The latest issue of the New Yorker contains an important article by Seymour Hersh about the suppression of Gen. Antonio Taguba's investigation into the torture at abu Ghraib. As you probably remember, after the public disclosure of the torture of prisoners at abu Ghraib, Major General Antonio was assigned to investigate what happened, and how it could happen.

 What you wouldn't likely know is that there was no way for Taguba to get to the whole truth because he was explicitly prevented from going beyond the low-level MP's who were prosecuted, even though it was obvious that they were not the only ones to blame.

Taguba’s assignment was limited to investigating the 800th M.P.s, but he quickly found signs of the involvement of military intelligence—both the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, commanded by Colonel Thomas Pappas, which worked closely with the M.P.s, and what were called “other government agencies,” or O.G.A.s, a euphemism for the C.I.A. and special-operations units operating undercover in Iraq.

 The other thing you might not know is that when Taguba's findings became too much of an embarrassment for Bush and Rumsfield, the man who fired him was Montpelier native Richard A. Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

In January of 2006, Taguba received a telephone call from General Richard Cody, the Army’s Vice-Chief of Staff. “This is your Vice,” he told Taguba. “I need you to retire by January of 2007.” No pleasantries were exchanged, although the two generals had known each other for years, and, Taguba said, “He offered no reason.” (A spokesperson for Cody said, “Conversations regarding general officer management are considered private personnel discussions. General Cody has great respect for Major General Taguba as an officer, leader, and American patriot.”)

“They always shoot the messenger,” Taguba told me. “To be accused of being overzealous and disloyal—that cuts deep into me. I was being ostracized for doing what I was asked to do.”

 You should read the whole article, but you should also bear in mind that we here in Vermont are not disconnected from the crimes of the Bush Administration.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance

Okay, maybe it does seem like we’re beating a dead–sorry, make that extinct–horse here, but get a load of this.

The next time you’re in Cincinnati and you’re looking for something to do with your family, you might want to visit an attraction that teaches the kiddos what really happened in prehistoric times. And by “prehistoric” I mean all the way back to the origin of the universe, six thousand years ago.

Yes, folks, it’s the Creation Museum. Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible’s clear-heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.

God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise.

Don’t miss it!

I can’t tell you how great it is to have Pat Leahy as chair of Judiciary during the U.S. Attorney purge, or, to be more accurate, during the investigation of the corruption that has infested the Department of Justice from top to bottom.

The latest is that Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island have written a letter to the Inspector General of the Justice Department requesting a review of public corruption cases brought by the Bush Administration.

Specifically, the letter requests a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

What this review will demonstrate is whether the administration has focussed on Democratic candidates and office holders when they have pursued charges of election fraud and other allegations of public corruption.

Any predictions of what the statistics will show?

 Loading ...

Some readers know that I have two sons, and I’m insanely proud of both of them. John is in graduate school at Yale Drama School and Adam is a student at the University of Montana. This post happens to be about Adam, who is more politically active than John.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

You may never have heard of Fair Housing Month. After all, Vermont is repeatedly described as the whitest state in the country, and you may think that fair housing isn’t a big deal in Vermont.

Of course, you’d be wrong. A recent report in Seven Days shows that housing discrimination is standard operating procedure in Vermont.

MONTPELIER – “Family” may not seem like an obvious target for discrimination. But in two recent cases, landlords violated housing laws by indicating a preference for childless renters. The violations appear to correlate with a broader trend of rental malpractice in Vermont.

In June 2006, the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and the Rutland Herald ran an advertisement offering a two-bedroom apartment for “two people.” In July, the papers ran a second ad offering an apartment that would be “good for one person or professional couple.” Both ads breached federal and state housing-discrimination laws. The Vermont Legal Aid society filed the first case with the Vermont Human Rights Commission in October, and the second in December. Both were settled in March through mediation.

Why April? Well, this April is the 39th anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, the federal law prohibiting discrimination in housing, so every year HUD encourages states to mark the occasion by recognizing Fair Housing Month and conducting activities to increase visibility of fair housing issues. And yes, it’s been Fair Housing Month all month in the rest of the country.

Governor Douglas got around to noticing it yesterday. Yes, in Vermont, Fair Housing Month goes from April 26 to April 30 this year. With all the time he spends issuing proclamations, cutting ribbons, and so forth, if it were really important to him don’t you think he would have done it earlier?

I guess things could be worse. There was at least one year in recent memory (2005, I think) when he didn’t do it at all.

Montpelier representative Warren Kitzmiller sends out regular reports on his work at the State House. The report he sent out yesterday covers his vote on the impeachment resolution, and he told me I could publish it here.

IMPEACHMENT; a special report:

4/25/07  1:30pm

I’m sitting in the House, awaiting the coming discussion of the impeachment resolution. The House is packed. Not only is virtually every Representative here today, but so are nearly 200 visitors, people wearing large nametags urging us to support the resolution.

I will be voting in favor of the resolution, though I am very conflicted as to the wisdom of this vote. With this vote, I will be representing the wishes of my constituents as evidenced by the nearly 200 messages and conversations I’ve had with so many of you. Every single message I have received, with no exception, has  asked me for my support.

As your Representative, I see my job in several different ways. On the one hand, I know that I am being sent here in your place, to study the issues presented, to learn the merits of them and to use my best judgment on your behalf. On the other hand, there are times when I feel I am here to use my vote as you have asked me to do.

On this issue of impeachment, I feel that every one of you understands what is going on. You know the serious nature of impeachment and there is no need or ability on my part to try to learn MORE than what you already know.

Though I greatly fear that impeachment will serve to re-divide a nation that is just beginning to heal from the damage done by the Bush presidency, and though I am afraid that impeachment might become “a convenient substitute for elections”, I am agreement with you that this President needs to be held accountable for the damage he has done to our Constitution, to our economy, to our reputation in the world.

While I have my own personal reservations, I am very proud to cast this vote for you.

AFTER THE VOTE:

8:15pm

Well, I’m sorry to say the impeachment resolution failed, on a vote of 60 “Yes” and 87 “No”.  It was a long and emotional day. Many representatives, regardless of whether they voted one way or the other, spoke eloquently about their disagreement with Bush and the damage he has done to our country.  I explained my vote by saying that I had been contacted by more people on this issue than any other issue, and that every single contact, with no exception, had asked me to support the resolution. My people knew exactly what they wanted me to do, and they knew WHY. In spite of my personal reservations, I was proud to represent my district with my “Yes” vote.

Several people spoke to me about how disappointed they were with Speaker Symington’s opposition to this resolution. I want to tell you, in the strongest possible terms, that I honor and respect her reasoned, carefully-considered and principled stand. Please understand that if I had only been voting my own conscience, I believe I would have voted as she wanted me to. Her position is NOT wrong, just different than many of yours.

If you expect ANY person to “bat 1,000”, to be on your side of every single issue, you will never find that person (unless you run yourself, and even that is not a sure bet). It’s an impossible standard to meet.  Some have said to me that “this was such an important issue, though”. Of course it was!  But it was only ONE issue. I do not, ever, want to be or to expect others to be “one issue voters”, no matter how important the issue. Even the most important issue is less important than the sum of all other issues.

Gaye Symington is one of the finest people I know. Her positions are always based in reason; they are carefully considered. They are not always the same as mine, but they have always gained my respect. I feel honored to serve with her, and she is doing a superb job. I hope you will all accept that honest differences can and do arise . . . especially among friends.

Today was a long and difficult day; a wonderful day for democracy in Vermont. I am so very proud to represent Montpelier!

Sincerely,
Warren F. Kitzmiller
State Representative, Montpelier

When I moved to Vermont in the 1980’s and started paying attention to state and Burlington politics I developed the view that in Burlington the Democratic Party had pretty much become the tool of the Republicans, and that the only idea they hated worse than losing power for themselves was having the Progs get it (they were called the Progressive Coalition, a/k/a the Sanderistas, back then). It seemed to me at the time that in fighting their rearguard action against the insurgency they made common cause with the R’s more often than not.

Fast forward twenty-four years. The old days are gone, the D’s have elected some genuine left-wingers to the State House (such as my old friend and fellow Winooski 44 defense counsel Sandy Baird), and Progressive Pete ran for Gov. as a Democrat.

So what’s going on here? If the D’s and P’s had stuck together they could have elected a P City Council President, but no, one Democratic Councilor crossed over, and together with all the R’s, ensured the election of Republican Councilor and State Rep Kurt Wright as City Council President.

I don’t have anything against Kurt Wright, but I can’t help be struck by the contrast. In Montpelier our newly appointed representative Jon Anderson is roundly excoriated by local Democrats by crossing over and siding with the Republicans in his first important vote, while in Burlington there hasn’t been much outcry at the prospect of the Democrats failing to hold together to support someone who should be their political and ideological ally.

So I ask you: WTF?

The Times Argus is fronting the impeachment effort today.

It’s also the topic of Switchboard tonight on VPR.

Finally, Doonesbury continues with its six-day story arc on the impeachment effort in Vermont.

So tune in tonight and hit the phones! 800-639-2192.CORRECTION: (800) 639-2211.

Philip has a good piece up today (or is it tomorrow?) about his reaction to John Edwards. I definitely don’t agree with everything he has to say, although he captures, in not quite the same way I would, a bit of what I characterize as Edwards’ being “too shiny”.

I think Edwards has the potential to be a great candidate, and possibly a great president. I know he never really closed the deal in 2004, but he’s a great speaker and he really seems to connect well with voters. This is probably mostly natural, but he honed the skill over years of connecting with people twelve at a time, and being really good at it.

His reaction to his wife’s cancer doesn’t strike me the same as it strikes some people, and I may be more prepared to say that if Elizabeth Edwards wants him to run, as she seems to, who are we to second guess that? I do think he makes a good point, though, when he says that Edwards seems to be long on expectations and short on resume.

If Edwards is the nominee I’ll gladly work hard for him. If he doesn’t win, however, I wonder if he will have a harder time in the future. It makes me think he might be better off to do some other things, build up his resume, and take his shot in four or eight years.

Check it out