Show Comments Here (67) |

Hide Comments

******deleted comment******

Pete: I have no doubt you spent some time on the comment I deleted, but since you didn't bother reading the post I spent a long time writing before you commented I decided to simply delete your comment.

To others so inclined: I wrote a lengthy post above, and I'm not inclined to respond to you or play host to your delusions if you accuse me of saying things I didn't say and then argue that I was wrong.

Under those terms, what I did say above is fair game. Have at it.

**********

Posted by pete at May 8, 2004 05:42 AM

Great blogging, Pete!
It's no coincidence that Hersh is the reporter that "broke" the My Lai massacre story during the Vietnam war.
The Left figures that if it stopped one war, it can stop another.
And we just happen to have a guy running for President (Kerry) who testified to Congress that the US military's penchant to commit war crimes on the enemy was "systemic" and that permission to do so ran "up and down the chain of command."
God, I hate living in interesting times!
Excellent catch and analysis!
Consider yourself blogrolled!

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro at May 8, 2004 12:29 PM

Have you contacted O'Reilly? If he responded to your message, your very good "Fisk" would get a lot of attention. Even Fox News this morning seemed to be a little confused about the story. I absolutely hate it when supposedly professional journalists either can't keep the story straight or lie about the facts - many times lying by omission. I can make up my own mind if I have the real facts, both positive and negative. I find that my friends and relatives, who rely on the "old" media just don't have the correct basic facts of many situations. I get very tried of correcting their basic information, regardless of whether I agree with their opinions or not. This politicizing of the factual news is deplorable.

Posted by Al Reasin at May 8, 2004 12:59 PM

Simple question Pete. Since you're in the military, what's the odds that officers above this crew didn't know what was going on? They've brought 7 people up on charges. 2 sergeants, 3 specialists and 2 privates. Rumsfeld says that there are no scapegoats in this. You understand the military better than I. How can these 7 compile multiple CD's worth of pictures and videos while their CO's are oblivious. Don't you think you are asking a bit much here? Feel free to delete this post.

Posted by Roger at May 8, 2004 10:52 PM

O'Reilly is creepy: a liberal in populist's clothing. His Archie Bunker act is a reflection of what he thinks of his audience. He uses his peogram to showcase anything that demoralizes. His dislike of the Bush family is barely contained. He mouths enough "conservative" viewpoints to be confusing, but he's a primetime mole.

Posted by ruth at May 9, 2004 12:11 AM

If you haven't already, check out the NYTimes May 8 story by James Dao and Eric Lichtblau.

Tim Blair and others have the link.

Frederick's uncle says that in *March* he contacted David Hackworth's office, which put him in touch with 60 Minutes II.

I don't think that that contradicts anything you've set out.

Posted by old maltese at May 9, 2004 12:50 AM

Roger

"Pete" was a commenter whose post I deleted. One of the few I've ever done that wasn't obscene or commercial.

I did so because he did what you come close to doing - accused me of saying something I didn't and demanding I defend what I didn't say. In fact, he did that about three times in his one comment.

The odds of the soldiers' COs being oblivious is zero. An investigation led to those officers being reprimanded and relieved - up to a Brigadier General. Their careers are over.

Their story is not yet all out, so I'll refrain from additional comment.

I'll add this statement: Criminal acts were committed. Criminals should be punished. Those who would use this for political gain are supporting those criminals. The tactic? A "criminals are victims" approach that I'm sure most Americans are beyond tired of.

Posted by Greyhawk at May 9, 2004 12:58 AM

My apologies Greyhawk. If there's zero chance that the CO's didn't know what was going on, why is it ludicrous to hold these CO's repsonsible. They are going after the grunts and Rumsfeld said there weren't going to be scapegoats. I'm looking at the charges brought foward and this can't be good for the military. I'm all for guys chipping rocks in regards to this debacle, I personally think the CO's should be included. This whole situation is slipping out of hand. Not only have we lost credibility in the world, citizens like myself now question what is going on, grunts in Iraq are probably watching their asses very carefully right now. I don't see any good coming out of this continued mismanagement.

Posted by Roger at May 9, 2004 02:22 AM

But. He. Didn't. Say. That. The. COs. Should. Not. Be. Held. Responsible.

Get it? He didn't say that. Greyhawk did not say that in any way, shape, or form. What part of "An investigation led to those officers being reprimanded and relieved - up to a Brigadier General. Their careers are over." don't you understand?

That's what he means by words being put in his mouth and being accused of saying things he didn't say and being asked to defend things he never mentioned.

Posted by Andrea Harris at May 9, 2004 03:09 AM

What are saying Andrea. Being drummed out of the military and doing hard time at Levinworth are the same? I think Rumsfeld's military is sending a distinct message. Grunts do hard time and CO's accuse and run. It isn't good what is happening to this military. I think Rumsfeld needs to fall on his sword.

Posted by Roger at May 9, 2004 05:05 AM

Politics over justice. Thanks for tipping the cap Rog. You're future thoughts will be viewed through that lens.

But poor leadership on a General's part doesn't excuse what these inbred Deliverance/Jerry Springer freaks did. Responsibility also does not pass up the chain (skipping several levels) and land at Rumsfeld's feet.

The "these children are victims" claim you make will not work here, however you word it. Hasn't that already been said?

Posted by Gunther at May 9, 2004 06:00 AM

Greyhawk let's make a deal. I won't put words in your mouth if you won't delete my comments. Deal? But I won't take it ease on you otherwise.
Just now I read an article in the Independentco.uk saying there are pictures and video of US soldiers raping a female, buggering by Iraqi prison guards of young male prisoners and other outrages and it seems more widespread than previously known. Now it seems not only do we have more than a few abusers in the US military, but also perverts, physical and voyeuristic. Who in the hell wants to watch someone being raped or buggered much less taking pictures of those vile acts? These are American soldier? No, they are American criminals.
Now I am angry. I am angry at an administration that is a throw-back to some kind of monarchical (non-American) past. "We don't have to explain ourselves to the public, we can keep everything secret unless it helps us retain our power, we can do anything we want whether legal or not, we can lie and deceive the public and Congress to our heart's content and we can rip the taxpayers off by spending money on an illegal and unjustified war the Treasury does not have and funnel it to the rich through the military/industrial complex."
You bet I am mad. What kind of military do you think we have GH? I think it is incompetent in conducting this Bush war or has been corrupted by Bush and his minions. It does seem that the abusive tactics and torture were brought to the military's attention at high levels of the chain of command by various sources including the International Red Cross in 2003, 8 to 10 months ago.Why wasn't something done then and Congress informed?
From what I have seen of this administration is that when Bush or his top guys start denying something usually it turns out they are lying. It remains to be seen how far this abuse, etc. will go up the line, but I suspect pretty damn high and has been occuring for longer than we now know. It is symptomatic of this administration to deceive, and then duck,, cover and hide. Thanks to those who created the computers and the Net, it is extremely hard for the administration to hide all the facts all the time, as it surely been trying to do. Vigilance, as it is said, is necessarily eternal to defeat the forces of evil and against freedom.
For GH, I suggest you quit beating the drums for this administration. Some of your positions just support it in its corrupt and corrupting activites. Your support for the troops is honest to god good and admirable. But your positions that unintentionally or intentionally support this administration's hold on power really are against the bests interests of the troops. How can a faulty and incomplete war plan be in the best interest of the troops who are under fire? How can the way Rumsfeld changed the troop rotation be in their best interests? How can having insufficient troops to properly conduct the war be in their best interests?
Damn man, support the troops. Get them better medical care, get them more pay, and help get rid of this administration that is misusing the troops and the military.
Fundamentally, I believe that Bush&Co.is ruining America. Giving them another four years will result in less freedom, less privacy, more militarism and more misery for the regular folks.
I want to remind the readers that America has been and is a civilian, democratic society, not a militaristic fortress nation. I believe that if Bush is not controlled we will have more wars and a more authoritarian government and less freedoms. This will be done in the name of Democracy. If Bush wins again,we will continue be told, as is already occurring, that the U.S. needs to invade, kill people and subjugate an untold number of countries, to bring them Democracy. What a load of crap. What is this "forced Democracy" for? Ultimately, it only can be for the rich, the mil/ind complex and the power hungrey.

Posted by pete at May 9, 2004 02:22 PM

Pete
I can't speak for anyone else but the moment I see a claim that the president is responsible for every action of any soldier any time anywhere, and that claim is on top of a multi-paragraph diatribe I just yawn and stop reading.

Bush stole the election, yes, we know. Thre were no WMDs, - thanks for the news.

Everyone: Don't equate bad leadership with criminal acts. I'm a supervisor for 50 people. If one gets a DUI driving home from a bar some Friday night what should my punishment be?

I'm military, so at a minimum I'll be getting chewed up in front of my boss's desk. Our military culture holds people accountable to a level of near ridiculousness.

Posted by Dan Searles at May 9, 2004 04:01 PM

"2) it's the superior's fault, not the troops."

"Point two is true, but there's a level where it becomes ludicrous. Given that point one is a lie, that level is low."

I think this is the genisis of the partisan bickering that completely misses the point.

The troops are at fault for what they did. So the latter part of the campaign's second point is false, under all conditions. This is an important part of modern military ethics and law - "I was just following orders" is not a defense. Illegal and immoral orders are not to be followed, period. For the troops to argue that they were not properly trained to recognize any order to do what they were doing as illegal or immoral is not a smart defense.

Was there an effort to get public attention to the plight of the NCOs and enlisted being investigated? Obviously.

What was the motivation? Distracting attention to the higher ups/politicos? Mitigation from an airing of the greater truth? Vengence in a scorched earth tactic? Or the primal defensiveness that strikes out/back without much thought/planning?

Who cares? Doesn't matter anymore. The NCOs and enlisted have been morphed from unknown alleged criminals to confirmed international monsters. Some will have their names repeated for generations by historians and partisans as examples of what can go wrong, or is wrong, with America. I'm not sure these MPs are better off with the publicity.

The question of whether they were being scapegoated to allow higher-ups to escape greater punishments, or any punishment, will get a full public hearing. That's a good thing. That will determine how much of the first part of the campaign's second point is true.

Is Hersh engaging in hyperbole salted with his preconceptions of supposed character flaws of this administration? Don't know how much is actually hyperbole, but his obvious prejudice takes away from his credibility.

The tactics, or what Levin calls policy, we are using to fight the war on terror (which is a war on religious extremism, tribalism, social morass and cultural depravity) will also be examined. The political and cultural conditions here at home, and within the military/intelligence community fighting the war on terror, will be examined to see how they contributed to "setting the conditions" in which these acts occurred.

This is also a good thing and goes to a larger context of the first point of the campaign. To say the Army did nothing is a lie. The question of whether the Army did enough, expeditiously enough, is valid.

What we have to be careful about is not to let Hersh, and other cosmic anti-patriots like him, to convince us we are ruined.

Posted by Tim at May 9, 2004 06:38 PM

Hersh has a lot of friends in the military and especially the Special Forces because he IS a goddamn Patriot. Where the fuck did he "lie"? Where's the fucking proof? It's whiny-ass Jew bullshit no offense to Mr. Hersh. He knows the score like few do. The fact that the shit makes the U.S. look real bad is too fucking bad. You can whine about it like weasels until you're blue in the face, but to blame the messenger...how fucking lame.

Posted by Chet at May 10, 2004 02:14 AM

These people have had way too much Koolaid. Belittling or trivilaizing these offenses ... even justifying them ... this is fascism! We are headed down the same road, politically and economically, as Argentina a few decades ago. Pretty soon They'll be disappearing people. Bye-Bye city on a hill, hello gulags!

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 04:22 PM

Okay, here's the question.

Right at the beginning of the Afghanistran campaign the Special Forces did a parachute drop into a Southern Afghanistan air strip. There was a little bit of a firefight, and the troops raided some offices and retrieved some papers of some sort. The story was reported with some night vision pictures of the Special Forces jumping from a C-130, I think.

Shortly following this there was some reporter, acting on "inside information" from the Special Forces, who did an article suggesting that the Afghanistan resistance was tremendous and the Special Forces were lucky to get out with their lives. He also suggested that the Afghan soldiers were more than a match for the Special Forces. The military vigorously denied the reporter's claims.

The entire thrust of the story was -- quagmire, with the fierce Afghan resistance more than a match for the US military. After the subsequent Afghanistan collapse the reporters predictions were promptly forgotten.

This reporter had supposedly reported in Viet Nam. I seem to recall it was Seymour Hersh -- but I don't know for sure.

Does anybody recall this incident? Was it Seymour Hersh?

Posted by Narniaman at May 10, 2004 04:54 PM

Chet - I assume you're asking where Hersh lied in this story, as opposed to Edward Korry’s role in Chile, or his flawed Dark Side of Camelot and other writings. Hersh is a muckraker, good on him, but it doesn't make him a patriot.

"It's whiny-ass Jew bullshit no offense to Mr. Hersh." - huh?

Brendan - breathe, deep breaths, take a pill, get a life.

Posted by Tim at May 10, 2004 05:09 PM

Hey Narniaman,

Here's the question: the administration alleged there were WMD in Iraq, alleged the Iraquis would be able to pay for their own rebuilding, would accept Americans as liberators, and that major combat was over about a year ago. Do you remember whether any of the people making these claims were named Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, or Bush???

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 05:09 PM

So brendan admits Hersh
is a liar by his comparison?

Posted by Tim at May 10, 2004 05:13 PM

Following that logic, Tim, you admit Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are liars???

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 05:17 PM

The fact that an accusation is redirected from a man unjustly accused to trinity of rogues contains no logical force to an acceptance or to the validity of the initial accusation.

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 05:22 PM

Biggest puzzle to me is that these American kids barely speak English. I don't think they're fluent in arabic. How did they get the guys to disrobe? Iraq is suddenly full of English speakers?

I can understand how in hospitals, morgues, and prisons, the clerks develop very macabre senses of humor. But it's not the controlling agent.

For all the big deal about the photos, I'd bet we're going to see some real porn substitutions. That a lot of this stuff was very isolated.

And, that most Americans who use the Net see worse uninvited spam flying into our emails every day.

You know, after WW1 Our Boys came home with French Postcards. It opened the eyes of a lot of farm kids. Iraq's about the same. If the stuff is over the top, isn't it in the spirit of college pranks? Didn't we just get fed a bunch of crap that we were to take this stuff way too seriously?

Posted by Carol in California at May 10, 2004 05:24 PM

Brendan, you should know better than to make an argument using the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque. It matters not whether Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are liars IN THIS SITUATION. (I happen to think they are not - you think they are. Fine, but that's utterly irrelevant.) Their characters have no bearing whatsoever on Hersh's credibility, and for you to constant deflect any and all questioning of that credibility by furiously pointing to the President and his cabinet is for you to tacitly acknowledge that you have no better argument, and that you concede that Hersh may well be a liar.

What your tactic reminds me of is those people who defended Micah Ian Wright's disgusting fabrications about serving with the Rangers by saying "Sure, Micah's a liar. BUT WHAT ABOUT BSUH HUH? BSUHLIEDPEPLEDIED!" You see what's bankrupt about this argument (and yours as well)? Regardless of whether such a claim about Bush, et. al. is true, is has no relation to Wright's (or Hersh's) transgressions. If Bush is a "liar," that in no way mitigates Hersh's responsibility towards the truth. Unless you're going to argue "they did it, so he can do it too!" Nope. Either Hersh has credibility problems or he doesn't, but Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney have nothing to do with that. That's an argument for another day.

Please - I'd love to engage in a serious discussion about this entire affair, but there's no way to do so if you intend on argumentum ad hominem.

Posted by Jeff B. at May 10, 2004 05:27 PM

I posted this on the earlier Hersh thread, but it bears repeating.

Yes, Hersh was the guy who aired the Mai Lai story, but he is also the man who swallowed some ridiculous tales about Marilyn Monroe and JFK, causing his publisher to have to yank something like an entire chapter from his book just prior to release (see http://archive.salon.com/media/1997/10/13hersh.html or http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/1/books-hersh.asp for articles about the mess). It was an inexcusable mistake on his part -- anyone who has even a modest knowledge of Marilyn Monroe could tell you that the alleged documents signed by her were faked. But not Hersh, apparently. After that debacle, I now treat anything he writes with an appropriate amount of skepticism.

Posted by With Real Chicory at May 10, 2004 05:39 PM

I am a military officer (formerly active duty, now reserves) and I'd like to address the issue of culpability of the chain of command.

The leadership will be looked at thru 2 lenses. First and foremost (and sorry for the cliche) but what did they know and when did they know it? If they can be found to have had knowledge of what their subordinates did and did nothing about it, then they will be held criminally responsible as accessories. This does not appear to have happened (yet).

The second lens is about their leadership. If they knew nothing about what was going on in their units, should they have? A squad or section leader (NCO) almost certainly should have known something was wrong. A Platoon Leader (junior officer) or Platoon Sergeant (senior NCO) probably should have had a clue. Company Commander? Maybe. Battalion Commander or higher? Probably not. If it is determined that the leadership should have known what was going on and didn't, they can kiss their careers goodbye on the basis of being clueless leaders. It is (or should be) a matter of common sense that the farther from the misconduct you get, the less likely that those in charge knew anything about it.

But that doesn't mean they're completely off the hook either because more senior leaders are responsible for setting the command climate. Because of the culture of the military ("A commander is responsible for everything their soldier do or fail to do.") this can reach pretty high, especially if it can be shown that the officer has actually done or said anything that can be seen as damaging to good order and discipline in context. Prelim news reports seem to indicate that the Battalion Commander and Commanding General were both relieved on this basis.

At some point though, even this becomes absurd. Calling for the SecDef to resign because some junior level wankers couldn't tell right from wrong is just political opportunism.

Posted by Michael at May 10, 2004 05:41 PM

Roger sez:
"Simple question Pete. Since you're in the military, what's the odds that officers above this crew didn't know what was going on? They've brought 7 people up on charges. 2 sergeants, 3 specialists and 2 privates. Rumsfeld says that there are no scapegoats in this."

Just for arguments sake, let's say the CO's didn't know. IT DON'T F&*KIN MATTER! Every officer is taught that you have the authority and RESPONSIBILITY over your unit, especially in line-of-duty cases. YOU CAN NEVER DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY! If any officers were involved in a UCMJ violation, I'd expect to see their ass hauled before a courtmartial as well.

As for the enlisted...it was pretty damn evident that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Look at the UCMJ and see how many violations they committed.

One of the first things you are taught is that you have NO OBLIGATION to follow illegal orders.
Those individuals using the "just following orders" gambit are in for a nasty surprise.

Posted by Bucky Katt at May 10, 2004 05:50 PM

At first looking at those photos my natural reaction was revulsion. Who wouldn't find those photos revolting? Except, thinking about it; what else are we to do to get people to talk when more physical forms of torture are not permitted. A policy which I agree with.

These photos are being taken out of context. Like the one showing two dogs barking at an Iraqi male. What are the circumstances? Was he trying to escape? Was he involved in the killing of Americans or fellow Iraqis? He may very well have been innocent. My point is that photo in and of itself tells little.

What pray tell do the press think we (the U.S.) are doing with Khalid Mohammed? Do they think we are offering the mastermind of the World Trade Center atrocity tea to tell us of more plots? Or did we in a fit of hypocrisy send him to a "friendly" nation where physical torture is permitted? I would think so.

Yet to see American personnel smiling while doing this ugly, unseemly work is distressing. This work in war is nothing to smile about. It soils the individual soldiers and America. The question is if it is nonetheless necessary.

Posted by brian at May 10, 2004 05:52 PM

Jeff B.,

I would not dispute the fact that my post was an effort to divert the discussion. The discussion was directed at calling Mr. Hersh's reliability into question. This in itself is a diversion, because Mr. Hersh simply made public elements of the Taguba Report and the photos. He also speculated about the extent of the conduct, but then so does the Report. The discussion is a diversion for true believers and possibly for the weak minded. Given the morally dubious intention of the discussion, I simply called into question the sincerity of its proposers. Alleged outrage (or the search for a basis for such outrage) at Mr. Hersh -- is that consistent with outrage at analogous alleged conduct on the part of imagined (by me) fellow-travelers of those who might seek to impugn Mr Hersh? Tu quoque. Yes. It is not a precisely logical response to the specific question, but it gets at the precisely the climate in which such questions get raised in preference to others.

And along those lines, I would just like to ask what those now looking for every possible way to diminish and belittle and even justify these offenses would think would be happening if the story had turned up, with pictures, in say early 1998 or 1999 with regard to Kossova? I think there'd be articles of impeachment already written.

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 06:10 PM

Back when I used to read Hersh's pieces in the New Yorker I was continually amazed at all his unnamed sources - virtually all of them were anonymous. I get the New Yorker every week and love its topical pieces, but I can't read Hersh anymore.

Posted by Blah at May 10, 2004 06:13 PM

Carol in California wrote: "You know, after WW1 Our Boys came home with French Postcards. It opened the eyes of a lot of farm kids. Iraq's about the same"

Wow, Carol, are you saying that now the cities and farmhouses of America will start practicing sado-masochistic and gay sex? :) :) :)

Sentator McCain pretty much said that these pictures and actions depicted in them are WORSE than the torture he endured for several years at the Hanoi Hilton.

Posted by Sen at May 10, 2004 06:18 PM

Brenden commented:

"Hey Narniaman;

Here's the question: the administration alleged there were WMD in Iraq, alleged the Iraquis would be able to pay for their own rebuilding, would accept Americans as liberators, and that major combat was over about a year ago. Do you remember whether any of the people making these claims were named Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, or Bush???"

=======================================

This was Brenden's answer to my query "Did Seymour Hersh claim that an early Special Forces raid in the Afghanistan war was a "near catastrophe"?

And to answer my own question -- yes, it was Seymour Hersh that made those accusations. I have since done a Google Search, and the report may be found in an article entitled "King Sys's Mistakes" at:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058474

But let me try to handle some of Brenden's questions. I must acknowledge that I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage, since Brenden is obvious a very bright individual to ask such penetrating, insightful questions. And I'm just sort of a conservative country rube.

Well, on second thought, maybe it doesn't make any sense to challenge someone has intellectual as Brenden. But I think I will make a teeny, weeny simple request of him.

I would like him to tell me just what the story was about the alleged WMD's.

1) Did Iraq actually never have any WMD? If that's the case, what was Saddam using to kill the Kurds and Iranians? And why did the UN inspectors seem to think that Saddam and company had all sorts of WMDs in 1998? Like 10,000 quarts of anthrax broth? Was Bill Clinton lying about Iraq having WMDs in 1998? Didn't he say something like "and you can bet that he will use them?"

2) Or did Iraq actually have WMDs at some point in there distant past (like 1998 or so), but no longer had them by the time Bush and company assumed office. If so, what happened to them? I know some Saddam supporters claim that Iraq just sort of took the nasty chemicals out into the desert, dug a hole, and buried them -- and they sort of forgot where they dug the hole. Is that what happened?

3) Recently Sudan demanded that Syria remove the missiles and WMDs they had shipped over to Sudan. And, as you know, Jordan recently announced that they had arrested some bad guys who were planning on using WMDs brought in from Syria to gas a whole bunch of people. It was suggested that the gas they had planned to use was VX. Did the governmental officials in Sudan and Jordan make up the stories about WMDs coming from Syria? Do you think that Syria, right under Israel's nose, has been manufacturing WMDs?

Or do you suppose these WMDs came from somewhere else? Like, maybe, uh, . . . .well, you know, maybe the UAE?

4) As you very well know, shortly after 9/11 it was alleged that a rather deadly preparation of weaponized anthrax was sent to several news media outlets and a governmental official or two. It seems at least ten people were treated for anthrax infection, and several of them died.

Do you really believe that this anthrax, which is certainly a WMD, actually existed? The reason I ask this is that after an exhaustive investigation the FBI has not found any evidence that the anthrax was produced or came from the US. And the FBI has been investigating this for over two and one-half years.

Now you have concluded that if the US military, in searching a foreign nation the size and population of California, hasn't found any WMDs in a year -- than that's proof there weren't any WMDs. Certainly the FBI, who doesn't have people shooting at them on a daily basis, and is much more familiar with the surroundings and the population, should have been able to find the WMDs in the US, right?

So therefore, the anthrax really didn't exist and Tom Daschle was lying?

From your writings I can just sense oodles and oodles of wisdom just sort of seeping out. So can you please enlighten me as whether or not there ever were any WMDs? Was Clinton and Kofi lying?

I'm anxiously awaiting your response.

Posted by Narniaman at May 10, 2004 06:19 PM

Pete: I've seen the pictures of the so-called U.S. soldiers raping Iraqi women. I did not see any U.S. soldiers. The men all had beards and were wearing green camoflage. None of our troops in Iraq wear green camoflage and they certainly don't have beards. These photographs are absolutly staged and are not U.S. soldiers.

Posted by DEacon Blues at May 10, 2004 06:26 PM

Do I think what is coming to light is revolting? Yes.

Am I disappointed that these acts were perpetrated by US soldiers? Incredibly.

Do I think this is more wide-spread? Almost certainly.

However, it's next to impossible for me give any credence to Seymour Hersh when he has made statements like this:

BLITZER: It sounds as if you've got more information that you're ready to release at some point as well, that this article in The New Yorker is not everything you know?

HERSH: Of course not.

BLITZER: What are you waiting for?

HERSH: I have to prove what I believe to be true. I have to get it proven.

This was in an interview on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on May 2, 2004.

(URL: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/02/le.00.html)

I'm sure that Hersh has more access to information than I do and more of a basis for coming to his conclusions ... But the way he phrases this makes it sound as though he's looking for evidence to support his beliefs, not searching for evidence that will lead him to the truth.

To me, this comment (and others like it) seem to make it clear that Hersh has a hard time even pretending that he's an "objective observer and reporter of world events", which is what I'm naive enough to hope for in a journalist.

Posted by Caleb at May 10, 2004 06:31 PM

Oh, and just to add to the meme of "up-the-chain" responsibility, I would note how the Bush's administration's recourse to sliming the critic has been thoroughly legitimated and practiced by those quaffing its koolaid.

Posted by brendan at May 10, 2004 06:32 PM

I have to take enormous exception to this post. There may be some things that Hersh says that you can take exception to, but from what I've read, your response to everything is "Hersh is a liar." Do you offer evidence to dispute such claims? No. And some of your Fisking is downright laughable. Clearly, Hersh mis-speaks when he said that 60 percent of the detainees had "no bad feelings toward America whatsoever," but the essential claim in the Taguba report is that 60 percent of the detainees had nothing to do with attacks on US forces. So what is the issue here?

Then you launch into a silly note about how things were really bad last fall because the meanie press was just laying into how bad things were. "Last fall was Ramadan, and the press was gleefully touting deaths of soldiers every day." This is a Limbaugh rhetorical tactic at its worst: create a straw man out of an opponent and then use that straw man against the opponent to discredit him. It's intellectually bankrupt. Surely you would agree that things on the ground are much worse NOW than they were last Fall. Or maybe you don't. I'd be interested to know.

Posted by jm at May 10, 2004 06:38 PM

Brendan - A guy is holding a woman hostage with a gun to her head. He has previous convictions for assault and murder. He agrees to put down the weapon and let the woman go, but does not. The police see an opening, and shoot and kill him. It turns out the gun was'nt loaded. Are you going to carp because the gun wasn't loaded? Most people would agree that the guy brought it on himself - that the situation was too dangerous not to act.

Same with the WMD. Saddam made agreements and broke them repeatedly. The situation was too dangerous to wait for a radioactive cloud over Manhattan. If Saddam had kept his agreements he would probably still be in power.

Somehow I suspect that you're not big on keeping your agreements as well.

Posted by Jack_Okie at May 10, 2004 06:53 PM

How dare you, Greyhawk! You have no right to even think of fact-checking a liberal icon. You should be ashamed to call yourself... a bird. ;-)

Posted by ELC at May 10, 2004 06:53 PM

Ruth
You are not Correct. O'Reilly has NEVER claimed to be a conservative. Only Liberals, with an ax to gring, have claimed him as such. He describes himself as a libertarian. Small "l" libertarian.
A libertarian is for the second amendment, much more so than the NRA.
A libertarian is pro-choice. Real pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
A libertarian is for small government.
A libertarian is for legalizing drugs. All drugs, not just pot. (this is my biggest problem with them as I don't believe we have the ability to deal with the "unintended consequences" of this position
O'Reilly is not consistant with the positions of a conservative because he is not a conservative no matter what the flaming Liberals whine.

Posted by Jhn'1 at May 10, 2004 06:59 PM

Being drummed out of the military and doing hard time at Levinworth are the same? I think Rumsfeld's military is sending a distinct message. Grunts do hard time and CO's accuse and run. It isn't good what is happening to this military. I think Rumsfeld needs to fall on his sword.

Roger, quit moving the goalposts. First you said:

If there's zero chance that the CO's didn't know what was going on, why is it ludicrous to hold these CO's repsonsible. They are going after the grunts and Rumsfeld said there weren't going to be scapegoats. I'm looking at the charges brought foward and this can't be good for the military. I'm all for guys chipping rocks in regards to this debacle, I personally think the CO's should be included.

Then you got called on it and suddenly you're not talking about 'holding COs responsible' -- you're talking about Levinworth vs. dishonorable discharge.

Seems that it's not so much that you want the officers to be "held responsible". You want to see them fry. So just come on out and say that.

The question is not "should the officers be punished instead of the soldiers. It's "should the officers and the soldiers both be punished.

Posted by Anne Haight at May 10, 2004 07:00 PM

I heard Hersh on TV this morning saying that the pictures, like the abuse itself, were prison policy -- that the threat of showing the pictures to the prisoners' neighbors and family was made to get them to talk to avoid such a public shame.

Ironically, the recent outraged coverage would thus also be further such punishment. But of course, if this blackmail purpose is true, why are they all wearing hoods?

Posted by David Pittelli at May 10, 2004 07:20 PM

Sen says:
"Sentator McCain pretty much said that these pictures and actions depicted in them are WORSE than the torture he endured for several years at the Hanoi Hilton."

BULLS**T, Sen! He never came close to saying that. I've met Honoi Hilton POWs. That you would even try to promote that line of thinking, is very offensive to me. Do some research on the torture our POWs suffered under the NVs before you spout out such bile again. Suggested reading: When Hell Was in Session by Adm. Jeremiah Denton

Posted by JFH at May 10, 2004 07:42 PM

People, we’re talking about the New Yorker! Even their cartoons suck anymore.

Posted by George at May 10, 2004 07:45 PM

"Sentator McCain pretty much said that these pictures and actions depicted in them are WORSE than the torture he endured for several years at the Hanoi Hilton."

Posted by: Sen at May 10, 2004 06:18 PM

Uh, Sen? I work for the Senator, and I think he'd be surprised to read your characterizations of his remarks Friday.

Why don't you ask him and post back - Because I sure the hell wouldn't ask him something that stupid.

Here you go: http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

Matt

Posted by Matt at May 10, 2004 07:55 PM

Sen & Matt,
I can understand why a reasonable person would assume that Senator McCain could not have said that (that what we've been doing to Iraqi prisoners is worse than what was done by North Vietnam against US prisoners) -- because it's hard to believe that a US Senator and media darling for Pres would say anything so stupid, especially having lived half of the equation himself.

I have no such difficulty believing it. McCain's mental instability has been apparent to me since I first saw him speak at a Republican convention (1980, or 1984? the speech was primarily about a man beaten half to death for making a US flag out of his underwear, using blood etc. for dye, and then, when thrown back in his cell half-dead, starting to sew another flag).

I'd take naked humiliation and moderate violence over years of torture and starvation any day. (Especially since the Vietnamese didn't exactly eschew humiliation, either.)

Posted by David Pittelli at May 10, 2004 08:13 PM

Oops,

I think I got McCain's position backward. (If so, sorry.) I continue to believe that it's absurd to say that Iraqi prisoners have it worse than US prisoners held by the NVA.

Posted by David Pittelli at May 10, 2004 08:15 PM

Read and employ your reading comprehension skills:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8630954.htm?1c

"His worst moment? ``When I succumbed to physical mistreatment and signed a war crimes confession.'' What kind of mistreatment? ``It was pretty bad,'' he said. Then he paused. ``Including a broken arm.'' " -- here he talks about physical torture that he was subjected to.

"Despite what some might think, the senator insists he was not reminded of his own experience, more than three decades ago, when he saw the photos of naked Iraqi prisoners, images he calls ``so horrific it defies my imagination.'' But asked to compare the two situations, he offered a quick and revealing rejoinder: ``I was never subjected to sexual humiliation and degradation.'' " -- and here he says that torture in the pictures included sexual humiliation and degradation, something so horrific that even after his prison experiences defy his imagination.

Posted by Sen at May 10, 2004 09:10 PM

Kill the messenger? I'm not impressed, Greyhawk.

bizzare analysis point #1:

GH: "Bizarre comment 1: Hersh has no idea what percentage of the prisoners "had no bad feelings toward America whatsoever" - the claim is ridiculous."

Umm, seems like Hersh is trying to convey the idea that many people being detained weren't fighting coalition forces. This has been reported elsewhere. Not so bizarre, in conversation, to use a percentage as a means of describing the magnitude of an issue, even if the actual magnitude hasn't been measured (example, I lose my keys, and "I'm 99 percent sure I left my keys on the table). Greyhawk doesn't understand conversational english.

Bizarre analysis #2:
GH: "Bizarre comment 2: Must we repeat it? "...you and I in our days, if we had something, you know, we came back from war. We would take our pictures and hide them behind the socks in the drawer and look at them once in a while."

Yes, it's weird to think that the press used to surpress bad information and not report on the whole horrors of war. It's changed, and that is what Hersh is trying to convey. Not well said, but not really all that bizarre, either.

GH: "Hersh is lying: There were three investigations. And the two he acknowledges were conducted prior to the discovery of wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib. Immediately upon that discovery the Army launched a CID investigation into the allegations, it obtained the bulk of the evidence that led to the criminal charges in the case. Taguba's followed and was the fourth."

Maybe he's lying, maybe he forgot that there were actually four investigations, rather than three, maybe he only knows about three. You haven't demonstrated a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead for a nefarious purpose. The point is it took four investigations, the fourth we completed in FEBRUARY for cryin' out loud and it's only being made public months later.

Phoney analysis point #1: GH wrote: "The problem here is they were picking on people that they hadn't made any differentiation on. They didn't know.

Hersh dodged the question by a country mile (not a talking point), and is lying..."

Wow. Again GH demonstrates a lack of understanding of conversational english. Comparing a transcript of a conversation to a written article? These aren't the same types of data, they aren't comparable. You are just grasping at phrases in a weak attempt to discredit the messenger. Your thesis is Hersh is lying about his own work? Now that's bizarre.

Here's where Greyhawk falls off the boat, he's at sea all alone with this type of ignorant comment:

GH: "Not all right. Hersh is a liar. Last fall was Ramadan, and the press was gleefully touting deaths of soldiers every day."

Let's play the GH game: GH is a liar. "Last fall" was not Ramadan. Ramadan only lasts one month long, not the entire fall. Liar.

Posted by natz at May 10, 2004 09:33 PM

Wow, natz. With that kind of defense of Hersh, I'm only left to conclude that Hersh's communication skills suck or he's incompetent.

It's like the Bush-haters/defenders in reverse: "Maybe he's lying, maybe he forgot that there were actually four investigations, rather than three, maybe he only knows about three. You haven't demonstrated a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead for a nefarious purpose."

Why all this interest in defending a hit-and-miss muckraker? Is this a groupie defense, iconic love or save the messager to preserve the message?

Posted by Tim at May 10, 2004 10:02 PM

natz

Hersh had the Taguba report, it detailed the number of previous inspections. Arguing that Hersh wasn't familiar with the Taguba report is self defeating.

Hersh point about the period last fall was to imply it was calm - it wasn't. Don't pretend you don't understand the purpose of his rhetoric.

The number of persons in the prison that "had nothing against Americans" really doesn't matter - the prisoners in block 1 were not mixed with the general population, and vice versa. In fact, the unit that was guarding block one had that duty alone.

Hersh's only "message" is that the torturers are innocent children whose mother (leadership) failed them. He (like his defenders) wants criminals excused for a political gain. Reprehensible.

That these torturers have become the new little darlings of the American Left is a hideous twist of reality. Whatever it takes to get Rummy (Bush) seems to be the thing. Come to think of it, that's the justification for the torture too: "whatever it takes to get information"

I see the similarities now. It makes sense.

By the way, there was no suppression of information. Read the Time line elsewhere on this site for the truth about that. Hersh's entire line is part of a spin job by the head torturer (Frederick) and his defense team.

I'm sure they appreciate your support.

Posted by Gunther at May 10, 2004 10:26 PM

Gunther,

Now I see how it works: I poke fun at Greyhawk, thus, I am defending torture.

I have no idea if Hersh is telling the truth or not, and neither does Greyhawk.

I'm not intersted in defending Hersh, just poking sticks at the dead carcass of Greyhawk's analysis, which made no sense at all.

Gunther, don't even try to understand. I can see you still prefer your news spoon-fed.

Posted by natz at May 10, 2004 10:53 PM

natz, lets stick with the easy one:

Hersh said there were two previous inspections when actually there were three. The third, in fact, was the one that provided the answer to O'Reilly's question: Didn't the military act quickly?

So was Hersh lying? I think so, given the context and the fact that he had the report.

You say?

Posted by Gunther at May 10, 2004 11:12 PM

Am I embarrassed to speak for a less than perfect democracy? Not one bit. Find me its equal.

Do I suppose there are societies which are free of sin? No, I don’t. Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do.

Have we done obscene things? Yes, we have. How did our people learn about them? They learned about them on television. In the newspapers.

-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Posted by Tim at May 10, 2004 11:39 PM

Gunther,

I have no idea, you have no idea, and certainly Greyhawk has no idea if Hersh was lying about anything. We may as well debate whether or not he called his mom on Mother's Day.

Hersh is certainly guilty of sensationalizing his story, a common malady afflicting reporters. He is certainly a partisan. He's also clearly trying to force more policy-level folks to step up and take some responsibility for the policies that lead to these acts.

Posted by natz at May 10, 2004 11:59 PM

Tim,

nice quote. I guess your point is, we need to more journalists like Sy Hersh?

Posted by natz at May 11, 2004 12:00 AM

We have no idea if Hersh was lying in the same sense that we have no idea that anyone was tortured.

Pictures indicate people were tortured, the Taguba report indicates Hersh was lying.

Of course, neither proooooves it...

Posted by Gunther at May 11, 2004 12:04 AM

The Taguba report indicates Hersh was lying?

The report says no such thing!!!

Gunther, you're a liar! ;)

Posted by natz at May 11, 2004 12:36 AM

natz,

No, more Moynihan Democrats.

Moynihan was a candid, candid friend and a cosmic patriot. Hersh is the uncandid candid friend, the cosmic anti-patriot, Chesterton described.

Posted by natz at May 11, 2004 01:47 AM

"I can't speak for anyone else but the moment I see a claim that the president is responsible for every action of any soldier any time anywhere, and that claim is on top of a multi-paragraph diatribe I just yawn and stop reading."

And here I was prepared to feel guilty about it. Heh.

Posted by Scott at May 11, 2004 02:48 AM

I saw Hersh on O'Reilly's show. He was making some weird point that soldiers are children and their chain of command is in loco parentis. I think he's loco.

Didn't he come up with something weird about KAL 007?

Posted by George at May 11, 2004 03:29 AM

Here's some background about Hersch I posted on another blog:
Hersch originally made his name (and won a Pulitzer Prize) as the youngish journalist who broke the story of the My Lai massacre. Ever since, he's been working very hard to re-create his moment of glory--which, in his case, is to re-create the experience of uncovering a war crime by US forces and encouraging the abandonment of a theater of war, while covering himself with journalistic honors.

To this end, he has been dogged in the pursuit of war crimes and errors by the US military. Ever since the Afghan war began, he's published a series of articles in The New Yorker criticizing every aspect of both wars, uncovering what he considers US failures (most of which have never panned out, by the way, but that hasn't deterred him).

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and that's what's happened to Hersch here. He cares nothing whatsoever, in my opinion, about what happens to the country as a result. His cause is the pursuit of an impossible moral and ethical perfection in the conduct of US fighting (I don't believe he's ever written about abuses by any other country, at least as far as I know).

See this for an interesting article about what Hersch was up to in 2000, prior to 9/11. He was working the American war crimes angle quite vigorously for the FIRST Gulf War, hoping it would stick: http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200009/iraq.html

Others are in agreement with me about Hersch. See this: http://silentrunning.tv/archives/004126.php. There's lots more, if you want to do a search yourself. He is one of the most powerful men in America today, and there are absolutely no checks or balances on him, as far as I can see.

And Hersch has a history of lying (although I don't think lies are involved in the Abu Ghraib case--the truth is damaging enough for him.) See the following, from http://www.jdl-ny.org/Antiwar.html :

Regarding Hersh's book "The Price of Power: Kisssinger in the Nixon White House" Martin Peretz editor-in-chief of "The New Republic", has written that "there is hardly anything [in the book] that shouldn't be suspect (The New Republic Sept. 12, 1983)

Former Attorney General John Mitchell, a major source for Hersh's book "The Price of Power", said that "almost every episode or statement on Kissinger ascribed to him by Hersh [was] "a distortion, an exaggeration, a misinterpretation, or an expletive-deleted lie" (National Review June 24, 1983)

Posted by blogaddict at May 11, 2004 05:28 AM

Dan Searles. Your comment deserves a reply.
Since you mentioned me by name I assume your remarks are comments on my unremoved post. Actually I think it is good people debate, even if their comments or arguments are unusual, weak, nonsensical or mistaken as well as right on or only partly good. I think blogs are another safety value to let off steam that makes our society one of few that is successful and non-authoritanian (no thanks to Bush's efforts to control and undermine our freedoms) or worse. A way to work out stress, etc. without turning to criminal "college pranks" as that pompus, fat, loud-mouth sack of shit Limbaugh condones.

Don, you seem quite content to overblow your arguments. Jeez just go to sleep if you don't like them. I am sure this is all going over your head anyway. The commander-in-chief declared he is the "War President." He has given an oath to unhold the laws and without prompting self declared his responsibility for the fiasco in Iraq. As I infered I think you don't comprehend. In the politics of the country he is elected to make good decisions. He is responsible for the War and its impact on America. He should have seen to it we were prepared for a long war with competent and well trained personnel. Instead, what did he do or allowed, certainly not good preparation. Bush or his underlings said the war of terror would be long, years in fact. However, it was Sec. of Def., a civilian appointed by Bush who would not allow more troops for Iraq(firing a General for demanding more troops) and this whole cabal of "smart guys" rushed this war with lies and deceptions and failed in their rush to prepare adequately for foreseeable contingencies. Is Bush responsible in the realm of politics, definitely yes. He will be voted out as a failed leader and a commander-in-chief. As a criminal matter or for impeachment as you seem to be saying, he would not be responsibile if he knew nothing and did nothing. That is one of the great benefits of our laws.

Did I say Bush stole the election and no WMDs were found? I have re-read my comments several times and can't find that. If I had GH's power you would be deleted, cancelled, wiped out, brain-removed like a cyborg, but alas I don't have the power. Just strike one, bud!

If it was your military duty to see that your troops were not out getting drunk you failed if that soldier was drunk. Bush's duty is too make good decisions and protect Americans. Neither of which he is doing.

Posted by pete at May 11, 2004 05:33 AM

GH. Could you number the posts so it would be easier to locate them for follow-up comments? Some other blogs are doing that now.

Posted by pete at May 11, 2004 05:36 AM

I have read the numerous comments over with some care. Come to the decision that 'pete' is an ignorant jerk. Much time wasted, of course. G

Posted by Gerry at May 11, 2004 08:45 AM

For those who wish to save time, here is a brief sysnopsis of pete's arguments so far.

1) Bush BAD
2) Repeating the same crap over and over is equal to hard proof of the charges truthfulness

One thing I want explained is why Congress has to be informed about incidents at one facility in Iraq againast one group of prisoners as if it is the latest intelligence about an impending Al-Qaeda attack on the Capitol? The Army investigated, they punished or charged those involved, and that should be the end of it. Your fake horror amuses me. The administration not immediately running to Congress with everything is the root of the liberal charge that this is the most secretive administration ever.

And before you start that mud-slinging, I have drunk no KoolAid. I voted for Clinton in '92 and have voted Democrat at other times. I am actually a libertarian at heart BUT I will go ahead and say that while I disagree with Bush on a lot of the domestic policy (spending mainly), I believe he is exactly what this country needs right now. John Kerry would invite all of these people who hate us to tea to talk about it. And they would gladly accept and bring the belt-bombs to kill us.

Posted by Steve at May 11, 2004 08:13 PM

Why is Hersh even the issue? And this agenda he's supposedly got doesn't seem to get in the way of all his Navy Seals and Force Recon sources. His Tora Bora account was 99% supplied by Special Forces guys. They don't think he's some knee-jerk anti-American beetweed. And, their opinion counts more than some flag-waving little dipshit a la...

A lot of the sick shit came out of this book by a Northwestern Prof. named Guttman (figures). All about what the Arab male fears, how to get him to roll over and die.

Posted by Chet at May 14, 2004 08:22 AM

I have looked roughy at what you have to say and at a few of the comments above.

I cannot vouch for Hersh's veracity. I think he is telling the truth in the large, even if there a exaggerations and minor distortions.

You say he has lied. I don't see how you are able to judge. You don't have the source material. Nobody does yet. Nobody knows who the prisoners were. If we knew who the dead man in the ice pack was, for e.g., we might be in a position to see if he was a bad 'un.

The M.P.'s were not the guilty part - it was the CACI emplyees such as Stefanowicz and israel. We need to know what they did and under whose authority.

My piece on Hersh's latest NYT article makes the point that the Abu Ghraib abuse doesn't worry the U.S. govt. a jot. It is the fear of having to explain the SAP for Afghanistan that Rumsfeld signed through for use in Iraq - this is the is the brown panter. It will hark back, not to Mai Lai but to CIA dirty tricks in Chile, Argentina and central America in the middle 60s.

Probably quite a few innocent people got the third degree at Abu Ghraib, as I suggest, and we know a few got killed. The airwaves show the Iraqis are less worried about this fiasco than the western media. They have had so much torture and murder of family or friends over the last 20 odd years. A few humiliated naked men is nothing in comparison to that.

Check my site and let me kow what you think. Anything glaringly wrong I will change. I want to get it right, not try to win arguments.

Regards,

A

Posted by andy at May 18, 2004 11:01 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(67) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)