Right now, it's just a conspiracy theory. I hope that's all it will ever be.
Seymour Hersh - the very name is repulsive to most conservatives. He was the man who exposed the My Lai massacre by US troops in Vietnam, and since then has gained a bit of an evil reputation in the conservative community. Bush 43 adviser Richard Perle called Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist."…
Article comments
26 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
If you're for holding people accountable for breaking the law, then you should be all for prosecution of Bush and Cheney for waging an aggressive war in strict violation of the Geneva Convention...because we are bound by international law to follow the Geneva Accords. Furthermore, if one of our allies in NATO declare Bush or Cheney to be in violation of the law, then we are bound by our own law to hand them over to stand trail.
Furthermore, as Deano point out the CIA is legally required to brief the congressional intel committees. If America is to abide by the rule of law, then why should we excuse Cheney for ordering the CIA to NOT brief Congress...which is in fact ordering them to break the law?
Do you see where this is going, Dave? You're winding up with the choice of standing by the Rule of Law...or excusing our leaders from being accountable to the law.
27 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
From rawstory.com, "Congress already knows, for example, of a Bush-era plan to destabilize Iran's religious government, and that has drawn very little criticism and attention. So how could a far more innocuous program aimed at Al Qaeda generate so much more controversy?"
C'mon, Dave - your boys claimed there was enough wrongdoing in the Whitewater controversy to warrant a special prosecutor...but you're pooh-poohing this, claiming it's nothing to be concerned about?
Hypocrisy is perhaps the main reason I left the conservative movement.
28 - Silas Kain
Flipping through all the news channels this afternoon, I was struck by one question posed by someone in the media -- "Would you trust your Congressperson to keep a secret if they were provided with intelligence reports?"
Well, I wouldn't trust opportunists like Sheila Jackson Lee, Peter King, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank or Maxine Waters. As much as I love Ron Paul I wonder. And then there is Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. Here's a real piece of work who I wouldn't trust to boil a pan of water for instant grits.
I've actually found myself wondering today if Dick Cheney was the most intellectual of the bunch in the the Executive AND Legislative branches during the W years. I am represented by Congressman Jim McGovern, and Senators John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. Of the three, Teddy is the ONLY member I would trust. Think about it, folks. Think about your own respective members of Congress. Would you trust them with the most sensitive of national security information?
29 - Ruvy
I've actually found myself wondering today if Dick Cheney was the most intellectual of the bunch in the the Executive AND Legislative branches during the W years.
This refers back to my original comment on this thread - the one about the assassination ring Shimon Peres has been keeping for years. It turns out that of all the Israeli leaders, Peres, the most evil and murderous scum of the lot, is also the most intellectual. He had what no other Israeli leader had - a Jesuit education. Which is why, even though over the last 60 years, he never could get elected to much (nobody could stand the bad vibes, from Ben Gurion onwards), he has always had just enough power that he could wield a lot more than he actually had.
Now, go look at Cheney through that same kind of lens. The facts and specifics will be different, but who knows, Silas. You may actually be right.
30 - Glenn Contrarian
Silas -
Don't you think it interesting that out of all the briefings that the House Intelligence Committee has received over the years, the committee members are NOT suspected of leaking ANY classifed information?
But YOU think that since they're congressmen, they'll automatically leak. Tell you what - how about you find me an example of a House Intel Committee member suspected of leaking classifed information so you can confirm your suspicion.
And while you're at it, let's also discuss the government official who exposed an entire CIA operation, blowing the cover of at least a dozen agents just to ruin the career of one of the SPOUSES of one of those agents? The agent? Valerie Plame. The prime suspect? Dick Cheney.
Ah, but I forget - ol' Dick's is SO respectful of the Rule of Law, huh?
31 - Dr Dreadful
@ #29:
One thing you learn if you go through history with your eyes even half-open: don't mess with the Jesuits.
32 - Ruvy
One thing you learn if you go through history with your eyes even half-open: don't mess with the Jesuits.
You mean you're beginning to get the picture, DD? The fellow who is called "president" in Israel today has the heart and soul of a murderer - and the training of a Jesuit. He can run rings around Netanyahu mentally, was a friend and mentor to Sharon so long as it was convenient, and was a "friend" to YitzHaq Rabin - until Rabin decided to get rid of Oslo. That's when Peres got rid of Rabin - and why.
Shim'on Peres is the best and brightest that politics in Israel has to offer. The best in the tradition of the Borgias. Without Peres' deviousness, Israel would not have nuclear weapons today. Peres is evil - but not everything he has done has been bad.
And why should it surprise anyone that an intelligent (and intellectual) politician should have an assassination squad working for him?
I don't know much about Cheney, but if he was the brains behind the Shrub, it would make sense that he had a hit squad working for him. Clintion certainly had one.
And finally, what is it with you guys about the RULE OF LAW. The "rule of law" is what you tell the rubes - like us. Government is nothing but a criminal gang with the authority to commit crime, allegedly granted by the citizenry, a.k.a. the sucker born every minute.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
I don't particularly have a problem with a 'national hit squad'. What I DO have a problem with is when that hit squad is only accountable or overseen by one or even two men.
You allude to hit squads under Clinton, right? Were these kept secret from the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee? I don't think so.
These 'hit squads' with little or no Congressional oversight are another step down the path followed by dictators from time immemorial, from the Hashishin to the ninja of the Tokugawa shogunate to the GRU and NKVD of the Soviets.
That's why we need OVERSIGHT.
34 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Why do you think Goldwater popped up with that statement "extremism in the defense of liberty is no crime"? He knew and understood that there has never been rule of law in America (or Israel). It has always been rule of the gun.
Like I said, "government is nothing but a criminal gang with the authority to commit crime, allegedly granted by the citizenry, a.k.a. the sucker born every minute."
That's reality, Glenn. All the rest is bullshit.
35 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy, IMO you've steeped yourself so deeply in just how bad things can get that it's very difficult for you to see otherwise. Considering the hatred of much of Western civilization against Judaism, I can't really blame you.
But while Mao was partially right when he said "power grows out of the end of a gun", it is much more true that the pen is mightier than the sword - for knowledge, patriotism, enthusiasm, hatred, organization, religion, none of these have power without the use of written communication.
It would also benefit you to remember who led the greatest revolution in history and how he did it. It wasn't George Washington - it was Ghandi. He didn't use any guns. He didn't need to.
Ruvy, bitter cynicism has its place. Right now I'm reading "The War of the World" by Niall Ferguson. I recommend it - it's an eye-opener for peaceniks, Holocaust-deniers, and all those who claim "it can't happen here!"
By the same token, I also recommend giving ice cream to little children and watching them play for an hour, or sitting with an elderly woman and listening to her reminisce over happier times in the past.
The glass is half empty, sure. But don't forget the glass is also half full.
36 - Dave Nalle
If you're for holding people accountable for breaking the law, then you should be all for prosecution of Bush and Cheney for waging an aggressive war in strict violation of the Geneva Convention...because we are bound by international law to follow the Geneva Accords.
Except that they never did this. They did not prosecute a war which violates the principles of the Geneva Accords, nor did they violate our own Constitutional requirements for waging a war.
Furthermore, if one of our allies in NATO declare Bush or Cheney to be in violation of the law, then we are bound by our own law to hand them over to stand trail.
I disagree. IMO no treaty which requires the extradition of any US citizen to stand trial in a foreign country is valid under the constitution. It would be a fundamental violation of their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
Furthermore, as Deano point out the CIA is legally required to brief the congressional intel committees.
Only on actions they actually take. They don't have to brief them on what they had for breakfast or discussed over the water cooler.
If America is to abide by the rule of law, then why should we excuse Cheney for ordering the CIA to NOT brief Congress...which is in fact ordering them to break the law?
Because a discussion of a possible program which was never implemented doesn't reach the level of significance where congressional oversight would be required.
Do you see where this is going, Dave? You're winding up with the choice of standing by the Rule of Law...or excusing our leaders from being accountable to the law.
I don't see it, Glenn. There have to be some standards applied and our leaders have the same rights as any other citizen.
From rawstory.com, "Congress already knows, for example, of a Bush-era plan to destabilize Iran's religious government, and that has drawn very little criticism and attention. So how could a far more innocuous program aimed at Al Qaeda generate so much more controversy?"
Because Congressional Democrats are looking for a Witch Hunt to distract from their horrific legislative agenda.
C'mon, Dave - your boys claimed there was enough wrongdoing in the Whitewater controversy to warrant a special prosecutor...but you're pooh-poohing this, claiming it's nothing to be concerned about?
I wasn't particularly concerned about Whitewater either.
Dave
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You posted: "Except that they never did this. They did not prosecute a war which violates the principles of the Geneva Accords, nor did they violate our own Constitutional requirements for waging a war."
1 - Even Generals Petraeus and Powell agree that we violated the Geneva Convention - but they're just soldiers - what would they know, right? And is it against American law to violate a treaty? I'm not sure...but we certainly did violate the Geneva Convention.
And much of the remainder of your reply rests on the contention that this program was never implemented.
Also, the CIA is also required to brief the Intel Committees on what they're GOING to do, not just on what they've already done.
Hm. Let me see - Panetta ended the program the day after he was briefed on it, and when he DID brief the Committees, even the Republican members were 'stunned'.
Would they really be 'stunned' about sending teams after al-Qaeda leaders? No. Come on, Dave - they might yawn, but they would not in the least be surprised.
When congressmen on both sides of the aisle are shocked about something...and then come out and say "it was just part of our war against terrorists", are they being truthful? Or are they doing what they can to divert scrutiny, to tell a half-lie in order to hide something worse?
There's much more to this than we're hearing, than we might ever hear. Frankly, considering where the idea of an 'executive assassination ring' might lead...and putting this together with things we've done like rendition, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial, warrantless wiretapping (even of Congress!)...
...put it all together, Dave.
38 - Bliffle
There's enough for a grand jury to bring an indictment, and probably enough evidence to convict.
But, latterly, with King George III safely out of mind, Americans developed their own home grown form of lese majeste protection for important people. I suppose they figured that prosecuting important people would lead to national disgrace.
It's all about saving face.
39 - Kanani
Well, if it is so, it does explain Cheney's behavior since leaving office.
"Perhaps that's why President Ford outlawed assassination as a tool, and President Reagan affirmed that same law: neither one wanted us to relearn the lessons of the past."
So, what happened to change the outlook? Or were those two "old school?"
40 - pablo
comment 37
Glenn there you have it Dave stripped to his core. As an unrepentant apologist for illegal covert cia assassination squads, Mr. Nalle once and for all lays his so called 'libertarian' cards on the table, and reveals himself to be what he really is, a shill.
I do however admire his sheer audacity and arrogance, as it fits his views and his party's to a fuckin t.
Thanks Dave. I always appreciate hearing it from the horses mouth pal. :)
I rarely perouse this site anymore (for reasons s mentioned ad naseum), but I do occasionally just for amusement purposes to watch the professional bs'er in action. Thanks again Davey.
41 - Clavos
I rarely perouse this site anymore
Or peruse it, I imagine...
42 - pablo
Thanks for the spelling lesson Clavy.
43 - roger nowosielski
Good to see you, Pablo. I always enjoy your comments.
44 - roger nowosielski
BTW, I did use one of your comments to launch the present series on healthcare - when you spoke of rights which (like the civil rights) were legislated. It was Part II or Part III, can't remember now which.
45 - Bliffle
Dave has definite problems with his Libertarian pose, what with being so favorably disposed to monopoly corporate domination of business as he is, and the privatization of government to aid those monopolies.
Those monopolies are the functional equivalent of the old russian soviets, so it's sometimes surprising to see him abandon his 'liberty' claims in support of predatory corporations.
46 - roger nowosielski
That's the link, Pablo. And it's Part III, the top of page 2.
47 - handyguy
Good to see you, Pablo. I always enjoy your comments.
This is not intended ironically, I take it.
Oy vey.
48 - roger nowosielski
Of course not, Handy.