Reply #28: I suppose they could have had a debate at Nuremburg, instead of a trial.

[Peace Patriot]

This is equally absurd. Rove was our "Hitler's" information officer. And if you think that's an exaggeration, or an inappropriate analogy, the U.S./Bushwhacks slaughtered one million innocent people in Iraq to steal their oil, and have tortured thousands.

How is that not a war crime on a scale with Hitler's (not near Hitler's body count, but quite a ways along in that direction)?

Those who gave the orders, and those who were immediate aides to them--like Rove--are guilty of massive war crimes, and should surely be tried. For any of them to be running around freely, giving speeches, commenting on TV, or being invited to debates about the past and future of this country, is an outrage.

To understand this--not to condone it, but to understand it--I think you first have to do some thinking about who Leon Panetta really is. I've commented at DU before that I do not think he is a civilian, at all. I think he is high up in the CIA organization--and the kind of CIA leader whom you never hear about because he doesn't want you to know. The clue was when DiFi shot her mouth off, just after his nomination as CIA Director, about his "inexperience." Did you notice how quickly she shut up, and how the gabble about his "inexperience" immediately went away? I think she didn't know who he was; was informed--and thus he sailed through Congress.

I also wonder about this Monterey Institute. It seems to be Panetta's little fiefdom, his sole creation. Where did he get the money and the wherewithal to have his own California State University? Also resident in Monterey is the CIA/U.S. Navy language school, where our spies are trained.

There is other evidence (that Panetta is deep CIA), but just accept it for the moment, and consider this: A CIA policy and recruitment center needs to educate its students and potential recruits in all manner of people and events, here and around the world. They need to see, hear and smell Rove, up close, to know what manner of animal he is. That's one thing. It must seem the most normal thing in the world, to Panetta and his cohorts as this institute, to invite a freely roaming Bushwhack to a "debate" about the new administration. Bear in mind, also, that Panetta and Rove held the same position--chief of staff at the White House (Panetta to Clinton; Rove to Bush), so Panetta knows that job, in particular, very well. He will be able to "read" what Rove says about it better than anyone (and perhaps will be taking notes?). (We shouldn't necessarily take the invitation as benign. Never forget that Rove outed--or at least aided the outing of--a CIA agent and entire network.)

Secondly, Panetta was a member of Daddy Bush's "Iraq Study Group." (Bush I, of course, was a CIA Director, and a CIA operative from way back.) It's my theory--hurrying things along here--that the ISG, combined with another insider 'white hat' cabal of some kind (comprised of military and intelligence people, and probably some insider political and corporate powers), mounted a counter-coup against Rumsfeld and Cheney, circa 2006, to stop the nuking of Iran and probably martial law being declared here. They ousted Rumsfeld, and offered Bush and Cheney no impeachment (and it looks like no future prosecution) in exchange for not nuking Iran and for leaving peacefully when the time came. Daddy Bush's motive was to save Junior. The others involved were more motivated by saving the Middle East (and indeed the world) from nuclear armageddon, and restoring some semblance of democracy in the U.S.

This is where Nancy Pelosi's announcement "Impeachment is off the table" came from. Remember how strange that was--apropos of nothing? I mean, WHAT "table"? This may be the answer. There really was a "table"--and impeachment/prosecution was bargained away, in exchange for no nuking of Iran and a return to normalcy in the U.S. government. From that point on--this theory would imply--Bush/Cheney were no longer in command of the U.S. military (2006-2008). The election system (highly--and easily--manipulable by Bushwhack corporations) was allowed to determine what happened next (among vetted candidates) and Obama really did win. (I do think that Diebold & brethren shaved his mandate, though.)

Panetta, I think, was retired CIA (but they never really leave the organization--such is the legend), watching the Bush Junta unfold, from a distance--at his policy and recruitment fiefdom in Monterey. When the war developed between Rumsfeld and the active CIA--and it was a war--the counter-coup began to form, and, when Rumsfeld began setting up the nuking of Iran (with Russia and China as the potential adversaries), the counter-coup took action. There were also grave rumblings within the military/intel community about the torture, and hand-over-fist thievery, and I think also domestic spying (probably creation of blackmail dossiers on a lot of people).

This war between Rumsfeld and the CIA left many wounded and dead, whom we will likely never hear about--and deep rifts in the whole U.S. intelligence apparatus. And you really have to believe that Barack Obama is a stupid man to believe that he would put a civilian and an inexperienced person in charge of the CIA, at this point. I just don't think he would do that.

I could be wrong about a lot of this. It's mostly guessing. But it makes sense to me, and I see this Rove thing in this context. There are machinations going on that we know not of. We don't know if Rove was included in the immunity from prosecution (if that's what took place). We don't know for sure what role he played in the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings. (To appearances, Cheney/Libby were trying to throw blame on him, and he tapdanced out of the way.) He seems to have committed a string of felonies, on the politicalization of the DoJ, but if he's been extra-judicially immunized, then we--and the CIA agents in training at the Monterey Institute--are going to have to get used to seeing him on TV, and figure out how to counter this pig politically.

One other thing: The theorized 'white hat' cabal were never against the Iraq War, and are certainly not anti-war. They possibly even believe that our grabbing Iraq's oil was a necessity. They are part of the war profiteer establishment (the 'military-industrial complex'). Every action of our political establishment confirms this. They got rid of Rumsfeld, and immediately escalated the Iraq War, to secure the oil contracts. It's not war they are against--it's mayhem. So someone like Panetta may not find Rove that objectionable--or, he may view him as the spider views the fly (drawing him in, looking for a sign of weakness; Rove had a lot of time to fortify his position--it may not be all that easy to prosecute him, if that is the Obama government's intention).

To us--to we, the people--it is simply outrageous that Rove is running around free, in defiance of a Congressional subpoena--with all that we suspect him of, outing CIA agents, stealing elections, jailing governors, erasing 5,000 emails. We are judging the situation by rules that got thoroughly shredded and tossed out, by the Bush/Cheney junta, and are only partially and unevenly restored, and maybe only to appearances. I think Panetta is operating in the context of the real situation, and we are not and cannot. It has been kept from us.

--------

Let me just edit that statement a bit, about "the real situation." The real situation is that Rove and everyone who participated in a command or other critical position, as to the Iraq War, the war on Afghanistan, and the torture prisons, is guilty of war crimes. They should be put on trial, as in Nuremburg. But the "real situation" with regard to that happening is that the principles have been immunized by an insider cabal, probably most of whom thought they were doing the best thing, in the circumstances. That's my theory, anyway. And Panetta is operating within that reality. We are not. We think the rule of law has been restored and/or we wonder why it hasn't been. This does not mean that we shouldn't be demanding that it be restored, and working toward that end. Of course we should be. But we need to develop a more informed and analytical understanding of the various spheres of reality in the U.S., and the various power games going on. We are NOT a simple, democratic country any more, from the point of view of those in power (good or bad). And I think we need to stop getting so distracted with outrage at what they do, and start looking to the means of democratic power that we can regain control over--such as the transparency of our voting system.