Madness and Shame

Madness and Shame

By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 22, 2008

You want a scary thought? Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney but without the vice president’s sense of humor.

In her important new book, “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,” Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney’s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror.

She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: “No one stood to his right.” Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: “He doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”

Very few voters are aware of Mr. Addington’s existence, much less what he stands for. But he was the legal linchpin of the administration’s Marquis de Sade approach to battling terrorism. In the view of Mr. Addington and his acolytes, anything and everything that the president authorized in the fight against terror — regardless of what the Constitution or Congress or the Geneva Conventions might say — was all right. That included torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, you name it.

This is the mind-set that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the C.I.A.’s secret prisons, known as “black sites.”

Ms. Mayer wrote: “The legal doctrine that Addington espoused — that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries if national security demanded it — rested on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars shared.”

When the constraints of the law are unlocked by the men and women in suits at the pinnacle of power, terrible things happen in the real world. You end up with detainees being physically and psychologically tormented day after day, month after month, until they beg to be allowed to commit suicide. You have prisoners beaten until they are on the verge of death, or hooked to overhead manacles like something out of the Inquisition, or forced to defecate on themselves, or sexually humiliated, or driven crazy by days on end of sleep deprivation and blinding lights and blaring noises, or water-boarded.

To get a sense of the heights of madness scaled in this anything-goes atmosphere, consider a brainstorming meeting held by military officials at Guantánamo. Ms. Mayer said the meeting was called to come up with ways to crack through the resistance of detainees.

“One source of ideas,” she wrote, “was the popular television show ‘24.’ On that show as Ms. Mayer noted, “torture always worked. It saved America on a weekly basis.”

I felt as if I was in Never-Never Land as I read: “In conversation with British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands, the top military lawyer in Guantánamo, Diane Beaver, said quite earnestly that Jack Bauer ‘gave people lots of ideas’ as they sought for interrogation models.”

Donald Rumsfeld described the detainees at Guantánamo as “the worst of the worst.” A more sober assessment has since been reached by many respected observers. Ms. Mayer mentioned a study conducted by attorneys and law students at the Seton Hall University Law School.

“After reviewing 517 of the Guantánamo detainees’ cases in depth,” she said, “they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority — all but 5 percent — had been captured by non-U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters.”

The U.S. shamed itself on George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s watch, and David Addington and others like him were willing to manipulate the law like Silly Putty to give them the legal cover they desired. Ms. Mayer noted that Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the late historian, believed that “the Bush administration’s extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history.”

After reflecting on major breakdowns of law that occurred in prior administrations, including the Watergate disaster, Mr. Schlesinger told Ms. Mayer: “No position taken has done more damage to the American reputation in the world — ever.”

Americans still have not come to grips with this disastrous stain on the nation’s soul. It’s important that the whole truth eventually come out, and as many of the wrongs as possible be rectified.

Ms. Mayer, as much as anyone, is doing her part to pull back the curtain on the awful reality. “The Dark Side” is essential reading for those who think they can stand the truth.

The King of Ireland is a Billy Goat - Vive la roi Puck!

Wait a doggone minute! We handed the reigns of power to a billy goat in 2000 and again in 2004. It was called an election. Puck? It would be a shame to waste Shakespearean names without realizing that he about had it right for own own King Puck:

From "A Midsummer Night's Dream":

The audience is introduced to Puck in Act II Scene I when Puck encounters one of Titania's fairies [name unknown]. When she recognizes Puck she says,

Either I mistake your shape and making quite,
Or else you are that shrewd and knavish sprite
Call'd Robin Goodfellow: are not you he
That frights the maidens of the villagery;
Skim milk, and sometimes labour in the quern
And bootless make the breathless housewife churn;
And sometime make the drink to bear no barm;
Mislead night-wanderers, laughing at their harm?
Those that Hobgoblin call you and sweet Puck,
You do their work, and they shall have good luck:
Are not you he? (Act ii., Scene i.)

To this Puck replies,

Thou speak'st aright;
I am that merry wanderer of the night.
I jest to Oberon and make him smile
When I a fat and bean-fed horse beguile,
Neighing in likeness of a filly foal:
And sometime lurk I in a gossip's bowl,
In very likeness of a roasted crab,
And when she drinks, against her lips I bob
And on her wither'd dewlap pour the ale.
The wisest aunt, telling the saddest tale,
Sometime for three-foot stool mistaketh me;
Then slip I from her bum, down topples she,
And 'tailor' cries, and falls into a cough;
And then the whole quire hold their hips and laugh,
And waxen in their mirth and neeze and swear
A merrier hour was never wasted there. (Act ii., Scene i.)

Randy Shiner

KING PUCK

Irish Town Honors His Goatness
In the town of Killorglin in County Kerry, the reins of power are handed to a wild billy goat once a year. It's an opportunity for the people to let out their inner beast -- and for tourists to party the night away, writes reader Desmond F. Kelly.

The crowning of a king has always been cause for celebration. In the small town of Killorglin in the south-west corner of Ireland, it still is -- with a hitch. The king in question is a goat.

PHOTO GALLERY: KING GOAT
see photos at webiste

Click on a picture to launch the image gallery (4 Photos)

"King Puck" is one of the last regents of Ireland, though his reign is a short one -- from August 10 to 12 every year. Nevertheless, the small Irish town of Killorglin (about 100 km. from Cork) has been crowing King Puck since (officially) 1610. The goat-fawning fair is one of the oldest of Ireland's traditional rural celebrations -- and one of its better known.

Still, despite the fair's fame, its origins are somewhat unclear. One theory has the fair dating back to pagan times. Puck, as the male goat is called, could have been seen as a symbol of fertility for a late summer harvest festival.

The more modern theory is that King Puck is a celebration of the fact that a herd of goats, which had been grazing in the countryside nearby, were scared up by pillaging “Roundheads,” the soldiers of Oliver Cromwell. One goat galloped off towards the town in a state of fear, thus alerting the townspeople to the approaching danger. (A third, and less romantic, version involves legal loopholes, greedy landlords and tax evasion.)

WE NEED YOU
Help us find Europe's Weird Ways

DPAHave you been to a weird European festival or do you know of an odd tradition? If so, we at SPIEGEL ONLINE want to hear about it. Please send your stories (and pictures) to survival_bible@spiegel.de or post them directly on the SPIEGEL ONLINE FORUM.Please include your name and your city and country of residence.

Whatever its origins, it has grown to be an interesting collection of traditions and customs. Some days before the fair begins, a group of the most fearless and strong lads from the town head off into the McGillycuddy's Reeks (as the nearby hills are called) and attempt to corner and capture one of the wild goats grazing there. Bumps, cuts and bruises suffered during the chase are, of course, worn as badges of honor.

While their fathers and brothers are off traipsing through the hills, the young girls of the town compete to be crowned as “Queen Puck.” The competition entails them writing essays and giving interviews about why they want to be queen, and why they think that they are the best choice for the role -- a rather gruelling selection process.

Once the goat has been wrestled down from the heights, he is paraded through the town on what is known as “Gathering Day,” the day before the fair starts. The goat is then placed onto the lowest tier of a three-tiered platform. The Queen then delivers the Puck Proclamation and crowns her new king. The newly crowned king is then elevated to the topmost tier of the platform, there to look down on, and survey his subjects below for the next 3 days. Three days of trading and drinking, and singing, and drinking, and storytelling, and drinking follow -- giving rise to the saying, “Where a goat acts the king, the people can act the goat!”

For the town of Killorglin -- population 1,359 -- the goat festival has turned into a cash cow. More than 100,000 people pass through during the three days of the fair, and festival organizers estimate the event is worth over €6 million to the local economy. Puck Fair is one of the only places, and times, of the year in Ireland that the pubs are allowed to stay open till three in the morning. At the end of it all, the king is dethroned (in a nice way) and returned to the wild to rejoin his comrades on the foothills of Ireland's highest mountain.

Submitted by Desmond F. Kelly in Karlsruhe, Germany

This is Unbelievable

At Israel's Parliament, a French Lesson in Leadership for Bush

At Israel's Parliament, a French Lesson in Leadership for Bush

Barely a month after President Bush chose the venue of Israel's Knesset to scold his domestic critics (or was he scolding the Israeli leadership, as this NYT editorial suggests) with accusations of appeasement, French President Nicholas Sarkozy found himself at the same podium yesterday, but with dramatically different results.

Sarko gave his American counterpart something of a French lesson not only in how to behave at a foreign parliament, but also in what constitutes both friendship to an ally and leadership on an issue.

The full Sarkozy speech is here (in French, the English version is not yet available, but highlights can be read here)--and contrasting it to Bush's May 15th effort is nothing short of embarrassing.
Sarkozy is credited by Israel and by the French Jewish community with having immeasurably improved French-Israeli bilateral relations. He is considered a friend and trusted ally and was feted during his Israel visit--no less than his Washington equivalent.

Sarkozy's speech was warm, full of admiration for Israel's accomplishments and understanding for Israel's genuine security concerns--but it also contained the home truths that the Israeli's needed to hear and that a visiting friend was best placed to impart. It contained precisely the ingredient--honest friendly advice or leadership--that was so absent in Bush's gutless pander-fest. Take this as a useful corrective to David Brook's gushing op-ed today and a reminder that when in Jerusalem brave Bush becomes "le wimp".

Bush did refer to some of what is needed for a peace deal during his visit last month--but that was in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt three days later, not in the Knesset--really courageous of you,
Mr. President.

Two Presidents, two speeches, one leader:

President Bush on the borders for a 2 state solution: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "It is not possible to have peace without a negotiated border based on the 1967 lines with an exchange of territories."

President Bush on settlements: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without a total and immediate cessation of the settlements."

President Bush on Jerusalem's future status: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and guaranteeing freedom of access to holy sites for all religions."

President Bush on the Palestinian refugee issue: ___________.
President Sarkozy: "Peace cannot be achieved without solving the problem of the Palestinian refugees, while respecting the identity and purpose of Israel."

President Bush on Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian, or Israeli-Lebanese peace talks: _________.
President Sarkozy: "(France) is ready to organize on its soil all the talks that could lead to (peace), whether in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Syrian-Israeli dialogue, or the talks that will have to resume, one day soon I hope, between Israel and Lebanon."

Both stated their commitment to Israel's existence and security, and expressed their staunch opposition to anti-Semitism. And both of course discussed the threat of Iran.

Just how appalling was the use of the phrase "the false comfort of appeasement", by America's leader to describe negotiations is given a new clarity when one considers that "appeasement" (read: diplomacy) has been outsourced by the Bushies to the French and other Europeans.

So Sarko spoke of both "sanctions" and "openness" regarding Iran. The U.S. is backing the EU 3's talks with Iran--but then hurling abuse about it when in the Knesset or when it suits domestic politics.

This is all the more stunning when one considers that President Sarkozy has also improved US-France relations, is close to Bush, and is hardly a 'gauchiste'. But then this was not really about ideology--Bush probably agrees with Sarkozy on the substance of 2 states--it was about leadership, or the lack thereof. Oh, and by the way, after the Sarkozy tough love speech there was appreciation, applause and respect from the Israeli's--and no sign of menu's offering "freedom fries" in the Knesset cafeteria.

Former Bush Aide Testifies About C.I.A. Leak

View from the booth: If there is no impeachment to follow, what purpose do these hearings have? Discovery of evidence to use after the Bush Presidency ends? Or is it just curiousity on the part of the judiciary committee to confirm just how badly they had been lied to?

Randy Shiner




June 21, 2008
Former Bush Aide Testifies About C.I.A. Leak
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON — Scott McClellan, President Bush’s former press secretary, told the House Judiciary Committee on Friday that he had been unfairly vilified by Bush supporters for his recent book criticizing former White House colleagues over the Iraq war and their involvement in leaking the identity of an intelligence officer.

Mr. McClellan, however, offered little new information in his testimony on those issues beyond what he wrote in the book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (PublicAffairs), which was published in May and last week topped the nonfiction best-seller list in The New York Times.

In the book, Mr. McClellan says senior White House officials misled the nation about the reasons for invading Iraq and maneuvered him into lying to the public about their roles in the leak case.

The book, with Mr. McClellan’s lacerating criticism of his former colleagues, has generated a rich discussion about the obligations of political loyalty, and his appearance Friday on Capitol Hill provided another stage for that debate. The man who once regularly and seemingly by rote defended Mr. Bush in the White House press room was attacked by the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, who grilled Mr. McClellan as ferociously as any reporter had in his three years as press secretary.

Committee Democrats, on the other hand, were much gentler, treating Mr. McClellan as if he were an author promoting a book in an interview.

In his opening statement, Mr. McClellan said that in contemporary Washington politics, “vicious attacks, distortions, political spin become accepted.” He added that “there is no more recent example of this unsavory side of politics than the initial reaction to my book,” in which he said his motives for writing it were unfairly attacked.

He said he wrote the book out of loyalty to the “ideals of candor, transparency and integrity,” which he said should outweigh “loyalty to an individual officeholder.”

A few minutes later, Mr. Smith said that with his book Mr. McClellan had raised the question of why he went from “a loyal and trusted staff member to an embittered person who makes biting accusations.” Mr. Smith then said, “Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.”

Mr. McClellan has seemed especially angry about having been ordered by senior White House officials to tell reporters that I. Lewis Libby Jr., the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had no role in leaking to reporters the name of the intelligence operative, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Libby was subsequently convicted of lying and obstruction of justice for testifying to a grand jury and to investigators that he had not told reporters about Ms. Wilson’s work at the C.I.A.

At the Friday hearing, called as part of the Congressional investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name, Mr. McClellan recalled being ordered by Andrew Card, then the White House chief of staff, to publicly declare that Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, had not been involved in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s identity to reporters.

“I was reluctant to do it,” Mr. McClellan told the committee. “I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?’ And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”

In response to a question from Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, the chairman of the committee, Mr. McClellan said it would be wrong for President Bush to pardon Mr. Libby before his term ends as president. Last year, Mr. Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence, voiding a 30-month prison term.

Interview with Fmr. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Part 2

Interview with Fmr. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Part 1

The Golf War

A Rejoinder to J Street's On Bush's Statements before the Knesset

Isaac:

The problem with looking at the problem strictly through an American lens is this: it is too narrow for the context. Let me be clear: I think GW Bush has been the worst President for our country in its history, but time will be the judge on that assessment. Bush's basic message was one that it was difficult to disagree with: appeasement is bad. I do not think that any thoughtful person, Zionists especially, will disagree with that notion. I've seen and heard all of the statements (Biden, Pelosi, Dean, et al) and they are, as you say, all quite upset as they are looking through a strictly American lens at what Bush said. Religious Zionists like me do not do that. Things that affect Israel have to be looked at through a wide-scope and assessments of their impact have to be viewed also through how the statement would play for the Israelis, as it is they who have to suffer under the rocketry of Hamas and the threats from Hezbollah and by extension, Iran. To these ears, getting upset at what Bush said looks like a) politics as usual and b) not worth getting that excited about, given that Bush is at this point an irrelevancy to foriegn policy, as if he ever had one. I think that J Street has to be careful to pick its fights and issues quite carefully and not be reactionary, taking into consideration only a part of the puzzle of MidEast politics as they affect America as well as Israel. The only thing that gave me pause -- that led me for a nanosecond to believe that Bush was indeed referring to Obama or those who consider speaking with Hamas, et al, was the little smirk on his face after he mentioned "a senator who wanted to talk to Hitler after the tanks started rolling into Poland in September of 1939". His little smirks are his "tell" -- to borrow from Poker -- that give his true intentions away. All I can tell you is this: there are too many "J Streeters" who are willing to give up too much for too little so the fact that it "played well" on the list is not that meaningful to me. I do not know what your list stands for. I agree that a cease-fire is a good thing, as is the saving of lives on both sides. But what is the price Israel will pay? To allow Hamas to rearm and regroup? The time during any cease fire has to be accompanied by close monitoring of what is coming into Gaza by way of new terrorists and new weaponry, lest the post-cease-fire look a lot worse than before one. The violence that they perpetrate is mainly hard on those whom they ostensibly represent: civilians, among whom they hide like the cowards they are, placing them intentionally in harm's way when the inevitable Israeli defensive retaliation comes. It is not hard on Meshaal and his minions, and in making that the violence is "hard on Hamas", I disagree with you. They do not care about the lives of their own people which is why they keep them in abject poverty, squalor and misery. If they cared, they would be doing things a lot differently. At the risk of alienating some of your supporters, I would suggest that J Street more clearly define what its stances are and are not. At some point, J Street will have to do so or risk its credibility with people like me who are less prone to knee-jerk reactions every time someone sings a key off-note about America or Israel's future. Knee-jerk reactions are what I expect out of AIPAC, not from you and just because everyone (not Jewish) in the Democratic party is whiffed at President Bush doesn't mean that J Street has to automatically join them. You have a bigger responsiblity than they do. Remember that for the future.

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately Review" Potential of Crimes in Bush White House

I heard a Congressman the other day speaking on this same issue. Circles are forming in Washington to bring the Bush regime up on war crimes charges over, at least, how they lied us into the Iraq debacle, not to mention torture and profiteering. We will see how the Conservative constitutonal "strict constructionists" will view a trial over how Bush trampled over the very constitution itself. RS


Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House


Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:


What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009

'The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing'

SPIEGEL ONLINE - September 28, 2007, 11:58 AM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,508394,00.html

INTERVIEW WITH INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST SEYMOUR HERSH
'The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing'

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has consistently led the way in telling the story of what's really going on in Iraq and Iran. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to him about America's Hitler, Bush's Vietnam, and how the US press failed the First Amendment.

APSeymour Hersh began his career as a police reporter. But since then, he has risen to become one of the most important investigative journalists in the history of American journalism. Hersh first made a name for himself in 1969 by uncovering the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, for which he won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize. Hersh has worked for the New Yorker since 1992 and in 2004 was instrumental in uncovering the US military's abuses of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Hersh was in Berlin this week to accept the Democracy Prize handed out by the political journal "Blätter für Deutsche und Internationale Politik."

AFP
For now, American troops are on the Iraq side of the border with Iran. Might that change?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?

Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it's been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA's best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they've been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn't enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?


Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren't there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We're going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I'd actually be relieved because I'd know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he's doing God's work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the "Surge" (eds. The "Surge" refers to President Bush's commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it's going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We've basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that's a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So what are the lessons of the Surge?


Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He's not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You're going to have a Kurdistan. You're going to have a Sunni area that we're going to have to support forever. And you're going to have the Shiites in the South.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the US is over four years into a war that is likely going to end in a disaster. How valid are the comparisons with Vietnam?

Hersh: The validity is that the US is fighting a guerrilla war and doesn't know the culture. But the difference is that at a certain point, because of Congressional and public opposition, the Vietnam War was no longer tenable. But these guys now don't care. They see it but they don't care.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If the Iraq war does end up as a defeat for the US, will it leave as deep a wound as the Vietnam War did?

Hersh: Much worse. Vietnam was a tactical mistake. This is strategic. How do you repair damages with whole cultures? On the home front, though, we'll rationalize it away. Don't worry about that. Again, there's no learning curve. No learning curve at all. We'll be ready to fight another stupid war in another two decades.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of course, preventing that is partially the job of the media. Have reporters been doing a better job recently than they did in the run-up to the Iraq War?

Hersh: Oh yeah. They've done a better job since. But back then, they blew it. When you have a guy like Bush who's going to move the infamous Doomsday Clock forward, and he's going to put everybody in jeopardy and he's secretive and he doesn't tell Congress anything and he's inured to what we write. In such a case, we (journalists) become more important. The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I'm asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they're going to have to live with it.

Interview conducted by Charles Hawley and David Gordon Smith