« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The war on terrorism has a number of silenced Cassandras -- figures whose careers suffered because of their candor or wisdom regarding the conduct of the war, and whose response has been to embrace silence and seclusion. General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff who warned that occupying Iraq would require hundreds of thousands more troops than the administration intended to provide, is perhaps the most famous. A close second is Major General Antonio Taguba, whose 2004 inquiry into the "systemic" abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison complex set off an international scandal. But now Taguba has come forward, telling Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker that Donald Rumsfeld essentially ended his career for violating a precious trust -- the ex-defense secretary's cherished plausible deniability about the consequences of his interrogation regime.
At best, Taguba said, “Rumsfeld was in denial.” Taguba had submitted more than a dozen copies of his report through several channels at the Pentagon and to the Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, which ran the war in Iraq. By the time he walked into Rumsfeld’s conference room, he had spent weeks briefing senior military leaders on the report, but he received no indication that any of them, with the exception of General Schoomaker, had actually read it. (Schoomaker later sent Taguba a note praising his honesty and leadership.) When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, “I don’t want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?” ...Taguba, watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news. But Taguba also recalled thinking, “Rumsfeld is very perceptive and has a mind like a steel trap. There’s no way he’s suffering from C.R.S.—Can’t Remember Shit. He’s trying to acquit himself, and a lot of people are lying to protect themselves.” It distressed Taguba that Rumsfeld was accompanied in his Senate and House appearances by senior military officers who concurred with his denials.
For putting Rumsfeld in this position, Taguba was assigned to a bureaucratic backwater overseeing reserve issues at the Pentagon, instead of his scheduled assignment to the Third Army headquarters in Georgia. "I didn’t quibble," he tells Hersh. "If you’re going to do that to me, well, O.K. We all serve at the pleasure of the President." Within two years, however, Taguba was forced out of the military.
In January of 2006, Taguba received a telephone call from General Richard Cody, the Army’s Vice-Chief of Staff. “This is your Vice,” he told Taguba. “I need you to retire by January of 2007.” No pleasantries were exchanged, although the two generals had known each other for years, and, Taguba said, “He offered no reason.” (A spokesperson for Cody said, “Conversations regarding general officer management are considered private personnel discussions. General Cody has great respect for Major General Taguba as an officer, leader, and American patriot.”)
By contrast, General Bantz Craddock, a senior military aide to Rumsfeld, became head of U.S. Southern Command, where he protected Major General Geoffrey Miller -- commander of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay who was sent in 2003 to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib -- from an official inquiry's 2005 recommendation that he be "held accountable" for abuses at Guantanamo. Less than a year later, Rumsfeld nominated Craddock to become Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, the job he currently holds.
Hersh's report is valuable enough for Taguba's recollections. But some of the most incendiary material in his piece has nothing to do with the general. He reports, for instance, that despite President Bush's 2006 movement of fourteen high-value al-Qaeda detainees to Guanatanamo from secret prisons in Europe -- a move that came at the behest of both the CIA and European governments fearful of being left holding the bag for abuse -- and its 2007 announcement that the CIA held no more detainees in its custody, the administration has opened another secret prison in Mauritania. That would help explain where the CIA held Abu Hadi al-Iraqi, an aide to Osama bin Laden, between his capture late last year and his April transfer to Guantanamo Bay.
What's more, Hersh sheds some light on the war on terror's special operations task forces, charged with hunting high-value targets like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The task forces get wide latitude from the chain of command in the areas in which they operate -- especially the most clandestine of them, known as Special Access Programs. With a direct channel to the Pentagon, they're often so autonomous that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage tells Hersh that they in fact undermine the chain of command. Accordingly, Hersh reports that some task forces have obstructed and deceived military investigators attempting to reconstruct their operations:
In some cases, the secret operations remained unaccountable. In an April, 2005, memorandum, a C.I.D. officer—his name was redacted—complained to (Criminal Investigation Division) headquarters, at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, about the impossibility of investigating military members of a Special Access Program suspected of prisoner abuse:[C.I.D.] has been unable to thoroughly investigate . . . due to the suspects and witnesses involvement in Special Access Programs (SAP) and/or the security classification of the unit they were assigned to during the offense under investigation. Attempts by Special Agents . . . to be “read on” to these programs has [sic] been unsuccessful.The C.I.D. officer wrote that “fake names were used” by members of the task force; he also told investigators that the unit had a “major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 per cent of their files; therefore, they can’t find the cases we need to review.”
Comments (46)
varney wrote on June 18, 2007 9:09 AM:The last I heard/read, Rumsfeld still has a desk in the Pentagon and access to classified files. What is he doing? Is some of his former work still being supervised by him? Does anyone know what he's doing, exactly?
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 9:21 AM:Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney are war criminals, and Congress is doing nothing. Doesn't that make Congress complicit? The Republic is imploding.
jack foster wrote on June 18, 2007 9:24 AM:This administration is so corrupt and vile, our once respected military has contacted the virus swarmming out of the WH. This is another wrong that will be years in the fixing. The younger generation with access to the internet will be able to sift through the madness of the last 8 years and the wrongs will be righted through truth.
noen wrote on June 18, 2007 9:26 AM:Taguba also said that he felt like he was no longer in the military but in a Mafia Family instead. Billmon pointed THAT out long ago.
SteveW wrote on June 18, 2007 9:35 AM:Here's my big question for the Dems in Congress.
What's the point of Congress swearing Congressional witnesses under oath if the likes of Rumsfeld, Cambone, Gonzo, and other serial liars are allowed to lie, obfuscate, and otherwise bullshit their way through hearings and walk away with a sly grin on their collective faces (Rummy and Gonzo)?
Where's the 'stick'/consequence(s)for lying to Congress? If there are no consequences, then what's the point of this continued choreographed charade we call Congressional hearings?
Gonzo blatantly lied to Congress, got caught lying to Congress, yet there's no consequence for what I used to believe was a clear violation of the law? During the Iran/Contra hearings, lying under oath ultimately led to multiple prison sentences for high ranking Reagan Administration officials.
Subsequent hearings since Gonzo's multiple grotesque public displays of lying with a straight face have passed with Congressional leaders essentially saying, "what can we really do, it's up to the president to remove him." What? Again, I thought there was something to this "quaint" swearing under oath procedure. No? No legal action can be taken by Congress against witnesses who are caught blatantly lying to Congress and in the case of Gonzo, allegedly tampering/coaching a witness, Ms. Goodling? Hmm.
If Congress fails to act by taking legal action against...someone...anyone for lying to them in the midst of public hearings, then we're going to witness even more brazen and public displays of these ridiculous hearings. Congress must press for multiple independent counsel investigations of Gonzo, Rumsfeld, Cambone, Doan, and others. Otherwise, if Congress fails to employ the 'stick' they wield and apply it to serial liars within the Bush Administration, then again, what's the point of these hearings? What does this say to the public when high officials are allowed to lie and skate with a smile on their face?
As we've witnessed over the last week, Gonzo made another Patriot Act USA appointment. I cannot think of a more blatant "in your face" act by both Gonzo and the president given the months of hearings where Gonzo swore under oath he never intended to use this provision to circumvent Senate confirmation of these USA's. It's all just incredible and if this act was any indication of what the next 18 months hold in store, we'd all better buckle-up, because it's going to be a very bumpy ride.
Anonymous wrote on June 18, 2007 9:42 AM:The last I heard/read, Rumsfeld still has a desk in the Pentagon and access to classified files. What is he doing? Is some of his former work still being supervised by him? Does anyone know what he's doing, exactly?
Posted by: varney
I've been wondering the same thing. From what I've heard, sources in D.C. are saying they, "hear Rumsfeld and Cambone have the document shredding machines in overdrive." Again, why does Rumsfeld still have a desk anywhere in D.C.? There should be a special prosecutor going after this arrogant punk, along with his very close friend, Cambone.
SteveW wrote on June 18, 2007 9:43 AM:The last I heard/read, Rumsfeld still has a desk in the Pentagon and access to classified files. What is he doing? Is some of his former work still being supervised by him? Does anyone know what he's doing, exactly?
Posted by: varney
I've been wondering the same thing. From what I've heard, sources in D.C. are saying they, "hear Rumsfeld and Cambone have the document shredding machines in overdrive." Again, why does Rumsfeld still have a desk anywhere in D.C.? There should be a special prosecutor going after this arrogant punk, along with his very close friend, Cambone.
SteveW wrote on June 18, 2007 9:44 AM:The last I heard/read, Rumsfeld still has a desk in the Pentagon and access to classified files. What is he doing? Is some of his former work still being supervised by him? Does anyone know what he's doing, exactly?
Posted by: varney
I've been wondering the same thing. From what I've heard, sources in D.C. are saying they, "hear Rumsfeld and Cambone have the document shredding machines in overdrive." Again, why does Rumsfeld still have a desk anywhere in D.C.? There should be a special prosecutor going after this arrogant punk, along with his very close friend, Cambone.
SteveW wrote on June 18, 2007 9:47 AM:I only posted once, so I apologize for the multiple postings that appear. Something is wrong here with the system.
daveb wrote on June 18, 2007 9:54 AM:"I've been wondering the same thing. From what I've heard, sources in D.C. are saying they, "hear Rumsfeld and Cambone have the document shredding machines in overdrive."
SteveW wrote on June 18, 2007 10:00 AM:you answered your own question.
you answered your own question.
Posted by: daveb
Date: June 18, 2007 09:54 AM
Gee daveb, thanks for pointing that out. In fact, I was helping to answer for someone above asking "what is Rumsfeld doing."
The larger question is why this isn't a concern for Congress and why there's been little attention paid to this question/issue since Rumsfeld resigned.
tomg wrote on June 18, 2007 10:11 AM:Maybe now is the time to seriously consider third party candidates for the House and Senate. While a third party candidate for prez is a bit of a stretch right now, it seems he only way to win back the country is from the bottom up not the top down. Dems failing to pursue the lying bastards is unacceptable and unless they grow a set of balls in the next few months it's time to consider alternatives
Dave of Maryland wrote on June 18, 2007 10:12 AM:In some of my blog reading elsewhere (Information Clearing House) the topic of revolution came up & that Americans were just too lazy/indifferent to ever revolt.
My response was that without leaders, there never will be a revolution.
My suggestion was that someone with a stinking big pile of money could use it to set up an alternative government. The resulting group could then solicit "contributions" (alternative taxes) to support themselves.
If they then made nice presentations in front of the annual governors conclaves & got individual states to shift their allegiance from Washington to the revolutionaries, there might be a chance of success.
Which leaves the question: When are all the Democratic fat cats going to wake up & abandon the sinking ship?
SC: Canvas. So let's stop complaining & get started already.
FMArouet wrote on June 18, 2007 10:13 AM:Is it possible that Special Operations forces operating under a Special Access Program broke into the Iranian liaison office (i.e., essentially a consulate) in Irbil, Iraq on January 11th and siezed the five Iranian officials who still remain under U.S. detention?
Is it possible that the chain-of-command for this operation ran directly from the office of Vice President Cheney through a neocon back channel in the Pentagon and that the operation occurred without the knowledge of Secretary of State Rice (who would be unlikely to sign off on such an arrest/kidnapping of foreign officials) or of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who at that point was rather new on the job and may not yet have established full control over such rogue operations?
Here is a link to the original BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm
Basilisc wrote on June 18, 2007 10:18 AM:The neocons based their policies on Hollywood blockbuster versions of what war "should" be like. The top-hyper-ultra-super-secret special ops squad captures the evil terrorist. The brutal interrogation yields critical (indeed, time-critical!!) information that saves us all. The high-tech 21st century soldier wins a lightning-quick victory over evil through pure whiz-bang tech supremacy. The happy liberated crowds immediately set up a glorious, liberal, free-market democracy. Etc etc. Meanwhile, the boring, buzz-kill institutions that have evolved over centuries - the military justice system, the Geneva conventions, international law, that kind of thing - can be safely thrown aside. And now we're living with the consequences.
TCinLA wrote on June 18, 2007 10:25 AM:Special Access Program. Doesn't that translate as Einsatzgruppen???
TCinLA wrote on June 18, 2007 10:30 AM:TomG: As to third-party candidates for anything right now, voting for one is the same as voting for Nader in 2000: you guarantee the election of the right winger. Not quite what you're looking for, eh? Yes, the Dems aren't wonderful, but they're not fascists, either, and unlikely to become such. Right now the job is: Repuubli-Klans out.
Michael Lafferty wrote on June 18, 2007 10:32 AM:As a former US Army enlisted member, noncommissioned officer and officer with five years of active service and ten years of active reserve component service, and with exclusive branch assignments in both the military police and military intelligence fields, I could write extemporaneously for hours about what went wrong here.
But, possibly the best summation is found in the words of Major General Antonio Tagubu which appear at the end of Sy Hersh's article: "…the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
kenter wrote on June 18, 2007 10:37 AM:Taguba is a major league hero for following his investigation to the logical ends he was able to take it. The way he was treated after is a disgrace. As we knew soon enough, the Bushco heads of the pentagon tried to bury his report forever, becasue at the heart of the matter they knew it was their DIRECT responsibility and any honest assessment of the mess led straight to their doorstep. Because of this, the abuse, torture and war crimes CONTINUED while this top-level coverup/ state of denial unfolded.
Eventually, Sy Hersh and others broke the story thanks to good men who couldn't stand by while this went on, and became sources for reporters. The scandal went public, and Bushco went into PR mode, spinning this as "a few bad apples on the night shift," etc despite photgraphic evidence of how systemic the problem was, and clear involvement of Military Intelligence and "civilian contractors" and officers high up in the direct chain of command.
Of course, each time this corrupt(ed) pentagon "investigated itself," they appointed lower-ranking officers than needed to get to the principal players who caused the disgraceful events. IT WAS POLICY, set from the top. The photos and stories of dogs being used in interrogations are DOCUMENTED PROOF of war crimes ordered and approved by Rumsfeld himself, through Miller and on down the line. Written orders, made public. And yet no prosecutions resulted. Who bears responsibility for letting criminals run rampant? Their commander in chief, that's who. I submit this in itself is an impeacable offense, never mind the issue of how complicit he is in the orders themselves.
The semantics about the use of the word "Abuse" is another distraction. The "abuse" was ordered, suggested, condoned and praised BECAUSE it was tantamount to torture, and these idiots thought it would produce "Actionable intel" instead of disgrace, rebellion, jihad/intifada/insurrgency (call it what you will, it is a nationalist guerilla war with some religious overtones as organizing tools, the object of which is to end an illegal occupation by US forces - and thus begin a balkanization of the middle east).
While the vast, vast majority of our pity and sympathy needs to be felt for the direct victims of this torture, reserve some for the poor grunts who were cajoled and tricked into participation or witnessing of this Stanford prison experiment. Their lives are forever scarred by a miltary and an officers corps that failed to protect them from immoral and illegal executive leadership. Some are heros like Darby and Provost, some are sad figures like Harmon and England, and some are criminals like Graner. Others are scott free, like the MI and mercs who scuttled under various rocks. But all of them KNOW what they did was wrong and have to live with it. And none of them would be in the positions they are in now were it not for a POLICY decision to ignore international treaties regarding torture, the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law in general. Their shame is little compared to that of thier leaders, and yet whom do you suppose feels worse?
Tom Simon wrote on June 18, 2007 10:53 AM:Transparency of process, no secrets, is the only way a government can ever be accountable to its people. Under the constitution, a President and his adminsitration is accountable to the law no less than any citizen. Who, other than the Senate, can bring this adminstration to account? Which Senators, Repulican and Democrat, can lead their colleagues to end the shame of this corrupt administration?
Meah Bottoms wrote on June 18, 2007 11:02 AM:C.R.S. pretty much sums it up for this administration when questioned before Congress. Undoubtedly a Rovian ploy and plan for all of those who have lost their moral compass. When Rumsfeld testified, we were assuaged by his lack of knowledge. Now we know, especially after the C.R.S. of Libby and Gonzales, that such memory lapses and lack of being informed is highly unlikely. Now General Taguba enlightens us further. It seems the Bush administration is incapable of NOT lying. Mafia is right. It is really impossible to believe anything they say anymore. We are on to Bush's stupid proclamation repeating himself long enough, people will believe anything that you say. And C.R.S. Can't Remeber Shit. Thank you, General. You have truly helped your country. And because of you, hopefully this shameful event of Abu Garib was stopped. Imagine if you had not done that, and imagine what is going on in places that we do not now know about. Madness!
tomg wrote on June 18, 2007 11:03 AM:third party does not equal Nader, throughout the course of history there has been parties that fell by the wayside, maybe it is time for the Dems to join that trash heap. Or as noted in Political Parties of the US:
Thomas wrote on June 18, 2007 11:10 AM:The framers of the US Constitution made no provision in the governmental structure for the functioning of political parties because they believed that parties were a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of people to judge issues on their merits. James Madison argued in his The Federalist “No. 10” paper against a system in which “factions” (his word for parties) might be able to seize control of the government. George Washington, in accordance with the thinking of his fellow Founding Fathers, included in his Cabinet men of diverse political philosophies and policies, rather than narrow his choices to those of a single political outlook.
Some of you ask why Congress won't hold those who lied under oath accountable. Simply, they have no direct power to arrest or punish. To do so, they have to ask... Attorney General Gonzales to file charges. The Justice Department handles such things for the Congress. So, the reason why no on is charged is because the criminals are running the justice system itself. Why else do you think they are larding up the US Attorneys with Bushies?
Austin Cooper wrote on June 18, 2007 11:11 AM:It's the immensity, the sheer scope of the crimes which have been authored, nurtured, and protected by this Republican crew that numbs my mind. It's like watching a nest of vipers.
When I think of the ever-increasing number of revelations about what this administration has done and continues to do, it's like a leaf from Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall', or some appropriate section of Shirer's 'Rise and Fall' ... from the appointment of lil' Boots as Leader; the manufacturing of lies resulting in an unnecessary invasion and war while the real enemies wre allowed to bind their wounds and rise again; the unbelievable political corruption in America and in the private sector around the occupation of Iraq; the torture, the secret prisons, the suspension of Constitutional rights...
...the investment shell game at the hedge fund / 'institutional investor' level; the fragility of an economy market based on 'bubbles; a dependance on globalization that turns America into a nation with little manufacturing base and no ability to compete in foreign markets; fiscal policies that appear designed to create a nation with a relatively tiny class of super-rich, a small middle class, and a huge underclass...
...The politicization of the Department of Justice; the efforts to disenfranchise minority voters through sham 'voting rights' actions; the rolling back by Republicans since 1994 of seventy-plus years' legislation in civil rights, social welfare, education, labor rights and workplace protection, the environment...
...and the apparent utter inability of our political institutions to do more than just allow it to continue. The public (which is more than fed up) will elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008, but (as happens so often) somehow the current criminal crew residing there, their handlers and enablers, will only face accountability in commentaries and histories.
Kissinger, after all, is a free, respected 'elder statesman'. Nixon was 'rehabilitated'. General Pinochet enjoyed his days, until the last few years of his long life; leading members of Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge still live comfortably and quietly in Phnom Phen.
After they are removed from power, to even talk about the crimes these people have committed will suddenly become 'not constructive'; it'll be the meme in a Right-leaning media that it's 'Time to move on' -- and America has often been a nation able to create that kind of forward-looking amnesia about our own history: The myth of re-invention.
However, there are millions of people (mostly living 'somewhere else', but also in our own country) whose lives have been irrevocably changed by the actions of these lying, fumbling, braying, murderous jackasses, who may have other opinions about what should happen to us -- and when the statement is made that terrorism is now "a generational problem"... it was this criminal crew who made certain that would be so.
A roman commentator, Juvenal -- apt, because he was observing Empire In Action, as Sy Hersh is now -- once wrote (and this is a poorparaphrasing), "Yesterday, they were ruffians in the streets; today, they hold over us the power of life and death; tomorrow, they will end their days as keepers of the public lavatories".
I'm not desparing. It's all been done and witnessed and written about so many times before (I recommend Tuchman's 'March Of Folly' to anyone interested). But I will continue to believe it could have been different.
Kirk Tofte wrote on June 18, 2007 11:19 AM:CRS is an okay summary of the Bush years. but Goerge Will, of all people, had perhaps a better one that he gave us on ABC's This Week yesterday.
Kirk Tofte wrote on June 18, 2007 11:19 AM:He said that the Bush adminstration said about the Hamas military victory in Gaza last week that, "We couldn't see it coming." Will went on to say that this would be the most fitting epitath for the Bush years: 'We couldn't see it coming."
CRS is an okay summary of the Bush years. but Goerge Will, of all people, had perhaps a better one that he gave us on ABC's This Week yesterday.
Diane wrote on June 18, 2007 11:41 AM:He said that the Bush adminstration said about the Hamas military victory in Gaza last week that, "We couldn't see it coming." Will went on to say that this would be the most fitting epitath for the Bush years: 'We couldn't see it coming."
Response to jack foster:
I'm not so sure the future younger generation will be sifting through the madness of these years....if society continues to treat this behavior as acceptable (as we have so far) then the younger generation will not see any need. I say this as a mother of a 23 year old who doesn't care about what is happening, no matter how much i try to make him see....because he is not feeling the effects.
DEEK wrote on June 18, 2007 11:50 AM:death squads, basically.
Swoosh wrote on June 18, 2007 12:17 PM:Six months into the Iraq war, there was nothing to show for millions expended looking for WMD. The PR was terrible; only the most die-hard wingnuts, some members of congress included, would believe "we found the WMD" reports without tangible proof. And all that had turned up were a few items buried in somebody's garden. WMD had been almost the exclusive public rationale for invasion.
Bush probably told Cheney and Rumsfeld something like "I don't care what you do, find some !@#%WMD!" And the war crimes of Abu Gharaib were the direct result.
Cycledoc wrote on June 18, 2007 12:58 PM:It's not just Rumsfeld and Cheney, The superstructure of the military also had to be involved in this cover-up, as Hersh notes. I would add even the sainted General Pace.
mikbee wrote on June 18, 2007 12:58 PM:all the evidence is in the missing e-mails. why the fuck is no one able to find them? the government could get all our emails in seconds.
kenter wrote on June 18, 2007 1:19 PM:this is the sign of business as usual no matter if you are rebublican or democrat. what a rat sewer this country's government has become in the last 25 years.
Your post regarding seems slightly off topic, if you are referring to the USAtny scandals. But anywho, the emails aren't "missing," they are being withheld. Even the paltry few that are "released" aren't really released since they were sent out from the DOJ and WH in pdf form. Any reasonable request and certainly the letter of a subpeona would ask for the complete electronic record of the message - which would include information on the BCC column, which is conveniently missing on the highly redacted paper copies.
As for your comment about no dif between Democratic and GOP lawmakers, I'll simply point out that in the case of investigating the scandals you seem to lump together here, there is a huge difference. Pre-dem majority, no investigations. post 2006 elections, mucho investigations.
johnnydoughey wrote on June 18, 2007 1:32 PM:Thomas...
Both the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership are allowing crooks to escape without punishment (or at the minimum, have decided to NOT inform the public of the intent to punish) these clowns. I see no attempt to actually change the rules. What I see is both sides doing what they can to make sure they are allowed to remain on top despite what occurs.
Congress is able to demand the justice department to prosecute: Even if it chooses not to, the action would be making a stand for doing the right thing. These guys never miss a free dinner or excuse to be in the limelight when it is a good photo-op, perhaps writing a letter to the justice dept. is too much work... or sticking your head out too much.
coldhotel wrote on June 18, 2007 2:23 PM:If I see no attempt to bring the consequences of the elite down to the level of the rest of us, as well as an attempt to change the laws to protect up from both sides of the aisle from future crimes, I can no longer in good conscience, support either side.
My question is: If two mobs were running your town, and you were given a choice between them and a third choice, who was a real longshot, would you still support the bad guys? Doesn't that make you a bad guy?
Even if there was NO chance of the third choice winning, would you still support the bad guys? The reason the bad guys are in office is because we continue to support the bad guys we think are harming us less, while I believe the solution is to big problem is to show outrage at ALL the bad guys.
I believe that choosing between two evils is still promoting evil...(IMHO)
The trouble with third parties in the U.S. is that there really isn't a market for them. Anderson and Perots movements have been centrist and really haven't offered much of an alternative to electing mainstream Democrats or Republicans. The U.S. really isn't liberal enough to elect the Greens to power.
Hugh Crossin wrote on June 18, 2007 2:46 PM:Seymour Hersh does it again as he has since Vietnem. The Democratic Senators who voted to authorize the war would have been much better informed if they had only read what Hersh was saying at that time, about Iraq's supposed WMDs.
dhs wrote on June 18, 2007 2:49 PM:A third party is not a realistic way to proceed. It would make
Mooser wrote on June 18, 2007 3:20 PM:more sense for progressive Democrats to challenge incumbents of both parties and restore the Democratic party to its fundamental principles. The issue here is not Democrats vs. Republicans; it is the failure of the current political establishment to represent the electorate. And that is true in both parties.
The neocons based their policies on Hollywood blockbuster versions of what war "should" be like.
The contexts of popular melodrama have replaced the Bible and the wisdom of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. This is especially true in anything related to sex or violence, two areas where Americans have little experience.
DCB wrote on June 18, 2007 3:44 PM:Unfortunately, reality never had a chance in there.
Tell me again why impeachment is off the table?
Eric Ferguson wrote on June 18, 2007 3:51 PM:Let all the poisons in the muck hatch out.--Claudius
“major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 per cent of their files; therefore, they can’t find the cases we need to review.”
Wow, the records are lost in yet another GOP scandal? Who'd have guessed?
johnnydoughey wrote on June 18, 2007 5:00 PM:Isn't it interesting that one of the differences between a democracy and a dictatorship is that when a dictator is finally brought to justice, he can be punished?
Stephen wrote on June 18, 2007 5:10 PM:General Taguba is, once again, a real hero. And Sy Hersh is a real hero.
Transparancy, truth and accountability would solve most of the ills of our government today.
What should we hope for as a result of this article?
I hope that we see a congressional investigation.
Nancyjb wrote on June 18, 2007 9:23 PM:I think this is an incredibly clear damning story. If it was about a Democrat it would be on the 24 news cycle, for weeks. It seems to have been read by devotees of a few blogs and The New Yorker. We need to drive campaigns to force the Times to respond and pursue, the WashPo to do more than have it noted by Froomkin. I don't see it mentioned at msnbc or cnn. This is a great story. The blogs need to get readers together to not let it fade away. We need to keep it alive.
kathleen murphy wrote on June 18, 2007 10:36 PM:the corruption is so prevasive its almost paralizing. or maybe that's exactly whats happened.watergate seems like folly.
kathleen murphy wrote on June 18, 2007 10:36 PM:the corruption is so prevasive its almost paralizing. or maybe that's exactly whats happened.watergate seems like folly.
kathleen murphy wrote on June 18, 2007 10:36 PM:the corruption is so prevasive its almost paralizing. or maybe that's exactly whats happened.watergate seems like folly.
kathleen murphy wrote on June 18, 2007 10:37 PM:the corruption is so prevasive its almost paralizing. or maybe that's exactly whats happened.watergate seems like folly.