Interrogators from Guantanamo involved in Abu Ghraib.

Dear Blatham,

Thanks for the New York Times article. It gave me chills reading it. I really feel sympathy for Sean Baker. It is really sad what happened to him. This further proves that the Iraqi abuses are systemic and goes much higher up the chain of command. I wonder what is the purpose of that drill? I'm sure that his commanders knew what would happen to him during this drill. Why did his superiors not take proper precaution?

To dlowan,

That smiley face is creepy.

Then my work here is done....

Ah.

Likely, you've all now seen coverage on the Justice Department memo revealed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday which advised that the President was not bound by conventions and military protocols regarding torture...that torture could be used on prisoners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/print/image/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html

Actually I have been so caught up with all the reagan stuff that I have been ignoring other news and just now checked out my email newsletters from the washington post. I did read it, I only hope it gets some coverage despite week long funeral for reagan.

I wonder how they are going to justify it and I also wonder if we don't do anything about it, if other countries can try them in an international court?

Heehee - next conspiracy theory - Nancy killed Ronny THIS week to help her beloved party...

To dlowan,

Yes. I found it interesting whenever a scandal breaks against this president in the news, the GOP seems to come up with some counter story in the news to take some focus off the scandal. Reagan's week long funeral is interesting. It had the same effect and even better one too. Reagan's funeral isn't going to shield Bush for long though. The transfer of power in Iraq is coming soon. I bet that government will have a bloody power struggle. When the Iraqi government tells the US to leave their country, will Bush comply with the request or will he be as stubborn as ever and stay? I'm thinking the latter. If that's so, we are going to see more violence in Iraq. I just hope the American soldiers don't suffer in the process.

To Blatham,

Thanks for the URL news links. They were very informative. I didn't know about the memorandum. I kinda tuned out the news lately because of all the lengthy coverage of the Reagan funeral. Anyway, I'm glad you help me peak my interest once more.

fairandbalanced said


To be fair, fair, this is pretty much the oldest trick in the book and everyone does it. There was the case in Britain a few years ago where one of Blair's PR people figured they ought to release some bad news under the cover of an urelated and attention-grabbing big story (I can't recall what that story was, but something like the death of an important person). She wrote a memo to this effect, which got leaked, and it proved very cold-hearted and Machiavellian. Embarrassment all around. The West Wing portrayed these sorts of PR machinations very well, of course, within a decidely progressive administration.

That being said, I've never seen an administration more at ease with the use of deception than this one. Of course, and as you know, they don't merely try to redirect attention, but they also stonewall, hide uncomfortable or contradictory facts wherever they can get away with it, threaten to fire or economically punish those who might whistleblow or say something not agreeable to the administration, and they lie consistently.

C'mon Blatham...have you forgotten the Clinton administration already?

McG

Let's take just one item, the threat to fire or punish those in government who might act contrary to administration wishes. Could you point to an instance under the Clinton administration where an elected official was threatened that his son would lose all funding in that son's election bid if the father didn't vote in a certain way? Or an instance where a senior civil servant was threatened with the loss of his job if he made public his finding that costs of a program were actually much higher than the administration was claiming in order to win a vote in Congress?

I seem to remember quite a few people from the Whitehouse travel office being sacked... Oh, and threats from private investigators during the whitewater investigations, then there is Vince Foster and Chinagate...

Clinton wasn't exactly a posterchild for honesty and if you somehow think that Clinton is less dishonest than Bush...well, then nothing. I just think you are wrong.

McG

My dad can beat up your dad.

Really? I guess beating up an old man is what makes for good liberalism these days...

My father wishes to meet your father behind Legion Hall #172 at any time convenient for your father (excluding 2 - 4 PM which is naptime).

Are we allowing walking aides? What about nurses? I am pretty sure my dad's nurse can beat up your dad's nurse.

Walking aides fine. Nurses have been specifically requested by dad, though they don't have to dress in the manner he suggested. I relayed the invitation from your dad's nurse to my dad's nurse, asking her if she'd like to take up the cudgel and she slapped me. Please have your dad's nurse bring a dictionary when she comes.

Blatham,

You are too funny.
You have made very astute observations. It is true that this kind of behavior is not limited to the Bush Administration. McG is right about one thing. Clinton is by no means a pillar of honesty.