Mark Impomeni

Contributor

Democrats Complain About CIA Leaks

Posted:

05/13/09

Filed Under:Democrats, National Security

23 Comments +

Join the discussion »

TEXT SIZE:AAA
PRINT

On the defensive over the revelation that top Democrats in the House and Senate knew about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees from the very earliest days of the controversial program, Democrats on Capitol Hill are complaining that the CIA is engaging in a deliberate media campaign to embarrass the party. The charge revolves around a 10-page summary of briefings given to members of Congress on the CIA interrogations prepared at the request of Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. The report shows that Democrats in both chambers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), were informed as early as 2002 about the use of methods that Democrats later labeled torture. No objections were raised at the time of the briefings, however.

Democrats say that the summary was leaked to the media by the CIA in part to deflect attention and responsibility away from the agency. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the release of the summary "interesting," noting that it became public at a time when "some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism." Senate Intelligence Committee member Russ Feingold (D-WI) appeared to lay blame for the leak at the feet of the White House. "[M]embers of the committee and their staff were not in any way involved. [The leak] appears to come from the executive branch itself...I think it's unbelievable." Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the current committee chairman, said ultimately, the effort would not help the CIA to dodge responsibility for its actions.

"Look, the CIA has the responsibility – there's no question about that. 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."

Feinstein may be right, but Democrats have argued strongly against the interrogations on moral grounds, saying that torture is wrong at all times and under all circumstances. It is only natural, then, that Democratic lawmakers' actions upon learning about the use of harsh interrogation methods are being scrutinized. There is no question that the silence of many top Democrats on the interrogations has hurt the party's arguments against the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. Democrats are desperately trying now to take the focus off their failure to object to the methods, and put it back on the CIA.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!

23 comments

+ add your own

Mark Impomeni

Mark Impomeni is not a journalist, or a pundit, but a citizen with a keen interest in national issues. Skeptical and argumentative...more

Contact Mark Impomeni

subscribe to: RSS email: Mark Impomeni

Comments (23)

- TURN COMMENTS OFF

ADD A COMMENT

majorsujet

9:13AM May 13th 2009

Congress was briefed of the techniques by the CIA and approved them. Pelosi herself stated she was only briefed once. How many times do you need to be briefed? What a joke. Take responsibility Congress.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(5)

monroelaw

9:25AM May 13th 2009

Nancy got caught telling a series of lies. She can parse her words as carefully as a San Francsico Madam talking to a vice cop but it isn't going to change the truth. She loved the CIA when they were undermining the Bush administration, but its a different story when her misdeeds and lies are exposed.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(7)

sandsnnydz

10:24AM May 13th 2009

there was absolutely NO DECENT on any and all interrogation techniques used at time of by

ANYONE IN CONGRESS

none....nada ....zippo.... none ....if there was such a memo do you NOT think we would have seen it by now? ..... please

how much more clear does that get? Nancy Pelosi wanted this now she doesn't know how it will end for her....

the Democratic Congress would like to pick and choose what is made open and TRANSPARENT to the public

Nancy Pelosi has tortured the truth one too many times now she wants to put the toothpaste back in the tube?

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

mdmkallen

9:48AM May 13th 2009

The fact that the Democratic party wants to stop these interrogations on MORAL grounds is laughable. This is the same party that many of it members believe it is okay to allow late term and even partial birth abortions. They place more value on the life of a known terroristic killer than they do on the life on an innocent child - it's totally backward thinking.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(5)

wdfisher57

9:51AM May 13th 2009

Just as the revisionist history that Democrats tried using after their media campaign against us even being in Iraq took root, and this only after months of hand wringing and second guessing by coastline liberals (E or W), the same tactic is now being used to try and absolve members of Congress who were briefed about what we were doing to the captured masterminds of 9/11. They were all full briefed prior to their votes to go into Iraq, they were fully briefed as to what we were doing to get information out of these thugs, and they were fully briefed about the true state of the state of the economy due to their meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I imagine they were even fullly aware of all those bonus payments and corporate soirie's being planned over at AIG as well. The fact is that a concerted effort has been made to replace personal responsibility with deflecting blame towards the previous administration. The media has been their loyal mouthpiece due to their misguided belief that GW was falsly placed in to office by the Supreme Court in 2000. Its the root cause for all these unending "so called" revelations about our tactics fighting the once called "war on terror". If you had a job that required your to keep abreast of the comings and goings of your subordinates, and something goes wrong, rarely is the I didn't realize excuse plausible or a very successful excuse. The Democrats are claiming their ignorance about what was occuring within the government once again. I believe them, they are ignorant! So are their koolaid drinking supporters.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(5)

giles chauvin

11:00AM May 13th 2009

wow, you'd swear that saddam attacked on 9-11 because he had wmd's.
P.S.
look around,.....we need more abortions.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-2)

Somber

11:09AM May 13th 2009

Given that the information was, at the time, classified, what could Pelosi and other democrats, who were the minority party in congress, do with this information? Resign in protest over something they could not divulge publicly without felonious action? So fresh after 9/11, without the anestetic application of time, would the public even have cared had Pelosi and other democrats of voiced their objections? Being incapable of forestalling the Iraq war, does anyone thing that Pelosi could have challenged the decisions of a president with a sixty eight percent approval rating less than a year after 9/11?

There's stupid, and then there's suicidal.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-3)

Mark Impomeni

12:45PM May 13th 2009

Somber,

This debate is not supposed to be about politics. It shouldn't matter whether the Democrats could have done anything about alleged torture. If what the Bush Administration was doing was so wrong, then Democrats had an obligation to speak out, even if those objections remained private and classified.

The fact that no one, save Jane Harman and Jay Rockefeller (who wrote a letter to himself and placed it in the Senate Intelligence Committee's secure vault for just this eventuality) shows that the Democrats objections when they finally did come were not principled, but politically motivated. In other words, Democrats were okay with alleged torture when they thought that would win them votes, and only discovered their morality on the issue when they thought that would win them votes.

Say what you will about the Bush Administration's decision to use enhanced interrogation techniques, but at least the Bush Administraiton and Republicans in Congress were principled about it.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Sincerely,

Mark Impomeni

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

lulu

11:38AM May 13th 2009

Given that the information was, at the time, classified, what could Pelosi and other democrats, who were the minority party in congress, do with this information?
_______________________
Well, Somber, she could have done what her nemesis at the time did...write a letter of objection. Jane Harmon is now relishing the fact that karma, indeed, is a wonderful thing.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

lulu

11:42AM May 13th 2009

The dems should just keep their mouths shut at this point, especially regarding the CIA. One day they might wake up to a front page newspaper display of Barry's birth certificate.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(3)

Splash

1:34PM May 13th 2009

Funny how it is all in the name of transparency until a Liberal is exposed; then its a leak.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(3)

Splash

1:44PM May 13th 2009

It may be that The Big O is tired of being Queen Pelosi's rubber stamp president. Now that the Senate Democrats have plenty of votes to hold Republicans at bay, the White House has determined that any Liberal Speaker will do. Watch out California! CHANGE may be coming to you!

It is likely that this assault came from The Big O himself. The CIA is under the Executive Branch and remember who is CIA director? A Clintonite, Leon Panetta. And who hates, Hates, HATES Queen Pelosi. That's right. The Clintons. The CIA leak cannot possibly be a Republican thing. They do not have the power; they don't hold any cards. This is a struggle for the reigns of power within the Liberal structure.

God save the QUEEN! She ain't no human being!

Pelosi may be going the way of Jim Wright. But she won't go down easy. Look for some bitter bitter backlash from the Queen if this goes to far. I heard she was kissing The Big O's ass yesterday.

I can feel the love. Can you feel it???

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

Pundit

2:54PM May 13th 2009

Somber is of course correct in her assessment in the wake of the 6 month delayed, classified briefing. The individual & separated informed consent of congress did not even allow the briefed to speak between themselves about these issues.

Capital hill debate heats up: Sen. Russ Feingold says Cheney is wrong: ‘Nothing I have seen’ in the CIA memos proves torture was necessary. http://www.wikio.com/video/1122332

Torture does not work as Cheney's goal of falsely implicating Saddam in 911, was never met while Cheney's 98 torture detention camp deaths make us & the Milt less safe.

Just 12 of 98 deaths of detainees in U.S. custody have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official until 2006. In eight cases in which prisoners have been tortured to death, the steepest sentence meted out has been five months in jail. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701320.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The contentious debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" took center stage on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such techniques -- including waterboarding -- are ineffective.

Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/interrogation.hearing/index.html

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-4)

WADE....

5:11PM May 13th 2009

Pundit = Terrorist ass kisser!----> )!(

Look who's side Pundit's on...he/she/it PROUDLY STANDS WITH THE TERRORISTS...ask Pundit how many people died on 9/11?...THE COMMIE WILL TELL YOU 19........ (19 TERRORISTS).

At least 2,985 people died in the September 11th attacks, including:
19 terrorists
2,966 victims [2,998 as of Spring 2009]

Pundit is nothing more than a Terrorist Supporter just like Holder... Pundit could care less about the safety of you or your family or his for that matter. The far-left will put your safety (AMERICA'S) at risk for the rights of TERRORISTS. They bash Christianity and are just fine with Islam (foot bathes and goat kabobs for all). Are these people insane?

Pundit says Torture doesn't work, maybe he/she/it should tell that to Obama, Holder and Pelosi they seem to disagree with Pundit, but he/she/it's to stupid to see that....

Rendition remains in the CIA’s playbook... THANK GOD, TO A JAN. 22 EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. ( MAKES WATER BOARDING LOOK LIKE KID'S PLAY) ‘Rendition’ program that moves terrorism suspects from one country to another,” reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.

Pundit and the left-loon commies on here talk about morals, "Morals" (MORALS) DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.....LIARS, HYPOCRITES, FRAUDS, TAX CHEATS, HOMO-MARRIAGE AND ABORTION.....MORALS??????? hahahahaha

***

Pundit
5:06PM May 12th 2009
Cheney is quaking in his boots as facts of the 98 detainee murders confront him!

Cheney & Condi's Authorized Torture does not work, but did kill 98 in custody, detainees!

****

Eric Holder Defended the FALN Terrorist Pardons.

Barack Obama's Attorney General candidate Eric Holder was grilled in Congress after the Clinton Administration pardoned FALN terrorists before leaving office. This testimony on the Clinton pardons of the 16 FALN terrorists took place in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Orrin Hatch grilled Holder because the FALN terrorists never even requested clemency...
And, the Clinton Administration never even contacted the victim's families.

Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and the pardon attorney continued to invoke the president's executive privilege during the testimony. The FALN terrorist's were behind more than 120 bomb attacks on United States targets between 1974 and 1983.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

Pundit

5:27PM May 13th 2009

Buffoon wade, I think that even you know that I lost 4 members of my WTC staff on 911 which is one of many reasons that I was never dumb enough to embrace a faux oil war with 'feigned' ignorance of the 1.3M innocent Iraqi's collaterally killed while tripling GOP big oil donors, record sales & profits. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/pr_2004/burnham_iraq.html

Get real, experts say torture does not work while other non lethal techniques do work rapidly! http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/eu-tests-brain-scanning-to-catch-terrorists-597786

Again: Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/interrogation.hearing/index.html

Wasn't Inhannity too afraid to even try WB by experts? LOL

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-2)

Truth

4:27PM May 13th 2009

Imagine that, leaks from the CIA. The liberals didn't seem to mind when Bush was the victim of constant leaks. Now they're all upset. Boo-Hoo. What they are upset about is the same thing that always upsets them: the TRUTH!
Certain logic challenged liberals can't seem to get their minds to comprehend that Pelosi is a liar and a hypocrite, and so are many democrats. Trotting out pathetic non sequiturs, one right after the other, in a pathetic attempt to make excuses for the Democrats blatant dishonesty. Here is an example of the pathetic excuses being offered:

The democrats were the minority during the post 9/11 period during which they were briefed on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, so they couldn't say anything. They were so afraid of Bush they couldn't speak? Bullshit. If only. I suppose they are still so afraid of Bush that they have to lie about their own complicity. When has Pelosi ever shut her big fat flapping lips?

Another excuse is the unredoubtable: "I forgot". What's next, "The dog ate my briefing papers"? This kind of stupidity obviously works on liberals, but the rest of us aren't falling for this kind of crap.

Has Eric Holder checked his records yet to inform us on how many times he authorized rendition, and extraordinary rendition? The torture he authorized was REAL torture. What brilliant excuse will liberaldumb come up with for Holder?

"He was drunk."

"He needed glasses."

"It's all Bush's fault."

"It depends on what your definition of rendition is."

"That was during Clinton's administration, so it doesn't count."

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

Pundit

4:58PM May 13th 2009

Truf>'They were so afraid of Bush they couldn't speak?'

It is against the law to release, discuss, confirm or comment on any classified info from the individual isolated briefings, unless declassified by the NSA or the President.

Don't believe me? Why don't you post classified info here now & quickly prove me wrong!

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-3)

WADE....

5:22PM May 13th 2009

Democrats on Capitol Hill are complaining that the CIA is engaging in a deliberate media campaign to embarrass the party.
embarrass the party?
embarrass the party??
embarrass the party???

THE PARTY IS AN EMBARRASSMENT, THEY DO IT ON THEIR OWN....FrIcKiN MoRoNiC.

YOU BROUGHT THIS SHIT TO THE TABLE....NOW EAT IT. IDIOTS!

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

kathy

5:26PM May 13th 2009

Well Pundit, some of us look at it this way, she was asked a simple question, all she needed was a simple answer, looks like she knew and now doesn't want us to know she knew. But we do...................

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(3)

Texan

6:18PM May 13th 2009

Don't you all find it amazing the number of "leaks" that just start popping when the Democrats are in control of it all? It reminds me of when I was a youngster and I didn't feed my hamsters enough. I'd check on them after a few days and lo and behold a few of them disappeared, mostly the young ones. The older Dems know that if they send out a few trial ballons, they can eat their own young and save their own asses. Glad to see liberal politics as usual in DC. But hey, after all it's Bush's fault. At least he's man enough to accept responsibility.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(3)

Most Recent | Next 20 »

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.