Legacy of oil

Fire Sale! Everything must go!

(AP) The view of Delicate Arch natural bridge - an unspoiled landmark so iconic it's on Utah's license plates - could one day include a drilling platform under a proposal that environmentalists call a Bush administration "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry.

Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands.

The National Park Service's top official in the state calls it "shocking and disturbing" and says his agency wasn't properly notified. Environmentalists call it a "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry by a departing administration.

Coming soon to an iconic natural wonder near you!



There are still a few months in which to finally make good use of this wasted public land before the liberals get their tree-hugging hands on it again.

Here are a few lucrative improvements that can be made before our oil administration leaves office. For your viewing pleasure.

Mesa Verde


The Grand Canyon


The Grand Tetons


Mount Rushmore


Dinosaur National Monument


Oregon Coastline


Drill baby drill! From sea to (once) shining sea.

Russ Feingold: Statement on Constitution Day 2008

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Constitution Day 2008

September 17, 2008

On this day in 1787, our founding fathers signed the Constitution, making us a nation of laws, not of men. The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights outlined in that founding document, are at the very foundation of our strength as a nation.

But 221 years later, the United States is facing one of the darkest chapters in its Constitutional history. The Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and rule of law with disrespect unparalleled in our nation’s history. The list of this administration’s assaults on the Constitution is breathtaking: it includes the warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. This is a shameful legacy that must be undone in the years to come.

On Constitution Day, we should also recognize that supporting the rule of law here at home can help to strengthen democratic institutions around the world that are critical to peace and stability – and, in turn, to our own national security. Right now, countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe are grappling with their own constitutional crises. But we cannot be a credible example for nations like these if we allow our own Constitution to erode. The disparity between our words and our actions undermines our ability to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples around the world.

Our next president will face a difficult challenge. He must repair the wreckage the current administration has left, which means renouncing some of the powers the current President tried to amass as he turned a blind eye to the rule of law and separation of powers. No president will want to limit his own power. But if we are to be the nation our founders envisioned when they gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, we must work together – across party lines and at all levels of government – to protect and defend our Constitution and restore the rule of law.

The price

Well, the 8-year disastrous reign still hasn't passed into history, yet history may have at least one word of advice to future generations: never (again) elect two oil men to the White House.

A soaring jobless rate, an unprecedented jump in oil prices and a sliding dollar sent tremors through financial markets yesterday and cast fresh doubt on how soon the U.S. economy would be able to break out of a pattern of feeble growth and financial instability. (By Steven Mufson and Neil Irwin, The Washington Post)

Where do I begin?

While we were out of town this past week, the government has seemingly turned on its ear. I have tried to blog here and there, via laptop, but haven't even come close to even reading it all, let alone thinking about it and drawing any conclusions.

The Washington Post as suddenly and inexplicably decided to do an expose on Cheney (after almost 7 years - what brought this on?) Intelligent sources from the left, right and middle (Ellsberg, John Dean and Bruce Fein, to name a few) are all screaming for Cheney's impeachment.

Meanwhile, Cheney has declared himself above the law - and apparently a part of both the executive and legislative branches, which in his convoluted way of thinking means he is accountable to neither (huh?)

The White House is refusing to honor subpoenas... and this may end up going before the Supreme Court, which has already proven itself to have its own strange and horrifying partisan break (from reality.) Will they honor their judicial duty, or cave to partisan (or worse, corporate) pressure? And is 'partisan' even what it was 5 months ago, when even conservatives are now screaming for a reigning in of the executive branch?

Where - how will this all end up?

I don't imagine it was easy living through Vietnam and Watergate either. I vaguely remember those times, and it seemed everyone was either rioting or being shot. The one thing that didn't seem to be hanging over the entire planet was the specter of some twitchy finger in the White House dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran. Nixon was never that crazy.

Yes, that's right... finally someone crazier even than Nixon. Makes you wonder why we don't give written tests (along with psychological and ethical exams) to presidential candidates before they can be allowed to run for high office. We have a strange set of priorities...

So, the week has been, to say the least... odd. I'm still catching up. After some sleep and R&R, I will undoubtedly try to dissect it all and figure out where (and if) I can jump into the discussion, already in progress.

Meanwhile, I was delighted to return to my (recorded in our absence) week of Daily Show episodes, and love Jon's new series on Cheney. And so of course, without further ado, I am posting a few of them right here:

You don't know Dick: The Safe



You don't know Dick: Google Earth

Why impeachment is "off the table"

A few days ago I read a story about impeachment, from the McClatchy Bureau. I was frankly so disgusted by it that I didn't think I could write about it yet. Oddly, the frustration and anger came pouring out anyway, in a comment to a fellow Hoosier on my Daily Kos diary.

This story comes right out and states in black and white what I have believed all along: the Democrats won't consider impeachment because they believe that allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in office will help their chances in the 2008 election.

According to the story, "Democrats in Washington want to keep impeachment off the table," By Steven Thomma:

There are both policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base.

One is that some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet.

Let's debunk that one right now.

There are literally volumes of works by brilliant legal minds laying out the basis for impeachment.

First of all, anything that deliberately undercuts the Constitution is a 'high crime,' if you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of the swearing in process. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales -- all swore the oath.

High crimes might include:

1. Outing Valarie Plame, a verified covert CIA agent. I believe this is actually a felony offense.
2. Lying to Congress and to the American people. At least one of these lies lead to our invasion of Iraq. If that isn't a 'high crime,' I honestly don't know what is.
   
3. Illegal rendition
4. Holding prisoners without due process
5. Secret torture camps... promoting torture in the first place.
6. There is the growing proof that they tampered with the election process (felony)

But the biggest case for impeachment, according to most legal scholars, is the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

Elizabeth De la Vega, a 20-year federal prosecutor has probably laid out the best legal case for impeachment in her book "United States V. George W. Bush et al." This is a brilliant and well crafted legal analysis, and there are many others.

Here are a few of the better ones:

1. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff


2. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, from The Center for Constitutional Rights


3. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney, by Dennis Loo


4. George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying, by John Conyers Jr.


5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman

There is enormous popular support for impeachment. The entire State of Maine is trying to impeach Bush and Cheney. Detroit voted to impeach - with a unanimous vote - bringing the total number of cities demanding impeachment to 70. The people of Vermont are lobbying for impeachment. The people of Massachusetts are trying to bring impeachment charges as well. California wants to impeach. Dennis Kucinich already brought impeachment charges against Cheney in the House. Conyers says he supports it.

And still, Pelosi says impeachment is off the table.

The Democrats are either remarkably illiterate when it comes to the impeachment process, or are pretending to be ignorant in the hope that the American people will somehow 'buy' that they are helpless. They are not helpless.

We have never - in our entire history - actually removed a president from office via the impeachment process. Rather, the process is in fact an investigation into wrong-doing; with charges filed by the House, and the case tried in the Senate with the Supreme Court acting as the judges.

The chances that Bush would be impeached by these particular Senators and these particular Justices seems remote, but the point is to dig out the dirt - to file the charges and hold them accountable. Let the democratic process work. It was the prospect of the impeachment process (and the dirt that would be uncovered) that led to Nixon's resignation... not impeachment itself.

Even Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Dear God, how can Pelosi be this clueless... unless....

Another is that they fear a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

Get out. Ludicrous. That is patently ridiculous.

First of all, there apparently wasn't enough 'backlash' against the GOP after their impeachment attempt against Clinton to stop Bush from being elected president in 2000, along with numerous other necons.

Backlash? The American people thought the entire Clinton impeachment was partisan posturing at best, disgusting and pathetic to take a mild stand... but the dirt they splashed all over the media about Bill did affect Gore and his run for President.

There was absolutely no backlash against the GOP at all -- none -- although God knows there should have been. There would have been, had we the services of an impartial media corps.

If the GOP could do that much damage with a bogus impeachment trial against a very popular president -- how on earth could impeaching a criminal president with a 28% rating; a guy who started an entire WAR based on lies, has been undercutting Constitutional protections, spying on American citizens without a court order, leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, tampered with election results... how could this possibly bring a backlash? My God -- this is a slam dunk!

If we are to the point where entire States - not to mention 70 individual cities, including Detroit - are trying to impeach Bush and Cheney... how on earth can the Democrats claim they 'fear a backlash?' (More likely they fear Cheney will magically make their small planes crash into a corn field in Nebraska.)

In a working democracy, they should fear the backlash of ignoring the will of the people. The people have made their wishes very clear. The people want impeachment. The people want justice.

The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

Ah, here it is... the truth at last. This is all a partisan game.

This is the crux of why I became an Independent. This is just so... immoral. I cannot be a party to this. I can not be a part of this party, or any party that will put partisan gain ahead of lives, morality and justice.

How are they any different or any better than Karl Rove?

Consider me a conscientious objector. There are people dying while the Democratic party plays these partisan games, while ignoring the will of the people, justice, morality -- and their own oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

I cannot go along with this. I just can't do it.

Lincoln, a veritable font of inspiriation these days, said:

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. - Abraham Lincoln

That is why I became an Independent, in a nutshell. I have a conscience.

Dennis menaces the oil industry

This morning, I actually turned on C-Span.

I try to avoid this - honestly, I'd be better off avoiding all news these days, it gives me nightmares - but today was going to be special. Monica Goodling was scheduled to speak before the House Judiciary Committee, and Dennis Kucinich planned to speak for an entire hour about Congressional and White House efforts to privatize the oil of Iraq.

I somehow missed the Goodling testimony (although I suspect it will pop up on YouTube any moment,) but I did catch the tail end of Dennis' presentation. All I can say is - wow - this man is "Elliot Ness goes to Congress." His talk was carefully researched and crafted, harrowingly specific, named a vast assortment of sources, facts, numbers, dollars - and pointed fingers.

If this remarkable hour of 'truthiness' makes it to YouTube, I will definitely post the entire video here on this blog, because honestly everyone should see it.

Wonder what we're really doing in Iraq? Dennis lays it all out.

You already knew it was about the oil - the Baker Group even admitted that much. But the entire web of facts and figures behind the lies; the greed and deceit that the Cheney administration wove into an open war of aggression against Iraq -- well, let me just say that the sum total of this indictment will blow your mind.

Sometimes reality is more riveting even than Hollywood. And a lot more frightening.

UPDATE: There is literally no news coverage, anywhere, about his hour long talk. It seems to have been completely blacked out. I found one blurb about it in 'The Hill,' and the writer even mentioned that the members of the House ignored him when he spoke.

And we wonder why this war will never end.

Kucinich blasts efforts to ‘privatize’ Iraq’s oil
By Mike Soraghan
May 23, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a fervent Iraq war opponent and dark horse presidential candidate, claimed an hour of floor time Wednesday to criticize Iraq’s hydrocarbon law.

Kucinich argued that the proposed law would privatize Iraqi oil. He said the Iraq supplemental expected to pass the House tomorrow sets passage of the law as a benchmark the Iraqi government must meet. He says that provision should be removed.

“We must not be a party to any attempt by multi-national oil companies to take over Iraq’s oil resources,” he said. “This is an outrageous exploitation of a nation torn apart by American intervention.”

His declarations went largely ignored. No one sought to intervene, and when he was done, the House quickly moved to a non-controversial bill revising the boundaries of The Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

Yeah. Carl Sandburg would be rolling in his grave at the sight of these congressional cowards ditzing around with his home at a time like this.

Fortunately, Dennis has it all printed up and out on his website. Even the visual aids! Hopefully video coming soon. When I find one, I'll post it.

Keep the faith Dennis. Lincoln would support you -- hell, Lincoln would have been standing up there next to you - and I hear he was one hell of an orator, as Sandburg would no doubt tell you.

Sometimes I wish we could bring Abe back - just for a few hours - and set him loose, so he could knock the cobwebs off the rafters in that stale congressional chamber. He'd wake em up. I swear - after all of these years of reading his letters and speeches, I can almost hear him, railing against this lobbyist corruption. He left a lot of quotes and letters -- its not hard to imagine what he'd be saying, and how loudly he'd be saying it, if only he were here today.

But we've got you Dennis. Thankfully, we've at least got you to speak for us.


UPDATE 5/26/2007: I can't find a video of his presentation in the House. This is the closest thing I can find... apparently, Dennis has been trying to get this news out for a long, long time.

Kucinich about to make a move

Kucinich to Congress:

April 17, 2007

Dear Colleague:

This week I intend to introduce Articles of Impeachment with respect to the conduct of Vice President Cheney. Please have your staff contact my office . . . if you would like to receive a confidential copy of the document prior to its introduction in the House.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Quip from one un-named, Democratic aide:

"We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment."

Quip from the author of this blog:

And that is why I am no longer a Democrat, you politically-correct, off-the-record coward.

Daily GOP Follies

I read the news today - good grief

Today is a milestone day, in our democracy's headlong plunge from grace. It appears there are now only 666 days until our national nightmare is over. Make of that what you will.

Bill Maher (see video I posted yesterday) was right in his assessment of our struggle - our confusion as we even attempt to keep track of the rash of scandals coming out of the White House. If you expand to include the entire GOP, its unbelievable. Well almost unbelievable... although this time, they've really gone over the edge.

Remember not so long ago... Newt Gingrich (the same guy who was having an affair while pointing an accusing finger at Bill Clinton - that Newt Gingrich;) was riding high, on a white horse, talking about how he and his 'family values' were going to save America? I believe he called it the 'Contract with America.' More like a contract on America.

Truly... these are your family values in action, Newt? Really? If these are family values, we'd like a few less helpings, thank you. In fact, we'd like to leave the table now. And if you have the audacity to even consider running for president, we will happily ignore you when we aren't too busy laughing.

What are these crooks doing when they aren't lying under oath, cheating somebody, hiring unqualified cronies, robbing the treasury - or robbing little old ladies as they cross the street? I don't mean to indict all of Republicans of course - Senator Lugar, Senator Specter and Senator Hagel, you are excluded; but damn few others.

While conservatives are crying - and obsessing - over what they perceive to be that lost, 'Reagan greatness,' it is really a shame that they won't or cannot realize that this is exactly when their fall from decency (and fiscal reality) began in earnest.

Their 'face of Reaganomics,' John Stockton was just indicted for defrauding investors. Like Newt, it turns out he was just another political shyster picking our pockets, finding ever better ways to steal from the people - and our treasury - in the interest of his powerful, wealthy friends.

Same ol stuff, different year.

By the way, two quotes (about Stockton) that ran side by side in the Washington Post, when put together, say everything we need to know about Reaganomics:

"It's a shame that a guy who made such a great contribution as a member of Congress and the Reagan administration has this happening to him," said M.B. Oglesby, a former deputy chief of staff to Reagan. "He was the driver in the whole budget process in the beginning of the administration that set the tone for the tax cuts and the budget cuts."

"I have vivid memories of his misusing and misstating data and using obviously phony economic forecasts," said veteran budget analyst Stanley E. Collender. "You wonder if those were habits that stuck with him when he became a Wall Street dealmaker."

Yes, it was those pesky 'bad habits' again. Those bad habits that set the tone for years of GOP rule in America.

By the way - remember the Iran Contra scandal? Seriously - does anyone still remember Iran/Contra? It apparently doesn't exist; it seems to have fallen right out of history, because no one ever paid a price. No one linked it to the top, to the beloved 'Gipper' himself.

It is up to us - the people - to make sure that no more presidential scandals fall through the cracks, or we'll be doomed to an endless stream of this 'garbage rule' we see today.

Face it neocons - the looting party is over. If you really want to rejoin the American populace (and be allowed to continue in American politics,) your party must look back even further, to a clean and decent time... say Eisenhower.

Ike was a great American and a great president. You could do a lot worse. In fact... you have done so very much worse, during your plunge into the depths of depravity and corruption. We tried to believe that Nixon was an aberration, but now you give us Bush and Cheney. Always trying to up the ante! I ask you in all honesty, why would we trust you again, EVER, with our highest office?

Maybe it would be a nice chance of pace for you, if you took a new tack... consider it, give it some thought.

I know the American Enterprise Institute will be up in arms at the very idea of a 'reasonable' and 'non partisan cooperation' between parties, not to mention giving up their imperial and dictatorial ambitions. Heaven forbid that any of us should ever get along, when they are so right and everyone else is so wrong. *Cough.* But really at this point - what have you got to lose that you haven't already lost?

If I were you, I'd tell AEI to take a hike, and toss the religious right wingnuts, Ann Coulter and Karl Rove from a fast moving train. Dig yourselves out this morass, and look inside for some vestige of that long buried sense of patriotism and decency.

Ike is your ticket. Ike is a fabulous place to start. The man was an honest statesman and a national hero. He was honorable. He was honest. He even warned the nation about the rise of the military industrial complex. So, have you got one of those - anywhere - within your ranks?

How about Chuck Hagel? I hear Ike was one of his political heroes. That seems like a hopeful sign, don't you think?

Again... what have you got to lose? Because really, can it get much worse... and when it does (with a few more news days like today) will there be anything left to salvage?

I read the news today, oh wow:

1. The White House was using outside email accounts to correspond about White House business, which violates the Presidential Records Act. Of course, they were using Republican National Committee email accounts... of course...
   

2. A Gonzales aide is already invoking the 5th amendment (amazing how quickly they have come back to the Constitution, like hapless prodigal children. Damn handy slip of paper, isn't it?) It appears she can't answer any questions at an upcoming Senate hearings concerning the fired prosecutors, because literally anything she says will incriminate her. Hmmm.

3. Although we're probably not terribly shocked to hear this, it now appears Alberto Gonzales lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said he wasn't involved in the firing of the procescutors. Emails say otherwise.

   Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

   "We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.

4. This one came from right field... but it appears federal prosecutors announced conspiracy and securities and bank fraud charges against Reagan-era budget director David A. Stockman. They are accusing him of misleading investors about the finances of a troubled Michigan auto parts company.

5. One of the eight former U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration stated yesterday that White House officials questioned his performance in 'highly partisan political terms' only three months before he was dismissed from his job.
   
   John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."

6. Have you ever heard of the 'Hatch Act?' No? Apparently Lurita Alexis Doan hasn't heard of it either. Doan is the Chief of the General Services Administration and - shocker - a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House. Rove is everywhere! Apparently, Doan joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, and discussed ways in which "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country" could be used to help Republican candidates.
   The Hatch Act, as it turns out, is a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes... although when you think about it, this law could easily be used to clean out the entire working populace in the White House

   (save perhaps the chef and a few of the waiting staff.) Oh - Doan is also accused to trying to give a no-bid job to a friend and professional associate last summer, and the committee plans to investigate Waxman's charge that she "intervened" in a troubled technology contract with Sun Microsystems that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Shocking.

7. Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico is now under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee after a watchdog group accused him of trying to pressure David Iglesias, (one of the now fired prosecutors, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque, N.M.,) to rush a corruption probe against Democrats in an effort to sway the 2006 elections. Domenici has now hired Duke Cunningham's lawyer Lee Blalack to defend him. Er, good luck with that. I'm sure 'Cryin Duke' will save ya a spot at his table in the prison mess hall.

8. The President seems truly attached to Guantanamo and to torture in general. He defends it with a self-righteous vengence that is truly inexplicable. Or is he once again deferring to that Cheney on his shoulder? When his own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - with the backing of Condi Rice - suggested that perhaps, just maybe, it is time to close down this abomination and bring these guys to America, Cheney and Gonzales quashed all further discussion. And so once again we have to ask... who is running this country? Sir George, or Sir Dick? My bet is on Sir Dick.

   Kangaroo courts, secret prisons and torture are for banana republics sir - not for this American democracy. Everyone seems to 'get that' except for you. But then - you still don't seem to grasp that you aren't a King, and that America is not your little GOP fiefdom. And so far, no one in our Congress has given you much reason to believe otherwise. But the people sir... the people are growing restless. Its no wonder that you hate us so, and spy on us at every turn. We are the real wildcard in your imperial plans, aren't we? A restless populace is not a good thing (as I recall, Southern slave owners lived in constant fear of their own slaves.) Eventually the people will grow so outraged - fed up - that they will actually succeed in pressuring their reluctant, foot-dragging, corporate-owned representatives into action. And Congress will again begin to worry about the votes. And maybe, just maybe, you will finally pay the price for your royal assumptions, and your blatent disregard for America's guiding principles of freedom, justice and the rule of law.

9. Aides to President Bush are being warned today, not to destroy any emails (like they haven't already... please.) Waxman, who is proving quite adept at ferreting out GOP sneakiness, has already made the same warning to the Republican National Committee. It appears there is a history in this White House of using RNC email accounts for correspondance that is 'off the public record.' Translation: illegal, immoral and corrupt in nature (and we can't let anyone find out about this.) Apparently this use of RNC email accounts was discovered during the Abramoff investigation.

   In one instance, Mr Abramoff, who is serving a 70-month sentence on corruption charges, sent an e-mail to Susan Ralston, executive assistant to Karl Rove, the president’s chief political strategist, on her RNC account about a gaming-related decision by the department of the interior.
   
   When the e-mail was forwarded to another official in the White House e-mail system, Mr Abramoff was warned by an associate who said the official “said it is better not to put this stuff in writing in their e-mail system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us”.
   
   Mr Abramoff responded: “Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system.”
   
   ”We are reviewing it and taking appropriate action,” the RNC said yesterday.

   
   

   Right-o.

10. Former Army Sgt. Sam Provance was the only uniformed military intelligence officer at the Iraqi prison to testify about Abu Ghraib abuses during the internal Army investigation - and it didn't take him long to realize that the Pentagon was scapegoating low-level personnel, sacrificing them to save the chain of command.
    
    For refusing to shut up and play along with an obvious cover-up, Provance was tossed out of the US military.

    The Pentagon went forward with its plan to pin the blame for the sadistic treatment of Iraqi detainees on a handful of poorly trained MPs, not on the higher-ups who brought the lessons of "alternative interrogation techniques" from the Guatanamo Bay prison to Abu Ghraib.

    To hear Sam Provance's own story, in his own words, is to realize just how bad things really are. And they are very, very, very bad.