Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
Does the CIA Ever Lie? Parsing the Pelosi Torture Controversy
The debate over Bush-era torture tactics like waterboarding has morphed into a full-blown Washington scandal. But the target isn't the Bush administration officials who ordered the torture; instead, the corporate media's focus is on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who claims that she was not fully briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in late 2002. The prevailing assumption in much of the coverage is that the CIA couldn't possibly have misled members of Congress--despite the fact that this has happened repeatedly.
The media reaction has been intense. Right-wing pundits and the Fox News Channel are treating the issue as the most important political story of the moment. Pelosi is "undermining our national security. She's emboldening our enemies," declared host Sean Hannity (5/15/09). MSNBC's Morning Joe has covered the subject repeatedly, with host Joe Scarborough expressing utter disbelief (5/15/09) that the CIA could possibly have misled Pelosi, since Congress could cut off the CIA's funding. "They would never lie to Congress, because they would be crushed," Sen. Kit Bond (R.-Mo.) said on the show.
More centrist pundits tended to focus their criticism on Pelosi's handling of the controversy. MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked (5/15/09): "Just how much damage did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi do to herself yesterday? Her accounts of what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it are so confusing, so ever-changing and so convoluted that she's made herself an easy target for Republicans and now for the CIA itself."
The Washington Post's Dan Balz wrote (5/15/09) that Pelosi "took the remarkable step of trying to shift the focus of blame to the CIA and the Bush administration, claiming that the CIA accounts represented a diversionary tactic in the real debate over the interrogation policies. That amounted to a virtual declaration of war against the CIA." It's unclear why it's "remarkable" to suggest that the discussion should focus on the agency and the administration that had a secret torture program, rather than on someone who may or may not have been informed about the program.
While Pelosi's performance at her May 14 press conference has been derided throughout the media, it is hard to see how Pelosi's story has been, as Matthews put it, "so confusing, so ever-changing and so convoluted." A compilation of Pelosi's statements put together by the Washington Post (5/15/09) show her taking a straightforward and consistent stance that she was only briefed once about interrogation techniques and was told the U.S. was not using "waterboarding."
Of course, without having attended the briefings, there is no way to judge who is telling the truth--the CIA or Nancy Pelosi. But the media frenzy over the divergent stories seems to discount the idea that the CIA would ever mislead lawmakers about its actions. This view is hard to square with history; as Adam Serwer noted at the American Prospect's blog Tapped (5/15/09), a recent book on the CIA by New York Times reporter Tim Weiner recalled several examples, including former CIA directer Richard Helms telling the Senate in 1973 that the CIA had no involvement in that year's coup in Chile, a lie that led to Helms pleading guilty to perjury in 1977. Weiner also described CIA director William Casey's frequent dissembling in the Iran/Contra scandal.
In 2001, a plane carrying Baptist missionaries from Michigan was shot down in Peru as part of a drug interdiction program run by the CIA and Peruvian officials. The victims' cause was taken up by Republican lawmakers, and an ensuing internal CIA investigation "concluded that agency officials deliberately misled Congress, the White House and federal prosecutors" about the incident (Washington Post, 11/21/08). "CIA officials in front of my committee may have allowed incomplete or misleading statements to be made," Rep. Pete Hoekstra told the Post (R-Mich.). Hoekstra's concerns are ironic considering, as the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence committee, he has emerged as one of Pelosi's chief antagonists, calling the speaker's charges that she had been misled by the CIA "outrageous accusations" (CNN American Morning, 5/18/09).
As Jason Leopold recalled (Truthout, 5/15/09), the Washington Post reported in 2006 that Mary McCarthy, the CIA's former deputy inspector general, believed the CIA was lying about its interrogation practices when it briefed lawmakers. As the Post reported (5/14/06), McCarthy "became convinced that on multiple occasions the agency had not given accurate or complete information to its congressional overseers."
The evidence against Pelosi, meanwhile, is often wildly overestimated. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote dismissively (5/17/09) of Pelosi's "campaign for self-vindication," since to him the evidence is clear: "If you read the CIA's careful 10-page summary of the 40 briefings it has given to Congress since 2002 on 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' it's pretty hard not to conclude that Pelosi is shading the truth to retrospectively cover her backside." Not really; the summaries are short descriptions of the subjects that were covered in the briefings. Pelosi was briefed on one occasion (9/4/02), according to the CIA's summary, which does not mention the term "waterboarding" being used, though it is specifically mentioned in the summaries of 12 other briefings. Ignatius went on to recall an instance during Iran/Contra where the CIA was apparently more honest than its critics in Congress--a rather narrow view of that scandal.
In addition, another Democratic lawmaker--former Sen. Bob Graham--was listed as having been briefed four times. When Graham--a famously meticulous diarist--told the CIA that he was actually only briefed once, they agreed and corrected their records (NPR, 5/15/09). Why such records are treated as if they are beyond question is puzzling. Rep. David Obey (D.-Wisc.) complained that the summaries listed a staffer as having been briefed on interrogation techniques who, according to Obey, had actually been specifically excluded from the meeting (Associated Press, 5/19/09).
In short, an agency has been accused of breaking the law and has admitted to destroying key evidence (videotapes of some interrogation sessions) that could implicate its personnel in that lawbreaking (Washington Post, 12/7/07). The same agency has a record of misleading members of Congress (among others) about its activities. And somehow the point of the current media scandal is whether or not Nancy Pelosi is telling the truth?
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllThe CIA would never lie to Congress..and Congress would never lie to the American people...and the American people would never lie to each other or themselves...and pigs would never fly without a valid licence....and Dick Cheney is an honourable man....and George Bush is very intellient....and the GOP really only cares about the poor, rural people.....LOL
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
everything that is coming out shows a simple pattern:
from the economic system that is cruel and exploitative, to the politics that is craven , to the policies that are warlike and grasping , to the methods that are just plain evil, the culture of violence , and even the history of the same things:
U nited S tates of S adism
But the pig flu.
The MSM is hopelessly corrupt, as is the government it serves.
Of course the Cia and the police always lies!!
http://www.rinconsocial.com/
Both Pelosi and the CIA need to be A-B-O-L-I-S-H-E-D, PERIOD !
hmmmm, I have seen this movie before.
Remember when it came to the attention of the general public through news reports (mainly cbs I think) that Bush had not even bothered to show up for cushy national guard service he was obliged to perform, service that was to take the place of actually risking his life over Vietnam like less well connected pilots?
The story(now known to be accurate) included a letter from his commanding officer, and this letter had not been properly vetted by cbs.
So, the upshot is that the detail of the unverified letter overshadowed the larger issue, namely Bush's less than heroic avoidance of the war, his not performing even the minimal national guard requirements, and the manner in which political strings were pulled to get him that job in the first place.
This was a key issue, what with him subsequently being presented as a hero, landing on "mission accomplished" carriers and starting wars of his own.
Perhaps we are seing the Bush draft dodging scandal redux. Is the goal of those seeking to decriminalize torture, to have the public miss the "forest" of war crimes by focusing on the "tree" in which they see a tactical advantage?
Sioux Rose
JLOCKE: Your illustration is well-taken; and yet I would add that Ms. Pelosi is getting her karma for something else entirely. After all, she arrogated to herself that choice to ensure that impeachment (so deserved!) was off the table. This began a process that bypassed law in this nation. The Democrats were the only force positioned to offset the lawlessness of the Bush Junta. Now she is learning head-on what it feels like to make a deal with the dark side. These macho heros love to throw women under the bus first, Sybil Edmonds, Ann Wright, and the woman who tried (Bunny something?) to blow the whistle on the no-bid weapons contracts, just a few examples.
So it's ok when men get thrown under the bus but not women? There are more men in prison than women and sometimes women waste too much money shopping for the crap that's made out of oil which we fight our resource wars for. Karma smarma ! Maybe that's what they're getting for taking their gender for granted? There are good women and then there are the pesky dingbat type who won't quit their screeching and can give others a fucking headache ! Besides, women can wear anything they want, live longer, and be showoffs not that I give a damn but quit calling women the main victims. They're doing just fine and even flying high !
odoco
maxpayne - I love your posts! Either your irony, or, your ignorance is most refreshing. I am still trying to comprehend which it is . . . .
I am not screeching at you, MaxPayne, but you perhaps might read some books on the history of women. Religions, cultures, societies, nations are patriarchal hierarchies, and brilliant women and ordinary women alike have been second-class citizens and limited in where they could go, what they could wear, what they could do, what they could earn, what help they could not receive because of their gender.
The patriarchal culture is still prevalent today. The one conclusion we can come to is that because MEN have been in charge pretty much throughout history, the world, as we know it, is in danger of total destruction, and such things as peace, and cooperation, and the common good get short shrift because MEN still very primitively seem to have the need to demonstrate that they are the top Gorilla.
Men primarily use one side of their brain. Thinking is linear and more cerebrally tunnel-visioned, except for those men who are very evolved and are able to think and perceive wholistically as women do because both sides of their brains work easily together, e.g., Einstein, Leonard Bernstein, ... Jesus. The mind, heart, spirit collaboration and connection equals wholism, imagination, broader vision, deeper feelings.
When you write what you have, as above, you just demonstrate the kind of knee-jerk ignorance that has created, in your term, "fucking headaches" for the whole world.
Women are not doing just fine in most of the world, and in this country still.
Please take the time to educate yourself in the areas of history, economics, sociology, and anthropology about the life of women as opposed to men in the predominant patriarchal systems.
And "Karma smarma"? Karma means action, a range of positive action to negative actions, inclusive of thoughts. Karmic outcomes have to do with the universal laws of consequences for one's actions. Sometimes the consequence can be immediate: grab a red-hot coal, your hand will be burnt. Make a choice for killing people with others cheering you on, sooner or later the payback for that comes, and ... I know you won't like this ... if not this lifetime, in another or another or another ..
Your last comments about women suggest to me that you might avail yourself of some therapy because obviously women who have been in your life, perhaps starting with your mother or mother figure and perhaps your own father's attitudes towards women have colored your perceptions and caused you to have angry feelings, which have not yet been dealt with, but keep popping out irrationally. Finding out about yourself and your own emotions would be of great benefit to your comfort level and a more reasoned and reasonable attitude.
Excellent book to read: MEN WHO HATE WOMEN AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE THEM - Susan Forward Ph.D. pages 99-100 or thereabouts is the best description I've ever read as to why Men become Women Haters. And that does come through in what you write and your unbridled to vicious attacks on Sioux Rose yesterday in the comment section of another essay. And a few other men joined in the attack.
Nuf said. And I am not screeching. Just observing and perceiving an obvious emotional problem and very limited, knee-jerk thinking which keeps coming through in many of your statements
peace, cm
I understand the pain and suffering women went through in history and all but there have been improvements and in lots of ways women have advantages over men, not that I mind but I just don't think they're capitalizing on it at times. Women have a longer life span than men today compared to a century ago. Women can wear everything men can wear but not vice versa, not that I care. There are mainly men in prison more than women for those who are incarcerated.
Ah ... thanks for responding so gently.
Think and learn GLOBALLY and UNIVERSALLY, Max.
Here's an interesting site I came across this morning you might want to check out, including The Apocalypse Code article, which is right in line with Sioux Rose's interests, knowledge and perceptions, and also a current article on Male Patriarchy and Spirituality, and many other articles I found fascinating to enlightening.
www.realitysandwich.com
I try to read everything with an open mind, so that so much that I might reject because of learned mindsets lets different forms of light in, and then I usually understand again that there are many levels and many interweavings that wholistically make sense, but particular notions taken singly may by themselves seem way out or foolish or even NUTZ.
We are in a dangerous dilemma in this time of our history ... and I'm always looking for ways to connect us all in benevolence so that we will have a future.
peace, cm
LeeAnnG
The reason women can wear "men's" clothing but men cannot wear women's clothing is due to male attitudes. There is nothing many men fear more than being seen as feminine. A girl can be a tomboy, and few people are bothered by that. But call a man's son a sissy, and he will be outraged. This is not a restriction against men, but evidence that, in the minds of lots of men - and some women, it's better to be male than female. And you think this is an "advantage" women have?
My ex-husband asked me once (I have no idea why) if I'd be embarrassed if he wore a dress. Of course, I said no because what he wore was none of my business. And also because I agree that if women can wear business suits or jeans, men should have the option of wearing dresses. He was so upset that I wouldn't be bothered at his wearing female attire, he brought it up years later during our divorce as one piece of evidence that I am ashamed of being a woman. And that I didn't respect him. (No, this does not make sense at all. I'm simply relating his reaction.)
My niece's husband got seriously bent out of shape when I called their son "Nicky" when he was a baby. He saw this name as effeminate, and he wanted to make sure I never called him that again. He thinks Ryan is a sissy name! He said he wondered how anyone could possibly name a boy any name that girls also have. His son, needless to say, has never had a doll to play with. (OK, I do see that as a restriction. But it's still due to the attitude that it would diminish his son if he were allowed to do something girly.) Many, many women have told me that they think it's healthy for their sons to play with dolls, but their husbands "won't allow" it, and they go along with what their men want. So much for women's power.
On the other hand, my new husband has absolutely no negative attitudes about women and does not see them as inferior in any way. He sometimes wears a tie-dyed shift (dress) during our yearly party, and all my old and young hippie friends think it's very cool. He is so secure in his own humanity, he can wear a dress, stay home and take care of the house while I'm working, and never be concerned whether or not he's being "masculine" enough.
So-called restrictions on what men can and cannot do have nothing to do with women's greater freedoms. They much more often have to do with the fear men have of being identified with the "inferior" gender. When more men stop worrying about being feminine and start being concerned with being human, they will be able to wear whatever they are comfortable in, perform activities associated with women, and even call themselves less-than-masculine names without fear of damage to their macho self-images.
leeanng May 21st, 2009 10:46 am: Ryan is a sissy name? You mean like former Chicago Cubs star Ryan (AKA 'Ryne') Sandberg? Nicky is effeminate? Wow. I think it's an understatement to say this man had a serious problem with his masculinity. (Did he buy a red sportscar when he turned 45?)
But it's all part of our confused and archaic culture when it comes to sex. It may be Psyche 101, but there is a strong current of latent homosexuality among males in our country. Some men who purport to be 'straight' seem to spend most of their waking moments talking about how 'gay' someone else is and, in certain areas of American society, particularly those that glow red on the electoral map, men have casual sex with other men only they differentiate -- to be a 'catcher' is gay, to be the 'pitcher' is fine. (Sandberg wasn't a 'catcher,' by the way.) I also think it's telling that the largest audience for the show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was in regions of the country that vote heavily Republican and allegedly believe in every word of the Bible. Suffice it to say there are a lot of closets in this country, and they're filled to the brim, but not with clothes.
A friend who lived in northern and western Europe and Turkey for some years said homosexuality is open, accepted and barely remarked on by most straight European males, but in Turkey, where it is outlawed and the penalties are harsh for gay men, it is a common topic of derisive conversation among 'straight' men, many of the same people who are picked up for frequenting gay male prostitutes. (Of course, Turkey is also as sexually repressed as the US.) I think the obsession with gay sex, in both America and Turkey, is a tip-off to the attraction it holds for supposedly heterosexual men in these repressed, neo-Victorian cultures. There are Larry Craig's everywhere in the US, many more than our Big Media is willing to admit.
What we resist
P E R S I S T S
too bad we were in such a hurry to destroy the 911 evidence left behind at ground zero, or maybe we wouldn't have to resort to torturing anyone...why were we in such a hurry to destroy the evidence at the crime scene, again?
maybe if we just asked the 911 eyewitnesses, including fire and police, we would learn some stuff...why aren't we doing that, again?
What evidence... The rubble with bodies smashed to bits?
"What evidence" you ask, how about all the structural steel that came from the downed buildings, was kept from investigators and shipped to China. It showed every indication of demolition explosives. 4' thick steel columns do not get burned through from a fuel fire. What do you think brought down building 7? It was not struck by any aircraft, it had minimum damage from debris from the towers. Every video shows a building being purposely demolition destroyed.
It is pretty weird how quickly they got rid of that structural steel from the buildings. As if they knew what damning evidence they would contain.
Speaking of movies, this reminds me of that line from "JFK" -- "We're through the looking glass here, people."
If you study the history of 'The Company,' it's apparent they rarely work directly; instead, they weave plots within plots, some contradictory, and leave happy trails of red herrings to confound their enemies, whether foreign or domestic. Generally, what is obvious is a false front and is really the opposite of the agency's goals. It's how they do business, at home or abroad.
Bush and Cheney weren't popular with Langley, I understand, and many there would like a nice cold plate of revenge. If info was leaked that simply attacked Bush and Cheney outright and called for an investigation -- such as the recently released torture memos -- the GOP and their media friends would fight any investigations tooth and nail, as they have been doing.
Instead, what better way to get both the Dems and the Republicans to demand investigations, which will inevitably snare members of the Bush Regime, than to go after a prominent Democrat -- in this case Pelosi?
You now have short-sighted Republicans demanding investigations, apparently unaware of the can of worms such investigations would open: once the hearings are held and the Condi Rice moments are on TV -- "The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing by the CIA was entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US'" -- it's too late to put them back in the jar, and the CIA has left few fingerprints on the operation.
Pelosi is dispensible -- it wouldn't bother me a bit if she were to lose her Congressional seat. (I hope Cindy Sheehan tries again.)
Of course, it's ludicrous to say the CIA never misled Congress but, this time, maybe they're actually batting for the home team.
The mission of the CIA is to lie. Organizations like it and the FBI do NOT belong in a democracy. That they are should send a very clear message about what the USA is and is not. They are no different from the KGB and GRU of the USSR, and we know well what their mission was inside that empire. It varies little here.
Obama has failed those who elected him, but he has exceeded expectations by those who bankrolled his election. On 21 January 2009, I declared ObamaInc to be the new Public Enemy #1. Most now would concede that I was correct. Without any real congressional opposition, he has an opportunity to become the sort of dictator Bush could only dream of. And there are signs of that already happening. Look for whatever materializes as "health care reform" to create a new class of victimless crimes--those unwilling or unable to purchase the required insurance, much as auto insurance criminalizes thousands. And I'm sure we'll soon see more Orwellian Hope and Change.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: Good case, although I'm not sure about the "enemy # 1" status when there are SO many contenders in a climate wrought with corruption in every corner. He is, however, the # 1 enabler of graft, war for profit, and blocking the arteries of viable justice. Yes, to all that.
But when will the liberals and progressives shut up and fight to abolish them? Never? No wonder progressives and losers are painted as "weak".
odoco
Hi Max - it's me again! Liberals? Progressives? Labels? Not an in-depth look at issues and those responsible? When I teach children one of the first things we discuss is the ineffectiveness of using stereotypes and generalities. They are both meaningless, and mindless. They are also exactly what the power-brokers hope we will fall victim to, thereby rendering unnecessary critical thought, which, of course, those in power desperately want us to avoid.
But keep those comments coming Max, those mindless generalities and stereotypes. Such ramblings are what gives us 'progressives and liberals' a smile once in awhile, you know, while we are attempting to sort out all the nastiness, crimes and inhumanities of the last several years.
I already have an idea of the CIA and am well aware of the issues. I just don't think the liberals and progressives are pushing hard enough to get rid of that disease. They gotta be bold and tough somewhere. I don't like to piss people off but sometimes telling the truth in a bold and tough manner doesn't hurt and if causes everyone to be wacky, I don't mind. Of course, maybe calling for an abolition of the CIA may sound more like a libertarian idea but if so, then so be it. Too much socialism and big government can be just as bad as privatized government and unfettered capitalism.
MaxPain....I note this-There is only one way to reconcile the mindless sexist drivel and the mangled grammar of your 4:16 a.m. post with the Absolute Intellectual Veracity of the last sentence of your 11:31 post.
You are actually working at, pretending to be, less enlightened than my goldfish.
You are entertaining. And maybe you are not a frustrated insecure male sexist mouse. Maybe you are secure. But check this, Sioux Rose is way out of your league, and she has graced CD's pages for far longer than you have blessed us with your insights.
So be nice. Cause, Instant Karma's gonna get you, gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together. Pretty soon you're gonna be dead. What in the world you thinking of? Laughing in the face of love, what on earth you try'n to do?
I swear I love your posts Max, but you're busted-you are smart, so w/ that admonition comes the adjunct spiritual potential it infers.
I predict a little time on CD, you will renounce Satan and behave yourself. But I hope not for a while. Respectfully, Long-haired Marxist marijuana growing & smoking hippie-joe.
Hey, how many rednecks does it take to eat oppossum? Two. One to get down on his hands and knees and eat, the other to watch for cars & trucks. And see, I bet YOU are sexist, cause admit it, when I said Redneck, you thought guy....for shame for shame for shame. sexual stereotypes are simply terrible.
Pure laughter and giggles.
I didn't get the redneck joke until I visualized both the one on, and the one watching the road -- astronomically funny.
This reminds me of that famous picture of a 'possum dead in the middle of the road, perhaps most notably the context was soon after some redneck road crew had re-painted the center lines, right across the prone 'possum.
Now that's doing a quality job, regardless of the dips and hills upon the road that we must tend.
Perhaps the 2nd road crew is the one in your joke ?
…
Maybe instead of a question mark in the headline, we could put an exclamation mark.
the CIA's very reason for existence is to lie. They are SPIES. It makes no difference to them whether they are lying to the other side or to ours. It's what they do.
They lied about the Iran Contra deals and what they were running back from South America during those return flights after running guns down there. One of their pilots who got shot down even admitted those planes were full of cocaine. Those planes didn't return empty.
Spies LIE. It's what they do. It's part of the job description. The CIA has been caught at it many times, regardless of how little the press would tell us about it.
Now, for the republicans to say that the spooks would never lie to congress when THEY have caught them at it before is once again the height of hypocrisy. Seems the republicans live by hypocrisy and cowardice, these days.
And for the republicans to say that the CIA would be "crushed" by congress, it's funding cut off at the knees is just plain foolishness. NO ONE believes that for a heartbeat. I wonder how Kit Bond could make such a stupid statement without laughing his face off. Anyone who has been paying ANY attention KNOWS that the spooks will NEVER lose their money. And even if they did, they get more than enough off of their illegal drug dealing to take care of them until it's legalized.
Look, I am NO fan of Pelosi. I wish the voters in San Francisco would vote her out and send her packing. But I want it done in an honorable, legal way and not through the lies of cowards like the republicans have shown themselves to be. There is no honor in lying someone out of their job, and that is just the game the republicans play, anymore. No wonder in my mind as to why they are out of power. May they remain so at least until I die, if not for eternity.
-the CIA's very reason for existence is to lie. They are SPIES. It makes no difference to them whether they are lying to the other side or to ours. It's what they do.
I can see that you and I share a disdain for the CIA.
Let me ask you though, does it have to be this way in the US, a multibillion dollar government agency, with no accountability, assasinations, torture, manufactured intelligence?
Other nations, democracies, keep intelligence agencies, albeit less costly ones. Their job is to provide the elected leaders with the best information on what is happening inside and outside their countries. They don't lie to their own people. What kind of morons would pay their own public servants to lie to them?
Now I understand that Russia likes its spies to poison people and China likes to lock up web surfers who navigate to the wrong page, but if the US really wants to be in that exalted club, shouldn't you maybe have a public debate about it first?
(You should have the debate now before discussing government lawbreaking is further criminalized. When that happens don't count on the president to pull a Scooter Libby pardon for you. That is only for "dedicated professionals")
"Let me ask you though, does it have to be this way in the US, a multibillion dollar government agency, with no accountability, assasinations, torture, manufactured intelligence?"
Does it HAVE to be? Not necessarily. But it has been and IS that way, regardless of how it SHOULD be. Should we have a public debate about it first? Of course, but we never have. We didn't have one when the CIA was founded, nor the agency that existed before that.
But now, especially after the last 28 years of right wing rule, we don't get to discuss anything. OUR ideas and desires don't even enter into the situation anymore. Our "lefties" are far to the right of Europe's righties, and we wonder why we are in so much deep crap. There is no desire in this country to do what is right for the majority of the people, only what will maximize profits. There is no freedom that they won't try to take away from us anymore, not even the right to talk to each other without them looking in and reading everything we write or hearing everything we say.
The CIA is responsible for more wars and unrest in this world than one can even imagine. If it's not Allende in Chile then it's the Shah in Iran or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. There have actually been more people killed in wars since WWII than were killed IN WWII, and a HUGE amount of that is due to the CIA and their insistence in "protecting the interests of the US". Did they ask US if we wanted them to destroy other people's societies? Nope, and in fact, they lied and kept it all quiet until some of their own spilled it.
So why should it be such a surprise that they would lie about talking to congress, and indeed, to lie TO congress in the first place? Like I said, they lie. It's what they do.
And no, I don't have a whole lot of respect for those who proclaim that they want freedom and justice for all, and then go around the world and make damn sure that others DON'T get the chance for it at all, and in their own countries, of all places. Such people don't really deserve respect, do they?
"Let me ask you though, does it have to be this way in the US, a multibillion dollar government agency, with no accountability, assasinations, torture, manufactured intelligence?"
Does it HAVE to be? Not necessarily. But it has been and IS that way, regardless of how it SHOULD be. Should we have a public debate about it first? Of course, but we never have. We didn't have one when the CIA was founded, nor the agency that existed before that.
But now, especially after the last 28 years of right wing rule, we don't get to discuss anything. OUR ideas and desires don't even enter into the situation anymore. Our "lefties" are far to the right of Europe's righties, and we wonder why we are in so much deep crap. There is no desire in this country to do what is right for the majority of the people, only what will maximize profits. There is no freedom that they won't try to take away from us anymore, not even the right to talk to each other without them looking in and reading everything we write or hearing everything we say.
The CIA is responsible for more wars and unrest in this world than one can even imagine. If it's not Allende in Chile then it's the Shah in Iran or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. There have actually been more people killed in wars since WWII than were killed IN WWII, and a HUGE amount of that is due to the CIA and their insistence in "protecting the interests of the US". Did they ask US if we wanted them to destroy other people's societies? Nope, and in fact, they lied and kept it all quiet until some of their own spilled it.
So why should it be such a surprise that they would lie about talking to congress, and indeed, to lie TO congress in the first place? Like I said, they lie. It's what they do.
And no, I don't have a whole lot of respect for those who proclaim that they want freedom and justice for all, and then go around the world and make damn sure that others DON'T get the chance for it at all, and in their own countries, of all places. Such people don't really deserve respect, do they?
To all those right wingers who claim that Pelosi lied to congress and to the American people, and who are calling for an investigation of those charges I say By all means. Let's *have* an investigation of whether or not she lied to the congress and the American people to determine if she should be punished for this heinous crime. For if *she* is investigated and brought up on charges for such despicable actions, then that would open the way for an investigation of George Bush's lies to the congress and the American people. After all, how many people have died as a result of Pelosi's lies which have "undermined our national security".
Good One!
"Truthiness" strikes again.
lets just settle this once and for all. have george tenet testify under oath. and lets have jonathan turley ask the questions.
Good idea, Reality Zone. After all, Tenet is the bilious blowhard who bubbled 'slam dunk' when the Bushies wanted to invade Iraq, rather than advise them, as he no doubt knew, that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Cartoon: Tenet's Slam Dunk House of Secrets.
http://ltsaloon.org/archives/3718
RSJ; tenet knows !!! if they keep throwing the cia under the bus, he might, just might come out. the cover up is worst than the crime.
odoco
Absolutely excellent idea!
Joe Scarborough expressing utter disbelief (5/15/09) that the CIA could possibly have misled Pelosi, since Congress could cut off the CIA's funding. "They would never lie to Congress, because they would be crushed," Sen. Kit Bond (R.-Mo.) said on the show.
It's more likely the CIA would crush congress than the other way around.
Is Joe Scarborough on Fox? I think I have seen him on youtube. What a riot! We don't have anything like that, not even close. I watched the wrestler Ventura on "the view", fascinating viewing. That blonde one doesn't even bother with the facts. Stuff like that couldn't exist in democracies, except on a comedy channel, people are just too informed, the blowhards would be laughed off the stage.
jlocke123 May 20th, 2009 6:20 pm, Scarborough is finishing out his contract at MSNBC and they can't wait to be rid of him, I've heard. Joe has never generated good ratings, either in his prime time slot, or in the mornings. I find it hard to watch this braying clod, but the few times I've caught his AM show, he seems to have gone from 'moderate conservative' right after Obama's election to becoming a flaming dimwit neocon again. Scarborough is a former US congressman who was forced out of politics after a young female staff aide with whom he was allegedly having an affair was found dead in his Florida congressional office, and then-Gov. Jeb Bush flew in a coroner from another state to do the autopsy, violating Florida law, of course, because he's a Bush and can get away with that. Scarborough then migrated to MSNBC when they were trying to steal the Fox News audience.
Now, with Keith Olbermann as the main ratings-grabber, and Rachel Maddow a close second, the cable network is said to be gradually purging itself of the Scarborough/Buchanan ding-a-ling righties, but they don't want to spend the money to buy out their contracts.
I hope the rumors I've heard that Stephanie Miller will take 'Morning Joe's' place when he leaves are true, but we'll see.
Speaking of 'The View,' another show I can't bear watching, they did just expose Glenn Beck for the lying weasel he is, via videotape. He also admitted to Baba Wawa that he doesn't care about facts, since he's not a journalist, he's a 'commentator.' This, along with his misbegotten stand-up comedy tour in June (seriously), is the beginning of a long nose-dive for the obnoxious little crank who has consistently mined phony outrage, false fear and fake doom scenarios to further his own warped ambition to be the next Limbaugh or O'Reilly.
The CIA is of course in the business of lying. And, for that matter, so is Congress, at least as a side job. I think the Speaker and the CIA are, in this instance, both lying just as hard as they can. Nice quote from Keats, mujeriego; thank you.
Why would anyone be surprised that the CIA might be less than totally honest.
Let's get this straight - THE CIA IS A SPY AGENCY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE - THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF LYING!!!
If anything should be surprising it's that they've been so poor at it!
"Mind like parachute ... only function when open." - Charlie Chan
Maybe the silver lining in this whole debacle is that Nancy "Weathervane" Pelosi is forced to resign. Now, lies or no lies, that would be good news!
During the past eight years the country learned from the experts how to lie in a thousand different ways. I even played the game with myself - think up a situation, then come up with all the different ways using a play on words to create plausable-sounding lies.
Sioux Rose said it. Pelosi is getting her Karma over something entirely different. I wonder if Nancy realizes that?
Or that she's the just the pawn of the conservatives that's meant to divert attention from the real culprits.
Probably not. She doesn't appear to be a very intuitive type.
Why would the CIA lie about torture, sanitizing it with the words 'enhanced interrogation techniques'?
(/sarcasm)
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner (2007)is an excellent and well documented book!
Chalmers Johnson wrote an article about the book and the CIA at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174824/chalmers_johnson_agency_of_rogues