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.
Posted by at

1 comment:

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.

Fri Jun 26, 02:04:00 PM 2009

Post a Comment