CIA: Liars, Clowns or Both?
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on May 12th, 2009 in War on Terror(1)
Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002. Today he weighed in on last week’s controversy over whether Nancy Pelosi was or wasn’t briefed in September 2002 about the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah.
To recap, the CIA made some absurdly half-hearted assertions which essentially said: our records show that Pelosi was briefed that we were using waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah, but we cannot vouch for the reliability of those records.
Nancy Pelosi issued forceful denials. In the absence of any other evidence, most people whose opinion I respect were inclined to believe Pelosi. In part, this was because of the CIA’s totally bizarre position on the issue.
Bob Graham’s statement yesterday reinforces Pelosi’s denial. But let’s remember that it can hardly be considered an independent and disinterested confirmation. Graham has exactly the same incentives as Pelosi to misrepresent the truth, if he was indeed briefed about the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on Abu Zubaydah. However, some of the details he furnishes clearly bolster the credibility of his claim.
With that caveat, here’s what Graham said:
Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me.
Graham’s assertion — his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied.
“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before.
[...]
The documents released late last week state that Graham, then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, were briefed on September 27, 2002 and given a “description of the particular EITs that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah. The document says that Pelosi received a similar briefing earlier that month, though the letter accompanying the doc acknowledges that the CIA can’t vouch for its accuracy.Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it “highly unusual” for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. “I don’t recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present,” he said. “That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold” on the info.
(2)
Here’s some further absurdity from the CIA on the subject.
The CIA letter we learned about last week, which disclaimed responsibility for the accuracy of its records, starts:
This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques.
That “most thorough information”, though, only represents the “best recollections” of individuals, as recorded in MFRs (memorandums for the record) written well after the fact.
And here’s what the Washington Post reported last Saturday:
“I have every belief that either (Pelosi) or [Harman] were told waterboarding was going on. I have no doubt that the Democratic leadership on this committee in the House knew it was going on,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who has been the top Republican on the intelligence panel since fall 2004.
Hoekstra, who requested the history of agency briefings of members of Congress, is also seeking notes made by the CIA during each briefing, documents that he said last week include “a very precise accounting of the substance of each briefing.” He said those memos would detail “not only the specific information provided, but also the degree of bipartisan consensus that existed with respect to the programs in question.”
In a letter to Hoekstra, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the classified memos describing what was said at each briefing would be available at CIA headquarters for review by congressional staff, according to an agency official.
So this is how the CIA operates? When key members of Congress are briefed on politically explosive matters with respect to which the CIA is hyper-keen to cover its ass, detailed notes are made during each briefing which represent a very precise accounting of exactly what was said and the degree of bipartisan consensus that existed with respect to the subject of the briefing. But when it comes to dates, locations, names of the members of Congress who were briefed, the best information available is the unreliable later recollections of CIA personnel who were present.
Why would anyone find it ludicrous that the CIA is able to keep a straight face as it says: “Hey, we know exactly what we said; we’re just not sure who we said it to, when or where. But we do know exactly what degree of bipartisan consensus these unknown attendees displayed.”
kk wrote:
(off topic rant: deleted)
Posted 13 May 2009 at 7:16 am ¶
JAY wrote:
PELOSI AND 60 OTHERS
YOU GO TO A BRIEFING AND THEY TALK ABOUT WATERBOARDING AND NOBODY OBJECTS TO IT EVEN BEING TALKED ABOUT
IN MY BOOK THAT MEANS THEY DIDN’T CARE
IF THEY USED IT. THEY ARE AS GUILTY AS
ANYONE ELSE, THEY ALSO SHOULD HAVE
TO TESTIFY AT A HEARING TO EXPLAIN THIS.
Posted 13 May 2009 at 7:53 am ¶
Ranz Muhamnitz wrote:
I have two issues:
1) The CIA is not known for their truthfulness to the American People historically.
2) West Coast Cap Peelers must not be aware of the actual meaning of the term “Cap Peelers”. Peeling someone’s cap means shooting them in the head. Perhaps I am not familiar enough with your organization.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 11:45 am ¶
Ranz Muhamnitz wrote:
I have two issues:
1) The CIA is not known for their truthfulness to the American People historically.
2) West Coast Cap Peelers must not be aware of the actual meaning of the term “Cap Peelers”. Peeling someone’s cap means s.h.o.o.t.i.n.g them in the head. Perhaps I am not familiar enough with your organization.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 11:46 am ¶
Florence wrote:
Does anyone remembers how when Republican senators were holding meetings behind closed doors and pack their stuff and leave when Democrats were knocking on the doors and wanting to participate?
If Mrs. Peloci said that she wasn’t informed, I believe her because I remember being so aggravated by them for not being assertive enough and let Republican act like Spanish inquisitions.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 11:50 am ¶
Darryl wrote:
OK let me see if I got this straight. A Congressional republican and democrat were briefed together as well as a senate republican and democrat and they have 2 different stories (lies) of what they were told.
OK I got it now, they really do believe the American public is stupid. I wonder if they are right? Let’s wait and see. I would be willing to bet anything that they all get reelected thus proving the governments assertion that the American people are gullible, stupid, and fail to pay any attention to what happens within the government.
The people of this country need to clear the sleep out of their eyes and realize that there is no republican vs. democrat divide, no black vs. white, no male vs. female; it is simply a case of the haves vs. the have nots.
I wonder what it will take before the American people will finally wake up?
Here is how I see this scenario playing out:
A) Nothing is done (the most likely scenario). This in turn produces a medium sized nation’s army of radicals. If you think it can’t happen your a fool. These people that are/have been tortured are being martyred and will be propagated into a radical movement like we have never seen. The pictures are already out and you can bet your best donkey that our enemies will use this for a battle cry and recruitment purposes. I am sure you all remember what happened to Christ, 2000 years later, it still draws people to that cause.
B) Someone in Washington develops the capacity for cognitive thought and prosecutes everyone involved and that includes soldiers, political figures, and anyone else either directly or indirectly involved, and then President Obama makes a statement that this type of behavior is not only un-American, it is sub-human, and will in no way be tolerated in this country. This may not stop the wave of retaliation that is sure to ensue; however, it will dampen it to a great degree.
Think about it folks, what would you do if your kids were tortured or murdered? If you wouldn’t retaliate, you probably have no business being a parent. Remember what we did after 9-11? That’s right we retaliated full force. Do you think Oklahoma City would have ever happened if one single person would have been prosecuted for the murderous behavior in Waco? It is a natural human reaction to retaliate when your people have been killed.
I wonder how many times our government has to learn the same lesson before they develop an ability to process information and make intelligent decisions?
Our government is exactly like a 3 year old child, it does not learn well from its mistakes and if you leave it unsupervised it will make a colossal mess of anything it gets its hands on.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
Darryl wrote:
Florence,
Surely you recall the democrats just did this exact same thing a few months ago with the bailouts right?
I sincerely hope you are smart enough to realize that republicans and democrats are nothing more than heads and tails on the same coin.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶
Dave wrote:
PELOSI = Professionally Elequant Lier On Stagic Issues
Posted 17 May 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶
matt wrote:
oh really?
maybe if you spoke only in anagrams, your spelling would improve.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Perhaps the real unfamiliarity is with both elementary logic and common sense.
Both of which would argue that the graphic accompanying “West Coast Cap Peelers” might speak to whether we understand the meaning of that phrase.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 4:14 pm ¶
Darren from Ontario wrote:
Saw John Boehner on John King this afternoon and felt he was the most intelligent I had ever seen him. Frankly, I was surprised. (Maybe I watch to much Countdown with Keith). Still he couldn’t stop himself from talking nonsense about Nancy Pelosi. If she were a Republican and all other facts were the same, he would be defending her and rightly so I believe. So why can’t politicians from either party using the same facts come to the same conclusion? They are not fooling anyone but themselves and the severely delusional( Rush et al.)
As much as I don’t like the far right, I don’t relish the idea of the dems running free without somebody to pull in the reins from time to time. Let’s face it, the Democrats could easily screw things up just as bad Bush did if they get to cocky and that is exactly what is going to happen if the GOP doesn’t get their s@$t together. Hmmm…maybe that’s there plan. Sad.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 6:26 pm ¶
Jael wrote:
There is three things I know on this debate:
1.) Releasing the more classified memos will not solve this debate from either side. Panetta saw to that when he released his statement backing off the reliability of the documents previously released. That placed a question about the reliability of any further releases. What moron would do this? I have an idea… how about cover for those put in an awkward position by there release. Sounds feasible to me.
2.) I have a feeling most people could care less about this debate. Most people that I’ve talked to on both sides of this think its a distraction at best. If the roles were reversed, the Democrat’s would be screaming and yelling. Enough, get back to what we pay you for.
3.) Pelosi needs to shut up. Her statements forced a Democratic appointee to defend his agency. She’s making it more difficult for Panetta to do his job and only hurting Obama and the CIA in the process.
Posted 17 May 2009 at 8:25 pm ¶
al wrote:
Isn’t it possible that since the CIA lied about WMD,
everything else about the “war on terror” is suspect?
Posted 18 May 2009 at 8:52 am ¶
PJ wrote:
I can’t fault the CIA too much for what they did. After all, they were responding to Bush Administration Policies. That they did not object to illegal torture is a different matter and should be investigated. Ultimately it happened during Bush’s watch and he’s responsible. Ask him. When Nixon lied he had the decency to resign. Bush never had such honorable
Posted 18 May 2009 at 9:06 am ¶