CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted that his agency regularly misled Congress, six members of the House Intelligence Committee have alleged. The claims are echoed in a letter from the committee's Democratic chairman, Sylvestre Reyes.
The allegations follow a claim by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the CIA misled her about interrogation methods. A CIA spokesman has insisted that "it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress".
The six committee members, who are all Democrats, alleged in a letter to Mr Panetta that he "recently... testified... that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week". "This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other periods," the letter states.
In a separate letter, Mr Reyes alleged that a "notification the Committee received [from Mr Panetta] on 24 June 2009... [has] led me to conclude that this Committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications and (in at least one case) was significantly lied to".
The BBC's Jon Donnison in Washington says that in recent months there has been much debate over how much congressional leaders were told during the Bush administration about controversial CIA interrogation techniques such as water-boarding. In particular, our correspondent says, Republicans have accused Mrs Pelosi, a Democrat, of lying about how much she knew about such methods.
Republicans say this latest accusation from Mr Reyes in being used as a distraction to shift attention away from Mrs Pelosi. Mrs Pelosi insists that she was not told that the CIA had used water-boarding on prisoners, and that any suggestion by the CIA that she had been notified is untrue.
The row takes place as Democrats in Congress are attempting to push through new rules governing who is allowed to declassify secret information. They want to give the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees the power to open up classified information to the other members of their committees.
The proposal is being fiercely opposed by the Obama White House, which insists that only the president should have the power to declassify information.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8143081.stm
High
Start London
Elle Passions
"CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted that his agency regularly misled Congress, six members of the House Intelligence Committee have alleged. The claims are echoed in a letter from the committee's Democratic chairman, Sylvestre Reyes. "
What?!? Are they upset that someone is actually doing to them what thye've been doing to the rest of the country?!?!
1"A CIA spokesman has insisted that "it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress".
That IMO is the stupidest response I have ever heard from any organization and most of them say this in response to a complaint. Of course it is not your policy or practice why the hell do you think I'm complaining? The response should be well that is a troubling charge if indeed it is true, we will investigate.
I remember complaining to a city police dept. about clear cut harassment by one of their officers. Again I got the it is not our policy or practice statement. Well duh! I swear that pisses me off so much.
2"regulary mislead" gosh...isn't that "blatently lying" or "total disregard for the truth"
"The proposal is being fiercely opposed by the Obama White House, which insists that only the president should have the power to declassify information."
....so much for transparency.
3Does anyone else get the feeling that a certain group (Congress) is practicing the old "Cover our a$$" dance?
4It seems that Panetta is throwing his own people under the bus, but I think we will have to wait for further explication. On the face of it, this does smell of Pelosi trying to cover her nefarious butt. I hope the American public is smart enough to insist on the truth, regardless of what it may be. Frankly Pelosi has a bad track record of talking out of both sides of her face.
5SO funny...yet SO true Elethera..........."talking out both sides of her mouth"
I think Pelosi has become an expert at that.
My husband said "Going to the CIA and expecting to find truth is like going to a wh*rehouse and expecting to find virgins...it simply isn't there."
I love that man.
6Back in May, when Pelosi suggested the CIA wasn't telling the truth, much of the response here was that Pelosi was lying. Now that the CIA says it wasn't telling the truth, the response here is that Pelosi is a liar.
7IMO there shouldn't be any doubt that for security reasons the CIA does withhold/omit information. That to me is not a lie on their part that is simply the nature of the beast but an out right lie for purposes other than genuine national security say for purposes of cover up for legal/political reasons is unacceptable. I guess my question to Panetta is which is he talking about.
8I don't think the CIA should be/is allowed to keep members of Congress (at least certain members) out of the loop on the grounds of national security - Congress obviously is an important part of the loop.
9It is a slippery slope. I suppose it would be "who" determines "what" is information that is detrimental to our safety as a nation...but I think some rather power-hungry people perhaps motivated by "donations" have kept some issues firmly within the "need-to-know" category to protect their hineys.
10sorry to not be able to talk abt this with all of you - it is "politics and fleas" -
11"Back in May, when Pelosi suggested the CIA wasn't telling the truth, much of the response here was that Pelosi was lying. Now that the CIA says it wasn't telling the truth, the response here is that Pelosi is a liar."
Actually, Congress is alleging that they were lied to.
12Well certainly then, THEY all must be lying.
13It's like the blue shield when all the cops cover for each other. LOL!
14C'mon statistically speaking we know there's got to be at least one lie told to Congress from the CIA. As for the Pelosi situation specifically unless something in writing pops up that make it clear that one side or the other is correct then we'll never know who's right between the two.
15History shows waaaay more than one lie.
. And that's just a
wee sampling of the post-Vietnam era.
16In 1973, it lied to Congress about US involvement in Chile (charges brought, Richard Helms pleaded no contest); the CIA lied about US involvment in Angola & Mozambique; when William Casey ran the CIA his Iran Contra lies even ticked off Barry Goldwater
I'm not saying that I believe that the people in the CIA have never lied. In this case, I feel the people of the CIA are more trustworthy than the current group bringing the allegations against the CIA.
17Oh I'm sure, that's my point no one can suggest that the CIA hasn't lied. Nor should the CIA hide behind it's purpose & policy in response to such a charge. We are all very well aware that minus urgent national security issues which may require temporary omission of information that lying to Congress is not part of their purpose or policy so the (this is not our policy) defense doesn't fly with me.
IMO what they should have done internally is say hey we have record that the Speaker was briefed on this issue. The Speaker has no record of being a liar so if what she's saying is true then something broke down in the system either here or there and we need to investigate what's going on. Instead they fed into the volley of accusations and suggested the Speaker was a liar. How about investigating first thoroughly be fore making such a strong suggestion.
18Didn't the CIA present proof that the speaker of the house was present during meetings where their interogation techniques were discussed? It is the speaker who has made accusations without any real proof to back those allegations.
19Now personally I think she had a brain fart. In this case it is possible for her to tell the truth and still be wrong. I honestly believe that she believes she was not briefed on the matter.
20She may believe that she wasn't briefed, but that still doesn't change the facts. The fact is she was at a meeting with the CIA. The CIA discussed the techniques. She chose not to listen, signed off on the techniques, and now has to cover her backside, so is calling the CIA liars. To me, that is the height of sleaze that we should be trying to get out of Washington.
21Well that's the (Smoking Gun) that I've been waiting for and as far as I know that has not been produced by the CIA. They say she signed off on it, so where is the paper(s) she signed off on. I said this weeks ago either put up or shut up in regards to the CIA. You can't say well she signed off and then never show us that she did.
22Why do the papers have to be distributed through the media? Their discussions should be classified, especially since the discussion is about what we would, and wouldn't do during interrogations. Let an independant government oversight committee investigate the CIA claims and the Pelosi claims. Once they find out who's lying, they need to be severly punished. Either way, Pelosi needs to be censured for going to the media and making outragous unverifiable claims. That's such a bush-league move.
23"Let an independant government oversight committee investigate the CIA claims and the Pelosi claims" That's fine with me.
No one said anything about distributing anything through the media. If it's classified it's classified but the fact of whether her signature is on it or not is not classified information. I'll be satisfied if they show them to a Congressional panel of Republicans and Democrats and the panel say yes it's true or not it's not. It's as simple as that, but you can't suggest you have a Smoking Gun and then never produce it.
24Has anyone asked for that smoking gun? They can't produce a sign-in sheet without the notes of the meeting because how would the investigators know that that was the meeting in question, or some other meeting she happened to be at? Who in the public would believe that the organization accused of lying would produce the truth without corroboration?
25UnDave I have no idea what you just said.
Anyhoo my point is simple rather than take us through months of she said they said and indulge months of she said they get to the truth. If one has the clear truth in writing that releases them from any wrong doing, disrespect and accusations against them produce it. If one has information that would save the government enormous cost and time spent on this matter then produce it. Don't just play along with the accusation game.
Now if they really were about purpose and policy they would do this if indeed they have that information. Also with forty Republican Sen. so thirsty to take a bite out of Pelosi you can not suggest to me that there is no standing request for this information. I'm not about protecting Pelosi if she lied than take the Mo. Fo. down. I just want the truth.
26undave....
"Who in the public would believe that the organization accused of lying would produce the truth without corroboration?"
Well said.
Nobody. I don't think we can believe any of them.
27Well isn't the corroboration her signature on the brief in question? That is what we're talking about isn't it? If they have (her) signature on the brief in question they don't need a third party corroboration. It's as plain as day that she signed it and anyone that doesn't believe it is a damn foo.
28She signed it...of course, BUT did she read it?
Kidding you. I will not defend this person and would celebrate the day they drag her out of the building in chains. Of course that won't happen but a girl can dream right?
I just don't believe any of them anymore. How can we?
Somehow I imagine a "hall monitor" sweating her out in a dark corner..."Did you sign this"///she quivers///"they made me"///you lie///"please don't tell--can't we cut a deal just to point fingers at each other?" da Da DA... "INCOMING!" BIG CIA guy grabs her and drags her out by her hair while demanding "What did you say...or sign...or admitt?"....fade to black///Obama shaking his head....da Da DA.....live it's D A V I D L E T T E R M A N.....
Sorry. I must be over-tired and beginning to get too imaginative.
29Hey...I think the hall monitor is holding the smoking gun! Who is this mystery person? "Could it be S A T A N?"
...sorry...started "channelling the church lady" from OLD SNL Skits
30Bad humor aside...and sorry for that...She is guilty as hell. The only reason I can think of which would create a position which would demand the CIA admit to "possibly misleading" Congress is more dirty secrets which we all cannot imagine....and I have a great imagination. Part of me does not want to know those secrets and another side of me demands full disclosure even though that will never be a reality.
31Yeah but if she has one of those old lady purses she might take out a few capitol police before they get her out of there
Just for argument sake let's say it all came out and it's clear she lied. Obviously they can remove her from leadership and censure her but I don't think they can force her from office because she did not lie under oath. But I also doubt she'll be reelected if she decided to finish her term.
32We agree on this one...she will not be re-elected and there are many of us that wish she could be yanked from office.
33Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.