I liked this part,
"...We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
I like this because in order to move on we have to acknowledge and set right the transgressions of the past. One cannot just say, well, we made a mistake, sorry, and go on like we were innocent and trustworthy. The transgressions of the past are evidence to others that we are not innocent or trustworthy.
I have thought that Obama's vote for FISA was part of his deal with Bush that said he would not investigate or prosecute Bush or the corporations involved in Bush's criminal enterprises, in exchange for Bush not pushing his "suppress the vote" operations.
I have been therefore doubtful that any real effort to investigate and prosecute Bush will ever occur. So, the question is whether this appointment will lead to real investigations and prosecutions, or just the appearence of them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox