Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush's Key Men Face Grilling on Torture and Death Squads
Former vice-president Dick Cheney could be forced to testify to Congress over allegations that a secret hit squad was set up on his orders, as Democrats press for inquiries into the conduct of the 'war on terror'.
America is bracing itself for a series of investigations that could see top officials from the administration of President George W Bush hauled in front of Congress, grilled by a special prosecutor and possibly facing criminal charges.
Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, has already been forced to appear before Congress and give testimony behind closed doors Several investigations will now cast a spotlight on Bush-era torture policy and a secret CIA assassination program, examining the role played by big names such as the former vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In one investigation into the controversial firing of federal prosecutors, Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, has already been forced to appear before Congress and give testimony behind closed doors. Another investigation, by the House of Representatives' intelligence committee, has already asked for documents from the CIA and has now announced that it will examine the legality of keeping a secret CIA hit squad hidden from Congress, something alleged to have been ordered by Cheney himself.
"I intend to make this investigation fair and thorough," said the committee's chairman, Texas congressman Silvestre Reyes late on Friday.
The moves reveal a long-awaited desire by elements of the Obama administration and Democrat-controlled Congress to examine alleged abuses of power by Bush officials. They also raise the prospect of a bitter political fight with Republicans, who are likely to portray any attempt to investigate leading Bushites as a witch-hunt.
The inquiries also seem to go against the wishes of some in the White House, including Barack Obama. The president has said he does not want to be distracted by the past and instead intends to focus on economic recovery and healthcare reform. "The White House is more in the mood for going forward on the issues, such as healthcare, by which they want to define their presidency," said Gary Schmitt, a former intelligence official under Ronald Reagan and a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
But Obama may not have too much say in what could be the most explosive investigation: one set to be launched by the attorney-general, Eric Holder. Holder is mulling whether to appoint a special prosecutor to examine CIA activities since 2001, focusing on the use of torture in interrogation of terror suspects. Any such prosecutor could have the power to bring criminal charges.
Obama has made clear that the final decision is Holder's alone and news reports last week indicated that Holder was "leaning" towards making such a move. The prosecutor's mandate could be narrowly focused on minor officials or broadened to reach the top levels of Bush's cabinet.
Holder's decision will be influenced by the results of numerous reports on his desk. One, a survey on interrogation techniques, carried out by the CIA's inspector-general, is due to be made public at the end of this month. Holder spent two days reading the report and friends have said he was "shocked and saddened" by its contents.
Another report, to be released in the next two months, is being compiled about top officials in the Justice Department who drew up legal advice that justified the new interrogation techniques. That probe focuses on John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general and Jay Bybee, a federal judge.
Many insiders think public reaction to those two reports is likely to ensure that Holder eventually appoints a special prosecutor, similar to Kenneth Starr, who investigated Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. "I think it is likely that Holder will do that," said Larry Johnson, a former senior CIA official.
At the same time, other senior politicians in Congress are investigating the CIA's activities in the Bush era, especially allegations that it kept hidden a secret assassination squad aimed at top al-Qaida figures. The Senate could announce its own investigation alongside the House one already now going ahead. Both could subpoena officials, perhaps including Cheney.
One member of the House committee, New Jersey congressman Rush Holt, told his local newspaper that the inquiry should be as intense as the that of the committee which investigated Watergate. "I think any new investigation will produce revelations that are as jaw-dropping as those that were uncovered by the Church committee," Holt said.
These fresh investigations would add to some already under way. Rove is expected to be called again for further questioning later in the summer. Obama has ordered his national security officials to examine allegations that Bush officials resisted efforts to investigate a massacre of hundreds of Taliban prisoners in 2001 by an American-backed Afghan warlord. "I've asked my national security team ... to collect the facts for me that are known and we'll probably make a decision ... once we have all the facts," Obama said during his recent trip to Africa.
A series of hard-hitting investigations will be celebrated by many on the liberal wing of the Democratic party and human rights activists. "We have the right to be informed of our government's failed and egregious policies. Our recent history has taught us that the rule of law is meaningless if left unenforced," said Michael Macleod-Ball, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
However, there could also be a political price. Many former intelligence officials are furious that the CIA is being dragged into politics. "It is pure politics. It is just crazy," said Johnson.
Others say protracted investigations will sap Obama's political capital at a time when he faces a difficult battle over healthcare reform. Indeed, some conservatives might relish the prospect of rehashing old debates over anti-terror tactics. Cheney himself, who led a secretive life in office, has been a happily public voice defending Bush policy since he left office and he has strong support from the conservative media.
One parallel might be the Iran-Contra hearings of the 1980s, when a secret plan to ship arms to Iran to raise money for Nicaraguan rebels made Colonel Oliver North - who helped craft the scheme - a patriotic folk hero. "Republicans will be happy if Democrats want to go down this road. They are happy to have a debate about national security. You could easily see someone have another 'Oliver North moment'," said Schmitt.
32 Comments so far
Show AllThe extreme rightwingnuts will go to any extremes to deny their corruption, war crimes, National crimes, lying and total destruction of this Country. They rehash old deeds over and over.Congress should pass a law to make being a republican a crime. What has any repug administration did for this Country except bring it down to a third world level? They need to try to straighten up their party. Yet the only thing they have to say is the past about Democrats. My goodness lets talk about their past.
My newly elected Democratic Congressman has already responded to my demand that we investigate the Bush Administration by saying that we need to "move forward." I'm so tired of hearing that excuse. Move forward on behalf of whom? They certainly aren't planning health care reform to benefit their constituents, or creating jobs.
"We have the right to be informed of our government's failed and egregious policies. Our recent history has taught us that the rule of law is meaningless if left unenforced," said Michael Macleod-Ball, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
More likely than not any investigation of Bush admin. will be behind closed doors, if the CIA is even brought into the conversation.
"Karl Rove, has already been forced to appear before Congress and give testimony behind closed doors." And why is that in a democracy? Guess we lost that. Our leaders could not even investigate the lint in their own belly buttons. Have they been sleeping the last 9years?
"The president has said he does not want to be distracted by the past and instead intends to focus on economic recovery and healthcare reform.Others say protracted investigations will sap Obama's political capital at a time when he faces a difficult battle over healthcare reform." Of course, while corporations demand their employees to do more multi-tasking, our leaders are afraid to chew gum while picking their nose for fear of loosing an eye.
"intelligence officials are furious that the CIA is being dragged into politics." Oh sorry CIA but this is a criminal investigation it is not political.It's about finding out who broke the law. Show me the law that allows murder of anyone.
Cheney was on the attack on every idiot airwave recently, assailing and assaulting all things white house.
If he'd kept his mouth shut, he mighta been let be.
Personally, I figured they'd wait a little longer before setting the investigations in motion. They'll be timed for the most horrifying fireworks during elections.
After obombus's duplicity, lying, fakery, it's mildy nice to see the creepy dems do something right. maybe.
If Holder does appoint a prosecutor, what about GG? He's a constitutional lawyer....That might be worth getting tv for.
When will someone go to prison? Maximum security prison.
When King Kong ain't a monkey, and James Brown ain't funky.
Where this is all going to hit a snag is the fact that many very powerful "Democrats" were complicit in this up to their eyeballs. I'm sure they have ways of blocking or diluting anything that might come back to bite them.
One way might be to appoint a special investigator like Starr, a narrow minded political fanatic with an agenda instead of a search for truth. That could wind up defusing the entire issue, along with spending enormous amounts of money for nothing.
When countless legal scholars and many people of the rank and file have put together rock solid articles of impeachment over the last five years or more, they are routinely tabled by the same ones who backed this madness and supported Cheney/Bush.
Anyone with a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights before them, along with a copy of the mis-named Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the various orders to end habeas corpus, ending Posse Comitatus and allowing American troops to act in the continental United States, could put together a rock solid bill of indictment. The list is endless and enough to bring in a Grand Jury indictment on most of the last administration and many of the current.
Do you actually think the powers that be are going to let the cat out of the bag at this stage of the game? It is going to be fog, smoke and mirrors with the propaganda media beating Goebbel's drum until it finally burns out in the shadow of another scandal or death of another celebrity to take the sheeple's mind off the things that really matter.
This has gone on for so long, but still, nobody wakes up!
It's gone on for long, but evidently longer than since 2000, that is, since the start of the Bush-Cheney administration. Assassination was part of the Clinton administration's programs, according to plenty of reputable analysts or writers. Jeremy Scahill is one of thoese writers and I believe he's had an article or two posted here at CD about this.
Some reputable analysts and/or writers also state that assassinations, covert, existed with the U.S. government for decades before the Clinton administration, and one historical example referred to is with the overthrow of the leader of Iran in 1953. If he wasn't assassinated, which I hadn't thought that he had been, having thought that he had only been otherthrown due to the ops of the CIA, then it evidently wasn't out of the question to assassinate him or arrange for it. And we can certainly look back to the 1960's, anyway.
Gongolese PM Patrice Lumumba was assassinated, although I'm not sure that the U.S. was actually involved in this, while Belgium and Canada, possibly also other western governments, were. Actually, I believe the CIA, U.S. was very much behind this assassination to never be forgotten; doing this for the west's mining corporations, given he wanted to protect the resources for the Congolese people to profit fairly from. U.S. and European mining corporations, both, would've avaricially wanted him out of the way and the despot they replaced him with has played the desired part; while Congolese people have been genocidally eliminated, some or many through death, others by being forced to migrate. Keith Harmon Snow has well explained what happened with the Pygmies, who were forced to leave their native area(s) to "make room" for the gluttonous corporations of the west, and this is for those who were not murdered, for some, if not many, were. He also wrote about the rest of the Congolese population(s), but I distinctly recall the part about the Pygmies; perhaps because I hadn't known they were in Congo, but also due to them having been people who lived quite remotely in jungle, wilderness, not traditionally being city dwellers, and not being really aggressive. Serious defenders, sure, but not really aggressive.
The U.S., however, was behind the assassination of President Allende, as well as assassinations or plans for them against other South American leaders the U.S. didn't like. The same apparently is also true of the or a former leader of Diego Garcia, according to what John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and his more recent book, "The Secret History of the American Empire". Others have surely also written or spoken about this U.S. or CIA-arranged assassination, but I viewed some videos with John Perkins last week and he refers to this history; in addition to saying that two or three times that he failed his EHM mission, the leaders he failed with were subsequently assassinated; and this is some decades ago.
And we have some former CIA agents and officers who worked internationally and speak of CIA assassination "projects". I think John Stockwell is one who explains that Operation Phoenix in Vietnam included assassinations. Covertly, we know.
The Presidents of the U.S. may possibly not have known about these activities, but then no one is saying that GW Bush knew, either. People are faulting Cheney. Yet Cheney was not starting a new U.S. secret policy.
And Obama's continuing the policy, one way or another. Is he a President who is aware, or unaware, of these ops? Maybe he's not aware of this; although, he should be. By now, today, no U.S. Presidential candidate should be unaware of the dark aspects of the government of the USA, nationally and internationally. So they certainly should not be unaware of the darkest (-of-the-dark) aspects.
If candidates don't know about this during their electoral campaigns to try to be elected to the U.S. presidency, Congress or Senate, then voters should question the worthiness of these candidates; for they're then unaware of some of the most critical aspects of the U.S. government, imo. After all, if they're less informed than many voters are, then the wrong people are running for political office. It's a guideline to vote by. Otherwise, voters only "beg" for more hell to happen under the watch(es) of their chosen representatives and themselves, or ourselves. And it's "sort of" dumb to ask someone to represent you when you're considerably more knowledgeable and competent! After all, once elected, they don't listen to you anymore, which means that during their campaigns, they probably did only feign listening. So why vote for such "candidates"?!
I already posted a link to a RawStory.com article about Col. Lawrence Wilkerson saying that the CIA has lied to the Congress many times, while the U.S. President got the blame. And doing a Web search a few minutes ago to find another copy of the video, like at Youtube, instead of using an embedded copy of the MSNBC video, I found one; while also learning or being reminded that Col. Wilkerson apparently also says that the U.S. has long had assassination ops.
The video is 8:39 for duration, and like Rachel Maddow begins by explaining, there was really nothing secret about the assassination program or ops that Cheney's being faulted for supposedly covering up. If it wasn't secret, which is something I agree with her and others about, then Cheney's not guilty of this non-existant cover-up. She's right, and, historically, more than right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0kf6z1gdEA
Correction:
Now that viewed the whole video, I learned that some people invalidly claim that Col. Wilkerson says or at all infers that the President is unaware of these ops. Au contraire, Col. Wilkerson says it's usually, "normally", the President who directs these assassination ops. So the question of whether or not Obama would know is evidently answered. He knows or more than knows. But he does conclude in saying that it's questionable if GW Bush knew about these assassination ops; saying that Cheney pretty much had control over this and other aspects of the GWoT, while Bush likely enough wouldn't have known.
He says assassination ops have been going on since 1947, or since at least then, and that it's not only the CIA, but also the Delta Force, f.e.
But there seems to likely enough be a flaw in what's said or reported in the video interview and it's that the U.S., under Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, or at least the latter two, supposedly sought to assassinate the Al Qa'ida leaders. For a contrasting view or consideration, view the documentary film, "9/11: Press for Truth", which is available at Google, and which provides some very important video footage of the U.S. having mismanaged the capture of Usama Bin Ladin and other Al Qa'ida leaders, possibly or probably also some of Bin Ladin's Saudi family members, along with some Taliban leaders, at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, ensurng their ability to flee to Pakistan, f.e. That part of the documentary begins around 50 minutes or so into the film, and the CIA field commander there became angry over this and did an exclusive with Newsweek in, I believe, August 2005, about the U.S. having [let] this escape happen; let, as in arranging for it to happen.
Others have also claimed that the U.S. arranged for Usama bin Ladin, et al, to not be capture. F.e., some French military unit has been reported as saying that they had UBL et al ... cornered, say, but Rumsfeld killed this capture; arranging for the non-capture. I'm not sure, but believe that there is a similar report about another NATO ally unit that could've performed the capture, but was obstructed by the ... Rumsfeld, I guess; someone in the Bush administration, anyway.
Nevertheless, Col. Wilkerson's right about assassinations being nothing new of the government of the USA, internationally. As for the President "normally" directing these ops, I don't recall having learned of this, before, but will grant him "benefit of doubt".
Otoh, if he's right about that, then this would probably mean that the U.S. Presidents when President Allende and other national leaders were assassinated guilty ... as hell; guilty of supreme international crimes. After all, the U.S. President directing assassinations of national leaders who are fair, or better, for their own countries and no threat, at all, to the U.S. or any other country, only being threats for U.S. corporate "interests", well, these assassinations are acts of war (of aggression).
After all, if the Presidents of the US are "normally" directing these ops, then this means "usually", and we can't say that when it's only a small number of the times these ops are carried out. "Normally" would mean "usually", that is, "most of the time". That then leaves the question of which cases or tmes the U.S. Presidents weren't aware of and/or directing these ops. President JFK obviously did not direct the assassination attempt against himself, and the same also applies with the failed assassination attempt against President Reagan. But did these two presidents direct assassination ops against other national leaders? What about Fidel Castro? I think to have read that President JFK called or tried to call that attempt off, but am not historian and am not fully sure of having read this. However, I think to have read that he at least tried to draw the U.S. back from aggressing Cuba's government leadership.
The U.S. got the leader of Iraq preceding Saddam Hussein assassinated. Even if he committed the act, or was one of the Iraqis used to achieve this assassination, the U.S., CIA, ... was behind this. Did the U.S. President know about this, did he direct it?
Again, Col. Wilkerson said that the U.S. President "normally" directs these ops. Is he telling the truth about that, and if he's truthful, then is he also right?
It's unwelcome, but nonetheless good and important to know that the U.S. Presidents for the past several decades are usually guilty of murders through assassinations, and therefore are war criminals of the "supreme" order. Nuremberg them!
I suppose it is about politics -- whether the political system here will be democratic and lawful, or a police state run by despots and nazis.
Is politics only OK when it's used to decide who will be federal prosecuters or appointed to head up agencies (non-nazies need not apply...).
Obama has no problem prosecuting eviornmentalists for five year old acts of vandalism under terrorism statues.
Isn't that a (sick) joke; very dark comedy, indeed. Nauseating.
I haven't yet read the following piece, but knowing the author regularly provides good and important articles, and having previously read about what this article is about some years ago, while it's since 2003, I'm prepared to provide this link.
"Obama Administration Targets Environmental and Animal Rights Activists as Eco-Terrorists",
by Stephen Lendman, June 5, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13857
Eco-terrorism; acting to try to protect the health of our natural environment, and to protect animals against human abuse? Dark ... is this treatment! It's not eco-terrorism, but eco-activism.
Well, okay, we could argue that politically and/or socio-economically motivated terrorists are also activists; but there's still a difference. The eco-"terrorists" don't aim to harm people. If anyone's ever injured or killed because of such activism, then it'd be rarely, very rarely, due to this being intentional; by far, it'd usually be unintended, accidental.
I don't know the whole story, but there was a small group of Canadians who committed some "eco-terrorism" ..., oh, I'd say over a decade ago, now. The spirited group blew up some (I think) petrol. exploration or exploitation infrastructure, and if it wasn't that, then maybe it was some mining operation, or maybe some electric utility stuff; but whatever the tech. was for, the action happened without anyone being harmed. Their act was, therefore, symbolic, not damaging; well, except that it cost the corporation owning the infrastructure a [little] money to restore this, so that the corporation (and its shareholders) could continue with their operation of greed and environmental harm.
Of course corporate "chiefs" and shareholders would surely prefer to not be environmentally harmful; but that's a secondary consideration, ... for [them]. "Heh, heh, heh. Get the money now, and worry about the consequences for the environment and human health ... [later] on (when it'll be too late, and so what, we don't care; well, besides caring for the material wealth we stand to gain, anyway!)". It's their attitude and it is terror, a crime, a serious crime against humanity, but political "leaders" don't care; except caring to provide profitable servitude to the corporate "elites" and their shareholders, "of course".
Terrorists? People who care about protecting the health of the natural environment we all depend on, as well as protecting innocent animals from human abuse? Wow. Do they define terrorism in this way in dictionaries, too; or is it only in politics, that is, government and corporate politics, and to therefore be kept "secret" from the rest of us?
Terrorism is an act of terrorising others, and protecting the environment and animal rights just does not fit this qualifier or attribute.
Cameiros
A little off subject,
I have a plan for the return of the abducted U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.
Trade him straight up for W.
After all this young man went off to fight Bush's war, he's a lot younger and will be more productive, or, at least, less destructive than W will ever be.
Come on George show us how you really feel about about these young men and women you sent off to fight your wars of choice...
Didn't Saddam challenge Bush to a duel when the Iraq thing was being talked about?
He is coward through and through. A soldiers life is worth next to nothing for the likes of the Shrubs and company. We are the ones who have to yell good and loud that "HELL NO WE WON'T GO" fight in your bloody wars. A Trade for Bush would be great and this message needs to be spread!
"Grilling" is a good first step, but unless followed by trial and incarceration, it is meaningless.
Barbeque and incineration maybe?
And a suitable sauce and proper garnishes are a must!
Presentation, people!
· Yr Obd't Servant
The US Congress is only playing a joke. A rude, crude belligerent joke and a mockery of justice.
The fact that torture, kidnapping and assassinations occurred, at the direction of the Bush administration is a known fact.
Unless the members of that administration are bound up for trial, and delivered to the International Court of Justice, where the full extent and most effective 'questioning' can be conducted. The entire procedure will be considered a joke to the world and the world does not have that kind of 'sense of humor'.
If for example it was widely known that the Bush administration members had held up the First Bank of some small town in the 'heart land' 'at gun point', after holding members staff as hostage, GW Bush and Dick Cheney as well as the others would be held for questioning---.
The fact that they are out now is a tribute to the high level of corruption that America as ascended. Or would that be descended?
Oh, do be careful America, you call fall, and hurt yourself.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
"America is bracing itself for a series of investigations that could see top officials from the administration of President George W Bush hauled in front of Congress, grilled by a special prosecutor and possibly facing criminal charges."
BS. No way. Not while Obama is carrying out the SAME programs.
In fact, Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller explicitly said, "As the attorney general has made clear, it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department."
And Obama has blocked every domestic and international attempt to prosecute the war criminals.
If Holder limits the investigation to small fry who went out of the bounds set by the war criminals it is useless, in fact he will be endorsing and legitimizing the architects.
This is all very well and good, but only if it leads eventually to an investigation of the worst crimes of the Bush gang, which laid the groundwork for all their subsequent crimes: the theft of the 2000 election and their role in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Nothing less will suffice, since the 9/11 attacks defined the political climate that enabled them to torture and make war.
To clovis July 19th, 2009 5:27 pm:
I second that!
One thing leads to another.
Many sharp and perceptive thoughts from minitrue, Abe Winken, Native Son and others.
The moral numbness, the deafening silence among the public about what happened and goes on, the unawareness of the monstrous nature and size of the US empire and its tentacles of devastation worldwide, the ever more precarious nature of the global ecosystem, . .readers here know and care about these matters. Yet it seems impossible to arouse substantial numbers to awareness let alone action, even among folks who read rather than TV numb their brains. Is it the endless circus of distractions the elite so successfully deploy? Has the corporate media brainwashed the majority to unquestioning belief? Or has a deep despair enveloped the land?
Well it has been a long time in development, the global US empire that is, building on vile ideas that go back to the founding like US exceptionalism--God's chosen people and all that used openly or covertly to justify almost any cruel and heinous act. And the sense of entitlement settled in people's brains that the rest of the world and ecosystem owes people here a standard of living.
But the 1960s antiwar movements had groups like Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam as a national network ready and willing to stand in critical moral judgment of the rulers and their acts. And many other denominational groups speaking and marching and protesting. And professional groups of attorneys, physicians, and academics organized in their academic specialities conducting teach-in events and speaking up and demanding that their local, regional and national organizations debate, argue, and take a stand. And the vigor and energy of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War speaking and acting from their direct experience transformed the antiwar effort in many ways. High school and college student groups were also very active. The groups often interwove and energized and helped each other. An enormous yeasty ferment that had the rulers off balance many times and, from later inside reports, for once they actually feared the people's movements as they saw that many had lost their fear of the rulers. So I keep wondering what it would take to re-ignite that kind of energy today and will it happen in time.
"So I keep wondering what it would take to re-ignite that kind of energy today and will it happen in time."
Hunger.
People were far more reverent of their leaders and obedient to authority during the third quarter of the 18th century. Horrible famine in france, crop failure in England and severe cold in the English colonies began a chain reaction. Hunger makes people very mean, aggressive and crazy.
People generally don't turn on authority unless they see doing nothing as suicide. They figure that if they are going to die anyway, they might as well go down in a blaze of glory. It's also maddening to watch your children and spouse suffer from hunger and disease while the elites live in luxury. Enough people do this and the authority topples and then a veritable wave of change comes in. The elites know this so they keep hunger in check. But who knows? The elites just may have made some fatal mistakes and good times are on the way (after the really ugly stuff).
This is another Obama political stunt for public consumption that will lead to nothing. Democrats were behind all of Bush's crimes, torture, illegal wars, theft of the treasury, etc. There's nothing Bush or Cheney should be worried about.
it seems indeed that this will also turn out to be part of what is now emerging as an "obama" pattern:
from campaign to presidency ...
say something, give an eloquent speech that SEEMS to uphold or aim for the highest ethics (packaged as "change"), and then the delivered product is watered-down, cut into smaller pieces that have no real consequence equal to the high rhetoric...and then things "move on" to more half-measures or even outright contradictions of the rhetoric that SEEMED to promise something.
Obama is emerging more and more to be Janus-faced - to different "constituencis" - or in different situations - or ON the SAME subjects...always talking from both sides of the mouth.
examples:
Visit to Russia:
"russia must move beyond the cold war" - except it's the USA that's provoking it BACK..
"Russia must RESPECT sovereignties" - except that it's the USA that continues to OCCUPY and try to dictate in irag and elsewhere AND in Russia's neighborhood..and elsewhere
" we come in the spirit of EQUALS " - except that there is to be no compromising the USA's "primacy" in the balkans or central asia or elsewhere..
On Health Care: "we must have true reform for all americans"...except Single Payer isn't allowed in discussions in Obama-sponsored conferences and dennis kucinich has to go to the constitution and Federal/states' rights issues to even INSERT any discussion like that...
On the Economy: "we are going to help the homeowners" except that FIRST the Bankers have to be allowed to ROB the homeowners SOME MORE
On the Stimulus: "we have to have a stimulus to get america working again"....except that Bankers are stimulated , corporations are stimulated - and workers STAY TUNED for crumbs
On the "new relationship with South America and Latin America" - except that HOnduras Rightwingers were SUPPOSEDLY called by the white house and state department to "call off the coup" WITHOUT informing the President-to-be couped...and CHIQUITA BANANA of ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER just happens to be displeased with the ousted president...just like old times...
and on TRANSPARENCY - "we must have transparency" - except that there are just so MANY STATE SECRETS BECAUSE OF NATIONAL SECURITY.....as if George Bush and Cheney NEVER left the white house and the vice-presidential Naval Residence....
the more things "change" the more they stay the same......as the old saying goes.
The CIA already has too much dirt on anyone that might be conducting such an investigation. Nothing will come of this. There will be some softball questions with pat answers accepted with no follow up questions to elicit detail. SEE: Warren Commission, 911 Commission.
"One parallel might be the Iran-Contra hearings of the 1980s, ..."
Right, and we all know what those hearings accomplished for nailing the true perps, GHWBush and Reagan.
Moving foreword makes sense... once the past has been reckoned with, which it most definitely has not... Ever. It all sounds good, but don't hold your breath.
This country has a bad habit of not fully investigating crimes against humanity. The CIA and the Executive branch as advised by the CFR and other nefarious groups have about one percent of the people in its scope of interest. Sorry, but that doesn’t include many, if any of the people who read and post at this site.
I suspect Obama’s primary interest in “moving on” and throwing accountability to the wind is because he would like his successors to do the same one day.
Holder needs to rise above President Obama and hold all of the people responsible for torture and any violation of our international treaties to complete investigations and criminal charges. But so far there seems to be a backwards way of thinking taking place. You would think the top people that thought up the illegal actions and those who did their bidding by writing up policies that were clearly illegal would be the ones facing justice, not the people made to carry out the cruelty. It's lucky for the CIA that they did know what they were told to do was torture and illegal or they would not have insisted the White House put it in writing and they would have had no cover at all. How about some respect for the FBI that said no to torture because it is illegal. What a concept.