Defense Secretary re-affirms Obama administration’s unconstitutional stance.

Following controversy over his assertion that seeking “international permission” from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.

Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.

“We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force,” said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, “Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, “The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country,” adding that the President would have to “take steps” to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.

“Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?” asked Forbes.

“The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake,” said Panetta.

“So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?” asked Forbes.

“In that particular situation, yes,” said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet.

A suspected car bomb attack has taken place at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, Sky Sources have revealed.

The explosion came as US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta flew into the British base on Wednesday.

It is believed that Mr Panetta was still landing or had landed at the time of the explosion, but it is not clear if he was a target.

Sky’s Stuart Ramsay said the blast was caused when a vehicle drove on to the runway either during or after the landing.vs

CONTINUED at Sky News.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy — signaling that Israel is acting on its own — might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring — and the unintended consequences.

Source: The Washington Post.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Continued from: The Mitt Romney Problem, Part I: Smaller Government.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison

Foreign Entanglements:

Mitt Romney is like the world’s dumbest used car salesman for war. While that might sound like an unfair and unjust observation, let’s look at this guy’s ideas on what our foreign policy should be. To be frank, his actions either call for immediate war or create and perpetuate the environment for war. If Mr. Romney were to have his way, we’d be locked in wars with Iran and China not to mention all the other ones we’re involved in at the moment. Also, who’s to say that this guy wouldn’t pile on even more wars with his careless actions due to his inability to understand why other nations hate the American Empire.

Let’s first look at Iraq, an issue that Romney has either been confused by or has flip-flopped on, the latter is more likely as that is his modus operandi. On whether or not he has supported the war, Mitt’s stance has been cloudy to say the least. The main reason is that there isn’t any consistency between the different times he’s been asked the question. Recently in December of 2011, Romney said that if he had intel that said that there weren’t nuclear weapons in Iraq, then we shouldn’t have invaded that country. In fact, here is how that interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd went down:

Romney: ”If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”

Todd: ”You don’t think we would have gone in?”

Romney: ”Well of course not. The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course. But we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression as a nation, our president was under the impression, that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons, and so he took action based upon what he knew. But to go back and say, well knowing what we know now would we have gone in. Well, knowing what we know now, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no effort on the part of our president or others to take military action.”

Odd, considering what he has said before this interview. During a 2008 presidential debate, Mitt Romney said the Iraq War was “a good idea worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent. It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.” For the record, it was well-known in 2008 that Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. You see, Mitt Romney’s stance in the Iraq situation is all over the place. Like most answers he gives, the words he speaks are dependent upon who he is talking to or what the political climate is at the time. Romney, like the professional politician he is – yet claims he isn’t, will say anything to win the hearts of the voter. The reason I have started with this example is to show you how soulless the man is and how his stance on the other foreign entanglements, which I’m about to get into, could be nothing but pandering bullshit and probably is.

On the ongoing war in Afghanistan, Romney has given us a giant spoonful of his bullshit rhetoric. He’s said that he will refuse to talk to the Taliban. Well okay asshole, how do you expect to get anything done or solve the problems over there if you aren’t willing to talk to the other side of the conflict? Romney is either a complete fucking idiot on this issue, a total coward or just pandering to the GOP voters in order to get cheap pops at the debates.

So with the moronic stance that Mitt Romney has, what can we expect for the future of the United States-Afghanistan relationship? Well, contrary to the sort of hype and bullshit that these politicians and pundits try to feed you, we cannot conquer Afghanistan and force our ways on them. The country doesn’t have the structure of a typical nation. It is made up of feuding tribes that fight for dominance and supremacy; there isn’t one organized enemy to point your guns at. Sure, the Taliban takes the blame for everything but the issue of Afghanistan certainly isn’t as black and white as that.

Besides, who gave the Taliban their power to begin with? Well, the United States did. Why? Because we were scared shitless of the Soviets during the Cold War and we training and gave arms to these men that we now call terrorists. If Mitt even listened to what the people in countries like Afghanistan said about us, he’d understand their hatred towards America. However, guys like Mitt (and Santorum and Gingrich for that matter) have all the answers and have apparently never heard of a little something called “cause and effect”. If he had, he’d know that these people are sick of us being in their country swinging our dicks around and telling them what to do. Common sense is just too fucking much for some people to muster!

On the issue of Libya, Mitt has also pandered and always found himself on the side of the issue that best fits his situation at the time. In March of 2011, around the time the conflict started, Romney immediately came out in a radio interview and said that Obama waited too long and should have acted earlier. He said that the president’s handling of the situation made him look “weak” and that we should have led the charge instead of following NATO. Jesus, where do I even start on how ridiculous his statements are? The truth is, we shouldn’t have been involved.. AT ALL! Once again, America intervenes and oversees a regime change. Throughout history, this action has always proved to be disastrous. Also, Romney apparently, at that time, didn’t care about the Constitution as the invasion of Libya wasn’t properly brought before Congress. None of this matters though, as Romney flip-flopped again and again on this – like every other issue.

Less than a month later, Ol’ Mittens was in Las Vegas to speak to the Republican Jewish Coalition. When asked about his stance on Libya, Mitt Romney ignored the concerns and refused to provide an answer. In fact, it was reported by Las Vegas Review-Journal that:

Romney was silent on Libya, the newest and stickiest military and U.S. policy problem as the United States and its NATO allies enforce a no-fly zone to help rebels oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. After his speech, Romney refused to take questions from reporters about his position on Libya. Instead, he and his wife, Ann, fled down a hallway and escaped up an escalator at The Venetian, where the event was held. ‘I’ve got a lot of positions on a lot of topics, but walking down the hall probably isn’t the best place to describe all those,’ Romney said, deflecting a Libya query as he walked quickly with half a dozen journalists trailing him.

Writing about this situation, Daniel Larison of American Conservative said:

Romney seems unable to stake out a foreign policy position until after the Republican consensus has formed, and he then adapts himself to whatever that consensus happens to be…This does save him from the acrobatics required to maintain an anti-Obama position when Obama switches from restraint to starting a war, but it is just another reminder that Romney doesn’t hold foreign policy positions so much as he mimics those who do….For someone who is so fond of mocking Obama’s leadership or lack thereof, it is revealing that when Romney has to stake out a position one way or the other on a controversial question he is unable to show any leadership at all.

So while Romney went from bashing Obama for acting too late and then went mute on the situation, he then flip-flopped completely and took the position that Obama was acting too aggressively! Mitt wrote an op-ed for National Review where he stated that Obama should have just enforced a no fly zone, this way Libya couldn’t bomb their own citizens. Right, the Libyans bombing the Libyans is what we need to worry about? Has Mitt seen the pictures of Tripoli before and after the NATO strikes? I think NATO shouldn’t have been flying over Libya because they treated the damn place like a litter box in the house of a cat hoarder!

Romney then decided that maybe he did like the Constitution and that the way this war started, being that it wasn’t approved by Congress, suddenly had Mitt’s panties in a bunch. He wrote:

Military action cannot be under-deliberated and ad hoc. The president owes it to the American people and Congress to immediately explain his new Libya mission and its strategic rationale.

Well shit man, you were all for it only a few months earlier, what-the-fuck-ever. Shortly after that he was quoted as saying:

Now the president is saying we have to remove Gaddafi. Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there?

Funny he should say that since Gaddafi was killed shortly after that. After Gaddafi’s death Romney said:

I have seen those reports and if accurate I think the response is it’s about time. This was a tyrant who has been killing his own people and of course is responsible for the lives of American citizens lost in the Lockerbie attack….I think people across the world recognize that the world is a better place without Moammar Gaddafi.

Apparently he wasn’t too concerned with who would take over for Gaddafi, as he was worried about it a few weeks prior. The truth is, the “freedom fighters” that the United States and NATO helped and have propped up as the new dictators are comprised of Taliban members – you know, those people Romney refuses to talk to. Point is, Mitt is all over the place on this shit and the term he is often times associated with, “flip-flopper”, is a massive understatement!

On Iran, Mitt Romney is already geared up to go to war if he is elected president. He feels that if they are developing a nuclear missile, then it is America’s job to go over there and bomb the bejesus out of them. The truth doesn’t matter to guys like Romney, even with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently admitting that Iran has no immediate plans for a nuclear warhead. Nope, who cares about the truth, lets just keep selling lies to the American people and push the nation towards war with Iran. But what’s the real issue here? If it is known that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, then why is Romney (and also Gingrich and Santorum) so quick to go to war with them? Could it be because they just don’t want Iran working on getting any sort of nuclear capabilities or is it something more sinister?

Well, Romney wants to put serious sanctions on Iran, which will just harm the innocent people there and in turn, create another group of people who would have a reason to hate us. Romney also wants to focus these sanctions on the CBI (Central Bank of Iran). Why does Romney want to try and cripple the Iranian financial system? Maybe it’s just a way to thank all of his top ten contributors, each of which is a major banking firm. Now I am not trying to play conspiracy theorist here but when you destroy a country’s financial infrastructure, it isn’t hard to move your banks in and start trading off of the resources of that toppled country. When that main resource is oil, it isn’t hard to see where this is going. Hell, former economic hitman John Perkins has made a career out of writing about this stuff, which is a lot more common than people think.

What Romney should be doing is trying to tap into the growing liberty movement in Iran. The youngsters there want to be free and generation after generation, regardless of what their monstrous Iranian government tries to do to stop it, the people become more and more Americanized. Our influence on the younger culture of Iran is paramount and for a so-called leader to bomb them instead of reaching out to them, as the guard will change eventually, is completely careless, reckless and vile! It’s obvious that Romney doesn’t care abut the people of Iran or he just chooses to be ignorant of what is actually going on over there.

This brings me to China, a country that has more in common with Iran than most people know. This is because China also has a younger generation who are sick and tired of the archaic ways of their leaders and want nothing more than a freer society that resembles something along the lines of the American Dream as opposed to the stifling grip of communism and tyrannical control. Instead of recognizing this and working towards a better situation with China through free trade and friendship, Mitt Romney wants to get stricter and punish China, who we do a lot of business with.

Mitt Romney wants tariffs and sanctions and all types of stupid crap, which will just hurt China and hurt us in the long run. Romney believes the fairytale that if we make business difficult for those we don’t like then somehow they’ll bow down to the great and powerful America and thus jobs and prosperity will magically return to the United States. I guess Romney can’t wrap his head around the fact that a tariff is a tax that will just be pushed on to the end consumer, that being the American people. Essentially, we will have to pay for this form of punishment from China, as they will just pass the buck to us. Doesn’t Romney the self-procliamed King of Business understand how this stuff works?

He talks about how China needs to be slapped around because they manipulate our currency. I guess Mitt fails to understand something else. The truth is, we manipulate our own currency by allowing the Federal Reserve the power to print money and manipulate the markets! Romney wants to punish China over an issue where we are the real criminals! I hear him talking all this trash about being strict and not rolling over for the Chinese but I don’t hear anything about shutting down the Federal Reserve. Oh yes, I almost forgot, Mitt has all those big banks in his pocket and he wouldn’t want that!

Mitt Romney’s stance with China can only lead us down one path and that is a trade war with the biggest manufacturer in the world. We will lose more American jobs, people will buy less from us and our currency will continue to be devalued because this puppet of the corrupt financial system either can’t see for the forest for the trees or he has to obey the masters who own his campaign.

On foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a joke and a whole slew of disasters just waiting to happen. For someone who claims to be so business savvy, you’d expect him to bring some actual knowledge to the table. His understanding of foreign affairs and economics is about as on par as that moronic blowhard Bill O’Reilly. Chances are Mitt, like O’Reilly, has probably never heard of Keynesian economics. He certainly doesn’t know how to take this great country of ours and pull it out of the depths in an attempt to set it back on the right track. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy will cost us so much money that our economy will become a sinkhole. The damage is already damn near irreparable and Romney will only make it worse. This shuckster should either open a used car lot or a pawn shop because if he has his way, we’ll be in a few more expensive wars and in a trade battle with China. Mitt Romney wants America to wear cement shoes to the pool party.

“Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.” – John F. Kennedy

Continued shortly in Part III..

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step. As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. “We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.” Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step. – PressTV/YouTube/Washington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Iran is evil. War is in the offing.

Free-Market Analysis:  Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Iran was not seeking to make nuclear weapons. OK, we can all relax now, right? Not quite. Panetta went on to caution that Iran was seeking a “nuclear capability” and that this “concerned” him – and presumably others as well.

Who are the others, we ask? President Barack Obama? The military? The CIA? Israel? No, we have another hypothesis. We think the current crisis is a manufactured one and that Iran’s “capability” – whatever it is – has little to do with any contemplated war.

There will be war, if there is war, between the West and Persia because the West NEEDS a war. Already, in the West, the alternative media – often a beacon of truth and hope – is explaining there will be war because ISRAEL feels threatened.

But this is not quite true, either. Israel is a creation of the power elite and it is the Anglosphere power elite that is currently seeking war, in our view. It seems to need or want a war to prop up its failing central banking system.

It is the failure of the financial system, proceeding apace, that gives rise to this talk of war, to the military tensions, to the tendentious statements made by Washington, DC and to a lesser extent by European and Israeli leaders.

What other conclusion can be reached? Iran HAS no nuclear weapons. And even if it did, is Iran somehow more evil or unstable than North Korea, which is evidently bent on increasing a nuclear arsenal that it already has built?

But Iran, it is said, can target Israel with nuclear weapons. Yet North Korea can do the same with South Korea. Compare the “tensions” and rhetoric and one has to conclude that a double standard is being applied. It is seemingly a situation where Iran’s ongoing nuclear program is simply a tool designed to unlock wider rhetoric. Here’s a further excerpt from a Washington Post on the subject:

The comments suggest the White House’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Iran says its nuclear program is only for energy and medical research, and refuses to halt uranium enrichment.

Several Republican candidates have called for a tougher line against Iran, saying they believe it is committed to building the bomb. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said Mitt Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Rick Santorum has said that the U.S. should plan a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and “say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.” Iran has opened two dozen of its facilities to international inspectors, but has refused in defiance of the U.N. Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Panetta did not rule out launching a pre-emptive strike. “But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing,” he said. “And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

We can see from the above excerpt how strongly the drums of war are beating. Panetta, while admitting that Iran has no weaponized nuclear program, will not rule out a “pre-emptive” strike. The entire scenario seems to be some kind of power elite dominant social theme.

These fear-based themes are essentially tools used by the elites to stampede Western middle classes into giving up wealth and power to global institutions specially constructed for that purpose, such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.

In this case, we are not quite sure why the Pentagon – an elite-oriented institution – has decided to focus so intently on Iran. We are sure, however (as we have pointed out previously), that the powers-that-be are creating an Islamic crescent arc in the Middle East by destabilizing secular regimes and replacing them with Islamic ones.

This is ongoing … and perhaps the malicious rhetoric surrounding Iran is merely part of a propaganda process intended to further demonize the region preparatory to a full-on regional war.

Modern wars need years, even decades, to foment, in our view. In the Internet era, this is even harder because people’s natural skepticism about being manipulated will surely be fueled by the fodder provided by various alternative ‘Net news.

Iran/Western tensions seen through this lens are perhaps preparatory and do not indicate an immediate state of hostilities. On the other hand, the amount of weaponry now emplaced in and around Iran certainly gives rise to concern. Even a war planned for later can be generated sooner by mistake (intentional or not). View the video below and make up your own mind.

*Taken from Yahoo News.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress on Sunday not to cut off funding for U.S. military involvement in Libya and predicted that the operation targeting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces will “end OK.”

Lawmakers question the legality of President Barack Obama’s continued use of the U.S. military in Libya without the approval of Congress.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, last week said Congress could cut funding for U.S. military involvement in Libya, ratcheting up pressure on Obama.

Gates, who departs as Pentagon chief this month after serving in the post under one Democratic and one Republican president, noted that earlier during his stint in the job Congress also threatened to cut off funding for the Iraq war.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Yahoo News.

America’s military alliance with Europe — the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades — faces a “dim, if not dismal” future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members’ penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

“Future U.S. political leaders – those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost,” he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from MyWay.

LONDON (AP) – The WikiLeaks website appears close to releasing what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history – hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In a message posted to its Twitter page on Thursday, the organization said there was a “major WikiLeaks press conference in Europe coming up.” WikiLeaks has not commented publicly on the imminent announcement.

Their disclosure would be the most massive leak of secret documents in U.S. history, and defense officials are racing to contain the damage.

A team of more than a hundred analysts from across the U.S. military, lead by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been combing through the Iraq documents they think will be released.

Called the Information Review Task Force, its analysts have pored over the documents and used word searches to try to pull out names and other issues that would be particularly sensitive, officials have said.

The task force has informed the U.S. Central Command of some of the names of Iraqis and allies and of other information they believe might be released that could present a danger, officials have said, noting that – unlike the WikiLeaks previous disclosure of some 77,000 documents from Afghanistan – in this case they had advance notice that names may be exposed.

That previous leak, back in July, outraged the U.S. military, which accused WikiLeaks of irresponsibility.

But The Associated Press has obtained a Pentagon letter reporting that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs.

Although U.S. officials still think the leaks could cause significant damage to U.S. security interests, the assessment suggests that some of the administration’s worst fears about the July disclosure have so far failed to materialize.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported the conclusions in an Aug. 16 letter to Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had requested a Pentagon assessment.