Here's something that happened on Friday that maybe got lost in the Pelosi Shuffle the media was so invested in this week, and which started out that very same way, with Andrea Mitchell asking Sen. Ron Wyden about what Pelosi knew, or actually in a rare case asking what it said about the CIA's credibility instead--but still talking he said/she said. Check the video:
Note how easily and dismissively Wyden moves away from the Pelosi question, for whatever reason, and zeroes in on what for him is a more central question: why aren't we talking about the way in which the Bush administration consistently failed to inform properly? He claims he was "kept in the dark" until 2006, linking the Bush administration's failures to the 1947 National Security Act, which he refers to a couple of times. That's a nice summary link which is then applied to an analysis of the NSA wiretapping scandal--another prime example of the administration totally holding out on Congress. But it has this key section:
Under current statute, the President is to ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept “fully and currently informed” of U.S. intelligence activities, including any “significant anticipated intelligence activity.” According to legislative history, the term “fully and currently informed,” is intended to mean that complete and timely notice of actions and policies is provided, and that the committees will be informed of intelligence activities in such detail as the committees may require.
Further, the Senate in report language said it expected the executive branch not to limit itself to providing full and complete information upon request from the committees, but to affirmatively keep the committees fully and currently informed.
It's on this basis which Wyden is making his complaint. Mitchell waves a copy of the CIA's briefing schedule and claims it shows a series of proper briefings on torture procedures, but Wyden says they were still not properly informed. For an administration which was already torturing before they had whipped up a legal "justification" for it, and were using it to extract false confessions to once again "justify" a new war against Iraq, I'm afraid it's all beside the point compared to that.
But it's good to see Wyden shifting the focus back to the Bush administration...and that is in fact where the discussion lies, not the CIA or intel units themselves. The way Congress was briefed was led from the top, principally Dick Cheney. Heck, if he was telling them how to torture to get info the intel agencies already told him didn't exist, why wouldn't he tell the CIA to lie about what they were doing to Congress?
Wyden also gets some digs in on Cheney himself, saying he (Wyden) is pretty confused about why the former VP wants all those documents released, because Wyden seemed confident there wasn't going to be anything to exonerate him. So he joined Cheney in challenging to have all of the material declassified, including a letter of complaint regarding intel darkness along with two other Senators.
Wyden goes on to say he really thinks a special commission of some kind is necessary to look into all this, and I think as a result of the Pelosi nonsense there is a definite Briar Patch Syndrome working here--Wyden was almost smirking when talking about declassifying the documents and calling for more investigation.
Note how Wyden didn't defend Pelosi in the least, except by way of saying the CIA lied to them all the time, or at least omitted and delayed. If she has to go, politically speaking, with the reward being some kind of toothful investigation, is it worth it? Or--gasp--would it simply be the right thing to do?
Now THIS is interesting, and if it played out as described, it says some important between-the-lines things about where President-elect Obama stands on the intelligence community's legacy from the horror known as the Bush years--and who he trusts (and by exlusion does NOT trust) to help him put his own stamp on things. From TPM, regarding the apparent selection of Leon Panetta for Chief of the CIA:
Just spoke to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) office, where a spokeswoman confirmed what was hinted at this morning: Wyden had been in contact with the Obama transition team to discuss the Leon Panetta nomination, while incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein was still in the dark.
We checked in with Wyden because Bloomberg's report described him as "being consulted" on the choice -- whether he was consulted by the Obama camp or by Panetta, a former ally of Wyden's from their days in the House, remained unclear.
There are a couple of things to ponder here, in a story also making the rounds at Daily Kos for what it says about our outgoing and incoming Senate Intelligence Chairs, Jay Rockefeller and Diane Feinstein, respectively. Both Senators have earned a reputation for sins ranging from easy capitulation to President Bush, to outright approval and support for some of his executive encroachments on both their legislative perogative and our own civil rights. And both have been publically critical of Obama's choice, instead pushing candidates who would still have the stink of torture and illegal surveillance upon them.
Not only is Panetta's choice a direct rebuke to the idea that a career spook is best for the CIA job, but it's a stick in the eye to folks like Feinstein, who want that kind of person in the job, and in the past approved ne'er do well pros like Michael Mukasey (albeit perhaps in an endless attempt to keep Democratic powder perpetually dry.) Panetta has quite recently gone on record about how fundamentally inconsistent it is with American principes for the US to even hint at supporting torture, which--if Feinstein had enough moral fiber--should make her squeam about her own past choices in the matter.
So Obama seems to be telegraphing pretty hard that in his CIA, while there may not necessarily be a post-facto investigative housecleaning of the old guard, the new boss sure ain't going to be the same as the old boss. What else was he telegraphing? That he knows he's not going to get help from DiFi on making a clean break from the ugly past, so he needs to cultivate other respected Senators for their advice and support in the matter.
That he has chosen Ron Wyden as one of those people is a very good sign indeed. Wyden, while like every other Democrat not fully beyond reproach on torture and spying, has been one of the more vocal opponents to the Bush intel regime, and would clearly be a strong ally to the President in cleaning things up.
Are DiFi and/or Rockefeller really going to go to the mattresses to preserve the culture of torture and illegal spying at CIA? Doubtful. Their objections here are likely much less on the substance of the pick (although they may well have a legitimate disagreement on whether the Chief should be an agency insider), and more focused on the fact that they weren't consulted or notified beforehand. One would have to almost go out of their way to put the Intel Chair out of the loop on something like this...which it seems Obama did!
Joe Biden's left to do some of the fence-mending, as he does here. But it seems like a hollow apology, one that admits a "mistake" while simultaneously reaffirming Panetta as a good choice. In other words, the public apology is doubling as a bit of private advice: sorry, but your bitching and moaning isn't going to change anything. And secondarily, just because Feinstein is the new Chair, does not mean she--or the rest of the Pillowsoft Brigade--has the ear of the President when it comes to surveillance and torture. There may be other new, Oregonian deputies riding shotgun with this President!
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
