Past Peak15 July 2004
On July 8, Seymour Hersh addressed the ACLU's 2004 Membership Conference.
I've transcribed Hersh's remarks below. It's a long talk, but I've added some headings and emphasized some things in bold, so you can scan through it if you don't wish to read the whole thing.
Introduction [1:07:40]… The truth is, it's so ironic… the best information we may get about this election may come from a combination of The Control Room, Fahrenheit 9/11, John Sayles, the nightly news from Jon Stewart if some of you watch that. At the height of the prisoner abuse stories, [Jon Stewart] had one of his mock news broadcasters say very seriously to the camera, on the Stewart show, he said, "The important thing is not that we commit torture and abuses, it's that we're a country that doesn't condone torture and abuses" [laughter] — that's a wonderful line.
And so, you start talking about failures of communication, I don't know where we're going to go with this, I can't make you feel happy about where we are. We've got a very important election coming up, probably the most important since, what, 1860. I think it is, and there's nothing I can say to you about any of that. …
So here we are. The bottom line is, by the way, I'm in a tough position because I'm not done reporting on all of this. … It's a tough position because there is more to the story. …Standards for Government Ethics [1:10:25]
I guess the way to describe how you look at things is, I don’t know about you, but I have a wife and children, and one of the things that makes life livable is trusting in my partner, never lying to my children and never wanting my children — with the exception of teenage girls [laughter] — to lie to me about anything. …
But basically you know what I’m talking about, the core of how we exist. The way we live — not us, there’s nothing special about us, everybody in the world — we all live, the most important thing in our life is our family structure and the integrity with which we live, and the honesty with which we conduct our life, and the trust with which we have people [sic].
And if you think about it, you begin to understand the bad bargain we have [now]. It’s, it's, it's a condition, a requirement, one that we so desperately live with our own families with that we don’t even begin to levy on the President of the United States and the National Security Advisor. It’s not even a requirement [for them]. We don’t even have any expectation that they’re going to have the same trust and integrity in conducting their affairs as we do in our own personal life.
It’s a bad bargain for us in the commonweal. We don’t even begin — we understand what they are. You heard talking about Henry Kissinger, who, for all of his genius, lied like most of us breathe. And when you’re in a situation like that — is that partisan or non-partisan, I don't know [referring to the ACLU's need to remain non-partisan].
But it’s really a bad bargain. And we live with it pretty happily, we go along, ok another President, another National Security Advisor, Condi Rice in this case — and we know we don’t get the story, and what do they have the right to do? They have the right to send our children, men and women now, in the name of democracy to go kill people and be killed and torture and perhaps be tortured in return, which is always going to be the end result of torture. And so, I think there’s nothing wrong with holding these people to the highest possible standards. It doesn’t happen enough. But that’s what we have to do.
Scope of the Crimes of Torture [1:12:50]
We don’t know — I’ll tell you right now, the reason I’m saying all that — is what happened at Abu Ghraib, I can just tell you this, and I have to do the reporting on this and you have to wait for me to do it — but it’s not about an academic debate in long essays between the Justice Department and the White House, legal essays about where the Geneva Convention ends and the Presidential prerogative begins.
What we had was a series of massive crimes, criminal activity by the President and the Vice President, by this administration anyway, I can say that, I can’t say who did it.
The only way to look at this is as war crimes. What happened are war crimes. I’m not saying it’s there yet. It’s not there yet. But that’s where it has to go. We have to stop looking at it as some sort of academic debate about Geneva Conventions and really begin to look at it in terms of: Who did what? Who died? Why did he die? Are there people missing? Are we doing what the Brazilians and Argentineans did back two or three decades ago and actually into this decade? Are we disappearing people? Are there people being tortured knowingly in advance that the torture was going to put their lives in peril and is nothing being done to relieve their suffering to the point that they die?
Is there mens rea? Is there guilty knowledge? Is it a crime? And we’re going to get there, because I think that’s where it’s sort of ineluctably going, you can just see on and on and on, and we’re not there yet. I’m not telling you I can take it there, I’m just telling you that that’s the way you have to look at it.
Repercussions in the Arab World [1:14:25]
I’ll tell you what an Israeli told me. And the Israelis as you know — a very tough, hard-nosed Israeli told me at one point, about all this — he said, you know, we hate the Arabs. This is a guy who spent his career in the intelligence service and, you know, his hands are bloody. He said, we hate the Arabs, and the Arabs hate us, and before 1948, we’ve been killing Arabs, and they’ve been killing us. But I have to tell you something, he said. We know somewhere down the line, we’re going to have to live with these people, much as we can’t stand them, they’re going to have to be our neighbors. And if we had done in our prisons to the Arabs what you have done to the Arabs in your prisons, we couldn’t live that way.
And so the bottom line is we have started something that we don’t know [what] the end, the bottom line, is of this treatment, as more details come out.
And I can tell you it was much worse, and the government knows it's much worse, than they’ve even told you. There are worse photos, worse videotapes, worse events. To The New Yorker’s credit we decided, not for censorship, but just how much can you, how much can you levy on Arab manhood, in public?
But Arabs, I will tell you, it’s not just the radicals — and we all know how this policy, this administration’s policies, in Afghanistan, too, and also of course in Iraq, has really done exactly the contrary of what they said they were going to do. They haven't ended the war of terrorism — they’ve expanded it — that’s nothing obvious [sic], that’s totally clear.
But Arabs now, moderate Arabs, Arabs that normally would be doing the kind of — as you know, the overwhelming, the vastly overwhelming percentage of moderate Arabs deplored what happened to this country on 9/11, as much as anybody here — but those Arabs we’ve lost. They see us as a sexually perverse society. The sexual stuff we did to them is seen as just perversion. And I think we’re going to have consequences for a long time to come. There’s an awful lot of respect in the Arab world for Americans, I travel there all the time, and American Jews even, it’s not, nobody’s going to — I wouldn’t walk around Baghdad — but most of the world is very safe. We have a lot of problems.
The Neocon Cult [1:16:47]
So, rather than deal with the obvious stuff about Bush and this election and what it means, I think the real question we have to answer, and this is the question I'm inchoate about, I don't have an answer …
The question we have to say to ourselves is, ok, so here’s what happens, a bunch of guys, 8 or 9 neoconservatives, cultists — not Charles Manson cultists, but cultists — get in and it's not, with all due respect to Michael Moore, and you’ll read it, his movie’s fine, but it’s not about oil, it’s not even about protecting Israel, it’s about a Utopia they have, it’s about an idea they have. Not only about — democracy can be spread — in a sense, I would say Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyite of our time, he believes in permanent revolution, and in the Middle East to begin, needless to say.
And so you have a bunch of people who've been for 10, 12 years have been fantasizing since the 1991 Gulf War on the way to resolve problems. And of course Israel will be a beneficiary and etc. etc., but the world in their eyes — this was Utopia. And so they got together, this small group of cultists, and how did they do it? They did do it. They’ve taken the government over. And what’s amazing to me, and what really is troubling, is how fragile our democracy is. Look what happened to us.
[In the press, there is] self-censorship, which is the beacon word for me, you know I always think it comes more, you know there is a corporate mentality out there, but there’s also a tremendous amount of self-censorship among the press. It’s like a disease.
But also — they not only — they took away the edge from the press, they also muzzled the bureaucracy, they muzzled the military, they muzzled the Congress, and it’s an amazing feat. We’re supposed to be a democratic society, and all of those areas of our democracy bowed and scraped to this group of neocons who advocated a policy.
General Shinseki [1:19:05]
You know, we all know the story of how mad they got at General Shinseki, who I think is going to run for the Senate in Hawaii and should, for Inouye’s seat, he’s a great general. The important thing about Shinseki for me, and this is just heuristic, I don’t know this, the important thing about Shinseki is this. He testifies before the Gulf War we’re going to need a couple hundred thousand troops and everybody, Wolfowitz and the others — I count Wolfowitz, I lead with him, because he’s sort of the, he’s the genius in the background, he’s the man, very articulate, very persuasive — and so Shinseki testifies we need a couple hundred thousand and everybody’s mad at him, it's about two weeks before the war, and it made sense, everybody said, they were mad because he's talking about numbers these guys say you won’t need. They're going to go invade Iraq and you know the story, they were going to be greeted with flowers and all that stuff, we all know that story.
But it wasn’t that. Their complaint with Shinseki was really much more interesting. It was: didn’t he get it? Didn’t he know what we’ve been talking about, in the tank with the JCS and the generals — didn’t he get it? We could do it with five thousand troops, we have to make these bargains with these crazy Clinton-ized generals — I’m talking like Rummy, like Rumsfeld would talk — literally, unfortunately — these soft generals, these Clinton-ized generals — didn’t Shinseki get it? Didn’t he understand what we’re doing here? We did it in Afghanistan, we’re going to do it in Iraq. Some Special Forces, some bombing, we’re going to take it over. It’s going to be like this. He didn’t get it, that was the problem, that’s why they had to read him out. He wasn’t on the team.
And so you have a government that basically has been operating since 9/11 very successfully on the principle that if you’re with us you’re a genius, if you’re against us you’re not just somebody [in the] loyal opposition, you’re a traitor. They can’t deal with you. I’m exaggerating very slightly.
Pentagon in Disarray [1:21:00]
So what does that mean? That means no dissent. Somebody I know recently was working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a budget issue. The budget’s in incredible chaos, the Defense Department budget. Don’t hold me to this, because, you know The New Yorker has this great fact-checking system, this is just something I’ve heard, but among the problems they have, they can’t find something like one billion dollars in cash that was known to be in Iraq, they just can’t find it. And you know we’re talking with the b-word there, you known one billion.
And so they’ve got huge problems that they’re spending and the Joint Chiefs, this was in big league meetings, and then this gentleman has to go and brief his findings. He’s an outside expert, he’s done an investigation, he has to brief Rumsfeld, and one of the senior generals who happens to be a very good guy — not General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who’s know to many generals as “hear no evil, see no evil”, you know we have that incredible sort of problem — I wish, this is a digression, I wish they had more guts, the two, three, and four stars. I shouldn’t say that because I’m obviously a beneficiary, you know, indirectly, I’m the beneficiary for their thoughts in some cases, but it is sort of sad that none of them have come forward and really blasted away, because I can tell you right now, the disaffection inside the Pentagon is really extremely acute, there’s never been anything like it, and they feel that this government doesn’t care about — you know a good officer, and I could tell you right now, don’t make the mistake of thinking that they’re not good people, they are, and in the intelligence service too, they’re people like everybody else. They want to do their job right, they want to do it with as much honor as they can. And this is something that I feel — I know these guys, and they do care. But they also, the good ones, also they’re in loco parentis. One of the things they take very seriously, particularly, you known I'm a Marine, you know what I’m talking about, you give your children to them, they take of you. They can’t do that now in Iraq. They really don’t think we care, and they don' think, they certainly don’t think people in the White House care. …
Rumsfeld Refuses to Listen [1:23:10]
So one of the good generals, one of the good guys goes in for a meeting with Rumsfeld, and the person I’m talking about is describing the condition that he’s discovered of the budget planning. We’re talking about lots of billions of dollars, this war is going to probably end up being the trillion dollar war that nobody — you can’t even begin to estimate the cost.
When you see the Moore movie, and in [The] Control Room, when you see those movies, the photographs that are the most gripping are the photographs of Baghdad before the war. And look, I know he's a bad guy, etc., etc., etc., Saddam, but still, and the rebuilding —
Anyway, the point is that my friend, this person told Rumsfeld how bad things are, and Rumsfeld of course said, oh my God, that’s absolutely wrong, he said, there’s nothing like that, there’s no problem with the budget and he turned to this ranking general and said, isn’t that right? And this general, in front of this outsider, said yes sir, you’re right. And that’s what happens, that’s what you have now, and to me, there’s nothing more scary. That the Secretary of Defense is simply incapable of hearing what he doesn’t want to hear. And he’s not the ideologue that Wolfowitz is. You couple that with an ideologue, and I don’t know what we can do. I don’t know what any of us can do to stop it.
Transfer of Iraqi “Sovereignty” [1:24:50]
I think what’s going to happen is the President’s — my guess is, first of all, again, the idea that three networks — or at least two of them — I think all three sent their anchormen through Baghdad on the 30th for this transfer of sovereignty and I just wonder, I mean, how out of touch are they? What sovereignty? What sovereignty do we have to give? There’s no phones, there’s no electricity [laughter] — no, this is a sad fact. There is no sovereignty, there’s no army. It’s a Potemkin village maybe, yes, so they’re going to go inside the CPA where the grass is green and the air-conditioning works and they’re going to have a change of command with the press monitoring it and they had all three anchors there. I thought to myself, wow, it’s really scary. We’re getting into — we’re making the pictures and we’re believing them now, more than ever. So it doesn’t have much reality.
So the President’s, I would guess the President’s policy is — he’s got no, he doesn’t have a policy behind the new government, the Allawi government, which is basically a bunch of outsiders taking control, and everybody’s got their hands in certain — there’s no way this government’s going to be acceptable to anybody except a very small minority of people. It’s not going to work, it’s not going to stop the insurgency.
What’s Next in Iraq [1:26:10]
I think you’re going to see a lot of efforts to try to paint the insurgency in the next month as increasingly being outsiders. I’ve seen already the first “showdown” between al Qaeda and the United States. “Al Qaeda’s taken over the insurgency” — I don’t think that’s true at all. And I can tell you right now — this I'm telling you I know — a year ago, a year and a half ago, there was total panic inside, because the opposition, the insurgency, was operating in 1, 2, and 3 man cells and we knew nothing about them. I can tell you right now, they're operating in 10 and 15 man cells right now and we still know nothing about them. The interrogations haven’t worked, no matter how much pressure they put on people. We have no tactical information of any use whatsoever.
And if you go to Europe and talk to some of the intelligence people there and some of the people in the Middle East who are our friends — we have many friends, who are very sad about what’s happened to America, are praying for the next election — they will tell you even the stuff you’re hearing about Zarqawi — Zarqawi, excuse me, Zarqawi is mister everybody, he’s never liked bin Laden, and it’s not clear that the person that we claim responsible for all those acts is he. Some of the people who know the Arab world very well and very carefully and listen to his statements. He’s a Jordanian, and many of the comments that have been alleged to have been in his name are not made by him. In other words, the suggestion is that he’s a composite figure. He’s very convenient.
I don’t want to suggest to you that we’ve ever been propagandized by our government [laughter], but it’s very convenient. It’s very convenient to keep on telling the press that Zarqawi’s — my favorite one is that nice kid that was beheaded, remember. The guy that beheaded him had a hood over him. He was described very confidently by the American establishment government as Zarqawi. Well, if they can see through hoods. Anyway —
So, I think the policy’s going to be, we’ve got this guy Allawi and this government, let’s stand him up and see if he can past the election, and let’s just escalate, and bomb, and bomb, and bomb. And the only answer for these guys is going to be more pressure, more military force. We accept as commonplace, every day now, we’re emulating Israel in [their] missile attacks, and it’s a daily occurrence. We keep on bombing places in Fallujah, claiming we’ve gotten rid of Zarqawi, who keeps on not showing up anyway, whoever he is.
We don’t have much intelligence, and we’re escalating a war. Bombing, missile attacks, much more violence, it’s come, crept up on us, you know little cat paw, and we’re there. We’re there in a full-scale, increasingly intense military activity, more bombing, more air force planes, more ordnance, more shelling, what we call force protection — that is, you’re not going to send troops somewhere where you can just fire a lot of missiles [instead], which means of course more collateral damage, more civilians, which means of course more opposition, more insurgency.
Torture: Worse Revelations to Come [1:29:08]
What they did at Abu Ghraib and other places was, the people they would get, they would torture. And sometimes, for an Arab man, being photographed without clothes on — in the Koran, you’re not allowed, this front [motioning to his body] cannot be exposed — and to be exposed that way and to be forced to simulate sexual activity with other males and have women give the thumbs-up sign is the ultimate degradation. It’s literally — any classic definition of — it’s torture. Torture isn’t always physical. It’s a torturous process.
And the purpose of it, of course, is to generate information. So what do you get? You get people that know nothing. The ICRC, the international Red Cross, estimated in the prison population at Abu Ghraib at the time of the worst abuses, they estimated that upwards of 90% had no bearing at all on anthing anti-American, or any activity that had anything to do with the insurgency. This wonderful general, Antonio Taguba, the report that I got, this guy Taguba's report estimated that 60% had nothing to do [with it].
So you take these people, you expose them to the ridicule and physical torture that you can, and they end up telling you. Yes, they'll give you the names of people in their neighborhood that are al Qaeda, or terrorists, insurgency, and they give you names. And of course they're just names, they're just doing it, and then you arrest those people, and bring them in, and you start the process. And the circle gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
And I would — debating about it [long pause]. Some of the worst things that happened that you don’t know about. OK? Videos. There are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at [Abu Ghraib], which is about 30 miles from Baghdad — 30 kilometers, maybe, just 20 miles, I'm not sure whether it's — anyway. The women were passing messages out saying please come and kill me because of what’s happened. And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been [video] recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has, and they’re in total terror it’s going to come out. It’s impossible to say to yourself, how did we get there, who are we, who are these people that sent us there.
When I did My Lai, I was very troubled, like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened, and I ended up in something I wrote saying, in the end, I said, the people that did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed, because of the scars they had.
I can tell you some of the personal stories of some of the people who were in these units who witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers. And so we’re dealing with an enormous, massive amount of criminal wrong-doing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher. And we have to get to it, and we will. And we will, I mean, you know, there’s enough out there, they can't — [applause]
So — so, it’s going to be an interesting election year, it is. It’s going to be Bush vs. Bush, I think, largely, in my view, not that the Democrats, or Ralph Nader, won’t have something to do with it, but it’s really going to be, it’s Bush running against Bush.
The Justice Department [1:33:05]
And, I don’t know where we’re going to come out. And, I guess, I guess the only thing I can say is that above and beyond that, all of you know because all of you care about the Constitutional rights and what’s going on in the government, the issues that many in [the ACLU] are deeply involved in, one of the other great shocking examples of self-censorship, or just sheer cowardness, or what you will, is just the inability of the press corps to deal with the Justice Department and what’s happened there.
It’s one of the great failings — I can tell you the degradation of that place has been so total, and there are people, again, there are many people in those places that really care about human rights. I was getting emails on September the 12th, 2001, from people the inside the FBI saying we are in real trouble with this guy Ashcroft. So there are people there that care, they fight, as hard as they can. It’s not as if — when you have the kind of leadership we have, I don’t know where we go. I just wish I could tell you — I am telling you — go back, do what you can, … you’re going to say to yourself, as many people have said to me, I’d better do more. But also be terribly aware, that we are so disconnected with this leadership that it’s not necessarily clear that what you do is going to impact on them.
Because these are people that are really out there. We have really been — you know, as I say, it’s not the Manson clan — but we really have been taken over, and we have to do something to stop it, and let’s hope we can do it electorally.
Posted by Jonathan at July 15, 2004 07:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.pastpeak.com/cgi-bin/web/mt-tb.cgi/88
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seymour Hersh's ACLU Keynote Speech Transcribed:
» post show post from Majority Report Radiocall inhofe 202-224-4721 is he still outraged by the outrage? here is seymour hersh's talk transcript... (thanks mrreporter jon ide) email him Thanks to... George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley and fellow at the ">Rockridge Institute, dev... [Read More]
Tracked on July 15, 2004 09:00 PM
» an open, just, secure, and fair lakoffian thread, because it's our obligation from Majority Report Radiosaw a version of outfoxed tonight and as i nod off to sleep i dream of a time immediately following a kerry victory when progressives use his victory as a ledge to dismantle corrupt monopolies and reinstitute anti- trust laws... [Read More]
Tracked on July 16, 2004 01:51 AM
» Where's the sodomy? from Light From An Empty FridgeI keep waiting for the major US media to grab the ["Seymour Hersh, Iraqi Boys, Abu Ghraib, ACLU" story][1]. But it's been around for a couple of days now, and nothing. It's really just an expansion on things he's hinted at previously, [even to Bil... [Read More]
Tracked on July 16, 2004 11:07 AM
» I'm Heart Sick from RANDOM THOUGHTSIt's easy to forget, in all the discussions about torture memos, that real people were tortured and abased in the most craven of ways. In his July 8 speech at the ACLU Membership Conference, Seymour Hersh reminded us of this. [Read More]
Tracked on July 17, 2004 03:12 PM
» It's because we love you... and hate freedom from Sadly, No!The Editors link to a streaming video clip of a Seymour Hersh talk given at an ACLU event last week. Quoting Ed Cone's summary: Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison... [Read More]
Tracked on July 18, 2004 10:43 AM
» Seymour Hersh ACLU July 8 Keynote Speech from IddybudHear it. Read it. Do both at the same time for the best effect. Whatever you do, don't miss it. [Read More]
Tracked on July 21, 2004 10:14 PM
» Cheers, Jeers, and Steers from Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with NorbiznessI wanted that report five minutes ago, fartblossom! (1) It's interesting, but I never thought of tort reform as meaning that all lawsuits concerning FDA-approved drugs or devices would be barred. I guess this means that conservatives will have... [Read More]
Tracked on July 25, 2004 03:42 PM
» Cheers, Jeers, and Steers from Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with NorbiznessI wanted that report five minutes ago, fartblossom! (1) It's interesting, but I never thought of tort reform as meaning that all lawsuits concerning FDA-approved drugs or devices would be barred. I guess this means that conservatives will have... [Read More]
Tracked on July 25, 2004 03:43 PM
» “We find that if we don't go there, they won't shoot us.” from derelict spacesThere are quite a few articles out there at the moment illustrating the fact that the US has nothing even approaching control over Iraq. And neither does the interim council. Basically, Iraq is a patchwork of city-states and tribal fiefdoms.... [Read More]
Tracked on July 25, 2004 11:22 PM
Comments
Thank you so much for doing this. I had made some notes, but it's great to have it verbatim.
Hersh's J'Accuse! Truth will out.
Posted by: Serendipity at July 15, 2004 07:46 PM
I too must say hearty thank you for doing such a detailed transcription. Thank you, and Lord help us.
Posted by: Bill at July 15, 2004 08:23 PM
Much appreciated. Thanks.
Posted by: gmoke at July 15, 2004 08:47 PM
As a former transcriber, I doff my chapeau. This was a valuable service to have provided. Perhaps the Armed Services Committee would like copies.
Posted by: Jon at July 16, 2004 10:04 AM
What angers me the most about the media in this situation is not that the pictures aren't coming out and more torture isn't being exposed but that they act as if this behavior is something new on the part of our military. We've seen this type of behavior before in our military. We've seen it in our prisons in the United States. The pictures they showed of naked men being threatened are remarkably similar to those of prisoners from Missouri who were housed in a private prison in Texas. There they stripped the men and chased them with cattle prods and dogs while videotaping the whole thing.
Our military has committed atrocities in just about every war we've ever been in. That includes WWII, which we believe sets us up as the saviors of the world and above such things. It angers me that the american public aided by the media seem to think that this behavior is something we don't do. It makes me even more angry that the military would act as if they are shocked to see it go on. They should have known it was going to happen unless it was exactly their plan. Which it seems it was.
Posted by: charyn at July 16, 2004 01:04 PM
One other thing while I'm so riled up. I know O'reilly is an idiot but come on. Does he really think the military is too busy to round up innocent people. That is exactly what happens when they get too busy and panic. They round up everyone and sort them out later. Takes less time and exposes them to less danger. Can anyone be stupid enough to believe that the military isn't doing exactly that?!
Posted by: charyn at July 16, 2004 01:51 PM
Thank you for this. I don't agree with everything Michael Moore says, but he's the only one that brings this kind of thing to the big screen. Looks like he'll have more material.
Posted by: Aaron at July 16, 2004 07:07 PM
I have just heard that Saddam Hussein will be charged with "Command Responsibility" in his trial to take place in Iraq. This means that even though he may not have personally committed crimes such as torture and murder, the fact that he was the Commander in Charge at the time of the crimes he is responsible for their commission. It seems to me that one George W, Bush can and should be charged and tried under the same charge. Hopefully, this will happen once he is defeated in November.
Posted by: Michael Kemper at July 18, 2004 12:40 PM
I concur with other remarks posted here. This is a great service. Thank you!
Posted by: Deep Blade at July 18, 2004 01:42 PM
None of any of this is a surprise to me. The big surprise is the year it took for US media to deal with the story... The Red Cross brought up these abuses nearly 12 months before our 'big media' centers discussed the issues.. WHY? What was going on that couldnt be discussed immediately? Why was the Red Cross treated like a non-entity with its complaints considered, well, basically untrue -- for 12 months??? I dont have time for people like Seymour or any 'Americans' (in quotes for a reason) who still want to sit around pointing fingers and warning us of greater evils which have been perpetuated and may be perpetuated further.. Where are the officials with the nutz to start impeachment proceedings? We've had two presidents undergo impeachments since I was born.. One was a sneaky guy who wasnt a crook and the other was a sneaky guy who had cigar fetish issues ... Both didnt do near the damage of our current CiC, yet not a single person has started trying to impeach him. The reasons I hear are related to 'wartime' patriotism...I'm going to the supermarket.
Posted by: Trooper Joe at July 19, 2004 10:53 AM
Hersh has the track record and the integrity that will persevere. The Irag war may be only a shadow compared to the rumblings about IRAN. Soon the "Crusade" will be seen as that and we do not have the number of bodies or bags to fight a war on multiple sites all across Asia, Africa and Eurasia.
Put an ad in the paper in San Antonio (where I live) for patriotic, religious volunteer to blow themselves up and the mailbox will be empty. Our young people may be willing to die for their country, but not kill themselves for their country. This is a dynamic that seems to escape the "Wolfie Pack". Apparently, in addition to a presidential "food taster", we should employ someone to read to Mssr. Bush the news from someone other than Rumsfeld. RT
Posted by: rod talley at July 19, 2004 02:51 PM
I had been looking all over for a transcription of this momentous speech and of course found nothing but comments about it where the sodomizing of the boys (though adding to the horror of it all) took up far too much of people's attention.Great thanks for a wonderful job!(I just found this yesterday - don't know why google didn't pick it up!)Siv
Posted by: Siv O'Neall at July 20, 2004 01:28 AM
--Fred Muratori, Cornell Univ. graphic Lib., Ithaca, NY Copyright 2001 prom hair style Cahners Business Information.Is weather channel it verse or is it fiction? What free music download a question. The most essential fact ticketmaster is that this is a story, a love hentai story told by poet and novelist joke Carson (Men in the Off Hours, 2000, poker etc.) in 29 brief, lyrical "tangos" poker
Posted by: news at July 20, 2004 02:33 AM
Yours may be the only transcript on line. The ACLU video has been cut after the word "traitor"
Posted by: at July 20, 2004 08:26 PM
Please come back to the rest of the world America. We miss you.
Posted by: James at July 21, 2004 03:21 PM
The recommendations of the 9/11 Comm. report call for sweeping changes.
1. Send an email to the elected officials in your state and ask them to call a special session now and support passage of the recommendations.
2. Ask others to do the same.
It's a non-partisan opportunity for every American to say "No More!"
Posted by: Gage at July 23, 2004 03:30 PM
Personally, I'd rather see Congress take their time and not rush into something that in retrospect will seem, at best, ill-considered — like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Creating a giant new intelligence bureaucracy is the sort of thing that, once done, is difficult to ever get undone. Besides which, secret intelligence bureaucracies are necessarily the seat of enormous unaccountable, unchecked power. Human nature being what it is, such power is always abused. In other words, secret intelligence bureaucracies are bad for democracy.
Posted by: Jonathan at July 23, 2004 09:12 PM
It is shameful how these atrocities were allowed to happen. The worse thing is that it's being done in the name of "Freedom" and in the name of the American people. Bush and his wild bunch are just trying to protect their lifestyle and their freedom to go around the world exploiting others so they can have what they have. Poor and the working-poor were not the ones that were attacked on 9/11 anyway. And now we know that 9/11 was used as an excuse to attack Irak.
Posted by: Dina Bayardo at July 24, 2004 02:46 PM
