Rule Of Law Is For Suckers

CIA Director Leon Panetta takes to the Washinton Post to write an op-ed in pursuit of the Peggy Noonan view of Congressional oversight, when they see something illegal "just need to keep on walking". It would be funny if it wasn't so nauseating. We didn't vote in a new administration just to have them cover up the crimes of the previous adminstration. The political price they pay for not investigating may end up being a lot bigger than the price they would pay for holding people accountable. President Obama and the rest of the people around him seem to be missing the fact that in their quest to grab some of the middle they may lose all of the base. It is what it is.

Show Me Whatcha Workin Wit

Ladies and Gentlemen, there shall be an investigation!

This release just out from House Intel committee chair Silvestre Reyes, which says that House Dems have decided to probe the secret CIA program that had been concealed from Congress and was revealed the other day by CIA director Leon Panetta, is a big deal:

“After careful consideration and consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and other members of the Committee, I am announcing an official Committee investigation into possible violations of federal law, including the National Security Act of 1974.

“This investigation will focus on the core issues of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed. To this end, the investigation will examine several issues, including the program discussed during [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta’s June 24th notification and whether there was any official decision or direction to withold information from the Committee.”

Now the funny thing about investigations is that when you start pulling back the covers sometimes you find something you weren't even looking for.

Oh I don't know, like some skeletons that Dick Cheney is trying to keep buried.

Of Revelations And Trial Balloons

First the revelation:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

Money quote:

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee’s top Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency has not been as forthcoming as the law requires.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

Kinda sounds like what Speaker Pelosi said a couple months back doesn't it?


Now the trial balloon:

It's the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about," he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn't dwell on the fact that he's the country's first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

Now here is the deal. We who feel that the Bush Administration MUST be held accountable for their crimes against the constitution have to strike NOW when the iron is still hot! Here we have revelations about all of the ways Dick Cheney held back information from Congress coming at the same time that Eric Holder is openly contemplating an investigation, if there was ever a time that we had a shot at changing public perception on this issue it is now. We need to pound Cheney mercilessly for the next few weeks! Whatever new dirt that can be exposed should be brought out. All of the things we already know should be reemphasized. All of the lies he has told should be recounted. We need to pressure the mainstream media into reporting on the issue as well. Go on the Washington Post chats and keep asking the pundits to hold Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration accountable. Go on the mainsteam media blogs like Swampland or The Note and demand justice. Twitter it out with MSM folks like Jake Tapper and Joe Scarborough and DEMAND accountability.

We have been giving a slight opening. Its up to us to decide if we are going to exploit it or continue waiting on someone else to do it for us.

It is what it is.

Hypothetical...

Ok I am not saying its for sure, but how likely is it that this story that Spencer Ackerman is working on, dovetails with the previous story about a CIA program that Leon Panetta had to recently brief Congress on?

Cheney's Assasination Ring?

Since last night news of a letter that House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee sent to CIA Director Leon Panetta has created a strong buzz. Evidently last month Panetta testified to the committtee about a covert program which had been going on reportedly since 2001 until now and which members of Congress had never been briefed on. Clearly such testimony was at odds with Panetta's much ballyhooed statement on May 15 of earlier this year where he claimed that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead members of Congress.

That statement was used as a club by the House Republicans to beat up on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her earlier remarks that the CIA lied to her on a regular basis. So obviously this letter was in many ways a political move. But there is a high possibility that it was a policy move as well meant to underscore the need to include a provision in the new Intelligence funding bill set to be voted on in the House in the next few days which would require that the WhiteHouse brief more members of Congress on covert actions. The WhiteHouse has reportedly threatened to veto any bill with such a provision.

But now a possibly more important story is emerging. Above and beyond the question of whether or not Congress was properly briefed on this covert program the bigger deal may be what the program is in the first place. Could it be that this covert program is the same one that Seymore Hersch previously referred to as an assassination squad? Sam Stein of HuffPo examines the possibility.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of that ring's apparent existence in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "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," he added. "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."

Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans."

Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo.

Whip It Whip It Real Hard

Fresh off Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying the CIA lied to her yesterday, today Senator Ron Wyden upped the ante when he said the CIA broke the law in not keeping Congress informed.



CIA director Leon Panetta released a statement today that many cable news talking heads are reading as a refutation of Speaker Pelosi. But it looks like more and more Democrats are now speaking out against how the CIA handled their briefings of the torture program. It might be time for Panetta to just lay low since he wasn't in charge back when all of this went down. Otherwise he is attaching his credibility to actions taken by Bush Admininstration officials and that might just end his career as director quite prematurely.

What Obama Wants, Obama Gets

Yet more proof of President Obama's "shaky start" to his administration.

Neon Leon

Incoming head of the CIA Leon Panetta throws Dick Cheney's shit right back in his face.

A Message From The Rock For DiFi And Rockefeller

Bloomberg has a good piece up today about President Elect Barack Obama's choice to run the CIA Leon Panetta. Through out the piece you will find wide spread approval of the choice by some pretty reputable people.

A number of other experts in intelligence -- including former Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, praised the choice and dismissed the reservations of Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Tenet, CIA director during Bush’s first term, said Panetta was “a great choice.”

“He will bring stature and leadership to the agency,” Tenet said in an interview.

snip

Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence panel, said Panetta is a “savvy” Washington veteran who can change the agency.

snip

Hamilton, who once headed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Panetta’s lack of experience in intelligence gathering operations isn’t a hindrance in running the agency.

“He will bring a very needed perspective, an outside perspective, to the CIA at a critical time in the agency’s history,” Hamilton, now president of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in an interview.

snip

Milt Bearden, a former CIA official who was the agency’s station chief in Pakistan during the 1980s, said Panetta’s lack of an intelligence background may be a benefit.

Bearden said that, with retired Marine General James Jones serving as Obama’s national security adviser, Panetta would help offset the influence of the military.

“I have nothing against the military, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a civilian balance in the national-security establishment,” he said. During his service in Pakistan, Bearden was in charge of the CIA’s program of supporting and supplying Afghan fighters battling Soviet forces in their country.

So you would think everything would be sunny in Obama land right? Of course not. You see some fellow Democrats namely Senators Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockerfeller are a little pissy about it because nobody bent over to kiss their ass about the appointment.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who will be head of Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for the CIA job, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the current chairman, said they weren’t informed about the choice of Panetta, a former U.S. representative from California and chief of staff and budget director in President Bill Clinton’s White House.

Feinstein said in a statement she knew “nothing” about the selection of Panetta until media reports yesterday. An aide to Rockefeller who spoke to the senator said the West Virginia Democrat wasn’t consulted. Feinstein said she wants an “intelligence professional” in the post. Rockefeller also expressed concern about Panetta’s lack of experience, his aide said

Mind you these same too goofballs both voted FOR Porter Goss who was an absolute disaster as the head of the CIA but not only that you would be hard pressed to find ANY appointment that President Bush made that they voted against. But instead of keeping their mouth's shut they decide to crap all over the appointment on the day that it is announced. They are all bent out of shape because they weren't "consulted" about the pick. They also would rather have "pro torture" debuty CIA director Steve Kappes to run the agency. Yeah that would be change we could believe in, heh.

This is just another example of Democrats getting in their own way. And if you are wondering, YES I blame Harry Reid for this too because its indicative of how much of a weak leader he is that he can't keep his own party members in line. But I was reminded this morning of a catch phrase one of my favorite wrestlers used to employ. You see Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller, when you become President then you can pick whomever you want to run the CIA, but until then, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!