Wednesday, May 13, 2009

CIA Sitrep for Obamanoids: "They're out to get us!" -- Cluster coital situation remains unfornicated.

The Old "Vince Foster": Obamanoids to revive the Clinton System of Ritual "Suicide"?

Regular readers of this blog will recall my comments on 5 May regarding Jack Kelly's column about the capacity of elements of the CIA to cause trouble for the Obamanoids here. Entitled The CIA's Fight With Obama: An Inside Baseball Story Told in a Riverfront Stadium About To Be Wrecked By the Godzilla of Events, I concluded:

We should not make too much of this. The "Fifth Column," whoever they were, did not give us enough information to finish off the political career of Bill Clinton, or even to achieve justice for the Waco and Oklahoma City innocents. And every agency has its factions, divisions and bifurcations. But Obama has struck at the twin engines of the CIA's institutional life force -- operational secrecy and agent anonymity. They will not forgive him easily for it, and Obama's own narcissistic egomania will likely get in the way of any true mea culpa. And the corrupt Leon Panetta, of all people, is hardly competent enough to unfornicate this.

As we see from the story below, Panetta's inability to unfornicate this cluster coital situation continues. How long Panetta can continue to be embarrassed by his own alleged subordinates without being offered a Luger and a single bullet by the Obamanoids now becomes the stuff of office betting pools at Langley.

Democrats: CIA is out to get us

By MANU RAJU | 5/12/09 6:28 PM EDT

Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it “interesting” that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as “some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”

Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: “Sure it is.”

The CIA has long been on the receiving end of harsh rebukes from Congress — on intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq, on secret prisons abroad and on the harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects. But with the release of records showing that it briefed members of Congress along the way, the CIA has effectively put lawmakers on the defensive.

Intelligence officials insist it wasn’t intentional and have not taken responsibility for publicly releasing the documents.

Asked for comment about the Democrats’ charges, CIA spokesman George Little said only that the CIA “understands the importance of a strong relationship with the Congress, which in our democracy, conducts oversight of secret intelligence activities.”

But another U.S. intelligence official went further, noting that the records of the congressional briefings were “prepared in response to a request from Congress.”
Intelligence Committee member Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said it appears that “members of the committee or their staff were not in any way involved in [the release of the document]. It appears to come from the executive branch itself. ... I think it’s unbelievable.”

A top congressional official who has participated in the briefings added: “I think the agency wanted to get this out, quite frankly.”
The 10-page document, which was prepared after an April 20 request by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), lists 40 instances in which the CIA briefed members of Congress between September 2002 and March 2009. But they provide a vague description of the briefings, giving just enough information to fuel claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top officials have long known about waterboarding and other tactics but did little to stop the techniques from being used.
The document came with a disclaimer from CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said that some of the descriptions of briefings “may not be accurate.” And it was leaked to the press just as Democrats were debating the idea of a sprawling investigation into the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques.

Questions about the CIA’s motives have added to bad feelings between the CIA and Democrats on the Hill and in the Obama administration. Panetta tried to limit the release of Justice Department memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, but he lost a struggle with the department, and the memos were released. CIA officials fear that release of the memos could subject them to lawsuits and hurt officers in the field.

The memos are to be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Feinstein acknowledged Tuesday that suspicions over the documents aren’t helping the Hill’s relations with the agency. But she said that’s why her panel is conducting a classified investigation on torture in a “professional way” in seeking unredacted documents, e-mails and cables. And she said that she will include language in an upcoming intelligence authorization bill that would expand classified briefings to the entire panel — rather than just the chairman and the ranking member — except in “exceptional circumstances.”

Still, she said that responsibility for the interrogation techniques the CIA used lie with the CIA.

“Look, the CIA has the responsibility — there’s no question about that,” Feinstein said. “Because you brief or notify doesn’t mean there’s any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this — in my opinion.”

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, said that if Pelosi or other Democrats objected to the interrogation techniques when they were briefed on them, they could have offered legislation — or withheld appropriations for the program.

“We’re not without power up here,” Hatch said. “Now, they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.”

Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called “a strong, affirmative yes.”


Anonymous said...

Several thoughts RE: Congress vs the CIA:

-Actions have consequences.
-No good deed goes unpunished.


B Woodman
SSG (Ret) U S Army

Frederick H Watkins said...

“Look, the CIA has the responsibility — there’s no question about that,” Feinstein said. “Because you brief or notify doesn’t mean there’s any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this — in my opinion.”

That's right up there with "I prefer a P-38 and two rounds, just in case I miss the first time."

Anonymous said...

What good is a can opener in a situation like this?

Brass said...

“Now, they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.”

"Tough decisions." Right, Hatch. You're talking about torture like pro-abortion people talk about abortion. A "tough decision." It should probably only be used as a "last resort," too. No, Hatch, it's not a "tough decision." It's a grossly immoral decision, wholly contrary to the most basic core of human dignity, a human dignity that can never be surrendered, by virtue of every human being having been created in the image and likeness of God, having both a will and intellect which God himself will not coerce. Woe to the pathetic, grasping, mere creature of God who thinks he has the right to coerce the will of any other human being.

Even if it were true that torture protected Americans, any people that tortures in order to protect itself is a people that deserves to be erased from the surface of the earth by God's justice.

J. Travis said...

So, is it more moral to allow our non-combatants to be targets of war, and then retaliate militarily with daisy cutters and napalm, killing thousands in "collateral damage"?

Smug moralizing is a luxury of those who see themselves as beyond risk, and above the dirty facts of deadly conflict.

Brass said...

Travis Lee,

Personally, I would rather be turned into hamburger by a terrorist's bomb than be saved by torturing (coercing the will) of even one human being created in the image and likeness of God: having both a free will and intellect.

So, no. You may not do evil that good may come of it.

Unless you'd like to disagree with St. Paul, who explicitly says that no one may do evil that good may come of it. (Romans 3:8)

Defender said...

Today Nancy Pelosi is caught in a lie that she "was never briefed" on waterboarding even while condemning the Republicans for it. Then she admits ON TAPE she was told by someone who WAS briefed -- they told her in 2003. In other words, she was briefed.
She didn't object because "a letter of objection wouldn't have done any good. What was required was a change of leadership."
In other words, pay out the rope until they hang themselves, then take their offices.
Lying to the people while doing it, well, we kinda expect that, but thanks for proving to your own people that they should expect anything they get from you, Nance.

Defender said...

One problem with the whole torture/humiliation deal is, we've seen that once they do it to ACKNOWLEDGED enemies, they let it creep over to SUSPECTED ENEMIES, then to their own citizens who have been listed as enemies.
In war, you have the evil bastards, the brainwashed ignorants, the mindless followers. We KNOW they have ways of telling who's what. Execute the evil, re-educate the brainwashed, EDUCATE the simple.
Remember that these guys are stuck in the medieval. Torture is part of their judicial system. Can't scare them that way. Reduce the menu to only pork products and watch them squirm.
I'm serious. Appeal to that fanaticism. Make it a punch line.
Remember Madge with Dove detergent.
"I will never touch unclean pork!"
"You're soaking in it."
it IS nice to see some of our Elites backpedalling and juggling at the same time. Great entertainment, with a message.

J. Travis said...


I've seen (via TV) American servicemen murdered on Airliners, Americans beheaded on Youtube, people throwing themselves out of the WTC on 9-11.

You say that you would rather be turned into hamburger than be the beneficiary of the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Pretty big talk, for one who has ALREADY benefitted from acts which you have the luxury to condemn.

This pseudo-moral queasiness of so many convinces me that Al Qaeda will be emboldened to strike us, and when YOUR family members are killed or wounded, you will be front and center demanding that our military strike back with blind fury regardless of the deaths near the intended targets.

That's not principle.
That's something else.

Brass said...

Travis Lee,

No one really benefits where it matters when the dignity of human nature is violated.

As for this gutsy and probably baseless claim of anyone "benefiting" using the Mammon yardstick as a guide, do you really think that anyone can prevent any determined individual from coming over here and killing even more people than were slaughtered on 9/11? It didn't take a genius to plan 9/11. All the occupiers in the Middle East in the world, and all the Heimat-Sicherheitdienst in the world can't stop a determined individual from waltzing in, and with a few thousand bucks, killing as many people as he wants. In all honesty, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

As a final note, if you would, tell me why you think that the Saudi Arabians attacked Americans on 9/11.

Because they're jealous of "freedom?" Because they want to "impose a world religion?" Did you want to become a Muslim after 9/11? I know I didn't. Can they invade and occupy us and impose Shariah law on us? A laughable prospect.

Then, tell me why you think that mass-murderer Tim McVeigh did what he did. Because he hated freedom? Because he wanted to impose his view on the world?