There are two key words to keep in mind when reading Thomas Ricks’s important and eminently readable new book, “The Generals”: accountability and relief. Accountability is what set Ricks out on his investigation of America’s military leaders from World War II to the present, as in the missing accountability of our generals for the failures of the post-9/11 decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. And relief is what Ricks believes has been too often missing, as in the old-fashioned sense of the word and one that is hardly ever used anymore, certainly by the U.S. military: firing.
|By: Susan Glasser Saturday November 24, 2012 1:59 pm|
|By: David Dayen Tuesday November 20, 2012 6:08 pm|
Applying Fourth Amendment rights to a digital society has increasingly led to the degradation of more privacy protections. This seems headed in the same direction.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday November 16, 2012 5:28 pm|
Judge Susan Illston said in court today that she had questions about provisions of the proposed FTC settlement with Google which allows them to retain and profit from the data they collected by hacking Apple’s Safari browser.
Consumer Watchdog is challenging the settlement, which also includes a record fine of $22.5 million and allows Google to deny liability.
|By: Attaturk Wednesday November 14, 2012 1:30 am|
As Petraeus’ career and prospects go up in the flames, his real legacy isn’t his broken marriage vows but the Afghan surge that has failed miserably.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday November 13, 2012 5:15 pm|
Revelations that now-former CIA director David Petraeus had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, have pulled into focus how the press reveres America’s highest-ranked military generals. Not only does the affair itself show the folly of someone allowing his or her self to become too embedded with any one military officer but it also shows what happens when the media builds up a figure like Petraeus and then is given reason to be disappointed.
The press can barely come to grips with the fact that America has “lost” someone widely considered to be a role model for leadership among establishment journalists
|By: David Dayen Tuesday November 13, 2012 8:50 am|
This David Petraeus sex scandal has, as is usually the case, launched thousands of columns claiming to understand intimate details about the mental states of everyone involved, striking moral tones about who can be blamed and what it means for the moral fabric of family life in America, the military, what have you. But the really interesting and important aspect of this story is the degree to which the FBI completely abuses the public trust, apparently for no more a reason than a favor to a friend.
|By: TBogg Tuesday November 13, 2012 6:04 am|
I am pleased to see that the media have filled the yawning void that looms before them following the conclusion of the presidential horse race election by getting all het up over a semi-sexy tale of spies and the dames who want to bump uglies with them.
|By: Attaturk Tuesday November 13, 2012 1:30 am|
Neither I nor most people know the “juicy” details of David Petraeus’s love life — in fact, I’d rather not thank you very much. But as ever there are only two stories that the national political media are capable of following. The horse race and a sex scandal — and with the election just over…
But the reaction that follows the immediate reaction of a sex scandal is always depressingly the same — it was the woman’s fault
|By: Elliott Monday November 12, 2012 6:40 pm|
I guess the investigation’s not over.
|By: Teddy Partridge Sunday November 11, 2012 8:01 pm|
Since Dianne Feinstein changed her mind about President Obama accepting the CIA Director’s resignation due to ‘additional complications,’ I wonder if she will tell us which particular ‘additional complications’ led her to reverse course? Was it simply that she looked silly criticizing a president of her own party, appearing out of touch on the intelligence loop? Was it that it was the CIA Director’s supervisor’s idea that he resign? Was it the involvement of partisan leadership of the opposite party in the other house? Or was it the involvement of a State Department employee at JSOC?