Comments on: Intelligence Official Explains Graham Briefing Story; Panetta Gives CIA a Pep Talk

By: ??? ????

??? ???? — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:02:37 +0000

thank you

By: ??? ????

??? ???? — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:02:37 +0000

thank you

By: Lori Boone

Lori Boone — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:05:18 +0000

Who decides whether or not the determination of the briefings by this Congress are truthful and rational?
The current politics are so dirty and the balance of power is so unequitable that I do not trust any of the decisions that are made by them. No actions from the liberal Democratic party, in at least the past 8 years, have been noble. Decisions have not been made for the good of the American people. The country has been manipulated, punctured and lacerated by a party so eager to “get back the White House” (like it was their's) and regain control of Congress that all honor and any ethical behavior has been trashed. I don't believe there is an ounce of integrity in Pelosi's body; I think it was lost in the filthy politics she and her fellow political allies have played for so long that they don't even know what honesty is…
As for Leon Panetta? Hip hip Hooray for his integrity. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was right-on about him. He is a true-blood, decent human being. Though he is not responsible, he might lay down for the injustices that roll down his way and save others if possible. I like his style!

By: Jeff in Miami

Jeff in Miami — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:35:19 +0000

I think Panetta should be saying that the CIA is now in serious trouble. First with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and now with Pelosi calling them liars along with a Graham. Now where are the real minutes to these meetings? I would trust a used car sales person over Pelosi or Graham.

I know if I worked at the CIA, my resume would be all over the place to get out of there. It is going to be a good year for Military Intel, they will end up hiring many of the people that leave and corporations will pick up the rest. They really do have a unique skill set.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:01:35 +0000

Oh and one more thing Ackerman, according to Bob Graham, even in the one instance where the CIA is now saying he was briefed on the use of EITs he is saying they didn't brief him on that. So they still didn't respond to that charge that they got it wrong with him as well. And Richard Shelby's statement today fell far short of endorsing the CIA's version because it didn't say that he was briefed on EITs that had been used either.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/richa...

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:56:52 +0000

The problem for Panetta of course is that he wasn't around in 2002 and so he has no clue what they were directed to do back then. I understand that he is trying to get his weight up in the agency since he is an outsider but he is getting dangerously close to the line of attaching his own credibility to facts not in evidence. The CIA's own records don't show that Pelosi was specifically briefed on waterboarding in 2002 so he has no authority to say she was. And if she wasn't then she was misled. Its real simple, call Panetta's office and ask them point blank if Pelosi was briefed on Zubaydah having been waterboarded in 2002. Don't accept the stock “she was briefed on what he had been employed”. Put them on the spot and make them attest to whether or not she was briefed on the waterboarding having been used. A yes or no question with no equivocation. When they refuse to do it you will have all the evidence you need.