I do find it interesting that while they attempt triangulation threats towards Pelosi/Harman/Rocky etc., they actually seem to give kudos to Panetta… nothing in that article I see attacks him. But they do take Leon as an omen for “Truth Commission” and such, something I take as implicit testament to just exactly who Panetta is and what can be expected from him.

With all the other crap floating around regarding him, noteworthy article in LAT on Wed that does a good job summarizing our new CIA chief. A couple excerpts for those unfamiliar with him:

(…)His nine terms as a Democratic congressman from Monterey are well known, as are his highly successful stints as President Clinton’s White House chief of staff and as head of the Office of Management and Budget. His career embodies the kind of principled bipartisanship that Obama hopes will characterize his administration.

Panetta, a graduate of Santa Clara University and its law school, actually began his political career as a Republican. He first went to Washington in 1966 as an assistant to Sen. Thomas Kuchel (R-Calif.) — yes, Virginia, California once had Republican senators. Panetta subsequently served as assistant to another leading California Republican, Robert Finch, who was President Nixon’s secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Nixon then appointed Panetta director of the Office of Civil Rights.

Civil rights, equal opportunity and equal justice are Panetta’s lifelong passions. In a memoir, he recounts how his determination to enforce the Voting Rights Act brought him into conflict with partisans of Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” who agitated for his firing. Panetta eventually resigned and went to work for New York’s liberal Republican mayor, John Lindsay. The GOP’s hardening animosity toward civil rights, however, ultimately forced him to switch parties.

There’s more in there on history of CIA director’s successes, clearly painting picture that “spook experience” is not a pretext for success. Very good article.

silence presumes assent, we all know, but would you want to be the one to tell dick and george “hey, doncha know that *not* assembling the full gang of 8 could leave you open to to charges that you broke the law on *that* one too?”

it could be filed under “give ‘em enough rope….” i’m keeping my fingers crossed, but i’m not holding my breath.

but i can certainly hope to see pelosi, right hand raised and testifying “i never approved waterboarding, and no, i didn’t inform mr. cheney that the whole briefing was moot without the full gang of 8. i’m not an attorney, i’m just an italian grandmother from san francisco.”

CIA Withheld Details On Downing, IG Says
Shooting in Peru Killed Missionary, Infant

An internal CIA probe has concluded that agency officials deliberately misled Congress, the White House and federal prosecutors about key details of the 2001 downing of an airplane carrying U.S. missionaries in Peru
…
Even the White House was kept in the dark, as agency officials and lawyers withheld key details while cautioning their staff to avoid putting anything in writing that might be used later in a criminal or civil case, the inspector general said in a report.

WSJ makes some big assumptions on what the Congressional briefings did and did not include, as well. There was a LOT more than Zubaydah going on vis a vis the torture front, including the disappearance of KSMs children and their use for enhanced interrogation options.

In particular, though, I like the fact that while they try to make it sound that it would be a partisan vendetta against the Bush torturers to pursue criminal charges and investigations for their…crimes, on the flip side of that WSJ tries to argue that the reason the Democratic appointees should leave it all alone is that Democrats will be caught up in the investigation – “they could start by noting the Members of Congress who would be on the witness list to raise their right hands”

It’s interesting how State is left out of the list of lawyes who were approving the torture (CIA, DOJ and NSC) and how Bellinger at NSC, pliable then to torture, was popped over to replace Taft at State and helped Stated become torture compliant.

WSJ also seems to forget Taguba’s calls for investigations like his of MI (something that Levin’s crew couldn’t really do with their document review and even some interviews) and his already existing information and Taguba’s recent bald statements about Bush war crimes.

But from your excerpts, to me the really egregious part of the WSJ piece seems to be how they are basically moving the goalposts. They don’t even begin to go to the issue of criminal investigations – instead, they are acting shocked at the thought of even a truth commission and “smears” and the possiblity of “foreign prosecutors”

That’s really what they’ve done – framed the discussion to make a truth commission the furthest reach of the wild liberal fringe, with actual domestic prosecution not even in the discussion. Notice that they don’t even mention the War Crimes Act, despite all the care and attention lavished on it by Fredo, et al.

It’s been like the torture discussions that have proceeded from the proposition of the treatment of KSM, without even admitting that the torture murder of Afghan cab drivers, the torture of a stray Canadian who was almost successfully disappeared into permanent torture or torture death, and the disappearance of children and tossing of a torture killing victim’s body into an unmarked grave and the years of solitary confinement of bipolar souffle maker, etc. – those are never a part of the discussion, which proceeds instead from a “hey, what a little water in KSM’s face as a big deal” framing.

Bob in HI

I would like to see the corrupters of our prior humane policies, in house arrest without access to their private fortunes, living a life of ignominy and contemplation; the arts and brush clearing should be allowed. But no more crowing over torture.

This needs to be restated in a new amendment to the constitution, instead of some boring truth commission led by compromised politicians to serve the newspeakish homeland.

Imvho, they are threatening to ‘out’ Jello Jay, Pelosi and Harman as Publicly Silent (Secret) Supporters of Bush’s Policies – who, at the same time, also wanted Political Cover if they got found out.

And, given Our Illustrious Dems’ track record of Character Weakness, the threat may work.

Bob in HI