Haymaker: Panetta Contradicts Pelosi and Says That She Was Fully Briefed

225px-leon_panetta_informal_photo180px-Romanian_hayCIA 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.

115 thoughts on “Haymaker: Panetta Contradicts Pelosi and Says That She Was Fully Briefed”

  1. Buddha :

    Ditto AY. BTW looks like we’ve run our little “cussing jar” idea up the Turley flag pole and no salutes. I suggest we all just cool it, and bank our vitriol for the next neo-con outrage which is sure to befall us. I also suspect our buddy waynebro/Bartlebee etc., etc.is still among us as Patty C suggests. Maybe if we ignore him, he’ll slink away with his pal, Gaylord Faulker.

  2. Buddha,

    I like you. Your words are good. Your writing is even better. I like to gig you as I can. You are a good person.

  3. AY,

    To remain unseen, might I suggest a camo font? Given JT’s color scheme, I’m thinking urban camo. The problem is I won’t know when you’ve left me a message.

    Damn that Catch-22!

  4. AY,

    I have an Ex because she loved booze more than anyone, including herself or her daughter (previous marriage, not mine). She didn’t even quit when the doctor told her “You will die if you don’t stop drinking. Pancreatitis is a painful way to die.” I know. I was in the office. He then told her I should leave her if she didn’t stop. It took little awhile and a lot of money, but eventually I ended it. And not in way she was happy with. You don’t get anything with an annulment as a general rule. She got her clothes, what I chose to give her for furniture, and one cat that was indeed technically her cat although he loved me more.

    I sure miss that cat.

  5. Patty,

    Do what you like.

    You’ve mistaken this for being about you directly. It isn’t. People were suggesting either more work for regulars or for JT because you have been, quite frankly, a pissy little instigator lately. It was about that.

    But I would like to clear some things up.

    1) Hyperbole is my preferred methodology. You don’t like it, don’t read it. Hyperbole, to be effective, is a bit like mythology – it has to have a root of truth. You disagree with my truth? Fine. That’s your right.

    2) As far as wanting anarchy, no, I never said that. I said it was an inevitable outcome of the path we are on. I actually place odds at about 70% if Bush Co. walks, substantially less with prosecution. I’ve also stated on many occasions that the slide won’t be rapid, but a slow painful devolution barring something tragically stupid on the government’s behalf (which I do not discount given their proven track record in the Stupid category). It’ll take 25 years to completely degenerate at the current rate, but velocity is variable this close to the singularity as they say in the movies.

    3) Control? I have no control here nor any control issues here. This isn’t my playground. I just visit. JT is the boss. When you get censured, it’s not by me. I’ve stated many times that control is an illusion and that influence is the best humans can realistically hope to achieve. I’d also like to point out the time I’ve EVER tried to influence you is . . .

    4) I’ve tried more than once (as has JT, mespo and others) to mediate your hostility toward Jill, but with the recent expansion including the unprovoked attack on FFLEO, why should anyone bother? You apparently have one mode and that’s “reflexive attack”. You also suck at taking constructive criticism for someone who has the level of education you possess. I’ve never made it personal between us, Patty. If you just want to bust on me? You are barking up the wrong tree. I know you are an intelligent person who should know better, both in action and in concept. You want to keep pissing and moaning about Jill? Fine.

    Knock

    yourself

    out.

    I’ll raise nary an objection to the most vitriol laced anti-Jill rants you can assemble. Just don’t be surprised when the circle that takes you seriously starts to contract.

    5) I don’t give a damn who your ancestors were and neither does anyone else. It gives you no superior claim on anything. End of line. You want to be proud of your heritage? No problem with that, but you often use it as a cudgel. It makes you sound like an elitist who feels her entitlement to superior opinion is threatened by “us commoners” and our low born values. Again, say what you like, but that’s not a way to win over undecideds or keep to your friends from rolling their eyes when you do it. Your insistence otherwise notwithstanding, the skin you have in the America Game is no less nor any greater than any other citizen.

    6) The constant theme I’m seeing IN THE POSTS OF OTHERS is weariness at your perpetual hostility. 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.

  6. Buddha,

    You are Controlling, Now I know why you are broke and have an exwife. You did say wife? Well!!!! ANSWER ME.

    Is it true that the cattle are eaten and the sheep are never lonely?

    Disclaimer for Buddhas’ eyes only. There is an expectation of privacy, you can’t read this can you???

  7. I know fully well what the problem is for people, like me, who intimately value what the founding fathers (and mothers) accomplished, including my ancestors, when the Mayflower landed at Plymouth. I am a desendent of William Bradford, the first governor of Massachusetts which then included parts of VT, NY and Maine. He is buried in Plymouth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_(1590-1657)

    William Bradford died at Plymouth, and was interred at Plymouth Burial Hill. On his Grave is etched: “qua patres difficillime adepti sunt nolite turpiter relinquere” “What our forefathers with so much difficulty secured, do not basely relinquish.”

    That’s where I am coming from because that is where I really did
    come from. And in Latin, to boot!

    I take issue with the notion that our democracy must be or will be torn down if things don’t resolve on ‘anybody’s’ specific time table for effectiveness.

    By the way, the ship analogy has to do with making a correction and seeing the turn 1/4 a mile down the chennel. It doesn’t happen ‘on a dime’ as with a racing Olympic Class Soling or a G-22.

    Forgive me Buddha, I find you, at times, being very controlling and even hyperbolic in a few situations where you don’t have absolute control.

    The sky is not falling and anarchy is not the immediate or preferred answer, in my view.

  8. “Look, I like your posts in general, but the perpetual pissing match may not be the best way to go when trying to convert people who are not necessarily regulars when they stop by is what I’m saying. Audience, audience, audience. This is an inherent flaw with blogging over IRC – side fights could be taken private channel in IRC. Here they play out in public. We in the Choir need no preaching despite any differences we may have in methodology. It the Undecided that need guidance now. Would you take advice from a room full of teachers less interested in teaching than in personal vendetta and sniping? Some would, the really intrepid learner, but many more would say it’s just too much trouble. It’s not a deal killer, sure, but it has to have a net negative effect on marginal undecideds. People are lazy and that includes when learning. We should be making it easier on them, not harder, to decide that Bush Co. needs to go to trial and that the totality of the legitimacy of the Federal government are the stakes at risk. That is where the rubber meets the road – popular critical mass to force prosecution no matter who goes to prison, R or D.”

    Buddha,
    I sit at your feet with this explanation and have nothing more constructive to add.

  9. FFLEO,

    Not a bad idea nor are your candidates problematic for SOA. Both are fine men with a good sense of balance and proportionality. My qualm is that what amounts to an unpaid moderator isn’t, or more to the point “shouldn’t”, be required to reach consensus about in-fighting.

    We know what the problem is: Bush Co. and violating the Constitution.

    We know what has to be done: trials and penalties or the dissolution of the Federal government as invalid by the terms of it’s founding documents.

    We’ve seen that no amount of moderation will assuage some conflicts and that most of these are indeed personal, e.g. Bron’s identity. The Prof has already weighed in on this, more than once, and to no avail with Patty. So absent barring one (or both) of them, what else is there as a practical punishment? Censure is all there is in a forum like this. And that is strictly JT’s call. This is his playground after all. I’m not saying he couldn’t use a little help now and again, but it seems to me that if it’s a banning offense, such as those committed by Wayne acting like a stalker, that he does take appropriate action. Otherwise, he warns us to play nice and may spot delete offending posts. He’s done it fairly and consistently to my eye. Having been subjected to this process, I must say the Prof’s eye is just. The question then becomes why add an extra layer of (essentially) management unless JT just wants the help?

    I’m not saying you’re wrong or it’s a bad idea, but absent a specific need of the Prof’s (one which I would be perfectly willing to accept), I just don’t see what we’d accomplish as a matter of functionality except for adding to either mespo or Mike A’s plate – something they may not either want. They come here to blog and chat too, not mediate.

    I try to keep my personal rule this simple: Be a good guest. I don’t post anything I think would create extra work for JT, even if it’s just hitting a button to delete a post. Hell, career, radio and TV, and saving the country aside – the man has four kids! Show some mercy on that work load! Which, conversely, is also why I’d understand if he wanted a moderator to help out. He moderates this rowdy and boisterous crowd pretty well given his workload. We are, at best, a hand full on some days.

    But my suggestion is to keep it simple.

  10. I am my own judge. I have reasons for behaving the way I do.

    Mespo and I are practically joined at the hip. He will tell you, it wasn’t like this before Bartlebee who Jill took on as her BFF, which I found telling. He portrayed him self as thoughtfully ‘religious’ when in fact he was a most abrasive, combative, foul-mouthed, and obnoxious individual. He, meaning Bartlebee/ Cromagnum Man/Waynebro etal, wants to start a debate site and have ‘turlees’ be the judges. I’m not interested.

    I used to post here because it was fun. We used to have a good time. Now it’s mostly out of habit.

    What goes on here is not ‘debate’. It’s All-Jill, All the Time.
    That wouldn’t be a bad thing if she knew what she was talking about. She doesn’t. And no matter how many times she keeps repeating the same garbage, it’s still garbage.

    I want to get back to having intelligent discussions.

  11. FFLEO:

    Buddha would take to this job like a duck to water, he would scare the willies out of any recalcitrant troll or regular who may be going askew.

    Mespo and MikeA would be good as well.

    Also MikeS would be good as a peace keeper too.

  12. PattyC:

    Please accept my apologies if/when I have been offensive. I know I have been on a couple of occasions, but I dislike being accused of being someone else. It is a failing on my part.

    Also your recipes are actually very good, I have made a couple and have saved the others in a file for later use and experimentation.

    Yes I am very conservative but apparently only on the fiscal side, my bent on the social and legal side tends, unexpectedly, to the more liberal outlook as I find myself in agreement with most on this blog about individual liberties and the constitution.

    I did not vote for Mr. Obama and do not agree with his fiscal policies but I do wish him well, as I can only imagine the day to day problems he deals with.

    you may accept my apology or not, but please refrain from referring to me as WB, GF CMM, B or any others you may think me to be.

  13. Okay, I have one more suggestion. I like all of the regulars, notwithstanding my recent discussion with Patty C. Therefore, why don’t we regulars choose or vote for one person who we all like and respect to be the judge of who needs a gentle reminder or a permanent dismissal by Professor Turley.

    Our Sergeant at Arms (SOA)/Supreme Court Judge would have complete control on determining ad hominem abuses; if 2 or more occurred he could e-mail Professor Turley who could quietly correspond with the regular personally via e-mail or on the blawg, if no e-mail was available , if he chose to take an appropriate action. I assume Prof Turley has all of our e-mail address available to him from our posts.

    Now, we could not post and complain to the SOA that such and so was a’cussin’ up a storm or was a’pickin’ on poor little what’s their name to get the SOA’s attention and perhaps biased compliance. There will be no need for PayPal or whatever.
    The SOA would post some basic #1 Legal Blawg etiquette rules to which we must adhere and they can be very succinct.

    Here are my 2 choices of whom should become the one SOA/SCJ.

    Mespo727272

    Mike Appleton

    Both are fine, intelligent, courteous, gentlemen attorneys.
    Mespo72 is my first choice because he is here most often.

    The Republic at Work! (not a complete plural democracy)

    FFLEO

  14. Patty,

    I simply don’t see the venom in Bron that goes with the poster you keep referencing. Is he right of most of the posters here? Probably. Poking at you doesn’t, however, equate to being one and the same as CCM. After all the ration of crap you’ve given him for supposedly being CCM, Bron poking at you is a bit deserved if it was him. But if it was CCM, then who do you think wins when he pulls your chain like that to keep you fighting with people who have essentially the same goals (restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution)? Personal animus is one thing, especially when merited, but when you let it be an opening for distraction or disunity against the criminals then it is a liability. As an observation, Jill usually leaves you alone when you leave her alone and mutual avoidance seems the best policy since neither of you can let go of the bee’s in your respective bonnets, Bron only messes with you when you are accusing him of being someone else and AY was poking at you because it is 1) his nature to smack around trolls and 2) you were indeed coming off a bit trollish in your attacks.

    Look, I like your posts in general, but the perpetual pissing match may not be the best way to go when trying to convert people who are not necessarily regulars when they stop by is what I’m saying. Audience, audience, audience. This is an inherent flaw with blogging over IRC – side fights could be taken private channel in IRC. Here they play out in public. We in the Choir need no preaching despite any differences we may have in methodology. It the Undecided that need guidance now. Would you take advice from a room full of teachers less interested in teaching than in personal vendetta and sniping? Some would, the really intrepid learner, but many more would say it’s just too much trouble. It’s not a deal killer, sure, but it has to have a net negative effect on marginal undecideds. People are lazy and that includes when learning. We should be making it easier on them, not harder, to decide that Bush Co. needs to go to trial and that the totality of the legitimacy of the Federal government are the stakes at risk. That is where the rubber meets the road – popular critical mass to force prosecution no matter who goes to prison, R or D. This country does not belong to either party or to the lobbyists. It belongs to We the People and is founded upon the Rule of Law. But those Neocon bastards will take it from us if we don’t start escalation now and escalation now (to me) looks a lot like winning new converts from the undecided column. Better converts now than recruits later, if you get my drift.

  15. Mr. Panetta has an obligation to protect his agency and build morale. Having said that, he knows no more than anyone else about what was said at any of the briefings because he didn’t attend them. However, I very much trust in the integrity of ex-Sen. Graham. I would not be surprised if individuals in the CIA ponied up memos on meetings that never occurred, particularly if there is any fear of prosecution. And if Nancy Pelosi gets dragged into the investigation, that’s fine with me. No one has been pushing for a partisan effort, after all, except for Republican partisans.

  16. ‘Parallel to the shore’ is my signature line, here, about surviving being sucked in to other people’s dis/misinformation on politics.

    It’s not a complete ‘way of being’, for me. I continue to post here because I remember what it was like in the beginning. I give my time freely with one condition. I don’t want to be the recipient of petty high school BS. I don’t have time.

    A lot of what is assigned to me is others projections.
    I don’t make it personal until it is intentionally being launched my way.

    I don’t play games. I call it like I see it. If someone behaves like an ass, has been called same by many, and even admits to being an one, then why is it a surprise that I experienced them same way? Quacks like a duck!

    p.s. See what I mean? Bartlebee/Waynebro/Cromagnum Man/ Gaylord Focker is cruisin’…! Any bets on how long he’ll last this time?

  17. Patty,

    See?

    People will use your obsessions against you. In this case to either 1) fan the flames or 2) make you look paranoid (which you aren’t).

    Winning isn’t everything. How you win counts too. Winning is everything is how we ended up with PNAC and the Neocons.

    And if that was just Bron jerking your chain? Knock it off, Bron. That IS his type of humor.

Comments are closed.