CIA "Affirmatively Lied" To Us: House Intel Panel Chair Reyes

CQ Politics :

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes has suggested Republicans would be well advised to avoid politicizing the intelligence authorizaton bill later this week in light of evidence that, he says, shows that the CIA "affirmatively lied to" the panel.

In a Tuesday letter to his committee's top-ranking Republican, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, that was obtained by Congressional Quarterly, Reyes, D-Texas, wrote that the committee has recently received information that reveals significant problems with the intelligence agency's reporting to the panel.

Read the whole story: CQ Politics

Comments

[Lilith33]

And AIG?

The American International Group at its origins was linked to the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) the forerunner of the CIA. It grew from the Asia Life/C. V. Starr companies founded by Cornelius Starr who started his insurance empire in Shanghai in 1919, the first westerner to market insurance in China.

Starr served with the OSS during World War II, and the Starr Corporation, located in the same building as the OSS in New York, provided intelligence on shipping, manufacturing and industrial bombing targets in Asia and Germany. The companies' biggest shareholder was Starr International Company (SICO), a private holding company incorporated in offshore Panama and with principal executive offices in offshore Bermuda, to avoid U.S. regulation and taxes. Starr left Greenberg a large block of Starr International stock. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11657

[Mekarri]

I was very proud to vote for President Obama and I still think he was the best choice. But I am so disappointed with some of his decisions. I realize that being President doesn't means he has the power to control all the traitor in his party. But he isn't putting his foot down when he does have the power to do so. I am so disappointed.

[damilitantone]

Will Pelosi and Reid do their jobs now? How much more needs to be revealed before they start holding folks accountable?

[Chaimirija]

The CIA lied? THE CIA? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[miriamfl]

Many of us knew that the Democratic leaders were mislead and uninformed and I'm sure it was specifically requested by the Bush/Cheney regime.

[AuntiepoppyCock]

Surprise! The system is a corrupt greedy unhinged beast. Where do I apply?

[addisonsteele]

Why is anyone surprised by this? CIA has a long, well documented history of lying to Congress.

[MikeDu]

"“This agency and this director are committed to a candid dialogue with Congress,” said CIA spokesman George Little."

Yeh, that statement's about as believeable as that Michael Jackson interview where he swore "I NEVER had any plastic surgery".

Actually, I just noticed Little's use of the word 'candid'. He did NOT say he was committed to a 'cooperative' dialogue, or 'truthful' or 'full' or 'useful' - all he said was 'candid'.

[smiththomas]

Reyes must be trying to help Pelosi look better without using make up. If the lied they should prosecute. Why dont they. If they dont they have nothing.

[Derelict outlaw]

That will depend on if this was actually SWORN testimony as he alludes by using the phrase affirmatively.

If it was sworn testimony and can prove intent to deceive or mislead the committee than he has grounds, if it's unsworn anecdotal testimony then no....they can lie with impunity, like Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld et al.

[JessWonderin]

Attack the messager and IGNORE the message . . . let me guess . . . you also support Palin . . . .

[Derelict outlaw]

I support Palin's resignation and fishing endeavors enthusiastically, I might even send her a donation to support such for years to come.

[dpiyjrtmfr]

The CIA lied? Oh unknowable universe! Who could have seen that coming?

[AliMB]

Part I

Silvestre Reyes' letter offers little in the way of substance; his conjecture that the HouseIntelligenceCommittee was "in at least one occasion...affirmatively li.ed to" is not supplemented with any details or evidence. Furthermore, the scope and timeframe referenced by Reyes is unclear e.g. was this under his chairmanship, related to counterterr0rism, etc. We also don't know if this was a deliberate/intentional policy or the case of one briefing officer making fallacious statements during notification.

For those individuals foraging this forum in defense of Speaker Pelosi (as if knowing the CIA has previously li.ed would automatically vindicate her), Reyes' letter doesn't include any information that relates specifically to her case. Unfortunately for Pelosi, Commitee machinations do nothing to explain her evolving explanations (a hallmark indicator of dishonesty).

A while back the NYT reported that Pelosi insisted that "lawmakers were told only that the CIA believed the methods were legal, not that they were going to be used". Then in May the Speaker released a statement that read "I was briefed on interr0gation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future". Notice she drops the clause "not that they were going to be used" (a slight but important shift).

Then at her infamous press conference Pelosi stated that the CIA "informed then that the DOJ opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interr0gation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterb0arding at that briefing was that it was not being employed".

[Derelict outlaw]

Your aversion to the word torture is revealing and leads one to conclude that your an apologist for criminal activities of the previous administration.

[AliMB]

In one case the term "enhanced interr0gation technique" appears because I am directly quoting Pelosi. In other cases I specifically use 'EIT' because it is part of the CIA's nomenclature, and as such, is appropriate in public commentary.

FYI: EITs are a set of interr0gation techniques, not just waterb0arding. I have no idea what you or anyone else defines as 't0rture', so I will stick to the relevant term to avoid confusion.

[Derelict outlaw]

Orwell predicted well the double speak of revisionist history that would accompany the fascism of the future. Trying to re-name heinous acts as innocuous and mysterious is simply evil by another name IMO.

[jimmyjimmy07]

Nice excuse for not calling torture torture. I love how you pretend that it is too complicated to sort out. LOL.

And these are not interrogation techniques at all anyway. , they are torture techniques. NO one is asking questions, these are not question asking techniques, these are techniques used to are inflict bodily pain and mental anguish, that is torture, no interrogation at all, just torture.

But very very nice try, and nice talking points. Bravo, you have just joined the ranks of people that defend torture, we are all proud of you. Very proud.

[ibsteve2u]

Why doesn't the CIA just produce their recordings of their Congressional briefings?

[AliMB]

Part II

Even assuming that the latter excuse is accurate, it still doesn't change the fact that Pelosi was aware of the program (including the possibility of waterb0arding) and its scope i.e. applying 'harsh' treatment on terr0rists to extract information. There is no indication that Pelosi raised any objections/concerns after her 2002 briefing. Likewise, after allegedly learning of waterb0arding in 2003, she did not produce or co-sign any documentation that questioned the legality of the CIA's actions (her excuse for this is very bizarre).

One can only conclude that at the time she had no problem with the CIA's detenti0n/interr0gation program, but subsequently metamorphosed into a righte0us critic for political reasons.

I also found a TIME article from May2002 that reveals that Pelosi was very much in the loop on Zubaydah's interr0gation; particularly on the fact that CIA officers were having difficultly extracting useful information.

"Since his capture in March, AZ has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. "He's not b s -ing us on everything." Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "he is also very skilled at avoiding interr0gation. He is an agent of disinformation".

Given that Pelosi was aware of Zubaydah's ongoing interr0gation, and given that she was briefed on EITs in September, it seems implausible that she would not make the connection that harsh treatment would be used on an uncooperative terr0rist.

[Derelict outlaw]

Fallacious conclusion:

One can only conclude that at the time she had no problem with the CIA's detenti0n/interr0gation program, but subsequently metamorphosed into a righte0us critic for political reasons.

One can only conclude from your post an agenda in smearing the Speaker and distracting readers from the revelations of the Chairman about CIA;s lies during sworn testimony.

[AliMB]

If the conclusion you cited is "fallacious", would you be so kind as to provide an explanation for this:

Then at her infamous press conference Pelosi stated that the CIA "informed then that the DOJ opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interr0gation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterb0arding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."

Even assuming that the latter excuse is accurate, it still doesn't change the fact that Pelosi was aware of the program (including the possibility of waterb0arding) and its scope i.e. applying 'harsh' treatment on terr0rists to extract information. There is no indication that Pelosi raised any objections/concerns after her 2002 briefing. Likewise, after allegedly learning of waterb0arding in 2003, she did not produce or co-sign any documentation that questioned the legality of the CIA's actions (her excuse for this is very bizarre).

[otispfudpucker]

make a wish

[wesinohio]

Lies and misrepresentations. Why? To start a war. Was that the apple pie American thing to do?

[OlongapoEd]

If you are talking about theory, no. If you are talking about practice, mostly yes.

[CherokeeGirl]

Intelligence authorization bill? What intelligence authorization bill? I can't keep up!