1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush Appoints Death Squad Boy to Intelligengence Chief

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by glynch, Feb 18, 2005.

  1. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,102
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    How many times can I write the same piece about John Negroponte?

    Today George W. Bush named him to the new post of Director of National Intelligence. Previously, Bush had hired Negroponte to be UN ambassador and then US ambassador to the new Iraq. On each of those earlier occasions, I noted that Negroponte's past deserved scrutiny. After all, during the Reagan years, when he was ambassador to Honduras, Negroponte was involved in what was arguably an illegal covert quid pro quo connected to the Iran/contra scandal, and he refused to acknowledge significant human rights abuses committed by the pro-US military in Honduras. But each time Negroponte's appointment came before the Senate, he won easy confirmation. Now that he's been tapped to lead the effort to reorganize and reform an intelligence community that screwed up 9/11 and the WMD-in-Iraq assignment, Negroponte will likely sail through the confirmation process once again.

    His previous exploits, though, warrant more attention than ever. He has been credibly accused of rigging a human rights report that was politically inconvenient. This is a bad omen. The fundamental mission of the intelligence community is to provide policymakers with unvarnished and valuable information-even if it causes the policymakers headaches. But there's reason to believe that Negroponte did the opposite in tough circumstances. If that is the case, he would not be the right man to oversee an intelligence community that needs solid leaders who are committed to truth-finding. Rather than rewrite my previous work on Negroponte, I am posting below the article I did after Bush named him the viceroy of Baghdad. It's more relevant today than when it first appeared. But I doubt Negroponte's dark history will finally trigger a confirmation debate within the Senate. He has skated in the past; he'll likely do so again.

    Bush's New Iraq Viceroy

    by DAVID CORN

    May 10, 2004 issue

    Like dirty money, tainted reputations can be laundered, as the Administration fervently hopes in the case of John Negroponte. Now UN ambassador, Negroponte has been chosen by George W. Bush to be the first ambassador to post-Saddam Iraq. When Bush selected Negroponte to be his UN representative in 2001, Negroponte was one of several Iran/contra figures being resurrected by the Bush crowd. As Honduras ambassador in the early 1980s, Negroponte, a career diplomat, participated in a secret and possibly illegal quid pro quo in which the Reagan Administration bribed the Honduran government with economic and military assistance to support the contras fighting the socialist Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Perhaps more significant, while Negroponte served in Honduras, he denied or downplayed serious human rights abuses by government security forces. This past threatened his confirmation as UN ambassador. But 9/11 rescued Negroponte. At the time of the attack, his nomination was pending, and the Senate moved quickly to approve him.

    These days Negroponte's tenure in Honduras is old news. The Washington Post's front-page story on his nomination did not mention his stint there. Senate staffers say that his record in Honduras won't be a focus of the confirmation hearings. But his tour of duty there is worth scrutiny, for it raises questions about his credibility and his ability to handle tough situations and inconvenient truths. While he was in Honduras and for years afterward, Negroponte refused to acknowledge the human rights abuses. In a 1982 letter to The Economist he said it was "simply untrue to state that death squads have made their appearance in Honduras." The next year he maintained, "There is no indication that the infrequent human rights violations that do occur are part of deliberate government policy." And during his 2001 confirmation he stated, "I do not believe then, nor do I believe now, that these abuses were part of a deliberate government policy. To this day, I do not believe that death squads were operating in Honduras." How then does he account for a 1997 CIA Inspector General investigation that concluded, "The Honduran military committed hundreds of human rights abuses since 1980, many of which were politically motivated and officially sanctioned" and linked to "death squad activities"?

    Not only has Negroponte declined to acknowledge the obvious; when he was ambassador, the State Department rigged its Honduras human rights reports to Congress. As a 1995 Baltimore Sun series noted, "A comparison of the annual human rights reports prepared while Negroponte was ambassador with the facts as they were then known shows that Congress was deliberately misled." The Sun reported, "Time and again...Negroponte was confronted with evidence that a Honduran army intelligence unit, trained by the CIA, was stalking, kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected subversives." But this didn't make it into State Department reports. Had Honduras been found to be engaging in systematic abuses, it could have lost its US aid--thwarting the Reagan Administration's use of Honduras to support the contras.

    Negroponte has claimed "there was no effort to soft pedal" abuses in Honduras. Yet in public statements he repeatedly conveyed a misleading appearance, and in the years since he has held tight--in the face of compelling evidence--to the view that the abuses that did occur were merely unfortunate exceptions. Negroponte's confirmation hearing will provide senators a chance to probe Bush's plans (or lack thereof) in Iraq. But if Negroponte's record as an abuse denier is not questioned, as seems likely, he will once again be able to escape his haunted past.

    link
     
  2. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    [opinionated rant]

    A disgusting, pathetic, narrow-minded choice of an Intelligence Chief, but now that we live in the world of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, where we are no longer held accountable for behaving in accordance with the Geneva Convention or even basic human decency and dignity, it makes sense that Bush would appoint someone with solid death squad and torture experience on his resume.

    [/opinionated rant]
     
  3. NJRocket

    NJRocket Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    7,242
    Likes Received:
    27
    move ....far, far away and you won't have to deal with our ruthless leader:rolleyes:
     
  4. Bogey

    Bogey Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,252
    Likes Received:
    118
    Personally I don't mind a guy like this as intelligence chief. Sometimes to get information they'll need to authorize people to do stuff that the general public doesn't need to know and is better off not knowing.
     
  5. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,967
    Likes Received:
    20,772
    More evidence that GWB lacks judgement.
     
  6. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,850
    Likes Received:
    5,249
    The general public can't handle the truth...this appointment is a great decision by and large.
     
  7. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    That's why they finally elected W..

    :D
     
  8. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,850
    Likes Received:
    5,249
    Yea, the public at-large saw the truth of Kerry's insulting and blatant attempt to falsify what he stands for and made the right decision! Yeeehawww :D
     
  9. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,208
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    I can't help but think that many Americans, especially Democrats, would be much happier as Canadians. As a side benefit, the rest of us would be happier as well.
     
  10. Zac D

    Zac D Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    46
    But it's cold up there. We've got to fight for a liberal country with a decent climate, you see.
     
  11. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13
    Did you make that up? That's pretty creative.
     
  12. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    [​IMG]
     
  13. ROXTXIA

    ROXTXIA Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2000
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    13,087
    But we get guys like this in such high-position jobs and then we preach about "freedom" and "democracy"; aren't we supposed to set a higher standard of morality in the world?

    The thing is to me, if you were actually torturing some terrorist scumbag to get information, it might make me squeamish, but I could look the other way.

    But you can bet we're not being very discriminating in casting our net to nab terrorists. You can bet many of the dudes that we're keeping in dog-cages down in Gitmo were probably nabbed because they were caught muttering, "You Americans suck," which might be my own opinion if someone in my family had been killed or my house bombed.

    Besides, Negroponte is the best symbol of our hypocrisy. We can train and utilize terrorists; they can live amongst us (wouldn't that be harboring terrorists?) then send them into Central and South America and do our bidding. Very little of what we do in those regions ever hits the newspapers. But the media can splash Saddam or bin Laden 24/7, ad nauseam, because THAT IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE MEANT TO RECEIVE.
     
  14. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    the sad thing is that the democrats in the senate dont even bother fighting these. because the only glasses through which they see are PRO CHOICE PRO CHOICE PRO CHOICE everything else be damned.
     
  15. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,208
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    I think Alec Baldwin inspired it. Since Democrats are often arguing for abortion on demand, socialized health care, higher taxes, more eco-friendly environmental policies, etc., do you disagree that Canada already offers many if not most of the things they are trying to get here in the US?
     
  16. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,987
    Likes Received:
    41,583
    Since Republicans favor a society full of guns, state sanctioned religion, intolerance towarrd homosexuals, and little to no government interference, or regulation, do you disagree that Iraq offers many if not most of the things they are trying to get here in the US?
     
  17. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13
    I don't know about you, but I've never been inspired by Alec Baldwin.
     
  18. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Word.

    I hear Iraq's nice this time of year...
     
  19. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Republicans defend the right to bear arms... plus I really doubt there are that many guns in Iraq. I'm a Republilcan and I've never even fired a gun.

    Is it fair to boil down opposition to gay marriage as intolerance of homosexuals? I'm a Republican in favor of full equality for gay "marriage."

    What Republican has come out for "no government interference?" This is just silly. You might try to make a case for "little government interference" but then you couldn't explain away Homeland Security.
     
  20. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,208
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    I think Canada is much more like what Democrats are trying to make of America than Iraq is for Republicans. If most of the big Dem talking points were put into effect here in America, it would be very similar to Canada (there would of course be differences, like dual national languages, parliamentary system, etc). If most of the big GOP talking points were enacted in America, I don't think it would suddenly become a Muslim terrorist hotspot on the brink of a religious civil war. Maybe you think we are as similar to Iraq as we are to Canada, but I don't think that is a popularly held opinion. If there were a country much like America, except that most of the policies where those that I favored, I would certainly consider moving there.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now