« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Lawmaker: CIA Already Being Probed For Misleading Congress
As they go after Nancy Pelosi over those CIA briefings, Republicans have been putting the burden of proof on the Speaker, suggesting that it's all but unheard of for the CIA to mislead others in government. But in fact, the agency is currently being probed for doing exactly that on a different issue -- and the effort was initiated by one of Pelosi's fiercest critics on the torture briefings kerfuffle.
Last night, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House intelligence committee, told MSNBC's Ed Schultz (h/t Democratic Underground):
On our subcommittee we are beginning an inquiry into a situation ... initiated by the ranking minority member to look at a situation where the CIA did mislead the Congress ... a documented issue of the CIA misleading the Congress.
A Schakowsky spokesman told TPMmuckraker that she was referring to the findings of a CIA inspector general report, portions of which were released last fall, which concluded that the agency had withheld crucial information from Congress and DOJ investigators who were probing whether CIA personnel committed crimes relating to the shooting of a missionary plane in Peru in 2001.
As the New York Times described it last November:
A C.I.A. surveillance aircraft mistakenly identified the plane as a drug-smuggling aircraft, and a Peruvian military jet shot it down, killing an American missionary and her 7-month-old daughter. The Justice Department closed its investigation into the matter in 2005, declining to prosecute agency officers for any actions related to the episode.But [the inspector general's] report, parts of which were made public on Thursday, said that the Justice Department investigators and Congress were never allowed access to internal C.I.A. reviews that portrayed the downing as one mistake among many in the agency's counternarcotics program in Peru. The report said the agency routinely authorized interceptions of suspected drug planes "without adequate safeguards to protect against the loss of innocent life." (our itals)
It continued:
The inspector general's report said that after the downing of the missionaries' plane, the C.I.A. had conducted internal reviews "that documented sustained and significant violations of required intercept procedures." But it said that the agency had denied Congress, the Department of Justice and the National Security Council access to these findings.
...The report ... says that C.I.A. lawyers from the office of the general counsel "advised agency managers to avoid written products lest they be subject to legal scrutiny" in connection with the downing of the plane.
Who was it who released portions of the report last fall, and, according to Schakowsky, initiated the current inquiry?
That would be Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the intel committee. At the same time that he released the report's excerpts, Hoekstra said he was asking DOJ to look into whether the CIA had obstructed justice, and called the incident "about as ugly as it gets." Schakowsky told Schultz last night that Hoekstra is "furious" about the incident.
That's the same Pete Hoekstra, of course, who's been front and center in portraying the agency as the embodiment of transparency and integrity in an effort to vilify Pelosi over the torture briefings. Appearing on CNN yesterday, Hoekstra called Pelosi's claims that the CIA had misled her "outrageous accusations."
But given that the agency is currently being probed on similar grounds -- in an inquiry initiated by Hoekstra himself -- perhaps Pelosi's claims aren't quite so outrageous after all.
Late Update: Thanks to reader XP, here's a bit more on Hoekstra's response to the IG report on the Peru shooting. Under the headline, "Republican Rep. Hoekstra Accuses CIA Of Coverup", CNN reported last November:
Rep. Pete Hoekstra on Thursday criticized "rogue" CIA employees involved in a joint CIA-Peruvian anti-narcotics program of withholding information after declassification of a CIA report identifying "routine disregard" of safety procedures that led to the plane being shot down....
"This issue goes to the heart of the American people's ability to trust the CIA," the Michigan lawmaker said Thursday. "Americans deserve to know that agencies given the power to operate on their behalf aren't abusing that power or their trust."

















Karma!
May 19, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it karma, when he's being sanctimoniously phony? (God, how can he even get those (the comments on Pelosi) words out of his throat without choking on them?)
May 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karma? It's come back to bite him!
May 19, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no. You don't understand. In the incident that infurates Hoekstra they were "rogue" agents. Get it? "ROGUE" agents.
In the torture instance, by contrast, they were Republican appointees obeying orders. A "rogue" doesn't obey orders.
You should know by now, as does everyone else, that "rogue" is tantamount to Saddam Hussein when on the "rouge state" list. That's different, ya see, than when Hussein's Iraq was taken off that list by Republican Reagan so weapons could be "legally" sold to Hussein and delivered by extra-governmental non-"rogue" Republican Donald Rumsfeld.
And don't let the "R" fool ya: "rogue" was spelled "dogue" until the Lib-ruls Communisticated all our dictionaries.
May 20, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Rep. Boener was at his tanning spa that day.
May 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting a "massage"?
May 20, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA needs an industrial vacuum to suck up all the muck (n. dirt, mess, manure) that's been allowed to thrive and create life forms that are even resistant to the strongest disinfectant.
And then would need to be taken to a hazardous waste disposal center.
Trust the veracity of this agency? Hell No! Not after the last eight years of Bush and His Band of Scary Men running the farm.
May 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The past 8 years? I think Mohammad Mossadegh would disagree with that time frame, since the CIA orchestrated his overthrow when they installed Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran in 1953. And quite a few people still think none too fondly of their role in the Bay of Pigs in 1961 and Iran Contra in 1984-85. And don't forget the CIA-run School of the Americas, which from 1946-2001 trained more than 70,000 mercenaries, soldiers, hit squads, and death squads that supported tin-pot South American dictators from Pinochet to Manuel Noriega (Panama) to Hugo Banzer (Bolivia) -- not to mention Los Zetas, a mercenary army for one of Mexico's largest drug trafficking organizations.
What is amazing is that anyone who has been in Congress more than a week could accuse the CIA of NOT lying with a straight face.
May 19, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there was the 1954 overthrow of the democratically-elected democratic gov't of Guatemala, it being replaced by a military dictatorship.
But we don't mention that because it wasn't done by "rogue" agents; it was done by a Republican.
May 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Panetta is regretting the day he accepted the job as head of the CIA. Talk about a thankless task.
May 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really doesn't seem to fit his personality. You either have to be a glory seeking dupe, who will follow the President's edict (like Porter Goss, George Tenet, or James Woolsey), or a sneaky bastard that would lie to his mother (like Michael Hayden, or Bill Casey, or George HW Bush).
May 19, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man is he good at parsing words, though.
It is "not our policy" to mislead members of Congress.
Sounds to me like he was talking to the CIA there, saying something like, you know, DON'T do it. As has been pointed out elsewhere, is used the present tense "is" and not the past tense "was" that would have applied to what happened in 2002.
Pluswhich, saying "it's not our policy" is a way to issue a non-denial denial. Not "we have never mislead Congress about this." Now THAT would have been a denial.
May 19, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA Should be saying:
"It is not our policy, but it is however our practice to lie to members of Congress"
May 20, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can serve the CIA or the American public, but not both.
May 19, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The depths our elected officials sink to. Here's a guy who, regardless of his own experience with the CIA, is willing to elevate that nest of crooks over a colleague, merely because she's from a different party. In other words, Republicans consider Democrats public enemy number one. When will Obama learn that? But, then, even if he does realize it, when it comes to inter-party relations, the Democratic role is that of the abused wife, hoping her husband will change. Maybe if they had a child?
May 19, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had a child!? How could that happen? All the Democrats are heterosexual.
May 20, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture is not the way to facilitate cooperation with other countries. The U.S. should focus more on soft power and increase the strategic foreign aid.
The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
May 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember "intelligence" is in the eye of the beholder. In the run up to Bush's war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, couldn't count on the CIA or the State Department to provide a pretext for war in Iraq. So he created a new agency that would tell him what he wanted to hear. Before that Cheney had been browbeating the CIA intelligence officers on several personal trips to Langley to supply him with the his own tailored version of the truth to justify the war. So which pack of lies to you want to believe in? The truth was not in that administration and whatever the CIA was briefing Congress back then was a tainted brew. Panetta has waded into a stinking mess and must put the agency back together with objective, fact-based analysts, not political hacks weaseled in by the Bushes.
May 19, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to The Boner and the Republican Caucus, Nancy Pelosi was fully briefed on the activities of the CIA and asked to approve the new intelligence gathering slogan: "TORTURE ... It's not just for breakfast for any more."
May 19, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And ask Valerie Plame and Jane Harman what happens to women who cross the CIA or who are married to someone who crosses the CIA.
May 19, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plame was outed by Cheney, et al. -- NOT by the CIA.
May 20, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight:
Pelosi was briefed about the TORTURE.
But the Republicans were briefed about the "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Got it.
May 20, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's different! /Republitalk
May 19, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoekstra has gone way further than that. Why aren't the destroyed interrogation tapes mentioned
On that subject, the GOP accused the CIA of lying about briefing GOP members of Congress. I don't know why nobody brings this up.
NY Times 12/07/07
[i]In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.[/i]
[b]A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee’s chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”
The spokesman, Jamal Ware, also said that Mr. Hoekstra “absolutely believes that the full committee should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.” [/b]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07intel.html?_r=1
Gingrich and others are making the case that its outrageous to say the CIA lied. But in Hoekstra's case the GOP did the same thing. And how can the GOP claim that the CIA is so honest about what occurred concerning torture, when we know the CIA destroyed the interrogation tapes? We also know those tapes were requested by the 9/11 Commission and weren't provided.
So the CIA lied and the GOP called them liars. Why the different standards now?
May 19, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYAR.
Great find on that Times article, by the way. Hoekstra is even more of a hypocrite than the original post makes him out to be.
May 19, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still don't get it?
When Democrats are lied to, they are misled.
When Republicans are lied to, they are LIED to.
See? It's different in many ways. For one, "misled" has six letters, and "LIED" has four . . .
May 20, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to meantion, the Republicans routinely accused the CIA of treachery during the Plame affair.
May 20, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In effort to distract attention from Cheney, et al.'s, treason.
May 20, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things:
1. Will the Dems come out swinging about this hypocrisy with a coordinated effort demanding that Hoekstra resign? Will they even mention it? Will Pelosi? I say the answer is somewhere between of course not, and probably not. Will the media be on this? Same answer.
2. Why isn't everyone, or at least a few people, asking about Obama's role in this? Why is he leaving Pelosi hanging? Why is he allowing this damage to Dems to continue?
May 20, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink