Obama's Lack of "republican" Principles

So the latest of controversies: Obama reversing his position, and opposing the release of government photos documenting detainee abuse. The argument: That releasing them would "inflame anti-American opinion." Where have we heard this before? Something hasn't changed...



Leaving aside the implication that Obama appears more concerned with the fact that the abuse was documented, and not that it occurred at all----because, if it were not the case, he would be advocating investigation and prosecution for those at the top as well as those subservient to the Bush OLC policy (video discussion here): What about all the other myriad abuses of the previous administration that the current one is now complicit in? Do they, and our subsequent cover-up(s), not "inflame anti-American opinion" worldwide? What about the fact that Obama is arguing for suppressing evidence of lawbreaking simply because it is embarrassing to the government---- something he said, albeit while campaigning, that should not be tolerated? Doesn't that suppression and lack of transparency "inflame anti-American opinion"?



Glenn Greenwald is right when he asks those who support Obama's decision if they believe the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, the incessant bombings of Afghan civilians, and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videos should have been suppressed because they also "inflamed anti-American opinion." The notion that cleaning up our mess and enforcing the rule of law "doesn't do us any good," and that hiding the facts somehow makes us at home, and our troops abroad, safer is appalling nonsense. Bush also exploited and hid behind the troops. Congratulations, Mr. President; you're in bad company.



The point that should be stressed is that actual democratic republics don't behave that way, nor do true patriotic citizens in a functioning republic countenance such behavior. It is the (almost sanctimoniously) hypocritical contradictions between the supposed model we claim to uphold for the world ("the city on a hill" brand exceptionalism), and our actions that moves the world against us---or at least "incites" their "opinions" against us. And as our benevolent leader says, the deplorable actions of the state DOES, in deed, "inflame anti-American opinion." But, God forbid these opinions be well-founded and supported by any more observable facts and reliable information. Dare I say---truth? In essence he's saying, "These photos would break the camel's back so to speak. Better to hide the evidence, and make hollow our constitutional responsibilities instead."



Just a couple days ago we had the deadliest air strike in Afghanistan since 2001. One hundred civilians, women and children, were killed. So, a couple points on this "war" and its continuation should be made----since we now find world opinion useful and we'd hate to "inflame anti-American opinions":

• Let's keep in mind that the American government was fine with the Taliban before, and immediately after 911----as long as they gave up bin Laden (He is, of course, the head vampire, and if you kill him, the rest are destroyed and the earth is saved from predation). They chose not to give him up because they said it was he that was their host (Weren't Bush officials negotiating with those harboring terrorists back then? What a big no-no).

• And, despite the renewed sense of purpose projected against the Taliban, they were not then, and are not today an existential threat to America----unless you're a big and tough, Republican-minded buffoon-type of military genius that got five deferments from Vietnam, or a fellow at a blowhard "conservative" think tank. They are not Al Qaida, and even if they were, they certainly are not a significant enough threat to warrant the amount we must sacrifice in blood, treasure, and moral rectitude (if people can even restrain their governments into being "moral agents," which they apparently cannot) in a conventional war. Note: This "War on Terror" is not a conventional war; why then focus conventional means (i.e. large armies) against a tactic---terrorism---and an amorphous foe, Al Qaida?

Really, and some new photos are going to be that single catalyst to "incite" the world against us?



We need to be smarter than that and in order to do so we must acknowledge the facts. Let's start with the meme that we're fighting in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from taking over Pakistan and securing nukes for terrorists world-wide. This misinformation doesn't really help the foreign policy realists out there fighting to base policy on facts and evidence---something the new administration promised, but for some reason when discussing this single point of foreign policy, is reluctant to fully recognize.



Take Juan Cole, scholar of the Middle East and President of the Global Americana Institute, who reminds us that the Pakistani Taliban are not going to overthrow "a country of 165 million with a large urban middle class that has a highly organized and professional army." That's not the problem. It's

the increasingly rancorous conflict between the left of center, largely secular Pakistan People's Party and the right of center, big-landlord Muslim League, has the potential to tear the country apart...The danger is not a take-over by the Taliban, but rather a coup (led by whom of what views?) or blood in the streets.

So are all the drone bombings of civilians and the 20,000 troop boost ("Surge," anyone?) going to win the "hearts and minds" of those in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Worse still, doesn't that inflame "anti-American opinion"?



Could not this also inflame "anti-American opinion"?

that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

What about asserting an executive state secrets privilege in cases of torture and rendition? Says the ACLU,

Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.

Abuse of the state secrets privilege: It is not just particular pieces of evidence the new administration is claiming the right to deny in court, but the very ability to go to court at all. All they have to trump out is the fail-safe assertion of "national security" that the Bushies were so keen on (like they were when it came to FOIA requests for innocuous information that previously had been declassified, but then deemed inappropriate by Mr. Unitary Executive himself).

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out ---was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security

The states secret privilege is 50 years old and was used when a plane on a secret mission crashed, and the family of the pilot wanted the accident report admitted into evidence. It, rightfully, wasn't admitted into evidence because the plane itself, and the instruments on board, were state secrets----but the case nonetheless still proceeded. The government today instead uses this "privilege" to shield itself from prosecution entirely, like in the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen picked up by the U.S. while vacationing in Macedonia, and then allegedly tortured by CIA officials in Afghanistan. Hardly a case of capturing someone on "the battlefield." This evidence won't see the light of day because Bagram is the new legal black hole, and Obama appears intent on keeping it that way.



Hard to give sanction to a government that is ostensibly run in our name, when evidence of illegality can be self-servingly and arbitrarily denied scrutiny. The issue isn't a group of photos Obama changed his mind about: The issue is the lawful self-governance that our constitution attempted to enshrine.



In addition, the administration has also threatened Britain by saying that it would not share intelligence in the future with them if their high-court admitted credible evidence of torture and abuse in the case of Binyam Mohamed. That is categorically illegal both in Britain and the U.S.; Bush is no longer making these arguments: Our guy is.



Again, it's not just the release of a few photos that Obama is reneging on. It's much larger than that.



I voted for Obama, and I support him. I guess, it's just that I support him as rhetorically as he has supported his own campaign promises. And let's not get started on the economy and healthcare because if we think those issues are separate from our military budget, foreign policy pretenses, and agenda---the re-dubbed "War on Terror"----then we're as tragically mistaken as President Johnson was vis-a-vis the completion of The Great Society and the escalation of Vietnam: I'd hate to see Obama ignominiously deciding to bow out of a second term as Johnson did for similar reasons, and see his great society crumble.



Anyways, here's Dan Froomkin of the Washinton Post's "Deconstructing Obama's Excuses," and The New York Times on the effects of the bombings in Afghanistan. Also, check out Juan Cole on Bill Moyers here.



Next time, I'd like to take a closer look at the reports of people who were essentially murdered while in U.S. custody. Here's the scoop from Democracy Now and Human Rights Investigator, Attorney John Sifton: Torture Investigation Should Focus on Estimated 100 Prisoner Deaths. That is, of course, if I can table my "seriousness" and "patriotism" long enough for allowing myself to investigate such "anti-American opinions."

Pentagon Exculpatory Report Printed on Paper!

Happy 100th Birthday to The Progressive, a truly progressive magazine. Where's the founder, the great Robert LaFollette, when you need him?

Following up on the deafening silence of the networks in response to David Barstow's story, which rightfully earned a Pulitzer, we now see the Inspector General pulling its report that tried to exonerate the Pentagon's propaganda program. Issued a few days before Bush left office in response to Barstow's warning about DoD-led "message force multipliers" with military-industrial conflicts of interest directing the network's "educated opinion" on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's report "found that the DOD didn't violate prohibitions on using public funds for propaganda." Well, as no surprise to those who've read Barstow's meticulously documented work, the Pentagon's report was "flawed" and had to be pulled: Just how "flawed"?

the report's authors -- who don't have subpoena power -- were prevented from reaching solid conclusions about the program because former top Pentagon officials who engineered the program wouldn't talk.

Also from the memo stating that the report has been withdrawn:

former senior DoD officials who devised and managed the outreach program refused our requests for an interview. Our judgmental sample of RMAs interviewed was too small (7 out of 70 RMAs) to allow that testimonial evidence to be used to support conclusions.

No subpoena power, can't talk to the program's engineers and managers, ridiculously small sample size: To right wingers who attacked Barstow, that was and still is exculpatory enough; it was written on paper, you know. (Incidentally, any college sophomore might start to feel that the intellectual standards, methodology, and integrity of "journalism" and government bureaucracy wouldn't even be sound enough to pass an introductory undergraduate course in creative writing).

Here's David Barstow, who's still being effectively blackballed from the ethically-challenged networks, on Democracy Now.
____________________
And in the music world...Here's a poor musician who was enslaved by his own robot band members after quitting his human rock band.

Norwegians Have Run Out of Instruments

Following up on yesterday's topic of satire and the absurd in presenting the "news," here's one perfect example of how the "fake news" can actually get closer to truth, than other conventional outlets----all while entertaining and informing its audience. Tell me this isn't absurd, and I'll go back to re-reading Catch-22 (Or watching the Mike Nichols' movie version: ultra hilarious).

	M - Th 11p / 10c
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Please, take your medicine and try to imagine someone arguing that this is not an absurdity, or, at least an unwitting satire. These people make lots of money, and even receive health insurance: America the wisest and the most just.




On a musical note, if you haven't seen Norwegians cover bad 80s music using kitchen appliances as instruments, you haven't lived.

The Absurdity of the "News"

Is it that our world, or at least the presentation of it, is so absurd that many people, especially the well-informed, are increasingly turning to satire for help sifting through the truthiness of the news? It's an interesting question that someone smart should look into. However, I, for one, am wagering that it has something to do with stories like this one: David Barstow winning a Pulitzer Prize for two stories, one of which

revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

This, all according to the Pulitzer Committee.

Glenn Greenwald, an extremely intelligent and accomplished writer condescends to ask the five dollar question that the "serious media" have yet to answer: "By whom were these 'ties to companies' undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"?

And the answer?

"ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers."

He goes on to remind us how Barstow's story led to a congressional inquiry, and yet those same media companies remain silent about their own roles----by now an avalanching, egregiously unethical lack of disclosure (Not so much as a fake apology, like we might expect after the half-hearted mea culpas we heard after the government lured them into arguably the largest, most expensive bait and switch in American history: see Second Invasion of Iraq).

The irony of Brian Williams recently mentioning, without specificity, the prize for an article that implicated him personally, and his network, NBC----where one of the co-opted, Pentagon-dubbed "message force multipliers" still works----is too much for any marginally-informed person possessing high school reasoning capabilities not to turn to satire for sustenance, if not sanity.

Of course, then there's the "liberal" CNN, who ran an 898 word story mentioning practically every other Pulitzer winner except Barstow.

So why are the well-informed turning to satire? Again, despite my intrigue, I don't know, but the numbers are clear that the "high knowledge group" prefer The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to CNN, Fox News, and the network evening news. Here from a 2007 study at the Pew Research Center for People and the Press:



What's interesting about these numbers is that even though 31% of The Daily Show's audience graduated from college, 54% of its audience is classified as "high knowledge" compared to the 38% of the nightly news, and 35% nationwide (This indicates a difference between the educated and informed. Shocker: going to college isn't enough to make one informed). Also, The O'Reilly Factor is at 51% compared to his network as a whole, Fox News, at 35% (Is O'Reilly satire too, though he might not know it?).

The study tells us what we already know but need confirmed:

Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Although it concludes that "differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences" by pointing out that

the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

Interestingly, with regards to Colbert, political ideology----let's say conservatism----doesn't prevent the audience from enjoying his satire. How absurd is that! According to "The Irony of Satire," a study from Ohio State University, people see what they want to see in Colbert's political satire:

conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.

Still more amazingly, "conservatism significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism." Is that absurd, or is it just that the subject matter (our world) is so absurd as to create ambiguity (The study curiously categorized Colbert's "political messages" as "ambiguous").

Colbert "pretends to be joking" and dislikes liberalism? Not likely. In fact, read his out-of-character interviews. Those views, sadly, are not well recognized in what is now loosely called conservatism.

But that's almost besides the point: What is it then that unites both sides in thinking that Colbert is their man? Well, the analysis showed

that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

Could simply being well-informed and attaining at least a high school ability to think logically be enough to necessitate our best conveyor of the absurd (i.e. our world)----satire!----for the presentation of the news?

I don't know, but clearly, there is a case to be made about the absurdity of the "news."

Principled Contracts, Practices, and Laws

Having seen Larry Summers defend banker bonuses by claiming that we're a nation of laws, and thus we couldn't possibly renegotiate or abrogate AIG contracts (not even a good legalistic lie: see previous link), despite the occasional demand for workers to do just that, namely those in the auto and airline industry, I was reminded of Mark Danner's piece on torture, Voices from the Black Sites. Yeah, we're "a nation of laws"...but only when it's most convenient. Add it to the must-read section of your To-Do List, especially if you don't have the time or the inclination to read Jane Mayer's book, The Dark Side.

This issue will not, and should not, go away until we have the full measure of justice: and not just a righteous historical verdict ten years from now. Interestingly, Republicans have strategically shut up Tricky Dick II after he went on the airwaves spouting the typical fear-mongering that Obama's detainee policies make us less safe. What he also brazenly claimed was that the Bush detainee policies "were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11." Ok, let's look into that. That is either true or false; let's investigate to see which one. He went on: "It [meaning torture] was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles." Again, let's see, shall we? What are you...scared, Republicans?

Not only can we see the conspicuousness of the corporatist nanny state with all their water carrying apparatchiks, like Mr. Geitner and the Mr. Summers, we are also overtly reminded that torture----defined rather liberally as "constitutional practices and principles"-----has kept us safe. What those two hard realities of the state of this "republic" have in common, we are told, is "the rule of law." Keep talking, Mr. Cheney----and you too, Mr. Summers....Keep talking: A discussion about our laws, principles, practices---and let's not forget contracts----is long overdue.

Colbert rules, Obama cussing, and Joaquin Phoenix doing a bad Galifianakis

Wow. What a great President's Day catching up on my Daily Show and Colbert Report watching. Very patriotic. I guess I'll have to re-read the Douglas/Lincoln debates and Washington's Farewell address to make up for it.



But Stephen Colbert deserves an Emmy for this alone: demonstrating what Glenn Beck and getting a colonoscopy have in common. Seriously funny stuff, while cable "news" is seriously sad. Also, the Colbert namesakes (like a turtle and trap door spider named after him) and his clips with feminists (who love to kiss him) is freakin' fantastic:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Stephen's Sexiest Moments

Also, even though, admittedly, this is childish, you can hear Obama reading some colorful language from his book, Dreams From My Father. If you ever wanted to know what he'd sound like saying things like "This shit's getting way too complicated for me," or "ignorant motherfuckers," or "That guy ain't shit. Sorry ass motherfucker," or "You ain't my bitch, nigga" this page has the tracks from the book. Spoiler: He's reading dialogue from someone in the book.

And separately, Democrats better start to respect poll numbers like these despite the incessant reminders that this will be a "post-partisan" presidency----at least until the Republicans get back on the throne.

Obama does deserve a lot of credit so far, no doubt. However, this is a big deal: The DOJ is now complicit in the continuation of extra-constitutional executive power and one of the Bush regime's most pernicious policies. Here's Obama reversing himself on "state secrets" cases as they relate to rendition. (Basically, that the Executive can tell the courts that "state secrets" preclude them from investigation and trial in rendition cases entirely----not that any particular piece of evidence during the trial is protected under "states secrets" privileges. Normally, privileges are asserted in court for particular pieces of evidence instead of the Executive unilaterally dismissing itself from going to court altogether).

And on a lighter note, oh my god this was tense: Joaquin Phoenix doing a Zach Galifianakis impression, except he wasn't kidding, or funny.

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