News Flash
This just in: CIA Chief Leon Panetta is to be named Secretary of Defense and General Petraeus will become the new CIA chief.
I posted this in response to the Yahoo News article this morning:
Petraeus for CIA? Makes sense. Since he had experience in Afghanistan
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If elected, I would immediately sack Petraeus and Leon Panetta, whom I dubbed the Smiling Nazi in my Feb, 2009 essay. I’ll stick by that characterization.”
What to think?
So Obama doesn’t see fit to promote his most famous general to head the Defense Department, but instead elevates Panetta? First things first: For appointments like this, Obama is told whom to appoint – he has no say in the matter. At this point, I wish to share an article (below) I’d posted back in Feb. 7 of 2009. I think you’ll appreciate the perspective.
The Smiling Nazi: Leon Panetta
Question: Why did Blacque Obammer* nominate Leon Panetta to head the CIA?
Answer: Leon Panetta has a great smile and seems to be the kind of guy who would give We-the-Sheeple warm fuzzies. Believe it or not, that's the reason.
Seriously: Yes, I'm serious. My answer is not a joke. First of all, Panetta doesn't have any experience in the field of intelligence operations. [Note: Experience is not important any more - Obammer* as president more than proves that.]
Second, elevating a naïve political careerist like Panetta reaffirms something known by serious analysts all along: Nobody appointed by a president actually runs the CIA.
Third, choosing Panetta was an example of elevating style over substance. After being exposed to GOP neo-con Nazis for 8 long years, the public yearns for an avuncular type to represent the CIA.
My reaction? Don't be too disarmed by Panetta's smile, since he could very well be just like the mafia enforcer who smiles at you saying, "Nothing personal, this is just business," just before he whacks your knees with a baseball bat.
The alternative explanation?
If you disagree with my assessment of Panetta, then I must ask you this: "What other explanation is there for Obammer* picking this guy?"
Looking at Leon Panetta's positions
The following Points are from an article by Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer, Friday, Feb. 6, 2009. The corresponding Counterpoints are my responses:
Points
The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.
Counterpoint
Why is Panetta saying the president "will not prosecute?" I'd kind of like to hear that directly from Obammer* himself.
Wouldn't it be amazing (the stuff of good fiction) if a private US citizen performed a citizen's arrest of one such CIA officer, hauling him off to the Hague in the Netherlands to stand trial for war crimes before the International Criminal Court? [NOTE: Such a "hauling off" could be considered a noble form of extraordinary rendition.]
By the way, I'm introducing a new twist on the concept of citizen's arrest, by stressing that any citizen of the world has the moral authority to make such an arrest.
Point
CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies.
Counterpoint
Just because those orders (approving, for example, waterboarding) came from the Bush administration doesn't make them "legal orders." The content of orders, rather than their source, is what makes them legal or not. If only the source is to be considered, how are CIA torturers any different from Nazi war criminals who claimed they were "only following orders?"
Why is it we have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again?
Point
"...we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, [Panetta] said.
Counterpoint
I'm afraid Panetta's got it wrong here. We can't operate if people are expected to mindlessly assume that any opinion coming from the Justice Department is lawful. We have to emphasize, there's a world of difference between a "legal opinion" and a "lawful opinion."
Point
Panetta demurred on saying whether the Obama administration would take legal action against those who authorized or wrote the legal opinions...
"I'll leave that for others," Panetta said.
Counterpoint
Panetta can demur all he wants. Fact is, Obammer* won't move against these white collar policy wonk perps. After all, when the Democrats took control of the House after the 2006 elections, what happened to all of the investigations we expected once the Dems had the power to initiate?
Once Obammer* became the Establishment, he lost any interest he might have had in challenging it. Not that he ever had that much interest in the first place.
As for "change you can believe in," the more things "change" the more they remain the same. Sad but true.
Obammer* should read the Leahy letter
So we are told that Panetta will "leave that for others" to decide whether to move against high officials who'd authorized (for example) waterboarding. There's actually only one "other" I care about, and that's Obammer* himself. Our president should make it abundantly clear those officials will be prosecuted.
Obammer* couldn't decide otherwise, especially if he bothers to read this letter written on November 2, 2007:
QUOTE:
We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.
In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings.... In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding...waterboarding. [They] unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law...
Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance.
:UNQUOTE:
Translation: All four of the highest-ranking military jurists agreed with this letter's conclusion.
Two questions:
What part of "nor legal in any circumstance" does Panetta not understand?
What part of "nor legal in any circumstance" does Obammer* not understand?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”
Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* Blacque Obammer:
Two years ago, I dubbed our president with an acronym of a first name and a pun of a second. To wit:
B = Barack-ratic (a play on the word bureaucratic – that is, stuffy and lacking in creativity)
L = “leader” (I had put this word in quotes, since I felt he wouldn’t be able to fill those shoes)
A = artful
C = co-opter
Q = qualified
U = underlings’
E = expertise
Put it all together and you get: Barack-ratic “leader”: Artful co-opter of qualified underlings’ expertise. Meaning: A shadow man who relies on others to look good.
As for the Obammer part: Whenever the president would need help, he would call on his enforcer (or bammer, if you will), which was Rahm Emanuel at the time. Like this, “Oh, Bammer! Need a little help here.”
And, yes, as might be guessed – I have no respect for either man.
No comments:
Post a Comment