PANETTA WANTS CIA INTERROGATIONS TO REMAIN SECRET

Leon Panetta, former Democratic congressman from California, and now Barack Obama's CIA chief, is more and more a disappointment. Today, R. Jeffrey Smith reports in The Washington Post that Panetta has asked a federal court not to release details of interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Panetta claims (without any evidence) that the release would aid Al Qaeda.

This is a bunch of bull and utter nonsense! Al Qaeda and the rest of the world already know that the CIA engages in torture, whether psychological or physical. Nothing that could be released is going to "aid" Al Qaeda any more beyond the actual despicable interrogation techniques ordered by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Addington, Gonzalez et al.

Writes Smith:

"The "disclosure of explicit details of specific interrogations" would provide al-Qaeda "with propaganda it could use to recruit and raise funds," Panetta said, describing the information at issue as "ready-made ammunition." He also submitted a classified statement to the court that he said explains why detainees could use the contents to evade questions in the future, even though Obama has promised that the United States will not use the harsh interrogation techniques again.

"Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security program, said yesterday evening that it is "grim" and "troubling" for the Obama administration to say that information about purported abuses should be withheld because it might fuel anti-American propaganda. He said that amounts to an assertion that "the greater the abuse, the more important it is that it should remain secret." Jaffer said the ACLU is convinced that the public should have "access to the complete record of what took place in the CIA's prisons and on whose authority.""

Panetta has turned into another Cheney. Hide the truth because it will embarrass the CIA or those who actually ordered or performed the hideous techniques.

Today even Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham tried to add a provision to the spending bill to prohibit the release of photographs or other information. Ryan Powers reports for Think Progress on the Lieberman/Graham statement.

Shame on Panetta, Lieberman, Graham and all the others who want to conceal criminal actions on the part of the U.S. government and the CIA.

MC CAIN/LIEBERMAN WANT U.S. EXPANSION OF WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

In today's The Washington Post, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain write an op-ed arguing that the U.S. should not be scaling down military operations in Afghanistan.

Write Lieberman and McCain:

"As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a "minimalist" approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a "graveyard of empires" and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more "realistic" goals there -- for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.

"The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success -- a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary -- can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security."

Lieberman and McCain are notorious war mongers who think that all problems can be solved by dropping cluster bombs and shooting people with tank shells. These guys believe that the U.S. needs a war every ten years so that it can kill people who speak different languages and have different skin colors. Thank the stars we don't have McCains or Liebermans running the country. They would involve us in multiple wars, multiple lives lost, multiple civilians killed, blinded, maimed, multiple adventuristic invasions and occupations.

THROW JOE LIEBERMAN UNDER BUS

Think Progress has a report today that Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) wants to let "bygones be bygones" with turncoat Joe Lieberman. Instead of kicking him out of the Democratic Senatorial Caucus, Bayh wants to let him remain, notwithstanding that Lieberman sided with John McCain against Barack Obama in the presidential contest in which he said some very bad things about Obama.

This is unbelievable and outrageous. Lieberman freely chose to endorse and assist McCain in his presidential quest. Lieberman was a constant companion of McCain on the campaign trail. It was Joe Lieberman who sided with McCain in his unyielding position of no compromise with the Palestinians. And it was Lieberman who constantly tried to demonize the Iranians, hoping, I think, for a military confrontation.

I say, kick Lieberman out. He is not a Democrat, he is a Republican. And Bayh is not much better.

BARACK OBAMA MUTE AS MC CAIN SLIMES IRAN FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND IEDS

I was especially unhappy with Barack Obama's comments last night about Iran. He seemed to go along with everything McCain said, such as that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, that it is an "existential" threat to the region, and that Iran is responsible for the super lethal IEDs inside of Iraq.

First of all there is no evidence from the IAEA that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If there was evidence, that would be another thing, but to date there is none. Yet the neo-cons and war mongers like McCain and Lieberman insist the opposite. So why would Barack Obama go along without raising a peep?

The same for the IEDs. This was the talking point of the Dept. of Defense under Rumsfeld. Yet when called upon to produce evidence, the DOD had nothing. Yeah, the Army laid out a whole bunch of IEDs that it said came from Iran, but the proof could have just as well come from some Iraqi's basement on a home made tool and dye.

During all of this bull****, Barack Obama offered no objections. His performance on Iran was truly depressing.

MC CAIN RECYCLE BUSH/LIEBERMAN RUBBISH ABOUT IRAN AS THE "ENEMY"

So John McCain believes Iran is an "implacable enemy," intent on destroying Israel and fostering terrorism attacks. Sounds like he has been listening too much to pious Joe Lieberman. Joe has been whispering in his ear on those trips to Iraq and the Middle East.

This is the same old Bush gunboat diplomacy, only now the U.S. wages war with guided missiles and cluster bombs instead of gunboats.

No country is the implacable foe of the U.S. Mc Cain is merelyrecycling the old Bush hogwash. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

PETRAEUS BLAMES IRAN FOR AIDING IRAQI "SPECIAL GROUPS"

Dana Milbank has a perceptive column in today's The Washington Post on the testimony yesterday of Gen. Petraeus.

"You can't tell the enemy in Iraq anymore without a scorecard.

"When the United States invaded Iraq five years ago, the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathists. When Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, respectively the U.S. commander and the ambassador to Iraq, came to testify to Congress last year, the enemy was al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yesterday, Petraeus and Crocker returned to Congress to report that the enemy had changed once again.

"We are now fighting Iran-backed "special groups" in Iraq.

""Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus testified."

Who are these special groups? Surely Petraeus means the various Shiite Militias like the Badr Brigade allied with Prime Minister Maliki or the Sadrists under Moqtada al Sadr. But why call Shiite militias "special groups"?

Maybe to confuse the issue of Iranian aid for their Shiite co-religionists. Perhaps to give the false impression that Iran is backing Qaeda groups as well. Or other Sunni insurgents. All of which is pure bull.

But the Senators questioning Petraeus seem to have been taken up with all this talk about "special groups."

Reports Dana Milbank:

"The special talk caught the attention of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). "Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?" Lieberman asked.
"It certainly is," Petraeus assured him.

"Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked about the violence in Basra. Petraeus blamed the 107mm rockets of the "special groups." Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked about the Mahdi Army. Petraeus mentioned the "special groups." Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) asked about Iran. Crocker invoked the "special groups." Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also got the "special group" rate from the witnesses."

So all the talk about "special groups" allowed Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, abetted by that war-monger, Joe Lieberman, to put all the blame on the lack of political and military progress in Iraq on Iran and its support for those "special groups." When you are losing battle, find a bogeyman to pin the blame. IRAN.

JOE LIEBERMAN SHOWS UP IN BOGOTA TO SUPPORT URIBE AGAINST HUGO CHAVEZ AND FARC

Now who appears today in Bogota to buoy up Colombian president Alvaro Uribe but Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut. First it was Condoleeza Rice a few days ago, now Lieberman. I can only guess that the same person(s) who sent Condi also sent Joe.

Bush and Cheney are so angry that their "enemy," Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, was the one who secured the release of the two Colombian ladies who were held hostage by FARC. The American leaders seem obsessed to deny Chavez some of the world's gratitude that they are sending Joe Lieberman to say that Uribe is their man, notwithstanding that Uribe has done nothing to secure the release of the other hostages other than make bellicose and militaristic threats against FARC.

Put this Lieberman visit together with the sentencing of an extradited FARC leader to 60 years in a U.S. federal penitentiary, and we get the picture of a United States government that has no idea of what is happening in Colombia.

What will the FARC do in response to the 60-year sentence? FARC holds several hundred hostages, including at least three Americans whose plane crashed in the Colombian jungles some three years ago. Will FARC let them go as a humanitarian gesture? Or will it take revenge for the 60-year sentence of one of its leaders?

The answer is clear and against the interest of all of the hostages. The U.S. sentences a FARC leader to a harsh sentence. FARC will redouble its efforts to maintain captivity of its hostages, and the hostages will be held captive for the rest of their natural lives.

LIEBERMAN THWARTS DEMOCRATS IN SETTING TIMETABLE ON IRAQ

One of the reasons that the Democrats are hog-tied as to ending the War in Iraq is Joe Lieberman. Today, Jeanine Zacharia reports for Bloomberg that Lieberman says he will not support the compromise measure introduced by Sen. Levin and other senate democrats calling for a pull-out from Iraq beginning on a specified date, although without specifying a date certain for completion of the withdrawal.

Writes Zacharia:

"Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and ardent supporter of a continued troop presence in Iraq, said he won't support Levin's plan. ``The answer is a respectful no,'' Lieberman, 65, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' scheduled to air this weekend.



"Lieberman's opposition makes it less likely that Levin's measure, co-sponsored with Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed, could muster the 60 Senate votes needed to defeat a threatened Republican filibuster or the 67 required to override a presidential veto."

This is more than enough reason to rue Lieberman's re-election last year and his defeat of the hapless Ned Lamont. Lieberman votes with George Bush on every measure that enables and supports the War in Iraq. Not only that, Lieberman would also like to attack Iran. He has sponsored a senate measure saying that Iran is responsible for killing U.S. troops, although there has never been any verifiable evidence produced showing that this is true.

Jeanine Zacharia reports:

"Lieberman repeated his view that the U.S. should consider taking military action against bases in Iran, where the Bush administration says Iraqi extremists are being trained before being sent back to Iraq to carry out attacks.


"``We've said to the Iranians, `you want to have a better relationship, start by stopping this proxy war you're running against us and so far there's been no evidence of that,''' Lieberman said.


"``If they don't listen to and respond to these demands of ours, then we have to consider taking military action against those bases where they are training the Iraqi extremists to go back and kill American soldiers,'' Lieberman said, adding that he isn't calling for any ``wide-scale invasion of Iran.''


"Iran denies the U.S. accusation that it is training Iraqi extremists."

It is a senator like Lieberman who can do a lot of damage to the United States and to peace in the world.