TORTURE general made spokesman for our party ! HOW?!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

Last week, the official Democratic Party radio address was given by none other than General Ricardo Sanchez - the commander responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. According to the ACLU, documents show that General Sanchez urged his troops to "go to the outer limits" to extract information from prisoners, and have specifically linked Sanchez to the use of Army dogs during interrogations. http://alternet.org/waroniraq/68953/

So somebody here tell me how in the F#CK that could happen. Who chose that guy to speak for you and I? WHY would "our Democrats" choose to have themselves represented by a suspected mass-torturer?

The Dems seem to be going out of their way, these days, to immunize Bush administration war crimes. But for what? What do they get politically for doing this? Installing an Attorney General who can't say if drowning someone is torture. Granting legal immunity to Tel Com companies that joined in illegal spying on Americans. Revising the FISA laws to permit the continued rampant government spying without warrants. etc. Are they being paid? Blackmailed? Have they drunk the neoCon Cool-aid? What? "Triangulation" and trying to appeal to "the main stream" cannot account for them giving the podium to an out-and-out war criminal.

[Eric J in MN]

1. I didn't like that, either.

I'm guessing the reasoning was that anyone who recently wore a military uniform is above criticism.

[EFerrari]

2. I was gone most of that weekend and surprised that there weren't

25 threads raising this question. That was disgusting.

[KingOfLostSouls]

3. remember though

general sanchez knows first hand how far the administration pushed things

he would make a star witness at the trial in the hague after president biden is elected

:D

[snowbear]

4. Well.. It's not like they nominated him for a position or anything..

I don't know why they selected him to do the radio address --- but maybe the good doctor was doing it to screw with the Republicans heads?




You never know ---

[Clovis Sangrail]

5. does Dean decide who gives the radio address?

nt

[snowbear]

6. Beats the hell outta me....

But I would wager if he wants someone in particular to do it, it's a done deal..

[KingOfLostSouls]

8. Dean's a smart man

he's probably the closest thing I could come to for an idol in politics. he wouldn't let this kinda thing go without voicing his opinion, we all know no one tells howard what to say or to hold his tongue.

if he's got his hand in it, then he knows what he's doing. Dean's never lead this party or the american people astray. putting general sanchez out there right before a major republican debate while they're running around issueing talking points about the surge being a "success" was a huge coup on their part. it undercuts everything the republicans could say.

it puts republicans back on the defense, "well we're winning in iraq, we're winning abroad, yadda yadda yadda" being ran around tomorrow on the talk shows but you can just hear K.O. hammering someone, "but didn't just this past weekend the former commander in iraq say bush was a failure?"

[DeadElephant_ORG]

14. that "trust Daddy" attitude nauseates me

No matter how "smart" Dean may be, giving legitimacy to a mass torturer is morally beyond the pale. And strategically it is short-sighted in the extreme. But what most concerns me about your argument is the implication that we should shut up because "Father knows best" - even though we are appalled at what he has done. When we give over our moral authority - as conservatives habitually do - we lose our compass, our credibility, and our passion.

[MADem]

7. He's the Party Leader right now. Dean likely made the call in concert with a few others.

Sanchez also had a 'Come To Jesus' moment over all this crap, too. He's the one that said that the situation we are in is a clusterfuck, with no end in sight. BIG PICTURE--he's helpful to getting the DEM perspective on the war out. He's the "Yeah, it IS a fucking quagmire" guy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202459.html


Ex-Commander In Iraq Faults War Strategy
'No End in Sight,' Says Retired General Sanchez

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A01

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, accused the Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."

Sanchez also bluntly criticized the current troop increase in Iraq, describing it as "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."

"The administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable," Sanchez told military reporters and editors. "There has been a glaring unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders."

Sanchez lashed out specifically at the National Security Council, calling officials there negligent and incompetent, without offering details. He also assailed war policies over the past four years, which he said had stripped senior military officers of responsibility and thus thrust the armed services into an "intractable position" in Iraq.

"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," Sanchez said in a speech to the Military Reporters and Editors' annual conference in Crystal City. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are destined to fail. There is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope." .... Although he would not address the Abu Ghraib abuse directly, Sanchez said after his speech that Abu Ghraib was a "difficult issue," and that it is important to generally address the way the United States treats its detainees. He declined to say whether he thinks he was scapegoated by the Army and refused to name senior leaders he believes failed at developing war strategy, saying several times: "More to follow later."

[MisterP]

9. let's resurrect Valeriano Weyler or Reginald Dyer and run him for Prez!

[Bobbieo]

10. 'More to follow later '- KEY WORDS!!!

Dean Knows what he is doing!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

11. ahh... very nice!

but obscure as hell.

from wikipedia:

While serving as a Spanish general he was called "Butcher Weyler" because hundreds of thousands of people died in his concentration camps.

and

Brigadier Dyer is infamous for the orders which he gave to open fire on a gathering of unarmed civilians, including women and children in what came to be later known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

[mikelgb]

12. it's not our party.. it belongs to Nancy and Steny and Harry

and they know what's best for us

[robinlynne]

13. I absolutely didn't get that. makes NO sense. unless the dlc wants to support the

"spend the rest of our lives in Iraq" Bush/Maliki accord.