David Obey: Yet More Proof the CIA Briefing List Is Totally Wrong

According to House Appropriations Chair David Obey, the CIA interrogation list records a Democratic Appropriations staffer attending a September 19, 2006 torture briefing, when all the staffer did was walk John Murtha and Bill Young to the briefing, but was turned away at the briefing.

In light of current controversy about CIA briefing practices, I was surprised to learn that the agency erroneously listed an appropriations staffer as being in a key briefing on September 19, 2006, when in fact he was not.  The list the agency released entitled “Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)”, shows that House Appropriations Committee defense appropriations staffer Paul Juola was in that briefing on that date.  In fact, Mr. Juola recollects that he walked members to the briefing room, met General Hayden and  Mr.Walker, who were the briefers, and was told that he could not attend the briefing.   We request that you immediately correct this record.  

This is particularly significant given that Murtha, according to the CIA list, did not stay for the part of the briefing on torture. Obey’s complaint is also interesting given that this is one of a number of briefings for which CIA claimed details on the briefing–such as who attended–were "not available."

But don’t worry. I’m sure Pete Hoekstra will be out today claiming that it’s John Murtha’s fault that Dick Cheney ordered CIA to torture. 

82 replies
  1. phred says:

    You know if the CIA can’t produce an accurate list of who was briefed, when, and on what subjects, it pretty much calls into question their ability to create an accurate intelligence assessment drawn from myriad sources. One really has to question whether the agency is even remotely competent at their core function.

    • runfastandwin says:

      Oh they are very good at what they do, which is to give the President what he wants so he can carry out the policies he has already decided to carry out. That’s called kissing ass. Their second function, to cover their and the President’s ass, has yet to adapt to the exigencies of the blogosphere since we have any army of bloggers ready to pore over every word and every document that comes out, and we will uncover every inconsistency.

      And as to the Republicans and the MSM, they don’t even realize they have become irrelevant. Although they are starting to figure it out…

    • phred says:

      Exactly. But aren’t there prohibitions against CIA doing intelligence ops in the US? Either they are incompetent or they are intentionally misleading the public for political purposes, which I’m pretty sure violates the law somewhere along the line.

      • Mary says:

        The briefing schedule itself, on its face, reveals violations of the National Security Act (the same Act that prohibits domestic covert propaganda).

        It doesnt’ seem to get nearly the attention from the Press as wondering about what Pelosi was or wasn’t told, but you’d think the plain and self-evident story of the briefing schedule – that it demonstrates violation of the NSA, would get a nod now and then.

        • phred says:

          You would think so ; )

          So my lawyer friend, you probably know… I’m pretty sure there are laws against using propaganda on the American public (which was part of the flap over the nightly-news-military-propagandists-for-hire-program run out of DoD). Surely there are laws that prohibit the CIA from manipulating information to mislead the American public as well, aren’t there?

          • Mary says:

            Yeah, but they are the kind of toothless laws that rely on Congress doing its job and whatever her defenses on what she did or didn’t know after briefings (or a briefing) Pelosi took “doing our job” off the table in 2006.

            • phred says:

              Thanks Mary. Why am I not surprised. It’s baffling (or perhaps not) that Congress would go to all the trouble to write a law that has no consequences if one were to break it.

        • bmaz says:

          I would like to know the legislative history of the Natl Sec Act. Did they envision the briefings of the Gang of 8 being done jointly so that at least the 8 could discuss among themselves? Because it appears to me that not only did the Executive violate the law by not briefing the full compliment of congresspersons they were supposed to, the spirit and intent of the provision was further undermined by separate individualized briefings so that there was no possibility of intelligent discussion and interaction. The entire pupose and effect was thus violated and neutered.

          • Mary says:

            I’m guessing it was meant to be fairly flexible, since it was meant to be an extraordinary situation. Of course, there wasn’t even an effort to comply with a Gang of 8 briefing until, at best, the 9/6/06 briefing that supposedly finally included Reid but oddly the missing element there is the Republican House leadership. Nowhere the briefings of Hastert.

            Anyway, as was discussed in the comments on earlier threads, you have one of two situations – that the program was a covert program or that it was not (perhaps alleged to be an intelligence gathering program) To really answer that question, you pretty much have to figure out what the question involves – is the kidnap and shipment to foreign country prisons with the cooperation of foreign countries and the disappearance of the persons an integral part of the EIT program? I think so and that would make it covert, but the problem Tenet, Hayden and CIA have is that it doesn’t matter. Either way you “define” the program, their own schedule proves they violated the National Security Act.

            If it was not a covert program:

            Tenet/Hayden/Bush were required to keep the full committees fully informed. That didn’t happen until at best 9/6/06 – the big briefing day. It’s not all that clear that the committees were fully informed even then (and why did Harman get a separate briefing that day?) and it looks like there was some effort to either do a Gang of 8 catchup with a briefing to Reid/Frist that day too, although still no Hastert and Pelosi not briefed again in her new capacity despite the passage by then of how many years from her old briefing?) So, ignoring all that long parenthetical, if it was not a covert program, the CIA flagrantly and by its own schedule openly acknowledges years of violation of the National Security Act.

            If it was a covert program or had covert program elements:

            As EW would no doubt point out, Hayden already has done a “tell” on the program being treated as a covert program and I have to say that I think that is what is would have to be. The fact that they asked questions doesn’t make it primarily an intelligence gathering operation IMO any more than the fact that people in Iraq were questioned makes the “incident in iraq” an intelligence gathering operation instead of a war. But we don’t have to answer the covert aspect to answer the violation of NSA aspect.

            If it was a covert program, even there the default is briefing to the full committee. Only in exceptional circumstances reflected by the President can the briefing for a covert program be limited to less than the full committees.

            If it was a covert program with exceptional circumstances:
            The you start off with a requirement for a briefing to the Gang of 8, followed by a briefing to the full committees as soon thereafter as possible. Notice that this actually NEVER happened. Not even by the Sept 06 catchup when committees where briefed. Never was the full gang of 8 briefed, much less briefed at the same time.

            Ok, so is there any possible strained reading of the act that would allow a briefing to even less than the Gang of 8? I’m going to say possibly, but still, how long after the capture and questioning of AZ and KSM and Nashiri and STILL no briefing to EITHER the Full Gang of 8 or to the committees. And here’s the thing, even if you produce that strained readign that might allow for a less than Gang of 8 briefing, it doesn’t change what happens when that briefing includes the chair and ranking member of the intell committees. They are supposed to be given the Presidential finding authorizing the covert activity and explaining why it can’t be revealed to the full committees. And when the full committees are later briefed in, which possibly happened in 06 although the extent of the briefing may be in question, they are supposed to be given a written explanation from the President as to why they were excluded from briefing orginally.

            Did that happen? I haven’t seen any questioning on it and I can’t swear one way or the other, but I think you definitely have a Gang of 8 violation if you don’t by the strained reading aspect; then you have the issue of a finding and it sure looks from Harman’s letter like CIA deliberately violated the NSA on that front as well, if she was never given the finding to review. Then you have Graham’s testimony that he was never briefed at all – further Gang of 8 violation. You also have the fact that none of the leadership was briefed when Pelosi and Goss were early on – a gang of 8 violation. Pelosi was never briefed in her capacity as ranking minority leader, Hastert was never briefed at all, as Speaker, Frist was briefed for a year or so before Reid but still neither of them were briefed until years into the program. And then there’s the statement to the committee by the President. Where is it? Did they get it?

            So the CIA broke the law no matter how they spin this.

            If they spin it wasn’t a covert op, that really nails them bc they should have briefed the full committees from the get go.

            If they spin it was a covert op, they have the Gang of 8 violations.

            If they spin that it was a covert op, but it was so covert that they could and did come up with even a more limited than Gang of 8 briefing, then where were/are the findings and the statements?

            And however they spin any of it, how do you still not notifiy Congress for years after you’ve finished the interrogations and call that compliance with the requirement to follow an abbreviated briefing with a full briefing as soon as possible?

            They have no winner, not one, that they complied with the NSA and that’s based on their own fahdiddled with schedule.

            BTW, I’m still wondering why Nelson rated his own special briefing too.

    • perris says:

      team b has been deliberately trying to fix the record since cheney/rumsfeld created their alternative reality

      I really believe the professionals are crying out for an investigation, they want to purge their ranks of the cheney “leave behinds”

      But don’t worry. I’m sure Pete Hoekstra will be out today claiming that it’s John Murtha’s fault that Dick Cheney ordered CIA to torture.

      I am amazed they have yet blame clinton for cheney ordering the cia to torture as well

      I am also wondering which clinton they would blame, they now have two

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Trivia quiz: Whose administration did Rumsfeld & Cheney start working in, and what were their jobs?

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Nixon Administrtion Dept. of Defense (I think at least Rumsfeld was Defense, can’t remember Cheney…maybe intellegence for Cheney).

          • eCAHNomics says:

            Nixon’s right, but Rumsfeld was was head of the Economic Stabilization Program and the Cost of Living Council, where Cheney was his deputy. Those were associated with Nixon’s wage & price controls (worst economic “policy” post WWII).

            • NorskeFlamethrower says:

              Citizen eCAHNomics:

              WOW, that’s right…I had forgotten jest how far the corruption extended in the Nixon administration. Maybe the whole rotten mess is gunna see the light of day…JFK’s revenge maybe?

          • foothillsmike says:

            Cheney was an intern for congresscritter Steiger, then Fords chief of staff, then was a congresscritter from WY 5x.

        • SouthernDragon says:

          Rumsfeld – to serve in the Nixon administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President’s Cabinet (1969–1970); named Counselor to the President in December 1970, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program; and member of the President’s Cabinet (1971–1972).

          In 1971 Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld “at least Rummy is tough enough” and “He’s a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that.”

          Cheney – in 1969, as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger during the Richard Nixon Administration. He then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70. He held several positions in the years that followed: White House Staff Assistant in 1971, Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971–73, and Deputy Assistant to the president from 1974–1975. It was in this position that Cheney suggested in a memo to Rumsfeld that the Ford White House should use the Justice Department in a variety of legally questionable ways to exact retribution for an article published by The New York Times investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.

          From wiki

          • eCAHNomics says:

            Heh. Was supposed to be a memory quiz, not a take-home. *g* I’m reading Greenspan’s memoir which is where I came across the Nixon connection recently, though it was something I used to know.

            • SouthernDragon says:

              Like Norske, I had to job my memory and couldn’t remember what positions each held. As SecDef Cheney was the one who began privatizing the military.

        • perris says:

          I had thought it was Nixon, now by your question I don’t know without the google


          now I see from later postings that my thoughts were correct

          my understanding, Cheney was the underling of Rumsfeld, they both created “team b” to undermine Nixon’s treaty of détente

          can’t have peace while Cheney/Rumsfeld are at hand, can’t have any of that

          • eCAHNomics says:

            The Team B started when they were in the Ford administration, and had moved over from economics to defense.

            • perris says:

              team b started because of the nixon detante treaty, when he left the door opened for these sociopaths to undermine the peace he brokered

              if nixon were in politics today he would be called an “ultra liberal” for his epa and detante

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen emptywheel:

      Of course the CIA is tryin’ ta “fix the record” but they are bein’ forced to do it in public withreal watchdogs in the Congress and the blogosphere and as the record gets “fixed” by those who were in attendence or have reason to know about who was, the evidence of complicity in the cover-up attaches to all those responsible. There is no turnin back now from investigation of the entire horrible mess and Obama has an easy out to keep it from drownin’ our politics, have Holder coordinate with the House and Senate on committee investigations this summer with referrals to a special prosecutor in August. I want another Watergate hearing before I die!!!

  2. Arbusto says:

    The mind boggles as the CIA is touted the best of the best intell. agency in the world (though I think it’s the CIA saying that). How the CIA briefer’s are unable to check the list of attendees and note absentees is beyond understanding, unless these were really dog and pony shows to meet the word, not the intent of the law and no one gave a tinkers damn. That appears to be the case, at least under Bushco, as these disclosures continue.

    Although the CIA, and certainly Congress want plausible deniability for their mandated briefings it’s time for a law requiring audio and or video recording of briefings. They can be maintained in the existing vault Graham alluded to.

  3. eCAHNomics says:

    As I said days ago, the null hypothesis should be that the CIA is lying and they should be required to prove they aren’t.

    • phred says:

      True, but the incompetence argument has its uses as well. If the CIA is so bad at their job, which appears overwhelmingly to be the case, then it’s time to disband the agency and use intelligence resources that are actually good at sifting through information and drawing accurate assessments.

  4. NorskeFlamethrower says:


    Citizen emptywheel and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

    The game is on!!! Now the fascists, who had hoped that with the help of left wing rabble they could isolate Pelosi and force Democrats to back off of further torture investigations, are gunna get an enema of investigations and special prosecutors and Obama is gunna throw his hands up and say “it’s out of my control” while he moves briskly along on healthcare, EFCA etc.

    The only thing that can derail the trian at this point is faux Democrats in leadership like Harry Reid…time to get a primary opponent for One Hung Harry and watch how fast the bastard becomes a “progressive”.


    • perris says:

      count me as one person very happy they are challenging pelosi and her statements, they don’t get it, this is going to cause the investigation not prevent it

      they are even bigger morons then I myself thought

      by the way;

      pelosi is a trained and experienced politician, she knows how to parse words when she wants to avoid saying something

      she was pretty clear, she said in no uncertain or obscure terms that she was not informed they were water-torturing or had water tortured

      I am pretty comfortable she is telling the absolute truth about her briefing

    • SouthernDragon says:

      I don’t want Reid to become a progressive. I want him to become a bad memory.

  5. esaud says:

    Do we know if there anything other than the interrogation tapes destroyed by the CIA?

    If I were a reporter I would follow up on this angle. The fact that the best the CIA can do is put together an after-the-fact recollection on Congressional briefings is pretty telling.

    And the fact that major media outlets (especially ABC) are using this scattershot list as an indictment on Nancy Pelosi is in and of itself an indictment of Gibson and the rest of ABC’s “news” team.

  6. SouthernDragon says:

    CIA gathered “intelligence” via electronic surveillance for decades, abandoning the tried and true human intelligence methodology. They’ve had to re-learn those techniques and found that their shit’s no good anywhere. They pay out tons of money and get bags of shit in return. That puts them in the position to have to make shit up to fit whatever the PTB want to hear. Tenet is a perfect example. Colby may have been a world class asshole but he knew the biz.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      I believe the electronic surveilliance is done by the NSA not the CIA.

      CIA has myriad problems, but one of the major ones is that they never made the transition from cold war to terrorism. Such humint sources that they developed during the cold war became useless when that ended. They’ve never even tried to penetrate a terrorist org, even though witless John Walker Lindh got right to the top without even trying.

      • SouthernDragon says:

        CIA used NSA intercepts for its analyses. CIA may have had some of their own stuff working but had pretty much given up on using human intelligence. A policy that, in part, allowed the Iranians to overthrow the Shah. CIA was completely blindsided by that move.

      • Endymion says:

        Sort of. A lot of the Central Asian humint assets have become extremely relevant, in large part because of what those assets decided to do to pay the bills after the CIA stopped paying them in an effort to cut ‘useless’ Cold War contacts. Also, we don’t really know how much the CIA is duplicating the efforts of other agencies, they do have a license to engage in the worst excesses of bureaucratic insularity under cover national security–not that they’re using that secrecy and freedom from criticism…
        Still, I think SouthernDragon is probably wrong; paying out bags of money is actually incredibly effective outside of the small community of people who already have bags of money and live in first-world countries.

  7. foothillsmike says:

    How can the CIA gather and analyze intelligence if they can’t keep track of a few freaking meetings? They don’t know when they were. who was there or what was said. Geez. CIA = Certainly Ignorant A$$holes

  8. eCAHNomics says:

    I just did an approximate count, and I think I’ve read at least 15 books on the CIA. None of them are flattering, except Kessler’s, who was, of course, the person they chose for cspan either this morning or yesterday. So I think I can claim some nodding familiarity with the subject, and it is not pretty.

      • esseff44 says:

        I saw the same thing in Viet Nam. I lived across the street from them in My Tho. They shot a neighbor’s dog from their balcony with a bow and arrow for barking too much. They were called “embassy people.” They were thug-like in appearance and behavior. They did not help to win hearts and minds and we know how wrong they were on the intel.

        Looks like Raven had similar experiences in Vinh Long.

  9. timbo says:

    My take on it is this. There is a lot of criticism of the CIA at the moment, right? How did it get that way? If one looks long and hard enough at that question…one might be forced to come to the conclusion that it was a collective incompetence throughout the US governmental system. There was no oversight; there was and is no accountability; the law is only a piece of paper, selectively enforceable by those who make policy, not by those over which the policy is tinkled.

  10. yellowsnapdragon says:

    So, what’s the theory about why Hayden and Walker–the briefers–were noted on the CIA’s schedule as being not available? Why would the CIA want to keep the identities of Hayden and Walker quiet?

    • emptywheel says:

      I earlier hypothesized that they’re not listing the briefers for any briefing Cheney attended. Particularly given this Juola news, it means that only twice were staffers said to attend any “Not Available” briefing. So I would reiterate that guess, though it is only a guess.

  11. timr says:

    In my personal experience, 28 and 1/2 years working for the FedGov, I would not only not trust the CIA to give a good brief, but I would not trust their records for any reason. Best thing for the US would be to just close down the CIA. We have 23 other intel agencies, several of whom are very very good.
    The CIA has totally blown many important things. USSR and bomber and missile gap. USSR going into Cuba. The “invasion”-bay of pigs-of Cuba. Attempt to assassinate Castro. Overthrow of elected govt of Iran(1950s). Idnochina war(France vs Vietmen) Vietnam war. Overthrow of Diem,Running Heroin from golden triangle-for thoe who don’t know it is the area between Thailand, Laos and Cambodia- via Air America, lack of intel re North Vietnam. Missing the North Vietnam v China war. Missing USSR v China border war(what, you didn’t hear about that??, somehow I am unsurprised) The fall of communism in eastern europe- E.Germany- and then the fall of the USSR. Rise of Islamic terrorism. Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Fall of Shah of Iran. Fall of Philippine govt. I can go on, these are just the publicly known failures of the CIA.

  12. oldtree says:

    This CIA appears to rely on “contractors” to do their job. What kind of recommendation does this place on actual CIA employees? Are they incompetent by comparison to “contractors”? Are these “contractors” the same type of “contractors” used to kill people? A contractor is a hired killer, correct? So the CIA has used “contractors” for much of their torture, knowing it was wrong. So they hired a “contractor” to kill for them, yet again.

    it is a diseased organism in need of prophylactic therapy, or excision.

    • Endymion says:

      Well, a contractor is just someone who works indirectly and is therefore not covered by the same standards of training/pay/rights. As a bartender at the city-owned convention center, I was a government contractor. I did not kill anyone, although I did come in to work contagious several times because as a contractor I was not due health care but was still required to show a doctors note to get a sick day(no excuse=cause for termination(but not ‘termination’)).

  13. sailmaker says:

    Talking Points Memo has an article about the fact that a former intelligence officer says that the term “enhanced interrogation technique’ or EIT was not used until 2006.

    Doesn’t that mean that all the docs that had Pelosi briefed on EIT were fabricated after 2006 – well after the actual 2002 briefing?

    • Endymion says:

      At first I wondered if the real reason the CIA wasn’t willing to reveal its records to Congress was that they didn’t want to have to admit they didn’t know what was an actual CIA record and what was a Cheney edit. But this is the CIA we’re talking about.

  14. cbl2 says:

    having trouble letting go of the fact that it’s the Appropriations Chair (big daddy purse strings) making this very pubic move – am I being too pollyanna to think I hear a stfu dogwhistle to the CIA Dir. ?

    • Mary says:

      Since what Goldsmith points out is:

      there is a different problem with Cheney’s criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit.

      emph added

      I’m not sure that he necessarily weighs in opposite Cheney so much as says hey Dick, you’re getting everything you want.

      59 – actually, I think it doesn’t have the non-domestic aspect so probably not *g* so under the NSA your non-covert plan to deliberately mislead Congress (and the American people) into a war for Bush’s vanity and personal success prospects (Tenet has done alright out of his book and Q deal hasn’t he?) would need to be briefed to the full committees.

      The non-ironic thing about this, is that with what passes for a Congressional Intel committee, I think that they could have safely done it that way. Just waltzed in, told the committees, “hey, this is very classified so you can’t talk about it but we are going to deliberately mislead the rest of Congress with mis and dis information campaigns spearheaded by Murdoch’s press (but with able assists from the rest of our little mockingbirds to) and get us a might fine conflagration in the ME and SE Asia. Support the troops. Have a magnet. Bye y’all” to about the same effect as where we are now.

      This isn’t about changing the law, it’s not about changing the “majority” from Republicans to Dems, it’s not about changing a process. It’s about changing the American people and the election processs to end up with competent people with integrity in the job slots. That’s not going to happen and not only is it not going to happen, the deliberate misuse of the DOJ and the media and even the medical institutions of the nation, coupled with the deliberate political determination by Congress to abandon oversight and assertion of checks on the Presidency except for in the application of petty personal & staged political squabbling has pretty successfully changed the nation.

      I remember as a child people recoiling from what they saw, even in places like KY and IN, during the civil rights movement. Now the thing that causes the objections is showing the pictures, not undertaking the acts. And that’s all the DOJ is for as well – to cover up Exec branch crimes and to harass political targets.

      We get persecutions of Martha Stewart (who I don’t even like, but still WTH was that trial all about) for distraction and burial of one brutal homicide after another, together with kidnappings with assaults on innocent people, etc. all by a DOJ which has become something abhorrent to any standard of decency.

      And The Changling doesn’t really want to derail any of that. He wants to build on rotted foundations because it will look prettier faster and if he does it right, the collapses will be on someone else’s watch.

    • skdadl says:

      I don’t know how it feels to American friends here to read that, but to a foreigner comme moi, that is a profoundly depressing piece of writing, mostly, I suppose, because I believe just about all of it.

  15. bigbrother says:

    .” The $596-trillion market in unregulated derivatives, including $58 trillion in credit-default swaps, was being watched by one person. That’s when he wasn’t looking at the rest of the corporate world, of course…

  16. lurkinlil says:

    In light of the apparant incompetence of the CIA, perhaps it’s time for the UK to thumb their noses at the US threat to withhold intelligence if the UK allows any ’secrets’ out in the Binyam (sp?) case.

    • skdadl says:

      Miliband won’t, but I’m thinking that the High Court judges will.

      Sheesh. Somebody has to break this nonsense wide open.

  17. orionATL says:

    the cia just goes from one screw-up to the next screw-up.

    they’ve been doing this since the 1950’s.

    it ain’t gonna happen, but this agency needs to be disbanded and reconstituted with a different, and tightly controlled, administrative structure.

    and just for the record,

    i am tired of l;listening to the cia and its apologists excuse cia misbehavior with the line “they are just protecting themselves. they are just folk caught in the middle. they were just following orders and then get blamed for doing what their political bosses told them to do.

    those are just whining ex post excuses.

    • SouthernDragon says:

      At the beginning of each year in English in high school, Mrs Cooley would lay out her policies concerning turning in homework or other tasks. At the end she would add, “Of all human inventions, the excuse is the most worthless.”

  18. reader says:

    So if my logic chips are firing today …

    * Is the CIA claiming that Mr. Juola was briefed (when he should not have been in a clear and sloppy breach of national security)?

    * Is the CIA claiming that the subject of this briefing was not classified (since Mr. Juola was included)?

    * Is the CIA claiming that Mr. Juola knew that war crimes were being committed?

    * Is the CIA claiming that Murtha escaped knowing that war crimes were being committed?

    AND …

    What the hell good is a record of a briefing that says ”not available.”

    OR …

    * Did the CIA outsource its Capitol Hill briefings to ”not available” a.k.a. Richard Bruce Cheney (as EW has elsewhere implied: ”Dick Cheney, the ’Not Available’ Briefer” ~ May 13, 2009)?

    * Did Cheney handle the briefings at the White House too (because it would be just so convenient)?

    If Cheney was in charge of the classified briefings … why is the CIA worried?

    Oh, yeah, I guess that would mean the CIA didn’t do their constitutional duty. Feh.

    These briefings were always full of shit. Even so Zelikow said at last week’s hearing: they were used at the White House to claim ”it’s ok … Capitol Hill has been briefed and they’re ok with it all.”

    I STILL do not understand why this list was issued at all … UNLESS Cheney ORDERED his moles to issue the list.

  19. reader says:

    Oh! Oh! WAIT! Cheney wrote the list! Yeah, that’s it? Right? Did I get it right, ew??? Huh??? HUH?? ;))

  20. klynn says:

    Either that, or one has to question whether they’re deliberately trying to fix the record.

    That is an interesting perspective. If I knew that the record was wrong and saw Graham’s name and knew his keen record taking abilities would tip the scales, then I would act deliberately.

  21. reader says:

    For the ”fixing the record” part, that would explain the ”not available” entries. If you don’t know who it was, then you can’t track them down and ask them idenpendently what they remember, now can ya?

    That must be one of those super-dooper-spooky techniques.

  22. klynn says:

    ”not available” entries.

    The “not available” may be the entries that show the “fix was in” and perhaps they are playing this to get the investigation. You do not show your entire hand. “Not available” does not mean they are not in existence.

  23. orionATL says:

    Norskflamethrower @22

    “I want another Watergate hearing before I die!!!”

    hang in there.

    time series analysis:





    hey, could happen any day now.

    oh the rapture!

    * manufactured investigation focusing on personal, not constitutional, issues.

    • cinnamonape says:

      My guess is that Obey has given up the “not available” names. The briefer, not cited in the CIA summary, was General Hayden. The “Walker” would be, I suspect, Mary Walker.

  24. Mary says:

    Ackerman has a piece upon the CIA’s response to Obey: Notes, recollections, memos – that’s all we got.

    They don’t mention how many of the notes are in the margin in Cheney’s handwriting.

  25. Jkat says:

    whoa .. loads and loads of good stuff in this string … thanks to you all for the effort …

    i agree that “walker” is probably mary walker …

    how to confirm is a different proposition .. eh ??

Comments are closed.