used the interrogation technique on three detainees suspected of being al-Qaeda operatives to simulate the sensation of drowning.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio challenged Pelosi to either produce evidence to support her claim or retract her assertion that the CIA “misrepresented every step of the way” its use of harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.

As criticism by Republicans of Pelosi over her statement escalated, she said at a May 22 news conference that she stood be her comments and, “I won’t have anything more to say about it.”

She has adhered to that position. Since then, Boehner and other Republicans periodically have taken to the House floor to call for a bipartisan investigation of Pelosi’s charge.

‘Other Deceptions’

The letter from the Democrats said Panetta’s recent testimony disclosed concealment by the CIA that is “similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.” The intelligence committee regularly receives private briefings from U.S. officials.

Little said in his statement that Panetta “stands by his May 15 statement” because “it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress.” Little also said, “Director Panetta’s actions back that up.”

The release of the lawmakers’ letter came on the eve of a scheduled House debate today on an intelligence spending measure. The bill would expand the number of lawmakers who must be notified of covert intelligence operations from eight congressional leaders to more than 35 members of House and Senate intelligence panels.

The White House opposes the expansion and yesterday threatened a veto if the final version of the bill contains the provision.

Panetta, 71, was named to head the CIA by President Barack Obama and confirmed for the job in February. A former Democratic House member, he served as budget director and White House chief of staff under Clinton.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090709/pl_bloomberg/avp991mwyfpe

[Big Magilla]

Rumors are rampant that she is just one step ahead of a federal indictment on all sorts of charges stemming from contracts she awarded the guys who built the bowling alley or whatever it is in Visalia who supplied free of charge the building materials for her house - the one she can see Russia from!

McCain and anyone else who is continuing to say positive things about her is just digging their own grave. On the other hand, unless something unforeseen occurs, whoever the Republicans put up against Obama in 2012 is destined to lose so Romney and anyone else who may be coerced into running cant be too enthused about not having her around as the sacrifial lamb.

[Sabin]

Palin's speech is weird.

[Sonic Youth]

Somewhere in South Carolina, a man breathing a sigh of relief.

There's no way this is a campaign strategy. Her rambling, bizarre speech and her body language suggest something bad is coming down the pike and she knows it. Stay tuned.

And maybe her political career is over - we'll see about that - but the Palin's are here to stay. No way will such a compelling, fascinating family be allowed to fade into obscurity. She's a celebrity, she's always wanted celebrity status, and she'll find another way to get it. And the people who hate her want to see what happens next as much as the people who love her. So long as she's not in public office, we may as well enjoy it.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1246682979

[OscarGuy]

Let's hope this is the end of Sarah Palin and not just some attempt to get into the contiguous to begin campaigning for president.

Then again, you don't make a prominent announcement like this on a Friday because of the dead-end news cycles on weekend, so she's probably hoping it drifts out of public notice quickly. And if it really were an attempt to campaign for president, it would be stupid not to finish out her term as she'd have plenty of time to campaign at the end of it.

So, more implosions for the Republican party would be great!

[Mister Tee]

I suppose someone should say something about Sarah Palin, but, honestly, she just leaves me speechless.

The bright side for the GOP is, something keeps coming along to knock the latest GOP-in-turmoil story off the top of the news. Unfortunately, with the exception of Michael Jackson, it always seems to be another bad Republican story.

Lots of speculation there's another shoe to drop on Palin. Her speech -- I use the term loosely, given the series of non sequiturs in which she spoke --- didn't feel like the work of someone who's come to a careful decision; it had an "I've got to get out of Dodge fast" vibe.

[taki15]

Is anyone going to tell Mark Sanford to just shut up? Next thing, he'll be telling us about when he first started masturbating.

The guy always seemed a little shaky to me (with his pig stunt, etc. ). On one hand I feel sorry for him. It's pretty obvious that he is in full mid-life crisis mode and his public meltdown is a sad spectacle.

On the other hand, his hypocrisy is so astonishing and so emblematic of the Republican party at large, that the whole thing seems like poetic justice.

I think in the end he will follow Foley's route and he will resign to live with his mistress in Argentina, the woman he clearly loves.

[Mister Tee]

Is anyone going to tell Mark Sanford to just shut up? Next thing, he'll be telling us about when he first started masturbating.

[Mister Tee]

Given the creative math Limbaugh showed yesterday -- somehow spinning a 5-4 decision as unanimous -- he ought to have no trouble seeing this as a Coleman victory.

[taki15]

I remember Ann Coulter saying the day after the election that the only silver lining for the Republicans was Franken's defeat. Well, I guess now they don't have even that.

By the way, I'm curious to see how Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are going to spin this. But then again, after saying today that Obama plots to repeal the 22nd amendment in order to run for a third term at 2016, I'm not holding my breath.

[Mister Tee]

I was actually going to retrieve last year's Senate Results thread, to finally put a button on the '08 election.

It's officially over; Coleman's conceded. Congratulations to Eric on finally having full Senate representation.

[OscarGuy]

It may almost be over, but who really knows with a scab like Norm Coleman or a Republican governor like Tim Pawlenty...but hopefully this will be the end and MN will finally have a second senator.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/30/franken.ruling/index.html

[OscarGuy]

As I've stated to people I know. I don't care that he had an affair. What I care about is that he's a Religious Values man which means he's displaying profound amounts of hypocrisy over the whole matter. So, I get tired of the sanctimony over the issue, yet they can't help but do what they preach against. It's like a pig working in a butcher shop. It's antithetical to your existence. Haven't so many campaigns imploded in recent years that it should be second nature for these politicians to NOT engage in these activities for they WILL be caught (eventually) and they will suffer the consequences (hopefully).

[Heksagon]

I'm delighted to see that the Republican Party is getting what it deserves. People who believe that they are morally superior to others always believe that they themselves have the right to do things that they would deny to others.

But I have to wonder, why on Earth would people take a hypocrite like Sanford seriously? And no doubt, they will still do so in the future.

[Johnny Guitar]

It's certainly satisfying on a gut-level to see a hypocrite hoist on his own petard. But I confess to some unhappiness that the sex police seem to be growing ever more powerful. Many of us thought, when Clinton stood up to the press-urged impeachmnet wave, that this country would adjust to a more mature, realistic standard on sexual behavior. But the witch-hunts have, if anything, expanded, and too many have resulted in immediate resignation rather than what I'd prefer, a quick "Fuck off, it's not your business".

I agree with this. This unending string of mainly Republican, heavily hypocritical scandal revelations in recent years yields some satisfactions, of course, but really I'm more of the mindset that these things aren't anyone's business. It's not lost on me that these moral crusaders are making it difficult for other Americans to have their "own business." But our finger-pointing and nosiness can get a bit too gleeful, too zealous. Part of the problem is that left-liberals are often more uptight and puritanical than they should be and than they will admit to being. If you ask me, hypocrisy in matters of sexual morality should not be the primary arena of combat against the right wing.

The cultural critic Lauren Berlant had a line somewhere that went something like, 'Every time I hear about a new sex scandal, I feel bad for sex.'

Jack Nicholson's response, in the wake of the Clinton scandal, was, 'What, do you want a president who doesn't have sex?'

Writing about Ezra Pound's mistress Olga Rudge, who demurred from being seen in public with him to avoid humiliating EP's wife Dorothy, Guy Davenport asserted, 'Lives were private in those days, and our animal nature was accommodated with a respect we can hardly imagine.'