"Reading More Closely"

Josh Marshall:

From deep in The Politico beast, we find that Josh Gerstein's close reading acumen has not at all been impaired. Here's Gerstein looking closely this afternoon at that Leon Panetta statement from last Friday ...

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta didn't reject or deny House Speaker Nancy 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. "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress." First, "let me be clear" always precedes an ambiguous statement. Without fail. 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.

Panetta was at his Monterey, Calif. think tank when this all happened in 2002 and 2003. He doesn't know if Pelosi was lied to. He also doesn't say he talked to the briefers and is convinced they're telling the truth. He just says the paper records say she was briefed about the techniques. We knew that already from agency statements. So he's adding his voice to the mix and sending a signal that he'll stand by his agency, but to say he sided with the briefers on the specifics is just wrong.Again, I'm not saying Pelosi was lied to or even misled. It would seem rather brazen to do that. But Panetta's statement says less than people are claiming.

This is just right. This was certainly Panetta standing up for his Agency after Pelosi, the second person in line to the presidency, had taken a swipe. But to get the full significance of a document, even a simple memo, you need to look past the toplines to what the text actually says. And if you read Panetta closely he didn't take any position at all on the key question of whether Pelosi was right or not. It was a point lost on virtually everyone in town.