CIA Won’t Say Whether Panetta Disputes Pelosi Claim She Was Lied To
A spokesperson for the CIA is declining to clarify whether CIA director Leon Panetta is disputing Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the agency lied to her about the use of torture.
It has, of course, been widely reported that Panetta smacked back hard against Pelosi’s claim in that note he sent to CIA employees last week. But as Politico’s Josh Gerstein pointed out yesterday, a close reading of Panetta’s note shows clearly that he did not directly dispute Pelosi’s allegations.
The crux of Gerstein’s argument is that Panetta said: “It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.” That’s a statement of current policy and intent, not a rebuttal of Pelosi’s claims. And the part of Panetta’s statement that does address what was said in briefings is too vague to be conclusive.
So I asked a CIA spokesperson whether it was the CIA’s position that Pelosi was not lied to, as she has claimed. The spokesperson declined to elaborate, instead saying that Panetta’s note would have to speak for itself.
To be clear, this doesn’t prove one way or the other whether Pelosi was in fact lied to. She very well may have been told of the use of torture. Still, it’s sobering to think that while it’s been widely reported that Panetta disputes Pelosi’s allegations, this may not be at all true and may never have happened at all.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I dunno, Greg. Panetta said: “Our contemporaneous records . . . indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.” One can’t brief truthfully and lie at the same time. Perhaps the spokesman is saying that the note will have to speak for itself because they have been directed to not add any fuel to the fire.
On a more interesting note, have you seen this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5344290/Barack-Obama-breaks-four-aid-pledges-for-Africa.html
“US President Barack Obama has broken four campaign promises on overseas aid and risks reversing the successes of the Bush administration.”
question for you, SBJ: Which briefing was Panetta talking about in his note, the one for Pelosi, or the one for Graham? Because the language Panetta used describing the briefing applies to both of those, and for some reason Panetta’s note didn’t specify it was the Pelosi briefing. Why not, if this was supposed to be pushback against Pelosi?
And Zack Roth just reported that a CIA official told him the term EIT used in the CIA docs was not coined until 2006.
.
I’m a bit confused about which CIA docs are which, but could this mean that the reports about the 2002-03 congressional briefings were written in 2006 and back-dated?
.
Greg
.
Uhmmm I think I said just the other day that this would be the response if you asked again didn’t I? Thats why they want to stick with the statement so they don’t actually answer the question. At this point is there anybody who still believes that the “smacked Pelosi down” that doesn’t have a vested interest in thinking so?
Two points from my Department of Anal-Retentive Parsing: (1) Briefing truthfully does not imply briefing fully. (2) The question of whether those contemporaneous records are correct is not addressed at all.
.
Greg: I, too, would read his response to indicate that the contemporaneous records deal with ALL briefings during September 2002. But there is plenty of wiggle room, for sure. Why would Panetta do that? Dunno – is he trying to defend his own crew while not displeasing Madame Speaker? Perhaps. Is he trying to provide her a graceful exit? Perhaps. I don’t believe we’ll ever know the truth now because the backup notes will remain classified – both Panetta and Pelosi know that and are using it ot their advantage.
Now here’s a question or two for you – play fair now, I answered yours! (Since I know you won’t answer these how about just one? Why aren’t these questions important?)
1. When Nancy discovered that she was lied to in September 2002 why did she not confront Tenet? Why duid she not have those who lied to her fired/prosecuted?
2. When she discovered that she was lied to in September 2002, why didn’t she insist upon Congressional hearings?
3. How can Pelosi “share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community” if they truly lie to Congress “all the time” about the most serious matters of state?
4. Why didn’t Nancy do anything about “torture” when she learned about it in February 2003?
5. why would the CIA lie to Pelosi in September 2002, but tell the truth to a staffer just five months later?
6. In the 2 1/2 years that Nancy’s been Speaker, there’s no record that she’s scheduled any hearings or sponsored any resolutions regarding the CIA’s serial misrepresentations to Congress. Given that national security is at stake, why hasn’t she done so?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNjMzI5MGI0NzRmNDk5NzUwODQ1YjEwMjJmMDJiMjg=
Can’t remember which show I was watching last night but if I remember correctly the commentator stated Pelosi and Panetta are on fairly good terms with each other and Panetta coming out like that was a surprise to them.
.
Besides, didn’t Cheney, during his Presidency, pretty much control what came out of the CIA as far as briefings were concerned? I’d say a slap in the face of the CIA during Cheney years is a slap in the face of Cheney pretty much.
Always beware of someone who puts “…” in their comments. Highly likely they are leaving something important out.
.
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.”
Formatting fail
.
Always beware of someone who puts “…” in their comments. Highly likely they are leaving something important out.
.
.
I am sure they did truthfully describe techniques that had already had been used. But did they tell her that they had already been used? The memo doesn’t say does it?
jzap: I agree completely. I have little doubt that the CIA did not brief fully. But Nancy accused them of telling lies – a different matter. And I would add that Panetta cannot say that the CIA did not lie, and he cannot vouch for the accuracy of the background notes because he wasn’t there. He is accurately conveying only what he can.
“Two points from my Department of Anal-Retentive Parsing: (1) Briefing truthfully does not imply briefing fully. (2) The question of whether those contemporaneous records are correct is not addressed at all.”
That’s the kind of language lawyers use to say nothing and you can’t really get ‘anal’ about it – you need to pay attention. It’s slippery but Panetta has been making nondenial denials all along – he won’t say.
Very close, I think. She didn’t use the L-word herself, but replied with a definitive “yes” when she was directly asked whether she was saying the CIA had been lying. She followed that up with reiterating that she and Congress had been misled by the CIA.
.
Well, since the CIA docs re the 2002-03 congressional briefings have been reported by several sources to have factual errors, they could certainly be described as misleading.
.
But I think she was saying that the briefings themselves were misleading. There’s no credible evidence to dispute that — those CIA docs seem pretty well discredited — and many reasons to suspect the CIA was indeed not totally forthcoming.
.
I guess the we mostly agree, then. (Although I don’t think it’s fair to say that the docs have been discredited when we haven’t even seen them. That’s my point, really – since Nancy knows they won’t ever be seen she can lead us all to believe that they are inaccurate. Lanny can lead us to believe they say something else. Many here seem to be taking the word of partisan players as gospel without ever seeing the evidence.)
I am perplexed why more here are not disturbed by Pelosi’s lack of action and are instead leaping to defend her against a narow charge? We seem caught up in whether the CIA misled her which I believe muddies the true issue here. There is no doubt that Madame Speaker knew the CIA had “tortured” back in 2003 but she did nothing about it. Why isn’t that important to those who feel that such “torture” constitutes a war crime?
You are more perplexed why people here are not more disturbed by Pelosi’s lack of action than they are disturbed that torture occurred and instead of focusing on that torture occurred in our name (that includes you), we would rather point out the flaws with this red herring and move back to the fact THAT TORTURE OCCURRED?? Seriously?? Really? I am perplexed why you seem more disturbed that Pelosi may or may have not known more or less about torture occurring than that torture occurred, and are instead leaping to incriminate her against a narrow charge instead of leaping to incriminate the war criminals.
SBJ, I know that you may believe that we have always been at war with Eurasia, but Congressional Democrats didn’t have enough power to subpoena a White House coat check guy in 2003. For the record, if Pelosi really knew and enabled torture (which we already know is impossible because of the timeline: that “briefing” was months after the CIA had gone rogue), I want to be on the record as being completely comfortable with her dealing with every negative consequence possible. She could be lying about what she knew, but whatever she learned it was after the fact. I think that it is significant if the CIA is lying to top officials in order to hide some of their activities. That’s going rogue and is un-American. If I was okay with that sort of behavior from my government agencies, I’d learn Cyrillic.
Easy, mey: I don’t believe that we thought we were “torturing” anyone. I believe that we tried to aggressively interrogate within the boundaries of law. I am not ashamed of what went on in the case of these three who were waterboarded in my name. (BTW: There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Nancy knew in 2003 that “torture” had occurred. This is by her own admission.)
janine: One down, however many to go!
“I think that it is significant if the CIA is lying to top officials in order to hide some of their activities.”
Yes, of course, as do I. Please see my earlier question:
“In the 2 1/2 years that Nancy’s been Speaker, there’s no record that she’s scheduled any hearings or sponsored any resolutions regarding the CIA’s serial misrepresentations to Congress. Given that national security is at stake, why hasn’t she done so?”
…aaaannnddd we’re done! Thanks for playing.
“I don’t believe that we thought we were “torturing” anyone. ”
Why am I not surprised. Then why do you care what Pelosi may or may not have known? How can you state Pelosi knew about torture when you don’t believe torture occurred? Your logic is a big fat fail, and just in case anyone was trying to have a real discussion with you regarding this, they can now see what an utter waste of time and energy it is, and how giving you any further consideration is shameful.
Has Pelosi used the word “lying” in her public statements? If the CIA said “We never waterboarded Zubaydah” that’s a dead-bang lie. If they said “The enhanced techniques we employed on Zubaydah include w, x, y, and z” without mentioning waterboarding, that’s not a lie, but highly misleading. It also fits Panetta’s formulation of “truthful briefing on the enhanced interrogation techniques employed”. Panetta does not say ALL interrogation techniques employed. If the CIA further said “At this time CIA interrogation policy does not allow for waterboarding.” that again is not a lie because they had stopped waterboarding Zubaydah by the time of the Pelosi briefing. Put those two statements together and there is no technical falsehood. They told the truth up to a point and left the members of Congress to connect the final dots themselves. And hey, if the penny never dropped and nobody asked “Does all this mean that you never waterboarded Zubaydah?”, it’s not the CIA’s fault. They didn’t lie, did they?
I can’t believe that nobody seems to think the CIA is clever enough to say what they want to say, not say what they don’t want to say, without committing a technical falsehood.
janine: You DO realize that my opinions on “torture” and “truth commissions” are in line with the majority of people, don’t you? Who exactly is the sanctimonious one wearing the blinds here?
mey: You don’t seem to understand that this is a discussion about politics. I’m not arguing about whether torture occurred; I’m arguing that Pelosi (and her defenders) are hypocrites playing politics with important matters of national security.
I’m not expecting anyone here to agree with me (as if!), but I don’t believe tactics of closing ears and mind and not recognizing majority opinion or acknowledging hypocrisy is going to win you any converts. I DO appreciate the discussion.
sbj”I’m arguing that Pelosi (and her defenders) are hypocrites playing politics with important matters of national security.”
What’s worse is they all have aluminum tubes in their backyards with massive stockpiles of duct tape and plastic sheeting. You would be well served keeping a sharp eye on them, especially given their tendency towards supporting voter fraud and hiring activist judges and prosecutors. Don’t say I didn’t warn you…
???
It’s not that confusing “??” would have been sufficient. Seriously did you have a question?
No.
Great burn!
What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.