CIA Director Leon Panetta struck back at Speaker Nancy Pelosi today in a memorandum to CIA employees saying that she was fully and truthfully briefed in 2002. He indirectly accuses Pelosi of “making hay out” of the CIA and misrepresenting her briefing for political purposes. I discussed the Pelosi story last night on this segment of Countdown.
In his memorandum below, Panetta says “Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”
He adds “[u]ltimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.” Leaving this growing controversy to Congress with its continued machinations and manipulations is ridiculous. It is time for a special prosecutor who will not be hampered by grants of congressional immunity and leaked intelligence.
Message from the Director:
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.
For the full story, click here.
Kelly – – you really believe in Hell?
and Satan and all that stuff?
Really?
I’m not getting through. You’re still don’t getting it and I am long past my last nerve over the issue.
From where I sit, if we are all sitting in that dark crowded theater, Jill is the one yelling, ‘Fire”.
And if you still can’t understand that analogy, then, perhaps we all are at a bit of a loss.
I am not reactionary in that I am not on board with what I experience as mindless chatter which serves only to continue, rather neurotically in my view, in reinforcing false conclusions based on conjecture, fear, and hate.
Except for headaches, I gain very little from such exchanges, but then I’m also not the one here angling for a job in radio, which I am in a position of influence or a debate site.
I am not a psychiatrist and even if I was wouldn’t practice psychotherapy for nothing. My off hours are my free time. I will state that whatever personal unresolved issues people have around physical, emotional, and substance abuses, require active one-on-one help and you should seek it, however, I’m not ‘available’.
I’m all about the recipes.
Thanks to mespo, JT, Mike S. for being on my side even while uncomfortable
I take it I was the only one that went fishing? That’s a shame.
Mike Appleton/CCD:
I think CCD is right that this is an oasis from the foolish shouting matches most sites have become. In a perfect world I would agree with Mike A that no playground peacekeeper is needed, but alas, wonderful though we may be, perfection eludes us all. As FFLeo noted my suggestion was to raise awareness of the issue and relieve JT from being the “heavy” on the blog all the time. As many of the recent posters may not know, JT was much more active in previous times responding to comments and making suggestions. These are the “good old days,” to which Patty C alludes. The recent invasion of trolls and JT’s rise to prominence on the public airways due to his at one time lonely stand against Bush torture policy have certainly limited his time to converse with our little salon. My thought was that if enough peer pressure was voiced the name-calling might quit and,incidentally, a deserving charity would be the beneficiary of our experiment at self-enforcement. This, I thought, might lure JT back to a more active role instead of merely a shushing librarian. As always, I respect your opinion but maybe some idea as to my rationale might be of interest to you.
Patty:
Each of us should be allowed to reply free from personal attack. This site is an oasis of cyber civility, you helped craft it. Your friends and our gifted host are asking you to continue contributing to civil discussion.
“You have no control over me.” – Patty C
Exactly as it should be, I am sincerely you to please manage your own energy.
Mike Appleton wrote, in part:
“Besides, since this is not a grammar school playground, we shouldn’t require a peacekeeper.”
______________
Actually, in is worse since there are supposed lawyers involved. Isn’t conflict resolution a principal duty/function of an attorney? My suggestion of a mediator/arbitrator derived from some of the very canons of law to which you and other lawyers pledged and most likely perform weekly, if not daily. Of course, I realize this is just a blawg and I prefer to use that term instead of blog because I think the term is more appropriate unless it continues to deteriorate from the weight of argumentum ad personam.
No bother, I withdraw my suggestion, and I will simply speak up *if* Ms. PC continues to attack Jill personally and at the risk of engendering my own dismissal.
At some juncture in law, or rules, or whatever term you prefer to call instruments of social order at any level, there evolves the threshold of ‘cease and desist.’ Ms. PC has not just moseyed over that line; she long jumped it and is striving for the pole vault after eliciting several direct scratch fouls and warnings meted by the law coach.
Patty,
I claim you’ve been deleted because JT said he had deleted offending posts once before when admonishing you to lay off the personal attacks on Jill. Since he was admonishing you, it is not unreasonable to infer that the deleted posts were at least in part yours as I came in for the clean up, not the accident proper.
Mike A could have been channeling Siddhartha or Mushashi when he said, “I think it’s important to remember that none of us has control over anything other than his or her own reactions. I have to remind myself of that when I am angered by another’s comments.” Which highlights a distinction between you and mespo since you’ve hopped peerage claims and are calling “original Turlee” status (again): he is not a reactionary.
You should perhaps consider taking that lesson to heart. Again, your choice. If there is one thing living with an alcoholic teaches you is that when one encounters another bent on self-destruction, the only option available that works is to point the way out and stand aside – no matter how much you care about them. Several of us have pointed the way now.
Given your recalcitrant stance so far, all I’m hearing is the sound of a circle contracting.
I don’t know what this is all about, but I do know never to pick a fight with a member of the DAR! I enjoy the exchange of opinions on this site and have learned a great deal from everyone, especially the non-lawyers who constantly remind me that perspective is relative. With apologies to those Republicans who don’t know the meaning of the word, contributing to the arguments here requires empathy and the ability to recognize that none of us is the center of the universe, something which lawyers certainly forget at times. As for having a resident peacekeeper, we already have one and it’s his site. Besides, since this is not a grammar school playground, we shouldn’t require a peacekeeper. Strong, forceful arguments allow me to reexamine my own assumptions. Even sarcasm is useful when well played, or when responding to trolls and others who use this site merely to parrot the opinions of others. Finally, I think it’s important to remember that none of us has control over anything other than his or her own reactions. I have to remind myself of that when I am angered by another’s comments. It usually helps to avoid immediately posting a response in such instances. And that is pretty much all I have to say in the matter.
Is it not what we complain of about the most usually things which we think are not within our control? I am of the understanding that I may not control anyone but myself and if I do not control myself I have no hope for making a positive difference on anyone else.
We all making a difference on everyone. It is the difference that counts the most. As I see you, I see myself. If something about me or my inner worth is not settled, I may lash at you for the defects in me, why? Because it is easier to spot why you are different than why we are the same.
When I go a complaining, I know the fault is within me. If I am at peace within, then I have peace without anyone or anything.
This is how I used to run my life.
If I have no peace, you will certainly have no peace.
How is that to run one life? I missed a lot and lost a lot, while espousing a position that in the end no one was pleased with, because I was not pleased with myself. I may have won because the law was on my side, or out maneuvered you with the rules or intimidated you because my client was, my client and they expected to win.
I did not always feel good about winning even when the law was on my side.
So as Rodney King says, can’t we all just get along? And if we can’t get along, then maybe it is time for me to get along.
FFLEO, you can stick a fork in it!
I will say what I know to be true.
You have no control over me.
‘It got you deleted before, so by all means, make more work for our host. Be a bad guest, but you should remember that is EXACTLY what you are is a guest
So do as you will.’
—
I intend to! ;p
I’ve never been ‘deleted’ and I have to question why would you would make such a claim.
You have been ‘admonished’ more than I, and I was here long before you which makes sense, actually…
The major difference between mespo and I is that I am female. We share much more in common when it comes to being orginal ‘turlees’. We also have Personal Injury Law and Gastronomy in common.
You may not care about my ancestry but I do-very much.
I don’t care about it the same ways my grandmothers did or the way my mother still does for social reasons
My DAR paperwork has been in order since birth. My Mayflower Society paperwork has been in order for decades.
It’s not important to me for social outlets and connections. In fact, I avoid such things as much as possible…
‘An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure’.
And I have tons of manure for my gardens.
This blawg has an abundance of excellent people.
Since Waynebro departed, Patty C has been the *only* problem among regulars. No one else has been warned directly by Professor Turley regarding the same repetitive problem. That PC continues with her attacks on Jill is extremely disrespectful of Prof. Turley and harmful to Jill. Like Mike Spindell sometimes does, passionately attack Jill’s position with facts, logic, and reasoning and do not attack her person. Your law schooling should have taught you excellent debate skills and the avoidance of the fallacies of logic. Your Hippocratic Oath must ensure that you confer compassion toward all humans, Jill included.
The reason I spoke up is that by my silence, Jill and others might assume that others and I agreed with PC’s ad hominem abuse. I have abhorred PC’s attacks from the start but I still liked her.
Patty C, if you personally attack Jill again—and I do not mean hard direct rebuttals or refutations of what she posits—I will post numerous times asking Professor Turley to please remove you. I will do this until he decides to either remove you or *me*.
He, others, and I are displeased with President Obama’s statement of wanting to look forward and not look back at violations, although he is not looking back at your attacks on Jill and his repetitive warning for you to please cease and desist. At some point, the man must take a stand or he will appear *hypocritical* and his fine blawg will further be dragged down by your attacks against Jill. You have personally hurt Jill and you must stop. Perhaps part of my concern derives from my law enforcement career and training and part is a dislike for bullying by males or females.
If I am banned for asking for your removal, if you continue attacks against Jill, I will still access this blawg, but I will not post; the information here is just too valuable and fun to ignore.
Professor Turley is easily the finest constitutional lawyer I have ever read or to whom I have listened. He a prince of a man who I deeply respect, to the point that I would leave to avoid any further harm to his blawg, if you—as a doctor and lawyer—cannot control your demeanor anymore than a not-as-bad-as-you blue-collared Waynebro et al. could.
Buddha et al. Regardless of any outcome, you all have given me a lot to ponder and I respect each of the opinions you posit.
mespo & AY,
How utterly ungracious of me. Thank you both for the complements. One lives to be of service.
mespo,
I agree that our buddy is still lurking. But I see his attacks as sporadic for some time now. It’s like he’s either probing or struggling. Either is fine with me, but every so often I know it’s him. And really him too. Not Bron playing with Patty, but the full on psycho boy.