In May a chorus of Republicans inside and outside Congress made hay out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the Central Intelligence Agency had not revealed its waterboarding policy during a 2002 briefing. Many demanded an investigation into the allegations. Minority leader John Boehner said of Pelosi,

"She made this claim and it's her responsibility to either put forward evidence that they did in fact lie to her, which would be a crime, or she needs to retract her statements and apologize."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the Republican talking heads who demanded Pelosi's resignation. According to Gingrich, Pelosi's assertion was "stunning" and "dishonest."

Representative Steve "10 Worst" King (IA-05) accused Pelosi of "actively undermining our national security" and called for suspending the speaker's security clearance:

Speaker Pelosi has accused the CIA of committing a federal crime - lying to Congress. The CIA and other American defense and intelligence agencies cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with our national secrets, let alone our national security, until this matter is resolved. If true, there has been a serious violation of federal law. If false, American national security requires a new Speaker of the House. The severity of Speaker Pelosi's accusations leaves no middle ground, and her security clearance should be suspended pending investigation.

Now we have learned that

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday. [...]

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

So not only was Congress misled, CIA staff did not even inform Panetta about the program until four months after he was sworn in. Charles Lemos is absolutely right that it's time for a special prosecutor to investigate this matter.

Republicans who trashed Pelosi in May and June owe her an apology, but like Rude Pundit, I'm not holding my breath. They've always been easygoing about Bush administration law-breaking while throwing fits about Democrats who criticized it.

There's more...

Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein had sharp concerns and questions for President-elect Barack Obama. It would have been nice if they also questioned George W. Bush.

There's more...

Blessed are the gatekeepers, for theirs is the power to getting things done.

If President-elect Obama thought that changing the way Washington works was going to be a breeze, he got his first lesson in comeuppance with his selection of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. His mistake wasn't the choice per se but rather not checking with the gatekeepers, the Washington power brokers pertinent to this decision. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the incoming chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was surprised by the pick and complained that she wasn't consulted. That's one gatekeeper with ruffled feathers. Another gatekeeper not reckoned with, and therefore not terribly amused, was the outgoing chairperson Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Through an aide, the long-serving member of the Intelligence Committee let it be known that while he "has tremendous respect for Leon Panetta" the aide said that Senator Rockefeller "believes the CIA director should go to someone who has significant intelligence experience and someone from outside the political world of Washington DC."

Had these gatekeepers been consulted prior to announcing the selection, I suspect their tone would have been more conciliatory and supportive. Certainly, we would have fewer ruffled feathers.

Even Senator 'for two more weeks' Joe Biden conceded it was a "mistake" in not consulting the Senate's gatekeepers before tapping Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

"I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way," he told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress."

Yup. It's always good to talk to those blessed gatekeepers. In doing so, President Obama will likely get his way more often than not but ruffle their features by pulling surprises seems like a recipe for not getting things accomplished. Blessed are the gatekeepers, for in their hands is the power of the gavel. Some aspects of Washington, it seems, will never change.

There's more...

The Obama team made what I consider to be a political masterstroke yesterday by announcing their selection of respected former Congressman Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

[Cross-Posted on my New Blog, Library Grape.]

Although somewhat mixed, the reactions from the intelligence community have included a lot of praise for the Panetta pick:

Former intelligence analyst Greg Treverton, now with the Rand Corporation, said Panetta's experience as a former White House chief of staff might give him a unique understanding of the presidency and its needs for intelligence. "One of my experiences with people like Panetta who have been chief of staff is that they have a clear sense of what is helpful to the president that most senior officials don't," Treverton told me. "They get it. What he could do and couldn't do. And that's an interesting advantage Panetta brings. Knowledge of what the presidential stakes are like, how issues arise, and what they need to be protected from, for better or worse."

Retired CIA deputy director for the East Europe division Milt Bearden said Panetta is a "brilliant" choice. "It is not problematic that Panetta lacks experience in intelligence," Bearden e-mailed. "Intel experience is overrated. Good judgment, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance. Why not DNI?"

Well, what could be the problem, considering that many successful past CIA directors have lacked direct intelligence experience (e.g. George H.W. Bush)?

3...  2... 1...  Cue a tone-deaf, self-immolating Democrat shooting the Party in the foot:

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was cited by the Los Angeles Times. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Yep, that's right.  As the Republican obstruction machine opposition in Congress gears up to turn some of Obama's appointments into partisan political theater, the incoming Democratic chairperson of a key intelligence committee decides to publicly cast doubts on one of Obama's key appointments.

Can't we Democrats even wait until Obama is inaugurated before we start shooting ourselves in the extremities?

There's more...

Glenn Greenwald nailed it today:

Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

And color me skeptical, but I don't believe for a second that Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller are objecting to the Panetta nomination out of concern for U.S. intelligence policy, or even more laughably because they feel left out of the process.

They're not just unhappy, they're worried. And they have good reason to be.

There's more...