program. he never objected to this program. he was confirmed 64-33 in the senate. only two democrats voted against him. why the double standard? for the first woman ever nominated to be the head of the c.i.a. no one thought it made john brennan unqualified to be the head of the c.i.a. and now gina haspel, all of a sudden she will have her nomination killed over this program when john brennan got confirmed? total double standard. julie: one has to wonder is this somebody the president is supporting? it seems whenever anybody is put up to the task, they are questioned by the democratic party no matter what their qualifications. i want to talk more about the terrorists she was behind interrogating. khalid sheikh mohammed. the mastermind behind the 9/11 atakes. if we talked to september 12, 2012 would they have a problem?
a detention and interrogation program. c.i.a. has learned some tough lessons from that experience. we were asked to tackle a mission that fell outside our expertise. for me, there is no better example of implementing lessons learned than what the agency took away from that program. in retrospect, it is clear, as the report concluded, that c.i.a. was not prepared to conduct a detention and interrogation program. today the u.s. government has a clear, legal and policy framework that governs detentions and interrogations. specifically, the law provides that no individual in u.s. custody may be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in the army field manual. i fully support the detainee
states at the direction of the director of the central intelligence agency and according to the legal guidance provided by the attorney general of the united states. those who have issues with programs or operations conducted years ago should address those concerns and their questions to former presidents, former directors, and former attorney generals. this hearing is about how you will lead the central intelligence agency into the future, not how you faithfully executed missions in the past. moreover, you conducted yourself in such a way that your supervisors have uniformly praised your conduct. they commended you for frankness, firmness and fairness. your integrity and operational judgment and professional presence. they have commented on your leadership skills and success in creating a more inclusive and fair workplace, and admired
reasoning for that. he pulled out of it just as he said he would. he is not going to be playing softball with north korea. bill: steve hayes and marc thiessen. a quick comment from both of you. we can talk north korea and we can also talk gina haspel because part of her statement in a moment, which will be, steve, as we were talking 30 minutes ago the most contentious aspect of this hearing will be the detention sites after 9/11. not knowing if there were more attacks coming and where in the world they were coming lends you to understand the threat they felt for those who were making decisions for us. she will say this. i have views on this issue and i want to be clear, having served in that tumultuous time i can offer you my personal commitment clearly and without reservation the c.i.a. will not restart such a detention interrogation program. steve, you start. is that enough? we ll see if it s enough for
reins at langley 15 months ago we decided to concentrate on four initiatives. one of those is partnerships and it involves two areas. first our partnerships with our other i.c. partners in the u.s. government but even more broadly than that. there are many important partnerships for c.i.a. and as you say, those partnerships are critical because it s a complex world. there is no more important partnership than the one between c.i.a. and d.o.d. i have had the absolute honor and privilege to sit at the table with secretary mattis and general dunford these last 16 months to work with the other combatant commanders. i don t think that very important relationship has ever been in a better place. likewise, nsa is our sister agency. we re very close. and, of course, our