Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, July 09, 2009

CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress last month that senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001, the chairman and other members of the House Intelligence Committee said in letters revealed Wednesday. Exactly what actions Panetta disclosed to the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 is unclear, but committee chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said that the CIA outright lied in one case. "This committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to," Reyes wrote in a letter Tuesday to Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the committee's senior Republican.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Government officials lied?? Horrible.
Now let us give the same government officials full control of health care and the auto industry. That will reform them!

But saddam really does have WMD! Honest! the Iranians told us!

Of course they do...Pelosi's job depends on it. Panetta has got his marching orders.

"Pelosi's job depends on it."

Probably one of the hacks who condemned Pelosi for lying when she first made the statement.

Why not combine the 3 other earlier threads on this?

QUICK! LOCK THE BARN! THE HORSES ARE MISSING!!!

Diablo, It wasnt Medicare or Medicade who lied, but thanks for playing "Really Bad Stretch to Find Relevance". Don Pardo has a nice parting gift for you.

How you can equate CIA and Medicare/Medicade as "Govt Agencies" and draw any conclussion other than 'Diablo is really reaching'.

We still haven't heard the last of this.

Didn't Panetta unequivocally say a few weeks ago that the CIA never lied to Congress? One has to wonder what made him "change his mind."

Well just keep an eye on the NYT--they will have the names and details on the front page post haste.

Didn't Panetta unequivocally say a few weeks ago that the CIA never lied to Congress? One has to wonder what made him "change his mind."
#9 | Posted by JOE

Probably spoke in ignorance the first time.

The CIA lies!

Nancy Pelosi is a liar.
Yes, a republican cheated on his wife.
But, Nancy Pelosi is still a liar.
Yes, people in the CIA lie too.
But, Nancy Pelosi is still a liar.
Yes, Rush is a windbag.
But, Nancy Pelosi is still a liar.
Yes, Fox news is still biased.
But, Nancy Pelosi is still a liar.
Yes, the Bush administration lied about WMD.
But, Nancy Pelosi is still a liar.

Probably spoke in ignorance the first time.

#11 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

No, they actually re-released the public statement about it "not being the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress".

However the statement he made about actually misleading Congress was made (I think under oath) during testimony before a House committee. I guess he had to tell the truth there, even though the public statements didn't match.

Also from the article:

The cryptic letter and CIA statement came on the eve of a House debate on an intelligence bill. The debate is expected to revive a partisan argument that has raged on and off for months about whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew in the fall of 2002 about the CIA's use of waterboarding weeks earlier.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique the CIA used on three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. It is a form of simulated drowning that President Barack Obama has called torturs veto threat and the continued attacks by partisans against the CIA are a direct result of congressional Democrats' continued heavy-handed attempts to cover up for Speaker Pelosi."

"not being the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress".

U-2? What's a U-2?
Francis Gary who?

#9 | Posted by JOE

Yeah--they didn't lie before they really lied.

Like above--Panetta got his marching orders to comply with the one's orders.

Error in posting left out several paragraphs. What's up with that?

The cryptic letter and CIA statement came on the eve of a House debate on an intelligence bill. The debate is expected to revive a partisan argument that has raged on and off for months about whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew in the fall of 2002 about the CIA's use of waterboarding weeks earlier.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique the CIA used on three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. It is a form of simulated drowningpress. It is unfortunate that the president's veto threat and the continued attacks by partisans against the CIA are a direct result of congressional Democrats' continued heavy-handed attempts to cover up for Speaker Pelosi."

No, they actually re-released the public statement about it "not being the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress".

So you're saying that there's not inconsistency in the two statements I guess.

They did lie, it just wasn't their policy to lie.

That's some slippery stuff right there.

I tend to believe his first statement. The other member of Congress who was at the briefings with Pelosi has since come forward and said that Pelosi is full of shit.

Same error in two attempts. Recommend reading the article in its entirety to get the full story. The cherry picking excerpt tilts so far to the left it nearly topples.

Couple all of that with Pelosi's absurd denial, where she stammers and stutters all over a written statement about being "briefed about a briefing," and it becomes pretty clear who is lying here.

"where she stammers and stutters "

You're right, she looked awful in that.

In her defense, I wouldn't want to have a press conference talking about stuff on the legal edge of classified information.

But, wow...just awful. Why is that woman still in a position of leadership?

The other member of Congress who was at the briefings with Pelosi has since come forward and said that Pelosi is full of shit.
#20 | Posted by JOE

Unless the "other member" has a D after their name, I'd have to color that statement self-servingly suspect.

Pelosi's job depends on it. Panetta has got his marching orders.

#3 | Posted by KBM

This idiot has no idea how elections work.

None.

The CIA has been caught lying on more than one occasion, the notion that they wouldn't lie to Pelosi is ridiculous. More and more the evidence stacks up and makes her look better and better in the situation much to the chagrin of the desperate righties who can't stand her. They don't care if the CIA lied to Congress, the problems associated with that breach of ethics (or worse) doesn't matter to them a bit. They just want something to attack Pelosi with, that's what happens when they put party before country.

Don't worry America the Conservative Right will try to find a way to spin this so that its either Obama's or Clinton's fault. This from a Party that refuses to accept the FACT that the financial mess this Country is in is not the fault of the Bush Administration.

The RIGHT in this Country demand that minorities be responsible for their behavior, but not the leaders of their Party. The CIA under BUSH/CHENEY Administration became a wing of the Republican Party, much like our Military, these people see the Constitution as a document to be displayed not adhered to.

The CIA have lied to this Congress an every Congress since its inception, except under the Bush/Cheney administration it went to new heights, it became a Criminal operation that loved to hide behind the American Flag. AHH the American flag, truly the last place for these slim merchants to wrapped themselves behind, FUCK ALL OF YOU!!!!

For EIGHT YEARS, we the loyal opposition protested, only to have these SCUM on the Right question our Loyalty to our Country, but you all never had the courage to say that to our faces, well I am say it now FUCK YOU all!!!

God Blessed America, an will continue to do so in spite the RACIST, UNPATRIOTIC REPUBLICAN PARTY, may you fuckers go the way of the WHIGS!!!!!!!!

"not being the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress"

What a pile.

It's the policy of the CIA not to tell Congress it's being mislead.

Fixed that for them.

The CIA has been caught lying on more than one occasion, the notion that they wouldn't lie to Pelosi is ridiculous. More and more the evidence stacks up and makes her look better and better in the situation much to the chagrin of the desperate righties who can't stand her. They don't care if the CIA lied to Congress, the problems associated with that breach of ethics (or worse) doesn't matter to them a bit. They just want something to attack Pelosi with, that's what happens when they put party before country.

Thanks so much for that laugh. Can you provide more laughter by linking anything that makes Pelosi look better? Under any situation. This ridiculous stretch from the article doesn't cut it.

Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

Posted by FreddyK

I'm shocked...SHOCKED to see that there's gambling going on in this establishment...

Posted by Louie Renault

"Don't worry America the Conservative Right will try to find a way to spin this so that its either Obama's or Clinton's fault. This from a Party that refuses to accept the FACT that the financial mess this Country is in is not the fault of the Bush Administration."

Posted by celisary

No, we do accept as FACT that the financial mess this Country is in is not the fault of the Bush Administration.

Do you even read what you write, idiot.

. More and more the evidence stacks up and makes her look better and better in the situation much to the chagrin of the desperate righties who can't stand her.
#26 | Posted by danni at 2009-07-09 12:19 PM

Congressional aides expect much of the debate on the House intelligence bill to be diverted into a discussion of what Pelosi knew about the CIA's harsh interrogation program and why, if she was briefed on it, she didn't formally object to it.

O for 1 making Pelosi look better and better.

Republicans on the Intelligence Committee say the letters and Obama's threat to veto the legislation are cover-up attempts on behalf of Pelosi and what she knew and didn't do about "enhanced interrogation."

O for 2 making Pelosi look better and better
The blatantly political nature of the Democrats' letters is revealed by their handling," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the committee, in a statement late Wednesday.

"One was slipped under a staffer's office door late at night, the other was deliberately hidden from Republican members for two weeks and had to be obtained from the press. It is unfortunate that the president's veto threat and the continued attacks by partisans against the CIA are a direct result of congressional Democrats' continued heavy-handed attempts to cover up for Speaker Pelosi."

O for 3 making Pelosi look better and better.

Pelosi told reporters in May she had not been informed that waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects, even though it had been. When asked whether she was accusing the CIA of lying to her, she said, "Yes."

The CIA sent lawmakers a chart in May describing the 40 congressional briefings it gave on the interrogation techniques. But that document was found to include several errors, leaving in question exactly what Pelosi was told.

O for 4 making Pelosi look better and better.

There has to be something in the article danni saw. Maybe I am missing it.

Keep Waving "Old Glory" for CIA Torturers & Murderers!

The endless stream of lies that characterize the CIA are not as important as the thousands of innocent people that the CIA has tortured and murdered - and it continues unabated!!!

There'll be a neutering of the CIA. Just what we need now in these times in which we live. Dems making the decision to out Panetta on CIA stuff to protect Pelosi. At what cost?

Now, they're talking about full congressional oversight on all intelligence and black ops matters. They will either relegate the CIA to being ineffective, or increase the secrecy between it an Congress. Hobson's choice. Fucking stupid.

Actually Morton's Fork. Bad usage.

Anything said in a letter, signed by Democrats ONLY, in response to a statement Paneta made, and has NOT refuted yet, is nothing more than cover!

Whatever is written here makes NO difference IF we don't know what was furnished to that committee! Even the Republicans on that committee don't know what is being referenced by that letter!

If it's true we've got BIG problems! If not, well? This ploy has been used over and over due to the classified nature of MOST of these referenced documents! How can this ever be refuted as long as no declassification is done? Pelosi and these guys are home free due to The Official Secrets Laws currently in effect!

Thank GOD for secrecy, protects us from ourselves and allows for protection from stupid statements and actions!

Panetta's rant is a pathetic and transparent attempt to cover for the dimwit, Nancy Pelosi.

freddyk seems to be a hater. And an asshole. And yes, I used lower case letters in your name to mock your lower case brain.

God Blessed America, an will continue to do so in spite the RACIST, UNPATRIOTIC REPUBLICAN PARTY, may you fuckers go the way of the WHIGS!!!!!!!!

#27 | POSTED BY CELISARY AT 2009-07-09 12:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG: take a valium and put a cork in it.

"freddyk seems to be a hater. And an asshole. And yes, I used lower case letters in your name to mock your lower case brain."

#38 | Posted by micawber at 2009-07-09 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: weakest response of the day

More and more the evidence stacks up and makes her look better and better in the situation much to the chagrin of the desperate righties who can't stand her.
Only to a partisan hack, lesbo, desperate leftist like you.

If you can't see this as an attempt at deflecting the issue away from Pelosi, you are a damn idiot.

So you must be a damn idiot.

And this is the type of behavior you would expect from a CIA "director" who is a career politician as , political BS.

Didn't Panetta unequivocally say a few weeks ago that the CIA never lied to Congress? One has to wonder what made him "change his mind."
......#9 | Posted by JOE

......they got Cheney to water-board him.......

....but don't worry......it's not torture.....

If you can't see this as an attempt at deflecting the issue away from Pelosi, you are a damn idiot.
........#41 | Posted by slicksterWilly

.......so was Penetta lying THEN.?.....

.......or is he lying NOW.?.......

......either way he's a LIAR.......

Alternate titles for this thread might be, "Pelosi Vindicated"; or maybe, "GWB WH Lied to Dems To Gain Support For Illegal Iraqi Invasion."
Though rightwing shitheads will never admit it, this is HUGE news. It confirms what the Dems have been saying for the past three years. Their "support" for the Iraqi invasion was based solely on misinformation fed to them by the Bush/Cheney White House. Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel.

It confirms what the Dems have been saying for the past three years. Their "support" for the Iraqi invasion was based solely on misinformation fed to them by the Bush/Cheney White House. Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel.

It confirms? Please point this out in the article.

Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel.
#45 | Posted by moder8

*snicker.

You're more than smart enough to know that isn't going to happen.

Yeah. But it never fails to get a rise out of the wingnuts around here.

Hopefully Panetta's pitiful pathetic piece of political hackery won't damage the CIA's mission of secretly eliminating of our enemies.

Yeah. But it never fails to get a rise out of the wingnuts around here.

I think you need to change rise to laugh. That would be more accurate. BTW... Where is the confirmation in the article you spewed about?

Yeah. But it never fails to get a rise out of the wingnuts around here.
#48 | Posted by moder8

I think they should be, but I know what kind of President we have.

"Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel."

This might be the funniest, most delusional post I have ever seen. Literally.

Do you honestly think that this will be investigated? Do you honestly think that Pelosi wasn't briefed on the use of waterboarding? Porter Goss was there - he says they were.

No, this is just another wishy-washy "statement" that contradicts a previous one, and the hope of all involved is that the story slowly fades away and is forgotten. And since there were two statements, most partisan hacks will remember it the way they want to.

Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel.
#45 | Posted by moder8

Ya, right after BO lets all those terrorists out of Guantanamo. Keep waiting for it.

And since there were two statements, most partisan hacks will remember it the way they want to.

#52 | Posted by JOE

yes you already have

Hopefully, once analyzed and verified this will jump-start the prosecution of Bush White House personnel.
#45 | Posted by moder8

I think that is where the HOPE part comes in.

Of course the CIA lied to Congress. It is amazing that they are actually admitting it now. I would assume that some sort of proof is now available and they have to start with the CYA.

Nancy Pelosi was very brave or very foolish to take them on directly. But, ATM it looks like things are finally breaking her way. But, the CIA is tough. Only time will tell on how this one will turn out. I bet some serious deals are being made right now. Someone will need to be sacrificed I am sure.

I would bet that this is either about the Big Lie or Torture or both.

Can't wait for the hearings. I have got lots of popcorn and beer ready!

And we really need something good (besides another WAR) to bump Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin out of the evening news cycle. They seem be stuck there.

And since there were two statements, most partisan hacks will remember it the way they want to.

#52 | Posted by JOE

Except that one of them was a press release for public consumption, and one of them was sworn testimony before a Congressional Committee.

No necessarily of equal weight.

Do you have any proof that his new statement to Congress was made under oath?

Someone will need to be sacrificed I am sure.

Valerie Plame wasn't enough?

Has the CIA forgotten how to deal with traitors? I hope not.

Of course they do...Pelosi's job depends on it. Panetta has got his marching orders.

#3 | Posted by KBM at 2009-07-09 11:40

YES SIR...
just like the staterun media and all the little dupes here on our little site

fall right into the 'party line'...

nice work

So the Bush CIA lied to Congress during top secret sessions? Gee, I wonder what they possibly could have been lying about?

Lies which lead to war? Prosecute. Convict. Punish.

The article includes, "Reyes, in a later statement, said: "I believe that CIA has, in the vast majority of matters, told the truth. But in rare instances, certain officers have not adhered to the high standards. ... Both Director Panetta and I are determined to make sure this does not happen again.""

Uhhhhhhhhh... yeah, let's see, liars include, among many many others both Repubs and Dems: Obama, Dodd, Biden, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, Teddy, Ensign, Sanford, and Bush.

These congressman now want us to think, "how dare the CIA". We can think that, but let's also think, "how dare each of you". Now brace yourselves for at least 3.5 more years of lies! And if you voted for Obama, find comfort in the fact that anyone who believes Obama lies is a Right Wingnut!

Someguy-
You seem to omit the fact that the Bush CIA lied to congress by claiming that others lied without stating what they lied about. This is the tactic of liars who are caught lying. It's the classic "everybody does it" tack, and it doesn't answer the charge itself, but rather wishes to divert attention from the current issue.
I would advise others not to try this stunt at home.

Betelg,

Nope. I actually admitted that they lied. Just like all the others I listed. And don't confuse that pretty meaningless admission as a lack of concern about honesty on capital hill. Take it more as it's ridiculous for congress to point it out without much more. The old adage, don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. Now I'm glad they bring it to our attention, but I'm sad that hacks here can't accept that Obama, Bush, Ensign, Stanford, Clinton (both) can't just accept the lies of their own. Those who point out those lies are of course "partisan hacks"... the reality is that they're all liars, and if this story about the CIA concerns you, so should far more stories about numerous other politicians. Indeed, if there was a deflection there, I think it was your own.

#63 | Posted by Betelg

Personally, I am all in favor of digging into this.

This resulted in our country going into war.

This is potentially huge.

Having said that, a few thoughts keep creeping in:

1. The absolutely identical assessments of the Clinton administration.

2. The fact that numerous other intel agencies abroad mirrored the US assessments of Iraq.

3. The well-documented, chronic ineptitude of the CIA spanning its entire existence, even when it was in its infancy and called the OSS.

As much as the lefties want to draw and quarter Bush, I don't think it will happen.

Sorry.

JeffJ-
1. Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq based on WMD lies and 9/11 emotion.
2. Many assesments contradicted the Cheney/Bush line of bullshit.
3. It wasn't ineptitude, until you wish it to be, such as now

Sorry

JeffJ,

Great point. Of course it works both ways as you eluded to, and it's a shame that lefties and righties, or should I say "communists" and "right wingnuts"?, can't leave behind their partisan differences and simply fight for the truth.

Clearly there's a line in the sand between both sands and I respect that. But our intelligence, whether it be from the CIA, NSA, or our politicians explaining X, always seems faulty.

Bush's numbers never added up. And now nor do Obama's. "Right wingnuts" spent 8 years defending Bush nad the "Commies" are now defending Obama regardless of "the intelligence on the ground."

8 years told us that Bush was a crazy spender. Half a year tells us the same about Obama. Nearly the entire existence of the CIA includes some level of lies and distortions.

Wake up, folks. This isn't a "left" or "right" issue.

JeffJ-
1. Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq based on WMD lies and 9/11 emotion.
2. Many assesments contradicted the Cheney/Bush line of bullshit.
3. It wasn't ineptitude, until you wish it to be, such as now

Sorry

No need to apologize Betelg as it's common to have history wrong. You're right about Clinton not invading and occupying Iraq... do you recall the other things he did involving our military? I assume not.

Many assessments also supported the "Cheney/Bush line of bullshit." You voted for Obama so you hope what you say is true and wish to obfuscate today's issues through your repetitious claims against Bush. He's gone now. You should focus your time and energy on keeping the current president straight... you've apparently failed in this so far.

1. Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq based on WMD lies and 9/11 emotion.

He launched Operation Desert Fox, with strong support from the GOP.

2. Many assesments contradicted the Cheney/Bush line of bullshit.

Of course. Such is ALWAYS the case. However, the best intel available at the time far outshadowed those 'assessments' you allude to.

It wasn't ineptitude, until you wish it to be, such as now

The CIA has a long and well-distinguished history of ineptitude. They have gotten far more wrong than right. This is a well-documented fact.

Sorry.

Jeff J-
re: "You're right about Clinton not invading and occupying Iraq..."

Oh, am I?

thanks

Jeff J.-
re: "....wish to obfuscate today's issues through your repetitious claims against Bush."

Counter one.

Sorry...Someguy:

Counter one.

Betelg,

I think you're again confused. But this time it's about whose posting what. Either way, good factual retort. I knew this was called the "Drudge Retort" for some reason.

SG2,

I agree, this is not a left or right issue, it is about our intelligent agencies giving truthful information so our country can decide on decisions that won't get thousands of Americans killed.

You lose me when comparing money to lives. I can live but not like losing 1000s of dollars over lies but find it difficult when dollars changes to lives.

This isn't about clinton, nothing can be done now, it is too long ago.

Something can be done with bush and cheney and the only way to make our commander & Chief perform as expected is to take them to task.

Jeff J-
re: "However, the best intel available at the time far outshadowed those 'assessments' you allude to."

Uranium from Africa...aluminum tubes...Iraq training al Qaeda in bomb-making and poison gasses....drones capable of striking America...mushroom cloud, etc., etc.

All bullshit, and known at the time to be bullshit, or at least highly dubious, but presented as fact.

Someguy-
re: "repetitious claims against Bush."

Counter one. Prove your worth.

This isn't about clinton, nothing can be done now, it is too long ago.

Moneywar, why for one and not the other?

Betelg, I don't what you mean by "Counter One. Prove your worth." If you have some sort of factual retort then let's see it. If not, it's okay but don't again obfuscate with weird posts that are incapable of interpretation by the average reader like me.

Moneywar,

I didn't mean to compare money with lives. I full understand and appreciate the differences between the two. But to me a liar is a liar. Remember, the first whopper from the politicians is NOT to provide justification to go to war. Am I saying that Obama is just getting started on some war? No, obviously not. My point, however, is that you can't view it in isolation of the times. All lies have a purpose and are malleable to the current political environment and goals. That one might result in the loss of life, the other the loss of a lifetime's savings, the other a loss of whatever does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, both are lies.

Trust away if you must. I for one though will not be waving a flag that reads, "Bush's lies were BIGGER!"

Someguy-
re: Betelg, I don't what you mean by "Counter One. Prove your worth." If you have some sort of factual retort then let's see it....

You stated that my claims against Bush were "repetitious", but did not counter anything I stated.

Do so, or shut the fuck up.

Clear?

Moneywar, why for one and not the other?

Our laws can't get clinton, it is too long so bringing it up is stupid political rhetoric.

Something can be done with bush and just to let you know, if it was not too long for clinton I would say go after.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY POLITICS, it is about sending a message to our leaders they better be making the proper calls on their watch or go to jail.

Oh I see, Betelg. I'm sorry, I thought for sure you know that you claims, numbers 1, 2 and 3 had been made repeatedly since March 2003 or so. If you weren't aware of that then it's amazing that you take part on a message board such as the DR.

Again, you wrote, JeffJ-
1. Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq based on WMD lies and 9/11 emotion.
2. Many assesments contradicted the Cheney/Bush line of bullshit.
3. It wasn't ineptitude, until you wish it to be, such as now

Sorry

Did you really think that this diatribe was some unique slant against Bush? Surely not. Now you go STFU or present some hardcore facts.

And to answer your claim that you weren't refuted... you must have missed some posts. JeffJ and I pointed out that Clinton engaged in military conflicts, assessments also supported Cheney/Bush, and your last point wasn't worth refuting. Best.

Moneywar,

What law(s) would you arrest Bush under?

Someguy-
Start with this:

Uranium from Africa...aluminum tubes...Iraq training al Qaeda in bomb-making and poison gasses....drones capable of striking America...mushroom cloud, etc., etc.

All bullshit, and known at the time to be bullshit, or at least highly dubious, but presented as fact.

#76 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-07-10 01:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Challenge away, dude.

Uranium from Africa...aluminum tubes...Iraq training al Qaeda in bomb-making and poison gasses....drones capable of striking America...mushroom cloud, etc., etc.

I actually agree with you on this. Some of what was put forth was in fact bullshit.

However, it was widely believed, from a variety of sources at the time, that Hussein did in fact possess WMD's.

No, obviously not. My point, however, is that you can't view it in isolation of the times.

Yes I can, we have to at some point in time begin to take these lying bastards to task and now is as good as time as any, particularly since American lives where lost for such lies.

Someguy-
All of the statements I cited above were unique to the Bush/Cheney admin, at least as far as their public statements in the drive to sell you the war.

Challenge one.

Jeff J-
re: However, it was widely believed, from a variety of sources at the time, that Hussein did in fact possess WMD's.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-07-10 01:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

But not those capabilities, or those actions. Even I assumed that some old stockpiles of active battlefield weapons would be found.

That's not what Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld, etc. claimed in the marketing of the war and occupation.

Betelg,

Oh I see... I guess we understood your assertion as fully wrapped up in my response that, Many assessments also supported the "Cheney/Bush line of bullshit." You see, you claimed that there was evidence against the invasion (which clearly includes "Uranium from Africa" turning out false etc). My response was that there was evidence for it, too. I agree that both are true... kudos to you. My point was that you're repetitious attacks on Bush do nothing but obfuscate today's issues.

Do you take excepting to anything the current admin is doing? Let me guess, you said from 2003 - 2008, "Iraq wasn't even responsible for 9/11 man, what are we doing there?" Now you say, "yeah, man, Pakistan needs to go down, dude! They were like totally behind it and stuff."

Night.

However, it was widely believed, from a variety of sources at the time, that Hussein did in fact possess WMD's.

If you believe this shit you're one very political pandering ignorant hack.

Even suggesting any validity to such reduces a little respect I have for your postings.

IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT, 100% AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS IGNORANCE from a political pandering blindness.

Iran????????? Iraq?????? Put the political hacking back in and stop pushing such ignorance.

Someguy-
re: You see, you claimed that there was evidence against the invasion (which clearly includes "Uranium from Africa" turning out false etc). My response was that there was evidence for it, too. I agree that both are true... kudos to you.

There is one reality, or do you object to that as Bush-hatred as well?

Someguy-
re: Do you take excepting to anything the current admin is doing?

Of course I do.

You seem to have a pattern of trying to change the subject when you are losing an argument by pointing out the flaws of others when you are under ideological duress. Did you go to the Sean Hannity school of debate?

IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT, 100% AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS IGNORANCE

I question your patriotism

Bruce-
Whom are you quoting?

IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT, 100% AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS IGNORANCE from a political pandering blindness.

Shall I trot out the quotes from prominent Dems regarding this issue, dating back to the Clinton administration?

How about 16 UN resolutions passed against Iraq for violations?

How about the assessments of intel agencies from other countries?

BetelG correctly pointed out "some" highly dubious claims presented as fact.

However, it was far from "ALL" bullshit. Most of the intel available at the time pointed toward WMD's.

Good night folks.

Hey bruce, maybe "Jackass" will say what you want your strawman to say and then you can use that to call everyone you disagree with traitors.

Good luck.

BetelG,
don't pretend you don't know what I'm taking about.

And please don't use Jackass and bruce in the same sentence

and I guess I was quoting Moneywar,notice the capitol letters

Boyd is such a spazmodic little fruit cup.

not only that but I was on your side

You can never trust a gnawing mouse Bruce.

If the president or vice president ordered the CIA to lie (by ommission or commission) then they (the CIA) did what they are supposed to do.

The real issue is not, did they lie, but rather, were they ordered to lie and, if yes, by whom; if no, then what the fuck?

If yes, then we move up the chain of command.

If it was the ever popular "a few individuals, on their own, without authorization and unknown to their superiors", then we look up and down the chain of command.

But either way, we gotta look.

Has nobody ever seen a spy movie from the 80's? A long time ago, the CIA was the default bad guy for any and every movie. Somehow, we forgot all about their love of assassination and overthrow and moved on to thinking of them as heroes.

The coverup by the AEC and DOE of the real damage done to American Citizens through development of the Nuclear Power Plants and Weapons dwarfs all other lies combined. All steel manufactured since Hiroshima is too contaminated to be used for shielding particle physics experiments. Above ground testing led to the premature deaths of thousands of innocent people downwind. 3 Mile Island led to the premature death of thousands to various cancers, mostly in Pennsylvannia. Tailings and waste piles around the country remain poorly managed messes that would cost more to clean up than their programs cost to build and operate. All the true costs are covered up.

If the president or vice president ordered the CIA to lie (by ommission or commission) then they (the CIA) did what they are supposed to do.

The real issue is not, did they lie, but rather, were they ordered to lie and, if yes, by whom; if no, then what the fuck?

Laughable you can make that leap from the article. Almost as funny as some claiming the article defends Pelosi.

You hero Seymour Hersch is reporting Cheney had a CIA death squad under him without any knowledge from Congress. Not that anything Seymour Hersh has written in the last few years been accurate. By his account Cheney and Bush have already attacked Iran at least five times. Who did he write about before 2001? Seems like everything he has written were all about Bush and Cheney. Of course it all came from his mysterious inside sources.

The honest man must be a perpetual renegade, the life of an honest man a perpetual infidelity. For the man who wishes to remain faithful to truth must make himself perpetually unfaithful to all the continual, successive, indefatigable renascent errors.-- Charles Peguy

Crisppee's alter ego?

Crisppee's alter ego?

That was a serious post on the other thread Bani. What part of the post got your under your thin skin?

first self retort of the day ~ Crisp0? lol

first self retort of the day ~ Crisp0? lol

Actually I was expecting a link or correction. As opposed to the quotes.

"How you can equate CIA and Medicare/Medicade as "Govt Agencies" and draw any conclussion other than 'Diablo is really reaching'."

C'mon, Old whiskey. Don't pretend not to get my point: the same people outraged the CIA lied are aghast at government untrustworthiness but then they want government to have more power over medical care as if that will not be abused, too. And cap'n cruch trade will be just as subject to the liars and thieves who are drawn into government careers.

Crispee, Panetta admitted misleading Congress.

What part of that has to do with Hersh?

Crispee, Panetta admitted misleading Congress.

What part of that has to do with Hersh?

Not denying that he said anything. I just thought you made a huge stretch. Seeing as most of your posts are critical of Bush and Cheney, I used the Hersh reference.

So, Diablo, because the CIA admitts it mislead Congress, whether on orders, or not, we may not believe anything that any other Government Agency testifies?

That isnt a broad brush, you are painting with, it is a fricken can of spray paint.

Crispee, re examine my post and tell me, with which part do you disagree.

being CIA agent pays well ~ ask Obama:>)

Crispee, re examine my post and tell me, with which part do you disagree.

Nothing in the article implicates Bush or Cheney. Just like nothing in the article made Pelosi look any better. It just happens both posters equally hate Bush, Cheney and republicans.

Some of my best friends are republicans. I dont hate em. I just dont agree with them and I wont let their propaganda go unchallenged.

We should be able to believe the CIA when they testify before Congress. If we cant, we gotta fix it so we can.

I dont hate on nobody but the haters.

And Aflackababble, but he drives us all crazy.

So hopefully, all you rightwingers who are claiming that these revelations do not necessarily implicate Bush/Cheney will now begin clamoring to have the general topics of these "lies" made public. That way, if in fact they don't implicate Bush/Cheney they will be vindicated. And if, by some WILD UNLIKELY MINUTE chance the CIA lies were about the bases for the Iraqi war, then investigations and prosecutions of Bush/Cheney cronies can finally get under way.

Frankly, I am surprised that this HUGE news is not constantly being discussed all over CNN and every other major news service.

dont have time to read complete thread but surely some voice of reason...AKA>..conservative...mentioned the memo going around from the 6 or 7 DEMS who were supposed to be cleared to keep secrets from secret briefings but who are IN The interest of being dupes and stooges for the speaker of the house are divulging secrets from said meetings....as they pertain to this issue

so will there be libs here in an uproar for them to shut the fuck up or resign or is this just status quo for dems these days.......

I am betting that this explodes into the biggest story of the year.

Schakowsky described Panetta as "stunned" that he had not been informed of the program until nearly five months into his tenure as director.

Panetta had learned of the program only the day before informing the lawmakers, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

Internal probe
Panetta has launched an internal probe at the CIA to determine why Congress was not told about the program. Exactly what the classified program entailed is still unclear.

Of course they do...Pelosi's job depends on it. Panetta has got his marching orders.
#3 | Posted by KBM at 2009-07-09 11:40 AM

&

Didn't Panetta unequivocally say a few weeks ago that the CIA never lied to Congress? One has to wonder what made him "change his mind."
#9 | Posted by JOE at 2009-07-09 11:53 AM

There is more going on.

I'm rather doubtful that Nancy Pelosi has any control over Leon Panetta - otherwise her refute of the earlier CIA briefing wouldn't make any sense. If there was wealth distribution or some good reason to protect her you might have something more substantial - unless you believe Nancy Pelosi controls the CIA. I'd need some more to go on before making that assertion.

Why would the CIA "truthfully come forward" whatsoever? This seems completely opposite to George Tenet's tactics. For example George has said, "How could [an intelligence] community without a strategic plan tell the president of the United States just four days after 9/11 how to attack the Afghan sanctuary and operate against al-Qa'ida in ninety-two countries around the world?" So he was given the go ahead for torture interrogation, empoyed waterboarding while propping up the WMD claims for the Iraq invasion - which we now know was strictly for oil. The CIA are entirely deceptive.

Maybe things have changed radically during Goss and Hayden, but I highly doubt that.

CIA--Panetta lied to Congress this time, not the first time, or was it last time. Paging Nancy Pelosi.....you can lie all the time if you must...

Pelosi must have some dirt on Panetta to pry that statement out of his mouth. Maybe he got caught in a SF Tranny Cat House. Nah, more than likely she bribed him with something.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable