COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: About the situation at Abu Ghraib, I was first informed by an email that I received on classified -- what they call "classified traffic." I opened it up late one night on the 12th of January of 2004. And it was from the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division. He sent me an email and said, "Ma'am, I just want to make you aware, I'm going in to brief the C.G.," meaning General Sanchez, "on the progress of the investigation at Abu Ghraib. This involves the allegations of abuse and the photographs." That was the first I heard of it.
I did not receive that email or phone call or a message from General Sanchez himself, who would ultimately attempt to hold me fully responsible for this, but from the C.I.D. Commander. And I was alarmed at just that short email. I was not in Baghdad at the time. I was at another location very close to the Iranian border, so we made arrangements to leave at the crack of dawn to drive down to Abu Ghraib to see what we could find out about this ongoing investigation and went through the battalion over to Cell Block 1A. The people who would normally be working on any shift were not working. The sergeant that I spoke to said that their records had been seized by the investigators, and they started a new log to account for prisoners, make sure that their meals were on time, those kind of things, and he pointed out a memo that was posted on a column just outside of their small administrative office. And the memorandum was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and --
AMY GOODMAN: By Donald Rumsfeld.
COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: By Donald Rumsfeld. And said -- it discussed interrogation techniques that were authorized. It was one page. It talked about stress positions, noise and light discipline, the use of music, disrupting sleep patterns, those kind of techniques. But there was a handwritten note out to the side. And this was a copy. It was a photocopy of the original, I would imagine. But it was unusual that an interrogation memorandum would be posted inside of a detention cell block, because interrogations were not conducted in the cell block.
AMY GOODMAN: This was the command of Donald Rumsfeld himself?
COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes.
Good evening. The quotes above are from "Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame 'Goes All the Way to The Top'" on today's Democracy Now!
Not only did the administration create a "waiver" to allow for torture, they posted it for the detainees to see which was probably to scare them. And the "few bad apples" that got blamed for everything, what are they supposed to make it of it? They've got orders signed by Donald Rumsfeld posted. So why are the "few bad apples" serving time and Donald Rumsfeld isn't?
Why is he still allowed to be the Secretary of Defense.
The mainstream media lets it trickle out bit by bit and never connects the dots. Is it because they sold the war to the American public and the blood on their hands is so great that they can't speak frankly? Or are they all too busy setting up their own end? Like the New York Times reporter who lied about Iran-Contra and bullied an FBI agent but gets to have his crap posted at lefty websites today? He gets to be praised as an environmentalist in countless publications and at countless sites. But the FBI agent who tried to get the word out on Iran-Contra saw another side of him.
So is that what it is? They're all in the same game? They all know they can get away with pulling this crap because they never get called on it? Covering up for the crimes of Reagan & Bush in the eighties and never getting honest about still lets you be hailed as an environmental activist today?
We need to name the liars. Not just Judith Miller who is an easy call and doesn't hurt anyone at this point. But how about some bravery and naming Dexter Filkins? How about calling him out on his lies about what happened in Falluja in November 2004?
Or is too hard to do that? Twenty years from now do you want to surf the net and come across some piece about how great Dexter Filkins is? Maybe he'll have some pet cause then like saving the Franklin Mint and you'll see AlterNet or some such site hailing him as a hero. Will it make you sick? Then call him out now.
The "brave environmentalist" helped bury and discredit the Iran-Contra story. Instead of getting the shame he deserves, he gets to act like it never happened. That's something the dead can't do.
You think the New York Times will cover Janis Kaprinski tomorrow? Of course not. They're too busy listening to pillow whispers from the administration. It didn't start with Al Gore no matter what The Daily Jerk Off tells you.
If you're informed you know that the mainstream media covers up. You want that to stop, you'll have to call them out. Start with Dexter Filkins. While your at it, you should note that Matt Cooper covered up for Karl Rove and would have kept covering for him if he hadn't been threatend with jail.
Doesn't look like Time's Matt Cooper got a release, does it? Looks like he was willing to cover for Karl Rove (for two years) until it meant his fat ass would be sitting in jail. Only then did Matt Cooper get honest.
The press covers for Matt Cooper and acts like he got a release but he didn't. Outside the court room he was all chatty about the new release he'd just gotten. But there was no new release. Judith Miller's a liar but so is Matt Cooper.
Think about the fact that we just reached 2,000 dead and wonder if things would have been different with John Kerry? I think it would have been. I think if you had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, they would have gone into overdrive on the right trying to slam and blame Kerry for Bully Boy's war and a lot of people who still don't know stories like Janis Kaprinski's would know now.
If in July of 2003, Matt Cooper had written about Karl Rove talking to him about Valerie Plame, what do you think America would have thought of the Bully Boy? You know Karl Rove would have had to go. So there's be no "brain" to run the campaign.
Matt Cooper sat on it throughout 2003. And he sat on it in 2004. Even though he could name Lewis Libby back in 2004. But he wouldn't name Karl Rove. While everyone dog piles on Judy Miller, how come they don't know that Matt Cooper's a liar too?
He should be noted. He could have gotten honest about Karl Rove the way he did Lewis Libby.
But he didn't. Faced with jail, he makes up a release and finally tells what he should have told when it really mattered, before the election. But no one wants to call him out.
People are saying that Judith Miller should be fired from the New York Times. I agree she should be. She has a long history of lying. But Matt Cooper covered for Karl Rove for two years and if he hadn't been facing a jail sentence, he'd still be covering for Karl Rove.
It doesn't take any guts to call Judy Miller a liar today. But I guess it takes guts to speak the truth about Matt Cooper. And I guess a lot of people don't have guts.
Or maybe the same people who talk about how the media rewrites history are too stupid to notice that the media's rewritten what really happened with Cooper. A real press (and a real blog world) would be screaming, "What release, Matt Cooper!"
Then they'd be hitting him hard on why he covered up for two years especially when one of those years was an election year. He'd be forced to tell the truth and this whole episode would follow him around and haunt him.
Is it because he's married to a woman who worked for Clinton? Is that why he gets a pass?
He shouldn't get a pass. I don't care who he is married to.
He covered up for two years and then told people he had a release from his source (Karl Rove). But what it looks like is he was just too scared of going to jail so he finally had to go against his whisper buddy Karl Rove.
Judith Miller didn't stand alone. She was enabled at the paper and outside the paper and people like Matt Cooper enabled Karl Rove.
They attacked Joe Wilson and trashed him. Everyone of them needs to be held accountable and that means starting with Matt Cooper who could have been honest when it mattered but who didn't want to get honest. The only reason he got honest was because he was more scared of his soft, fat ass sitting in jail than he was of Karl Rove.
If you missed C.I.'s "The not so brave Matthew Cooper" you should read it:
Unless Chatty Cathy Cooper is sitting on something (not likely), he had no additional release from Rove. He breathlessly announced, on the day he would have been found in contempt (Miller was found in contempt that day), that he had contact with his source. Rove's lawyer denied it in real time and Cooper's been sketchy since which has allowed the press to circle the wagons and act like Cooper did have a new release.
No, that's not what it appears. What it appears is that faced with having to sit his butt in jail (which Miller had to do), Cooper suddenly didn't care so much about the legal strategy or the First Amendment.
Why does it matter?
Well he didn't conduct himself in any brave journalistic manner and that should be noted.
But if you want to draw a conclusion from the events, one conclusion is that Matthew Cooper was scared of Karl Rove. He wasn't scared of Libby. He named Libby almost immediately. His silence revolved around Rove.He didn't want to testify against Rove. When Time turned over the documents, his argument was that they removed the need for him to testify. (From Cooper's account in Time, the notes fingered Rove.) He didn't want to protect a source, that's not what it looks like. If he had, and used the same standard, why did he roll over on Libby?
It appears he was either scared of Karl Rove or he had a special bond with him that made protecting Rove more important than protecting Libby.
So which is it? Either doesn't paint him as a good journalist, let alone a great one. Until he was about to be found in contempt, he was willing to push "protect my source" (Rove) as far as he could. So did Time have a reporter who had a special relationship with Rove? Or did they have one who was scared of Rove?
If it's a special relationship, it should have been disclosed considering Cooper's beat. If it was that he was scared of Rove, that says a great deal about the state of journalism.
Regardless, the point is that until he was going to go to jail, he was perfectly willing to stay silent on what Karl Rove did. That's not all that surprising considering that he stayed silent in July of 2003. Two years later, he can finally get honest.
What did his two years of silence buy? It bought Bully Boy another four years. It allowed Karl Rove the time (and luxury) of focusing on the election instead of worrying if he was going to prison. That's two things that Rove can thank Cooper for. I'm not sure America feels so "thankful" to Cooper for that.Rove's lawyer has maintained there was no new release. Cooper's had an ever changing story on that. It appears that a release (the original one, the only one Rove's attorney says exists) that was good enough with regards to Libby wasn't good enough with regards to Rove. Was Cooper scared? Did they have a relationship that went beyond reporter and source? Those are questions "brave" Matt Cooper needs to answer.
In all the talk about Judith Miller, some time might need to be spent examing what happened with Cooper and why. Instead, he's given a pass and people rush to rewrite what happened.
Why was Cooper willing to fight (repeatedly) all attempts to compell him to testify against Rove until to continue fighting meant going to jail?
Why didn't he want to testify against Rove?
When people like Matt Cooper get a pass, it sends a message that it doesn't matter what you do.
He needs to be called on his actions and held accountable. If people are covering because of who he is married to that's crap. Being married to her didn't prevent him from covering for Karl Rove for two years.
Here's a headline from Democracy Now!
Military: 2,000 Figure "Not a Milestone"
The military has attempted to downplay the significance of the 2000th death. Military spokesperson Lt. Col. Steve Boylan called the 2,000 figure an "artificial mark on the wall… set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives." In an e-mail to reporters, Boylan wrote: "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone."
How did we reach 2000? It wasn't just cause Bully Boy and his buds lied to us, it was because the press repeated and sold the lies instead of examing the claims and calling a lie a lie. People need to be held accountable for their actions. That's Dexter Filkins and a whole bunch of others. I'm getting real sick of hearing "brave" voices taking on Judith Miller when they can't say a damn thing about anyone else.
Post is late tonight because Elaine, Rebecca and I were all on the phone. Be sure to check out their sites. We had a loud discussion with laughter and outrage. It's late to be posting but I really enjoyed talking with them.
the new york times
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz