stormeaston Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 updated 8:29 p.m. CT, Wed., July 8, 2009 WASHINGTON - CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress last month that senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001, the chairman and other members of the House Intelligence Committee said in letters revealed Wednesday. Exactly what actions Panetta disclosed to the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 are unclear, but committee chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said that the CIA outright lied in one case. "These notifications have led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to," Reyes wrote in a letter Tuesday to Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the committee's senior Republican. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press Wouldn't this get the past administration off the hook??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why would it get the last administration off the hook since the lies were told during its administration? Now if the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA was proven to have lied to the Bush administration - why not? Clinton certainly had no problems with lying - then that would be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejrail Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Our government lying??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I thought the CIA only answered to the President, not a Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC#0471 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Is this High Treason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 No...it is CIA protocol Business as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FormerGmc Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 "Now if the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA was proven to have lied to the Bush administration - why not? Clinton certainly had no problems with lying - then that would be a different story. " Wasn't Mr. "slam dunk"appointed by Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 "Now if the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA was proven to have lied to the Bush administration - why not? Clinton certainly had no problems with lying - then that would be a different story. " Wasn't Mr. "slam dunk" wasn't appointed by Clinton? Yes he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I was always under the impression that the CIA work under Secrecy answering only to the President. If that is the Case, then yes, they would not be telling ANY Committee the Truth about what they do. They are NOT like the FBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 "Now if the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA was proven to have lied to the Bush administration - why not? Clinton certainly had no problems with lying - then that would be a different story. " Wasn't Mr. "slam dunk"appointed by Clinton? That's what I was saying. The CIA head was indeed appointed by Clinton. This is a good reason to always put your own people in key positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 That's what I was saying. The CIA head was indeed appointed by Clinton. This is a good reason to always put your own people in key positions. Hmm well, 26 of the 40 key witnesses in the Whitewater scandal, or whatever it was called, ended up dead. Now unless the Clintons were doing business with a retirement home group...that is as sketchy as it gets... So with a CIA director with such a glowing resume for keeping his President's wife out of trouble, why would Bush take him out of the position? :happy feet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan This is why we need the CIA and why the CIA does NOT need to tell what they do all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.