About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Attacking Pelosi, Gingrich misrepresents Panetta statement

May 20, 2009 12:41 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Newt Gingrich misrepresented Leon Panetta's response to Nancy Pelosi's allegation that the CIA had misled her about its use of waterboarding.

48 Comments

During the May 20 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, in an attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over her assertion that the CIA gave her false information about enhanced interrogation techniques in a 2002 briefing, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich misrepresented a statement by CIA director Leon Panetta, falsely claiming that Panetta said that the "CIA doesn't" lie. Gingrich stated, "I think what Panetta said Friday is very telling. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and the CIA doesn't do it." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the May 15 statement from Panetta stated, "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress" [emphasis added]. As Politico's White House reporter Josh Gerstein noted in a May 18 post, "Panetta didn't reject or deny ... Pelosi's allegations that she was falsely briefed by the CIA about interrogations. Look carefully at Panetta's statement from Friday, especially the verb tense used. ... Panetta isn't opining on past acts. He's referring to the current policy. He's also not saying it never happens or happened that someone lied to or misled Congress. He's saying the agency as a whole doesn't intend to."

From Panetta's May 15 statement:

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is -- even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

From the May 20 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

GINGRICH: What she said Thursday is a stunning, dishonest statement about a major American institution that has a key role in our survival.

DIANE SAWYER (co-host): But, as you know, some people have said that you're doing this for political reasons; it's really a political salvo that you're hurling at her and a kind of double-standard. For instance, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who was head of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, wrote a letter in which he, on another issue, said this about the CIA: "We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress." That's a Republican saying it.

GINGRICH: Yes.

SAWYER: And they're saying, "Where were you then? You didn't call for him to resign."

GINGRICH: Well, I think in that particular [inaudible] he's fighting with them over a particular report he wants -- this is about a year and a half ago. But I've had a similar standard of toughness with Republicans on other issues. For example, Secretary Paulson, when he was -- I thought he was failing as secretary of the Treasury.

SAWYER: So should he be repudiated for those words, too?

GINGRICH: Well, in that case he's writing a specific letter asking them to change something that they were doing.

SAWYER: So --

GINGRICH: He did not say in that letter --

SAWYER: "Lies," he says.

GINGRICH: -- the CIA routinely lies to the Congress.

SAWYER: Well, he says "lies." He says "what it does and then lies to Congress."

GINGRICH: And I think -- I think that they actually had to come back and testify. I think that it's important for Congress to keep the CIA under observation. It's important for them to have the CIA report regularly. But I think what Panetta said Friday is very telling. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and the CIA doesn't do it. And Panetta said it is harming this institution.

He made a speech Monday in which he said this is harming the institution. And I have no sense that -- I mean, I would certainly, if I were a person trying to defend this country, I would have very little confidence that the speaker of the House had any regard for what we were doing, and what we're trying to do to stop terrorism.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by the Grey Path (May 20, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
         
      It's great to see that we've finally caught up with what Panetta actually said.

      We always need to do the math before we take a statement on its surface value ... Does the statement refer to past, present, future, a mix?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by evsaund5494 (May 20, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
      5  
      ABC is getting worse and worse over this Pelosi thing. The vicious language from Gingrich this morning was over the top - "reprehensible" "lacking respect for national security" "dishonest" "clearly not telling the truth".

      These are all unsupported by any information on Gingrich's part. He wasn't there, so why is ABC giving him an open mic? - He said/she said "journalism at its worst.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jonwisby (May 20, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
      3  
      You don't need to turn on sound for newt, if his lips are moving he is not telling the truth.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nativeofsf (May 20, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
        3  
        This respondent must categorically object strenuously to your flagrant & inappropriate misuse of the word newt. This true amphibian has been upbraided [politically] for far too long. A gentle creature, this most timid animal nevertheless contains a true spine or backbone. It is a placid individual, which only displays an aggressive tendency during the mating season. In fact its mating process, amplexus in the Latin, is actually a form of pseudocopulation. This can be understood as the attempted copulation [read: insertion] by the male, usually an insect, with an object that resembles a female of its species. Unfortunately, there appears to be some overlap between the truly & courageously real amphibian, newt and that unfortunate imitation of anything possibly labeled "human", as in "that Newt".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (May 21, 2009 2:13 am ET)
        2  
        Actually Diane Sawyer was great when she nailed Gingrich for his lies and also CNN nailed him to the lie pole. Gingrich who had to leave Congress due to his philandering so inappropriately should shut his mouth. As a Republican I am sick and tired of the sleaze in the Republican Party and it seems that they try so hard to nail Democrats only to find out they have done so much worse. Amazing how out of touch with reality guys like Gingrich and Santorum and some of the flaky women in Congress are also. President Obama is doing a great job cleaning up the mess our last President left and I know that bugs Republicans so much because by comparison to Bush, Obama is bright, articulate and honest. What a change from Bush and Cheney. However, I am unconvinced that the problem was all Bush's. Cheney led him along the wrong path all the time, Who knows how Bush would have done without the push from Cheney obviously in the totally wrong direction. Bush was incapable of managing things by himself but unfortunately, his side kick devastated his Presidency. It will take our country years to recover.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (May 20, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
      3 4
      -- Look carefully at Panetta's statement from Friday, especially the verb tense used. -- mmfa

      Oh my achingass...verb tenses...LOL.

      Try this one on...and use and "tense" you want:

      -- records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed -- Panetta

      Yep, Pelosi was in the meeting and they told her what they had done to Zubaydah...just ask Panetta if you want the real deal...ask mmfa if you want spin.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
        2 2
        Yeppo! And now MMfA uses Politico as some backup, even though they are usually and routinely trashed around here by many as garbage, they are now a useful idiot, it appears. Of course Panetta cannot say unequivocally that the CIA has never, ever misled. So MMfA is using that as a way to give shield to Pelosi's unsubstantiated claim she was lied too? About as weak as it gets.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
          2 2
          Her claim is no more unsubstantiated than Panetta's, or the people who said they briefed her. Panetta said the records "indicate", not "prove". What kind of records are they? Memos? Notes? Do they have it on tape?

          It's one person's parsing against another's unless more evidence is forthcoming.... or are you seriously proposing that the CIA has never lied to Congress?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
            3 3
            When someone accuses someone else of lying, the burden of proof is on them, to prove it. It isn't one person's parsing against the others. If I say you lied, I should be able to prove it. If not, it's damn well unsubstantiated.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (May 20, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
              4 2
              You are right - so, since Gingrich has been saying for a couple weeks now that Pelosi is lying, shouldn't he offer some proof?

              The simple fact is that Panetta, himself, said that he could not swear to the veracity of the memos regarding the briefing.

              And another fact that Gingrich consistently misses is that when Panetta was speaking about the damage doen to the intelligence community, he was referring to the politicalization of this issue - which the Republicans started and continue. It was a rebuke of ANYONE who politicizes the issues, not just Pelosi.

              But, since Newt doesn't believe for a minute that his excrement stinks, he can't possibly notice that Panetta was shooting at him, too. The MSM has not mentioned this at all. Those darned, old, nasty liberal media flacks.

              Pelosi is the only person in all of this who has consistently asked for a truth commission. She hasn't ducked any of this - she is merely responding to the churlish and political attacks of the right.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by adamsinclair0078312 (May 20, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
                 
              So, uh, doesn't that also apply to the people calling Pelosi a liar? It isn't fair to call either side a liar without more evidence. All of this detracts from the fact that the powers that be allowed torture to become official policy of America. THAT is unacceptable.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                 
              You can't prove who is right or wrong in a he said/she said situation. She says the CIA did not tell her what was done so obviously to her the CIA is either mistaken or lying. The CIA says they did tell her so to them Pelosi is either mistaken or lying. It's too bad there's no tape.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
                  1
                If I called you a liar, and you said prove it, is that a he said/he said situation? Of course not.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Who said it was?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                       
                    You can't prove who is right or wrong in a he said/she said situation loonz

                    You did.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I said YOU can't. Pelosi was at the briefing so she can.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mari2jj2970 (May 21, 2009 2:29 am ET)
                           
                        It is obvious that so many posting here hate Pelosi but remember, the CIA report had an attendee that was not even cleared for top secret meetings. So tell me, just how dependable was the CIA in their briefing and their records of the briefing. Outrageously sloppy!!!!
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
                     
                  I was talking about what the CIA said vs what Pelosi said. It's all he said/she said. The CIA and Pelosi can accuse each other of lying because they were at the meeting. We on the outside looking in can't make that charge.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
                      2
                    SHE STARTED IT. That is the most relevant point of all that you keep dismissing.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
                      2  
                      No. The CIA started it. They said they had briefed her on the torture of Zubaydah which contradicted what she was saying. This allowed the republicans to claim Pelosi was lying and she shot back.
                      Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (May 20, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
          4
        Right on Wes. Pelosi is in trouble over this one, and no amount of MMFA spin can help her.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
          3  
          Don't worry Pelosi will be find. The right-wing hysteria is not working.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
           
        "Yep, Pelosi was in the meeting and they told her what they had done to Zubaydah..."


        Were you at the meeting?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (May 20, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
           
        Whose records Wesley? They have every appearence of contradicting statements by other folks.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (May 21, 2009 2:22 am ET)
           
        Yes we all know how accurate the CIA was under the GW Bush administration, particularly in that meeting. They even listed as an attendee some guy who was an aid and who definitely had no security clearance. Golly, now who knows how reliable what they reported was??? Besides, obviously the notes were not taken during the meeting or they would have known the aid of some Representative was NOT in attendance. Besides, the use of "enhanced interrogation" was not even coined till much later but it occurs in the report of the meeting. Panetta was not there and I am certain he thinks the report was accurate. The more we find out though, the probability that it was accurate is shot down by the report itself. Like so many Bush and Cheney activities, this report does not stand up against even a cursory sniff test.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (May 21, 2009 11:49 am ET)
           
        Actually, the term "Enhanced Interrogation Technique" was never coined until 2006, so how in the world did they use it in 2002??

        http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_in_use_when_pelosi_was_brief.php?ref=fpa
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (May 20, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      2 1

      If this madness about torture is winding down, as indeed it seems to be after three weeks at least of near 24 hour 7 day a week obsessive saturation and immersion on cable and elsewhere...

      If it's finally winding down, then maybe it's a good time to ask, what was the point of it all?

      What constructive thing was accomplished, what goal was achieved, what point was made...

      None that I can see... it was just a bunch of neurotic and hysterical noise is all.

      I have a theory (true and serious) that watching television is both the cause and the symptom, of a modern day type of neurosis, that otherwise exhibits itself in a chattering and prattling of subject matter picked up from television, stuff like celebrity dance contests and diverse individuals or celebrities living in the same house with a camera following them from room to room, or being stranded on an island, or eating worms, or being fat and trying to lose weight and competing for the title of "The Biggest Loser" (and isn't that funny, using that term like that)...

      And as far as people who fancy themselves interested in and informed about National Policy, well they watch those cable television commentary shows, and they prattle on and chatter away in the noise they pick up there, stuff like the President and his wife being celebrities (sharing the same house but not stuck on an island), and stuff about tele-prompters, and of course of late "torture memos" which morphed into "torture briefings" and now seems to be winding down, just like the talk of all neurotics and hysterics eventually winds down and leaves them worn out (but rarely reflective about what it is they were so hysterical about, as they are often just taking a breather while waiting for the next episode of their neurosis)...

      Well, it's a theory I have, that watching television is both the cause and the symptom of a kind of modern day neurosis, that like most neuroses, exhibits itself in talking breathlessly in words and sentences that can best be described as 'scatter-brained'...

      Scatter Brained : that's what television does to your mind I guess, it scatters your thoughts here and there, to celebrities dancing or living in houses together, to iPods and touching the Queen, to "torture memos" and then "torture briefings" and now onto who knows where...

      You know, if people keep watching television like this, the pharmaceutical companies are bound to get in on it, and address the neurosis caused and exhibited by watching too much television, and make a pill and start advertising it... on television.

      Parents should watch out too : if their children watch too much television, they're likely to become more scatter-brained than they already naturally are, and are likely to be diagnosed with a neurosis, and prescribed an assortment of pills for the condition or syndrome of dysfunction or however else they'd characterize Attention Deficit Disorder.

      Turn it off... that's the cure... see right through it...

      There is wellness beyond television, and beyond this noise about "torture memos" and "torture briefings".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by redeagleinthesky (May 20, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      3 1
      Both Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow have dissected some CIA
      documents that purport to prove Congress was briefed and seem to be missing actual times or places on them for the briefings. And a related document says Congressman Porter Goss was briefed but he had become CIA director and left Congress when the document said he was briefed. Another document says that an aide to Congressman Obey was briefed, but the aide says he was kicked out of the room and was never there.
      Then there's former Sen.Bob Graham's, careful notes. He was never briefed on 3 days the CIA says he was.
      Why haven't other media checked the CIA documents?
      I can't believe the hype and hysteria from Newt Gingrich. The media is facilitating him.
      The facts are these: 1.) The CIA under Bush did not report torture to Congress until a month after it started using it. This is a violation of the law.
      2.) The CIA tortured. This is a violation of the law.
      Where is your hysteria concerning torture Newt?
      I see some Bush apologists in the media. Dana Bash of CNN.
      Commentators on MSNBC like Joe Scarborough. The editor of the Philadephia Inquirer who hired Bush lawyer torture memo writer David Yoo to write a blog.
      Bash had stars in her eyes everytime she followed John McCain on the campaign trail. Time for her to become a copy editor in the backroom.
      And then there's veteran Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski,who dismissed Robert Draper's GQ article about Rumfeld's biblical cover sheets for Department of Defense briefing papers that went to Bush on a daily basis.
      His sources, the same Pentagon pals he has probably had a drink with for years said it didn't happen. Thanks for your thoughtful research, "Mick." Time for you to retire and write a book.


      Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
      2  
      These same republicans were blaming the CIA over Iraq intelligence failures when we all know the Bush administration was cherry picking information and they set up their own group to get another take on the intelligence. And they all got their panties in a bunch when the CIA said Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
        3  
        You're exactly right. Here's a blog that points out this blatant Republican hypocrisy and gives a few examples:


        http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/republicans-blamed-the-cia-now-they-hide-behind-the-cia-and-blame-democrats/


        The whole Pelosi "controversy" is a manufactured distraction.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
            4
          Manufactured? By whom? Pelosi is the one who made the lying charge, and now her defenders are upset because she is being questioned and asked to back up her charge? Ridiculous. The left is so used to the media swallowing their line whole, that when their leaders are questioned, rightly questioned, they call it a "manufactured distraction". If she didn't want it, she should have been more reticent in her speak, and held her accusations back until she had the necessary proof behind them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
            3  
            The right is accusing her of lying and they have no proof. It's all manufactured.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (May 20, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                2
              Absurd. It was her charge of lying that started the whole thing, there would be no "accusation" from the right if she had proof to back up her charge. Spin it anyway you want, it doesn't matter.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                2  
                No, the Republicans started the whole thing when they tried to derail the discussion from who authorized the torture to what Nancy Pelosi knew and why she didn't save them from themselves.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (May 20, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                1  
                They accused her of lying before she said the CIA had lied.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by creeksneakers2 (May 20, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
                     
                  The CIA hasn't called Pelosi a liar. Only the Republicans are doing that. The Republicans called the CIA liars on numerous occasions but have now come up with faux outrage to deflect attention away from revelations that Dick Cheney authorized torture not just to get intelligence, but also to beat false confessions out of detainees for Cheney to use for his propaganda.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by mari2jj2970 (May 21, 2009 2:48 am ET)
                 
              If the report in question included an aid who had no security clearance as being present at the briefing and it does, how reliable are those minutes of that meeting. Shows that the CIA is not all that careful and especially it is in the interest of Republicans in my party to lie on this issue. I am so disgusted with the constant lies of my party that I have just had to re-register. Amazing when Republicans have to leave the party due to this sort of malfeasance. But it surely explains the Obama landslide results of the last election. And further, if Republicans continue to harass like they are now, they will continue to lose droves of members.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
            1  
            John Boner accused the CIA of lying a while back in their NIE... shouldn't he have to prove it?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 20, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
      3  
      GINGRICH is nothing but a lowlife liar amd mouthpiece for the NEO CONSERVATIVE movement that gave us the last eight years.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by marty (May 20, 2009 7:06 pm ET)
         
      Pelosi, like many of the democrats back then, were spineless and more concerned about their own political careers than their principles. So, they were more than willing to look the other way even though they KNEW that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" (known as torture to the rest of the world) were in violation of our own Constitution and the Geneva convention. Do any of you realize the absurdity of this ? The Bush Administration thought that, by coming up with a new name for torture, it would no longer be considered torture, and democrats went along with it. How about that for "torturing" the english language. I guess it kind of depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.

      It reminds me of how the Jews were sent to "resettlement camps" or "work camps" in Poland and Germany during world war II (not death camps or concentration camps). We should remember that the Nazis did everything under color of law. What the Nazis did was LEGAL under their system, and everyone who operated within it was "just following orders" (just like those in our CIA who tortured prisoners in Guantanamo, Iraq, and other places...........they were following orders too). But I guess it is okay when we do it because.....uh....we're the GOOD GUYS. Does anyone REALLY believe this ?

      We have become a nation of hypocrites (not laws), and should be ashamed of ourselves. It goes way beyond Nancy Pelosi.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by unhipcat (May 20, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
         
      The Iran-Contra affair eliminates any doubt that the CIA is not always honest with Congress.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (May 20, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
      1  
      at this point, the only person claiming, with 100% certainty, that pelosi, graham, etc were briefed by the CIA about the "enhanced" (gotta love that!) interrogation techniques used on detainees is mr. gingrich. none of the actual participants of the briefings is making that claim, the only person who is someone who wasn't actually there.

      why is anyone paying him any attention?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Trees (May 20, 2009 10:32 pm ET)
         
      UNFORGETTABLE MOMENT; WHILE ADAMANTLY SUPPORTING THE CLINTON SEXUAL WITCH HUNT, GINGRICH AND THEN WIFE #2, ON THE LARRY KING SHOW, LOVINGLY HOLDING HANDS DECLARING HOW HAPPY THEY ARE, ALL THE WHILE HE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH A YOUNG AIDE. SUBSEQUENTLY THEY MARRIED, BUT STILL, DO WE TAKE THIS GUY FOR HIS WORD!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 21, 2009 11:31 am ET)
         
      Did Pelosi actually say that the CIA "Routinely" lies to Congress? Maybe she did, but I've never seen it or read it anywhere. Could this be another.... um...embellishment... by Mr. Ex Speaker?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (May 21, 2009 11:45 am ET)
         
      Newt's blurting at 01:14 is absolutely priceless!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 21, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
           
        Agreed. His whole response to her question was pretty lame. Since he appears so often on FOX, I guess he's caught off guard if anybody dares challenge his bullsh*t.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rsinebada7366 (May 22, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
         
      I actually, no really, laughed out loud when the GOP attackers claimed that "the CIA doesn't lie to Congress." That is hilarious.
      They denied torturing Gitmo and Abu Graib detainees! The CIA is the history of lying, and assassinations and overt corruption of the democratic processes in country after country. They are our KGB and Mossaud (sp?). Read the past - Church Committee, Rocke-
      feller hearings and right up to the present. I am still laughing.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.