>You have entirely missed my point. I think that is the difference between your viewpoint and mine. What we see as the most crucial or the crux of the matter differs in a very large way.

That was obvious, wasn't it? :)

IMO, this is the nth time I've seen the (allegedly liberal) press storm against anybody speaking up about abuses, while keeping pretty mum about the perpetrators themselves. I'm getting the impression that to the media it's not important what actually happened, how far did it go (in time, in chain-of-command, in degrees of abuse), who was caught covering it up... no, they want to shoot the messenger. As if the most damage comes from publishing about the fact, and not from the fact itself.

To me there is no difference whether it was any military or civil authority that did it. Both are, in extension, government. And if government does nothing (much) about it, it's at least an accomplice. And if the media don't want to investigate the matter, but rather shout at those who do, they're involved in it as well.

Some of these things have happened in my country as well, and it takes more than a decade to wash it off from the nation's face. There can't be true reconciliation until the truth is told. And in all of the articles you linked here I didn't see any counterargument to mr. Gore's assertions. They didn't say what he said wasn't true, nor have offered some facts to counter. They just said he said it in the wrong place - and again, how can a country which is such a big friend of White House be a bad place?