Here it comes...battle stations! Seven big bad Democrats, all members of the House Intelligence Committe, have decided to return fire back at the CIA.

The "angry seven" have sent a letter urging Director Leon Panetta to publicly reveal the "renunciation" he gave to the Committee at a June 24 closed-door meeting, which refuted his May 15 pronouncement ...(quote) "it is not the policy or practice of the agency to mislead Congress."

Shocking. Apparently all along, it HAS been the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress; and Panetta (he of the guilty conscience) is finally "coming clean."

This out-of-the-blue "letter" claims that last June 24, Panetta had revealed, (quote) "senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions, and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001."

Not surprisingly, this letter tacitly calls Panetta a prevaricator (but NOT on official congressional letterhead) and seemingly attests to having extracted a confession from the apparently hapless CIA director. 

So it's "all aboard!" We now have yet another merry-go-round meeting of the House democrat liar's club-- and Mr. Panetta has been pulled along for the ride.

The seven Democrats -- who signed the letter dated June 26 -- are Reps. Anna Eshoo of California, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Mike Thompson of California, Alcee Hastings of California, Adam Smith of Washington and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

But first let's "reset" the board: 

May 15, 2009- Despite evidence to the contrary, Nancy Pelosi refuses to admit the CIA did not lie to her; but during her denouncement, she was stammering in front of the DC press corps as if suddenly stricken with cerebral palsy.

Then Leon (the nose) Panetta actually shocked Washington-- he stuck up for his agency; declaring, "the CIA doesn't mislead Congress;" in retrospect, a gaffe, given the fact that Panetta is nothing but a democratic hack leftover from the Clinton dustbin.

Indeed, it was all a pipe dream that Pelosi would be left twisting in the wind with a liar's tag stamped on her forehead. So no doubt, Rahm Emanuel immediately went into damage control, and contrived Washington's most recent cover story: 

1) Pelosi would jet off  to China (a country she despises for human rights' violations) to turn down the heat 

2) Panetta would then set up a phony meeting, gather "evidence" for several weeks, and then later "testify" in late June in front of the House Intelligence Committee (intelligence being an oxymoron)

3) a group of democrats (from the Committee) would then compose a "letter" demonstrating "outrage" to Panetta, calling for him to make public a statement condemning the previous administration for fibbing to the "I-cannot-tell-a-lie" Pelosi. (as usual, blame Bush)

Of course, Panetta would be stooge-- after all, that's why he was appointed CIA director in the first place.

But this so-called letter of indignation from these seven Democrats raises obvious inconsistencies:

Exhibit A: Why would Panetta claim at first (May 15) the CIA has kept Congress truthfully informed, then suddenly, he admits the agency isn't doing what he publicly claimed it did? (basically amounting to Panetta calling himself liar)

Exhibit B: Why are we not hearing from the Republicans (also members of the House Intelligence Committee) that were at this supposedly closed-door (June 24) meeting?

Exhibit C- Why did this "letter "(one brief paragraph) contain no details about what information the CIA officials allegedly concealed, or how they purportedly misled members of Congress?

The answer, of course, comes straight from the Emanuel/Pelosi playbook: force Panetta  to back stab people at the CIA, so as to provide cover for the House speaker, who is as vital to the Obama fascist machine as ice to a polar bear.

It's yet another poorly-contrived Obama scam to divert GOP congressional bloodhounds off Pelosi's trail. Mr.Emanuel and fancy Nancy obviously feel they're bulletproof.

But this begs the obvious question...why would Panetta take a firm stand one way, and 6 weeks later, he suddenly comes forth with some bogus 180-degree retraction?

Panetta might just as well admit..."I've been compromised-- either submit to Emanuel & Pelosi, or I take home a pink slip."

Now imagine this scenario: Panetta had broken ranks, stood by his agency, and refused to play ball with Pelosi. What then? 

Given the need to maintain the credibility of his most vital henchman (er henchperson) on Capitol Hill, Obama would've asked Mr. Panetta to "kindly step down," and then contrive some horsepucky about.. "Mr. Panetta has chosen to pursue interests in his private life, and spend more time with his family."

After Panetta was appointed CIA director, Washington's illumenati wondered why Obama would choose someone completely inexperienced in the intelligence field.

But now the mystery is solved; all along, Obama had planned on getting even with Bush & Cheney for Iraq; and a puppet CIA director would be key. Now, with this unplanned Pelosi scandal coming to the fore-- and his cowardly retraction-- Panetta's appointment becomes one of Obama's most clever moves.

And one can only wonder how much of an "under the table" deal the Machiavellian Pelosi promised the seven signing the phony letter. For those lucky seven districts, it's certain to be "earmark city," and probably a lot more.

Claiming "the CIA misled me" indeed does brand Pelosi a pathological liar. The CIA is an agency. Agencies are abstractions, and unable to "mislead." Only people can mislead.

So how did Pelosi come up with such a sudden case of amnesia? Where are the names of the people who misled you, liar Pelosi? When you sat on the House intelligence Committee back in 2002, did you suddenly take leave of your intelligence?

The worst part of all…Panetta is an Obama stooge; he would destroy the CIA to serve his master, heading an agency vital to our nation's safety; where a lying CIA director would compromise America's national security for some mere political purpose.

But what did we expect?