When director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, defending the CIA's not informing Congress of an anti-al Qaeda assassination program, told The Washington Post, "It was a judgment call" and that "we believe in erring on the side of working with the Hill as a partner," was he creating a new precedent for the intelligence community? For decades, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have often taken the less-said-the-better road when it comes to keeping Congress posted on its doings.This hasn't always been an ideological or partisan matter. Washington geezers should recall that back in the 1980s, Senator Barry Goldwater, the die-hard conservative Republican chair of the Senate intelligence committee, often decried Bill Casey, Ronald Reagan's CIA chief, for not being forthcoming with the committee.

So when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA has lied to her or when it turns out that an assassination program--operational or not--has not been briefed to Congress, it really ought not to be a big surprise. There are plenty of hard-working, diligent folks at the CIA,and I imagine some might have argued that the assassination program ought to have been shared with the agency's congressional overseers. Yet institutionally, the CIA has frequently been more tight-lipped than it should have--which is, of course, a natural tendency for spies and covert operators.

And when you throw into the mix Dick Cheney, who reportedly urged that this program be kept secret from Capitol Hill, the inclination to keep legislators out of the loop probably increases by a factor of 10--or 100.

There's still a lot not known about this kill-al-Qaeda program, as Slate points out. But that Post article reports that it was dormant but about to be reactivated. Thus, it was brought to CIA director Leon Panetta's attention--but months after he had taken the job. He then quickly notified Congress that Congress had never been notified about it. And since then, the rest of us have been left to puzzle over what really went on with this project.

Which brings me to this point: it would not be too hard for a congressional intelligence committee to mount a quick probe to determine what did happen and to produce a report safe for public consumption. WIthout disclosing all the details of the program--some of which might have to remain classified--the House or Senate intelligence panel certainly could tell the public what Cheney's role was in keeping the program from Congress and examine whether the CIA violated any laws (or just good Washington manners) by doing so.

This dust-up has generated a lot of smoke this past week. The public deserves some light. Will Congress deliver?

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.
 

I'm on the run today, but I noticed that Ben Smith at Politico had an intriguing item:

The Republican National Committee yesterday removed a controversial video comparing Nancy Pelosi to Bond girl Pussy Galore from its YouTube account.

Today, the RNC asserted its copyright to the video to remove any trace of it from YouTube, asking the service to take a copy of the video down from the account of a Politico reader who had reposted it.

"This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Republican National Committee claiming that this material is infringing," says the e-mail from YouTube, forwarded to me by the reader.

An RNC spokesman yesterday wouldn't explain why the committee took the video down.

UPDATE: The video resurfaces elsewhere.

The GOP video used clips and music from James Bond movies to poke at Pelosi for having accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding and other matters. Judging from the RNC note to YouTube, it seems that some Bond-connected party decided to play Dr. No and told the GOP that it had unfairly swiped Bond imagery or music. I suppose it's possible that the complaint came from a media outlet upset that this GOP video had used one of its news clips. But political parties are always stealing that sort of material for silly attack ads. In this mystery, I'm betting that the Bond copyright people--a gang as ruthless and relentless as SMERSH--dispatched one of their best licensed-to-sue operatives to end this evil GOP conspiracy.

Political lesson of the day: don't mess with Bond, James Bond.

RAIN, SOTOMAYOR, AND ME. From the Thursday's night edition of MSNBC's "The Ed Show." I don't know if you can tell, but I was being rained on, as we discussed the SCOTUS nominee.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I'm trying to keep track of all the Bush-era news today: what to do with the military commissions, what the CIA did or didn't tell Congress about waterboarding, how to handle those photos of abused detainees. The so-called war on terrorism was rather messy on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's watch. And the cleanup job isn't easy. Below is a look at just one of the many subplots that I posted elsewhere today:

Here's a good example of what's been wrong with congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies for decades: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA did not tell her at a September 2002 briefing (when she was the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee) that it had used waterboarding on a captured al Qaeda operative; the CIA says it did. And this dispute apparently cannot be settled. From The Washington Post:

Government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified briefings, suggested that the record might never be clear as to what Pelosi and [Republican Rep. Porter] Goss were told. One official familiar with the congressional briefings acknowledged the difficulty of establishing exactly what lawmakers were told. Internal CIA memos about the briefings were "not designed to be stenography" but were based on recollections after the fact, the official said. There were no recordings or precise transcripts, he said.

If you had been falsely accused of doing something outrageous, wouldn't you declare you had done no such thing?

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence--at least in a courtroom--but it is certainly suspicious that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not denied the most recent allegations against him. My CQ colleague Jeff Stein reported late Sunday night that Gonzales had blocked a preliminary FBI investigation into Democratic Representative Jane Harman, who had been captured by NSA eavesdroppers telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would try to use her clout to lessen espionage-related charges filed against two AIPAC officials. In return for her assistance, the suspected Israeli agent reportedly offered to help Harman become chair of the House intelligence committee. On Tuesday, The New York Times confirmed much of the story--including the piece about Gonzales: that the then-AG killed the inquiry because Harman, then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, could help the Bush administration defend its use of warrantless wiretaps.

So there are two lines of inquiry that official investigators ought to follow. First, whether Harman broke the law by offering to lean on the criminal investigation of AIPAC for help in advancing her career. (The Times reports that the suspected Israeli agent promised that media mogul Haim Saban would threaten to hold back donations to REp. Nancy Pelosi if she did not award Harman the top slot on the intelligence committee; Saban's spokesperson did not respond to the Times' request for comment.) Second, whether Gonzales stopped a criminal investigation because the target (Harman) could help the Bush administration. Harman has put out a very carefully-worded denial that's full of holes. Gonzales, though, hasn't said anything. That's not very reassuring. Shouldn't a former attorney general be able to declare that he never halted an investigation as a favor to a lawmaker who was doing the administration a favor? If not, there's a problem--and a problem (no matter Barack Obama's penchant for leaving the past behind) deserving a thorough examination by someone with subpoena power.

These are both major scandals--and, alas, they are linked. Democrats on the Hill might welcome another opportunity to pursue Gonzales, but they are not going to be eager to chase after Harman, even though she is not the most popular among House Democrats. Hill Republicans who would love to see a Democrat caught in an ethics investigation may not be eager to give Dems more reason to investigate Gonzales and the Bushies. And FOIs--friends of Israel--on both sides of the aisle will not be enthusiastic about any probe that could depict a lawmaker as a tool of AIPAC and Israel. (On Monday, Pelosi said nothing about the Harman-AIPAC-Gonzales story.)

Justice Department internal investigators certainly have the standing to probe what happened with Gonzales and the Harman investigation. They may not care that much about Harman, but an investigation of Gonzales cannot get too far without a determination of what Harman said (to the suspected Israeli agent) and did (regarding the AIPAC prosecution). Meanwhile, congressional sources tell me that Hill people are wondering how many other members of Congress have held conversations that have been collected by the NSA.

With the Times picking up Stein's story, the whole thing has gone mainstream. (Not that CQ isn't mainstream.) As I noted yesterday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington quickly sent requests to the Office of Congressional Ethics and the Justice Department for investigations. But someone is going to have to raise a fuss on Capitol Hill or within the executive branch for anything to happen. This double quid-pro-quo tale is truly a bipartisan embarrassment--and that's the best protection Harman and Gonzales could have.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

This morning, I attended a breakfast that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held with several journalists. At the start, she noted that she had recently been in Afghanistan, and she indicated she was not encouraged by what she had seen on the ground. When the breakfast was over, I asked her about that trip. What struck her, she said, was her meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He was, she reported, more subdued than her last meeting with him eighteen months ago. And during their talk, he had acknowledged that corruption is a major problem for his government.

That admission registered with Pelosi, for in her previous meeting with Karzai he had downplayed corruption as a concern. So one clear implication is this: if Karzai is finally admitting that corruption plagues his government, it must be really, really, really bad.

After his meeting with Pelosi, Karzai's office released a statement noting that he had received a commitment from Pelosi to help his government fight terrorism. Whatever that meant. But given Karzai's uncertain standing these days--President Barack Obama has criticized his government for being "detached"--receiving any commitment from the speaker of the US House of Representatives would be good news for him.

But not so fast.

"In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." Seems every time you turn on the telly or pick up a paper--or even read on the Internet--these words dominate coverage of the goings-on in Washington. The Dems try to tax Big Oil to pay for alternative energy programs. They lose. The Dems try to tax gazillionaire hedge funds hotshots so upper middle-class taxpayers don't get nailed by the Alternative Minimum Tax. They lose. The Dems try to expand the children's health insurance program. They lose. And of course, the Dems try to attach timetables and limits to the new funding for the war in Iraq. They lose. Given that most of these positions are supported by most Americans, one might wonder why the Democrats keep failing. But George W. Bush keeps outmaneuvering Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's looking like the Ds are the Putz Party.

Yeah, I know the Democratic argument: we face those obstructionist, filibuster-waving GOPers who march in lockstep with Mr. Obstinate in the White House and, still, we've raised the minimum wage, passed the 9/11 commission recommendations, boosted fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and reprogrammed billions that Bush wanted toward our budget priorities. But there is the matter of the war.

Once again, the headline in this morning's papers: Senate Approves Iraq War Funds. On the No. 1 issue of this Congress, the Democrats have utterly failed. They triumphantly came into office pledging to end the war, and they have not even managed to slow it down. The Democratic base is right to be peeved. And the Dems cannot blame the media for noting this continuing failure. On this point--the key point--they look hapless and impotent. Sure, there are structural impediments, such as that Senate filibuster and the presidential veto. But the Democrats have not figured out how to lose successfully. If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. Math is math. But there are ways to frame debates so that you win (somewhat) by losing. And on Iraq--and the other matters listed above--the Ds haven't done that.

Perhaps it's easier said than done. The Monday morning quarterback always has 20-20 vision. But the Democrats missed a chance early on to have a simple up-and-down vote on war funding that would have established that Bush and the Republicans (with a few Democrats) were keeping the war alive despite the Democrats' best efforts. Which would mean that the Democrats needed more Democrats in Congress. But the various pirouettes and legislative mechanisms the Democrats have tried have been confusing and, worse, ineffective. And their messaging has been inconsistent: we're standing firm....oh, no, we're not....now this time we really will....well, we don't have the votes...and so on.

Fair or not, the Democrats cannot hide their war failure behind press releases touting their successes on other fronts. A House Democratic chief of staff explains: "It's like you call in a contractor to fix your roof, he doesn't do it, but he tells you, 'now you're sink is working fine.' Okay, but you wanted to him to fix the roof and he promised to fix the roof and he didn't." The roof is the Iraq war.

Being in the majority can be rough. There are expectations and obligations. In 1994, after the Democrats lost Congress, Representative Barney Frank told me he was looking forward to being in the minority: "It's more fun." Would Pelosi and Reid agree now? In any event, after Congress clears out of town, these leaders and the rest of the Dems ought to start thinking how to have a better year in 2008. You think they know there are elections next November?