CIA, Cheney, Lies & Secrets

[RanchHQ]

Once again the Democrats in Congress are using this Nations Intelligence Professionals as pawns in their never ending game of "Blame Bush with useless Distractions so Madam Speaker looks like she knows what she is doing".

I just thought I would be proactive and get right to this before Lisa starts slinging; all you are going to hear this week is that Vice President Cheney kept a Super Top Secret CIA Program a secret from Congress.

The Super Top Secret Program was dropped during it's planning stages.

CIA’s super-secret plan: assassinate al-Qaeda leaders
Posted at 8:47 am on July 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Wall Street Journal reveals the CIA program so secret that Democrats allege the agency never shared it with Congress, breaking the law on oversight of intelligence. It’s so shocking that Dick Cheney allegedly told George Tenet to shield it from America’s elected representatives. Hold onto your hats! The CIA secretly planned … to capture and/or kill … al-Qaeda’s top leaders.

I hear you gasp in shock over this news:

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.
The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn’t clear, and the CIA won’t comment on its substance.
According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn’t become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.
In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn’t clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

Let’s see. Democrats want to make hay over a program to kill Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the rest of the radical Islamist looney tunes? Best of luck with that. Show of hands: who in the US doesn’t want the heads of bin Laden and Zawahiri on a pike? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Congress authorized the Bush administration to use force against AQ. At the same time, the executive order against targeted assassinations remains in force, but that hardly applies to an enemy at war. The entire point of authorizing force is to make your enemies dead by, like, y’know, killing them. Whether the CIA or the military carries out the mission makes no difference to me and probably not to 99% of the American public outside the Beltway, or I suspect, inside the Beltway either.

Why keep it secret? Apparently the CIA dropped it in the planning stages for some reason after six months, which means that there wasn’t anything to report. Perhaps the CIA didn’t want the operational parameters of the program to leak, in case they reactivated the mission. However, it’s not as if anyone in the US doubted that we would kill anyone in AQ’s top network if we had the chance. We didn’t exactly keep that a secret.

If Democrats want to score political points against George Bush and Dick Cheney for wanting Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri dead, they may find that a tough sell to their constituents.

LINK: Hot Air Blog Archive CIA’s super-secret plan: assassinate al-Qaeda leaders

[RanchHQ]

So, I guess The CIA came up with a Plan to kill Terrorists but didn't tell Congress.

The CIA dropped the Plan but didn't tell Congress.

With the likes of Sen. Patrick Lahey there is no question why The CIA, and/or Vice President Cheney whould not share with The Congress.

How can Madam Speaker even believe that The CIA had a Plan?

I thought "The CIA Misleads Congress all the time".

Once again, The Democrats are using our Intellegence Gathering Men & Women for Political Gain:


With Pelosi’s blessing, Dems push ahead with probe of CIA

By Jared Allen Posted: 07/13/09 07:34 PM [ET]

With their Speaker behind them, House Democrats are pushing ahead with plans to hold a series of hearings investigating instances in which intelligence officials may have misled members of Congress.

Senior Democratic aides said that a major announcement could come by the end of week, but it was already clear on Monday that House Democrats are seizing on weekend news reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney hid information from Congress.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the CIA, under the direction of Cheney, developed a secret counterterrorism program and then was directed by the vice president to conceal it from Congress.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the program was a classified initiative to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives. Cheney has not commented on the media reports.

FULL ARTICLE: TheHill.com - With Pelosi?s blessing, Dems push ahead with probe of CIA

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by RanchHQ

Once again, The Democrats are using our Intellegence Gathering Men & Women for Political Gain:

So true, Ranch. Politico Panetta was planted to use CIA as the foil to blame everything that might go bad on Obama's watch, on Bush. True to form, with the economy accelerating into the tank under Obama's agenda, its now "wag the dog" diversion to put CIA into the news and protect Madam Pelosi, necessary to get Obama's lightning speed agenda through Congress. He knows he doesn't have a lot of time before the populace wakes up to his true agenda and ideology. Panetta, right out of "Panetta Institute of International Relations" at UC Seaside, is failing as a leader of CIA; unless he comes around and defends the personnel who see through all of this political machinations, he deserves legacy as a traitor. What a fine lot, with the California Congressional delegation, Obama has to draw upon; Note our fine Senator Feinstein today high-fiving with Panetta and Pelosi to divert this CIA Bush bashing in the media, aka Cheney. We're (USA) in real trouble, guys.

[RanchHQ]

Oops.

BIG Oops!

Democrats to investigate “secret” program reported by NYT in 2002

posted at 12:49 am on July 14, 2009

Via The Hill:

With their Speaker behind them, House Democrats are pushing ahead with plans to hold a series of hearings investigating instances in which intelligence officials may have misled members of Congress.

Senior Democratic aides said that a major announcement could come by the end of week, but it was already clear on Monday that House Democrats are seizing on weekend news reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney hid information from Congress.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the CIA, under the direction of Cheney, developed a secret counterterrorism program and then was directed by the vice president to conceal it from Congress.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the program was a classified initiative to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives.

Unfortunately for Democratic witch-hunters, their pals at the national security-defying New York Times apparently blew this secret back in December 2002:

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.

President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the “high-value target list.” A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.

Despite the authority given to the agency, Mr. Bush has not waived the executive order banning assassinations, officials said. The presidential authority to kill terrorists defines operatives of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force.

Could it be that CIA Director Panetta does not have a good grip on the history of his agency’s post-9/11 efforts? Could it be that his Democratic colleagues have such a knee-jerk hostility to the CIA that they would jump on bad info to attack the CIA and Fmr. Vice-Pres. Cheney as a modified limited defense of Speaker Pelosi’s prior bogus attacks on the CIA regarding briefings on interrogation tactics? Could it be that the geniuses of the NYT forgot they already blew the program?

(Hint: Yes, Yes and Yes.)

LINK: The Greenroom Forum Archive Democrats to investigate “secret” program reported by NYT in 2002

[RanchHQ]

This is really a weird deal. Congress has nothing to do but question the CIA, in closed Meetings, about a CIA Plan, a Plan that was only a Plan, never implemented, and why Congress was never informed.

Then a few Members of Congress who were in those Closed Meetings go right to the Press with the subject of the Closed Meetings.

This is all over a Plan leaked by The NY Times (who else) in 2001 and a Plan that President Obama mentioned and Campaigned against for 2 years.

It really doesn't matter; according to Madam Pelosi the CIA lies to Congress all the time.

"Another Democrat who joined Schakowsky's accusations was Senator Diane Feinstein of California, who accused the CIA of acting "outside of the law." "

July 15, 2009
Protecting Pelosi, not America

By Joel B. Pollak

Democrat Jan Schakowsky of Illinois proved last week why President Barack Obama was right to threaten to veto a bill that could give more politicians access to classified briefings about covert CIA operations.

Schakowsky took to the airwaves to accuse the CIA of misleading Congress on the orders of former Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Schakowsky and a handful of other Democrats, CIA director Leon Panetta told them at a classified briefing last month that the agency had practiced "systematic deception" for years. She demanded an investigation and suggested that charges could be brought against CIA officials.

But the CIA denied Panetta had made any such admission -- and even Schakowsky had to allow that Panetta's briefing concerned "one occasion." That occasion was a program, conceived in 2001 but never implemented, to track and target Al-Qaeda terrorists around the world.

Not only did Congress know about the program, according to Panetta's predecessor Michael Hayden, but Congressional leaders apparently supported it. Indeed, President Obama made the hunt for Al-Qaeda a repeated theme of his 2008 election campaign, scolding Bush for diverting resources from the "real" war on terror. "We will kill bin Laden," he vowed in the second presidential debate in October. "We will crush Al-Qaeda."

So why the outrage from Schakowsky and her colleagues?

It appears that the controversy has less to do with protecting America than protecting Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi was embarrassed several weeks ago by revelations that she not only knew about the CIA's use of waterboarding in terror interrogations, but failed to object when briefed about it. At first, Pelosi accused the CIA of lying, but information about the briefings she attended proved that she, and not the CIA, had misled the nation.

Schakowsky and other Pelosi allies pounced on Panetta's briefing as a chance to defend their boss: "It certainly confirms her characterization of the level of openness the intelligence community and the CIA have given to Congress," Schakowsky claimed.

Ironically, it was only a few weeks ago that Schakowsky slammed her Republican counterparts for commenting on what Pelosi had learned in intelligence briefings: "I am absolutely shocked that members of the Intelligence committee who attended a closed-door hearing...characterized anything that happened in that hearing."

She even suggested they had broken the law: "My understanding is that's a violation of the rules. It may be more than that."

Now, Schakowsky has rushed to reveal to the media what she learned in a classified briefing. Worse, she distorted what she and her colleagues were told-all to settle old political scores and to force President Obama into an investigation of the Bush administration that he initially, and wisely, resisted.

Another Democrat who joined Schakowsky's accusations was Senator Diane Feinstein of California, who accused the CIA of acting "outside of the law." Her claims were picked up by the international media, which ran sensational stories about Cheney and the CIA. A Pakistani news service claimed that the program "may have involved torture and possibly assassinations."

It was not the first time Feinstein had caused an uproar in Pakistan and damage to America's image in the Middle East. In February, she revealed that the U.S. was operating Predator drones from a base in Pakistan. Not only did her comments put America's enemies on notice, but they deeply embarrassed U.S. allies in a country fighting to keep its government-and its nuclear weapons-out of Islamist hands.

The incompetence and opportunism of Schakowsky and Feinstein reveal just how politicized intelligence oversight has become during Pelosi's tenure. Recall that one of Pelosi's first decisions-belatedly aborted-was to put Rep. Alcee Hastings in charge of the House intelligence committee. Not only did Hastings have no intelligence experience, but he had also been impeached and convicted for taking a bribe as a federal judge.

The fact that a close Pelosi lieutenant like Schakowsky has been given the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is cause for alarm. Not only has Schakowsky put politics ahead of national security, but her left-wing views on foreign policy are out of sync with the mainstream of the country, her party, and even her constituents.

One of the suburbs Schakowsky represents is Skokie, a community uniquely sensitive to the threat of terror, where Jewish Holocaust survivors and Arab refugees from Iraq live side-by-side. For several years after 9/11, a billboard near the expressway proclaimed: "U.S. And Israel: United Against Terror."

Re-elected thanks to the Chicago machine, Schakowsky has rarely been held accountable for her views on foreign policy. But after her performance in Washington last week, more Americans will begin to ask why a politician who abuses classified information to pursue political vendettas should have access to it at all.

She and her colleagues tried to cover up for Pelosi's lies about waterboarding. Now they have distorted the truth about what the CIA director told them in a classified briefing about efforts to destroy Al-Qaeda.

Trembling with purported outrage, Schakowsky faced the cameras last week and declared: "I know that I've been lied to."

So do we.



Joel B. Pollak is a recent Harvard Law graduate and the author of Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter: How Rhetoric Won the 2008 Presidential Election.

LINK: American Thinker: Protecting Pelosi, not America

[RanchHQ]

"...CIA employees will steer away from areas such as counterterrorism where the political winds may change."



July 16, 2009

CIA As Political Football

By David Ignatius
WASHINGTON -- As other countries watch the United States lacerate its intelligence service -- for activities already investigated or never undertaken -- perhaps they admire America's commitment to democracy and the rule of law. More likely, I fear, they conclude that we are just plain nuts.

The latest "scandals" involving the Central Intelligence Agency are genuinely hard to understand, other than in terms of political payback. Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to investigate criminal actions by CIA officers involved in the harsh interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners. But the internal CIA report on which he's said to be basing this decision was referred five years ago to the Justice Department, where attorneys concluded that no prosecution was warranted.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are indignant that they were never briefed about a program to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives in friendly countries. Never mind that the program wasn't implemented, or that the United States is routinely assassinating al-Qaeda operatives using unmanned drones. And never mind, either, that Leon Panetta, the new CIA director -- fearing a potential flap -- briefed Congress about the program soon after he became aware of it. There was a flap anyway -- with a new hemorrhage of secrets and a new shudder from America's intelligence partners around the world.

Oversight of these secret activities is necessary. But turning the CIA into a political football, as both Republicans and Democrats have done in recent years, defeats the purpose of oversight. That was true when Republicans were bashing the agency for supposedly obstructing the Bush administration's policies, and it's true now when Democrats are scrounging for evidence to prove that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was right when she accused the agency of lying about its activities.

President Obama has tried to end this "gotcha" culture -- to start looking forward, rather than backward, as he put it -- from his first day in office. He said it plainly in his inaugural address: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Obama said it again when he visited the CIA on April 20. Against the advice of Panetta and other intelligence professionals, he had decided to release the text of Justice Department legal memos on interrogation, which showed in ugly detail that the agency had been given legal authority to torture al-Qaeda captives. But he offered agency officials a grand bargain. The facts about interrogation would be disclosed, but CIA officers who relied on the Justice Department's advice wouldn't face prosecution.

CIA veterans were skeptical about Obama's promise, especially when the president said the next day that Holder would make the final decision. But lawyers who studied the case thought Holder would decide against a prosecutor because he almost certainly couldn't get convictions. It would be impossible to prove "criminal intent" for CIA interrogators who operated within the framework of the Justice Department's guidance. And as for "unauthorized practices" outside the guidelines, which were revealed in a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general -- such as kicks, threats and other abuse -- Justice Department attorneys had already concluded that these actions didn't warrant criminal prosecution.

Holder is said to have been sickened by what he read about the interrogations. And who wouldn't be? That was a dark chapter in American history that should never be repeated, and Obama has rightly changed the rules. But what would be accomplished by the appointment of a prosecutor in a case where criminal intent would be so hard to prove? The only certainty is that the process would damage careers and morale at the CIA.

"Will anyone go to jail? Probably not. But you will leave a trail of destroyed officers," predicts one CIA veteran. Meanwhile, I fear, CIA employees will steer away from areas such as counterterrorism where the political winds may change.

Obama understands that the country needs a better and stronger intelligence agency. He wants more information than he gets in his daily intelligence briefings, and he has discussed with Panetta the challenge of building a tougher, smarter, more aggressive CIA. That's a righteous goal, but it begins with depoliticizing the agency and ending the culture of permanent scandal.

If Obama means what he has said about looking forward rather than backward, then he should stick to his guns -- and hope that the attorney general and House speaker agree that it's time to stop kicking this football.

davidignatius@washpost.com

[RanchHQ]

[RanchHQ]

"Over at the CIA there are professionals today who are fearful that they may soon be forced to hire lawyers to defend them against the politicians' investigations." - R. Emmet Tyrrell

Consequences of the Liberals' Death Wish
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 7.16.09 @ 6:08AM

WASHINGTON -- Witnessing the current attempt by liberal Democrats in Congress to investigate CIA officers and possibly prosecute them for a covert initiative allegedly undertaken in time of war (a war that is still going on) inspires a happy thought. Perhaps these liberals have a death wish. The American people do not want another 9/11 attack on our shores. They approve of operations against al Qaeda, covert or otherwise. If the liberals continue in their harassment of the CIA for its efforts to protect American national security, for a certitude the electorate will turn these liberals out. Sayonara, my liberal friends!

If the liberals' death wish only extends to themselves, they have my full support. Yet, it is conceivable that their death wish extends to the country itself. They rarely have anything very complimentary to say about their homeland. President Barack Obama talks about the United States as though it were a failed state. Liberals in general talk about the United States as though it were the provenance of slavery, bigotry, male chauvinism, and -- oh yes -- cowboy diplomacy. The only favorable thing about America that I have heard from the liberals recently is that America was the birthplace of Michael Jackson. In Congress they observed a moment of silence, to commemorate his assuming room temperature.

The liberals' present furor over the CIA's covert operations against al Qaeda suggests that they harbor a death wish not just for themselves but for the whole country. Nations at war are not supposed to divulge military or intelligence operations. Often they keep them confidential for generations. The British historian David Reynolds, in his superb book about Winston Churchill's World War II memoirs, tells us that both Churchill and the Labour government kept state secrets hidden from the British public and from the world years after the war had ended. Reynolds relates in In Command of History how Churchill's famous Nobel Prize-winning memoir abounds with evasions and inaccuracies, for instance, Churchill's silence about cracking the Nazi code (Enigma), or Churchill's true assessment of Eisenhower and Stalin. Had Churchill been forthright on these matters the Labour government might never have allowed the volumes to be published.

Today's liberals in Congress are demanding the investigation and threatening the prosecution of intelligence officers who are rumored to have undertaken a secret initiative to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. The initiative was supposedly authorized by the president immediately after 9/11. It is not clear that the initiative ever got beyond the planning stages. Reportedly it envisaged sending hit teams into al Qaeda territory to do what our Predator and Reaper drones are now doing, killing our enemies. Naturally much about the initiative is shrouded in secrecy. Yet, by charging that Congress should have been informed of the initiative, liberals are making a colossal fuss. They claim the diabolical Cheney ordered the CIA to keep the Congress in the dark. They claim the initiative was illegal. They want the whole shocking scheme out in the open. Doubtless, al Qaeda does too.

There are serious consequences to this sort of harassment of intelligence operations. Over at the CIA there are professionals today who are fearful that they may soon be forced to hire lawyers to defend them against the politicians' investigations. Uncertain as to whether the Obama Administration will protect them, they are distracted and hunkering down. Ongoing operations are being affected.

Right now, very reliable sources tell me that the CIA is aware of the presence of al Qaeda leaders in Somalia and possibly Yemen. The terrorists have moved operations there from Pakistan, but the CIA is reluctant to take action against these brutes out of fear that they will not be supported by the government and may be exposed on Capitol Hill.

Such are the consequences of our liberals' death wish. As I say, I do not mind them imperiling their existence. When they imperil our intelligence community's ability to prevent another 9/11, it is no joke.

LINK: The American Spectator : Consequences of the Liberals' Death Wish

[RanchHQ]

"These new allegations, letters and calls for investigations are part of a strategy by Democrats to attack intelligence personnel and agencies." - Rep. Peter Hoekstra

INTELLIGENCE GAMES

DEMS POLITICIZE NAT'L SECURITY

By PETER HOEKSTRA

Last updated: 3:38 am
July 20, 2009
Posted: 2:25 am
July 20, 2009

THIS month has brought a sudden surge in partisan ship, accusations and calls for investigations on intelligence matters by House Democrats.
Democrats are claiming they were lied to by the CIA about a program and gleefully charge that then-Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the agency to not brief this program to Congress.

CIA Director Panetta refused to back the allegation that Cheney gave such an order. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden flatly denied that he'd ever been instructed not to brief Congress. Now Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has also distanced himself from these over-the-top allegations by House Democrats.

There's also been a flurry of bizarre letters from House Intelligence Committee members about this matter suggesting that Democrats are no longer interested in bipartisan oversight of intelligence. One was slipped under a Republican staff member's door after business hours. I first learned about it from the news media.



Another letter signed by seven Democratic House intelligence-committee members did not use House Intelligence committee stationery, apparently to ensure that Republicans didn't get a copy. Two Democratic House Intelligence Committee members refused to sign this letter because they thought it was too political.

These new allegations, letters and calls for investigations are part of a strategy by Democrats to attack intelligence personnel and agencies. Why? To protect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who is in hot water over her May 14 comments that the CIA "lies all the time" and misled her about enhanced interrogation of terrorist suspects.

A major consequence of this Democratic effort to politicize intelligence is that the House Intelligence Committee has essentially stopped doing meaningful work. The 2010 intelligence-authorization bill was so poorly drafted (and loaded with language to protect Pelosi) that President Obama threatened a veto, forcing Democratic leaders to pull the bill from consideration this month.

Moreover, although the House Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff is loaded with attorneys supposedly to conduct investigations, the committee has failed to do any serious investigating. For example, 67 days have elapsed with no committee investigation of Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her about enhanced interrogation of terrorist suspects.
And Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes announced on Dec. 10, 2007 that the committee would conduct an investigation of destroyed video tapes of CIA terrorist interrogations. Now, 588 days later, there is no sign this investigation will ever issue a final report.

The full committee also has failed to meaningfully act on numerous calls by Republicans to conduct an investigation of the findings of a fall 2008 CIA Inspector General report that exhaustively substantiated claims (as opposed to the speaker's hollow, contradicted assertions) that the agency misled Congress about a 2001 shoot-down of a civilian airplane over Peru in 2001 which killed two Americans.

Disarray by House Democrats on intelligence oversight is seriously damaging the morale of US intelligence officers and their ability to do their jobs. How can Democrats claim they are serious about national security when they are exploiting intelligence and attacking intelligence professionals for political advantage?

I have emphasized that the intelligence community must be accountable when it does not tell Congress what it is doing. But when Congress is told and approves, Congress needs to be held accountable.

Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to her about enhanced interrogations and recent Democratic claims that the CIA misled them about another program ignore the point that Democrats were repeatedly briefed on and approved the CIA's tough counterterrorism programs from the outset.

Pelosi can't escape the fact that she clearly knew about and did not object to the programs she now claims CIA lied to her about. It isn't the CIA that needs to be held to account here -- it is the House speaker.
The incredible amount of partisanship Democrats have introduced into intelligence matters is demoralizing the US intelligence community, causing sensitive information to be disclosed and encouraging our enemies. For the good of our nation, Democrats need to start acting like adults and begin conducting responsible and bipartisan intelligence oversight. These attacks on our intelligence community need to stop now.

Partisan political games have no place when it comes to national security.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R- Mich.), is the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee

LINK: INTELLIGENCE GAMES - New York Post

[Yogi]

Ranch, you seem to be a little lonely on this subject but your rant just reinforces the decision I made back in 72 to register as a Libertarian. Maybe someone can tell me how long it's been since honesty and integrity guided this great nation.