Blogs and Stories
The Man Who Knew Cheney's Secret
Newscom
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh was mocked in March when he referred to Dick Cheney’s secret squad of CIA assassins. Now, he talks to The Daily Beast about the next shoe to drop.
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh raised eyebrows back in March when he told an audience at the University of Minnesota that Dick Cheney ran a secret hit squad that he kept hidden from congressional oversight.
"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on," Hersh said at the time. He added: "Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us."
“I said what I said, they can always say what they say,” Hersh told The Daily Beast. “The last time they said the government doesn’t torture, this time it’s the government doesn’t assassinate.”
Some observers accused him of rumor-mongering and a top former military official threw cold water on the story, but with the recent news that the CIA allegedly kept Congress in the dark on a covert program, Hersh's words suddenly look more and more prescient. Yesterday, The New York Times reported the hidden program in question was a death squad authorized by Dick Cheney without congressional approval.
Now, there are key differences between Hersh's reporting and the Times' latest piece. Hersh suggested that the assassination ring was conducted out of the Joint Special Operations Command rather than the CIA. Moreover, according to Hersh's sources, the program was operational, leaving a trail of bodies, while the Times cited officials saying that the CIA hit squad never actually carried out a mission. The Times and Hersh could conceivably be reporting two distinct squads.
The Daily Beast tracked down Hersh in South Asia, where he says he has not been able to read the New York Times piece but has received calls buzzing about the report. Asked about the officials quoted in the Times' report who claimed that Cheney's assassination ring never became operational, Hersh offered a skeptical response.
"I said what I said, they can always say what they say," Hersh told The Daily Beast. "The last time they said the government doesn’t torture; this time it's the government doesn’t assassinate."
Hersh said that his words in Minnesota were exaggerated in the press, because he had previously reported on covert operations that he alleged were out of Congress' view. In February 2005, he published a report that the president had authorized Donald Rumsfeld to organize special operations in South Asia and the Middle East without going through the CIA, and thus not having to report them to Congress. In July 2005, he wrote that the White House circumvented Nancy Pelosi to organize covert operations led by retired CIA officers and non-government personnel to influence the Iraqi elections.
"In my reporting for this story, one theme that emerged was the Bush administration’s increasing tendency to turn to off-the-books covert actions to accomplish its goals," he wrote in the July 2005 piece. "This allowed the administration to avoid the kind of stumbling blocks it encountered in the debate about how to handle the elections: bureaucratic infighting, congressional second-guessing, complaints from outsiders."
As recently as July 2008, Hersh published a report that the White House was exploiting technical differences between Defense and intelligence operations in order to get around briefing Congress on pursuing "high-value targets" in Iran through covert action.
"There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing," he wrote then.
Beyond his own reporting, Hersh said President Bush's own speeches provided evidence of secret assassinations.
"Go read George Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech," he said. "He's talking and he says we've captured and detained 3,000 al Qaeda members and other terrorists—crazy numbers—and said some of them will never bother us anymore. And Congress cheers."
Bush's full quote then was:
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."
This article was updated to reflect differences between Hersh’s story and The New York Times’.
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Sarah Palin, Creationist?
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
10 Palin Hits the Leakers Missed
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
The Man Who Beat Glenn Beck
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
All this seems true, but to me the question is what is happening that we dont know about under the current administration?... in Iran, Hondurus and North Korea?
If they'll kidnap, why not assasinate? Those 13 CIA officers cannot return to Italy or will prosecuted. There are attempts to extradite them, too.
Italy seeks 'CIA kidnap agents'
The imam was allegedly driven to a US military base after his abduction
Italian authorities have issued arrest warrants for 13 people they claim are agents "linked to the CIA".
Osama Mustafa Hassan, also known as Abu Omar, was already being investigated in Italy as part of a terrorism inquiry.
Italian prosecutors believe the operation was part of a controversial US anti-terror policy known as "extraordinary rendition".
And the shit keeps piling on.
Everyone is just a pawn to those with power.
Let freedom ring.
Im curious if any of the opposition feels like they realy stepped in it for pressuring Palosi about CIA and ultimately revealing this. Throw it and see what sticks, but dont step in it.
They will continue with this policy hopefuly with the same results
Chip, chip, chipping away at the Constitution...
Where in the Constitution does it specify that the President, as Commander-in-Chief is not able to conduct military operations against America's enemies?
Here's your answer: it doesn't. So Bush was within his rights to attack terrorists using military methods.
Anytime a liberal doesn't like something he says it's against the Constitution without actually reading that document.
On that note, where in the Constitution does it allow for the NEA or the Dep't of Education.
Here's your answer: it doesn't.
Chip, chip, chipping away at the Constitution...
Article 1, Section 8:
o constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
---------------
These powers are given to Congress. You asked where in the Constitution it sayd that the President is not able to conduct military operations on his own, without the approval of Congress. Well, there ya go.
You can read the whole Constitution here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
When we freak out and claim Bush was a traitor, it is because he violated a sacred oath, which is also spelled out in the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Note that it is not the country which he swears to defend, it is the Constitution. That is why Bush is a traitor to this country.
Where was the constitution when the CIA sponsored the assasinations of the democrats Allende and Lumumba?
Where was the constitution when they sponsored the coup in Iran?
Poppy Bush and the CIA were in Dallas on November 12, 1963
I really fear for Seymour's safety, as God knows what Cheny's nutcase follower's at Blackwater (Eric Prince), and that Black fellow who claimed to bring Bin Laden's head back in an ice chest.
Hopefully Mr. Hersh's notoriety will make Cheney and Bush think twice. Remember when they did not know the microphone was on when Bush called Seymour "a major leaque asshole"?
Cheney just nodded and said "yeh boss". And we all remember foul mouth Cheney's perjorative toward's Pat Leahy.
Close, but not quite. Bush called NYT reporter Adam Clymer "major league asshole." Cheney said the infamous "big time".
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bushcuss.asp
I would worry about his daughter Liz, who so clearly follows in his footsteps!!
@BullMoose - Bush said that about Adam Clymer, a NY Times correspondent, not about Seymour Hersch.
Two for one then for the evil one. Mamma alway's said evil is as evil does. In my humble opinion of course.
I am a Democrat to my very bones and always have been. That said, I have no problem with hit squads going out and whacking Al Qaeda people. As far as I'm concerned, they should all be put in a big giant sack and tossed off a bridge somewhere to drown. And by the way, the only Democrat who's ever sat in the Oval Office that I can't imagine killing Al Qaeda wherever he found them would have been Jimmy Carter, who through his nauseating, sanctimonious sermons set our party back for thirty years.
Oh, yeah... One more thing... Obama's sending Predator drones out to blow up these people every week or so - killing thirty or forty at a time. And more often than not, he's nailing them in their beds at home.
There's plenty to go after Dick Cheney for, but slaughtering Al Qaeda people is certainly not one of them.
The program existing is not necessarily the problem. Cheney being in charge of it and not letting anyone in Congress know about it is the problem.
Absolutely right: if the law was broken, people should be taken to task for it.
Wonder how many people would be happy to have a foreign government coming over here and kill those that don't agree with them. There is a rule of law that all nations should live by. We are no better than Iran, Korea, or Russia if we continue to do like they do. Shame on our country.
This is for Southernankee: You are a spineless fool. Your comparisons are ridiculous and so far left that I dare think you are even an American. Our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, maybe you heard about it. We were attacked by wreckless zealouts who don't like America, not by any one country. Our government took every measurable step to insure our safety and now, 8 years later and without mishap since, we get to criticize steps taken by said government for mere political cover up of a house speaker that has been caught in a lie. Quit crying because your party is on a witchunt because you disagree with tactics taken. The congress lacks the ability to not leak information to the press....and the press certainly lacks the intgrity to not leak it to the entire world.
Damn right. But even more egregious is his pissing on the constitution by re-writing the authority of his office. Prick Cheney and daughter Tonya Harding Cheney are such boldface liars it is nauseating.
@jim
Damn right.
Liz has to be the rudest 'pundit/politician/devil's spawn' I have ever experienced. She honestly makes her father look soft.
Clearthinker, remember that it's Cheney who continually says that they kept us safe after 9/11. That's like saying that they pitched a no-hitter, except for those two GRAND SLAMS in the first inning. He simply has zero credibility.
JDK you said it best.................THAT is the real issue..........the Machiavellan power of DICK CHENEY...........so what?????
Al-Qaeda DESERVES Assassination....................period
CHENEY does not deserve total power !!!
The problem with assassination squads is who's deciding who should be killed? Bush said in 2003 that they had arrested 3,000 "terrorists". That was six years ago and they've "arrested" many more since then. But they have released well over 90% of them (there are only 200 or so at Gitmo) because they found them not to be guilty. Unfortunately, they tortured most of them before they decided that----and they were apparently the lucky ones, because they killed the rest. Neither we nor anyone else has any way of knowing how many of those killed were actually guilty. That is one of the reasons why we have a law that demands Congressional oversight. We need it because the White House and the CIA have gone hotdog/cowboy before. And now they've done it again.
Excellently put! Roosevelt was a Democrat and he went after Hitler and Hirohito and Truman dropped the bomb to force Japan to surrender. I don't see modern democrats having the same stones as their predecessors.
Do you mean things like the six deferments Dick Cheney received during Vietnam and his affinity for hiding out in an "undisclosed location", are those the stones you are referring to?
We'll all be waiting patiently for an apt response, right after you address that complete lack of knowledge concerning the Constitution.
First, Cheney goes after al-Qaeda secretly with no Congressional oversight and you're ok with it. Then who's to say he doesn't use his hit squad to go after political enemies or economic enemies or people like Seymour Hersh who expose his illegal actions. Who's to stop him with NO OVERSIGHT? This is a slippery slope of one man assembling his own hit squad on the dime of the American taxpayer and being accountable to no one.
Yeah, none of us are fans of al-Qaeda. I have no qualms with them meeting an unnatural end. But we're frigging America, and the rule of law means something around here. We don't let powerful people run amok killing whomever they please without anyone else knowing and without being answerable for it.
Right on, Pupster! You said just what I was thinking.
Hear! Hear!
PUPSTER ....................your point is well taken and correct..............
we said only Al-QAEDA DESERVES ASSASSINATION............
Actually the Cheney-Rove et al gang had this attitude towards their domestic opponents too.............and if they had established the PERMANENT REPUBLCAN MAJORITY.............they would have done the same to americans who opposed them too............Ya BETCHA
Really, So I guess you are supportive of Russia when they sent in a special agent to London to use atomic poisoning on a renegade and in the effort happened to contaminate a restaurant and poison innocent civilians.
Dolmance said: "I have no problem with hit squads going out and whacking Al Qaeda people."
While this is fine in theory, the devil is in the details. I have a big problem with hit squads going out and whacking innocent people accused of being Al Qaeda members, as you know will inevitability happen.
Has happened. I just read yesterday how the CIA stalked and killed a waiter in Morocco who turned out to be a wrong ID and they were subsequently arrested by local authorities.
A Democrat my ass! You've managed to pack more conservative memes into those few short paragraphs than most of the mindless rhetoic I wade through every day over at Freepers, LGF, or CFP. You even managed to get in a shot at Obama with the assertion that he's the one that's responsible for the mess taking place over in the ME.
As for "slaughtering Al Queda people"...If Cheney's victims are recieving even less "due process" than all those (ahem!) *terrorists*!.. yanked into Gitmo, then no-one...NO ONE... is safe from these asassins. As you probably don't know, it turns out Gitmo was mostly full of innocents;....people who had been accused, then sold to the jarheads whose breathtakingly stupid COs failed to foresee that offering a bounty for "terrorists" would be seen by Arab sectarians as a perfect way of settling personal scores while making a tidy profit at the same time! .And all of it done on the backs and reputations of US taxpayers and citizens.
What is your evidence that Obama is doing this? Where are the reports of 30-40 Al Qaeda being killed every week or more often? What sources do you have that no one else does?
Darth Vader was operating on his own in clear violation of the Constitution. As vice-president, he ran the White House and told Congress nothing, in clear violation of the Constitution.
You are right AL-QAEDA deserves ASSASSINATION.............that group declared was on US
But the coup in Iran and the assassination of ALande in Chil was not correct...........only to stop Communism and Leftist victory in those 2 countries.
Also, the reason Democrats are making a big deal ......... because the REPUblcans HIT PELOSI by calling her a liar for saying CIA misled her.( the republ said Nancy said CIA LIED to her....she never used the word lied)
It was sickening to see Liz Cheney given credibility on this morning's Morning Joe program. She evaded all questions and never said her father didn't do what they are saying. She was allowed to interrupt and spew her venom onto Nancy Pelosi and the Dems while not answering the questions. She was allowed to be impertinent to another guest, Eugene Robinson, who put her in her place. Clearly, he was the only grown up at the table this am on that show.
Mika is so smitten with Lizzy "Borden" Cheney that you have to wonder if Lizzy is her dealer.
Mika is "smitten" by EVERY Republican woman. Just say Palin's name and she breaks out into a happy dance. Mention a Democrat (male or female) and she gets her "mad face" on and starts talking negative crap about them. It's her attempt to OVER-COMPENSATE for being the daughter of a SMART democrat. Still don't understand how such a brilliant man could have given birth to such a dumb child-recessive genes most likely.
But you are correct in that she must be on something to look "spaced-out" the entire show. Whatever she's on usually comes with her Star-bucks coffee.
So wingnuts, Hersh was right as usual. He is the anti-Kristol.
Trolls? Are you there?
I'm right here libertard. All of you, including Hersh, are complete blowhards trying to cover sweet Nancy's butt. The CIA's job is to find Al Queda and kill Al Queda. They already had the complete support of the congress after 9/11, this is merely a political stunt so libertards can get their rocks off.
Yeah... it's US vs. THEM ain't it? Just the way GOD intended it. I wonder what side THEY are on... huh? Let them try to grab my guns!!! And take my job!!!
Hersh was right. He's been right, from Abu Ghraib to rendition to all sorts of atrocities Bush committed in the name of "keeping us safe" (a ready excuse that stifles dissent and can be used for any situation, apparently).
The Constitution is there to remind us all that no one is above the law. Not Bush, not Cheney, not the CIA -- all of whom swore an oath to protect and honor it. Now let them answer for breaking that oath and trampling on the rule of law.
Yeah sure.
Hersh only uncovered The My Lai massacre, The Abu Ghraib, Henry Kissinger's secret dealings, he's probably just making shit up again.
"They already had the complete support of the congress after 9/11" Only what they informed them of. 'They' are legally bound to notify Congress of any covert activities, numbnuts. When did obeservance of the nation's laws become "political stunts'? *After* republicans get got?
Those who deal in secrets hate oversight and will twist themselves into pretzels to find ways to avoid them. In theory, killing terrorist leaders sounds alright to me. But putting the vice president in charge of such operations to avoid presidential culpability and working the holes in the system to avoid oversight are violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law as it exists today.
Put the program together in compliance with international law (if possible), give congress all the information required by law, then carry out the operations. I don't think a significant percentage of Americans would have a problem with that.
For that matter, give the terrorist leaders sex-change operations and drop them in Kabul wearing spandex. Let them fight their way out of that particular bag.
Just do in it compliance with the law.
Nancy Pelosi brought up a point that I have given thought to. Congressional oversight is essential, but how effective is it if it just involves telling them something that they are forbidden to tell absolutely anyone. They aren't allowed recordings or notes and they don't have a good way to act on what they've been told------which was apparently not nearly all they should have been told. I never thought that Nancy Pelosi was lying about what the CIA told her. And now I feel even more secure in that belief.
Story after story circulates about wrong doing by the Bush Chenney mob. Yet not one special prosecutor has been commissioned, not one congressional investigation opened. I guess it's a good thing Cheney didn't get a BJ in the white house. THAT would have been stepping over the line.
Did he give one?
Several, inside that man-sized safe, while wearing a man-sized safe.
I think many people are afraid to find out just how far things might have gone.
He did, but it cannot be revealed for reasons of national security.
clearthinker - what a misnomer that is. You sir are an idiot of the lowest order. Just because SouthernYankee doesn't agree with you and your foolish and idiotic assessment that everything our nation stands for should have been thrown out the window after 9/11, you dare say he is hardly an American. You sir are a facist nazi bastard.
bless you Picachu (is that some kind of dog name?) So you disagree with me and call me a facist nazi bastard? You are nothing short of class.
The function of the CIA is to find enemies and kill said enemies. This is not throwing what our "nation stands for", it is protecting our nation from that enemy. By the way, Bush and Cheney did not create these enemies, they have always been there. Congress knows what the CIA is all about and so does this ridiculous reporter and all the people on this blog. If you believe otherwise you are a fool.
clearthinker: The function of the CIA is to find enemies and kill said enemies.
---------------------------
The function of the CIA is to collect INTELLIGENCE. They are SPIES not killing machines. Both the left and right have unrealistic fantasies of what a REAL CIA agent does, mainly due to too many hollywood movies. The day to day life of a CIA agent is amazingly boring.
Is that the best you can do? Insult some poster's handle?
You and your ilk are traitors and a danger to democracy.
"Bush and Cheney did not create these enemies"
Really, didn't the CIA used to run both Bin Laden AND Sadaam as CIA assets? Oh, that's right, they did. So, yeah, they created them during the Reagan/Bush Sr. team for whom both were employed, Bungle was a politicaloperative for the old bastard's campaign and the Dick was in GHWB's inner cabinet. So, 'clearthinker', not thinking so clear?
crymeariver
Numbnuts' favourite show is 24, doncha know?
The coverup is far worse than even Hersh has claimed. The assasination ring was indeed operational, but what is far worse is that its targets included not only Al Qaeda 'terrorists', but also regular politicians and journalists including those from 'friendly' countries. The most important target that this covert group assasinated was Rafik Hariri of Lebanon
yeah, heaven forbid we should try and "assasinate" a terrorist. Do really not see how crazy you are. Should we have just given the "terrorists" a free pass? Would they like us then?
There is nothing wrong with targeting known terrorists including killing them (only when they are on foreign, enemy territory). But doing so secretly and pretending we did not have anything to do with it (especially when there is collateral damage) is a different thing - not informing congress makes it even worse.
clearthinker: can you address injuntrouble's comment about assassination of politicians, journalists, etc.? Do you really know enough about the US intelligence community's history, to give them a free pass in determining who, in any walk of life, they can kill, with no oversight at all? Do you really think that even supposedly raw patriotism always guides someone to make the right move, choose the right target, etc.? There have been too many abuses under that kind of cover, to rely on patriotism and alleged defense of the US as sufficient resume to do as they please. This is why there's provision for Congressional oversight, so this kind of thing doesn't spin out of control, as it has before. Do a little research into what the US intelligence agencies have often done in the name the US, which were often more oriented towards remaking countries to make them more friendly to certain US businesses, than to making them into democracies.
Also, cite some overwhelming evidence that shows Congress usually tells the media whatever Congress is told in private session.
So what makes us different. We perpetrate terrorisms on other so are they justified in say using our own aircraft to blow up buildings and kill Americans. We have far more to fear from the incompetence of a coward like Dick Cheney who had the intelligence on his desk 5 days priot to 9/11 and ignored it because he was so busy trying to justify his war for profit. We quit pursuing Al Quada so that Haliburton and Exxon Mobile could make record profits from the lost lives of 4300 Americans and over a million Iraqis. Now the Iraqis have to deal with Al Quada who were never in Iraq until we invaded their country.
clearthinker- machu pichu or whatever the name was is right, you are an idiot.
We armed them when we thought we could point them where we wanted. Now our people are eating bullets that Halliburton provided. We create who knows how many "terrorists" every day we attempt to kill some and take out a few wedding parties, hospitals or hotels full of journalists. The nicey name is collateral damage.
9/11 was an inside job. Reichstag II. We'd have gone after the Saudis were it not so..........
Yes, it is a horrible thought- I grew up believing in "Truth, justice and the American way". What a bad joke on us! If you don't feel like "good Germans" yet, what's wrong with y'all?
I have no problem with assassinating Nazis like Al Qaeda, but it doesn't seem to occur to people that a program like this can take on a life of its own, and backfire in ways that no one can predict. Thta has happened in the past, more than once.
Well what about Nazis like the residents of C Street and the "Christian Mafia" who extol Hitler, Lenin and Osama bin Laden as great heros. You know, Sanford, Ensign, et al.
This is in response to injuntrouble and John Sawyer:
The CIA does not have the "green light" to kill whoever they choose that's for sure, so I am speaking of terrorists and the like. The CIA would have to have congressional oversight IF it were to assassinate a head of state, but we aren't talking about a head of state. We are talking about known thug, terrorists who wish to inflict pain on the citizens of our country. After 9/11, it is my understanding anyway, the CIA had the direct "green light" to take out terrorists without congressional oversight. This was done so the CIA would not have to be hampered with "red tape". Basically, if they had the shot....take it.
you forgot about David Bloom, the secret implantation of a tumor Ted Kennedy's skull, and most importantly, Michael Jackson.
Like Uncle Joe always said: no man...no problem. But of course America never does things like that.
Interesting thought. No Cheney, no problem.
Wait a minute, Antinous, my Uncle Joe always said, "People are just no damn good!"
Liz is proof that money is all the Cheney's worship.
During the Stonewall riots, the "good girls", as they were called by the NYPD, actually helped the cops catch rioters and showed them where some were hiding. The good girls were early versions of Liz Cheney,no loyalty to those of your sexual persuasion, and a stop to the brutal treatment of gays. Just live off your Daddy's ill gotten gains and enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.
Pssst, Liz Cheney is NOT gay. She's just the mean one!
Her sister (Mary Cheney) is the gay one in the family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR200612 0501712.html
I stand, actually sit corrected. Liz was the one from Crossfire.
Sucka punch to gut of professional liars club at the C.I.A.
Further Proof that Dick Cheney was the actual President.
The whole point of congressional oversight is to prevent the CIA from going rogue and killing people who are not terrorists or Al Queda, Such as whacking people Cheney does not like.
Hersh is also correct that it wasn't just the CIA.
Why are these revelations of Congress being kept in the dark any different from Bush regime aparatchiks refusing to honor congressional subpoenas?
There have been various operations along these lines, and not all of them under the auspices of the CIA.
Wait. When did Seymour Hersh become a journalist? He's an great essayist, and occasionally persuasive. I really thought for a while that Bush was going to bomb Iran thanks to the insinuations of Mr. Hersh's three or four long, intricate New Yorker articles.
He scared a few of my Persian friends, too. But when I discovered he was wrong I did a little more reading and found a few of the speeches he's given. He does not pretend to be a journalist. He's quite frank about his desire to spread his personal point of view about the world.
So is he right this time? General Mukasey claims Cheney never knew. Congressmen say they were briefed on it and agreed with it. So where's the secret, and where's Cheney in all this? Oh for an independent media, one without a bunch of baby boomers looking and hoping for their next Watergate.
Why are you still stuck on the foolish notion that the attacks on 9/11 were orchestrated from outside the U.S.? As long as you promote that lie, you'll never have the truth. Tarpley and the experts who have looked at it from outside that position make more sense than anything any troll has to offer. And Sibel Edmonds could tell you a thing or two if the Bushies hadn't slapped a State Secrets gag order on her to prevent the American public from finding out what's really going on. Wise up. Get past the propaganda.
See More Hersh....
thank you.
Of course no one listens to Sy Hersh because he is just one of the few professional reporters out there with any credibility. So people ignore him. "People" being congress. The senate. The president. The mainstream media. We are in dire straits indeed.
Today you assassin people in Iran, tomorrow you kill senators in the US. When you have a private unsupervised above the law assassination squad what's to stop it from being used for political killings in the USA? I can easily see Chaney justifying a domestic political murder as
necessary for the protection of the nation. Are you so sure that he will not cross this line? - or maybe he already did !
Many in the progressive movement suspect that Paul Wellston death was no accident. (Robert Kennedy JR. and Callahan as well).
A private death squad is the fast road to fascism, be afraid be very afraid!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.