Tiny Tim Geithner Isn't Obama's Only Cabinet Member Who Should Go-- Meet Leon Panetta

Does it sound horrible and indefensible that Obama is about to make David Petraeus head of the CIA? It should-- but it shouldn't sound surprising that Petraeus will be heading the world's most hated governmental agency, nor should it really sound any worse that Petraeus is replacing ex-Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, the new Secretary of Defense. The Military Industrial Complex is a world unto itself-- a consumer of more of the nation's wealth than any other sector and the source of more corruption than even Wall Street. So it certainly shouldn't have shocked anyone that the former Democratic congressman from California turned Military Industrial Complex honcho would call for cut backs in Social Security and Medicare to keep the machine rolling along-- the machine Eisenhower once warned the country about in no uncertain terms (see video above).



Panetta started his career as a Republican working for Senator Tom Kuchel (R-CA) and then for the Nixon Administration. He jumped the fence in 1971 because his centrist vision was no longer at home in a Republican Party moving sharply right. That centrist vision helped hold back a progressive agenda for nearly two decades while he served in Congress, particularly when he was a powerful member (and then chairman) of the House Budget Committee, the Paul Ryan of his time.

"We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense."



He said savings need to come from entitlement programs and from higher taxes-- not further defense cuts. In effect, that puts the six Democrats who will soon be appointed to the committee on notice: don't screw around with this.



Democrats are now demanding clarity from the White House: does President Obama think Medicare and Social Security can be cut by $500 billion over 10 years, but the bloated defense budget can not?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) put the question to Obama in a Friday letter.



"I urge you to make clear that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta did not speak for the Administration when he stated yesterday that additional spending cuts, beyond those in the recent debt-ceiling agreement, should come from non-discretionary spending such as Social Security and Medicare while the military budget is spared," Frank wrote.



The key to all of this, of course, remains the GOP's steadfast commitment to never raising a single new dime of revenue. While Panetta made clear that the consequence of GOP intransigence on this score will have a deleterious effect on U.S. security, he also made it harder for Dems to stand firm and let penalties kick in if Republicans don't bend.

Cecil Bothwell is the progressive Asheville City Councilman running for the Democratic nomination against reactionary Blue Dog Heath Shuler. Yesterday he shared his ideas with us in regard to the horrible Boehner-Obama deficit deal that led to the S&P downgrade. This morning you can see how consistent those ideas are with his vision for a more realistic Pentagon. "There is no excuse for our so-called 'defense' spending," he told me. "The fact that our military budget exceeds those of the rest of the world's countries combined reeks of empire. Yes, we need to defend our borders. No, we do not need to be the world's policeman. Panetta has drunk the Pentagon Kool-Aid, and ought to be replaced."



Generally-speaking this is where most progressives stand in terms of Panetta's reactionary position. Two of the Blue America-backed candidates are campaigning on a very different vision. Nick Ruiz (D-FL): "When half of U.S. tax revenue is consumed by the military industrial complex, we need only look at defense budget order takers like Leon Panetta to understand why it is so. And he wants zero realistic cuts to defense!? The real question Americans should ask themselves is why did the 'Democratic' President of 'hope and 'change' nominate Panetta for the directorship of the CIA-- and then nominate him for Secretary of Defense? Doesn't sound progressive or Democratic to me-- sounds downright hawkish and imperialistic."



Across the country, Norman Solomon (D-CA) was making a similar point:

This goes to the truism that you choose your advisers and you choose your advice. Populating the cabinet with Tim Geithner or Leon Panetta makes it very likely that the advice will skew toward the interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex, especially given that those secretaries of Treasury and Defense are functioning in tandem with current administration priorities that skew toward the historic rightward edge of the Democratic Party. On its merits, Panetta's statement is a collapse of core moral values under the pressure of an insatiable drive for military prowess and corporate profits, very much in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism." If we must have a warfare state while the young and the old, the poor and the nearly poor, suffer needlessly and endlessly, then Panetta is ably fulfilling his duty. But, in the name of basic human decency, we must not have such a state.

Watch Barney Frank with Rachel last night talking about how excesses in the military budget hurt America:

Two items from the daily hatred and fear blotter

Know your church: Priests at Our Lady of the Rosary Church in San Diego have saved the Catholic Church from the abomination of allowing mass to be said for a dead homo. (The online world being what it is, I guess I better quickly add that the foregoing is written in total mocking derision of the Church's inhumane bigotry and hatred.)

by Ken

I know we've had our fair share of LGBT- or just-plain-gay-themed stories lately, and clearly these are of heightened interest to Howie and me, but I like to think they're of interest to anyone concerned with basic rights. More particularly, it seems to me that the attempt on the Right to hold the line or even push back on these fronts should be of serious concern to all lovers of freedom. I can think of two reasons:

(1) Wouldn't it be fair to say that when repression is in the air, it's targeted first at the most vulnerable groups? It would be wise not to imagine that the Unholy Warriors of the Right will only be going after the LGBT contingent. This is an "orthodoxy issue," and the Upholders of the Right have their sights set on all deviants from the One True Path.

Call this the Canary in the Mine Factor.

(2) Because hatred of all things LGBT is perhaps the most emotional of all the organized-religious hatreds, the current jihad is being waged with a backs-against-the-wall ferocity, with a sense of the Forces of Darkness closing in on the Righteous. What I'm suggesting is that we're seeing with better than usual clarity the special viciousness and dehumanization that lies at the core of the Defense of Orthodoxy when the defenders feel they're under siege.

It may seem paradoxical, but the very same ferocity can be triggered when the Defenders score victories, as they have, for example, in all the public referenda on same-sex marriage laws. It may not seem reasonable that they react almost identically in victory and defeat, but I think the common thread is raw hatred and fear, which when you get down to it seems really what the most fire-breathingly orthodox of orthodox religionists are all about.

Call this the Hatred and Fear Factor.

FROM TODAY'S HATRED AND FEAR BLOTTER --

I. DADT isn't going quietly

We know now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is not going to be consigned to the dustbin of lousy public policy during the Pentagon stewardship of Robert Gates on Thursday. Opinion is divided as to whether the advent of Leon Panetta as defense secretary is going to provide, intentionally or otherwise, an excuse for further delay in the secretary's certification of military readiness for repeal. Most obviously, a new secretary taking the reins of a department as vast and complex as the DoD, especially with approximately two and a half wars in progress, is going to have his hands full and could easily justify setting other priorities. Beyond that, if the new secretary feels that on this particular matter he must do his own due diligence, well . . .

Further delay would be regrettable from a theoretical standpoint, of course. DADT is not only demeaning to the people it targets, it also undermines our national security by depriving the military of the services (and special skills) of a lot of people who want nothing more than to serve honorably. But further delay continues to take a serious toll on servicemen and servicewomen. Remember, the Obama Pentagon has never stopped enforcing DADT.

Consider this report from Advocate.com:

Pentagon Confirms New DADT Discharges

By Andrew Harmon
Posted on Advocate.com June 27, 2011 03:30:00 PM ET

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

One of those individuals is Airman First Class Albert Pisani, who spoke to The Advocate earlier this month of his voluntary separation under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which defense officials approved on April 29.

Air Force spokesman Maj. Joel Harper told The Advocate that the discharges of three additional service members — two female staff sergeants and one male second lieutenant— have been approved since an April 29 discharge. Harper declined to say whether Pisani was the April 29 discharge, citing confidentiality reasons.

When The Advocate story ran, Defense officials had said that the separation approved April 29 was the only such discharge under DADT since late October, when the Defense Department limited authority for discharges to just five senior officials.

But in a statement, Harper confirmed the additional discharges since. “On May 31st, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force approved discharges of two Airmen under the provisions of 10 USC 654 [the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy],“ Harper said. “On June 23, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force accepted the resignation of an Airman who asked to be separated under the provisions of [DADT].”

Harper said that all four individuals discharged had made voluntary statements regarding their sexual orientation and had asked to be “separated expeditiously.” . . .

II. The Church hounds a victim beyond the grave

This item seems to me just plain nauseating. Without further preamble:

Catholic Church denies funeral mass to San Diego gay businessman

Posted by San Diego LGBT Weekly, Monday, June 27th, 2011

In a decision reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s refusal to hold a funeral mass in 2005 for openly gay businessman John McCusker, Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Little Italy has canceled a funeral mass scheduled this Thursday morning for openly gay businessman John Sanfilippo, owner of the SRO Lounge, a popular gay cocktail bar.

Sanfilippo died on Friday, June 24.

City Commissioner Nicole Murray Ramirez, a friend of the Sanfilippo family, talked to his partner of 30 years, Brian Galvin. “The Sanfilippo family and Brian are, of course, devastated and are trying to get the mass in another church,” Murray Ramirez said.

When the parish priests found out about the gay relationship of Sanfilippo and Galvin, the priests said they were uncomfortable with Sanfilippo and Galvin’s relationship, according to Murray Ramirez, adding the church notified the family on Sunday that the Thursday funeral mass was canceled. . . .

I hate to be judgmental (chuckle), but this strikes me as beyond the pale even for the Church of Bigotry, Hatred, and Fear. The San Diego LGBT Weekly story notes that City Commissioner Ramirez has contacted the San Diego Diocese "for a clarification of its policy of funeral masses for LGBT Catholics and is planning to press for a policy statement from Bishop [Robert] Brom." It should be interesting to see how the bishop responds (or doesn't).

#

Perelman Tonight er, Panetta Today: Beware of the coming cyber-Pearl Harbor

Warning: This is not a drill, or an outing of "Perelman Tonight."

by Ken

from Huffpost-slash-AOL News:

CIA Chief Leon Panetta: Cyberattack Could Be 'Next Pearl Harbor'

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a confirmation hearing for his appointment as the secretary of defense, Leon Panetta warned that the U.S. could face cyberwarfare in battles to come.

“The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems,” Panetta said.

Though he talked on subjects ranging from Libya to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan to the war on terrorism, Panetta highlighted his concerns regarding the U.S.'s preparedness for cyberattacks.

“This is a real possibility in today’s world,” he said. “As a result, I think we have to aggressively be able to counter that. It is going to take both defensive measures as well as aggressive measures to deal with it.”

The Obama administration recently unveiled its proposal for global cybersecurity. Statements from the Pentagon have also indicated that the government will consider cyberattacks originating from foreign countries to be equivalent to acts of war meriting military response.

This sounds pretty serious, chief, and I'll bet it would help if we all went out today and took some "aggressive measures" -- like maybe abridging some civil cyberliberties? Wasn't it Justice Brandeis who said, "Better safe than sorry"? (Possibly not. I always have trouble keeping track of those justices and all they say. They're regular Chatty Cathies.)

Anyway, here's the thing, chief. It's hard not to at least crack a smile from dire warnings issued by someone who looks like, well --


This is all I'm saying. You can get back to whatever you were doing now, chief. Preparing for that move to the Pentagon, isn't it? Probably there'll be lots of stuff to warn us about from there, and aggressive measures to be taken. Just remember, well, you know.

#