Actually, he did. To clarify, this was an earlier letter.
You're obviously very confused.
The letter you cite is concerning a totally different subject, i.e., the "dates, locations, and names of all members of Congress who were briefed ... "
There was no reference, at all, to the subject matter of the briefings. And in fact, there is no debate over whether Pelosi was the recipient of the Sept. 2002 briefing.
I would add, however, that the conclusion reached by the blogger was totally erroneous. Apparently, you were reciting what you had read there. It is wrong.
The blog says ....
CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate
As I noted below, newly released documents appear to show that according to the CIA, officials briefed Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats back in 2002 about the use of torture techniques on terror suspects.
But a letter that accompanied these documents, written by the head of the CIA, appears to clearly concede that the information in the docs about who was briefed and when may not be accurate or reliable.
Clearly, the referenced letter refers ONLY to dates, times, and recipients of the briefings -- in no way does it suggest or "admit" that the briefings themselves could be inaccurate.
Moreover, there is no admission at all that ANYTHING pertaining to it could be inaccurate. It is simply pointing out the source of the material, which was a totally appropriate disclosure.
You're really reaching here to try to discount Panetta's statements. What matters is the "best" evidence and without any doubt at all, Panetta has the "best" evidence. |
