What Seymour Hersh has to say about Dubya

Sy Hersh, the author of Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, spoke at Iowa State last night. He's not on the Bush/Cheney bandwagon to say the least. His talk was apropos, coming as it did on the day that Bush nominated Alberto "The Geneva Conventions are quaint" Gonzales as AG.

He started his talk with, "I've got some good news and some bad news...The good news is that Gonzales is not going to be nominated for the Supreme Court. You can guess what the bad news is..."

Much more below the fold...

Here are some of his other talking points:

• Our democracy is fragile and easily tilted in another direction. He didn't mention the "F" word, instead referencing an "-ism."


• We are dropping more bombs in Iraq since 6/28 (the installation of Allawi) than before. This is a bad sign that things are not moving in the right direction.


• The same false logic that operated during Vietnam, that we have to destroy the village in order to save it is motivating the current drive on Fallujah.


• It is Kurdish Army units fighting alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, not trained Iraqi Army troops, as the media has reported.


• We are not fighting an insurgency, we are fighting the Baathist elements who melted away during the early phase of the invasion and are now operating in cells of 5-15 all over the country.


• Guantanamo is going to be a stain on U.S. history, like the Andersonville prison from the Civil War era.


• The terrorist bad seeds from Fallujah are now back in Samarra, which we "secured" weeks ago. And so the game will continue...


• Putin is playing games in the region, probably helping Iran nuclearize. Now that Bush has been "re-elected," the EU may take collective action. And whether they do or don't, expect European citizens, who really hate Bush, to take it out on U.S. companies like Ford, EuroDisney, etc. Hersh thinks the EU might attempt to become an interlocuter in the Israel-Palestine conflict because the U.S. has failed in this role under Bush.


• Nobody in the military believes they can speak out for fear of retribution. There is wide agreement among the branches of the service that Iraq is a lost cause, but no one wants to tell the President.


• The press corps has totally turned into Bush bootlickers. Start reading the Financial Times of London and Israeli daily Haaretz to get your news about what is really going on in the Middle East.


• There is wide agreement among the military that you don't use torture against hardened terrorists because they are quite willing to die for their cause, and it doesn't work--you just get disinformation. You also don't do to them what we don't want done to us.

Following on the previous point, the good news I took from Hersh's talk is that he doesn't think Gonzales will be confirmed, and it's going to turn on the testimony of as many as eight retired 1 and 2-star generals from the JAG Corps who are prepared to testify during the confirmation hearings that Gonzales torture memo was a complete cluster-fuck.

One of Hersh's closing points was that BushCo is deleterious to the soul of America in a way that is much worse than the aftereffects of Vietnam. We have ceded our moral high ground, which will have disastrous foreign policy implications for decades to come. Of course, everyone here at DailyKos knew that long ago...

•  Thanks leftwingnut

  I appreciate your taking the time to share this information with us.

  by Iddybud on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:46:54 PM PDT

•  Unbelievable

  Nobody in the military believes they can speak out for fear of retribution. There is wide agreement among the branches of the service that Iraq is a lost cause, but no one wants to tell the President.

  Did he say they were able to tell Bush, but did not want to?  I ask, because I was under the impression that during Vietnam, the argument was that the Chiefs were not able to tell the President (i.e., couldn't see the situation for what it was).

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:47:17 PM PDT

  •  My impression was that Hersh was saying...

    ...that the general staff see the situation for what it is, a lost cause. But that you can't tell this White House anything that is at variance with its rose-colored view. If you do, your career will suffer, or appropriations for your weapons project wish list will suffer, etc. BushCo can't handle the truth, basically. So yes, theoretically, they are able to tell Bush (or tell Rummy to tell Bush), but practically speaking, no one wants to...

    by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:55:58 PM PDT

    •  remember general shinseki.

      by yankeedoodler on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:58:14 PM PDT

      •  Yup, they do..

        ..and that's why W canned him.  Speaking up is now a CLM.
        

        by RAST on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:48:37 PM PDT

        •  Even so

          It is still a dereliction of duty to not speak the truth, be it in private or in public -- their duty to the Constitution, the American people and the people that serve under them outweighs their duty to the Commander in Chief and their own hard-won careers.

          Remember the Nixon AG's who resigned rather than execute the Saturday Night Massacre? They did the right thing. No, it's not easy to throw away a career of 20 or 40 years and the only adult life you have known -- but if the Joint Chiefs and their staff need to pull a Shinseki in order to remedy this fool's errand and avoid making the same mistakes over and over, so be it.

          by sakitume on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:12:19 AM PDT

      •  Shinseki...

        Isn't he the one that John Kerry lied about?  At least that is what you would think by listening to CNN or FactCheck.org.

        We all know that his legs were cut off, but under this administration anyone that dares to speak up (Paul O'Niell, Richard Clarke, Jim Jeffords etc...) face severe retribution.

        by DaleNC on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:44:54 AM PDT

    •  Maybe after enough dead soldiers

      some wimp worried about his career will do the right thing.

      I know I should have more compassion for people who need a job to feed their families, but come on.

      When is there enough death?

      by karenc13 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:04:55 PM PDT

      •  Catch-22

        I think they are caught... for many, I believe it's not their personal careers or reputations they are so worried about.  They are worried that if they tell the truth, they will be replaced by true believers or amoral assholes who really do care only about their career.  If a general is in a position of some power in the chain of command on Iraq, he or she has some leeway to resist the White House or Rumsfeld through time-honored military means of foot-dragging, red tape, and deliberate logistical failure.  They are afraid they will be replaced by people who will actually carry out all the Administration's worst ideas.

        In my gut I agree with you though, if they stood up together, they might be powerful enough to make the White House deal with reality.  Just wanted to point out that the moral choice they are making is probably a little more nuanced than choosing to serve their egos and money over the good of the country.
        

        by eebee on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:51:50 PM PDT

        •  IOW...

          "Colin Powell Syndrome."

          by randym77 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:43:42 PM PDT

          •  powell is no hero

            His career started off with his whitewash of the My Lai massacre. Other than name recognition what do you really know about him?  Hell, he probably deserves some kind of Propaganda of the Year award for telling the most lies at the UN than anyone else.

            Powell is an old fashioned synchophant.  He could have turned on Bush before the election, but didn't so kiss those "Powell is secretly one of us" theories out the window. He's openly one of them.  

            I'm sure he doesnt like some things, but obviously he has no issue with starting a war over lies to make sure the US has the energy it needs in the future in the form of crude oil.
            

            by skallas on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:27:54 AM PDT

            •  I realize he's not perfect

              My Lai is before my time, but I do remember his involvement with Iran-Contra.  (And Iran-Contra, BTW, really plecks me off.  How could people elect Poppy Bush after that?  Okay, we all knew Reagan was kinda senile; maybe he really didn't know what was going on.  But his VP was at the meetings!  And somehow didn't hear a thing.  And don't even get me started on Ollie North.)

              But I still think Powell stayed at State when Rummy and the neocons had effectively cut him out of the administration because he hoped to be a voice of moderation.  Be interesting to see if he stays on.  People are saying that it's a bad time for him to resign, because Yasser Arafat's death has created an opening for a Mideast peace deal.  
              

              by randym77 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:06:24 AM PDT

              •  Moderation?

                As far as I am concerned, Powell id done forever. He went to the U.N. and lied with a straight face.

                People believed him in a way they never believed President Bush, and he abused that believe to mislead us into a war.

                He must have no more political future in the United States.

                by Aguas de Marco on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:18:55 AM PDT

          •  Pun alert

            or perhaps:

            "Irritable Powell Syndrome"
            

            by gattogrosso on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:51:45 AM PDT

        •  can you..

          ..prove this ridiculous conspiracy theory?  All this conjecture about "army men staying quiet for the greater good" is just that: conjecture.

          Lets not be this naive.

          Its time to face facts that the elitist foreign policy planners along with the military were chomping at the bit to take out Saddam and secure oil reserves for the US.  Everyone's hands are soaked in blood. If believing in these "quiet angels" of the military helps you sleep better at night then so be it, but I'd like to see a truckload of proof first.

          by skallas on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:30:39 AM PDT

          •  well, yes....

            It is conjecture, I never said it wasn't.  But it's certainly not a conspiracy theory, whereas I don't know about demands to face "facts" that "elitist foreign policy planners along with the military were chomping at the bit".  That's a lot of people you've included in that statement.  I think we can agree that the PNAC people, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al were chomping at the bit, it's pretty well in the public record.  I don't think you can make the same claim about the entire military brass.

            I was just trying to point out a different way of looking at it to consider.  My only "proof" that this is happening is comes from Sy Hersh's book, Chain of Command.  He describes, through Pentagon and other sources, an absolute zeal and determination on the part of Rumsfeld and his office to do things their way, fully supported by the President.  The military leaders seemed basically to be completely taken aback and caught off guard by the Administration's attitude, which source after source in the book describe as one that has never existed in the White House before... a complete disrespect for the existing military community and their methods.  The response of the military commanders that he presents includes some of what I am talking about, and also includes downright failure.  He specifically describes the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff office as objecting to the plans, but not forcefully enough.  And he describes how in the Joint Staff office, over the first years of the administration, Rumsfeld replaced critics with yes-men and zealots in the cause.

            He also describes various people around the edges of the invasion planning and implementation as trying, in different ways, to mitigate the damage.  I'm not saying they have been effective, and I'm not arguing that obstruction is the right or only way for the military to deal with what is happening.  All I'm saying is that these people are just that, people, and most of them are trying to do as best they can within the framework that they know.  It's not an excuse, it's an explanation....

            I don't know any of the high-level military people currently at the Pentagon or in command positions.  But I do know high-level military people who used to be at the Pentagon, and I know something about the culture and the kinds of things that tend to concern the these folks.

            They are, by and large, not hawks eager to rush into full-scale wars.  They believe the military should be lavishly funded, equipped and prepared to go to war, and they are by no stretch of the imagination pacifists.  They believe in the use of force where warranted, but they absolutely hate the idea of a half-assed military operation, which is what Iraq, and Afghanistan, for that matter, have been.  My guess is the question of going to Iraq at all was not their biggest beef with the administration, their beef is with the operation and with Rumsfeld, who has micromanaged the operations according to pie-in-the-sky military and political theories that have not (surprise, surprise) worked.

            The thing is, I basically agree with you.  The military commanders have failed, and continue to fail today.  I just think these are human failings, not demonic ones.

            by eebee on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:26:43 AM PDT

          •  Not a theory for me

            You'll note that I post anonomously and reveal very little personal information, and I'm still worried.  I post here at my own peril.

            I know plenty of senior leaders in the Army who are pissed about Iraq.  But, if you speak out, you get canned and replaced by a true believer.

            by LiberalRakkasan on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:48:53 AM PDT

        •  damn it, there is NO excuse

          if they stood up together, they might be powerful enough to make the White House deal with reality.

          So why aren't they standing up together? That tells me they're nothing but a bunch of weak, indefensible, moral cowards.

          How can silence be excusable when every day dozens of American service people...

          I'm so disgusted I can't finish the sentence.

          by aitchdee on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:42:49 AM PDT

    •  A Four...

      ...for bringing this information to us and for taking copious notes or having the best frigging memory since the guy who memorized the L.A. phone book on That's Incredible.

      Thanks.

      by ebradlee10 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:25:46 PM PDT

    •  I've seen this before

      Generals not daring to tell their Dear Leader that things are bad and that they're losing the war, fearing for their lifes. Generals not even daring to wake up the Dear Leader when the D-Day began, because they feared he would be in a bad mood if woke up too early.
      Hmmmmm...

      by Clueless Joe on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:34:45 PM PDT

    •  Interesting

      But that you can't tell this White House anything that is at variance with its rose-colored view. If you do, your career will suffer

      I thought the military were supposed to be brave.

      by No Preference on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:08:09 AM PDT

  •  I wonder if that's the reason

    That this year the Pentagon made the unprecedented move of vetting all the overseas military absentee ballots instead of having them delivered directly to the states.

    by Central Scrutinizer on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:56:07 PM PDT

    •  Vetting the Military Vote?

      I must have been asleep and missed this....is that why we don't know how US military in Iraq voted?  Or do we know yet?

      by ksh01 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:25:54 PM PDT

      •  New York times article

        read it here

        There is more cause for concern after the ballots arrive at the Pentagon. E-mail voters will be required to sign a release acknowledging that their votes may not be kept secret. When the people handling ballots know who they are cast for, it is not hard to imagine that ballots for disfavored candidates could accidentally be "lost." And because the e-mailed ballots arrive as computer documents, it is possible to cut off the voter's digitized signature, attach it to a ballot supporting another candidate, and send that ballot on to the state to be counted.

        by Karma Mechanic on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:34:14 AM PDT

    •  Vetting the military absentee ballots?

      Where did you hear this, or read this? More information, please.

      by nicolas on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:04:04 PM PDT

  •  Freedom isn't free

    Unfortunately none of the military leadership wants to pay the real price.

    by DavidByron2 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:11:47 PM PDT

    •  $1.05?

      by GaelenBurns on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:24:35 PM PDT

  •  I'm Dubious on this one

    What Hersh is saying is that most/all of the professional senior military ranks believe the war is lost (or is being lost) but are willing to see troops die in a pointless cause because the officers are more interested in saving their own assess (careers).  Sorry, but I've known too many senior military officers to believe this is the case.

    I think it more likely that they acknowledge that the war was badly mismanaged, but they want to support Gen. Abizaid--who is a breath of fresh air and competence--and want to see if the current campaign of insurgent stronghold suppression and Iraqi army expansion can get them through the election.  If expeditions like Fallujah clearly are not working--because violence just gets "squeezed" into other parts of the country--and the election is delayed or constrained, then the professional military is going to speak out even at the risk of their own careers.  They hate Rumsfeld & Co.; if they stay on and if Rummy goes back on TV with the frequency we saw early in the war, this will really piss off the senior uniforms.

    by h0db on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:17:59 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, that was my reaction....

      Gloves coming off was my take...

      by seriously blown cue on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:24:32 PM PDT

    •  false choice...

      are willing to see troops die in a pointless cause

      you are asuming that they have the power to stop this.  if they don't beleive they do, without causing more death and destruction - they may be choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils.

      by selise on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:40:01 PM PDT

  •  No one is ALLOWED to tell Bush

    Rumsfeld is the final arbiter of who in the Pentagon gets to go see the President. None of the 4 stars get to go see Bush without Rummy's OK and the talking points reviewed ahead of time.
    
    How many times has Bush said: "If the generals ask for more troops, I'll give it to them. But they haven't asked." Rummy has made it clear to all of his commanders that they are to make do with what he gives them. Shinseki was the example for the 4 stars that they should never cross him. Shinseki did the right thing and watched as Rummy undercut him and went out to find a new more loyal Army Chief of Staff.
    
    So if you're a 4 star who thinks this thing is one big CF, what do you do? If you speak out alone, Rummy cans you and gets someone more loyal to fill your shoes. Or you can stay and try to minimize the damage for the troops - try to pick the best available strategy with the resources Rummy gives and bring home as many of your troops in one piece as possible.
    
    The only thing that would break the cycle is if 4 or 5 top generals broke ranks at the same time and called bullshit on U.S. policy.

    by Hoya90 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:17:27 PM PDT

  •  In 1963

    Kennedy sent General Gavin (WWII Commander of the 82d ABN) and General McCaulife (WWII 18th ABN Corps, Relieved Macarthur in Korea) to Viet Nam to advise on the growing conflict. They returned, reported to the President and testified to congress that 1. There were no vital American strategic interests at stake in Viet Nam; 2. That the political situation included a corrupt military junta in the south and a popular nationalist government in the north and that the guerilla conflict in the south had overwhelming public support; 3. That the terrain was extremely difficult and that the US Army was neither trained nor equiped for it and 4. That the strategic implication of increasing the American effort was a decent into quagmire. The dissenting voice in the government was Robert McNamara, fresh from General Motors and eager to prove his pet theories about warfare. (Reminiscent of Shinseki and Rumsfield)  

    by johnmorris on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:01:14 PM PDT

    •  nicely put

      thank you for the history lesson.

      by Tomtech on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:26:00 PM PDT

    •  And 10 years later we finally started to wind it

      down. More like we'll be in the Middle East for a couple of decades. There just is no end to the madness when idiots lead sheep (well, 51% are sheep anyway). - K

      by kostya on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:09:45 PM PDT

      •  not sheep

        unless you know of any carnivorous, blindly aggressive, jesusfreak sheep. maybe more like idiots leading hypnotized crocodiles. Jesus freak crocodiles.

        by naderhader on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

    •  Do you know if Sam Walton ever said,

      "If I don't pay a man enough to shop anywhere else, he'll shop at my store"?

      by Mogolori on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:43:13 PM PDT

      •  I doubt

        he's that eloquent.

        by johnmorris on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:45:31 PM PDT

        •  I'm going to go out and buy some ethanol

          Let's get the petroleum lobby out of our foreign policy.

          Heck, any business lobby: fruit and sugar in Central and South America. Was Vietnam purely ideological?

          by youpsy on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:17:38 AM PDT

          •  In 1957

            Eisenhower was asked by a reporter why there were American troops in Viet Nam; He answered "Tin, Tungsten, Manganese and Rubber." You can look it up.

            by johnmorris on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:25:40 PM PDT

•  the foreign press

  # Start reading the Financial Times of London and Israeli daily Haaretz to get your news about what is really going on in the Middle East.

  These and the Times (UK) and other non-American media outlets have been invaulable, and will continue to be so. It's hard, however, to get news when the lockdown is so complete (i.e. Iraq) even for these sources.

  by DemFromCT on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:51:10 PM PDT

  •  The Times

    a Murdoch paper, considered in the UK to be right of centre and very "establishment", but not as right as the Telegraph.

    by BemusedBrit on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:07:06 PM PDT

    •  The FT Is A Murdoch Paper?

      Only if Pearson PLC sold it to him in the last few minutes...

      by Irfo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:51:23 PM PDT

      •  The Thunderer

        I meant the Times as opposed to the Financial Times, which is what I thought DemfromCT meant.

        by BemusedBrit on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:14:10 PM PDT

        •  Ah...

          It's a bit pear-shaped, but I do think the references are to the FT.

          by Irfo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:26:27 PM PDT

        •  that's what I meant n/t

          Times and FT are two very different papers.

          by DemFromCT on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:26:54 PM PDT

          •  Don't read the Times

            it is a Murdoch paper, The Guardian and The Independent are much better, even the Daily Torygraph is better than that Murdoch rubbish.

            Read the english version of Le Monde Diplomatique if you want excellent international left-leaning  analysis.  There are many under-known American writers there too, I discovered Juan Cole in there in back in the Spring of 2003, way before he became will known in the blogesphere.

            by SoLeft on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:22:44 AM PDT

            •  there's no such thing as "don't read"

              I go to free republic, too, just with caution.

              by DemFromCT on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

              •  Fair enough-good point

                I go to the Belmont Club sometimes myself.  It actually makes my arguments so much stronger knowing how the wingnuts are thinking and then ripping them to shreds using their own logic--or even better--by attacking them from the right.  They just really don't know how to react when that happens.

                by SoLeft on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:26:28 PM PDT

    •  right of center access sometimes leads to

      interesting stories... Bronwyn Maddox's foreign affairs diaries are often of interest as well.

      by DemFromCT on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:57:10 PM PDT

  •  British Newspapers

    The Guardian is your best choice, and its website is one off the most-visited in the world. Also, the BBC News website, which is independent.

    by JohnUK on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:02:37 PM PDT

    •  Independent Political Views

      I hear the Village Voice does a nice job of covering the White House in a non-partisan way.

      by MrSmith on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:31:36 PM PDT

•  Thanks for this

  I always love to hear what Hersh has to say.  I wish there was a video of this time.  If you haven't seen Hersh's visit to Berkley, you can see it here.  Just click on view webcast.  It's worth watching the whole thing.

  by chi mai on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:52:46 PM PDT

•  tv interview

  
  I remember seeing him interviewed on tv, prior to the election and whoever was interviewing him posed the "what if" Bush wins question....and
  he shook his head and didn't even want to consider it.  I've been wondering what his reaction has been.

  by lrhoke on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:07:35 PM PDT

  •  I feel the same way about Hersch

    I love an opportunity to hear him speak. The tv interview you're talking about was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. THAT was scary what he said at the end about a Bush win.

    Here is the link to a page that has that clip -- just click on the picture of Seymore Hersch.
    

    by pixella on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:45:02 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      Thanks for the info and link!
      I've been so oversaturated with
      various media, I can't remember
      where I've seen anything.

      by lrhoke on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:04:40 PM PDT

    •  I don't have cable

      What did he say about a Bush win?

      by Darth Cheney on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:28:03 PM PDT

      •  Just click on

        this orange type right here

        and then click on the picture of Seymour Hersch. You don't need cable, you can see it right on your computer.

        And you have to see it. You wouldn't get the feeling he leaves you with if I tried to describe it. It's chilling.

        by pixella on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:12:12 AM PDT

•  bombs and money

  When I heard Hersh talk about the large number of bombs being dropped, my first thought was $$ -- what company is making a lot of money selling the US those bombs?  Could they be dropped at a higher rate than necessary so the US has to buy even more?

  Same track of thinking applies to all the war expenses, but for some reason when I heard him talk about the bombs, it seemed he was almost implying that he knew they were being dropped more than was "useful" for military purposes.

  by avoter on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:33:41 PM PDT

  •  bombs

    i think hersh's point is that we're relying more on aerial strikes to limit our gradual losses on the ground to the insurgency. the escalation of bombing, then, becomes not only a cause for the insurgency's strength as it brings the war home to iraqi bystanders, piling outrage upon outrage, but also that it stands as an indicator that we're losing the war.

    anyone wanna bet that this thing ends with the green zone getting cut off from the baghdad airport? the trends are unsettling.

    by wu ming on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:45:58 PM PDT

    •  Cluster bombs = Civilian Massacre

      From Human Rights Watch 2004 report

      War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

      Compliance with Humanitarian Law

      As Human Rights Watch reported in detail in its December 2003 report on the war, U.S. efforts to bomb leadership targets were an abysmal failure. The 0-for-50 record reflected a targeting method that bordered on indiscriminate, allowing bombs to be dropped on the basis of evidence suggesting little more than that the leader was somewhere in a community. Substantial civilian casualties were the predictable result.

      U.S. ground forces, particularly the Army, also used cluster munitions near populated areas, with predictable loss of civilian life.

      After roughly a quarter of the civilian deaths in the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia were caused by the use of cluster bombs in populated areas, the U.S. Air Force substantially curtailed the practice.

      But the U.S. Army apparently never absorbed this lesson In responding to Iraqi attacks as they advanced through Iraq, Army troops regularly used cluster munitions in populated areas, causing substantial loss of life. Such disregard for civilian life is incompatible with a genuinely humanitarian intervention

      http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

      by lawnorder on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:56:31 PM PDT

  •  if you think you will be moving american

    troops into an area where roads have been mined and the troops will have to go door to door to buildings that have been booby-trapped as well as face snipers in tight quarters, then you are back to carpet bombing ahead of sending troops in. or you let the american casualties mount among troops you are not in a position to replace and face growing domestic criticism over the rising casualty numbers.

    ghwbush supposedly did not push on to baghdad after forcing iraqi forces out of kuwait because powell convinced him that iraqi casualties alone would clear 100,000. but w is determined to not make the same mistakes as daddy. i never heard that powell made any predictions about possible numbers of american casualties. maybe, though, he said then what shinseki said - you need at least 300,000 troops to hold iraq - and that was before bush let the insurgents make heavy inroads.

    by yankeedoodler on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:09:32 PM PDT

  •  one would be...

    Raytheon.  You'd be kinda freaked to know how understaffed their security is at their plants here in Texas.

    by voltayre on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:28:34 PM PDT

•  hersh

  if anybody's looking for something good to read, i strongly recommend sy hersh's chain of command: from 9/11 to abu ghraib. really, really upsetting stuff to know, but it makes the news start to make a whole lot more sense. we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what this administration has done in our name.

  by wu ming on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:42:01 PM PDT

•  Abu Ghraib

  Months ago Hersch said that boys were raped by soldiers at Abu Ghraib in front of their Iraqi mothers and that that info would come out before the election, but it didn't.  (I didn't read his book--maybe it's in there.)  I was hoping that would cook Bush, and then there wasn't anything.

  Anybody know what happened?

  P.S.  The sky over Austin TX right now (5:47 pm, central) is a deep violet--resembling recent election maps.

  by legadillo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:42:26 PM PDT

  •  Naked pics as sexual co-optation

    Hersh mentioned this in his talk as a genuine tactic of those military intelligence officers doing the interrogating, which then got out-of-hand when the MP unit guarding Abu Ghraib did it over and over again, night after night.

    What Hersh was saying is that the naked torture pics were taken and then the captives were told, "We're going to release you back into your neighborhoods, and if you don't tell us who the insurgents are and where their weapons are hidden, we'll make sure these pics are distributed to your family and posted all around your neighborhood."

    In the Muslim culture, the sexual degradation of the type pictured in the Abu Ghraib photos is unspeakable, so the "good guys" were wanting to use that as leverage. Disgusting on its face, and it certainly seems to have backfired...

    by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:56:42 PM PDT

    •  No legs

      I saw Hersh talk about it in a speech he gave last summer, I think it was, and I don't remember where he was speaking, but he sounded like the story was going to break huge in the next few weeks and turn the election around, and then... nothing.  And I was looking for it, too.  I thought maybe he decided not to release the info for some reason. Or did the media ignore it or bury it under the scandal avalanche?

      by legadillo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:08:54 PM PDT

      •  I agree...

        ...save for the court martials of the 7 or 8 asshat MPs pictured, the whole Abu Ghraib scandal seems to have gone down the Memory Hole. So much for the SCLM...

        by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:22:31 PM PDT

        •  Our Torture Lawyer-In-Chief's

          nomination to be Attorney General will likely present opportunities for Leahy, Kennedy, Biden and others to raise Abu Ghraib..They've promised they will.

          by willyr on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:34:01 PM PDT

        •  I fault Hersch in one aspect...

          I heard him say in a speech, "the worst is the sound of the boys screaming"

          THen on Terri Gross he said that the New Yorker decided there was only so much humiliation that Arab manhood could take, thus the decision not to publish the worst of it.  

          Fuck, publish it all.  Maybe the rapes of Iraqi boys will get their attention.

          Then again, maybe not.
          

          by daveriegel on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:58:30 PM PDT

          •  Yeah

            that's the speech I'm talking about.  I figured it was probably something like that--just so awful nobody would touch it.  

            by legadillo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:46:14 PM PDT

            •  he made those allegations

              when I heard him in July at the ACLU activists conference

              by Windy on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:36:08 PM PDT

      •  a picture is worth a thousand words

        It did come out, but there was barely a ripple in response.

        I think the reason it didn't make the same kind of splash as the original story is that there were no pictures.  Well, there was supposedly videotape, but it was so horrible that they couldn't show it.  No pics is no story, these days.  (Does anyone believe that Abu Ghraib would ever have seen the light of day if there weren't any photos?)

        The only way the child sodomy story will be news is if the video is leaked to the Internet.  

        by randym77 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:50:38 PM PDT

        •  I think this is 100% right

          Would watergate have been a scandal at all today?

          Aside from the issue that plenty of people wouldn't care about that even if it was accepted as fact (see bugging the UN and hacking the Demo computers) without video of the burglers the whole thing would have been deflated in ways we have seen so often recently.

          Fox: 'Some people say that these men were actually paid by the Democrats to make the President look bad, other say the whole thing never happened.  Fiction invented by pot smoking hippies.'

          Whitehouse: 'LSD tab found in close proximity to water faucet in Iraq today.  Amid fears that <shrill>your water supply is at risk</shrill> the terror alert has been raised to ultraviolet'

          CNN: 'Democrats have signed witness testimony of criminal activities, but on the other hand the Republicans have a compelling nyah-nyah-nyah argument'

          Freep: 'I was able to make exact (if you squint your eyes and look at it funny) copies of this evidence using only tools in my liberal-fighting wingnut cave.  This proves the watergate affair is a plot to discredit the President!'

          RWR: 'These far left whackos expect us to believe they wouldn't do the same thing?  We should be thanking God that the President cares enough about this great country to go the extra mile to keep us safe in this time of trouble and the Democrats need to stop focusing on their hatred of Him and start trying to help honest American folk like you and me (a pill popping, millionaire bigot)'

          End result?  The electorate do like they always do and throw their hands in the air.  Tired from all the hard thinking they go back to whatever they do and ignore the issue, stirring only to get angry at those who insist on bringing it up again.

          by Eric in Dublin on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:41:15 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't have changed the outcome

    of the 2004 presidential election if there was irrefutable proof that the US renegades were using live Iraqi babies as cricket bats. Once the denizens of the Religious Reich swallowed the Kool-Aid, there was no turning back for them, no matter what BushCo did.

    by jayatRI on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:16:30 PM PDT

  •  It Did Come Out (Kind Of)

    Remember when Congressmen were treated to a two-hour viewing session of some of the photographs and videos that never made it to the public? Some of the people in that viewing session have said that they saw "what appeared to be the preparation for sodomy" or something of that nature. No description about it happening in front of the mother, but it's pretty clear that when you take away the spin, it's basically "a picture of a US soldier in the process of sodomizing an Iraqi prisoner." I'm sure you can find the Congressman's words on Google.

    Actually, I just did.

    Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., had a similar reaction. He said in one photo, which showed 'troops that are in a hallway (in Abu Ghraib), where you've seen the clump of people tied together on the floor, we counted seven or eight troops. ... Now, you can't tell me that all of this was going on with seven or eight Army privates. And so the question is: How far up the chain of command did these orders (go)?'

    Asked of reports that a video showed an inmate being sodomized with a broomstick, Nelson said, 'You could not say that there was actually the act of sodomy, but it appears that that may be the preparation for it.'

    Not sick yet?

    Scores of legislators viewed unreleased photos and videos yesterday of Iraqi detainees being sexually humiliated, physically threatened, bleeding and naked. The images, which included Iraqi corpses, U.S. troops having sex with each other, and previously undisclosed videos of at least one inmate ramming his head into a wall, persuaded some legislators that the number of Americans who violated military protocol is larger than previously thought.

    The private screenings arranged by the Pentagon -- one for senators, one for House members -- surely ranked among Congress' more bizarre scenes. House members silently crammed into a standing-room-only committee room as hundreds of images, some described as pornographic, flashed on a screen for a few seconds each. Those emerging from that session, and from a less-crowded Senate room, seemed almost at a loss for words.

    'What we saw is appalling,' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

    'I saw cruel, sadistic torture,' said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Reuters: 'There were some awful scenes. It felt like you were descending into one of the wings of hell, and sadly it was our own creation.'

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described the experience as numbing. Though the room was crowded, he said, 'You could hear a pin drop.'

    Not everyone reacted the same way to the additional photos.

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he thought 'some people are overreacting.'

    'The people who are against the war are using this to their political ends,' he said.

    Even Bill Frist could stop politicizing, but good ol' Tom DeLay watched American soldiers torture Iraqis and still thought to himself, "Hmm... how can I spin this to minimize the damage? I am a horrible monster, and I lust for death."

    OK, maybe he didn't actually think that last sentence.

    by Juppon Gatana on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:24:59 PM PDT

    •  DeLay

      He doesn't have to think the words; the monster lobe in his brain (a growth in reaction to pesticides--not everybody has one) acts automatically.  

      by legadillo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:41:10 PM PDT

    •  thanks a lot Durbin

      My own Senator is covering this up. If he would have opened his mouth before the election Abu Graihb would have become "gay marriage" of the GOP. Instead, he like Gore, shut up for the good of the country.

      Even ignoring electoral politics, Durbin's job is to inform the electorate of any important issues.  Durbin and other Democratic senators could have put their "reputations" on the line and gone after this, but they didn't.

      And people wonder why the Democrats can't win anymore seats.  They keep tripping over the gems handed to them.  They keep trying to be republican-lite in so many ways.  Its like they're trying to lose.  For all the things wrong with the GOP there are ten times as many things wrong with the Democrats.  They could have been the opposition party.  Oh well, now here we are. I hope future liberal politicians learn from these mistakes.

      by skallas on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:56:12 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, I Think You're Mistaken

        That is, you're mistaken if you think that Durbin kept his mouth shut until after the election. I quoted this from an article published by the AP in May 2004.

        If you wanted him to speak out about it in detail before the election, then I apologize; I misunderstood you.

        by Juppon Gatana on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 11:08:47 PM PDT

    •  The key point is not Abu Gharib itself

      Here's the left-versus-right tipping point:

      And so the question is: 'How far up the chain of command did these orders (go)?'

      The righties think this is the to-be-expected behavior of soldiers under stress.

      by youpsy on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:26:17 AM PDT

  •  what happened

    was Kitty Kelly's book came out the same week as Hersch's.guess who got more press?

    by Miss Devore on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:37:27 PM PDT

•  Hersh is an American hero

  for everything he had done since the mid sixties.

  President Dean (ok, James, President Feingold) will nominate him for a Medal of Freedom. He deserves at least that for his commitment to honesty in government.

  by willyr on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately, I think he's wrong

  about Gonzalez not being confirmed.  Surprisingly, he's still operating under the assumption that the Repug Congres will differ with King Shrub on anything.  They won't.

  by princemyshkin on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

  •  We all have to remember

    that black is white, up is down, and (most imortantly) bitter is sweet.

    by jayatRI on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:18:15 PM PDT

    •  and don't forget...

      that people who believe in social services, freedom of belief and speech, respect for the earth and the people and animals who inhabit it, and the rights of all people to live and love how and who they want are all immoral, evil, jesus-hating sinners.

      by princemyshkin on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:27:19 PM PDT

  •  Abortion

    Gonzales disagrees with the Religious Fuckwits on abortion in many important ways, and this could lead to them demanding his head before confirmation.

    by maxomai on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:21:28 AM PDT

•  SEYMOUR HERSH IS JESUS

  Really, I respect him so much for everything he does. If you want to see something really cool, check out the video of his lecture at Berkeley like a month ago:

  http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml

  Really, it's a great lecture.

  by Juppon Gatana on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:07:53 PM PDT

  •  That article from UC-Berkeley...

    ...media relations is great. It's hard to imagine Hersh having a stump speech because he rambles and free associates so much, but the write-up from UC-Berkeley media relations could have been a cut-and-paste to a write-up for last night's presentation.

    Keep talking, Mr. Hersh...the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

    by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:25:13 PM PDT

    •  Martin Luther King, eh?

      "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

      :)

      by Juppon Gatana on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:34:30 PM PDT

      •  Yup, you know it...

        ...we need more badasses like Dr. King speaking truth to power (a phrase John Kerry co-opted from bell hooks--or was it Audre Lorde--and not entirely inappropriately, I might add)

        by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:40:56 PM PDT

•  Another Embarrassment for Gonzalez

  Go back to the Atlantic Monthly's July-Aug 2003 issue for an article by Alan Berlow entitled "The Texas Clemency Memos."

  It details the case presentations Alberto Gonzalez presented for Gov. George W. Bush in 57 death penalty cases, for his review for last-minute clemency appeals.  Bush granted none, of course.  But the presentations Gonzalez made were full of omissions of pertinent grounds for clemency, and even of very reasonable grounds for claims of innocence.  Berlow documents the cursory discussions the two had, and recounts some hair-raising instances of injustice leading to some of these executions.

  One senator reading this article and bringing up some questions might not stop Gonzalez' approval, but would mightily embarrass both Bush and Gonzalez.  It might be enough, in addition to the Abu Ghraib misadvice, to raise reasonable grounds of doubt about his ability to perform in high office.

  by Dallasdoc on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:10:14 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, Dallasdoc

    I was trying to remember today where I had read about those memos. Couldn't find it on Salon.com. I agree that this is not the kind of whack job we need as AG. And he definitely won't be appointing any Special Investigators into the mounting number of scandals of this MisAdministration...

    BTW, my sister is a dentist in Dallas. Are you my sister?

    by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:19:39 PM PDT

    •  I'm Nobody's Sister....

      But thanks for the appreciation.

      It's funny, is it not, that Bush is appointing his long-time personal lawyer as AG?  Could it possibly be that he's a little concerned about scandals in his second term?  Valerie Plame, Halliburton, and whatever got Don Evans to skedaddle home are the tip of the iceberg, no doubt.  

      I too wouldn't be expecting much energetic investigation of Bush administration dirty laundry from an AG Gonzalez.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:27:01 PM PDT

      •  twisted

        Who  better to not prosecute than your defense attorney?

        by nholshouser on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:06:08 PM PDT

  •  Right,

    we already have mountains of evidence sufficient to convince even a moron of Bush's inability to perform in high office or in ANY office, for that matter.

    by jayatRI on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:21:05 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this ...

    ...lovely to know that our soon-to-be AG is not only willing to jettison the Geneva Accords but to omit evidence that might - with a reasonable governor - lead to clemency in cases where the power the state takes is at its most heavy-handed: execution. Perfect way to cut short our cheers for Ashcroft's departures.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:34:45 PM PDT

  •  Bush has no shame

    bringing up some questions might not stop Gonzalez' approval, but would mightily embarrass both Bush and Gonzalez.

    You seem to think Bush has a sense of shame.
    

    by DavidW in SF on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:51:18 PM PDT

    •  Shame Is Not Embarrassment

      A subtle but vital distinction here.  

      Embarrassment is discomfort at others' opinions of you, a tactical consideration for any politician.

      Shame comes from failing to live up to personal standard of morality.  One would think a noisy Christian like Bush might be susceptible to shame, but I agree with you he shows no evidence of it.  Yet another demonstration of his false religiosity....

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:22:05 PM PDT

•  Martin Wolf(f) of FT, David Ignitatius (NYT?)

  Two guys I really favor.

  William Lind over on sftt.org.  Fucking frightening as a cultural conservative, but dig his analysis on things military.

  by seriously blown cue on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:26:49 PM PDT

  •  ignatius writes for the Wa Po

    Tues and Fri.

    by DemFromCT on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:28:54 PM PDT

•  Will we ever learn?

  Twenty years ago as a college student I ate breakfast with Seymour Hersh and he inscribed my copy of "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House." This is what he wrote:

  "There may be no truth, but there always will be history. May we learn ...."

  Seems the same history keeps playing out before us. But I can't see that we've learned much.

  by Appalled on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:32:57 PM PDT

•  Brilliant Diary

  Thank you for sharing it with us.  

  I am much more skeptical than Hersch about the Gonzalez confirmation.  If I am not mistaken there is a Republican majority on the Senate committees and the Senate.  I'm not sure but I think I am right about that.  I have tried to block last Tuesday from my memory but the number 55-45 comes to mind. (Forgive the sarcasm)

  These guys would nominate Gonzalez if he tortured the pope in broad daylight while jumping up and down on a picture of Mother Theresa.

  And if any CURRENT general testifies against him in the Senate I will post a picture of my naked ass on a diary.  

  And given the comments of Chuck Schumer today I am not even very confident that there will be a vocal opposition by the guys that are supposed to be on our side.  
  

  by daveriegel on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:52:18 PM PDT

  •  The only chance...

    ...in my opinion is for it to become too much political capital for the Republicans to spend for Bush.  Each and every one of the creeps that vote for Gonzales is voting for a real life war criminal. And, what's more important is that they will be politically hobbled by their acquiescence.

    So I'd say the strategy should be to call the conservatives weaklings, no pussies, for not having the power, no balls, to even stop a torturer from becoming Attorney General. Who's in charge here? Ten guys in the White House, or the Republicans? (...and then they came for you. ...how up to date is you loyalty oath?)  Bait these bastards. They certainly do it to us enough.

    by MediaFreeze on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:22:08 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    that it is likely that he will be confirmed.  I mean, if we couldn't convince Congress to deny Ashcroft....  Also, don't forget that Rumsfield and co. got off scott free for approving the use of torture.  Too much of the populace has been brainwashed into thinking that our inhumane and completely unacceptable treatment of prisoners IS acceptable, because it's all part of the "war on terror".

    We've all got to turn up the heat on Congress, write LTEs, do whatever we can to shed light on just what this guy is made of.  Wasn't he counsel to Enron as well?  

    by noconi on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:40:21 PM PDT

  •  I hope...

    ...that at least one DEM Senator has the cohones to take on Gonzales, ask him some tough questions on the torture memo.

    It may not be enough to stop Gonzales, but it will keep this issue alive and linked with Abu Graib. Anything to slow down the Bush express. Anything to keep Rove's beady little brain working on how to handle this instead of, say, screwing social security.

    Yes, let them spend political capital. And maybe some DEM senator can make a name for himself.

    by mecki on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:26 AM PDT

•  Funny thing about Gonzalez...

  Being appointed AG won't prevent Gonzalez from defending Bush should the need arise (say, revelation of impeachable offenses/criminal activities...hope hope), but it will serve to doubly-indemnify him against being forced to testify - against his client Dubya, before any committees investigating any more abuses...what have you.

  On one hand, he can claim attorney/client privelege; on the other, he can claim exemption on the basis of being a cabinet member & on national security grounds. So...anything Gonzalez knows is sure to be locked up tight.

  by RabidNation on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:18:38 PM PDT

•  Rationale for the Abu Ghraib Depravity

  Quotes from the Berkeley Speech:

  again, from
  http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml

  Had to post this. I'm listening again to the Seymour Hersh Berkeley appearance and was stunned by this revelation. And lately I'm a bit more unstunnable than that.

  But as we all know, Abu Ghraib is unprecedented.

  "Where does the sex come from?

  Let me assure you that a few Reservists know nothing about the sense of shame in Arab society. We operate on guilt, they operate on shame. And so the idea of photographic an Arab man, and having him simulate homosexual activity, and having an American GI (a woman) is the 'end of society' , the 'end of life' for them.
  It's the equivalent of an Arab woman having sex before marriage (it's their societal norms).

  This is the team. And Rove is involved. They're directly involved. How am I getting it? I'm getting from people directly involved. Can I name them? Do I dare? No.

  And so the team is brought in. We're really scared

  The Israelis have done it too. You get photographs of these people in the prison population (the large majority of which we know has very little to do with the insurgency), and you say to [these] young me, "We're gonna give you these pictures. We want you to go home, find the insurgency, and start telling us about what's in it or else we're going to start telling, showing them around to every schoolmate, etc.

  That was the idea. That was the underlying principle, which wasn't irrational. I mean, that's the way it is. It got out of hand very quickly. This started in Sept, Oct ('03) Rumsfeld brought them in. And don't forget, the President signed off on this."

  by Mickazoid on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Not really rational

    You get photographs of these people . . . and you say ". . . We want you to go home, find the insurgency, and start telling us about what's in it or else we're going to start telling, showing them around . . .  That was the underlying principle, which wasn't irrational. . . .  It got out of hand very quickly.

    
    

    But the very moment it "got out of hand" it became irrational.  The whole idea that this sort of "recruitment" depends upon is that it does not become general knowledge that such tricks are in the bag.  Once that fact is out, it becomes just another form of torture and any dirty photos just prove that you stood up to the evil ones.  The amateurs  broke the CIA's secret anti-Arab weapon.  I bet they were mad.
    
    Part of the story that Seymour Hersh picked up was that the real CIA deep cover anti-terror people freaked out when they saw that green troops and civilian contractors were using these sorts of thing on anyone they could get their hands on.  Those people ran as fast as they could when they saw this, but for some reason they didn't, or couldn't, make sure it stopped. 
    
    I don't quite understand that part.  Perhaps the civilian contractors who were not really CIA were
    working for, and following the orders of, the Pentagon neocons who wanted to prove they could play the same exciting game that the black ops CIA types had been authorized to use in special cases.   Or perhaps the people they recruited as Pentagon civilian contractors were somehow given the idea that if they developed a resume of using hardball CIA tricks they could move up in the world of civilian intelligence. 

    by Fred in Vermont on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:33:49 PM PDT

    •  General Miller

      This was Rumsfeld's doing. He specifically sent General Miller to Gitmo to start doing evil CIA-style horrible things to the prisoners there: the ERF, the sexual torture, that kind of thing.

      Then, he sent Miller to Iraq to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.

      There is a clear paper trail on this whole thing, and it heads to the SecDef office.

      by goatchowder on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 11:59:32 PM PDT

      •  Right

        There is a clear paper trail on this whole thing, and it heads to the SecDef office.
        

        
        

        Agreed.

        by Fred in Vermont on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:27:59 AM PDT

  •  The Israelis

     would love for us to be as hated by Arabs as they are.

    by No Preference on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:30:11 AM PDT

    •  give it 2 years

      and they will get their wish

      by speranza on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:59:26 AM PDT

•  Good news sources

  
  

  
  
  • The press corps has totally turned into Bush bootlickers. Start reading the Financial Times of London and Israeli daily Haaretz to get your news about what is really going on in the Middle East.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Good advice.  Put these with your bookmarks

  
  

  FT.com / Home US

  
  

  Haaretz - English

  
  

  And I would also recommend

  
  

  Guardian Unlimited

  
  

  and

  
  

  Aljazeera.Net English - Home Page

  by Fred in Vermont on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:10:41 PM PDT

•  Kurdish Army

  It is Kurdish Army units fighting alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, not trained Iraqi Army troops, as the media has reported.

  That's a serious charge.  If that's true, it lays waste to the whole premise that the Iraqis are an integral part of this operation.  I'd read earlier today that the reaction to the Falluja operation is mixed throughout the Mideast, partly due to the supposed participation of the Iraqi soldiers.  But if these are in fact the our trusted allies the Kurds, I would imagine they would view this differently.

  Not to mention the fact that it's another lie, and he implies that the press is being compliant with it.

  by ckck94 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:41:20 PM PDT

  •  If true, we should push this story out

    I agree. This is major news, because it implies that the Bush administration is blatantly lying to the American public about what's going on in Falluja. If it came out, the counterargument would probably be something like "well Kurds are Iraqis too". But that would be such blatant spin that this is the kind of thing that could be latched on to by the media and short-attention span public.

    Does anybody here have any contacts in Falluja by any chance? Like family members in the Marines? Long shot I know ...

    by Loudocracy on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:53:01 PM PDT

    •  Check this out!

      From this diary about some eyewitness accounts from inside Falluja on the BBC site.

      I saw some Iraqi government soldiers on the ground earlier.  

       I don't know which part of the country these soldiers are from. They are definitely not from any of the western provinces such as al-Anbar.  

       I have heard people say they are from Kurdistan.

       

      Wow!

      by ckck94 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:03:02 PM PDT

      •  here it is

        some documentation of this

        by speranza on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:37:33 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for the posts

          They sound like nice guys.

          THERE'S MORE: Back to Iraq's Chris Allbritton reminds us that the 36th's "Kurdish members also have a reputation for brutality, and [for] shooting anyone in the field of fire. The Kurds don't mind killing a few civilian Arabs -- it's payback time."

          
          

          by ckck94 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:53:00 PM PDT

          •  No sweat

            Yeah, it doesn't sound like these guys are going to be winning many hearts and minds.

            by speranza on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:49:10 AM PDT

      •  Kurdish troops

        Historically, the Kurds have always been the hired guns of the Ottoman Empire.  (They were the forces used to carry out the Armenian Holocaust during WWI and earlier, in the 19th century under Sultan Abdul Hamid.) This is one of the reasons that they were both feared and hated by other Muslims.  Also, the fact that they are ethnically distinct from Arabs, and that their brand of Islam varied from the orthodox Sunni Islam made them the object of disdain. In fact the US and Israel are the only allies that the Kurds have in the whole region.  Therefore, it seems that they may have had little choice but to participate in the Falooja adventure.

        by Traleegal on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:28:14 AM PDT

    •  I have no personal knowledge

      but as I recall the only functioning battalion in the Iraqi army is the 36th - and most of the non-Kurdish members have deserted. Here's one mention - in the last paragraph.

      by speranza on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:33:31 PM PDT

    •  It's More

      Than just blatant disinformation (which it is) from the Bush Pentagon.

      It is setting the stage for all out civil war.  We have assaulted Fallujah with Arab help.  As it turns out, that's mostly a lie.  We have assaulted Fallujah with Kurdish help.

      There were already ethnic tentions galore between Arabs and Kurds.  Now we have a fresh, open wound.  I doubt it is a coincidence that Mosul, on the border of Kurdistan, has erupted with violence, or that the Kurdish capital seems like it is about to.

      These guys really could not be any more inept.

      by teece on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:03:34 AM PDT

•  Is there

    Is there any type of transcript or write-up of Hersh's lecture?  I'd love to be able to pull some quotes or have something to cite.

  by greylantern on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:43:00 PM PDT

  •  greylantern

    Sorry, I don't have a transcript. There were still photographers at the event, but no film crews, to my knowledge. The Berkeley site has some good quotes and a link to the video of his talk, which he gave a month ago. The Berkeley write-up might as well have been written about the talk last night; all the same points were made.

    by leftwingnut on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:50:29 PM PDT

    •  Great.

        Thanks for the link and the update.  I'll stick with the Berkeley write-up.  Again, thanks for posting this diary.

      by greylantern on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:17:02 PM PDT

•  Gonzales

  I keep thinking... the architect of Abu Ghraib...

  by chriscol on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:28:28 PM PDT

•  Ceded the moral high ground?

  I don't think america ever had any moral high ground, any more or less than most other nations. Chomsky would agree.

  But now we're digging a huge fucking hole.

  by CynicalBrit on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:30:01 PM PDT

  •  I think that's right

    Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, Our Constitution, Self Governance, Religous Freedom. I'm a true believer. They are sending them through the paper shredder. My heart is on the floor and I tremble with fear. I'm scared to death for my children. Has anyone noticed Russia/Iran comment?

    PLEASE, Our Founding Principles are the ONLY things that will keep us safe.

    God help us all.

    by yet another liberal on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:49:38 AM PDT

    </