The White House has deciced not to change the longstanding edict that the Central Intelligence Agency’s Chief of Station in foreign countries will be the head intelliegence representive in all cases…This is a win for the agency which was in a turf war with the newly formed office of the Director of National Intelligence under Dennnis Blair…

The choice of Leon Panetta to be CIA head will help the agency (which has been around for a while) since Mr. Panetta was a former congressman (House of Rep), and mover and shacker in the Clinton administaration (Chief of Staff )…..Mr Blair (his is a coordinating office , not a operational depatment ) was a former Admiral….nuff said….

Posted by Audiegrl

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

The Hill/Jared Allen—The CIA misled Congress at least five times since 2001, according to Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.

The Democrats said CIA officials had either lied or withheld information from Congress. They also said CIA officials did not fully inform Congress about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques during a September 2002 briefing, which would validate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) claim that she was lied to about the program.

The ongoing probe found the practice of incomplete briefings or outright lying was part of a “large disease” of misinforming even the chairmen of the select intelligence committees, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said at a Tuesday press briefing that highlighted the early findings.

Schakowsky and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) are leading two subcommittees investigating the legitimacy of intelligence briefings to Congress.

Pelosi came under fire after she said at a testy press conference in May that the C.I.A. had lied to her and other members during a 2002 briefing about its use of waterboarding on detainees. Pelosi was the ranking member of the Intelligence panel at the time.

“We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,” she said at the May press conference. “They [the C.I.A.] misled us all the time.”

Republicans demanded proof from Pelosi of CIA lies, and the Speaker was also criticized for not objecting to waterboarding when she first learned about it.

More @

“Uncertainty over CIA assessment of Qom before 2007 NIE”
October 7 & 8, 2009
     In an interview, CIA Director Leon Panetta states that the CIA began observing the Qom site in 2006 but only reached the “high-confidence conclusion” that the site was a covert nuclear facility “earlier this year [2009]” (Time). The Wall Street Journal argues that the relevations over the Qom site indicate that US intelligence was aware of possible covert uranium enrichment-related work when they released the 2007 NIE, which concluded with “high confidence” that Iran had “halted” its nuclear weapons program (defined in the NIE as “nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work”) in 2003 (Wall Street Journal).
     While the 2007 NIE had assessed with “moderate confidence” that Iran would likely use covert facilities to produce highly enriched uranium, it also judged “with moderate confidence” that such covert efforts had been halted in 2003 and not been restarted as of mid-2007 (National Intelligence Council).
Time | Wall Street Journal | National Intelligence Council

MORE THAN ONE MOVIE—OFTEN A WESTERN—HAS USED THIS CLICHÉ: the hero, usually a cowboy, catches up with one of the bad guy’s accomplices by a river or a watering trough or such. He knocks him silly first, and from that point the dialogue becomes rather simple.

“Where is she?” “I don’t know.” Splash! Sounds of struggle, the sound of draining water as his head is pulled up by the hair, then gasping for air.

“Where is she.” “I don’t know.” Splash! More sounds of struggle, more gasping.

“Okay, okay.” “Tell me where she is.”

Wheez. Gasp. Cough, cough. “He took her out to the old abandoned mine up at Rattlesnake Flat.”

Trite. But I still feel excited during such scenes. I never get tired of them. Maybe that’s why Hollywood gets away with over-using them so shamelessly. A lot of people besides me like them. Even liberals pay good money to see this played out on the screen. Are scenes like this just trite clichés? Or is there possibly something about such scenes that rings true?

I grew up back east in the most populous parts of the country, including, for awhile, the suburban sprawl of Washington, D.C. As a young man, partly because of westerns, I emigrated to the rocky sagebrush country of the west. Something about it captured my imagination.

Back where I come from, even 30 years ago, people were civilized to a fault. Many, if they had an intruder, preferred calling 911 and waiting 15 or 20 minutes for the professionals to handle it when they arrived—often too late. As a country, we have gone the same route in our national security. Leave it to the professionals.

But here where I live, people never used to handle security that way. Even now, the old-timers prefer to take care of it themselves. Only afterwards would they call 911. From the inside of the suburban bubble some people live in, this looks shockingly barbaric. (Sheez! What planet are you from?) And they talk about how you can’t take the law into your own hands.

But here, depending on how far out in the mountains you live, an extremely dangerous situation could evolve over a couple of hours while the deputy is still on his way, and criminals know that. That puts the deputy on track to arrive in time to help load the bodies into the ambulance. It’s been like that a long time in many parts of the west, and it’s not going to change.

So, if you have the will to be free, and live where you want, you have to be willing to face things that aren’t pretty. You might get blood on your hands. And if criminals think you’re dangerous, they’re more likely to leave you alone.

People living in places like this can’t fathom the change in thinking of the other 80 percent of the country who live in cities. We have to take care of it ourselves here; the criminals know that, some of our newer residents know it too. And, for sure, the old-timers know it. No surprise, the crime rate is low. But some people in our country today would rather let the professionals handle it and keep the blood off their pretty, clean hands.

Some of us lack the guts to do what needs to be done, and that’s where the CIA comes in. They do a professional job, and the taxpayers pay for it. It’s a nice clean business we make of it.

But imagine we didn’t have professionals. Suppose a kidnapper came and took your wife and two teenaged girls, and you had no idea what would become of them. If the only solution was to climb on a horse with as many guns as you could carry and go after them, would you? Or would you depend on the government to do it for you? What if there was no government?

Suppose you climbed on a horse and went after them, and you caught up with one of the perpetrators by a river. What would you do? Check with attorneys to make sure dunking a criminal’s head under water is legal and doesn’t violate his rights? Waste time while someone might be raping your wife or one of your daughters?

A cowboy would take care of it.

I hear a slur from over Europe way sometimes. They say Americans are all cowboys. I’ve heard them say it. Let ’em. They’re not talking about about what we do or how we’re dressed. They’re talking about our attitude, and they don’t mean anything nice by it.

It’s time Obama stopped apologizing for America, and stopped worrying about what other nations think of
us—countries that criticize the way we protect our people, and, if it were their people in danger, would likely commit more clear violations of the Geneva conventions than our people allegedly did.

But it’s true we’re cowboys in some ways. People who have freedom tend to look that way to people who don’t. Especially people who prefer taking care of things themselves.

We in America have a big government now, and politicians and bureaucrats who don’t trust us to do for ourselves anymore. They’d rather Washington did it for us. And some of us are fuming mad about it, because they pass such laws that a man could be charged with a crime for protecting his family. A significant-enough minority of the people—even here in America—now think cowboy types are barbaric, ignorant, and backwards. They’ve been brainwashed by the spreading of a stereotype by leftist pundits, entertainers, and media. These talking heads have been inciting scorn for decent folks for a long time now.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, protecting people still involves the same methods it always did. Some of us may like thinking of ourselves as more civilized than that. But it requires putting a spin on reality. The truth is: we just pass on that responsibility—and the dirty work—to professionals. That makes hypocrites, in my book, of the ones criticizing the professionals for doing what works and what the bravest of us would do if we had to.

And, the thing is: the professionals do a good job. They keep it legal and as humane as possible for people who likely don’t deserve it. Our CIA personnel deserve better than being intimidated and subjected to politically-motivated witch hunts. Sure, some people work outside the lines—and have been investigated and prosecuted already—but the faithful CIA people who did their job don’t deserve double jeopardy.

Do we prove we are humane by insisting on being namby-pamby with terrorists? Or just that we’re stupid? Do we prove ourselves more civilized if we prosecute professionals who serve us and do what we ourselves would do if we had to?

The truth be told: It’s going to backfire on Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Their throwing a bone to the far left by investigating what the CIA did under the Bush administration should be an embarrassment to reasonable Democrats. It looks like Obama can’t keep his promise to the American people to leave it alone. It looks like he and Holder can’t resist the temptation to pursue politically-motivated investigations. It looks like the far left drives him to do things against his will, like he chooses pleasing radicals over protecting the American people. It looks, in short, like he’s not leading.

But it isn’t going to fly. Because a lot of us are still cowboys at heart; it’s a good thing too.

And we’re gonna take care of this.

The Fall Guy

CIA Director Leon Panetta getting sacked by his own team.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

In the game of political football that is today national security, spare a thought for CIA Director Leon Panetta. Quarterbacking is hard enough without getting sacked by your own team.

President Barack Obama fought hard for the former California congressman during his uncertain February confirmation fight. That’s about the last thing the president has done for his spy chief. Quite the opposite: If the latest flap over CIA interrogations shows anything, it’s that Mr. Panetta has officially become the president’s designated fall guy.

The title has been months in the making. Mr. Obama is contending with an angry left that’s riled by his decisions to retain some Bush-era counterterrorism policies. He’s facing Congressional liberals still baying for Bush blood. He’s hired Attorney General Eric Holder, who is giving the term “ideological purity” new meaning. Mr. Obama’s way to appease these bodies? Hang the CIA and Mr. Panetta out to dry.

That strategy first showed its face in April, when the president released Justice Department memos with details of the enhanced interrogation program. Arguing against the full release of these memos was Mr. Panetta and four prior CIA directors. Disclosure, they said, would damage national security. Arguing for their release was Mr. Holder, and White House General Counsel Greg Craig, who articulated the views of Moveon.org. The president threw the left some red meat, refusing even Mr. Panetta’s pleas to redact certain sensitive details.

via Kimberley Strassel: The Fall Guy – WSJ.com.

RedState reports:

“I’m hearing a very credible rumor that Leon Panetta has dispatched a resignation letter to Barack Obama on vacation.

Panetta is said to be extremely angry about the possible prosecution of CIA officers doing their job and has decided to resign in protest.

The rumor is unconfirmed, but given the sourcing I think it is safe to treat it credibly.”

Just another day in the clown house.

UPDATE: Not true? “‘This report is false, wrong and bogus,’ said CIA spokesman George Little.” Wow! False, wrong, and bogus. Could it possibly be incorrect as well? Time will tell.

Stoutcat

1.  This is why neither party exposes 9/11 Truth:

“However, in my opinion the biggest problem is the Hegelian trap. If you can get two opposing camps going, they’ll only concern themselves with overcoming the other, at the cost of higher principles. This works just fine in parliamentary democracies with many significant political parties (such as in my country). Just draw a line in the middle, people will want to move to one side or the other.

Animosity will quickly increase and reaffirm camp loyalty. This is the divide & conquer strategy.

Everybody forgets about their common interest (democracy, human rights, privacy, civil rights, social justice, pluriformity, the seperation of powers (trias politica), secularity, accountability, transparency, peace).

Malevolent third parties profit from this disarray, and they use the whole spectrum of techniques outlined above for this purpose.

Finally, I shouldn’t neglect mentioning Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism cunningly exploits many of these weaknesses in order to obtain and maintain power. And power, is of course what it’s all about in politics, even for those who want to do good.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20797

2.  “Taboo News and Corporate Media

Other taboo stories include civilian death rates in Iraq and questions
on 9/11. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and a professional
survey company in Great Britain, Opinion Research Business (ORB)
report that the United States is directly responsible for over one
million Iraqi deaths since our invasion six and half years ago. In a
January 2008 report, ORB reported that, “survey work confirms our
earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a
result of the conflict which started in 2003. We now estimate that
the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have
been of the order of 1,033,000.” A 2006 Johns Hopkins study confirmed
that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third
of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly
attributable to US forces. Iraqi civilian death levels in the summer
of 2009 likely now exceed 1.2 million.

…

The alternative media at least reports the lies about Iraq, but they inexplicably turn a blind eye to the lies of 9/11. It’s shameful. Scientific studies are ignored and the FBI spokesperson saying “no proof linking bin Laden to 9/11″ is not newsworthy.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20796

3.  “Fear is Not a Christian Value

If you are Christian, the importance of the Bible is obvious to you.

If you are an atheist or a person of a different faith, please note that 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Therefore, if you are trying to reach Americans with the truth, it might help to know a little about the Bible. If you can quote scripture, you may more easily reach people who might not otherwise listen.

The government has done everything it could to scare the daylights out of the American public in order to promote its political agenda.

The government has used fear as an excuse to torture, spy on Americans, deny rights to those accused of crimes, deny free speech to government critics, and otherwise ignore large portions of the Bill of Rights and of international treaties like the Geneva convention.

But as former high-level CIA officer (and Catholic) Ray McGovern wrote Saturday:

[A poll shows that church-goers support torture more than non church-goers].

I am not a psychologist or sociologist. But I recall that one of the first things Hitler did on assuming power was to ensure there was a pastor in every Lutheran and Catholic parish in Germany. Why? Because he calculated, correctly, that this would be a force for stability for his regime. Thus began horrid chapter in the history of those who profess to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth but forget his repeated admonition, Do not be afraid.

A mere seven decades after the utter failure of most church leaders in Germany, their current American counterparts have again yielded to fear, and have condoned evils like torture by their deafening silence.

Indeed, according to the Bible, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples and other people not to be afraid. For example, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus:

• Speaks these words to the disciples during a storm (14:27)

• To Peter, James and John during the Transfiguration (17:7)

• To the women outside the empty tomb (28:10)

• To the disciples he is about to send out to teach, preach and heal, he says, “Have no fear” of those who have called the master of the house Beelzebul and will surely also malign those of his household (10:25)

• “Do not be afraid,” Jesus says, reminding those he is sending out of the One whose eye is on the sparrow. “You are of more value than many sparrows” (10:31)

Jesus told his flock not to be afraid. Christians that succumb to fear are not following Christ’s teachings. Those of us who succumb to fear are following those who would manipulate – instead of free – us.

To have courage for whatever comes in life – everything lies in that.
- Mother Teresa”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/fear-is-not-christian-value.html

4.  “Mr. Panetta Needs a History Lesson

CIA director Leon Panetta implied Sunday that the “reality of 9/11″ excused the unconstitutional and criminal acts of the Bush administration:

The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong.

Panetta makes it sound like all of the illegal decisions were made after 9/11, in response to that horrific event.

But as I’ve previously pointed out:

• The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here)

• The Patriot Act was written before 9/11

• The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11

• The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11

• The decision to launch a war against Iran was made before 9/11

• Cheney advocated strengthening the powers of the White House to the point of monarchy before 9/11

In addition, while the decision to torture appears to have been made after 9/11, it appears to have been made for the purpose of creating a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 in order to justify the Iraq war. In other words, the post-9/11 decision to torture appears to have been made to rationalize the pre-9/11 decision to invade Iraq.

Moreover, it was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence.“

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/mr-panetta-needs-history-lesson.html

5.  “World’s Top Energy Economist: Peak Oil in 2020″

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/worlds-top-energy-economist-peak-oil-in.html

6.  “Army National Guard Advertises for “Internment Specialists”

Doubt the government plans to impose martial law and round up dissidents and other malcontents? Well, the Army National Guard is advertising for qualified personnel to work as Corrections Officers and Internment/Resettlement Specialists.
…
It looks like the Army National Guard is gearing up to staff camps and “execute the proposed plan” of forcibly vaccinating the public and rounding up and hauling off those who refuse to be injected with a soft kill eugenics weapon as dangerous enemies of the state who need to be interned in forced labor and re-education camps.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14612

7.  “Tamiflu causes sickness and nightmares in children”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14617

8.  “Vaccination Myths and Truths “

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14618

9.  “Bowing to US’s ‘Naked Political Power’

Under British law it is a criminal offence to suppress evidence of torture. The US has told Britain that it must commit this crime, and help cover up American crimes, or the US will ensure that innocent British citizens are more likely to die in a terrorist attack. The British government is without moral principle and has been cowed by these illegal American threats.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23181.htm

Accountability is a concept that seems to have completely been lost in America. From our elected leaders to the everyday Janes and Joes, few are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, we hear absurd reasoning and roundabout explanations as to how and why a situation of wrongdoing has occurred. The end result is always the same… “It’s not my fault!”, “How could I know?” “No one told me.” “It wasn’t illegal at the time.” Or, my favorite of the month… “That’s not the issue, the issue here is…”.

We are all to blame for this environment of helplessness. We accept the inane excuses, ignore the repetition of misconduct, or rationalize that there is nothing we can do. To maintain these tenets is to be an accomplice of the offense; it is condoning the actions; it is teaching our young that accountability is no longer a virtue.

The most obvious examples of such unaccountability and irresponsibility come from the very people whom have sworn to act in good faith to uphold our Constitution – our elected officials. We have placed our trust and safety in their hands, yet we do nothing to hold them accountable for irresponsible actions. We accept their wrongdoings as the norm and simply shake our heads.

Case in point – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of “lying to Congress” and claimed she was “never informed of the use of harsh interrogation techniques.” When confronted with proof that she had, indeed, been in meetings with CIA officials where interrogation techniques, among other topics were discussed, she stuck with her original claim that the CIA “routinely lies to Congress.”

Naturally, the politicos began to take sides. Surprisingly, some of Pelosi’s own party cut ranks, questioning this extreme accusation. CIA Chief Leon Panetta, a Democrat, vehemently defended his organization, calling Speaker Pelosi’s charges untrue. Former Vice President Dick Cheney took to the airways to state that Pelosi’s charges were bogus and that she had, indeed, been briefed. Because the information in question was classified, little could be proved from the back and forth allegations of who did what. The public’s opinion of Pelosi took a nose dive, especially after she fumbled through a press conference where she had the appearance of a trapped animal. The Democratic-powers-that-be knew something must be done to repair Pelosi’s credibility and position.

Like most secrets in Washington, DC, this classified information was sure to become public in time. A few weeks later during a regular briefing, CIA Director Panetta informed the House Committee on Intelligence, a classified committee to which Pelosi was no longer a member, that he had cancelled a dormant program that was conceived just after 9/11 as one of several options to prevent further terrorism but had never become operational. Committee members apparently FORGOT that they were bound by their classified status and spoke of this to others, especially Pelosi. Seeing an opportunity to right her wrong, the Speaker twisted this information to say that the CIA had lied to Congress by concealing information about a secret assassination program.

What she did NOT bother to say was that the “program” was actually a concept which had been nixed by every CIA Director -Tenet, Goss, Hayden and now, Panetta.  As an additional punch to her opponents, she and other Dems blamed former Vice President Dick Cheney as having “given the orders” not to disclose the program’s existence to Congress.

Here is my beef with this series of events:

• The CIA was created to gather intelligence and act to protect our nation. It is, by definition, an agency of secrets. In a perfect world of uncompromised trust in our elected officials and their subordinates, the American citizens should not have to know the workings of this or any other clandestine agency. Since our world is not perfect, it is imperative that those whom we place in positions of leadership and oversight must be persons of integrity and high moral character.

• If Speaker Pelosi honestly thought that the CIA had “lied” to Congress, she should have dealt with this concern privately through the President, Panetta and other key members of Congress, not in public through intangible accusations. By addressing this in a public forum, she greatly diminished the credibility, thus the effectiveness, of the CIA and placed our nation in a position of weakness, especially to the tentative “allies” that we have gained in fighting al-Qaeda, and, of course, to our enemies. Pelosi should have understood the ramifications of her accusations – she is no novice. Her allegations and actions prove that she is either a complete idiot or playing a dangerous game of politics with our nation’s security as her ante.

• Once the story was broken, the media did nothing to investigate to get to the truth. Instead, they reported on the political wars between the pro and anti-Pelosi factions and pointed blame at the Bush Administration. The media wanted sensational headlines not facts. But did we the people care? Did we demand more information? No, we kept silent and continued to fund the media outlets through our purchases and patronage, proving that anything is okay as long as it is entertaining.

• When CIA Director Panetta disclosed the facts that the Congressional committee had, indeed, been briefed on interrogation tactics, that should have ended the controversy. The President should have stood by his man and helped Panetta to close the issue. However, Obama was nowhere to be seen during this debacle, leaving his own Director to swing in the wind. This non-action of the President proves that appointees, agents, operatives, and others cannot count on the support of their Commander-In-Chief, and leaves them questioning whether or not to follow certain orders for fear of being a scapegoat as politics turn.

• In learning that members of the committee had leaked classified information, action should have been taken from the Congress, the White House, the media, and the public. Questions should have been asked, accountability should have been sought, possible charges of treason should have been considered. Had this event happened within our military ranks, you could guarantee a court martial. Instead, everyone just stood back and watched the circus; our enemies laughed and reaffirmed that both infiltration and inside information could be easily achieved.

• Having seen the course of this ridiculous series of events, I would not find it hard to believe that orders were given to keep a lid on certain operations. It is more than obvious that America cannot trust its partisan leaders to keep confidences. Whether or not Cheney gave such an order, I do not know. However, had I been in his place and just witnessed an attack on our country where thousands of Americans had died, I would have insisted on a closed circle of secrecy for any operation.

• Maybe one of the most dangerous consequences of this insanity is that it was a side show. While the masses were focused on the sensationalism of the stories, backroom deals were being made. Deals about more government control over the people; deals incurring more national debt. What deals you ask? Some of you might have noticed that both houses of Congress passed preliminary bills on health care reform that will have devastating effects on your ability to obtain quality insurance and timely medical care.  This turned out to be another bait-and-switch of the Obama Administration.

Finally, I have a beef is with the American public. Where are you? Do you not see what is happening and how we are being herded into whichever corral this bunch of Socialists direct? Will you be satisfied when you are left with no choices, rights, or thoughts of your own? Make no mistake my fellow Americans; it will be up to us, the people, to make any change in the direction our country is taking. Will we be forced to stand and bear arms to say “NO MORE!”?

Our politicians, both Democratic and Republican, prove daily that their sole aim is to be in politics, saving their own jobs. Neither party has produced a single person who is brave enough – brave enough to their own detriment – to stand up for the people and say THIS IS WRONG. THIS IS SOCIALISM.

So I ask…Do YOU care?   And that is…Why It Matters.

via: sweetness-light

From an ecstatic Associated Press:

House Intel Committee to investigate CIA program

WASHINGTON – The House Intelligence Committee said Friday it will investigate whether the CIA broke the law by not informing Congress promptly about a secret program to deploy teams of killers to target al-Qaida leaders.

Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the hit team plan, which was never carried out, is among several intelligence operations that will be investigated as part of a broad inquiry into the CIA’s handling of disclosures to Congress about its secret activities.

“I intend to make this investigation fair and thorough, and it is my goal that it will not become a distraction to the men and women of the CIA,” Reyes said.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency shares that goal and will work closely with the committee on its review.

The House Intelligence Committee will examine concerns that the CIA failed to inform the Senate and House Intelligence committees about former President George W. Bush’s wiretapping program, harsh interrogation techniques and the destruction of interrogation videotapes, according to a committee aide…

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the senior Republican on the committee, criticized the investigation as “partisan, political theater.” He said he would support a “balanced review,” but contended Democrats are prematurely accusing the CIA of breaking the law.

“At no time will the Republicans of this committee agree to or take part in congressional Democrats efforts to tear down the CIA to provide cover for Speaker Pelosi,” Hoekstra said in a statement Friday.

He was referring to a frequent GOP talking point accusing House Democrats of trying to bolster House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusation that the CIA lied to her about its harsh interrogation program.

The intelligence committee’s investigation was triggered by CIA Director Leon Panetta’s June 24 disclosure about the hit team program in an emergency briefing he called a day after he canceled the program after learning about it the same day.

The CIA’s Counterterrorism Center brought the program to Panetta’s attention last month because it wanted to begin training the teams, according to a government official familiar with the matter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized the discuss the matter…

They never stop.

The House Intelligence Committee will examine concerns that the CIA failed to inform the Senate and House Intelligence committees about former President George W. Bush’s wiretapping program, harsh interrogation techniques and the destruction of interrogation videotapes, according to a committee aide.

What a pack of lies.

To cite just one example, the CIA briefed Congress, including many top Democrats – including Nancy Pelosi – at least 40 times about their “harsh interrogation techniques.”

He was referring to a frequent GOP talking point accusing House Democrats of trying to bolster House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusation that the CIA lied to her about its harsh interrogation program.

What media bias?

The CIA’s Counterterrorism Center brought the program to Panetta’s attention last month because it wanted to begin training the teams, according to a government official familiar with the matter.

Does anyone who is not an employee of the DNC’s lickspittle media (like the AP), believe this?

As we have previously pointed out, the New York Times wrote about this (never implemented) CIA program back in 2002.

But the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats now in charge of the CIA claim to have never heard about it before.

Congressional Democrats aren’t interested in what the CIA said to Congress. They’re interested in protecting Nancy Pelosi.

by Stephen F. Hayes and William Kristol at The Weekly Standard

Late Friday afternoon, Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced that his panel would be undertaking a formal investigation of the CIA. The ostensible subject of the probe is a highly classified program that targeted al Qaeda leaders for assassination and which CIA director Leon Panetta briefed the committee about on June 24.

“After careful consideration and consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and other members of the Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will conduct an investigation into possible violations of federal law, including the National Security Act of 1947,” Reyes said in a statement.

Let us offer to save the distinguished chairman some time, and the taxpayers some money: Forget it. There were no violations of federal law. Dennis Blair, Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, told the Washington Post that the CIA was not required to brief Congress about a program that appears never to have been implemented. In either case, the statute that governs these matters leaves such notification to the discretion of the executive branch. And within minutes of the announcement of the investigation, and despite Reyes’s claim of having consulted him, Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking minority member, blasted the probe as “partisan” hackery.

…More

Earlier this week, in what initially appeared to be manna from heaven falling into the Democrats’ laps, the CIA disclosed that, under the direction of former Vice President Darth, er, Dick Cheney, it had kept secret from Congress yet another plan the agency was developing. This news came on the heels of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying to Congress about its use of waterboarding. And we are shocked — shocked — to learn that this secret CIA plan involved the capture or assassination of al-Qa’ida leaders. Criminal! Oh, wait… That’s exactly what the CIA is supposed to do — help capture or kill the nation’s enemies.

Further deflating the Democrats’ hopes, it turned out that this particular plan was only under consideration and never implemented, and further work was terminated by current CIA Director Leon Panetta last month. Sadly for the Democrats, it’s not illegal for the CIA to keep secret every idea the agency kicks around. More important, are the Democrats so detached from reality as to think the American people would get upset at the CIA for trying to eliminate al-Qa’ida’s leaders?

The Donkey Party had hoped this ludicrous episode would divert attention from San Fran Nan’s accusation that the CIA lied to Congress about its interrogation techniques, but it flopped. Next they tried to gin up a controversy with new threats to prosecute Bush administration intelligence officials for being good Americans. Meanwhile, polls show that Cheney’s popularity continues to rise while Nancy’s continues to slide.

[When you read the part of this article where this program has all but been decommissioned, think back to the ending of Bourne Identity where Brian Cox's character is telling the finance committee that Treadstone was a cost-inefficient training platform that was shut down... and then went on to pitch Black Briar.]

By Steve Hynd

Back in March, Sy Hersh caused a storm with some remarks at a University of Minnesota discussion.

the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.

“Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command — JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. …

“Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

“Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.”

A lot of people were skeptical – myself included. Yet now mainstream outlets like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are reporting a story that’s at least halfway there. The Washington Post summarizes:

The CIA ran a secret program for nearly eight years that aspired to kill top al-Qaeda leaders with specially trained assassins, but the agency declined to tell Congress because the initiative never came close to bringing Osama bin Laden and his deputies into U.S. cross hairs, U.S. intelligence and congressional officials said yesterday.

The plan to deploy teams of assassins to kill senior terrorists was legally authorized by the administration of George W. Bush, but it never became fully operational, according to sources briefed on the matter. The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan — a bid for secrecy that congressional Democrats now say thwarted proper oversight.

The program, which was terminated last month, touched off a political firestorm last week when several Democrats said the CIA had misled Congress by not disclosing its existence. CIA Director Leon E. Panetta gave lawmakers their first overview on June 24, within hours of learning about it, the officials said.

Some officials familiar with the program said certain elements of it were operational and should have been disclosed because they involved “significant resources and high risk,” as one intelligence official described it. But others said the initiative never advanced beyond concepts and feasibility studies.

I have to say, I’ve no problem with tightly controlled targeted assassinations of the leaders of hostile terrorist groups if it’s done with a strategy in mind, one where the idea is to “hothouse” more moderate leaders by removing their rivals and making the moderates fearful for their own safety if they don’t “jaw, jaw instead of war, war”. I’ve argued for exactly that in the past and, after all, the only differences between a special forces bullet and a Predator-launched missile are that the bullet is cheaper and doesn’t also hit dozens of civilians. But such a program shouldn’t be secret – in fact it relies for some of its efficacy on being publicly known.

And the problem with secret assassination orders is mission creep.

it’s not at all clear why this particular program would be so radioactive — compared to what the U.S. was, and still is, doing more or less openly — that (1) Cheney would demand the CIA not brief Congress about it for eight years; (2) Panetta would cancel it immediately upon learning of it; and (3) Democrats would howl quite so loudly when finally informed.

Or to think about it another way, put yourself in the seat of a Democrat on one of the intel committees after 9/11. If you had any doubt about whether the intel agencies were targeting al Qaeda leaders, wouldn’t you have demanded that they show you proof they were? And if you didn’t have any doubt that they were, why are you complaining now about not being briefed?

It doesn’t add up. There’s more to this story to be told.

So is the rest of Sy Hersh’s story about to emerge into the light?

It’s not that controversial to have a team ready to kill or capture Bin Laden or other senior Al Qaeda operatives. It is controversial to have a team ready to kill … other targets.

Remember, the Bush administration told us that their warrantless wiretapping program was aimed only at Al Qaeda affiliates and we found out that was nowhere near the case. There were guys listening in on phone sex calls of innocent Americans by the time we found out about that program.

So, I have to ask what I previously thought unimaginable. Who exactly were the assassination squads supposed to assassinate?

I really don’t want to get into crazy speculation. I certainly don’t think this program would be turned inward as well. And it is eminently possible that it was just aimed at senior Al Qaeda guys, as I explained above. But given the history of the Bush administration and what has been less than honest explanations in the past, one has to ask – who were the targets under consideration?

If as a journalist, you don’t ask this question, then you’re not doing your job. It would be hard to argue this isn’t relevant.

Dick Cheney hid this program from Congress (under what authority could he order a program like this in the first place?) and ordered the CIA to lie about it to the rest of the government (including large portions of the FBI and CIA). Is it not conceivable that as Cheney worked the “dark side,” he gave other unimaginable orders? Did Bush even know what orders Cheney was giving? Did Bush know who was on the assassination list? If they had a program, they had a list, right? Who’s on the list?

If they bothered to have assassination squads, it seems inconceivable that they didn’t make a list. Does anyone have that list? Where is it now? And who’s on it?

And if the CIA program didn’t get fully going was there a parallel military program, still secret, that did?

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 ? The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.

The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. “It’s the worst of the worst,” an official said.

The creation of the secret list is part of the expanded C.I.A. effort to hunt and kill or capture Qaeda operatives far from traditional battlefields, in countries like Yemen.

The president is not legally required to approve each name added to the list, nor is the C.I.A. required to obtain presidential approval for specific attacks, although officials said Mr. Bush had been kept well informed about the agency’s operations.

via: Heritage

Playing politics with national security is always a bad idea. It has been hard to tell that watching the back and forth in Washington over the role of the CIA in the War on Terror. The administration and partisan forces in Congress have been whipsawing back and forth between trying to kowtow the ACLU, trying to continue to campaign against Bush-Cheney, and not letting the professionals in Justice and the CIA think they have been thrown to the wolves.

Arguably all this started with a cat-fight between Obama and former Vice President Cheney. On April 16, the Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11. There were immediate cries that the memos showed the Bush policies to be both wrong and wrongheaded. Cheney cried foul, calling on the Administration to declassify and release additional material that described the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations. The Administration said no to that and flipped on whether it would propose or support an investigatory commission, a special prosecutor, or prosecutions of former government officials or CIA interrogators. Obama threw oil on boiling water scheduling a national speech just before Cheney had been long-scheduled to make a speech at AEI.

Less than a month later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and CIA Director Leon Panetta went at it over who was briefed on what. She claimed she was never told about harsh interrogation techniques. The CIA said she was as did Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). She said they lied. Panetta defended the CIA.

Next up, a Newsweek released a report over the weekend that the Attorney General was considering a Special Prosecutor to investigate torture by CIA operatives. That seemed a flip-flop from previous promises made by the president.

Finally, news broke of a covert CIA program begun after 9/11. “Panetta,” wrote Heritage analyst Peter Brookes, then “changed sides, reportedly telling Congress that the CIA withheld information from the Hill.” Then, of course, there were Lemming-like claims from the left of “we told you so Cheney and the CIA have been lying to us all along.” No sooner had the chant begun then more facts began to appear—suggesting that the program had been authorized by Congress—and leaders were then not briefed further on details because the program was never implemented.

Listening to all this playing ping-pong with the CIA one might ask are politicians in Washington playing politics with our national security? One might be tempted to answer does it get hot and muggy in DC in the summer time?

The program was designed after the Sept. 11 attacks, but the plans were never carried out before Leon E.

Panetta, the C.I.A. director, canceled it last month.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/14intel.html

via: Heritage

First came the May brouhaha between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and CIA Director Leon Panetta over the agency allegedly misleading Congress about interrogations, which the recently-minted head spook refuted at the time.

But like a double-agent, Panetta has now changed sides, reportedly telling Congress that the CIA withheld information from the Hill on another post-9/11 intelligence program, targeting al Qaeda.

According to the media, the CIA conceived the program, but it was never “operationalized”; that is, it was never put into practice. Moreover, then-Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly directed that Congress not be briefed regarding the program.

Now, adding a new wrinkle, late breaking news reports Congress did actually authorize the 7-year-old program in question, which Director Panetta deep-sixed after finding out about its existence in June and subsequently notifying Congress.

Regardless, some Democratic House members are still calling for an investigation into the matter, which some observers see as mostly an effort to rehabilitate the Speaker’s reputation, which took a bruising in the May go-around with Langley.

But while the unauthorized leaks to the media about the program in question are surely incomplete and selective, the fact is, politicizing intelligence is a dangerous sport. For instance: the last thing we need is for our intelligence community to be distracted by a battle royal with Congress. They have real work to do in providing intelligence that protects our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We don’t need the CIA or others to become risk-adverse in these dangerous times, but instead be willing to take on the “hard targets,” like catching Osama bin Laden and collecting intelligence on the troubling Iranian and North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile programs. If we’re not careful, we could end up tying up senior intelligence officials and resources in inconclusive, politically-motivated investigations, rather having them expend their time and efforts in directing our first line of defense—the intelligence community.

Our national security is earned one tough day at a time by brave, well-intentioned Americans. We can’t allow some on the Left to kick around their efforts like a political football, keeping them from the important tasks at hand.

If we do, there’s sure to be a serious price to be paid.