Panetta: ‘Reality’ of 9/11 excuses Bush scandals

By GottaLaff
Just because an alleged crime happened a few years ago does not justify setting horrendous precedent by ignoring it. Where's the logic?

It's too disruptive to stir things up now that we have a different administration? Has he not read his own Ultra Super Duper Secret Classified Documents? Or if that's too much for him, how about a peek at a few pages of The Dark Side?

No, this is not acceptable. Not to me, anyway, and not to the families of those who were tortured:

CIA director and Democratic appointee Leon Panetta, in an article published Sunday, said Democrats must recognize the “reality” of 9/11 is what drove the conduct of George W. Bush administration in the months following September 11, 2001, which somehow justifies not looking into suspected crimes.

He added, in an apparent warning to the House Intelligence Committee, that that “focusing on the past” could hurt the CIA’s core mission amid a climate of recriminations over its practices.

“I’ve become increasingly concerned that the focus on the past, especially in Congress, threatens to distract the CIA from its crucial core missions: intelligence collection, analysis and covert action,” Panetta opined in the online edition of The Washington Post.

Tomorrow I am posting a piece on one of the recipients of torture, and in that post I make reference to BushCo's "panic". That would be the same "panic" that Panetta describes this way:

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 last election made clear that the public wanted to move in a new direction.”

That was the "best" they could do, huh? So now torture is patriotic?

Psst! That "legal guidance provided" was created by a handful of lawyers (See: Yoo, John; Addington, David, et al), aka fear-driven extremists who had no problem shredding the Constitution and torturing/murdering detainees.

Are we to believe that brutal mistreatment should be given a pass because they meant well? Really?

And, hey, if I get scared enough, I can respond with violence and criminal behavior too? I can turn my back on the law (or simply rewrite it), destroy the very fiber of democracy, because it will be too messy to actually, you know, deal with it? Or is that kind of thing just reserved for public officials?

And come on, the CIA can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Then how effective could they possibly be under pressure?

Oh wait. We already know the answer to that. See: Bay, Guantanamo.

Go read the rest, but only if you have a strong stomach.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.