Friday, June 26, 2009

Who to Trust on a Truth Commission?

By Robert Parry
June 26, 2009

While a truth commission to examine the crimes of the Bush administration has a certain appeal – especially if there’s not going to be a tough special prosecutor bringing criminal charges – there still would be the issue of who could fill the job of getting at the truth.

Read on.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Parallels between Iran Contra and the WoT:

1) The leader shouldn't be restricted by the rule of law. Unitary executive theory. Or more accurately the dictator theory though Luntz would probably prefer the "bold leadership theory."

2) Playing the patriot card (actually the authoritarian card) to justify illegal policies. Any criminal conduct was motivated by good faith. Leaders always act in good faith even when all the evidence points to bad faith.

3) Brilliant use of propaganda. Shock doctrine policies disguised as a war against evil communists just as the WoT today is a propaganda vehicle for more shock doctrine policies.

4) Holding powerful officials accountable for abusing that power was "unfair." The country needed to move on from such divisiveness.

5) Bipartisan consensus is in the best interests of the country. This is a really sick theme as we are expected to believe the D's and R's actually represent their respective bases. In truth, when one sees the description "bipartisan" it almost always means the public is about to be screwed.

jaya said...

I remember you blog oftenly on because of the content makes very nice to read. Also I got some of the social networking website and online friends community website to get more friends for fun and entertainment to reach right destination about online friends.



Indian Friends Online Community


Social Network website


Make Money Online