Media must think that Republicans are still in power...

Not that it should be surprising, especially for those who actually study media and bias, but Think Progress points out that Republicans dominated cable news over the recent stimulus bill debate. The major networks excused themselves in the past when they represented "conservatives" 2 to 1 against progressives by saying that Republicans were in power. Well, what say you now? What's interesting about TP's graph is that MSNBC had double the number of Reps to Dems, where Fox was less unbalanced, at least as far as guest appearances were concerned.

Alterman and Zornick eviscerate the common meme that MSNBC is a "liberal" network simply because it has two ostensibly progressive shows on back to back, Olbermann and Maddow. Their main piece of evidence: the inimitable moron par-excellence, Joe Scarborough, who has a three-hour block in the morning. Morning Joe, as a former congressman:

His very first assignment in the House in January 1995 was to head a freshman Republican task force on eliminating the Department of Education. He later introduced a bill that would force the United States to withdraw from the United Nations and boot the U.N. building out of New York, voted to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, voted to cut funding for Medicare, and voted against raising the minimum wage from $4.45 an hour. He also received $1,000 in contributions from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

I might add that Scarborough got his first show on MSNBC as an acceptably pro-war substitute for Phil Donahue, who was removed during the run up to the invasion of Iraq, even though his show had good----and competitive!----ratings (Donahue made the mistake of having only a 3 to 1 ratio of pro versus anti- invasion guests).

Also, following up on a previous blog on the newest illegal government surveillance allegations from former NSA officer, Russell Tice, Alterman and Zornick talk about how the media have been absent in pursuing this story, one that has profound implications, not the least of which, in my opinion, relate to just what kind of republic we actually live in/under. That Tice says all Americans were subject to the program----not juuuust journalists (details on James Risen's story included in the article)----should give us pause, and make us wonder why the very profession that was allegedly targeted wouldn't be interested----0r----- "uninterested" enough to start investigating the truth and drawing more attention to this story. Did Prick Cheney hurt their feelings by saying this?

And, yes again from Alterman (who wrote the air-tight case against conservative misrepresentation of the media as "liberal" in What Liberal Media?), we see that the "liberal" NYT editorial page, the one that has recently allowed neoconservative "intellectual" and embarrassment Bill Kristol* the opportunity to disingenuously attack Bill Moyers on his Israel/Gaza comments without accepting for publication an unaltered response from Moyers:

...he was told, "We will not print that 'William Kristol distorts or misrepresents,' and the editors will not budge." They insisted that the letter be changed for publication to read, "I take strong exception to William Kristol's characterization," and they truncated much else.

Moyers' program, the one that so enrages reactionary, Israeli government supporters, was more than fair, and even gave all the perfunctory nods to the "Israel's right to defend itself" mantra that's mandatory in order to express an opinion on the issue----well, in our "intellectual" climate anyway. However, for most commentators the mantra is taken to mean Israel is sanctioned to blockade, invade, illegally settle, and commit various other war crimes as a proper response to Palestinian terrorism. So when Moyers qualified this empty slogan, he was out of line with the almost militantly conventional wisdom on the conflict. To criticise Israeli government policy is somehow "anti-Semitic" for our ruling sophists.

These uncritical supporters of the Israeli government disregard the fact that the Israeli public is far more critical of its government's own policies than the U.S. government and media is. Granted, Israelis are solidly behind their government's effort, but could one imagine 20-30% of our government/media establishment calling for an immediate truce, like those polled in Israel? No way! On the pages of Ha'aretz David Grossman can describe the Gaza operation as "just one more way-station on a road paved with fire, violence and hatred" and that "our conduct here in this region has, for a long time, been flawed, immoral and unwise." Maybe the policy defenders might think he should be brushed aside as just another ineffectual, self-loathing, over-intellectualizing Jew like the archetype we would see in a Philip Roth story?

Grossman's is just one of many wise observations on an unwise policy from the very people who are most affected by this war. And yet, here, one would be castigated as some kind of degenerate radical not to be taken seriously for expressing such heresies (Yes, equanimity is radical). And yes, Alterman is correct: Let's see if the self-appointed anti-defamation league would even dare ask a Grossman, whose son was killed two years ago in a war that nearly all U.S. officials and the media elite supported, to amend his words to conform to their particular sensibilities (Need we say biases or prejudices) the way the "liberal" NYT demanded of Moyers.

________________
*Some of my favorite Bill Kristol moments quoted from Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq:

There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America...that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular.---April 1, 2003

There are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic and political persuasions can work together...There is a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism.----March 22, 2004

The United States [has] committed itself...to reshaping the Middle East, so the region [will] no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction....The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably.----April 28, 2003

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.----March 17, 2003

And my personal favorite:

It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power.----quoted by Francis Fukuyama in The New York Times, February 19, 2006

Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for he world's sole superpower.------February 24, 2003

And last, but definitely not least:

I think Iraq is, actually, the big unspoken elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past.-----interviewed by NPR's All Things Considered the day after the 9/11 attacks, September 12, 2001

Our Foreign Country, or How to Think like a "Conservative"

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

This is great! Looks like Congress and the Executive got their shit together and finally ratified some new anti-torture law to deter future "infractions" after the Bush debacle(s). This is a relief because now U.S. officials can't claim there's no existing domestic laws binding us to international standards of humane treatment, like the those someone would find perusing through the Geneva Conventions (and I guess maybe our 8th Amendment, of course).

Wait. Ooops...This is from 1988.

But surely it must have been some Democrat that signed such an unpatriotic law. Those pussies. They're not allowed to carry out the law.

No? IT WAS RONALD REAGAN who signed this?

He signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture?

Well...he was a pinko in his younger years. No strong Republican would dare sign such a law these days. Everything's changed. In fact, everything's changed so much that pre-9/11 is a foreign country. Richard Cohen sagely opines:

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." So goes an aphorism that needs to be applied to the current debate over whether those who authorized and used torture should be prosecuted. In the very different country called Sept. 11, 2001, the answer would be a resounding no.

Well, even if we can't get past The Gipper's signature on the U.N. Convention, it still wouldn't be binding: At least as long as we casually disregard this little insignificant, "foreign country" of a founding document:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

They're hoping so much that people like Cohen will win the day that they're starting to pre-empt even the Attorney General in declaring his decision not to prosecute. They really mustn't worry; the prosecution hasn't got a case, and the American people just wouldn't stand for it.

People like Glenn Greenwald are simply fanatics.

Tom Tomorrow's got our foreign country pinned down rather succinctly, here.

And here's an ironic and tragic symbol of a backwards country. This man was a WWII vet. Who really needs social welfare?

*For a true conservative viewpoint, see Bruce Fein.

*The worst part about Mr. Schur's passing:

Schur died a slow, painful death. "He probably had a lot of burning pain in his fingers and toes. Gradually his body gave out," he said. "It takes many, many hours to come
to the end."

The Department of Optimism and Impunity

After the Eric Holder confirmation hearing, where the nominee for Attorney General gave his opinion that waterboarding is torture (duh), many said it would be interesting to see what the Obama administration might do about it: The incoming head of the new Justice Department essentially acknowledging that the U.S. tortured, which would mean that it committed war crimes. Is it a portent of prosecutions to come?

Well, one of the main architects of the former administration's policy of rendition, "enhanced interrogations," and torture is pretty sanguine about whether or not the Justice Department will seek justice against him and others. The reason for Alberto Gonzales's optimism: "making a blanket pronouncement like that'' could possibly have a negative "effect ... on the morale and the dedication of intelligence officials and lawyers throughout the administration."

Morale would drop? Could it drop any lower? (See Clinton's welcoming at the State Department from The Daily Show. Spoiler alert: It was a standing ovation). A typical argument that has been recycled over and over in our history: "For the good of the nation, we all must come together and forget the past in order to heal." We hear that whenever government seeks to absolve itself.

He continues: "I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly...Because again, these activities ... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.''


Yes, we all know that----and we also know that the Office of Legal Counsel, centered around Cheney's office, with his lead attorney, David Addington and others, arbitrarily rewrote law through their very-own, very ludicrous legal opinions and interpretations----in contradiction to strongly precedented domestic and international law. Lawyers who disagreed with the OLC, and were thus marginalized or forced to resign, like Jack Goldsmith (here, and here,), made stands against Addington and Co. because they were not giving legal opinions so much as legislating from within a very secretive, tightly-knit inner circle----the self-proclaimed "War Counsel." (What's that about "activist judges" legislating from the bench, guys?) Here they were-----legislating from the Vice President's office.

Once Congress, and then the world, found out about their programs, they moved to retroactively immunize their own actions out of fear of prosecution with the Military Commissions Act. Interestingly, Sen. McCain was so perturbed by what he learned of the program he pushed for reform, but ultimately buckled because of presidential ambitions, not wanting to look "soft on terror," and voted for an act that sought to not just to create a uniform standard for interrogators, but also to retroactively immunize past criminal activity (mainly from the CIA and their use of "black site" operations).

And so today, Gonzales responds to the possibility of prosecution by saying, "I find it hard to believe." And again, the common refrain: "I'm not sure how productive it is to lament about things that went wrong. Maybe it was inevitable."

Right, Mr. Gonzales. So then we, as individuals, have no Free Will to act in this world, but instead are only subject to our own separate, determinate and circumstantial realities; and like all the "relativists" that you faux conservatives purport to loathe, your team, victimized by the vicissitudes of History, cries out: "We are not responsible...it was inevitable."

On the bright side: At least someone in The Congress cares about accountability and justice.

The Latest Security State Revelation

A friend sent this wonderfully difficult game to play when there's downtime at work. He's claiming a score of 14, which is truly incredible. After 4 rounds, my high is 2 (And I thought my animosity for the target might help increase my score). Can anyone unseat the champ?


Interesting, though unsurprising, developments on the state of the national security state...It's not just peace groups and activists targeted by PATRIOT Act-empowered government surveillance, but according to one former NSA analyst and whistleblower, Russell Tice, The Gov'ment "monitored all communications," meaning journalists (like James Risen) and all domestic communications included, even while Bush was assuring the public that they were only monitoring "terrorists" and international communications.

If this is true, it just adds more to the case against the Bush Squad and their view of power and secrecy (and lawbreaking). All the more reason to prosecute those views, as well as there purveyors. That Mr. Tice felt he had to wait until Obama was in office to disclose this pertinent tidbit out of fear of retaliation also says a lot. And to think this administration might very well go off into the sunset escaping justice, almost entirely, if only it weren't for the fact that History's jurisprudence won't be as derelict...

However, the right-wing that sought to undermine Mr. Tice by saying he had psychological problems when he was revealed as the source for the famous NYT piece on the illegal NSA surveillance program, will no doubt be pleading a similar case. So it's important that Congress gets to the bottom of this by investigating Tice's claims, as he himself has requested, even offering to testify.

In fact, this should happen regardless, seeing that the Senate Judiciary Committee, in 2007, threatened to hold the Bush administration in contempt after issuing subpoenas for information on the warrantless surveillance program and being duly ignored (And that was after 9 prior requests). But given that Congress gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms-----and with considerable Democratic support-----one shouldn't imagine Congress acting without a sustained outcry from the public. But do keep in mind: "Serious, thinking" people don't want Democrats to ruffle any feathers simply because they are in power. So tread lightly in your outrage.

In a similar vein...
The ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA has led to some interesting results. After winning an initial decision in 2006 where the district court found the NSA violated the First and Fourth Amendments, along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the case was dismissed in 2007 by an appeals court with some really circular logic:

The court ruled that the plaintiffs in the ACLU case do not have the legal standing to sue the NSA for unfairly spying on them because it's not clear that any of them were actually spied on. Of course, because the warrantless wiretapping program is secret, we'll never know who was spied on without a warrant and who wasn't, so it's not clear how anyone could be seen as having the standing to bring a suit.

In other words, the evidence in the case will always be unobtainable even though there have been revelations of illegal wiretapping, and the president has even claimed the "inherent authority" to do so without a warrant. (One might suspect that would be probable cause enough to investigate...And to think the only probable cause necessary for police in Irvine to search my brother's truck was a vase with flowers in it, visible through his rear window. They imagined it was a giant bong that warranted investigation of criminal activity)

To be clear though: the appeals court didn't rule that warrantless surveillance was legal, just that plaintiffs can't bring a suit because the evidence necessary to do so is secret. "It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity" said an ACLU lawyer. But on the other hand, "the only judge to discuss the merits [of the case against the NSA program] clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful." Catch-22?

Absurd.

Lastly, noting the former administration's penchant for secrecy...
Michael Doyle cites the annual Freedom of Information Act report for 2007 and compares it to 1998 to illustrate just how hostile they were to FIOA requests:

Consider: the Defense Department completely granted 61 percent of FOIA requests in Fiscal 1998. In Fiscal 2007, the Defense Department completely granted only 48 percent of FOIA requests. And the Pentagon wasn't alone. The Interior Department fully granted 64 percent of FOIA requests in 1998 but only 47 percent in 2007.

Trust your gov'ment. Just trust 'em----but please don't verify!

MLK and the Inauguration of Barack Obama

Even taking the day off work to watch the inauguration wasn't really enough to appreciate this grand event, the transference of power from the worst president in American history to, hopefully, one of our most promising. The Bush Years: What a time to go through college and develop a political consciousness! What a traumatic rite of passage!

It was fitting that MLK Day was yesterday and Obama's inauguration today. So, alongside the President's call for a new direction and change in American values, it might be worthwhile to observe and celebrate King not only for his commitment to racial equality and civil rights for African Americans, but also for his more universal and global message, for which he was roundly excoriated in the press, delivered 4 April 1967, a year before his assassination. An excerpt:

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy, and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. We will be marching and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy...

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look easily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: " This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from re-ordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are the days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take: offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us re-dedicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

To kick off the new presidency and the landmark election of the nation's first black president, here are a few good books for '09. Taylor Branch has spent the majority of his career researching and writing the best books on MLK to date. These three books very well respected because MLK's life is so richly contextualized by the broader culture of the Civil Rights Era. Branch's in-depth interview is also deeply rewarding, especially if one doesn't get to his authoritative trilogy (I've only read the reviews and am looking forward to taking it on this summer).

And sadly, there is still some clean up from the Bush Legacy Tour. It should be interesting to watch the lapdogs suddenly turn watchful now as Obama tries to change the tenor in Yanktown.

Oh well, it was a remarkable day:

O, yes,

I say it plain,

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath--

America will be!----Langston Hughes

"Serious People" and Events

A great man has died. Forget the obituary: It's this interview and these dorky Prisoner fan questions that really get to the center of the man. He's apparently as intense in real life as he was as Number 6. But could there be any better compliment to the man's work than this:




"Serious people in our politics..."
Now here's democracy in action, and where your vote really matters, although the list is nowhere near comprehensive...

And also this gem, following up on Tuesday's post (These people are so very predictable, banal even). From Murdoch's Wall Street Journal:

To the extent the Libby prosecution distracted the White House staff, consumed its working hours, eroded personal savings on lawyers, and inevitably pitted the president's aides against each other, the strategy worked.

Strategy? Mr. Henninger must be referring to the inexpensive furor over former president Clinton's demonstrative "abuse of power" in receiving oral sex at the White House, and the two-year witch hunt that ensued...

Or, maybe not.

Although Henninger is, after all, a "serious person," and like all those "serious" "realists," many of whom argue for John Q. Public to forget about torture and war crimes (Just move on, despite all the truly pragmatic, constitutional reasons for prosecution), he advises we should all really just concede that clemency for Mr. Libby would be most prudent...For the good of the country...and...heal the wounds of the...and...hiccup...beer me-----please!

What was the supposed motivation to impeach Clinton, again? Something akin to: "It's about law and order," and "abuse of power," "nobody is above the law," "proper checks and balances," "the Constitution is much too important for us to neglect its principles"-----and all those types of radical, idealist notions. Republicans back then were sermonizing like the ACLU atop Mount Sinai.

And so it must be true today that these "serious people" still agree with those principles, I'm sure, even though ejaculation is not at issue.

Serious people in our politics, Republicans and Democrats, would understand that a Bush pardon of Scooter Libby is mainly about closing some of the worst wounds of these long war years...These were hard years, and required hard decisions. It's time to let Scooter Libby get back to work. Like the rest of Washington.

Yes, "serious people," indeed: The four and a half years probing into Clinton----and yielding NO convictions of any sort----resulted in a price tag of $80 million to taxpayers, according to the Government Accounting Office (Four independent counsels and inquiries total!). But hey, pardoning Libby would close "some of the worst wounds of these long war years." Um, where have we heard that before? (Incidentally, Ford modestly portrayed himself as a courageous hero for the pardoning of Tricky Dick).

Speaking of Nixon, the brand-spankin' new release of Kissinger's conversations with various denizens of power is downright riveting. In case one starts thinking illegal wiretapping was invented by the Republicans in Bush the Younger's administration, think again:

On the illegal wiretap scandal in June 1973, Nixon threatened to go to political war with Democrats if they pressed the issue. “Lets get away from the bullshit,” Nixon stated angrily. “Bobby Kennedy was the greatest tapper.” The President even suspected his own phone had been wiretapped in the early 1960s. “[J.Edgar Hoover] said Bobby Kennedy had [the FBI] tapping everybody. I think that even I’m on that list,” President Nixon told Kissinger. When Nixon noted that the wiretap scandal would “catch some of your friends,” Kissinger responded: “Well, I wouldn’t be a bit unhappy.”

Evidently, Mr. Nixon was wrong about Bobby Kennedy, as he was with most things.

But it is fascinating how even mundane glimpses into historical moments and figures can be just as revealing as the explosive stuff. With public servants like Nixon, Kissinger, Bush, etc., intoxicated with state power, it really could be the "banality of evil" that makes it so pervasive, and explains its intractable (re)manifestations in our state policies and actions. After all, there must be an "absence of the imaginative capacities" in many of the so-called "serious," "thinking" people, those apologists for modern-day torture (or the indiscriminate bombing of places like Laos and Cambodia, or the razing of Dresden and other non-military, civilian targets during WWII, and so on), that simply doesn't render these "activities tangible." And then there's our standard opinion-maker, who for all his highly-acclaimed intelligence and "expertise," cannot exercise any "capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself" that would lead to a "self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds"-----namely, excusing inhumanity.

Becuase that just isn't "serious" enough.

Cheney's Recent Admissions and the Media

Still waiting for any mention of two recent paramount events, but maybe Blagojevich and Burris is just too damn sexy (Remember while the Washington Post was breaking the beginning of the Watergate scandal, and the media was instead fixated on McGovern's choice of Eagleton for vice president, the man who suffered from depression and had undergone all that shock therapy)?

From Murray Waas's exceptional reporting:

according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, [Cheney] admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.

And, of course, it was Scooter Libby, Cheney's personal minion and Chief of Staff, who was found guilty of obstruction for lying under oath to a grand jury----which prevented the investigation from proceeding any further on the Valerie Plame affair...

Whaaa? Now, why would Libby do that? And that story ain't juicy enough?

With Cheney admitting he directed the affair----In fact, he changed the memo on the very same day that Libby met with, and revealed to NYT pro-war propagandist, Judith Miller, Plame's secret identity so that other reporters might examine her as well (Bob Novak took the bait without shame, of course)!----Mr. Libby, though guilty of lying and obstruction, becomes a minor character in the big picture!

These messy facts are painting both a predictable and coherent picture. And seeing how journalism's role is to explore where the facts lead, and not simply to report intriguing and disparate facts to a bewildered, attention-deficit audience: Where are all the stories on the big goddamn picture in this case! A potential pardon for Libby is every once in a great while discussed on air and in print, and there's nothing on this new development.

One might suspect that some clamoring is warranted, especially since a high-ranking official almost certainly outed a covert CIA agent as retribution for calling into question some of the faulty intelligence the administration was using to go to war. Or is that retribution just Cheney's individual notion of patriotism----like all those patriotic bailout recipients who express their patriotism through keeping offshore tax havens----so it's acceptable? It is their own interpretation of reality (Well, what were they thinking at the time?), and not any set of objective, agreed-upon criteria for what kind of behavior is allowable---- like the law----that truly matters, apparently.

Still, that's a major admission though, almost as big as this one, the other major Cheney story not getting enough attention. And yet, Cheney quite characteristically exploits the same logical absurdities and careful language to defend himself as the rest of this abomination of a regime does:

Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative.

Come on. That's as bad as, and reminds me of, when Doug Cassel, an international human rights scholar, asked John Yoo, author of the Bush administration's torture memos, whether it isn't possible under Yoo's legal interpretation of executive power and privilege for the president to authorize one to crush the testicles of a detainee's child:

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

So it's the president's reasoning that truly matters when torturing children, not the heinous act itself. Duh? If only Hitler or his subordinates were looking for a good attorney (and a supine press) these days. Actually, at Nuremberg, the "just following orders" excuse was found not valid; and human rights abuses----no matter the thought process of those committing them----was unequivocally unjustified and was even punishable by death.

Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Yoo claims there's "no treaty" or law preventing the president from torturing a detainee. What about these pertinent principles that were adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950?

Principle II : The fact that internal law [Read: Mr. Yoo's interpretation of U.S. Law] does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Try again, Mr. Yoo.

And Mr. Cheney too---since the "Oops, I didn't know leaking Plame's identity as a covert officer would come out once she was named as ambassador Wilson's wife" excuse is not even remotely plausible. However, as Murray reports, there's this for those looking for a "smoking gun":

still...the question as to whether Cheney directed Libby to leak Plame’s identity to the media at Cheney’s direction or Libby did so on his own by acting over zealously in carrying out a broader mandate from Cheney to discredit Wilson and his allegations about manipulation of intelligence information, will almost certainly remain an unresolved one.

So there's the crux----and beautifully machinated by a true professional. Libby will never answer whether he was directed to expose Plame, hence the lying and obstruction of justice. But that doesn't mean Cheney's careful admission should be uniformly ignored by the mainstream media. On the contrary, it should be seen in light of his recent brazen acknowledgement of approving torture. Patterns do say a lot...like this little compilation, which, while still nowhere near comprehensive, nonetheless illustrates some of the----I'm sure purely accidental----Bush administration sins.

But still: You've really got to hand it to the lawless legacy of this administration. While Obama may close Guantanamo, he is, however, posturing like he won't pursue justice for clear and unequivocal violations of the law. Turn the page. Forget it.

Even if Obama's administration decides to individually change course on torture and the illegitimate extension of executive power by not choosing to behave the same way (Congratulations, torture is bad; law is good!), Obama will still be directly responsible for not upholding the constitutional checks necessary to deter future law-breaking. That's right: Do we punish law-breakers in order to deter future crimes or not?

What if I adopt Yoo's argument and come up with really good reasons why I felt I had to rob a convenient store: Like say, I'm one of the 11.1 million unemployed, or even one of the 7.3 million "involuntary part-time workers," bureaucratese for the under-employed, and my economic circumstances----survival----pushed me to it? I'm sure the death-penalty/law and order crowd would agree those circumstances don't successfully challenge the necessity of having to face the full letter of the law. No, I'm sure some conservatives (and liberals too) would remind me of the need for deterrents in our legal system. Otherwise, we'd have chaos. Go figure...

Capitalists of the World Unite! Before "State Planners" Like the Treasury Oversight Committee Force You to Become Patriots...

OK: Happy New Year (I really wish there was a punctuation mark opposite to the exclamation point). It's looking swell so far, as long as, unlike Keanu in the Matrix, you've chosen the blue pill instead of the red.

Leaving aside the egregious war crimes Israel is committing right now, which the Bush Administration (and most Democrats ) are fully complicit in-----seeing how it refuses to support a cease-fire, unsurprisingly, the same position it took during the bombing of Lebanon two years ago, and delivers huge amounts of taxpayer-funded weaponry to Israel despite the mere fact that 71% of the American public feels the U.S. government should take neither side-----there are other "interesting" things afloat.

APN tells us that the corporation that received the most bailout money also has one of the largest offshore tax haven set ups. This dutiful contributor to the welfare of the American nation-state was previously nailed for helping Enron hide bad investments offshore, and settled to pay $120 million in 2003. Yep, that beneficiary of nanny-state corporatism is Citigroup.

Well, a couple weeks ago, I linked to an ANP story covering the fact that for all the talk of oversight, and the 100 pages ostensibly dedicated to it in the bill, Congress left out any mechanism for requiring recipients of federal bailout money to report back to the government on how it was being spent (Ooops). And so today, Larry Kudlow and the pro nanny-state corporatists at CNBC are contending that monitoring bailout money is equal to Soviet-style "central planning," and that the Treasury couldn't possibly track bailout spending.

While watching I Was Stalin's Bodyguard a few days ago and pondering the cause and effect relationship between ideology and practical reality, the Soviet nomenklatura and the disparity (hypocrisy) between its economic ideology and its leaders' own material existences (Surprise: they were all wealthy and got whatever they wanted from the bourgeois West) hardly figured into my views about the Treasury or Congress demanding even a modicum of accountability and oversight. So I have to thank CNBC for their hyper-defensiveness and knee-jerk apologetics for state-corporatism----not unlike those historic capitalist-cherished brands enjoyed under 20th Century fascist systems----because like the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union, the Kudlow's of the world make obvious their advocacy for one set of rules or laws for "The Elect," and another for the proles. You could say their ideology doesn't really comport with reality. But is their lack of patriotism an anomaly?

No. It isn't unfair to say "capitalism," or really state-corporatist multinational capitalism, conflicts with the welfare of the nation-state. Orwell wrote of the conflict-of-interests held by Allied capitalists and why they were so reluctant to intercede with Hitler,* ultimately choosing appeasement over confrontation because of the gargantuan investments they'd made to the strongest economy on the continent, Fascist Germany (This was truly ironic because they justified it to their conscientious critics at the time by saying it was necessary for opposing Russian communism. Little did they know, that years later they'd be allied with Uncle Joe's** Red Menace in order to destroy their former financial partners, the Nazis.).

During Madison's presidency, John Q. Adams was pilloried by his own party, (at that time) the Federalists, because he patriotically stood with Jefferson's Republicans against the British, who were impressing (kidnapping) upwards of 9,000 American seamen so they could be forced to fight Napoleonic France. A few years later, during the War of 1812, the Federalists, at the Hartford Convention, ironically schemed for secession, which was the single event that led to their extinction as a party, and the rise of Democratic-Republican, single-party rule and "The Era of Good Feelings." The South didn't miss the irony of the treasonous convention when it threatened secession in 1831 during the "Nullification Crisis," and South Carolina led the way with actual secession upon Lincoln's election.

Why did the Hamiltonian Federalists become so strongly tied to their nation's primary enemy, much like Allied capitalists did with Nazi Germany? Because Britain's financiers were investing heavily in the nascent Northern manufacturing sector, and funding the debt of the privately-owned Bank of the United States. Northern interests weren't upset enough anymore to throw the products of corporate monopolies, like the East India Company, into Boston Harbor because they were too busy in Congress fighting for similar protectionist measures*** to those they fought against during the revolution, at the expense of anyone too poor to pay for tariffed, imported goods (like say...that broad Southern electorate of yeomen farmers), and instead desired to emulate, economically, their former "tyrannical" overlord, Great Britain. Heck, wanna build a future empire? Gotta tax and invest domestically in infrastructure to pay for it, yo!

"Capitalists" of the world unite, before "central planners" like the treasury oversight panel force you to become patriots!

___________________________________
From Orwell's essay, "The Lion and the Unicorn":

After years of aggression and massacres, they had grasped only one fact, that Hitler and Mussolini were hostile to Communism. Therefore, it was argued, they MUST be friendly to the British dividend-drawer. Hence the truly frightening spectacle of Conservative M.P.s wildly cheering the news that British ships, bringing food to the Spanish Republican government, had been bombed by Italian aeroplanes...The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up. The natural instinct of men like Simon, Hoare, Chamberlain etc. was to come to an agreement with Hitler... What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism, that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit--DOES NOT WORK. It cannot deliver the goods...The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a PHYSICAL debunking of capitalism...the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with fascism---generally speaking [because] the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution... British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.

**From the above-linked conversation with political scientist, John Mearsheimer:

In the late 1930s, Stalin was viewed as a murderous thug, and the Soviet Union was widely considered to be a totalitarian state. But in December of 1941, when we went to war against Nazi Germany, we ended up as a close ally of the Soviet Union. So what we did was bring the spin doctors out, and Joseph Stalin became Uncle Joe, and the Soviet Union was described as an emerging democracy, and we made all the necessary rhetorical changes to make it look like we were aligning ourselves with a burgeoning democracy, because Americans would find it very difficult to tolerate a situation where we, in effect, jumped into bed with a totalitarian state that was run by a murderous leader like Joe Stalin. So we cleaned him up.

***It is important to remember that it was those protectionist measures that built up American manufacturing, increasing the funding for internal improvements and infrastructure that raised the country from a semi-peripheral, agrarian nation, to a 20th Century economic and military hegemon, with a broadly enjoyed, high standard of living. Go figure that developing nations today fight to uphold their sovereign right to nationalistic economic policies and that the U.S. and IMF thwart them with mandatory structural readjustment programs and military intervention: One set of rules for us, the exceptionalists, "The Elect," and another for them; history and freedom be damned.