White House, Sen. Tom Cotton blast Rand Paul for opposing CIA pick

[DonViejo]

Source: McClatchy DC/RawStory




MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU
17 MAR 2018 AT 08:57 ET
Displayed with permission from Tribune Content Agency

WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul's opposition to President Donald Trump's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency drew fire Friday from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — first by a key Senate Republican colleague, then by the White House.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders accused Paul of conveying "incorrect information" about CIA nominee Gina Haspel and said the White House plans to set the record straight.

"As a member of the United States Senate, we hope that they take that role very seriously and get accurate information before they peddle it out in front of the American people," Sanders said at her daily news briefing, singling Paul out for speaking "off of incorrect information."

Earlier Friday, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, rebuked Paul via Twitter for opposing Haspel, accusing the Kentucky Republican of "undermining" the president's national security nominees.

Paul on Wednesday announced his opposition to Trump's decision to tap CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of State and elevate Pompeo's deputy, Gina Haspel, to become the CIA's first-ever female director.

In 2002, Haspel was sent to northern Thailand as CIA chief of a secret detention facility, known as Cat's Eye, where terror suspects had been imprisoned and subject to then-approved use of torture techniques.

Paul accused Haspel of expressing "gleeful joy" over torture. He read from an account in a 2017 ProPublica article that said Haspel had witnessed the waterboarding of al-Qaida suspect Abu Zubaydah.

But the site Thursday retracted the claims. It reported that at least two former colleagues of Haspel said that while she did serve as the CIA chief of the facility, she did not arrive until later in 2002, after the waterboarding of Zubaydah had ended.

A spokesman for Paul said the retraction did not change the senator's stance.

"Regardless of the retraction of one anecdote, the fact remains that Gina Haspel was instrumental in running a place where people were tortured," said spokesman Doug Stafford. "According to multiple published, undisputed accounts, she oversaw a black site and she further destroyed evidence of torture. This should preclude her from ever running the CIA."

That prompted a response from Cotton, who said Paul was "wrong again" and that Haspel was cleared of wrongdoing in destruction of those tapes "by none other" than former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

"An honest explanation for undermining @realDonaldTrump choices for national-security team would be nice for once," Cotton wrote.

Paul, who has pledged to do everything he can from his perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to block the two nominations, could complicate their path to confirmation. Paul noted that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has also voiced concerns about the nomination.

If they stay opposed, and all 47 Democrats and two independents join them, Haspel's nomination could be in trouble.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee when it investigated the CIA's torture program, called on the agency to release documents related to Haspel's involvement.

"My fellow senators and I must have the complete picture of Ms. Haspel's involvement in the program in order to fully and fairly review her record and qualifications," Feinstein wrote in a letter to Pompeo and Haspel.

"I also believe the American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to be the director of the CIA played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history," Feinstein said.

Sanders said Friday that the White House planned to be "as cooperative as we can," adding that "we specifically want to make sure that people actually have an accurate reflection."

Paul said Wednesday he didn't know if other senators would join in opposition, but said "a debate over whether or not America is a country in favor of torture or not is an important one."

His position drew fire as well from Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., whose father, Dick Cheney was vice president during the program.

She accused Paul of "defending and sympathizing with terrorists" and said that Haspel had "spent her career defending the American people and homeland."

Paul in 2017 was the only Republican to vote against Pompeo for CIA director, citing Pompeo's criticism of a congressional report on the CIA's past use of torture.

Paul said Pompeo called the senators who voted to release the report "quintessentially at odds with (their) duty to (their) country."

Paul said he "couldn't disagree more" and said that "in the years following 9/11, we let fear get the better of our responsibility to liberty."

Pompeo was confirmed, 66 to 32.

###

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/white-house-sen-tom-cotton-blast-rand-paul-opposing-cia-pick/

---

Full article displayed with permission from Tribune Content Agency -- Don

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Toady Cotton is reported to be wangling a position on tRump's cabinet. . . . nt

[OnDoutside]

5. I find that odd, giving up a cozy job to potentially end up in prison.

[Cha]

2. Wow.. didn't think rand would

care.

[karynnj]

10. Actually, Rand has been very consistent on this

He is terrible on things like ACA and any social welfare program. He is a RW libertarian. However, like his father, he has been very strong against many military actions and torture.

Senators can not all be seen as homogenous representatives of their party. As it is very likely that Rand Paul will not change position on the CIA nominee and McCain is unlikely as well - his statement was strong on torture and he is in any event unlikely to return to DC, the Republicans will not have even 50 votes, if ALL the Democrats vote no.

So, it the nominee is approved, it likely will be with Democratic votes. Feinstein's request speaks to this. She is asking that the records relating to the nominee's actions at the black facility be made public. This actually will start an interesting philisophophical question.

The Bush administration opened black facilities and their lawyers wrote opinions that the practices were not torture. However, many procedures were internationally identified as being torture. Obama closed the facilities, and the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on torture early in administartion. However, there are likely many people working for the military, CIA or other organizations who were asked to do things by their superiors that were against international law.

I would argue that a person qualified to lead the CIA should have have had the strength and the character to refuse a position like that - even if it would destroy their career. This is a high bar on one level. It asks an ambiticious person to risk their future career on doing what is right. On the other hand, NOT be willing to do that means that the person did not think the black facilities were wrong, thought them wrong, but not worth risking their career, or considered it is was more important to "follow orders" than to follow moral values. I can't see any other possibilities -- and all lead me to reject that she should head the CIA. We do not want someone who did not see the black operations as wrong, who considered furthering their career more important than doing something they recognized as wrong or thought that they had no personal responsibility to question what they were asked to do. I get that it would punish someone for doing what she was asked.

In this light, it seems that asking for the records is to clarify exactly what the nominee did. It is worth noting that Congress itself was not informed on the black sites. (It is possible the gang of 8 was but the entire Congress was not. Many learned only when some allies complained publicly. ) This might also be considered related to the fact that no one was ever held accountable for that program. Note that Tom Cotton and others defending what was done as needed for national security. However, as people from John McCain to John Kerry to many generals have said, torture does not produce good information and it does produce a lot of false information when the victim says whatever he thinks will stop the torture.

In the Bush years, we lost the argument. Both Kerry and Dean condemned Abu Ghraib when the stories came out and that story did hurt Bush. However, polling before the election showed that when people were asked who was stronger on national security, although Kerry did better than Democrats usually do, focus groups in places like Ohio (done after the election) showed many people put national security as what they voted on and it was issues like torture and other unethical, immoral actions that made the difference ... for Bush. They said (I would say correctly) that Bush/Cheney would not be constained by morality and Kerry would. That AND they believed that those actions were needed to keep us safer.

They are now relitigating this issue -- and the fear I have is that they are pushing two memes: The first is that Obama put the US at risk and that these immoral actions are needed to keep America safe. (Ignore that it was not the terrorists that were the targets of this who attacked us in Obama's years -- it was Russia's cyber attack.) Both of these are dangerous -- the first adds to the Republicans claiming that they are better on national security and 2004 suggests that they can convince enough terrorized people to throw away their morality for untrue security benefits. I refused to see Zero dark thirty because it covered a real event and credited dark actions when that was not how we got the info. The second is that Trump has already said we should do things worse than waterboarding. Putting someone who did not say no when asked to be part of this in the past is not a good idea. It may be there was more to the nominee's actions than is public that show her in a better light, but if there is nothing that changes what she is seen to have done, this is not good.

[WhiteTara]

3. Let's hope he stands strong.

[justgamma]

4. Well, that's rich coming from her.

I don't think she can say that with a straight face.

"As a member of the United States Senate, we hope that they take that role very seriously and get accurate information before they peddle it out in front of the American people," Sanders said at her daily news briefing, singling Paul out for speaking "off of incorrect information."

[Scarsdale]

9. I thought the same thing!

Lying Suckerbee Sanders has gall to reprimand others for copying her style. This job has really taken a toll on her, she looks 20 years older.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Oh, Tom, I'm so sorry you weren't picked for the top CIA job. I see you're working hard to get the n

[True Blue American]

7. Who cares about Liz Cheney?

She tried to cut the throat of her long time family friend to run against him.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-liz-cheney-political-allegiance-wyoming-20130930-story.html

She is a part of that hateful, evil family. And, now she is nothing.

[still_one]

8. don't worry tommy boy, rand will cave