Seymour Hersh published a new article in The New Yorker that details information about the CIA and other government agencies' secret involvement in Iran.

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership.

Whatever your own view about our relations with Iran, having a very public and transparent conversation about whether we target this country is absolutely necessary.

The media is where we have discussions like this and while we have seen and heard bits and pieces, alternative news sources remain the best places to get informed.

War is certainly big business, but even bigger is the impact it has on the lives of our troops and their families, not to mention the international condemnation that may follow.

With consequences and sacrifices like these on the line, we need 1. transparency and 2. debate.

Big Media has to be held accountable for their decreasing willingness to hold government accountable.

From this morning's Times ...

Hey, in case you thought our Congress was in the grips of partisan bickering while the country grapples with high fuel prices, Iraq, tanking economy, etc. - not to worry. The NYT tells us that the "House voted Tuesday to designate National Watermelon Month and National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day."

Awesome.

Back in April of 2006 the Boston Globe reported that President Bush had issued more than 750 so-called signing statements since the beginning of his tenure. As the Globe reported then:


Well, last night when President Bush signed the 2008 defense authorization bill, he singled out four of the bill's 2,887 sections which may "impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations...protect national security"... etc. The President will comply with these sections "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One of the four, of course, was the Commission on Wartime Contracting intended to investigate the now-legendary waste, fraud and abuse of the contracting process during what was to be the reconstruction of Iraq.

So, good citizens, rest assured that our President will not comply with any requirements of this investigation of his administration's mishandling of contracting in Iraq that will inhibit his ability to protect our national security, or rather give comfort to our enemies. I know I feel safe in the knowledge we may never find out how Halliburton keeps getting open-ended contracts in spite of their performance.

Late last week, Common Cause's National Governing Board approved a resolution calling on the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq as "expeditiously as possible, consistent with the safety of the troops and Iraqi people." The resolution further called for the establishment of a commission to investigate a range of war-related issues, including whether "the invasion and occupation of Iraq may have resulted in abuses of executive power, disregard for fundamental principles of our democracy, dishonesty in government, deprivations of fundamental civil rights and civil liberties, and misuse of U.S. taxpayer money."

You can read the full text here.

What's your take? For background, take a look at some of Common Cause's "Eye on Iraq" research.

Donald Vance may not have a face you would pick out of a crowd.  Of medium height and unassuming, the most distinguishing feature is his eyes.  They speak both of sorrow and intensity.  Vance on April 4 was honored in Washington for his courage, and for his speaking truth to power, despite the consequences.

Washington is a city of awards luncheons and dinners.  People are honored for all kinds of reasons, some justifiable, some not.  But of all the capitol's awards events, the event that honored Vance is exceptional.  The Ridenhour Prizes are given to honor "the spirit of courage and truth," bestowed on those who "perservere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society."

The awards were named after the late journalist Ron Ridenhour, who, while serving in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, had heard rumors of a massacre in My Lai.  He followed up on these rumors, and in 1969, wrote a letter to Congress and the Pentagon about what he had uncovered.  Ridenhour, who went to become an award-winning investigative journalist, died suddenly in 1998 at the age of 52.

If Vietnam was the war that propelled Ridenhour's act of courage, the Middle East was the leitmotif for this year's awards.

Vance certainly deserved this year's Ridenhour prize for truth-telling.  A Navy veteran, Vance was working in Iraq for a private security contractor. When he suspected wrongdoing by his employer, he became an unpaid F.B.I. informant, helping investigate whether his security firm was dealing in illegal arms sales.

Instead of being rewarded for his whistle-blowing, Vance found himself imprisoned by the Army, in a notorious U.S. prison in Iraq, held in isolation, enduring extreme cold and sleep deprivation.  "My family did not know if I were alive or dead," Vance said.  When, after three months, he was let go, Vance came away with a troubling conclusion.  "If the government could do this to me, an American citizen, a Navy veteran, someone who voted for Bush, twice," what was happening" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and all other prisons where U.S. armed forces are operating in secret?

Vance secretly kept notes of his ordeal, and told his story to the New York Times in December 2006.  He remains incredulous that the security firm on whom he had blown the whistle continues to do business with the Army, albeit under a new structure but with the same executives in charge.  His experience taught him, he said, that for many corporations that are doing business in Iraq, "profits take precedence."

The two-part series in Sunday's and Monday's Washington Post was riveting.  But like the missing limbs of the soldiers so ill treated at Walter Reed Hospital, the Post's series also was missing a limb.  It explained the WHAT of the story - the bureaucracy, unfeeling paperwork and meaningless rules that kept soldiers badly wounded in the Iraq War from getting the care and respect they deserved.  But the series largely failed to get to the why of the story.  The series was still worth doing.  The day after it was published, the Army announced it was renovating the patient building on the sprawling Walter Reed campus that most needed fixing up.

And a second Post story reported that an investigation was being launched into the possible unethical conduct of a Walter Reed official who, critics charge, was so preoccupied with founding his own soldiers relief foundation, that he neglected his duties managing a system that was supposed to match up soldier families to donors wishing to help. And Walter Reed is increasing staffing to better deal with the flood of the wounded, a flood that the anticipated "surge" in Iraq will only make worse.