For anyone still harboring a few scraps of vestigial hope that the change of administration effected by the 2008 election would restore even a thin, weak, straggly lineament thin of the rule of law in the United States, the recent opinion piece by Barack Obama's hand-picked CIA chief, the doleful Establishment water-toter Leon Panetta, will tell you all you need to know.

In the friendly confines of the authoritarian newsletter known as the Washington Post -- Panetta, the weak reed appointed precisely because of his weakness and reedness by Obama, who then surrounded the little puppet with some of the most complicit torture mavens of the Bush Regime to really run the CIA show -- delivered himself of one of the most cringe-worthy performances by a high public official since the ritual abasements of Stalin's 1930s show trials. In this case, however, Panetta was not making a ludicrous, outrageous confession of false crimes he never committed; instead, he was making a ludicrous, outrageous defense of real crimes committed by Obama's predecessors -- and in the process justifying his boss's craven (if entirely predictable) failure to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, as he swore to do in front of so many swooning millions just a few months ago, and prosecute the top Bushists for their manifest (not to mention openly confessed) high crimes.

In the piece, Panetta followed the Dick Cheney party line that the Obama Administration has adopted whole cloth. Anyone fooled by the stilted kabuki theater staged in the past few months -- i.e., a purported "great conflict" between Obama and Cheney over torture and other Terror War issues -- has, as they say, rocks in the head. For Obama has pushed the Cheney line at every turn -- in speeches, in policy decisions and in court actions. And what is that line? In brief, that Bush and Cheney were noble public servants whose every possible excess can be excused by their zealous love and concern for the American people. That's the broad overview; getting down to brass tacks, the Cheney line is that any act of the Bush Administration that on the surface appears to be a flagrant violation of settled U.S. law was in fact perfectly justified by legal memos written, to order, by White House lawyers.

This is the sum total of the arguments advanced by Cheney and various other Bush apologists in recent months. Can anyone deny that these are the precise positions also taken by the Obama Administration? Well, if it wasn't specific enough for you before, Panetta has made it crystal clear. He writes:

The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided.

The only minor point of disagreement between Cheney and Obama on this point can be found in Panetta's milksop concession the "some" of the "judgments" made by the Bush Administration were "wrong." But this is simply the usual factional quibbling seen around any imperial court. The core argument is the same: the attacks on September 11 justified any and all reactions in response, however illegal, heinous, murderous and atrocious.

(I would just like to interject a personal note here. I am an American citizen, and I was not "frightened" after the September 11 attacks. Nor was I "frightened" by the London attacks on July 7, 2005, even though I was in London that day. I have never been so "frightened" of terrorist attacks -- not even in the first minutes and hours after September 11 -- that I was willing to jettison the U.S. constitution, not to mention all rational judgment and common and moral sense, and let the government do "whatever it takes" to protect me. I have always deeply resented this constant imputation of base cowardice to the entire American people by American leaders year after year. I have no doubt whatsoever that the coddled, well-wadded sons of bitches who feed at public trough in Washington are themselves base cowards of the highest order; but Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, I do get tired of them projecting their own wiggly fears onto me.)

Look, it's very simple. The American republic ended for good a long time ago, more than a decade before I was born. Its last vestiges were wiped out with the creation of the National Security State signed into being by President Harry S Truman in 1947, and strengthened in a series of directives in the subsequent months. Such as the secret National Security Council directive NSC 10/2, signed in June 1948, which, as James Douglass notes, gave the newly created American security apparat the power to carry out "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures, subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups."  It also directed that these covert ops were to be "so planned and executed that any US government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered the US government can plausibly deny responsibility for them."

In other words, Panetta's CIA -- and the plethora of other secret agencies and armies that have sprung up in the blood-drenched muck of the National Security State -- is specifically empowered to break the law and lie about it.

So what are we to make of Panetta's rationalization of Obama's cowardice in confronting the crimes of his predecessor, when he says:

...the Obama administration made policy changes in intelligence that ended some controversial practices... Yet my agency continues to pay a price for enduring disputes over policies that no longer exist.

Let's leave aside the glaringly obvious fact that an alleged cessation of a crime in no way mitigates or absolves its past commission. Or to put it another way: if a serial killer stops killing people, he is still culpable for the murders he committed before he "reformed." Yet we are constantly told that the government could fall and the world could end if anyone in power acknowledges this simple, self-evident fact.

But as I said, put that aside for the moment, and consider this: When the head of an agency that was created and empowered specifically to break the law and tell lies about it tells us that his agency no longer breaks the law -- are we supposed to believe him? Should such a person from such an agency be given the benefit of the doubt?  Or should not our first, rational, logical, and fully justified-by-history reaction be: "This guy is lying, and I will continue to assume that he is lying -- since that is his job -- until he proves, conclusively, otherwise."

This operation of reason and logic is given the pejorative term "cynicism" these days, especially among those of "progressive" hue, some of whom are still painfully contorting themselves in order to "give Obama a chance." We also hear sometimes that, like John Kennedy, Obama must move carefully against powerful, entrenched interests in the military-industrial-security complex. But there is no indication that Obama is in the least interested in moving "against" this complex; on the contrary, there are relentless, manifold indications that he eagerly embraces the National Security State and the militarist empire for which it stands, and seeks to extend its power. The op-ed by Panetta is yet another chunk in this mountain of evidence. For again, does anyone out there seriously believe that Panetta would be green-lighted to publish such a piece if it did not reflect the views of Barack Obama?

So you want to know what Obama thinks? He thinks, like Cheney, that you are a sniveling little coward who was glad to sign over your liberties to an authoritarian regime. He thinks, like Cheney, that any crime -- torture, murder, aggressive war -- can be countenanced if the Leader and his minions order it to be done. He thinks, like Cheney, that the decades-old National Security State must be protected -- at all costs -- from any vestige or ghostly revenant of the vanished Republic and its laws.

That is what Barack Obama believes. That is what his policies imply. And that is what his shallow mouthpiece, Leon Panetta, has just told you, openly, brazenly, to your face.

Note: Stephen Webster has more at Raw Story.

| More...

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

toolate said:

... "The time has come for the Allied Powers to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after February 27 1933. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of the fire. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided. " Herman Goering

report abuse vote down vote up

August 03, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

welcome back... In his Washington Post gainsaying of what Sy Hersh and others have recently disclosed, Panetta's enfeebled, hypocritical plea for a just assessment of the agency he heads may play out in Des Moines, but readers of this blog have better things to do than indulge power brokers in their moment of need. For example--and for those sans culottes who care to storm something today--Stephen Webster's article at Raw Story informs us that: "Democratic Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, has accused the agency of having 'deliberately lied' to his panel and said they will undertake an investigation of the intelligence agency." http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/02/panetta-reality-911-excuse-bush-admin/ The good Representative Reyes of Texas' 16th district can be reached here: http://reyes.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm?zipcode=79912 The e-mail form requests a local constituent zip and city--which you enter as 79912 and El Paso, respectively--as well as an address (a creative entry like, e.g., 505 Walker Rd. will do the trick). You then add your compelling, measured, remarks on the subject of Herr Panetta. I closed with a "beg your pardon" for having written from outside of his district. That is, Reyes has requested that only his constituents write to him out of what he terms "congressional courtesy" to your actual representative [!]. However, the issues at hand cut across district parameters, and a simple nod to authority as to why you countermanded that rule ought to suffice--for both courtesy's sake and your argument's import and credibility.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 03, 2009
Votes: +0

John Zientowski said:

	Somebody needs to sit down with our leaders, congresspersons, etc.... and explain to them that they are the safest people on the planet; Al Qaeda will not harm a hair on their head because they are doing their job for them - destroying America.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 04, 2009
Votes: +1

yankee 30 said:

... DEANTAYLOR said... "...but readers of this blog have better things to do than indulge power brokers in their moment of need." Forgive me if I missed something Dean, but aren't you actually suggesting that in order to possibly right this grave wrong, we write to the good congressman? Ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha, hahahahaha, ha ha, hahahahahahahahahahaha, hahahahaha hahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, I had to get that out of my system.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 04, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

or do nothing...Bob Here's a comment from three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader [ Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/nader04172009.html ] prescribing that type of activism: "So, are you more upset than when you started reading this column? Feel frustrated and powerless? With your friends, ask your Senators and Congressperson during their frequent recesses for a three-hour public accountability session. If you can assemble 300 or more residents, after you rev up your community, you're likely to have your elected representatives come to an auditorium where you live and work. If they think 500 people will show up, it is even more likely. Especially if you are organized and tell them this is just the beginning. Just the beginning! "Without the rumble from the people back home, a majority of the 535 members of Congress will continue to kowtow to about 1500 corporations and you'll pay the price again and again. So, rumble, rumble, rumble!" Or, do nothing but castigate those you disagree with here. Did I say "nothing"? I suppose that being Sean's catamite (i.e., while studying at his School of the Suggestion) keeps you rather busy--when you haven't got your member in one hand and your fingers of the other covering the letters "h" and "a"--was it taxing keeping track of the proper sequence? The point is--the point that you, again, in your enfeeblement (I'm told onanism is enervating--do you find that to be so Bob?) overlooked--is that if enough consitutents can bring themselves to put away the KY and actually write an intelligent commentary to their elected officials, then the change that you would probably prefer to whine about may be enacted. Or do nothing, save whine Bob--or is that Jimmy Bob?--i.e., you come across as..."rusticated." The operative term is INTELLIGENT commentary, i.e. the "suggestion" does not apply for you (kudos to Sean--he's really bringing you along nicely).

report abuse vote down vote up

August 04, 2009
Votes: +0

yankee 30 said:

	... Your sexual innuendos are titillating, Dean. But I can't find five people who agree with me. And anyway, there was no proper sequence
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 04, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	Not sure what I have to do with anything here. Dean, your attempt to implicate me is useless, I am not involved in this spat.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 05, 2009
Votes: +0