"Yes, children, hypocritical congressional investigations and foreign kangaroo courts are really our friends," Michael Gerson writes today in the Washington Post, describing the Democrats' "Mr. Rogers approach" to assuaging the intelligence community during their all-out assault on CIA morale:
"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes," [Obama said.] "That's how we learn."... House intelligence committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes sent a sympathy note to Langley: "In recent days, as the public debate regarding CIA's interrogation practices has raged, you have been very much in my thoughts." There should be a section at Hallmark for intelligence operatives unfairly accused of war crimes.
Gerson also notes the speed with which prominent Democrats have changed their tune on the importance and admirability of the intelligence community depending on the political winds. This was Pelosi just days before she was saying the CIA systematically lied to her over a period of eight years:
Pelosi told reporters she had discussed intelligence sharing with Iraqi lawmakers after she arrived for a one-day visit. She was accompanied by Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who chairs a House committee that oversees U.S. intelligence operations.
"If we are going to have a diminished physical military presence, we have to have a strong intelligence presence," Pelosi said.
Pelosi said that on a trip to Iraq. Against the backdrop of the notorious "wrong war," on the sliding scale of Democratic political calculation, intelligence gathering was positively fuzzy-sounding when compared to the alternative of military action. Back at home, however, where liberal Democrats are finding it uncomfortable to be in charge of an escalation in Afghanistan, acting responsibly in Iraq, and keeping terrorists locked up while their base agitates for just the opposite, the intelligence community gets the brunt of their attacks.
In Democrat talking points parlance, the CIA is the Wall Street to the military's Main Street. It's easy to attack, accepted by most as necessary but maybe unsavory, and its successes are easily dismissed as it has not the ability (due to info being classified) or inclination to go on a p.r. blitz in its own defense, especially when attacks are coming from the president's party. Interrogators are corporate CEOs while the troops are unassailable small businessmen, so the CEOs must face the wrath of CYA-ing Dems. As Gerson notes, military commanders are thankfully getting better treatment:
Contrast this affront to Obama's treatment of the military. When Gen. Ray Odierno argued that the release of military abuse photos would put American troops at risk, Obama quickly backed down. By one account, Odierno told the president, "Thanks. That must have been a hard decision." Obama replied: "No, it wasn't at all." Obama has deferred to his military commanders on the timing and strategy of American withdrawals from Iraq. And he has proposed an escalating military commitment in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- leading 51 House Democrats last week to vote against a military funding bill.
The CIA is not without faults or mistakes, just as the military is not without faults or mistakes, but the enthusiasm with which Democrats dismiss (and endanger) the intelligence community's contributions to American security for political advantage is a shame.
"The CIA has a very bad record when it comes ... to honesty. It goes back a long time," Specter said in a speech before the American Law Institute at a Washington hotel.
The Republican-turned-Democrat listed a handful of examples in the past where the CIA has withheld key information from Congress.
"During my tenure as chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the 104th Congress, there were repeated instances where we didn't get information that was there," Specter said.
"It's a real problem as to how you get the information."
Nevermind that in this instance, Leon Panetta asserts that "Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'"
