| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Pelosi v. CIA |
| 2009-07-09 |
| The last time the CIA and Nancy Pelosi were in the news together, the House Speaker was accusing the agency of lying about its briefings to Congress on the interrogation of al Qaeda detainees. This week, the Speaker's fellow Democrats are set to block public disclosure of what Ms. Pelosi was really told and when. Democrats recently marked up the 2010 intelligence bill, and Republican Pete Hoekstra offered an amendment in committee to require the CIA to make public an unclassified version of its records on Congressional briefings. It also would have required the CIA to disclose the information gleaned from those interrogations. Democrats have spent years demanding a "truth commission" into interrogations, so you'd think such public disclosure would be welcome. Ah, that was when a different guy was in the White House and before Mrs. Pelosi had made her own veracity an issue. Suddenly, she's all for secrecy. And sure enough, Intelligence Committee Democrats lined up to protect their leader and defeated the Hoekstra amendment on a party line vote. This follows Democratic rejection of a resolution by Utah Republican Rob Bishop to initiate a bipartisan investigation of Mrs. Pelosi's accusation. CIA employees weren't so lucky. Chairman Silvestre Reyes's Intelligence Democrats passed a new requirement that the CIA videotape all detainee interrogations. This is a sop to the anti-antiterror left, which wants heads to roll because the CIA destroyed tapes of the interrogations of the likes of terrorist Abu Zubaydah. CIA clandestine chief Jose Rodriguez ordered those tapes destroyed precisely because he worried they might leak and compromise U.S. methods. Republicans offered an amendment to strip the videotape provision but lost on another partisan vote. This fits the Pelosi policy that the wartime decisions of CIA agents can and will be second-guessed years later, but Congressional acquiescence in those decisions is off-limits. Philip Mudd, a respected career intelligence officer, was recently blackballed by Congress for a Homeland Security job because he knew about harsh interrogations. The message to CIA operatives is don't take any risks for national security, and better have a lawyer on speed dial. All of which belies President Obama's promise that there would be no political recriminations for CIA actions taken after 9/11. Meanwhile, CIA Director Leon Panetta has so far said nothing publicly about the House's videotape provision. Democrats intend to bring the intelligence bill to the House floor this week, and Republicans are preparing a new set of amendments. At least on the videotapes, Mr. Obama ought to spend some political capital in the cause of protecting the spies we need to defend the country. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #4 The FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and the espionage agency SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) must love this show. |
| Posted by: Willy 2009-07-09 12:12 |
| #3 PvC. Whoever wins, we lose. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-07-09 10:50 |
| #2 Henry Waxman trots out the dissent is treason colloquy. Remember when dissent was patriotic? |
| Posted by: Black Bart Ebberens7700 2009-07-09 10:44 |
| #1 Red on Red. All the backstabbing and leaks during the Bush II era are now starting to get their due, but not in the way the players thought. Those who knew who were doing it and said nothing or acted can equally inherit the consequences. For every perceived favor they'd gain by playing the other side in the game, they've alienated just as many to protect them later when the 'purges' begin. You really think that the players of power were going to allow such an unreliable and unfaithful group retain a position of influence after they took the reigns? [rhetorical question]. They can either take their lumps or they can play hardball back. Just remember Honduras - if you strike at the king, you must kill the king. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-09 10:30 |