TheOctillion

ABC B.S.

2006-09-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

There have been several comments about the ABC "Path to 9/11" Miniseries, to this effect:

Rather Dan Ratherish, eh? Fake but accurate?

But there is a world of difference between a story that is true (where was the President in May through October of 1972? EVEN HE has not represented that he attended to his guard duties then) - but that used an unverifiable but content correct document that was potentially forged by a source other than the news station using it...

AND A STORY that presents critical content as true, that is not true, and which is created, produced and manufactured by the station itself.

There is more. Lot's more. And some of it may surprise you. And please keep in mind the very much non exaggerated last two letters of the title as you read on.

What Republican and hardly non partisan Commission Co-chair Thomas Kean was referring to with his "reasonably accurate," but still unacceptable, characterization, was the overall account by ABC.

With respect to the key incident implicating both Berger and Clinton directly, Kean spoke about as clearly as he could. It was a "fictionalized account," "representative of a series of events combined into one," different events that when framed in that one way, convey something with a completely different meaning than what actually happened.

This is the republican Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the number one and number two terrorism experts in the country, Clarke, and Roger Cressey -- the ones who had direct knowledge -- calling the ABC representation a fabrication.

NSA Sandy Berger, WHO MET PERSONALLY WITH CONDI RICE IN JANUARY, 2001, to warn her of the growing gravity of al-Qaeda and that her administration "would be spending most of their time dealing with al-Qaeda," also flatly contradicts it. As does anyone else with direct knowledge.

It is perhaps, in partisan terms, the most politically important part of the story. And it is fiction, presented as if fact. In other words, A LIE.

In essence, given that it presents critical events as fact, which, are, in fact, fiction, THE ABC STORY IS A LIE.

Another odd thing is the heavy negative emphasis on the Clinton administration, given the actual facts, as opposed to the spin and clear desire to believe otherwise:

Sure, criticism of the Clinton adminstration on this issue can be found, in hindsight. Just like "criticism can be found of the Bush Administration, in hindsight." Right?

Not exactly. Hindsight is 20/20. It doesn't make everything that happened when it happened, indicative of poor decision making at the time. It also doesn't do the opposite; that is, it doesn't render minimal focus on the issue as somehow rational because although we knew we are at great risk, in the words of President Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice both, "we did not know where,when, or how."

The facts are incontrovertible. The Clinton Administration paid far more attention to the al-Qaeda threat and to counterterrorism than the Bush Administration did. Here also are two broad instances in which republicans reigned in Clinton's efforts to expand anti terrorism efforts. More importantly, as Unclaimed Territory extensively and persuasively illustrates, there are no instances of the opposite.

The Clinton administration, although it did not always speak publicly about it, met and discussed strategy regarding al-Qaeda routinely, and when the threat levels were elevated or data or chatter otherwise indicated increased risk, addressed the issue almost daily. This never happened in the first eight months of the Bush Administration leading up to September 11, 2001. In fact, despite the compelling need, just the opposite occurred.

The fact is, again, that while in hindsight issue can certainly be taken, the Clinton administration focused more on terrorism than the Bush administration ever did. And it did so, even while both the threat, and our growing awareness of the threat -- particularly in the aftermath of two sweeping Commssion reports, the bombing of the USS Cole in the autum of 2000, and greatly increased intelligence chatter around and after the turn of the decade -- were all greater as the new administration came into office.

In fact, the republican head of one of those Commissions, the Chairman of the National Commision on Terrorism and subsequent Ambassador to Iraq, Paul Bremer, on February 26 of 2001 said of the Bush Administration, that it is "paying no attention" to the terrorism issue, and that "What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.'"

"Oh my God" indeed. The Bush administration paid almost no attention to the issue. Even by Condi Rice's own 9/11 Commission testimony, testimony that in general was frequently contradicted by the facts, al-Qaeda was barely ever discussed in principals meetings on national security isssues.

A "comprehensive" speech on national security, prepared by then Bush Administration National Security Advisor Rice -- the same one warned by the previous NSA Sandy Berger that al-Qaeda was a vast and growing threat and to focus heavily on it -- to be delivered September 11, 2001, paid scant attention to the issue of sovereignless, international terrorism. It reportedly referenced the al-Qaeda threat in what would have amounted to a few seconds, in what was otherwise a speech projected to run upwards of 30 to 45 minutes.

And yet republicans still criticize not the Bush administration, but the Clinton Administration for its handling of the grave al-Qaeda issue, when the Clinton administration paid more direct attention to it, and specifically warned the incoming administration to pay even more attention to it. Not to mention the fact that they turned over to them and highlighted THIS document.

It reads, in part:

In order to implement the overall global strategy while undermining the ability of al-Qa'ida to utlize Afghanistan, CIA has prepared a program that focuses on eliminating it as a safe haven, disrupting the Mujahidin infrastructure that connects Afghanistan to the global network, and changing the operational environment inside of Afghanistan.

Or how's this for a "pre 9/11 mindset:"

The United States' goal is to reduce the al-Qida network to the point where it no longer poses a serious threat to our security or that of other governments...

Towards the end, the United States has developed a comprehenseive and coordinated strategy that employs a variet of tools, including; diplomacy, covert action, public informatino and media, law enforcement, intelligence collection, foreign assistance, financial regulation enforcement,and military means, to effect al-Qida to its core.

.
These Principles were adopted by the new administration. After September 11, 2001 (in the President's speech to the nation 9 days later). And have not been sufficiently pursued since as we over focus on Iraq - a country which was not one of the forty or so referenced in that same report as containing a terrorist cell structure in its midst.

Or consider THIS document, an urgent warning from counterterrorism head Richard Clarke in January of 2001, stating:

We urgently need a principals level review of the al-Qida network.

In the original, the word "urgently" is both underlined, and italicized.

Yet according to the Commission, despite repeated requests by Clarke, such a meeting -- just a few months in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole by al-Qaeda -- one urgently requested in the first few days of the incoming administration by the nation's counterterrorism czar, was not had until nearly eight months later.

A staff report, discussed at length in the 9/11 Commission Hearings, concluded, stunningly, that:

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled.

No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the Deputies Committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on al Qaeda. The Principals Committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process. Rice and Hadley told us that although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the al Qaeda program, its policies on al Qaeda, quote, "had run out of gas,"

Apart from summary recitation of the need to "come up with a plan," such review that Ms. Rice in her testimony acknowledges was required, was simply never formalized and turned into a top down level focus on the problem.

And then there is of coure the August 6 PDB, delivered just before the President went on a nearly one month long vacation, that in its very title warned of the potential imminence of a strike. It is short, to the point, and very clear.

Yet, as Rice's speech scheduled for September 11 clearly shows (and which has been reported on but apparently never fully revealed, although evidence to the contrary would be welcomed), the issue still was simply not considered that important.

At the same time, there was intelligence information out there that agents were bringing in (let alone phone calls from flight schools asking about the oddity of new, foreign, Middle Eastern students asking to learn how to fly and not to land) that, because there was no top down focus, was routinely being ignored or dismissed.

And yet somehow, despite the clear fact that in the face of lesser imminent threat, and lesser (albeit growing) awareness of the severity of the threat, and the fact that the Clinton administration STILL paid more attention to this issue at almost every turn, this issue has been turned onto its head, and the glaring spotlight of monday morning quarterbacking, complete with history that as presented is simply made up, has of course, once again, been turned onto the Clinton administration.

The ABC film, despite being, in critical respects, a lie, has been called "pro-American." Pro American has become the new rhetoric for "Pro right wing republican." Just like Patriotism, quite the opposite of what it was in the Clinton administration, now means, "support rather than criticism of the current administration," rather than simple love of country and love of the principles and ideals for which it stands.

And ABC has become as complicit in this as anybody. Except for Fox, which is in a league of its own.

Tony Snow's Version of Reality

2006-09-06T00:51:00.000-07:00

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's version of reality: "Earlier, speaking to reporters, Snow, continuing the administration's media focus on the war on terror, accused some in the Democratic Party of saying 'we shouldn't fight the war' and 'we shouldn't apprehend al-Qaeda' or even 'question al-Qaeda.'" [link]

What kind of world is this when the White House Press secretary can utter statements that push the boundaries of propaganda to the outer limits of creativity, and yet go unchallenged? How could Snow have mischaracterized even more egregiously; by stating that democrats rendezvous with aliens from pluto?

If by the first of the three quick quotes by Snow above, he is referring to the Iraq war, then yes, many democrats, some republicans, and a majority of Americans think that our efforts to transform Iraq -- a nation no more connected to al-Qaeda before the war than 40 other countries by the White House's own accounting -- have been counterproductive, poorly managed, and perhaps an ongoing mistake. That perception has little to do with al-Qaeda, as opposed to the view that our efforts in Iraq have not been properly framed, sold to the world, or managed; may not be able to play much of a role in how Iraq's warring ethnic factions play out; are diverting us from focusing on catching al-Qaeda and preventing a what is becoming a troubling resurgence of the al-Qaeda base operations and Taliban in Afghanistan; and enabling radical terrorist cell recruitment. It's a point of view.

But Snow's subsequent statements, that because of this, or because some democratic leaders (including many who would focus much more heavily on capturing al-Qaeda) have different ideas with respect to how best to minimize, root out, and eradicate this loose network of anti-Western terrorist cells that pose the real challenge that we face, somehow believe we "shouldn't apprehend," or "even question" al-Qaeda, are simply beyond the pale. ...As beyond the pale as it gets. But yet all too frequent in what is becoming a country rapidly dominated by inane rhetoric over reality, even as our policy understanding seems to go further and further awry.

Snow's statements are also incredibly insulting to democrats. It is a huge wonder they take it.

But Snow's statements also raise the question as to "why?" Why must he so egregiously mischaracterize reality in order to support his points? (Why must the RNC today?)

As for anything that does not support Snow's spin in general? "Democratic talking points." Including Facts.

Speaking of "democrats who take it," NBC reporter David Gregory, in this same briefing, had an interesting comment. Snow, according to this Editor and Publisher article, gave Gregory some grief, who responded: "You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me."

What was Snow doing to him? Answering his question by saying it "was a democratic argument," then taking continued issue, accusing Gregory of being rude, and pointing his finger at him when Gregory insisted that Snow not dismiss what Gregory felt was a legitimate question that way. Apparently, in the new world of spinspeak, not actually repeating republican talking points, or asking questions, and insisting on answers (in other words, a reporters job) is "being rude."

For the record, what was Gregory's question? He asked, given that the public, as he suggested, may well wonder, why the President did not admit more failings on the administration's part.

Was this democratic spin? Or was it a fair question for an administration that has established an abysmal record in the eyes of many, yet seems to shirk from ever taking accountability despite making statements and promises that have repeatedly turned out to be wrong, or not kept, or simply untrue. There seem to have been a lot of mistakes made. It would seem that if it was simply democratic spin by Gregory, Tony Snow could have simply answered it by saying that there have not been many failings on the administration's part.

Presumably even Mr. Snow could not say this with a straight face.

Confusing Nazism With Terrorism

2006-09-05T19:08:00.000-07:00

This blog/news site has addressed the importance of correctly framing the grave international threat that we face. Something which, as noted therein, we are decidely not doing.

The latest craze is to compare the specific terrorist threat that we face, with the rise of Nazism in Europe similar to the 1930's. But the problem is that one is a psychotic criminal threat by a loose network of borderless, sovereignless cells intent upon wreaking devastation upon innocents, with ostensible political overtones. The other is a sovereign state political ideology of intolerance for divergent views and differences, that may inevitably lead to depraved violence, devastation and imposition of one's sovereign states views and values, upon others.

Because of these fundamental, if not conflicting, differences, dealing with them is about as different as dealing with two potentially grave national security threats could be.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, exhibiting the group think mentality pervasive on this issue today, once again engaged in these comparisons. Yet Rumsfeld, in his well noted speech to the American Legion last week, went even further. While disagreeing viciously with other Americans for not agreeing with him that the threat that we all face is in fact the same as 1930's nazism, Rumsfeld exhibited the demonization of those who disagree that is one of the hallmarks of nazism himself .

The far right has also repeatedly used heavy rhetoric in condemnation of democrats as exhibiting a "pre 9/11 mentality." (Presumably, this must mean things like the republican opposition to attempts by then President Bill Clinton to expand anti terrorism efforts, opposing the tagging of explosives, and expanding legal wiretapping to include tapping the individual, not the cell phone). Yet frankly, even as successful prosecutions of terrorists are down to pre-September 11, 2001 levels, it seems all the far right wants to do post 9/11 is take away rights and make big government here even bigger and more intrusive, with fewer and fewer checks, and save the world by "forcing democracy," just like they did pre 9/11.

But that the far right's mindset is pre 9/11 could not be more adequately illlustrated than by this extremely misguided comparison to the rise of nazism. It illustrates that there is a reason they are not making America safer today. They don't understand nazism, they don't understand terrorism. They see some similarities, and therefore think they are the same, missing the fundamental differences, and more importantly, why both need to be dealt with very differently.

While Rumsfeld's speech contained a lot of demonizing rhetoric, again, here is what his speech actually meant:

While Rumsfeld is busy characterizing the rest of the world as budding fascists, in the process of lashing out at those who think, let alone correctly, that the two problems need to be treated very differently, he also very ironically exhibits the beginnings of thought more associated with totalitarian regimes like fascism, than democracy; not only failing to understand it, but going so far as to demonize the informed dissent and disagreement which is at the heart of free and open democracy.

Bad leadership, that not only does not fully grasp what is going on, but demonizes those who do, is the result of not being able to see any point of view but one's own -- something exhibited time and time and time and time again by the current far right wing leadership, Rumsfeld included.

(update: In his speech to the American legion, Rumsfeld also stated that many "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased." Albeit increasingly common coming from the far right today, this is such a bizarrely erroneous statement that it defies analysis. Not only does it clearly exhibit the point in bold immediately above -- that Rumsfeld and those who continue to make this statement to the American people don't even have one iota of understanding of what those who disagree with him are saying -- it brings up the more pertinent question; "why don't they?"

update 2: In a followup editorial in the LA Times, frought with mischaracterizations at almost every turn, and ironically entitled, "New Enemies Demand New Thinking," Rumsfeld wrote that there is a "lack of perspective in our national dialogue." No doubt. Once again, the far right projecting it's own tendencies, onto everyone else. )

Administration Spin, Unaddressed by the Media

2006-08-31T14:28:00.000-07:00

What Bush Said, in response to the recent Court ruling on his warrantless surveillance program:

I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.

We strongly believe it's constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they're calling. (emphasis added)

Here is what was left out of the CBS story that covered this:

Exactly the opposite of what the President directly implied to the America people, FISA DOES allow us to spy on al-Qaeda when it calls into the U.S., and more. While to ensure oversight it requires what -- in every single instance the administration is claiming the program is being used for -- would be an easily procurable warrant, it doesn't even require the warrant to be procured beforehand, if time is an issue. And, although FISA has been in existence, and has worked extremely well (with almost no applications ever denied) for almost thirty years, the current President signed it again, as Amended under the USA Patiot Act signed in the wake of September 11, 2001, tweaking and granting some expanded powers under it to make it procedurally compatible with our perceived post Sept. 11 needs.

Yet the administration, instead, on its own, and secretively, simply ignored FISA, and instituted a sweeping program to spy on citizens -- unchecked and with no oversight -- in direct contravention of it; thereby also directly violating Articles I and II of the Constitution, and raising several potential Bill of Rights issues as well.

Again, the President clearly implied that the program was necessary to spy on al-Qaeda calls into the U.S.; an implication which, as noted above, is blatantly untrue.

There was nothing in the CBS article to indicate these facts above, or even indicate what FISA does, why it exists, or even that it exists.
________

The President also asserted (along, according to the same CBS article, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) that "we strongly believe [the previously clandestine program] is Constitutional." As adamant as both the President and the Attorney General were and have been about the unchecked surveillance program's constitutionality, they both phrased this as a matter of "belief."

But belief is, by its very nature, subjective. Technically one can't mislead if one is merely relating what they "believe," can they? Asserting that this is their belief, or even convincing themselves of it, also avoids having to address the basic, unambiguous, and clear fact:

Unless the document is suddenly interpreted inconsistently with the way it has been interepreted for over 200 years; unless that document is interpreted in ways that go against the most basic principles upon which our democracy and government -- with its system of limitations and overlapping checks and balances -- was built; unless that document is interpreted in a way that goes against the clear language of the document itself; it is not an issue of belief. It is an issue of fact. The program is unconstitutional.

In the Bill of Rights, several Amendments are relevant to the issue of covert spying by the government upon its own citizens: The First Amendment's right to unfettered free speech, the Fourth's right against unreasonable searches of papers and effects, the Fifth's guarantee of due process, and the Ninth and Tenth's reservation of any powers not specifically enumerated, to the states and people.

The issue originally before the country was, can the Executive, despite all these Amendments, merely take it upon itself to eavesdrop on, wiretap, and intercept communications of U.S. citizens at its sole discretion, or, even, ever?

Certainly the Executive could not, consistent with any of the aforesaid provisions, spy on U.S. citizens solely at its own discretion with no checks or oversight. But in certain instances, for explicitly laid out and genuine reasons (such as, "we think these may possibly be connected to those involved with al-Qaeda," for example), and with some type of record, the government could engage in eavesdropping upon specific American citizens, and not violate the Bill of Rights. So Congress passed a law, FISA (updated Post September 11), laying out the manner in which such spying could be conducted, to make sure that it was not done willy nilly or without any checks or oversight.

While Congress exists to pass our laws, the Executive Branch exists to administer them. Article I of the Constitution states that ALL laws enacted, shall be passed by Congress. Article II states that the President take care that they be faithfully executed.

The current President, although he signed the Amended FISA which explicitly laid out the requirements for covert eavesdroping on U.S. citizens, nevertheless decided to both ignore it, and create a program in direct contravention of it.

The President "contends" that under the "Commander in Chief" clause of Article II, that he has the power to do whatever he wants to promote "national security." Yet there is no such power, either stated or implied, in that clause. It merely assigns him that role when specifically calling up the armed forces for engagement, as, they need someone to command them, and at most might give him some quasi legislative authority related to commandeering our armed forces, in the absence of any specific legislation on the matter.

Essentially the President of the United States is claiming that any laws that specifically prohibit a certain type of government intrusion without oversight, or any Bill of Right's considerations that render such an intrusion of highly questionable constitutionality EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LAWS, are irrelevant in the event that the Executive branch unilaterally decides that a program or intrusion is "warranted" in the interests of national security. Under this line of reasoning, nothing, not the will of the people expressed through Congress or the laws that they pass, nor even the other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, can prevent the Executive from doing what it wants in the name of national security.

This not only directly violates the first two Articles of the Constitution, but undermines what was perhaps the document's most basic purpose in the first place; to establish a limited government and system of overlapping checks and balances, with no open ended and unchecked powers.

Once again, none of this was covered or even hinted at by the CBS story, which instead simply provided another quote or two in order to provide a "different perspective."

According to the CBS article, ACLU Director Richard Romero, whose organization brought the suit, stated: "At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy."

This is true, but it does not explain why.

Because there are no underlying facts provided by CBS, not only does the issue falsely come off as sounding like a "reasonable debate" between two legitimate but differing perspectives, but it is one in which, to many, a false choice is presented.

CBS also included a statement by Romero that actually helped the President's argument, spin wise; calling the opinion, according to CBS, "Another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

Romero's technical use of the term "legal" and other nuances is largely lost here. As a result, the statement, although presumably not intentional, comes off almost exactly the way that the adminstration is trying to incorrectly frame the issue; that is, that "Democrats are trying to prevent us from combatting terrorism."

Why those who do not support the administration's policies -- which tend to be democrats, although, increasingly, republicans, though the latter often feel constrained by party loyalty in what they can say -- not only often fail to make the correct case, but sometimes even hurt their own cause, is a separate, but important, side question. Perhaps some clues are found in this largely overlooked comment, perhaps not?
_________

The third of the President's three basic assertions, as noted above, was that Americans who "support" what was a blatantly cut and dry legal decision, "do not understand the world we are in today." Yet this is not necessarily correct either:

The problem is that Bush does not understand how democracy, or our Constitution (which he was sworn to uphold) works. He also, along with many of his ongoing supporters, seems to believe in unchecked powers, which go against everything this country was founded upon (and which still has not been adequately explained to Americans -- hence the continuing support for several extreme incumbent Senators and Congresspeople).

He also seems to think that unchecked powers, with no one exercising legitimate oversight with respect to how they are used, is somehow the ONLY way to combat terrorism. Thus allowing terrorists to not only "win," but fundamentally change who we are.

In essence, he has said to America, back on September 20, 2001, that, We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them," yet now has violated the most basic principle upon which America was founded, and in its stead says that others "just don't understand."

Why aren't prominent democrats making the case, and saturating America with it by repeatedly showing how; that the President, continuing a repeated pattern (and supported by much of the current far right wing Congress which has done nothing about it) is once again misleading America on the most critical of issues?

Once again, perhaps some clues are found in this comment, perhaps not.

Tony Snow, Taking a Moment Out of his Official Duties

2006-08-14T02:56:00.000-07:00

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow the other day took a moment out of his official duties.

To do what? To spin some blatant partisan politics on behalf of the RNC. The trouble is, he took this moment not while off work, but while conducting his official duties.

Here is what Press Secretary Tony Snow stated to the Press on Wednesday, August 9th, with respect to the Lieberman Lamont Democratic Primary vote the day before:

As for -- the President has no comment on the winner or loser of the race. That is for the Democratic Party and Democratic voters in the state of Connecticut.

If Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary, does not speak for the White House, who does he speak for? "Fox News"?

Here is what Snow stated only moments earlier. Apparently, what Snow meant was that the President had no comment on the winner or loser of the race, technically:

"This is a defining moment, in some ways, for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead, it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you."

It seems highly inappropriate for the Pess Secretary to use his official position to spin something in such an openly (and misleadingly) partisan mannter. But more troubling is that few seemed to blink an eye over this. (One exception was over at the Daily Kos, where SusanG Opined:

Sure, presidents have used their prominence to visit a state and campaign on behalf of their party's nominees close to the general election, but it seems absolutely bizarre to hear one weigh in on this micro-level, with such a level of vitriol, on the non-partisan taxpayer dime. If anyone can hunt up another case like this, of Clinton or Bush I or Reagan pulling this kind of stunt, I'd love to be reassured.

As for the content of Snow's statement, there is becoming an increasingly dangerous disconnect in this country between the concept of democracy, and disagreements as to the best course of action or policy under it. Sure, this was blatant partisan spin (the bizarre fact that it came from the White House Press secretary addressing the press in his official capacities, notwithstanding). But it represents an almost consistent theme on the part of the right, and far right, in place of substantive examination today. And it is a theme which constututes a gross mischaracterization of the issue as well. (And which some democrats, knowing how better than anything else to shoot their own party in the foot -- if not up a bit higher (say, halfway), have been erroneously furthering.)

There is nothing extreme about the idea that Iraq has not helped our national security. And a belief that our security interests are best served by slowly exiting from Iraq (right or wrong), is shared not only by a clear majority of Americans, but by many staunch hawks on "terrorism," as well as many republicans (hawkish or not), including a large number of Generals. Again, correct or incorrect (and who realy has such a crystal ball?) is a separate question.

Nor is there anything extreme in the notion that it is time for Change in a Congress that has been regularly receiving approval ratings in the 20's. Nor in the notion that such a prominent "democratic" Senator, who has often been supportive of what many view as an extreme republican administration, and who in the eyes of many democrats has come to represent the worst of the democratic status quo, would be narrowly defeated by democrats in a largely democratic state.

Yet, seeming to equate any belief on how best to handle our foreign policy not just, erroneously, with "weakness" (itself an extremely weak approach to formulating our best policy possible), but, even more bizarrely, with "extremism," the predominant far right has taken the rhetoric to a whole new level.

It's called "projection." Whether done inadvertently (the guess here) or purposefully, it is the best way to inoculate oneself from the very same charges. No matter how ridiculous, make them against your opponents. Thus, mainstream thought becomes "extreme," and heretofore extreme positions become the norm. It just seems highly unusual that a Press Secretary would devote an entire paragraph exclusively to such highty manipulative partisan spin, without even attempting the appearance of tying it into policy or other White House business. And even more unusual that to the ho hum "media," it was just, seemingly, "business as usual."

The Importance of Language in Efforts to Thwart and Eradicate Terrorism

2006-08-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I wrote about the importance of how we choose to term our efforts to thwart and eradicate international terrorism.

Therein, it was suggested that while our response needs to be intelligent, forceful, and comprehensive, it was very important that our language not make the issue out to be larger than it is, or larger than it has to be. In particular, I spoke of the importance of marginalizing what is at heart a cultural patholology, participated in by fanatical fringe elements.

The reason was that it is very easy to make this a larger cultural or even religious issue with many, blur the lines between anti-Americanism and outright terrorism, and thus inadvertently and of course erroneously render what we would clearly consider to be "terroristic activities" more mainstream in the eyes of more people internationally.

President Bush, once again handling the issue poorly, along with the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group, helped to illustrate this point by engaging in precisely what needs to be avoided:

U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions....

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Agreed. It only tends to inflame Muslims, and make those of Islamic faith feel like their religion is being attacked. In this way, such language tends to counterproductively undermine the idea that the terrorist groups are a fringe fanatatical element acting outside of both Islamic and Christian principles.

In a similar way, the overuse of the term "war," even if less obvious, can have a similar effect. The reason is that war, outside of those engaged on one particular side (say, for example, the U.S.) usually has international connotations of "two sides to the story." While one side may be right, and one wrong, the term tends to be less associated with fanatical extremism, and less associated with miniscule splinter groups, than, say what we are really combatting; namely, fanatical anti-Western Islamic extremists.

Some criticize even the phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists." And to the extent that the President of the United States addresses the nation and world, there is no real purpose in him couching the issue in these terms. In assessing policy, however, addressing the situation more definitely and candidly, in a broader context, allows for more precise strategy evaluation.

In addition, the two phrases are also fundamentally different.

The phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists," does tie this terrorism activity to the fringe element of the othewise very popular religion practiced by those few terrorist extremists who would do grave harm to innocents in the Western World. But more importantly, it also clearly disginguishes it from the vast majority.

The ill-advised word "Islamic Fascists" may not. Consider, here in the U.S.A., if, God forbid, patholotical extremists were to bomb an abortion clinic, murdering doctors, assistants, and patients alike. Is there a difference, to the average Christian, upon hearing the term, "Christian Fascists yesterday bombed a building, murdering dozens." Versus "fanatical anti-abortion Christian Extremists yesterday..." The latter certainly seems like a far less damning indictment of the religion per se, rather than an isolation of a very fringe, extreme element.

But again, the more important distinction here is between an analysts need to precisely assess the situation, and our larger message to the world as conveyed by our leaders on a diplomatic front.

update: It has been well noted how influential Vice President Dick Cheney is in the present administration. Many claim that the Vice President has as much if not more real influence than the President. It has also been noted how the Vice President believes that the media does not cover things in the way he would like to see things covered, and that he believes that "Fox" is the lone major "news" station that is "fair and balanced"(to use both his and Fox's term). The Vice President has also requested that when he travel, all applicable hotel TV's be pre tuned to the Fox "news" station. Even the TV in the White House briefing room, traditionally turned to CNN has been switched to Fox.

In my analysis of Fox news yesterday on this issue, I mainly focused on egregious distortions of facts repeatedly engaged in by the so called Fox "analysts" and hosts, that went routinely uncorrected, and that persistently mischaracterized both the democratic party, and democrats in general. But what was also noted was how often the term fascism, or nazism, was used in reference to terrorists.

While watching and assessing an hour plus of straight coverage on Fox, there were two other consistent trends noted. The first was mainly concentrated on the Sean Hannity Show. (Fox calls this show the "Hannity and Colmes show," but this is a misnomer. Hannity runs the show, Colmes speaks rarely. When he does, he raises obvious and well known points in "opposition" to the constant right wing themes being trumpeted, that often get immediately contradicted, and that essentiallly do little more than give the show the faux appearance of "balance."

Ironically, this first trend consisted of Hannity's near ubiquitous use of Karl Rove's grossly misapplied phrase that "democrats" are "deeply, profoundly, and consistently" wrong on terrorism. He applied it numerous times to democrats, slipping it in, along with other right wing talking points, at almost every opportunity. It was somewhat reminiscent of Fox's tendency to try and slip in how the word "balance" or "balanced" at every possible moment, while almost constantly being the exact opposite.

The second theme of Fox, and again, more prevalent on Hannity's show but a reasonably consistent theme throughout, consisted of comparing the terrorist movement with the rise of nazism. As Hannity put it, "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes."

No, we are not. And the main reason is the same reason why we have to treat the terrorism problem a lot differently than a conventional war. It consists of sovereignless, borderless, almost amorphous extremist groups, with no other binding national or other ideology save their own -- and the backing of no formal army, but with the ability to pathologically wreak havoc in a world rife with WMD capable materials. It is a very different phenomenon. To treat, combat, thwart and eradicate it intelligently, requires recognizing it as such.

But in watching "Fox," the Channel that Vice President Cheney has called "balanced," it is interesting to note how President Bush's statements often seem to echo what is stated on Fox. Or perhaps it is the other way around. Either way, the relationship, for a station that masquerades as a news station on politics and policy, is fairly profound.

QUESTION: WHY DO REPUBLICANS HAVE TO GET THE FACTS BLATANTLY WRONG TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENTS?

2006-08-11T00:55:00.000-07:00

Ken Mehlman, citing facts that are simply not true, in order to support his point. This pattern is repeated over and over and over and over.

The question that democrats, and in fact all Americans, have to ask, over and over and over, is why?

On a related note, The White House is trying to use the foiled London bombing plot to suggest that democrats are weak on national security, because, as President Bush put in in a public statement earlier today: "This shows that the United States is very much at risk."

As the above link also illustrates, WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, who interestingly used his spokesperson platform to play openly partisan politics, and grotesquely mischaracterize the Connecticut Senate race and democratic party as well (a more balanced view here), stated that the democrats "wanted to raise a White Flag on the war on terror." It is interesting how war on terror apparently means war in Iraq, which was unconnected to 9/11 and no more connected to al-Qaeda than dozens and dozens of other countries (including the United States, by the logic used of those who claim Iraq was "connected.")

Question for All Americans, including republicans. Similar to Mehlman's tactic above, why do right wing republicans grotesquely mischaracterize their opponent's positions in order to support their own points?

Another question the foiled London airplane plot raises, is, why wasn't the plot on September 11, 2001 similarly foiled? While at that time the general populace may not have been as aware of the risk, experts certainly and unambiguously were.

What is the War on Terror, and A Moment With Fox

2006-08-10T22:42:00.000-07:00

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, on the Fox Channel ("Your World," with Neil Cavuto):

This isn't just a war of disconnected events by small groups of fanatics, this is a real war.

Actually, that is precisly what it is, "connected" or disconnected ( as both are applicable).

Yet the incorrect way that Delay characterizes this has become the predominant characterization by the far right, and to some extent by the media, as well.

This does not mean that the danger posed by sociologically psychotic international, sovereignless terrorist groups that try to will things their way by murdering innocents, is not grave. Particularly in an era of increasing proliferation of WMD biological agents and fissile materials.

What it does mean is that one of the reason we have not been effective in lessening (let alone eradicating) this threat, is that we don't even correctly recognize or characterize what it is.

The problem is that many believe that to underscore its "severity," they have to view it this way. Thus, step one out of the gate is a misassessment, making it increasingly likely that the assessments that flow from it, will be similarly incorrect.

Another problem is that calling it this incorrectly mischaracterizes it to the rest of the world. Instead of marginalizing such radicalism and keeping it correctly on the fringes (lessening recruitment, building world opinion favorably, and promoting cooperation), it renders it far more mainstream than it really is.

For example, immediately before this statement, Delay was illustrating how not enough Americans (and in particular, not enough democrats) view the response of Isreal to the unprovoked Hezbollah kidnapping as appropriate. It is the opinion of this blog that Israel, given the constant threat that is has operated under, has the right to do whatever is necessary to eradicate Hezbollah north of its borders. But the issue of what is the most effective long term response remains an open question.

Whether its strategy is correct or incorrect, it has managed to turn a good portion of the world against Israel rather than against Hezbolllah. Yet Hezbollah is not Lebanon, is in effect holding Lebanon hostage as well as the Israel soldiers that provided the "spark" to start this, is appparently committed to the destruction of another state (and not just its government therein) and in many ways is operating like a terrorist organization.

By expanding the idea of what the war on terror is, merely because we in many ways, and perhaps correctly, view Hezbollah as a terrorist groups, this again only gives more world credibility to those who would seek to do us harm.

It is even more reason to not call it a war at all. This would avoid even the appearance of having to draw unnecessary distinctions between various extreme political, pseudo terrorist, and terrorist organizations. More importantly, it would allow us to focus whole heartedly on what we need to focus on. Securing America while protecting its founding liberties, and eradicating terrorists bent against us. The most counterproductive thing that can be done is to turn such "terrorism" into a larger and more mainstream thing that it is.

The end result of such a persistent path, of course, would be making it a broader socio religious struggle. It is not a battle of Muslims versus Christians, which would then make us no smarter than the seemingly insane factions in Iraq trying to kill each other right now seemingly only because of group identity. And we come from a two hundred year basis of the greatest democracy on Earth, to understate the contrast. But making it a larger socio religious struggle in essence removes the fringe terrorist element from it; also tremendously counterproductive to our efforts to mitigate and eradicate so called terrorist activity.

Yet it would seem as if a few -- and it is very few -- but like most zealots with a predominant voice, want to turn it into this. Similarly, comparisons to WWII, or to the new WWIII, are equally counterproductive, if not, in the long run, wholly and foolishly destructive.

Being strong on terrorism is not talking it into a broader thing than it is. That is called being foolish, not to mention thumping one's chest with a suit and tie on from the cush offices of a media or political center somewhere in America. Being strong on terrorism means effectively, and with focus, putting our best energies and efforts into dealing intelligently and forcefully with the issue. There is a big difference between that, and all the rhetoric that we constantly seem to hearing.

update: Balancing out Fox nicely, Anne Coulter is on this same show, along with Delay. That is, a far right wing representative, Delay, "balanced" out by a far right wing extremist, Coulter.

Coulter proceeds to twist almost every fact, and then states, with respect to Iraq, and quite disparagingly, "well, what war would they (those that don't agree with her, which Coulter narrowly calls "democrats") fight?"

Perhaps a war that was in our interests, is the answer. With respect to terrorists, perhaps a "war" against the terrorists themselves. Which Iraq had no more to do with than dozens of other states prior to military intervention therein in March of 2003. Additionally, a "war" against the terrorists themselves, given the nature and size of sovereign terrorist groups, such actions would more correctly be characterized as a series of covert actions, unless another government actually supports and assists and gives complete sanctuary to terrorist groups, as the Taliban in Afghanistan did.)

update 2: Sean Hannity comes on next, a few moments later, with former House Republican speaker Newt Gingrich.

It seems hard for Hannity to speak without distorting the facts. He goes through a long hypothetical, about how the arrests in England today of the suspected terrorists illustrates that democrats (and many republicans, he conveniently leaves out) are wrong with regard to every charge that they have leveled against him. Particularly that he "misled" America. But the problem is, the issues with this adminstration have nothing to do with him "misleading America" on the general risks from terrorism, and in fact none of the long litany Hannity cited has anything to do with it.

Listening to the next statement by Hannity, even more contorted, it is impossible to watch this channel, if one does not get most of their news elsewhere and is otherwise reasonably well informed, without deciding to vote for the party this station clearly exists to support. It is literally non stop.

I used to believe that Hannity was really a Mussolinni type individual. I now realize what I had forgotten (and used to know when I watched that station on occasion). He is just a profoundly wrong individual, who has a great way with words and a great way of communicating, who is clearly very earnest and believes what he says, but simply on partisan issues can't seem to view anything objectively. In fact, rarely does five minutes go by without Hannity grotesquely distorting some fact or issue, or simply getting it flat out backwards. It is pervasive, and consistent.

update 3: Hannity misstates the NSA issue by stating that we can't even intercept calls from known terrorists (such a blatant mischaracterization of the issue that a 3d grader, were partisan politics taken out of this, would be awarded an "F" for this question on an exam), as a way of "asking" Republican Governor Mitt Romney a loaded question. (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetss, providing balance, as the most liberal of the four guests during this time period. Except for Romney is a republican.)

Romney states: "The number one liberty is the right to stay alive."

Ben Franklin, paraphrased "Those who would chose security over libery deserve, and will probably get, neither."

Again, the issue is not whether we need to do more or less in combatting terrorism. (We need to do more.) The issue is using it as an excuse to abandon the basic founding and constitutional principles of America, which many republicans take great issue with as well. (Just not ever on Fox. Conveniently.)

update 4: Guest number five appears. More balance. Former Republican major and staunch conservative Rudy Guiliani.

update 5: Hannity: "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes," in reference to soverignless terrorists. Yet this is a fringe fanatical element with no borders or sovereign support, unless we sucessfully and counterproductively manage to turn it into something bigger that it is, and certainly that in the interests of world peace, that it needs to be. It is also a particularly ironic statement by Hannity, given that it was Hitler himself who used "defense of the realm" as an excuse to violate the rule of law, and that most of the litany of "claims" against Bush that Hannity went through just mere minutes earlier, had to do with abdicating the rule of law in "defense" of the realm.

update 6: Show "Sidekick" Alan Colmes, throughout all of this, is a joke. What he says are blatantly obvious statements that almost everybody knows. These, thrown in every once in a while from an otherwise largely dormant Colmes, provide the "appearance" of balance, that give Hannity and assorted guests opportunities to undermine those statements (to which Colmes almost never responds.)

update 7: Rudy Guiliani "We made this mistake in the 30's, thinking we could negotiate with these people, and we are making it again. " Who is he referring to that wants to negotiate? And negotiate with who? Is he confusing the Hezbollah issue? That's Israel's battle, we're not fighting it. And, unfortunately, Israel, being in a difficult position, has rallied world opinion agains them. Again, the irony of this comment is not lost.

Guiliani: With respect to Joe Lieberman: "I don't know why his political party won't allow him that kind of political flexibility." It's not his party, it's called democracy. And it was the people of Connecticut. A slightly different perspective.

This station would be an insult to jouralism, if it was journalism. It's not, which makes it all the more pernicious, since it nevertheless poses as a "news" source for politics and policy.

KARL ROVE: "Deeply and Profoundly and Consistently Wrong." And What Democrats can learn.

2006-08-09T03:25:00.000-07:00

Rove Is, to use his own terminology, "Deeply, Profoundly, and Consistently Wrong." Yet his communications and strategy have great affect on the American voter and pysche.

He is wrong on policy, but yet is able to convince much of America that the far right is correct on policy. And he is able to convince much of America that democrats, including moderate democrats, and independents (let alone liberals), are wrong. He is wrong on the facts, and again, manages to convince voters of the opposite.

Yet democrats are often seemingly unable to do the same. In addition, democrats are often misperceived, and mischaracterized, when they do have the facts on their side.

Why is that?

Part of it may have to do with understanding their opponent; that is, understanding why their opponent does what they do, and why thus they have been sucessful with American voters.

The prevalent perception among democrats, for example, is to believe that the "right wing" simply lies to and manipulates everybody. That it knows exactly what it is doing in this regard. And that it knows it is wrong.

Yet this may be a terribly self destructive, if not naive, belief. A failure to understand one's opponents can often be a huge impediment to defeating them.

Yet this same analogy may not as aptly apply to republicans, and, in particular, to the far right.

Why? Republicans, and again, in particular, the far right, may not have to understand democrats. They know what they believe, and they spin it well; successfully characterizing themselves, democrats, and the issues. And in fact, it is their misunderstsanding of democrats, in large part, that often helps them "sell" what they believe.

On the other hand, and quite in contrast, since democrats have not successfully characterized themselves, the republicans, or the issues -- let alone taken their perception of republicans or the far right and sold it to America (let alone again a harshly mischaracterized caricature even worse than the reality), it matters that they understand the right wing.

The main reasons for this are to be able to know what the right wing is doing. And, more importantly, to understand why it has reached so many people, despite, in the reapplied words of Karl Rove, being "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.")

Alll democrats really need to know about the power of belief, to begin to break this down, can be summarized by any number of examples, such as this one found here.

T.R. was a great conservationist, that he was a fierce watchdog of big business, that he was an early proponent of Social Security and the minimum wage.

Why is this relevant? Because,

Karl Rove gushes over him.

That is worth repeating. Karl Rove "gushes" over a leader who "was a great conservationist, ... a fierce watchdog of big business...an early proponent of Social Security and the minimum wage. "

But maybe the author of that piece has his facts wrong. Maybe Rove in fact, doesn't "gush over" T.R., but instead hates him the same way he hates many democrats who have the exact same values as T.R. That would seem a whole lot more consistent.

But it is unlikely.

Why? Because the republican party, increasingly dominated by its own right and far right wing, and today spouting forth principle that it does more to undermine than uphold, has fooled itself almost as much as the American people. And it not only has mischaracterized democrats, it largely has to believe those mischaracterizations to maintain its own beliefs.

When democrats begin to recognize this (and begin to show it as well), they as a party can begin to relate the principles to people in a way that does not alienate them; that does not make voters feel that they need to "defend" their choices; that does not make voters immediately skeptical because democrats seem to tell them what to conclude, rather than why; that does not make voters think that democrats are just "playing politics;" that does not make them think, subconsiously, at least that they don't understand them (the voter) because the voter that needs to be reached (as opposed to the already committed staunch democrat) does not usually think that everyone apart from democrats is a "liar and a cheat." Most importantly, they can begin TO UNDERSTAND why so many republican messages, misleading as they are, nevertheless "resonate" with so many American voters, and thus what to pay attention to, and why.)

In fact, this type of of appealing communication is exactly what Rove achieves in that famous quote of his borrowed above, and many others. Notice also how Rove's quote, and to a lesser extent, the quotes by RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, in that short and highly misleading and destructive AP article linked above, accomplish this.

Notice, in comparison, how the quote by the DNC spokesperson, not only does nothing to refute the also highly misleading but effective quote by Mehlman, or explain why it is wrong (apparently believing that it is simply obvious, when, to the non staunch democrat, it is likely no such thing), but also accomplishes none of the objectives above. (This short AP article, and the DNC quote, and why they both matter so much is, is also discussed at bottom here, and in more depth, here. The latter piece also puts much of this in the context of the highly mischaracterized Connecticut primary race between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, which Lamont won yesterday by a narow margin, and which remains very relevant, as Lieberman has vowed to run as an "independent democrat.")

The far right has a mesage. It may be wrong. It may mischaracterize. But until this is shown, those messages are going to have a highly disproportionate effect on the national debate, as they have for the past six years. And in order to effectively show it, democrats must first understand it, and why it is believed.

Here are some things for the democratic party, and for democrats and independents to focus on in terms of exposing the right wing for what it is, and why it is crucial before being able to effectively communicate almost any other basic message.

ONCE AGAIN, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS ACCUSED, BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, OF MISLEADING CONGRESS

2006-08-07T10:28:00.000-07:00

This is clearly part of a larger, pervasive pattern. The Bush Administration withholding, or providing misleading, information. As noted in the Washington Post:

A conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat have accused the Bush Administration of misleading Congress by withholding key information about India
when the House voted last week to support U.S. plans to sell nuclear technology to New Delhi. Administration officials knew at the time -- but did not tell lawmakers -- that it planned to sanction two Indian firms for selling missile parts to Iran.

As the Post also notes, in a July 28 Letter to the Secretary of the State, Dana Rohrabaker (R-CA) and William D. Delahunt (D-MA), "top members of the House International Relations Subcomittee, " along with member Howard Berman (D-CA), wrote:

to express our grave concerns about testimony provided by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Frank Record at a July 20, 2005 hearing
on U.S. Nonproliferation Strategies – testimony that is, on its face, highly misleading if not intentionally deceptive (emphasis added).

Again, this pattern of withholding, or providing misleading, information, has been ongoing.

As noted in both the link above, and herein, paraphrased:

Consider the highly controversial, and costly, medicare prescription drug bill, bizarrely passed in the wee hours of the night late in late November, 2003:
The Bush Administration warned its chief medicare actuary to not share his actual cost estimates of the controversial program with Congress: cost estimates about a hundred and fifty billion dollars higher than Congress' presumed cost of the program.

Tom Scully, medicare administrator, also called the sharing of such critical information with Congress prior to the vote as; "insubordination." And he had an email sent to his chief actuary stating that "the consequences of insubordination were extremely severe," which Foster took to mean his job itself. And, as the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal noted (according to numerous sites) reported Scully also stated in conversation with health staff that "'If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast his head will spin."
Since when has sharing the most basic, critical information with Congress, that Congress needs to know before it votes on a bill that was projected (unbeknownst to Congress) to cost over half a trillion dollars, "insubordination"? Apparently since the Bush Administration took office.

Jjust a few of Senator Ted Kennedy's points from a little noted speech on the floor of the Senate, also referenced in the links above:

...Under the Bush administration, openness and accountability have been replaced by secrecy and evasion of responsibility.

...In May 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task force issued its report recommending more oil and gas drilling...In light of his former employment at Halliburton, [not] astonishing. What was astonishing was the Vice President's refusal to identify the people and groups who helped write the policy.

The nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress [the GA)], following reports that campaign contributors had special access while the public was shut out, asked, ``Who serves on the task force; what information is being presented to [it], and by whom is it being given... The administration [simply] refused to comply.
...In July 2003, the 9/11 Commission's [bipartisan] cochairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, complained publicly that the administration was [once again] failing to provide requested information. In October 2003, the Commission...after repeated
requests, [finally had] to subpoena records from the FAA. In November 2003, after multiple requests, the Commission again had to subpoena information, this time from the Department of Defense.
For the rest of that fall and spring, the administration repeatedly tried to deny access to presidential documents important to the Commission's investigation... Key members of the administration balked at testifying.
...Last October, Congressmen Christopher Shays [R-CT] and Henry Waxman [D-CA], the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations, asked for an audit of the Development Fund for Iraq. The copy they
received had over 400 items blacked out. They had so much difficulty obtaining
an unredacted report from the Defense Department that they had to prepare a
subpoena. Once they finally received an unredacted copy, guess what had been
blacked out? More than $218 million in charges from Halliburton. So far, no one has been held accountable.
...There is also a pattern of withholding information from members of Congress on the administration's nominations. In '03, Miguel Estrada was nominated for a Federal judgeship. We requested legal memoranda he wrote as Assistant Solicitor General, and..were repeatedly denied. In '04, Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be Attorney General. We requested various memoranda he authorized on administration torture policy, and we were repeatedly denied.

Earlier this year...we requested documents to determine if John Bolton]acted appropriately in his previous job, and we have been repeatedly denied.

...In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration kept secret a report that children on antidepressants were twice as likely to be involved in suicide-related behavior. The FDA also prevented the author of the study--their expert on the issue--from presenting his findings to an FDA advisory committee.

...In April 2004, the ranking member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was forced to place holds on several
EPA nominees after the administration refused to respond to twelve outstanding
information requests, including information on air pollution.

Then, of course, there is Iraq.

The Republican Party Today. Not What it Pretends to Be.

2006-08-06T04:02:00.000-07:00

There is very little left of the republican party. Yes, "it" has dominated national politics. But 'it," as is well chronicled elsewhere, is in fact the republican party's own right and far right wing (and here's what its feature presentation, the Bush administration, is doing to the principles of democracy upon which America was founded and built).

The problem is that many Americans still don't recognize this, as the media does an absolutely abhorrent job of covering issues with potential partisan ramifications, lest the right wing of the republican party jump and down and scream how "biased" the media is. And the media insists on lumping almost everything into a category of "liberal" or "conservative," with occasional "moderates" (democrats who support Joe Lieberman, and republicans who are not far right wing conservative, along with, in the Senate for example, Chafee, McCain, Collins and Snowe). Even so called "liberal" commentators and pundits in the media routinely partake of this game.

That doesn't change the reality of what is happening in America, a reality that at least some moderate and informed republicans are beginning to become all too aware of.

This list now includes Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Nancy Riley, who just switched to the democratic party. Riley, who, according to the AP, felt like there was no room in the republican party for "moderates," put it this way:

"The moderate Republican has been pushed aside for the extreme right wing."

More importantly, an extreme right wing that tries to pretend it is something it is not.

So what does all this mean? Does it mean that as the country lurches to the right politically, that the democratic party inevitably, kicking and screaming or not, will adjust? Maybe.

This is not good for America, however, as America was founded upon, became great based upon, and is great because of, the basic priciples of freedom and equality and opportunity and justice and responsbility which the democratic party - including part of its much maligned liberal base - and to some degree moderate republicans, has trumpeted and instilled.

What it really indicates is just one more sign that it is well past time for a new political party in America. Republicans have been hijacked by far right conservatives. And the democratic party does not stand up to the present administration, and is largely ineffectual. And, perhaps worst of all, there is justifiable discontent with a previously popular Senator who represents the worst of the democratic party status quo, and who has been a supporter to some extent of the Bush Adminstration -- and democrats somehow see this a bad thing for democrats that a more traditional democrat and outsider has generated a great deal of support in opposition. In other words, it does not even appear that a somehow satisfied and sated democratic party (how it can feel this way after getting hammered by the far right wing for several years is indicative of just how much it is time for change) recognizes what it is in its own interests. (note also the almost insanely warped logic implicit in the above linked piece by Dan Balz in the Washington Post, that somehow not staying in Iraq is "dovish" on national security, as if it was Iraq that presented the terrorism threat to us, and not al-Qaeda and related sovereignless terrorist cells which we have lost focus on while overemphasizing Iraq.)

A new political party, for balance, should really be to the left of the democratic party, but that means that the author of this blog would likely have no part of it. Too bad, with the five or six website visits this blog gets a day (ranking it solidly within the top 3 million Internet blogs out there, a stunning achievement by any measure), that is quite a loss. Frankly, a party that is neither to the left nor the right of the democratic party might be a better party, but as a practical matter is might just split the non and borderline republican vote. Also, any such party, just like everything and every body in America who does not reiterate standard conservative or right wing conservative dogma, it will immediately be labeled, by the media as well, as "liberal." The dreaded "L" word. So it might just as well be.

The best thing would be for democrats to get a clue. But that seems to be just slightly more likely than Israel and Hezbollah becoming buddies.

Smearing Jack Murtha, and the Fox Channel

2006-08-05T12:45:00.000-07:00

Regarding the absurd lawsuit against Representative Jack Murtha (a highly decorated and devout marine supporter his entire life, who bent over backward not to identify anybody and who was also speaking to the deplorable situation our troops have been placed in) , what makes this an interesting story is that, as Glenn Greenwald repeatedly pointed out to the lawyer bringing the suit is that many republicans made the same comments Murtha did.

In response, the lawyer, Mark Zaid, stated that he was "unaware" of this and would be happy to add them to the suit if examples were given. So, unlike most other talk show guests on the democratic side of things, who tend to let false assertions or promises fall by the way side after the show, Greenwald followed up and did exactly that.

Zaid's response to this sticky situation? What choice did he have. But Lawyers tend to be nothing if not clever. Zaid said he would add GOP rep and staunch Bush supporter John Kline unless he "apologized." Which also means he had to extend the same offer to Murtha. Thus, in effect, part of the goal, attacking Murtha, may be accomplished.

Kline can apologize, as his opponents can not use that against him because his statements that he would now be apologizing for, support his opponents. Opponents who by and large tend to think that strategically, going into Iraq was a bad choice, that it has been managed extremely poorly, has placed our soldiers in untenable situations, and if anything, diverted our focus and worsened the overall war on terror. Murtha apologizing for the same thing however would not only undermine a basic principle of democracy -- being able to hold and share divergent opinions about the consequences of our choices as a country (and which in Murtha's case was accurate as well) -- but make Murtha vulnerable to his political opponents, who are on Kline's side.

How will this new development be covered? As noted by Greenwald:

Fox News trumpeted the Murtha lawsuit on numerous programs all day on Thursday (Congressman Murtha accused of smearing the Marines!). One wonders
(rhetorically) whether they will report on this new development -- that a pro-war, pro-Bush Congressman who is also a former Marine is accused of the same thing. One additionally wonders whether the right-wing pundits who viciously attacked Murtha over the lawsuit will do the same to Kline. One wonders, too, if Hinderaker will mention the threatened lawsuit (you can ask him here). They can read the accusatory statements made by Kline here.

Perhaps other media sources could report on the way Fox "presents" news as a story in itself. Particulary, now that it has smeared Murtha all over the place, the story regarding how much coverage Fox gives to, and how it handles, the fact that republican Congressman and staunch Bush supporter John Kline (as well as other republicans) said the same things as Murtha, if not more harshly.

This is without a doubt a relevant, if not important story, given how the media shapes perception, and how Fox either implicitly, or overtly (or both), actively seeks to do so in accordance with its own agenda despite the fact that it continually presents itself as a "fair and balanced" news station. But that is very unlikely. The media can't even get its own stories that may have partisan implications straight.

It looks like

2006-08-05T11:46:00.000-07:00

With the continued, if not increased, violence in Iraq,that once again, Ivo Daalder was right, and the Washington Post, was wrong.

But the Post has been wrong, on what is one of this era's defining issues, from the start.

THE PRESS FINALLY begins to address what matters.....

2006-08-05T11:37:00.000-07:00

It's about time. And, if anything, far understated.

And this coming from a press which has not even done a good good covering the defining yet "potentially partisan" issues of our day. Then, or now. Or See...

DEMOCRATS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, and Lieberman, Lamont

2006-08-03T10:30:00.000-07:00

From an article in the International Herald Tribune, also referenced in a post yesterday on the Daily Kos:

"'A Lieberman loss is very bad for Democrats; it says we are one dimension[sic] on Iraq,' says Peter Hart, a top Democratic polltaker."

This illogical and counterproductive suggestion by democrats, is in stark contrast to the typical republican approach to strategy and message communications. Almost every time republicans talk to the media, whether asked or not, whether on point or not, they tend to try and communicate as many possible talking points as they can, and tie it into a larger pattern,if they can.

Democrats, on the other hand, often engage in the political equivalent of talking about the weather. Or worse, as in the case above.

They will do the job of the media; providing analytical perspective that does not really help the democrats achieve necessary communication goals. And they will do this instead of taking the opportunity to be heard, and using it to find a way to correct or illustrate a fact, message, and/or an opponent's pervasive pattern. (And, as Hart illustrates, they will sometimes do the job of republicans as well, as discussed below.)

Similarly, democrats will often handicap the horse race, once again, taking media questioners too literally. Or, they will say something thinking they are somehow "galvanizing the base." E.g; "We like our chances because the republicans are not popular," instead of showing why they should win and showing the pattern of what the increasingly far right republican party does, which also "galvanizes" the base just as well..

(One such example is the underdiscussed Bush Administration and far right wing obsession with secrecy. As with several other patterns (disparaging the press for exercising it's first amendment rights and responsibilities, labeling those who disagree as traitors, ignoring the separation of powers under the Constitution) this statement from here (as pointed out) aptly applies:

"A lot of countries have been founded upon this principle. Just none of them democracies."

It's a much better thing to be emphasizing than, say, "a Lieberman loss is very bad for democrats." Particularly when Lieberman has been somewhat supportive of the same Bush Administration to whose policies the above statement aptly applies.

In such communications, democrats will also sometimes tend to argue, perhaps without meaning to. This at least is an attempt in the right direction, but in politics, it is often counterproductive.
Worse, demcorats will often tend to conclude, rather than to SHOW.

This idea of showing rather than telling is critical in politics: In a nutshell, democrats lose to republicans (and, increasingly, far right wing republicans who should be easily defeated) for three main reasons. 1) they argue about these fundamental reasons and tendencies such as those suggested here, coming up with all sorts of misfocused, peripheral and often far over intellectualized reasons as to what they need to do, and why they lose to far right wingers -- or worse, engage in excusing making and blaming others; 2) while republicans tend to sell, they tend to argue; and, 3) republicans tend to repeatedly show, democrats tend to conclude, or even tell people what they think, or should think.

There are a host of other tendencies exhibited when democrats speak to the media. Another one of the worst is when they say something that appears strong, to, once again, "galvanize the base," or "stand up to" the right, so to speak, that is strong in vitriole and conclusions, but not as strong in the point made.

Republicans often do the opposite. One classic example from the 2004 election, by Nicole Devinish, referred to Vietnam, of all things, where it was the President who had a record to explain, not Kerry:

"Instead of explaining his record, John Kerry has turned to political attacks on the President. John Kerry is doing exactly what he said he would never do. Divide America over who served, and how."

This statement is grotesquely misleading on many levels, but tremendously effective. What partisan democrats miss (and what the Kerry campaign missed) is that because it was blatantly misleading to them, they assume that it is so to everybody else. That is, again, because of the tendency on the part of democrats to "think that everybody knows what they know." (Examples of this are endless. Here is one, where the person thinks this, and is wrong as well about the underlying point, from the type of (perhaps left wing, perhaps just fed up?) liberal that the far right likes to incorrectly classify almost everyone in America that does not agree with them as (and that it needs to believe in order to maintain its own views). but again, the key point, is repeated over and over. "Everybody knows this." It is what democrats believe, and they are wrong.

(Incidentally, the Kerry Campaign response on the same issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam, at the same time as Devinish's, was also typical; "they are just a bunch of republicah hacks." Yes, to staunch Kerry supporters, that appeared obvious. But to everybody else, it failed to make a point).

Again, democrats tend to do this, because they often assume that the facts speak for the themselves. In politics, in particular, the opposite is true. People tend in politics to skew, filter, and interpret things to support what they have already decided. The tendencies by democrats, as appealing as some of the typical base appealing statements are to other democrats, tend to only heighten this response in the average voter, thus closing them off to the actual facts or perspectives -- as opposed to the right wing rhetoric and spin that they have been constantly bombarded with, and have implicitly bought.

In other words, democrats often speak to other democrats, rather than to a broader cross section of Americans. And they tend to get self righteous about it. More than once, by educated liberals (not democrats, but liberals, and certainly not most liberals, but enough to exhibit why this tends to occur) I have been accused of being a "republican troll" SOLELY for making this point: "democrats needs to communicate to a broader cross section of Americans." For this exact same point I have also been accused of "trying to push the republican playbook."

Being that winning in politics means getting more votes than the other side, thus effectively communicating with and reaching more people, this would be like a football game where one suggests one team needs to put the ball in the end zone more, and some players, getting it backwards, complain that this strategy helps the other team win.

It seems a bit far fetched, but it helps explain this tendency of democrats to think that everybody knows what they know, and to talk to other democrats rather than to a broader cross section of Americans.

This list could go on. But the main point of this piece is to make the point that when democrats speak to or through the media, under any auspices, they often are not fully cognizant of what that opportunity means, how to take advantage of it, and what to convey.

Once again, when it comes to strategy points, democrats are best sticking to the republican playbook, so to speak (if that is what it is), and communicating what needs to be communicated for voters to know what they need to know, and stop saying all the other incessant babble that they constantly engage in.

This reflects part of the need -- and is one of the many reasons for previous failure by democrats -- to stop allowing republicans to define democrats, republicans, and the issues (one recent example on the more difficult issue of flag burning.)

Democrats need to continually illustrate the pattern by the right and far right of rhetoric not matching reality, of espousing the very principles that it constantly trumpets on the one hand, while misunderstanding or trampling upon them on the other, of constantly engaging in factual distortions and misleading rhetoric that either appeals to our worst biases and emotions, or to our best emotions but in an illogical and manipulative way. (Always, and here is the controversial clincher; in a way that suggests they are manipulating themselves as well. This allows people to be open to the suggestion that democrats are making, without engaging in the typical partisan response of skewing their own interpretation in order to defend their choices.)

Such an approach accomplishes several critical things. It establishes the pattern so that each successive reiteration can reinforce it, and thus begins to correctly characterize the other side (the opposite of what is happening presently) while underming its misleading recitation of the issues, and allows:

Of course, first and foremose, CONSTANTLY reiterating and emphasizing the actual facts to have far more success thereby.

So here is Peter Hart, doing what? Of course, as a pollster, maybe he feels inclined to say something clever; another problem with democrats. They often, invariably, seem without trying to appear clever, while republicans appear earnest (remember, It's not about how stauch Lamont supporters or other staunch democrats perceive what republicans, conservatives, and the increasingly dominant far right wing conservatives say, it's about how average Americans perceive it, whic is often very different than what partisan democrats may tend to think).

What Hart says takes the republican tendency of accomplishing several things with one statement, to a whole new level. Hart does accomplish several things with this one statement. It seems to be rare among democratic strategists and spokespeople, so this is to be commended.

The problem is, most of what Hart accomplishes is bad.

Many people in the real world, to some degree enabled by a media that continues to present this (the vitriol expressed, even though it does not come close to the far more extreme, yet somehow palatably packaged far right vitriol) believe that the left is knee jerk rabid anti Lieberman, and that this is what is wrong with them. But the reality is that many think Lieberman is a very likeable but now ineffective and far too status quo Democrat Senator, who accomodates not just Republican policies but sometimes far right wing policies. But then again, aside from the fact that change is needed, how often has this case been made in the mainstream?

So here is Hart, who probably doesn't understand why many democrats don't approve of the job Lieberman is doing, and perhaps is a fan of Lieberman as well (Lieberman's other fan club.) And what does he do?

He makes an inane statement. "Lieberman Losing would be bad for democrats." Let's see, democrats have been geting clobbered by far right wing republicans. Congress is tilted ridiculously to the right. And a popular incumbent democratic Senator who is in many ways supportive of numerous conservative policies loses to someone that is not, and this is bad for democrats? Someone who I'd say represents the status quo, except Lieberman is worse than that. He represents the worst of it. Democrats in Congress who don't stand up to this administration (when even a couple of the relatively few moderate republicans in Congress are "trying" to do this) and one who in many ways has done the opposite.

Hart manages to take something very good, and spin it into something very bad.

The next part of the quote is not as poor; "politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration." But it is then followed by the similarly inane "A Lieberman defeat detracts from that."

Politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration. Democrats need to make it one. But how does a Lieberman loss detract from that? Only because that is the way moderate democrats are self destructively spinning it. "Well," they sometimes tend to respond, "anti Lieberman folks are just against this war, and his strong support of it." But anti Lieberman folks have a right to think this war was a mistake, mismanaged, and persisted in without an adequately flexible and creative response/approach, for far too long.

Additionally, if it is about the Bush Administartion, and the poor way it has handled things and made foreign policy choices, why shouldn't Lieberman, who has supported these, be defeated?

And that is not the only reason that Lieberman is opposed by so many democrats. He just has not been effective, has supported numerous administration policies, almost all of which have been misguided, and frankly, given what this Congress has accomplished in the past several years, it is time to "throw the bums out," now as perhaps as much as ever in our history. And democratic strategists undermine this message but making the Lieberman thing into something it is not.

I hate to comparing Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) with Lieberman, but it would be like republicans arguing that a Chafee loss to (to a more staunch republican who would then, like Lamont, probably win, albeit unlikely in R.I. as a practical matter) would be bad for republicans. How ridiculous does that sound? That is almost how ridiculous what Hart said is, but is evidence once again of democrats allowing republican to set the agenda and define the terms: "A Lieberman loss is bad for democrats."

But Hart's comment is even worse for other reasons. For months now, democrats have allowed the media (and sometimes themselves) to falsely characterize this issue as one where democrats need to have a cohesive position on Iraq.

Why? That suggests that there is an easy answer on Iraq. There is not. In fact, the lack of an out is the precise reason to not have gone in the first place unless necessary. (And democrats also have needed since early 2004 to stop playing along with the republican and media spin that a vote for the resolution was a blank check to invade. It was not, nor was the military action in March of '03 even consistent with the resolution back in October of '02.)

Iraq is an issue to be debated. The real issue is making the right choices in the face of evolving circumstances, which the far right wing leadership has not done, again and again and again. On North Korea, on Iran in particular (who a few years ago WAS TRYING to help us and got rewarded by being labeled as part of the axis of evil several weeks later), on the Israeli Palestine conflict, on China, on Russia, on almost everywhere on the globe (and on domestic policy, on the Constitution, on secrecy, on fiscal responsibility, on the environment) and, of course, on Iraq. Over and over and over and over. That's what happens when America becomes led not by facts, but by rhetoric.

Yet democrats have not only allowed the media to criticize democrats for not having a coherent postion on Iraq, they themselves have often suggested it. Moreover, they have done so instead of focusing on what Iraq is really about, and instead of making it about the increasingly obvious perils of preset policy that fails to adjust to the realities of the world and that utterly fails to adjust to changing conditions and information. (The best example, of dozens, is of course the administration obsession with Iraq prior to 9/11, while it ignored al-Qaeda. Yet the same pattern has continued.)

So what does Hart do? He tops this off one better. He then takes this same quest for a coherent policy, and instead of steering away from it in ways that make the effective points, he first supports it by incorrectly turning anti Liebermanism into it, then he torpedoes it with wholly negative spin; "A Liberman loss would be bad for democrats." "It makes them one dimensional."

The article reciting Hart's quote then follows with. "More than a few democrats think Hart is right." But, again, only if democrats spin it this way.

There should not be a problem with a Democrat favoring our action in Iraq. Reasonable minds can disagree. And there seems to be some truth to the author's (and many others') premise that there is intolerance for this position on a lot of the blogs.

But democratic strategists spinning it this way is one of the worse things that can be done, in the face of the reality that people are going to have strong views about a voluntary war action that is getting American soldiers killed, possibly inspiring insurgency and therefore not assisting, and according to many experts at least, enabling terrorist cell recruitment.

Democrats need to make the points intead. And one of the main points for Lieberman's unpopularity, is not only his position on the war. (Hillary Clinton has been incorrectly criticized for wishiwashiness on Iraq -- even viciously attacked by moveon.org, in another example of democratic self destructiveness -- when unless someone has a crystal ball or has talked to thousands of Iraqi leaders, insurgents and soldiers, they shouldn't presume so much). It is Lieberman's support for what has been by far the worst administration in modern history, and his support of the administration's handling of the Iraq action.

Additonally, while the article itself makes some good points and some inane points (that Lieberman's outrage at Clinton "distracted" republicans from impeachment in the 90's is a particularly good example of the latter), this rather rigid tendency to turn the Lieberman issue into a larger than it is vote on the war is also not productive. In the Tribune article, Bloomberg reporter Al Hunt also reports:

"The war in Iraq is a deeply divisive issue, which makes it the most legitimate reason to mount a political challenge in a democracy. Yet Lieberman's defenders portray the Lamont insurgency as a 'jihad,' and one commentator suggested the future of civility in American politics is at stake.'" These are not smart strategies either.

Those assertions are of course by Lieberman supporters. But Lieberman detractors play into this as well, by also turning it into something larger than it is. (And frankly, there is a little bit of truth to the idea that Lieberman has been a bit villainized. But again, democrats' playing into this, on either side of the Lieberman discussion, does not help.)

On the other hand, wanting fresh ideas after three terms itself is not exactly villainizing Lieberman. He hasn't done a good job. He has not used his leadership role to fight for the issues that matter. He is too supportive of poor administration policies: And this does not come from reviling the administration, as Bloomberg reporter Al Hunt and many others suggest, but from vehemently disagreeing with its far right wing, anti democratic, and increasingly anti constitutional, not to mention limited and overly simplistic world view of things. Also contrary to the assertions by Hunt and some others, three terms in the Senate does not mean that it is a travesty if someone loses, but that perhaps it is time to make way for some much needed change.

Instead of villainizing Lieberman, democrats need to make throwing out Congress a vote on the way all things, including Iraq, have been handled, as well as the accomodation of an administration slowly if unwittingly dismantling the pillars of democracy. (Yes, unwittingly. See the comments to that piece. Democrats, start addressing a larger audience). Business as usual just has not worked, particularly for democrats.

As far as Hart's apparently popular sentiment goes, it serves as just another example of democrats shooting themselves in the foot. On the one hand, there are the democrats calling for a cohesive strategy. And on the other, democrats then using examples of just such a cohesive strategy, to spin it negatively for democrats. "A Lieberman loss says we are one dimensional," was Hart's phrase. Nice job. Maybe the republicans can just stay home and watch football this autumn if democrats do their job for them.

(As an aside, the statement is attributed to Peter Hart, "top democratic poll taker." Not to be confused with Peter Hart of FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which generally does a pretty good job, and whose points on the importance of responsibility in media reporting should get more exposure than they do.)

The Bush Administration, Hacking Away at the Twin Pillars of Our Democracy, II

2006-07-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

This article is in two parts. Part one examined the Bush Administration's approach to one of the most basic structures of our democracy; the Constitution's check upon governmental powers, and its separation of powers and system of checks and balances upon which our government is based.

Consistent with an "interpretation" of the Constitution that seeks to grant the Executive whatever powers if feels it needs or wants, clandestinely ornot, the Bush administration has also clamped down on the flow and availability of information.

Inconsistent with free, open democracy, this obsession with secrecy was noted long before the recent revelations about clandestine programs in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers clauses, and preexisting law.

Yet this obsession does not just extend to matter of ostentisible "nationa security."

The Bush administration has sought to control what government climate change information is publicly shared -- as if the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and which is employed solely by the people, and paid for by the people, has the right to keep climate information from the people.

The administration, according to some insiders, has even purposefully altered the accuracy of reports related to global climate change.

Even more bizarrely, according to a barely discussed Washington Post article:

The Washington office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration --
the agency responsible for protecting endangered salmon -- has instructed its representatives and scientists in the West to route media questions about salmon
back to headquarters. Only three people in the entire agency, all of them
political appointees, are now authorized to speak of salmon, according
to a NOAA employee who has been silenced on the fish (emphasis added).

The order was issued the day after an article appeared last month in The Washington Post quoting federal technocrats making positive statements about two
recent decisions -- one by a federal judge, the other by federal scientists -- that
challenged previous Bush administration policy.

One of the countless "Presidential signing statements" (examined in part one) -- once again somewhat singularly reported on by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe -- rather arbitrarily, if not incredibly, declared that:
The president can tell

researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its
disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the
workings of the executive branch.

Of course, once again, "workings of the executive branch," essentially means, "if we choose to."

In other words, tying these two fundamental issues together - 1)The Constitution, and 2) information; that is, the foundation, and the lifeblood, of democracy, respectively -- Congress passed a law requiring that it have access to Scientific information (paid for by taxpayer dollars) when requested. And in response, the Executive Branch, in violation of Article I Section 1, and Article II, Section 3's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (which includes not breaking them), in essence dictated in response; "only if we want to."

Bill Moyers, back in 2005, again before we even knew of several of the administration's clandestine and apparently unconstitutional programs, put it this way:

It has to be said: there has been nothing in our time like the Bush
Administration's obsession with secrecy.

Senator Ted Kennedy, reputed liberal from Massachusetts, in the summer of 2005 -- once again before we even had an inkling about many of the items related above, including many of the more egregious "presidential signing statments" -- summarized some of the salient, factual points of this pattern in a reasonably non partisan speech on the floor of the Senate; a speech barely touched upon by the mainstream media.

In remarks prefacing the published speech itself, and in response to a proposed amendment to a bill last summer by Senators Levin, Reed, Rockefeller, and Kennedy to examine the administration's policy surrounding the detention and interrogation of detainees, Kennedy pointed out:

The President announced he would veto the Defense authorization bill, all $442
billion of it, if it included any provisions to restrict the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or creating a commission to investigate detainee operations. No other response could have demonstrated so clearly the urgent need to establish a commission than that this imperial White House considers itself immune from restraints by Congress on its powers no matter what the Constitution says.

...They even stooped to claiming a request for full accounting is somehow a smear against our troops. The real smear is that the administration continues to prosecute only a few low-level offenders without holding accountable the higher-ups who laid the groundwork for all the abuses. The real disservice to our troops and to our country is done by those who leave those at the bottom of the chain of command holding the bag while officials at the top are promoted and rewarded.

Some of the vastly underpublicized highlights of this speech are also well worth considering:

...In May 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task force issued its report recommending more oil and gas drilling to solve our energy problems. In light of his former employment at Halliburton, the recommendation was hardly astonishing. What was astonishing was the Vice President's refusal to identify the people and groups who helped write the policy.

In June 2001, the GAO, the nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress, requested information on the energy task force, following reports that campaign contributors had special access while the public was shut out. GAO's request was simple. It asked, ``Who serves on this task force; what information is being presented to the task force and by whom is it being given; and the costs involved in the gathering of the facts.'' Considering that the task force wrote the nation's energy policy, it was not an unreasonable request. The administration [simply] refused to comply [and to this day it is not clear that it has ever].

...Congress and the executive branch are supposed to be open and accountable, so the American people know what is being done in their name. But under the Bush administration, openness and accountability have been replaced by secrecy and evasion of responsibility. They abuse their power, conceal their actions from the American people, and refuse to hold officials acountable.

...Last year, a record 15.6 million documents were classified by the Bush administration at a cost of $7.2 billion, many under newly invented categories. The administration argues that all this secrecy is necessary to win the war on terrorism. But the 9/11 Commission Report said that too much government secrecy had hurt U.S. intelligence capability even before 9/11. ``Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability, and information sharing,'' says the report.

They know from their own experience. In July 2003, the 9/11 Commission's cochairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, complained publicly that the administration was [once again] failing to provide requested information. In October 2003, the Commission had no choice, after repeated requests, but to subpoena records from the FAA. In November 2003, after multiple requests, the Commission again had to subpoena information, this time from the Department of Defense.

For the rest of that fall and spring, the administration repeatedly tried to deny
access to presidential documents important to the Commission's investigation,
until public outcry grew loud enough to convince the administration otherwise.
Key members of the administration balked at testifying, until public opinion
again swayed their stance. And then, in an ironic twist, 28 pages of the 9/11
Commission Report itself was classified. So, is all this secrecy really
about protecting us from the terrorists? Or is it just to avoid accountability?

...Even Members of Congress have had to subpoena information in order to do their work. Last October, Congressmen Christopher Shays [R-CT]and Henry Waxman
[D-CA], the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations,
asked for an audit of the Development Fund for Iraq. The copy they received had
over 400 items blacked out. They had so much difficulty obtaining an unredacted report from the Defense Department that they had to prepare a subpoena. Once they finally received an unredacted copy, guess what had been blacked out? More than $218 million in charges from Halliburton. So far, no one has been held accountable.

...There is also a pattern of withholding information from members of Congress on the administration's nominations. In 2003, Miguel Estrada was nominated for a Federal judgeship. We requested legal memoranda he wrote as Assistant Solicitor General, and we were repeatedly denied. In 2004, Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be Attorney General. We requested various memoranda he authorized on administration torture policy, and we were repeatedly denied.

Earlier this year, John Bolton was nominated to be Ambassador to the United Nations. We requested documents to determine if he acted appropriately in his
previous job, and we have been repeatedly denied. Instead of coming clean and providing the information to the Congress, we have been stonewalled. Our
questions have gone unanswered. And now, the President appears to be poised to
abuse his power further, rub salt in the wound, and send John Bolton to the United Nations anyway with a recess appointment of dubious constitutionality.
[Stonewalling is not a term reserved to democrats either. For example, this past spring right wing republican James Sensenbrenner, among others, accused the Bush Administration of also "stonewalling" regarding its clandestine NSA surveillance program.]

...In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration kept secret a report that children on antidepressants were twice as likely to be involved in suicide-related behavior. The FDA also prevented the author of the study--their expert on the issue--from presenting his findings to an FDA advisory committee. Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, a Harvard psychiatrist, said ``Evidence that they're suppressing a report like this is an outrage, given the public health and safety issues at stake . . . For the FDA to issue an ambiguous warning when they had unambiguous data like this is an outrage.''

In November 2003, the White House told the Appropriations Committees in both Houses of Congress that it would only respond to requests for information if they were signed by the committee chairman. In a time of one-party rule, this tactic made congressional oversight almost completely impossible. In April 2004, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was forced to place holds on several EPA nominees after the administration refused to respond to twelve outstanding information requests, including information on air pollution.

...Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal disclosed yet another list of abuses in Iraq
reconstruction. Ten billion dollars of no-bid contracts were awarded; $89 million was doled out without contracts at all; $9 billion is unaccounted for, and may have been embezzled. An official fired for incompetence was still giving out millions of dollars in aid, weeks after his termination. A contractor was paid twice for the same job. A third of all U.S. vehicles that Halliburton was paid to manage are missing. It is a staggering display of incompetence and cover-up, so that no one will be held accountable. [Yet this past June, Senate republicans nevertheless voted against investigating waste and fraud in military spending.]

Kennedy's list, although it seems overwhelming, was by no means exhaustive. As just one further example, again insufficiently covered by most of the major media, consider the highly controversial, and costly, medicare prescription drug bill, bizarrely passed in the wee hours of the night late in late November, 2003:

The Bush Administration warned Rick Foster, its respected chief medicare actuary, to not share his actual cost estimates of the controversial program with Congress. These were cost estimates that were approximately a hundred and fifty billion dollars higher than Congress' presumed cost of the program. (And, as it turns out, even the non disclosed chief actuary's estimates were low, as a few years after the program's inception, net total cost projections have shot up by about two hundred billion more.)

Tom Scully, the medicare administrator at the time, incredibly labeled the sharing of such critical information with Congress prior to the vote as, "insubordination." Scully also had an email sent to his chief actuary stating that "the consequences of insubordination were extremely severe," which Foster took to mean his job itself. Various Sites attribute both the Wall Street Journal, and the NY Times with reporting that Scully also stated in conversation with health staff that "'If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast his head will spin."

Since when has sharing the most basic, critical information with Congress, that Congress needs to know before it votes on a bill that was projected (unbeknownst to Congress) to cost over half a trillion dollars, "insubordination"? Apparently since the Bush Administration took office.

Now, in the latest move in a pattern, whether its global warming, salmon, any public information that the administration doesn't want to be bothered sharing, or doesn't want shared, or any information regarding what the government is doing, 10,000 EPA scientists have asked Congress to stop the Bush Administration from closing the agency's network of technical research libraries. Over 700 billion dollars for a medicare bill that largely benefited drug manufacturers, the administration's "base," but no 2 million dollars, about a third of a millionth less than the prescription drug bill's current projected costs, to keep information, the lifeblood of democracy, readily available even to the scientists who need it most.

According to project censored, a decidedly left leaning site, but in this instance critically accurate: "The Bush administration's move to eliminate open government" is the number one censored story of 2006. (And 2005, And 2004, and...)

The Bush Administration response to all of this? Once again, according to this recent article, to become even more secretive.

To be fair, this latest proclaimed push towards even greater secrecy was with respect to leaks. But leaks of what?

The administration, as noted in part I, has already exhibited a clear pattern of belief in its authority to ignore the law, transgress the Constitution, and act as the arbiter of both; thereby leaving the last possible check upon the executive branch's actions as the media and whistleblowers, to the extent any potentially unlawful activity is even revealed. But the administration wants to further crackdown on such leaks.

And, the administration not only wants to crack down further on leaks (even of arguably unconstitutional and illegal behavior), but potentially, and extraordinarily, even imprison journalists as a result, or certainly, as the recent excoriation of the NY Times serves, to frighten them.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

It really is hard to imagine any measures which pose a greater and more direct danger to our freedoms than the issuance of threats like this by the administration against the press. If the President has the power to keep secret any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information which Americans receive about their Government.

As aptly noted in Unclaimed Territory, a Web blog started by Greenwald, constitutional scholar and author of the popular "How would a Patriot Act" (hint; not like the Bush administration):

"A ban on speech and a shroud of secrecy in perpetuity are antithetical to democratic concepts and do not fit comfortably with the fundamental rights guaranteed American citizens ... Unending secrecy of actions taken by government officials may also serve as a cover for possible official misconduct and/or incompetence. " - Judge Richard Cardamone, explaining his decision to uphold the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act's National Security letters provision.

"The government doesn't lightly relinquish the spoils of power seized under the pretexts of apocalypse. What the government grasps, the government seeks to keep and hold, and too many of its reformulated purposes fit too neatly with the Bush administration's wish to set itself above the law. Often when watching the official spokespeople address a television audience, I'm reminded of corporate lawyers talking to a crowd of recently bankrupted shareholders, and usually I'm left with the impression that they would like to put the entire country behind a one-way mirror that allows the government to see the people but prevents the people from seeing it." - Lewis Lapham, Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy.

Describing James Madison's belief that an absolutely essential condition for the American republic be that, "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause," Gary Wills writes, in Explaining America:

"No king, no legislature, no body at all should be put in a situation where interest has no overseer. The virtuous man will not want to be put in that situation. He welcomes the scrutiny of fair men. His virtue is not private, but public; on display, and asking to be tested."

Officials "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," but the governed can not give that consent properly unless they are able to know what their governors are doing. In essence, the public is to be the ultimate judge of what actions are in the public interest, and to do this, they must know what those actions are. Our system of representational democracy is predicated on the notion that the public has knowledge of what its government is doing.

In America, under the Bush administration, largely accommodated by a relatively compliant and far right wing dominated Congress, we are starting to have exactly the opposite. Under the weak excuse of "protecting us" -- the same that has been used by governments throughout world history, whether intentionally or misguidedly ( it doesn't matter, as ultimately the effect is the same) to clamp down on the very basic fundamentals and principles required for vibrant democracy itself.

It may be acceptable for the Bush administration -- obviously possessive of a far different view of America and American principles than did our founding fathers, under our founding documents -- to try and make these arguments. But it is cowardly, for the American voter, even while we try to aggressively pursue democracy abroad, to undermine the fundamentals of a free democracy here at home by accepting them, without expressing our view through the legislative process and via the election of representatives to Congress who will see that the will of the American people is led by, and not subverted to, the will of the executive. (Even if the latter ostensibly does so with the very best of intentions, to which, unaccompanied in government by the appropriate checks and protections necessary for a full and functioning democracy, the road to hell, and to totalitarian societies both, are routinely paved.)

As Ben Franklin stated, in a paraphrased quote that simply can not be repeated often enough, "Those that would choose security over liberty deserve, and shall receive, neither."

But, Franklin's prophetic statement aside, it's not just about a perhaps unrecognized cowardly willingness to allow psychopathic terrorists to disrupt our basic values.

It's about the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. And it's about the most fundamental principles of democracy, and the flow of information that serves as its life blood.

And its about flagrant violations of our Constitution, on several levels, in pursuit of the "defense of the realm," when the President is sworn in not to defend the realm, but to defend and protect, first and foremost, the Constitution of the United States.

We, as a nation, collectively, and under the leadership of the administration and future administrations, and through our will as expressed through our elected representatives, shall provide for the defense of the realm. The administration needs to focus on providing that leadership, and not on hiding its activities from the American people or in coming up with ever more clever tautological and rhetorical catch phrases in order to circumvent the very same Constitution that it has sworn to uphold.

America needs to be informed, despite an administration that seems to seek the opposite at every term. The media needs to do its job, and the American people need to respond resoundingly, at the polls in November, to send the vibrant message to the current administration, that, yes, American principles are alive and well in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the greatest nation on earth -- and the greatest nation on earth in no small part because of these very same principles.

The Bush Administration, Hacking Away at the Twin Pillars of Our Democracy

2006-07-14T14:11:00.001-07:00

Because of its length, this is in two parts. Together they should be considered one piece. Part two will be printed tomorrow.

Part one covers the Bush Administration's approach to one of the most basic structures of our democracy; the Constitution's limitation upon the powers of government, and its separation of powers and system of checks and balances thereunder. Part two covers the Administration's approach to the lifeblood of democracy: Information.

Mark Follman, writing in Salon:

When it comes to protecting its secrets, the Bush administration has flexed
unilateral power to a degree never before seen in U.S. history. Since 2001, the administration has wielded the "state secrets" privilege as a wide-ranging weapon to snuff out legal challenges to its most Draconian tactics in the global war on terror. At stake are no less than bedrock American moral and legal principles. Bush lawyers have aimed to shoot down court cases involving the indefinite detention and brutal interrogation of prisoners, the covert transfer of terror suspects to foreign governments known to torture, and domestic surveillance prying into the lives of thousands of Americans.

And potentially into the lives of anyone. Without anyone, except the administration itself, being able to know.

But even more than the pace, what now matters is the potency of the tactic, says John Kroger, a professor at Lewis and Clark law school and a former federal posecutor. "We're seeing a radical departure in how state secrets is being invoked," he says. "We're talking about government actions affecting millions of Americans. We're facing major questions about constitutional law, and the Bush government is saying they can't be adjudicated at all. It's a huge shift in the landscape from how this doctrine has been used in the past."

This is at odds with the basic principle of separation of powers upon which our country was founded; And on top of that, "the Bush government is saying they can't be adjudicated at all."

As I noted here:

"The Executive Branch, having violated the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, also apparently believes that in related cases, it is the sole arbiter as to whether or not it has. This, of course, as a practical matter would mean that there is none."

Just a decider. Unilaterally.

"The administration's reasoning is the same used to undertake related programs which violated the Constitution's system of checks and balances in the first place. The new, legally magical, 'get out of constitutional jail free card.' I.e., 'national security.'"

In the case, which seeks damages from AT&T Corp., the government is not a plaintiff. But, in intervening to invoke the fairly rare (until now) states secret "nuclear option" to have the case dismissed, the government is in essence arguing that the Constitutionality of its program can not even be challenged in the first place.

As the Attorney General argued in a legal filing in late May: "In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated, it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security."

In other words, if the issue is the constitutionality of the action itself, the system of checks and balances under the Constitution is effectively discarded. Under this circuitous reasoning, the executive branch can do whatever it wants under the auspices of national security (secretly, to boot, and, prosecute any whistleblowers or press members for reporting it), prevent any review if there is a difference of opinion, and prevent the rest of the country, even Congress, from knowing about it. And then, on top of all that, "rule" on the constitutionality itself of the actions, thus preventing any review.

As reported in the Boston Globe, by Charlie Savage, one of the few mainstream journalists in America paying much attention to the related issue of the President's use of "signing statements," to also get around the Article I and Article II separation of powers clauses under the Constitution:

After some lawmakers raised concerns that the Patriot Act may pose a threat to civil liberties, Congress added a series of new oversight provisions to it. The law requires the Justice Department to keep track of how the FBI is using its expanded powers to monitor suspects and seize papers during counterterrorism investigations. The law required the administration to give Congress that information by certain dates.

But after Bush signed the Patriot Act reauthorization on March 9, he issued a signing statement -- an official document in which a president lays out his understanding of the law -- asserting that he had the authority to withhold the information from Congress if he decided that disclosing it would interfere with foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations (emphasis added).

The term "executive branch operations," in particular, is a catch all that almost literally means "as we so choose." More from Savage:

Two senior Democratic House members yesterday demanded that President Bush
withdraw his assertion that he can ignore portions of the USA Patriot Act calling on him to provide periodic reports to Congress on how new law-enforcement tactics ar being used.

We ask that the administration immediately rescind this statement and abide by the law," the lawmakers wrote. "Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight. The dministration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight." (emphasis also added)

Presidential signing statements are designed to clarify an interpretation of the law, not change the law. And not change the law into a form that it would not even have been passed by Congress in the first place. (Further examples of similar use of such "signing statements," are here.) But that is, nevertheless, exactly what the Administration has done.

If not a usurpation of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, "All legislative Powers (emphasis added) herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," then what is?

Although the media appears loathe to assess it objectively, it is a flagrant usurpation of Congress's powers and duties under the Csonstitution. As is the administration's argument that it can clandestinely authorize national security programs in clear violation of existing law, including programs in express contradiction of a law that was amended, as in the case of FISA, after the September 11 attacks suggesting the very same need for heightened security.

And now the Bush administration -- through the rather circuitous invocation of the "states secrets" wildcard as briefly reference above -- also wants to be the ultimate arbiter on the related issue of constitutionality as well; That is, once gain, it would substitute first for the legislature, one of our three branches of government, and now seek to substitute for the judiciary as well, the third of our three branches of government.

The Administration is essentially arguing that it can write or create the law, even laws in violation of previously existing laws, and enforce the law secretly with little or no oversight (and seek to prosecute journalists who expose to the American people what its government may be doing without their knowledge, and without their representative consent). And then on top of that serve as the sole arbiter of the law as well.

Those are not the powers of an Executive under our Constitution, but of a monarch.

The Bush administration, rather Orwellian like, nevertheless claims that it is in fact operating "within the Constitution."

Given the actions that the administration has elected to undertake, this is its only real choice. Thus, it either does not believe in the Constitution, believes in it, but that it should not apply to itself (or to republican, or to far right wing republican administrations in general), or must believe that it actually is operating within the confines of the Constitution. Yet that argument, despite meager attention by the media, is both illogical, and inconsistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.

Glenn Greenwald aptly wrote:

The theory of the Executive unconstrained by law is completely repulsive to the
founding principles of the country, as well as to the promises made by the Founders in order to extract consent from a monarchy-fearing public to the creation of executive power vested in a single individual. The notion that all of that can be just whimsically tossed aside whenever the nation experiences external threats is as contrary to the country's founding principles as it is dangerous.

Notwithstanding those threats, the Founders, in creating an Executive branch, sought first and foremost to ensure that the President could never wield unchecked powers which would exist above and separate from Congressionally enacted laws.

Yet that is exactly what the administration has done, and is what most of our current rather far right wing Congress has been relatively silent on. From this journal (also linked above):

Consider if the executive branch decided that anybody who disagreed with the administration's policies was not allowed to vote, because this might help vote out of office those who would "correctly apply the Constitution to fully protect us and our national security."

Or if it decided that the First Amendment's right to a free and independent press meant "one controlled by the government based upon national security concerns." Or if it decided in favor of the immediate incarceration of anybody who is of Middle Eastern ethnicity. Or, less logically, anybody who has red hair for that matter. Or any one of an infinite number of increasingly absurd propositions, wherein it would be patently obvious that this was unconstitutional.

All of these actions would clearly be considered "unconstitutional." Yet the exact reason that these actions would be unconstitutional is no different than the reason that the administration's current "seemingly more reasonable" activities in circumvention of the separation of powers clauses also violates the Constitution. While the particulars are all different, the underlying Constitutional principle is precisely the same:

The discretion to do "one thing" in the interest of "national security" is no more constitutionally valid, if it violates the separation of powers clauses, or some other clause of the Constitution, because it seems "reasonable" to some people, than the discretion to do "another thing" which seems to be patently unreasonable on its face.

The reason for the principle is simple, and it is one of the main distinguishing differences between an open, free representative democracy, and some form of Monarchy: It is not the role of the Executive, under the Constitution, to unilaterally decide what actions and laws to undertake (or break) for the good of the people, but is the role of the people, through their elected representatives - Congress - to decide.

Because the issue is "national security," the Administration has in essence argued that it has these "powers" under the Commander in Chief clause of Article II of the Constitution. But this assertion is extremely inconsistent with the logic of the Constitution itself, not to mention our more than 200 plus year history under it.

The Constitution conveys Congressional power with more specificity with respect to war than to the President, and, neither the Article I Section I grant of all legislative authority to Congress, nor the Article II, Section II designation of the President as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" state or imply any alteration in the basic separation of powers enumerated therein.

On top of that, such an interpretation otherwise would be illogical. It would render the most basic premise of the Constitution itself -- to establish a system of overlapping checks and balances, and a clear delineation of powers therein -- essentially null and void in all times of war or alleged war.

Thus, to make this argument that the Executive branch can unilaterally do what it believes to be right, despite pre existing law, in the interests of national security -- indicates a clear belief that the Constitution, in obvious contravention of our founding fathers intent, should have granted such unchecked powers. The "circuitous, highly rhetorical, and wrangled legal reasoning" employed is just simply a way to avoid the appearance of simply outright making the statement that the Constitution is wrong.

But the Constitution is not wrong, because it does not make sense, consistent with American principles of democracy, to grant the Executive essentially what would amount to the powers of a monarch, during any time of war, whether declared or undeclared by Congress -- let alone during a "time of war against terrorism," which may continue on in perpetuity. The President's charge is to defend the Constitution, and to take care that the Laws be properly executed under it.

Congress represents the people of the United States. In a democracy, the voters, through their duly elected representatives, have both the right, and the oblgibation to decide the content of laws that potentially impinge upon their own freedoms and liberty. Not the President.

As noted in a comprehensive report by the conservative Cato Institute:

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes:

A federal government empowered to regulate core political speech--and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election; a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror; a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror-- in other words, perhaps forever; and a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life.

From the Bush Administration's numerous "trust us" statements to the effect that we are doing this "very carefully," it would appear that the administration is acting under very narrowly defined applications of a doctrine that, nevertheless, grants the executive the power to essentially do whatever it wants. But aside from the apparent "good intentions" of the Executive, there is no way of knowing exactly how such actions, known or unknown, and either now, or in the future, are actually being applied, and used. This is the precise reason why the United States, and other free democracies, have never granted such unfettered power, and it is why our Constitution not only does not recognize it, but expressly prohibits it.

In other words, under our Constitution, and I would argue very rightly so, ours is not a government built upon the inherent protections of "good intentions." Ours is a government built upon the checks and balances and clear separation and delineation of powers that the document was purposefully written to establish in the first place.

Our system of checks and balances serves as part of the fundamental structure of our emocracy. The free flow of information, as with any well functioning democracy, serves as its life blood. Part II of this article, which covers the administration's approach to the governmental part of this lifeblood, and as noted at the outset, will follow as a separate piece.

The Essence of Fox

2006-07-14T13:35:00.000-07:00

What the Fox channel says: "Fair and balanced."

What the Fox channel really means. "Every man has a perfect right to his opinion, so long as it agrees with ours."

From the Colbert Report, as noted by Editor and Publisher:

Superman, [Colbert] said, went so far as to hide his identity "by disguising himself as the farthest thing from a hero -- a newspaper reporter." He could have broken the story of his own identity at any time, won headlines and maybe a Pulitzer, but no, he wanted to save his friends Jimmy and Lois from the terror of Lex Luthor.

So Superman, Colbert added, courageously continued to be "a pretend journalist"-- with a title card on the screen next to Colbert commenting "like Brit Hume." [Of Fox]

Colbert is correct about Hume, and Fox. [Numerous cites, examples, links, at bottom.]

Fox's "news" channel is not a real news station. It covers non policy and politics news reasonably well, and on its main focus, policy and politics, it offers "other views' -- in order to masquerade as a news station -- that are often weak, distorted, misleading, or factually erroneous.

This case simply has to be made to mainstream America. It would be as if "Air America" radio decided to start a TV station, solely to promote its agenda and its views, and decided it would have a bigger impact if it offered some contrary views and pretended to be an actual news channel.

Fox as a news station has also had an underestimated effect on the debate in America. It is a large part of the problem. Not because of its views, but because it it pretends to be something it is not.

Nobody -- moderate republican (to the extent that exists anymore, as it is certainly getting wiped out in national politics), moderate democrat, independent, democrat or liberal, should go on that station. Nobody should refer to it as a news station. (Obviously, conservatives and the more dominant right wing conservatives will, because they don't see it that way. They see a station that reports politics and policy news in the manner in which they would like to see it presented, with just enough "balance" to actually fool them into thinking that they are covering all sides to the appropriate issues, accurately, and with the right emphasis and attention.)

Nor is this going down a "slippery slope." There is a difference between "bad news" stations (which most are) and a partisan right wing channel pretending to offer "balanced" news and analysis, in order to fool itself and America into believing it is something that it is not. But more importantly, the case needs to be repeatedly made, because that station is manipulating America. And more of America than many think.

In fact, a recent comprehensive poll found "the BBC, Fox News and Al Jazeera the most trusted brands in their respective home regions."

Rregardless of whether the poll is correct or incorrect, the channel is the most watched show "news" channel on cable, constantly referred to, and constantly cited, as a mainstream source of news. And through its impact both direct and indirect, it exerts a tremendous effect upon the nature of the debate in America today. To discount it's importance, merely because "everybody knows" (or, more accurately, "some people know"), that it is highly biased, is a huge mistake.

Keeping in mind that information is the lifeblood of democracy, here is a fairly amazing breakdown of the misperceptions of Fox viewers, versus those that watch other shows. Is this coincident to Fox's constant distortions? Or correlated?

Newshounds, albeit it has left plenty out, and sometimes inadvertently presents a slant of its own, nevertheless, with a limited budget, has done a fairly good job, and still has thousands of pages of evidence of Fox's distortions.

A few more examples of errors and patterns:

---A typical "mistake" distorting Democratic Senator Richard Durbin's remarks, made on Brit Hume's show, and never corrected.
---A Fox "analyst" spins, rather than reports, on the Jose Padilla case. Contrast this with the legal brief in favor of Padilla, filed by the conservative Cato Institute. The case briefly explained, and the Cato institute suggesting (correctly) that strongly conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig erred in rendering an extremely broad reading of a Congressional Statute -- the same Judge Luttig that the Fox "analyst" spun even further to appear more supportive of the administration.
---Brit Hume, rearranges Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words to tell viewers he said something completely different from what he actually said.
---Georgetown law professor David Cole illustrates first hand how the "No Spin Zone, behind the scene, and very purposefully, spun like crazy. Perfect for a campaign trying to present a point of view, yet the very anathema of responsible journalism itself.
---Before he ironically (or not so ironically) became administration press secretary, Fox host Tony Snow repeats decidedly erroneous information about a critical, and purposeful, governmental leak.
---The station presents "balanced" views on global warming, mainly by analysts with large industry ties or other subjective bias.
---Fox is the first to report a "news briefing" given in 2002 by Richard Clarke, largely contradicting Clarke's later claims after he was no longer associated with the administration. While it subsequently came to light (albeit not in this Fox article) that Clarke was charged with presenting the administration's viewpoint as his job, what was not presented was that when Clarke gave that briefing to reporters in 2002 they agreed not to use his name. This agreement was not only broken by Fox in airing this story, they also neglected to mention it. (Incidentally, almost everything Clarke said in that briefing was technically true, but much of it was highly misleading.)

An online editorial, technically overstated but not all that far off considering the role that Fox plays, reasons:

Relying on the Fox News Channel as your only source of news is like using MAD Magazine as a legitimate source of news. The Fox News Channel's reporting style is so biased and skewed that trying to obtain any real information from a news report is quite challenging. Fox News is a joke because it provides info-tainment rather than reality-based news coverage. Fox News Channel is a "news channel" in name only. The network is what L.A. Times Editor John S. Carroll calls "pseudojournalism."

Although TV news in general is sensationalist...Fox News is a modern day example of the "unreliable narrator." [It] places an acute spin in nearly every story it represents and in some cases presents untruths as truth.

Here's another brief list of examples regarding one of Fox's "journalists." Another example is here, with dozens of links to further, more egregious - if not sometimes factually or logically outrageous - examples.

The movie "Outfoxed," somewhat objectively, details how what Fox is doing, is very different from what it tells its audience it is doing.

From the Guardian, about the movie:

The title indicates the program's partisan approach. After watching Fox News at work for a while however, you wonder at how mild the title is.

For this is a scarifying expose of right-wing propagandists masquerading as news reporters, deliberately misleading the US (and world) public and waging a class war on behalf of corporate heavies. And determining Fox's policies and approach is the man at the top, the media moguls' media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.

The program is mainly concerned with revealing the ways Fox News distorts news, wages co-ordinated character assassination campaigns and basically presents "News"...devoid of responsibility or journalistic ethics.

Over 2 dozen memos by Fox news chief John Moody, regardless of what one thinks of the content, illustrate the clear intent to "push" an agenda, rather than report the news. Maureen Farell, writing in a rather discomforting piece back in 2004, aptly summarized a few:

"[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day," FOX News chief John Moody e-mailed staffers on June 3, 2003, in one of many instances where reporters were instructed to glowingly praise G.W. Bush as Fearless Leader Extraordinaire.

"The President goes to Charlotte to talk about job training. Buoyed by the 300K job figure last week, he can boast his policies are working," Moody wrote on April 4, 2004.

The Democratic presidential candidate, however, was not granted the same "fair and balanced" courtesy. Though Moody instructed FOX staffers give each candidate equal time, the pro-Bush/anti-Kerry bias was obvious. "John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP," Moody e-mailed staffers on March 12, 2004. ". . . his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign."

"Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia," Moody explained four days later. Etc.

Summing it all up, James Goldsborough aptly notes:

In 1996, Fox News was invented by an expatriate news mogul named Rupert Murdoch.

I'd seen what Murdoch did to the British newspapers he bought, moving them somewhere to the right of the queen, and saw what he did to The New York Post, which became a staunch Gingrich supporter.

But what would Murdoch do with a national U.S. cable news network? Eight years later, we have the answer: He has made Fox News the official Bush network, an extension of the White House press office.

Posing as a news station. And manipulating America in the process.

What Do Democrats Stand For?

2006-07-10T08:11:00.000-07:00

"Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard working Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then -- we elected them." -Lily Tomlin.

Question: how do democrats respond to the increasing domination of national politics by the far right wing?

Answer: by replacing a necessary focus on effectively communicating what needs to be communicated, with the democrats' view of "pragmatism."

Unfortunately, however, this approach, as "pragmatically" appealing as it may be, allows the far right wing to continue to define the terms of the debate.

Two weeks ago the Senate - by one vote - defeated a proposed Amendment to the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit U.S. flag desecration. On that same day, Several Senators, led by Richard Durbin (D-IL) (the bill's original sponsor) and Hillary Clinton,
co-sponsored legislation that would have instead by-passed such an amendment, and simply criminalized flag desecration "designed to incite."

According to a NY Times piece, interestingly entitled, "Senator Clinton and Liberals Split Over Flag Desecration," Clinton told the Senate:

"Fortunately, we have an opportunity to protect our flag in a bipartisan and constitutional way."

But as the U.S. Supreme Court correctly ruled, in Texas v.Johnson, 1989, it would not be a constitutional way.

Among the dissenters in the Texas case, was Justice Stevens, a so called "liberal." Among the majority was Justice Scalia, a noted right wing conservative. Justice Kennedy, a conservative, also joined the majority.

In other words, flag burning is not necessarily the "liberal" issue that the cited NY Times article, and some democrats, as discussed below, seem to want to counterproductively define it.

The argument of Justice Stevens, the liberal, in his dissent in the Texas case, is still relevant today:

The Court is therefore quite wrong in blandly asserting that respondent "was posecuted for his expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, expression situated at the core of our First Amendment values."Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray-paint - or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector - his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power ofthe Government to prohibit his means of expression.

Justice Stevens is wrong here. The method chosen is part of the concept of "speech" itself, and should be protected unless that method infringes upon the rights of others. The two examples cited involve the desecration of ( or, in the case of the images on the Monument - the impedement of others' ability to view), a public good, and thus infringe upon just such a right; not just a"symbol" of that public good. To say that the public owns every "symbol" -- even if it is the flag -- of such a public good, and that this trumps an individual's right to own a copy of that symbol and thus express it in a manner of their choosing, is a far different matter than what Stevens here represents.

But does Senator Clinton really agree with Stevens, the liberal? Doubtful. What Senator Clinton wanted to do was probably "play politics," and pass a law which for the moment would have the same practical effect of an Amendment (at least until the Courts revisit the issue and rule otherwise), rather than take the far more draconian step of actually passing an Amendment and changing the Constitution. [It should also be noted, however, that as written, the Flag bill may have presented a different set of questions before the Court, since its authors apparently took tortured pains to make it pass constitutional muster by seemingly limiting the ever popular flag desecration, to the even more popular "flag desecration designed to incite."]

These considerations aside, passing a national law to criminalize the desecration of the flag is still far more radical than if the Supreme Court had refused to rule on the matter of a local jurisdiction's right to pass such a law in the first place. In other words, the threshold is far lower for the states, and local jurisdictions, who have greater rights to determine the laws under which they choose to live, than the federal government has to dictate. But that principle seems utterly lost upon both parties today.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-ILL) criticized the proposed Amendment, essentially stating that it was playing politics. But Durbin himself brought the flag burning criminalization bill to the floor. If that was not playing politics (and playing it poorly) what is?

According to the Time's article, while Durbin's proposed national flag "burning" law only received 36 votes, over half of the Senate Democrats supported it. Again, presumably as an alternative to the far more grave step of Amending the U.S. Constitution, and, apparently, as an alternative to otherwise simply explaining and sticking up for the fundamental principles involved.

The Times' article goes on to note:

The divergent views of [this] position reflect a broader rift in the Democratic Party over whether the key to electoral success rests in winning over centrists or by drawing clear distinctions with Republicans by staking out unapologetically liberal positions.

Perhaps that is the way that democrats see it. If true, this is a big part of their problem. Because it is not the way that it is. It is the way that the far right has framed it, and that democrats are now, incorrectly, playing right into. In this regard, they have perahps achieved the dual accomplishment of being wrong both on the policy, and on the politics.

What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats."

Effectively making and conveying one's case to a cross section of America better than the other side (which, versus the far right, by having the facts on their side, democrats already have had an enormous advantage the past several years) wins elections. Not "pragmatism." If by pragmatism, McMahon means "effective strategy" -- though these two terms are very different --this statement is more applicable.

But "effective strategy" here would be to start illustrating how the far right wing doesn't understand the principles upon which America was founded, and why these principles matter. And that it is now playing more games with the flag, and more games of rhetoric. And that it probably intends to (this line is a set up in advance, to turn it into an advantage when they do engage in it), as yet another way to run from both the issues and its record, in November.

Additionally, illustrating a tendency that is very prevalant among democrats, and not as prevalent among republicans, McMahon did not really help to communicate any message that the democrats need to communicate.

Press coverage of actual quotes is extremely limited as it is. Why waste such a critical opportunity to convey, reconvey, explain or recite a critical message or fact? Telling the press, for reiteration to the public, that "pragmatism" wins democrats elections, doesn't help win democrats elections. In the meantimes, democrats often wonder why the far right's talking points seem to always sink in, regardless of fact. Two reasons. 1) They effectively communicate them, and 2) they do so constantly, taking every opportunity to reiterate and supplement them.

Ironically, the NY Times also notes that John Kerry voted in favor of the proposed law as well, again, suggesting that it was out of pragmatism. Yet what a group of pragmatists those democrats are, as the Constitution of the United States gets flouted by the same right wing that wants to wrap itself in the flag that stands for its principles, this message is also barely being effectively conveyed. Even the Senator, apart from Russ Feingold, who has been leading the charge against the administration, is a conservative (Arlen Specter). (On top of that, Specter has been repeatedly and counterproductively attacked by liberals for where he is wrong, 1)instead of being supported and encouraged where he is correct, and 2) instead of taking that same energy and directing it towards the democrats in the Senate who have barely even raised the issue.)

Regarding Senator Kerry, the Times states:

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former presidential nominee, voted for the measure, which closely resembled past efforts to pre-empt an amendment to the Constitution. Democrats who voted for the measure in effect bought themselves the right to claim that they had voted against flag desecration, potentially inoculating themselves against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign.

The inherent and insulting suggestion of what patriotism is aside -- yet note that the more it's played into, the more weight it will carry -- this suggestion by the Times is rather ironic. Kerry was unfairly characterized as a wishy washy flip flopper with respect to the Iraq war - and I have repeatedly suggested this. But he did make it easy for the far right wing and the media to do. So is the "pragmatism" playbook here for democrats to be able to say, if their opponents don't beat them to it: "First I voted for flag burning before I voted against it"? Regardless, and more importantly, if democrats continue to implicity allow patriotism (along with almost everything else) to be defined by the far right wing, it certainly will be.

To be fair, the strategic assessment offered in the quote above was rendered by the article's author, Anne E. Kornblut, but it is not that far from Senator Clinton's proposition that passing a national flag desecration law would "protect" the flag in a constitutional way, and the fact that many Senators, who surely at least understand the ideas enunciated above and here, nevertheless voted for it.

But more importantly, whatever the thinking, it is clear that the larger principles are, once again, being ignored. Let alone a critical opportunity to convey them, as well as expose the game playing, or worse, that the far right is once again engaging in.

As noted here:

FOURTEEN democrats (and all but 3) republicans voted FOR this amendment, which fell just one vote short of being eligible for state ratification.

THAT IS HOW OUT OF TOUCH OUR CURRENT (largely far right wing) CONGRESS IS WITH THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES that make America, America.

Hitler outlawed flag burning in the 30's as one of his first acts. In Tiannamen square, protestors burning the Chinese flag were imprisoned for years.

Not sure if it is the complete list, but other countries that outlaw burning their flag today are Iran and Cuba. Hmm, we're in pretty good company on this one, huh...

For the record, I think that burning the flag is pretty idiotic. But that's not the point.

The point is:
A country that needs to criminalize the desecration of the "symbol" of the very freedoms for which it stands, is losing its grip on those very same freedoms, or doesn't understand what they mean in the first place (which is ultimately going to mean the same thing).

The text of the so called "Flag Protection Act of 2006" also appears to be an act of political grandstanding. It states therein:

"The purpose of this section is to provide the maximum protection against the use of the flag of the United States to promote violence while respecting the liberties that it symbolizes."

Did Stephen Colbert write this line? Yes, flag burning to incite violence is a big problem in the U.S. Right ahead of global warming. And UFO citings in Nevada.

The proposed bill also stated:

Abuse of the flag of the United States causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals at whom the threat is targeted.

If people in America are getting more than pained and distressed over the idea that some misguided idiot somewhere may be desecrating a flag (rare as that actually is) in symbolic or defiant protest, but aren't at the fact that basic principles of government upon which this country was founded, and upon which democracy thrives, are being routinely disregarded, then, Houston, "we have a problem."

It sure is not going to be solved by passing yet another law in conflict with the values upon which this country was founded, let alone, ironically, one to "protect" the symbol of those very same principles in favor of upholding the actual principles themselves. Because then all we do is weaken what America stands for even further: That symbol derives its strength not because we as a group have to manufacture conformity to the beliefs for which it stands, but, precisely, because, we do not.

And democrats can not explain this to America?

the Far Right's View of Power is Far Wrong

2006-07-03T11:24:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, regarding Hamden:

What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists... We are currently evaluating the writings of the Supreme Court... and we are going to be working closely with Congress to look at legislation.

What the decision did -- this coming from a right wing Supreme Court, that if anything has been extremely accodomating to the administration and right wing policies -- as CNN explains it, is rule that the government "must adopt a military system for trying suspected terrorists consistent with international standards," as established by the Geneva Conventions.

In other words, the administration -- which had sought the power to designate anyone as a terror suspect, and then hold them, under a standard and duration of its own choosing, without any of the rights afforded citizens of the U.S. under our Constitution and laws of due process, or any of the rights afforded under International Standards (which would grant it the powers of a monarchy in this regard since there would be no protections with respect to who was so designated, whether correctly or incorrectly) -- now, wants to circumvent the clear purpose of the Constitution in establishing a check upon too much power, and grant itself such unfettered powers anyway.

It is quite remarkable. Not so much that the administration is doing this. (It is the nature of mankind. It is why democracies fail, and why there are so many ultimately repressive regimes -- almost all founded upon the ideals of "good intentions" -- and why our Constitution was written in the first place). But that there is so little recognition of it.

It represents a loss of recognition of the principles upon which this country was founded, and why they matter. Accompanied by very poor coverage of these issues in the first place, which helps to enable this loss of recognition. (And, I would also suggest, a failure on the part of our many other prominent pundits, leaders, statesmen, and political strategists, to focus on making the proper points.)

As this article (also linked in the Post below) notes, with a few brief comments inserted:

"There is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by [what amount to] totalitarian methods ... These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists [or "designated terrorists" ] without trial, and perhaps the process won't stop at Fascists." - George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press

The strength and importance of How Would A Patriot Act? as a polemic is that it lays out a clear and easy to follow case that the Bush administration, acting on radical legal theory developed by John Yoo, has claimed for itself unlimited executive power to prosecute an indefinite "war on terror."[Glenn Greenwald] develops this central premise by going through various administration scandals - the use of torture, imprisonment of US citizens without due process, NSA domestic surveillance in violation of the law, etc - and relating how they follow logically from John Yoo's belief that nothing, not Congress, nor the Courts, can limit the president's power to act in the name of national security.

On Greenwald's site are a few a links to reviews of his book, referenced in the first quote above. Almost all of them call Greenwald a "left wing" blogger, or, without qualification, allude to the fact that it is considered a "liberal" book. But Greenwald is not left wing (nor is the author of this site). And it is not a liberal book.

Yet this misperception of someone who argues in favor of upholding the most basic structure of our Constitution and processes of government established thererunder, as we have almost without controversy for over 200 years, is a reflection of the pervasive pattern of mischaracterization by the far right; a pattern that has shifted the debate far to the right, and helped shift the makeup of our current national political leaders, even farther to the right.

Perhaps the leading conservative think tank in America (not far right think tank -- that might be the Heritage Foundation), essentially makes similar fundamental points as Greenwald.

The American Conservative, as far back as 2003, also made similar arguments at least with respect to the concept of expanded federal power, even before knowledge of the current and far more egregious Constitutional transgressions at issue.

As Republican Representative Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) puts it:

The duties of the Congress and the President under the Constitution are different.

The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He executes the laws, administers programs and conducts our foreign affairs.

The Congress makes the laws. We oversee their implementation and authorize the creation of agencies, departments and programs. We regulate the armed forces, and appropriate the money.

This system of divided power with checks and balances is derived from our Constitution, but woven into our civic life and it has done exactly what our founding fathers intended it to do: it has kept us free.

The men who wrote our Constitution were quite familiar with armed conflict. Even in time of war, they feared a strong executive with a standing army that might erode the precious liberties that they had risked everything to secure. Our Constitution with divided powers operates in war and in peace.

When the Congress authorizes the President to used force against an enemy, we are not relinquishing our powers under the Constitution, we are exercising them.

Greenwald also made a similar point last December, one day after the NSA surveillance program was disclosed:

It cannot be said that the Founders were unaware of the potential for national emergencies and external threats. They engaged in a war with the British which was at least as much of an existential threat to the Republic as those posed by 9/11 and related threats of Islamic extremism. Notwithstanding those threats, the Founders, in creating an Executive branch, sought first and foremost to ensure that the resident could never wield unchecked powers which would exist above and separate from Congressionally enacted laws.

Yet the veil that the far right has somehow pulled over the American Public's eyes, and that the media has largely gone along with, is that these views are somehow "left wing." It is not reality. When a free democracy starts ever so slightly to lose its grip on democracy, and what democracy means, the first thing that does is political reality. Left wing?:

Representative C.L. Otter (R-ID), Assistant Majority Whip, stated: "The Founders envisioned a nation where people's privacy was respected and the government's business was open. These actions turn that vision on its head."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), mincing words when asked if the Executive Branch had the legal authority to engage in the (still ongoing) program, "you know, I don't think so."

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stated that; "no president can dismiss a law. We need wiretaps, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), along with Hagel, were signatories to a letter stating: "We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-NC) "If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don't know of any legal basis to go around that."

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), "where is the outrage?" Several days later, Specter stated that his own party, "needs somebody to stand up to the President."

Former U.S Attorney and Congressman, and noted conservative, Bob Barr:

Of course, I found no such authority, because none exists. Such was never even presumed to be implied by the drafters of that magnificent document.

Yet, this is precisely the power the president is now claiming. Truly, it is a breathtaking assertion of presidential power. If, in fact, the country allows it to stand, then there will be virtually no limit to the areas into which it might extend. Remember, the president claims that the venue of the so-called "war" against terror is as much within our borders as outside, and its duration perpetual.

The current extreme right view of power asserted by the administration, supported via various legal and logical contortions by occasional extreme Bush apologists and far right wing blogs, is nevertheless duly reported on by a henpecked media as if it is really is a legitimate "controversy" -- fearful, heaven forbid, of ever appearing "biased" to a public that doesn't know the facts, and can't know the facts unless they are reported correctly by the media in the first place.

But as the first quote mentioned above aptly notes, the adminstration's sseemingly anti-Constituitional assertions stem directly from the theories of Berkeley Professor John Yoo. But Yoo's theories are radical, and they are wrong:

To disregard [the Constitution's basic separation of powers premise] in time of "war," as Professor John Yoo of Berkeley....argues in favor of the President's right to do whatever he wants as Commander in Chief...is tantamount to arguing that the Constitutionion itself does not apply in any alleged Time of war.

Aside from the fact that; 1) the Constitution conveys Congressional power with more specificity with respect to war than to the President,and 2) the fact that neither the Article I Section I grant of all legislative authority to Congress, nor the Article II, Section II designation of the President as, quote,"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States," neither state nor imply anyalteration in the basic separation of powers enumerated therein - such an interpretation is also illogical:

It would render the most basic premise of the Constitution itself -- to establish a system of overlapping checks and balances, and a clear delineation of powers therein -- completely null and void in all times of war or alleged war.

Yet this precise view, essentially, has been repeatedly presented as mainstream, and reasonable.

Holding Debate Hostage: THE DISTORTION AND RHETORIC OF A SHOW POSING AS A NEWS SHOW, ON A STATION THAT POSES AS A NEWS STATION

2006-06-30T18:17:00.000-07:00

[[update: for numerous links and examples, see bottom of post]]

One of the most popular talk and radio show hosts in America apparently thinks that al-Qaeda Terrorism leader Usama Bin Laden, by voicing opinions, ought to be able to stifle debate in America -- the land of the free and home of the brave.

The following exchange, between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and host Sean Hannity, is from the Fox Channel's Hannity and Colmes entertainment show, where they pretend to discuss serious issues, and often distort fact and logic beyond recognition in the process. (But in a "fair and balanced," way, as this manipulative channel is quick to point out every ten minutes or so.)

NEWT GINGRICH: I think it's quite clear as you point out...that bin
Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media,
they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a
great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States
policies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be a free society and have
open debate, but we should recognize, when some of our politicians
use very extreme language or some of our celebrities -- like Michael
Moore -- use very extreme language, that the enemy does, in fact, take
great comfort from that. [This is an interesting point. Michael Moore's
often inane and unhelpful rantings aside, let's stifle debate for these
psychopaths on top of having 3000 of our citizens murdered,
because heaven forbid, they "take comfort." How about we
capture and eliminate them?]

HANNITY: It's more than that. I think it's also the leaders in the
Democratic Party that, from the very beginning, have undermined
this war. If I were to give you a quiz, Mr. Speaker, and if I would
say to you, "You know, was it [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA], [House
Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], [Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA]
who said, 'George Bush gives continuous, deliberate misinformation.
Polls reveal that we want to withdraw from Iraq.' " You would have
guessed either of -- any of those. Well, it was bin Laden who said that.

A question for Mr. Hannity, and for the many other far right wingers in the media who are using UBL to propagandize their own form of inane logic: If Bin Laden said that polls reveal that we wanted to stay in Iraq, should we then leave Iraq because of what Bin Laden says? What if Bin Laden asked us to stay? What if he asked us to leave? Separate question; why are you even listening to him?

Hannity is arguing that by disagreeing with policy, democrats undermine it. (As a side note: does this apply when democrats are in office as well, or just when far right wing republicans are?). The host of the show preceding Hannity and Colmes, Fox's Bill O'Reilly, has often made the same point. But O'Reilly adds that "dissent is okay, undermining is not okay," without realizing that the distinction between "dissent" and "undermining" is solely dependent on the point of view of the one making this contention.

A new standard of doublespeak occurs on this channel, where Hannity, O'Reilly, and others continue to say "dissent is okay," and then almost each time an example of dissent is discussed, say that it "undermines" the war, or something else.

Hannity, taking this same illogic even further, even wrote a book that by its very title labels Despots, Terrorists, and Liberals as similarly evil.

Intriguingly, a despot is a regime leader that tightly controls information, and usurps power, often even beginning with good intentions or motives. Under the laws and Constitution of our democracy, it is difficult to do this. But the current administration, which Hannity is such a big fan of, has pushed the bounds of both the law and the Constitution to move us in this direction.

So maybe it should be "Despots, Terrorists, and Conservatives"? Both suggestions, of course, are absurd. But the first two categories cited, Despots and Terrorists, have more in common with conservative; the latter engage far more often in propaganda, and, at least today, seem to believe in far more and even unchecked power of the government over individuals. History note to conservatives; almost ALL despotism arose out of "good intentions."

With respect to Hannity's ridiculous logic, and, it can not be emphasized enough, the logic of other far right wingers in the media, the idea that democrats may make a point that terrorists may make is not a similarity, any more than the fact that if a terrorist says something correct, e.g.,"the United States is a big country," makes the terrorist any less of a terrorist. A terrorist is one defined by one's actions, and threats, not the logic of their policy belief. But that is the type of inverted logic that the right wing engages in. (Logic, incidentally, that more closely parallels the logic patterns of al-Qaeda than the logic patterns of other political groups do.) Even more ironically, the type of anti-Western fundamental Islamic extremist terrorism that we are seeing, hates our freedoms and open democracy, the very things that the far right would to some extent sacrifice under the notion of "fighting terrorists," in effect giving them an immediate victory in some sense. That is, by moving closer towards the ideal of the closed and more restrictive state that the terrorists (with the one distinguishing aspect being the "feature" religion, of course) favor -- and that we, as one of the things that as Americans distinguishes us from them -- disagree with.

[[ update: Perhaps two of the more important paragraphs written in America in a long time (albeit the first is actually a quote from George Orwell) help explain why the far right wing is so wrong -- and it is not, as some liberals often incorrectly surmise, that conservatives are "evil," or, even, "liars," but that while touting the rhetoric, they don't understand the principles that make America, America, the principles upon which this country was founded, the principles of our Constitution, and more importantly, why they matter. Read the first two paragraphs here.

Even a conservative reading these paragraphs, if minimally open minded, will be able to see how clearly they apply to the logic of Sean Hannity, and, indeed, to the very title of his best seller itself. A far right wing conservative? Often, they don't seem to be able to see this. But perhaps, other than those few who really don't believe in the fundamentals of democracy and simply don't recognize this fact(Hannity may well fit into that category), that is because the case has not been made sufficiently and consistently enough.

If there were a legitimate predominant gripe about democrats, it is is not, as Hannity suggests, that they undermine "Hannity and others'" vision of America by disagreeing with them on policy and the need to discuss that policy, it is that they don't make the correct and most important case (or any case, really, seemingly allowing the far right to dominate the debate while misfocusing on "handicapping the horse race," concluding, arguing, complaining of calling the other side names because they just can't believe that they "don't get it."). Let alone in a manner that can be understood and appreciated by a cross section of America, and, let lone focusing on it and saturating the market with it. The far right, on the other hand, constantly saturates the market with what, at least in this instance, has been clearly shown to be propaganda, even if believed by those blindly uttering it in the name of their narrow vision of what America is. And almost always constantly saturates the market with what it thinks it believes, even if wrong.

Additionally, even if what defines a "far right wing" conservative is that they really don't believe in the fundamentals of openness, limited government, and equal freedom and liberty for all that this country was founded and has grown on, that would not include most Americans. But because of all the misleading, confusing rhetoric out there, and the dearth of constant attention on the right things that need to be focused on, many people are confused, and mislead on these matters.

Such misunderstanding (and accompanying domination by rhetoric rather than reason and fact) is how and why a good portion of the world has not been completely free for much of its history. There is in fact a reason that America has stood for so long as a beacon to the world for some of these principles; Because of constant attention on them when it becomes relevant, and on an understanding of what they mean, and why they matter.]]

The hypocrisy over saying that one respects democracy on the one hand, then lashing out at one of its essential elements, on the other, are bad enough. Yet the implications of what Hannity (and to a lesser extent, other far right wingers in the media) says are worse: Does this mean that if Bin Laden said that if the Red Sox won the World Series, anybody in America who also said that the Red Sox won the World Series (or should win the world series, or any other point of view for that matter), is also a "traitor?" (As Hannity has said he thinks anybody who "undermines" the war in Iraq is). Or is it just on matters of national policy that we are stifled from debate, under the perverted "let us be ruled by what some terrorist says" logic of this joke of a show that somehow not only passes for news, but is a popular program on just about the most watched so called "news" cable station in America.

Here's another suggestion for Hannity, or for any American who thinks we are doing a great job on terrorism just because of all the rhetoric we are hearing and all the spying on Americans we are doing:

How about we catch the guy responsible for the brutal murder of 3000 American civilians, and for destroying a small portion of our largest city, then we don't need to worry about what he says.

This is America, one has a right to a view, no matter how illogical. Disagreement is also one of the cornerstones of democracy. It is ironic that that same someone (and others), whose logic is often backward, labels most of those who disagree with him as traitors. Yet Hannity (and others) does not even seem to understand the views that he condemns, or the views of those that he condemns, as not a show goes by where he does not grossly distort those views or engage in some paradigm of logic, often repeatedly.

Why would he, and other far right wingers, need to do this? If it is purposeful, Hannity is manipulating and lying to his audience. If not it means he does not even understand the views that he is condemning. That's not journalism. That's zealotry.

Those who recognize this about the show, nevertheless not only allow it and allow it to mischaracterize them, but legitimize it as well by constantly referring to or appearing on it as a source of news. Then, on the other hand, with respect to making such points as these here, instead marginalizing the station's importance as if "everybody knows this." (If they did, it wouldn't be watched, and it would not constantly be referenced as a mainstream source of news, let alone among the most watched if not most watched "news" related stations on cable television.) This needs to be reversed; That is, towards marginalizing the station's importance as a source of "news and analysis," and maximizing the manipulative effect of this station by posing as an objective source of news analysis as well as a mainstream news station when, in the coverage of policy and politics related news, it is anything but. In fact, again, typically democrats have done the opposite, counterproductively in each regard.

Where are the democrats, the moderates, the independents, even that dying breed of moderate republicans, out in the mainstream making the correct case about this station? And where are those dastardly traitors, the "liberals" themselves (although Hannity, and most of the representatives of Fox's 'balanced' hosts label almost anybody who makes a reasonable point that disagrees with their position as a "liberal"), who incorrectly marginalize Fox's importance while at the same time getting ripped apart in the public arena by it?? (also mistakenly refered to, for the search engines only, as the "Fox news channel").

For examples regarding this show, see here, here, here here, here, and here,

Here, the Dean of Hartford Seminary College convincingly argues that host Sean Hannity needs a course in basic logic.

More on the clever as a fox station itself is here, here and here.

For examples on the sister show preceding the Hannity and Colmes debacle, the "O'Reilly Factor," and its "fair and balanced" right wing conservative host [update: Not the "no spin zone" but the "Orwellian Zone"] see:
Here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here here, here, here, and here.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AGAIN MISSES the point of democracy

2006-06-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

This is just another example of a pervasive pattern. A pattern that requires far more attention than it is getting:

Horrendous media coverage of the issues. And the ensuing tendency by the far right wing to distort the facts, and engage in misleading rhetoric or inverted logic that nevertheless "sounds" good without any further examination.

"Without any further examination" is exactly what the AP's Laurie Kellman did with respect to the Bush administration's argument that it can use signing statements to accomplish what in effect amount to changes in the law.

Give the AP credit, at least, for covering what is a huge story, yet one which has been barely noticed by the media. It was covered here, because Senator Arlen Specter, serving in his once again dual role of conservative Senator who nevertheless realizes something is not quite right with this far right wing conservative administration's interpretation of it, has stated that Bush's use of signing statements are "a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution."

This statement, however, was buried deep in the article, which started off with the administration's claims, presented almost as fact, rather than as anything even remotely resembling the basically meaningless and seemingly made up rhetoric which they represent.

As originally reported by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe, one of the few reporters that had been paying much attention to this issue of all:

Two senior Democratic House members yesterday demanded that President Bush withdraw his assertion that he can ignore portions of the USA Patriot Act calling on him to provide periodic reports to Congress on how new law-enforcement tactics are being used.

..."We ask that the administration immediately rescind this statement and abide by the law," the lawmakers wrote. ''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight. The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight"(emphasis added).

Kellmans's piece nevertheless begins:

The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation's security.

"There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The Bush administration has simply come up with these magical catch phrases, "constitutionality," or "constitutional grounds," that have absolutely no meaning herein, for simply changing laws that it disagrees with.

Yet Kellman's article gives almost no indication of this.

To be fair, the administration is likely referring to its overall, implicit view that it can basically do whatever it believes in or wants to in the name of national security. Despite the fact that the President is sworn first and foremost to defend the Constitution, this bizarre (or, alternatively, simply anti-constitutional) assertion is illogical.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

Notwithstanding those threats, the Founders, in creating an Executive branch, sought first and foremost to ensure that the President could never wield unchecked powers which would exist above and separate from Congressionally enacted laws.

With respect to the NSA surveillance and related issues, and, one assumes, the sudden magical ability of the President, through the use of signing statements, to merely change Congressional laws as he sees fit; that is exactly, as noted here, what the administration has done.

Think of as akin to the right to vote. Say that the executive branch decided that anybody who disagreed with the Administration's policies was not allowed to vote, because this might help vote out of office those who would "correctly apply the Constitution to fully protect us and our national security."

Or if it decided that the first amendment's right to a free press meant "one controlled by the government based upon national security concerns." Or if it decided in favor of the immediate incarceration of anybody who is Middle Eastern. Or who has red hair for that matter. Or any one of an infinite number of seemingly increasingly absurd propositions, wherein it would be patently obvious (even to the far right wing, that otherwise does not seem to understand these basic principles of democracy upon which our country was founded) that this was unconstitutional.

All of these are precisely analogous to the current argument. That is, as noted in this same piece:

The discretion to do "one thing" in the interest of "national security" is no more constitutionally valid, if it violates the separation of powers clauses, or some other clause of the Constitution, because it seems "reasonable" to some people, than the discretion to do "another thing" which seems [as in the above analogies] to be patently unreasonable on its face. The principles are identical.

The reason is simple. Yet I have not yet seen it presented in any mainstream article relating to this subject. That is, we already have a mechanism for determining what is, and what is not, reasonable. It's called the will of the people that grant our government its sole power in the first place, as expressed through their elected representatives; Congress. Hence, why the very precise, clear, and unambiguous delineation of powers as set forth by the first three (and main) Articles of the Constitution. It's also the basic difference between a democracy -- where the people make these decisions, including ones that directly impinge upon their own freedoms and liberties, and a Monarchy -- where the Executive unilaterally makes these decisions.

Kellman not only ignores any such type of analysis, she does not even address the question.

Instead, she cites a line from a Justice department lawyer "defending" the bush administration's view, that is a classic example of pure Orwellian doublespeak:

"Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute."

"We have disputes," in this case means; "Congress passes a law, acting pursuant to its legislative powers. We, acting pursuant to legislative powers given specifically and only to Congress under the Constitution, simply rewrite that portion of the law that we don't like, on our own."

As for the line; "the separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute;" that's like saying "the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution (Articles I, II, III) expressly prohibits this, so, by doing what it expressly prohibits, we'll put out a statement that says, "this shows its working."

This basically amounts what would otherwise be meaningless rhetoric if it were not fact reversing. Up is down. Black is white. Forward equals reverse. Dark equals light. Yet to the media, it's all he said/she said reporting. This particular piece takes it one step further, and mainly focuses on the Bush administration "arguments" (if one can call them that), and does not really even present many claims in disagreement, let alone the far more common omission of the critical underlying facts.

The article does make a rather big deal out of noting that "signing statements," technically aren't supposed to have the effect of law -- but that's basically the entire point. They are supposed to clarify interpretations, not rewrite the law. (Moreover, unless a Court somehow decides it has jurisdiction, and is not precluded by the administration from adjudicating the manner based upon the in the past infrequently and narrowly used, state secrets doctrine, or for some other reason invoked by the administration, this technicality has no effect.)

Pointing out this technicality as a "defense" for the way the signing statements have been used is classic circular logic. "This" technicality is exactly why the issue is germane in the first place. Playing it up would be similar to downplaying the NSA surveillance issue, by stating that since it is in direct contravention of FISA (and thus expressly prohibited by law), it doesn't matter much. Constitutionally (aside from the fact that it involves potential bill of rights issues and is more representative of a cowardly and paranoid police state than a country that serves as a beacon of what freedom means to the world) this is exactly why it does matter.

And the same thing with signing statements. In fact, that's the whole point. Signing statements are technically not supposed to have the weight of law, because the Executive Branch does not have the authority under the Constitution to change the law in such manner. But by the rather unprecedented use of such signing statements by this administration, that is precisely what it has done. Yet a reader of this AP article, if anything, is also left with the opposite, and completely illogical impression that, because of the precise reason why the administration can't do this in the first place, it is therefore "no big deal."

[Update: when I spoke with a representative of PBS's "Newshour" regarding similar coverage of the signing statements on their July 24th show, with former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein and far right wing Vanderbilt University Professor Christopher Yoo, I was told that their job is only to present the arguments of "both sides," regardless of how flawed or illogically presented. Naturally, I strongly disagreed, because, as I suggested, by using convoluted and impressive sounding legalese (that as a constitutional scholar I knew to be both specious if not flat out ridiculous), Yoo might otherwise appear to many to be making sense, or seem to be reciting things that sounded accurate, but that were not.)

Without the accompaying facts, there is no way for a listener or viewer to put the "arguments" or asserted"facts" into any kind of context. Fein, who has been a critic of the administration's anti constitutional policies, made some counterarguments, but Yoo made so many misstatements that they could not adequately be addressed. Additionally, NPR was in the odd position of having a republican argue the "side" against the way the signing statements have been used, and a far right wing republican argue the "side" in favor of their use.

I asked PBS in response if people did not have the view of the earth that we today provide, and they had two experts on "debating" whether the earth was flat or round, all in complicated scientific physics and mathematical terms, would it similarly be their job merely to present the arguments of the two sides with no context or underlying fact?

While PBS is not nearly as poor as most of the commercial mainstream media, I suggested that they were similarly afraid of constantly being accused of being "biased" by the right and far right, for merely reporting facts which would paint an unpleasant picture of reality to the right and far right, by contradicting their illogical or misleading assertions. The question was ignored as if it was patently inane. Since, of course, we all know that the earth is round. But the point is, we don't "all know" what presidential signing statements are, or how their usage both now and in the past relates to the Constitution or the separation of powers clauses of Articles I and II thereunder.]

In the case of this particular signing statement -- one among many that the executive branch has used, in effect, to change both law and clear Congressional intent -- Congress extended the executive branch's unprecedented power over American citizen civil liberties (as the Patriot Act inherently grants), and so required that the FBI keep track of its use and that the administration provide information to Congress therein. It's giving the executive branch perhaps too much power, if anything, but at least building minimal checks into it.

Then, in response, the new Orwellian administration took those checks out, and now asserts that "the Constitution prevents such checks," when the Constitution does nothing of the sort. In fact, and more than a little ironically, the entire Constitution is premised upon such checks in the first place.

In other words, the very matter at issue involving the executive branch's abuse of power, perhaps not so coincidentally, involves the granting of more executive power itself.
The larger separation of powers issue, which prohibits the President from usurping the role of Congress' (read; usurping the role of the American people through their duly elected representatives), is being violated here, both directly and indirectly.

It is being violated directly by the usurpation itself (that is, the President dictating the law instead of Congress), and indirectly because that usurpation involves the self-appointment of EVEN more direct power than Congress granted under the bill.

Yet, at the very same time, the same far right wing is busy attacking and outlandishly vilifying this same mainstream media, for doing its job and reporting on these very same potentially unconstitutional infringements: A mainstream media that needs to learn that so long as remains a reporter of news, and not a spokesman for the far right wing, it is always going to get criticized.
In other words, as its coverage has moved to the right, the right wing has moved to the right, and will never support the media until is covers what it wants it to cover, in the manner is which it wants it to say it (just like the fox channel, that poses as a news station, does right now).

Therefore the media needs to learn that its best defense is to honestly report the news, and stop trying to simply report "he said/she said" stories regardless of the underlying facts or divergent standards necessary to "appear balanced," rather than actually be balanced. That's also good journalism And it also happens to be an essential element of democracy. After all, information is the lifeblood of democracy, and an overwhelming majority of Americans still get their foundation of information from this same media.

Flag Burning Logic - and American Principles

2006-06-28T22:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Senate voted on a proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning.

Last year, the even more radical House, by an overwhelming margin (286 to 130), voted in favor of just such an Amendment.

67 votes were needed for passage in the Senate, and to send the Amendment on to the states for ratification. (Where three-fourths of the states, in turn, would have to ratify it in order to turn it into an Amendment). It fell one vote short.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) suggested that the Amendment was being pursued as a political measure, since, it is suggested here -- in a largely sound bite world -- it is an easy issue for people to rally around.

According to an article in Yesterday's Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, however, explained the issue in "loftier" terms:

Many Americans have come to see the flag as a sacred symbol of our nation and its values. Those who dislike American values have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category"American values.

This is a nice catchy bit of rhetoric. But what does it mean? What are those "American values"?

One of the most fundamental is the right to freely express ideas that don't cause harm, or don't incite others to cause harm to other people. Even "repulsive ones." Sounds a bit unnecessary at first, which is why it is easy to come up with such catchy rhetoric that undermines the principles in the first place.

Since the definition of what, in terms of an idea, is repulsive, unnecessarily offensive, just plain offensive (or, in the case of flag burning, probably just plain idiotic) varies among people, freedom of expression requires that we don't dictate by a majority standard or otherwise what is considered sufficiently repulsive, again so long as it does not harm others, or incite others to harm others.

That's a basic, if not core, "American Value." It is one of the same "American values" that Senator Frist, along with the majority, ironically, seeks to protect the symbol of, by undermining the principle itself, and making a purely symbolic act of expression, a crime.

Another basic value is that we don't let the views of the majority restrict the ability of the minority from being able to express their views, in their chosen fashion (again, subject to the limitations of not harming others, or inciting others to harm others), since such expression is, under the Constitution, an inherent right. (Incidentally, although the right of free speech is specifically enumerated under the Constitution, it does not have to be protected: Consider, for example, the rarely discussed but extremely important Ninth Amendment.)

But yet Senator Frist, once again espousing just such American values, noted (whether correctly or incorrectly), in a statement put out earlier this month, that over 80% of Americans favor an Amendment to ban burning the flag.

In other words, the exact same impingement upon the minority right to expression that American values so embodies.

One might wonder how this differs from the passage of a "law" that only the majority favors: Laws have some collective purpose as their basis. Either to help accomplish something that we can not effectively accomplish individually, or something that helps the greater good without impinging upon individual liberty under the Constitution. Thus, all laws are ultimately designed, at least in theory, to either maximize freedom and liberty, or maximize the greater good without impinging upon freedom and liberty.

Obviously, not all laws meet this standard. There are bad laws, and maybe a few that should be passed that haven't (the suggestion here is that there are likely more of the former, and less of the latter), But they all strive to meet this purpose, either explicitly, or implicitly.

A law, on the other hand, that strives to simply dictate to others what expression of ideas is unacceptable, merely because those that favor the law don't like the idea, or find it offensive (as many people find many different expressions of ideas), is not a law per say, but a classsic expression of majority belief.

An extreme, almost ridiculous example of a law codifying such a belief might, say, involve deciding that most of us like McDonald's, and therefore it shall be a crime to say anything disparaging about McDonald's.

Yes, there is world of difference between saying something disparaging about McDonald's (that hamburger joint that serves crappy food, for example), and burning the U.S. Flag, symbol of our country ("and of the freedoms for which it stands," let us not forget).

An enormous difference. Except in principle. Where there is no difference. And that is the whole point about why we have the principles, aka the "American values," that we do.

It is also why on the flag burning Amendment issue, unlike many others, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

In principle, there is no difference between the varying levels of "offensive expression of ideas," and ideas that are offensive to things that we hold to be "sacred." (Some people hold the Red Sox to be sacred. Perhaps not as sacred as the United States (for most Sox fans anyway) but Sacred nonetheless. The first Amendment lays this principle out clearly, if implicitly. And America was founded upon principles, not upon what most Americans might find offensive, or what they might find sacred -- and frankly, for many people, it may be the principles for which the flag stands that are more sacred, not the flag, as the symbol of those principals, itself.

(Incidentally, the dissent in the Supreme Court case upholding this principle, mistook the legitimate protection of the national monument, with the protection of a private replication or symbol of the monument, thus rendering the action of flag desecration, however idiotic or inane, utlimately, as expression and not desecration of a publicly owned good.

To violate one of those basic principles in order to show how much we love the symbol of those very same principles, ultimately -- as easy as it is to spin it in a way which is very politically appealing -- does not make sense in a free country. Let alone one whose First Amendment (part of which this Amendment obviously sought to repeal) states: "Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech."

Why do 80% of Americans, or whatever the figure (presumably much lower) is, allegedly "support a flag burning amendment?" Because the issue has probably never been adequately explained, or fully analyzed. It takes a lot of time. With a full understanding, the figure would probably be much lower.

Does it need to be below 50% to make it "right"?

No. Consider the second basic value enumerated above. Our democracy is founded upon the principle that the majority shall not, by virtue of their own opinions, infringe upon the right of the minority, however small that minority might be (and however well formulated the opinion of the majority), from expressing theirs.

That is why we have a Constitution, including a Bill of Rights. It is why we have a judiciary, to serve as a check upon the will of the majority, in accordance with the principles upon which America was founded. If this were not the case, the majority, simply by following good intentions (as, ultimately, what else are belief?) would, ultimately, simply impose its will upon the rights of others with respect to whatever it thought best -- antithetical to American principles when what it thinks inadverntely impinges upon the rights of the others more than it protects the rights of the majority.

For instance, with respect to flag burning, as offensive as some may find it, there is no inherent right to keep someone else from such expression greater than that person's right for the expression in the first place. These principles are also enumerated in the Declaration of independence, and again are the very principles of freedom and individual liberties upon whcih America was founded and based. Thus, the idea of protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority, and the establishment of that same separation of powers of which the judiciary plays such a vital role, are the basic reasons why we have a Constitution in the first place.

The issue can best be explained by something that Senator Frist stated above, ironically, in defense of the proposed Amendment. Frist stated, as noted above:

[Americans] have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category.

That statement expresses exactly why the flag burning Amendment is wrong in the first place. Ultimately, it's his belief. And one of the most basic founding principles, or "values," for which America stands, is to protect others, including the minority, from the "beliefs of others" when such belief itself is the sole rule for imposing the otherwise restricting rule in the first place.

Ironically, someone might believe far more firmly in those same American principles (and understand far better what they are) that the flag represents, than someone else who might support such a law to "protect" the very symbol of those principles in the first place: That is, our exceptional symbol of America derives its strength not because we as a group have to manufacture conformity to the beliefs for which it stands, but, precisely, because, we do not.

And those are among the most basic of principles for which America stands. As noted in a comment here:

A country that needs to criminalize the desecration of the "symbol" ofthe very
freedoms for which it stands, is losing its grip on those very samefreedoms, or
doesn't understand what they mean in the first place (which is ultimately going
to mean the same thing).

That we have a citizenry that may not all understand these principles, is perfectly fine. That is not their job. It is why we have legislatures, Courts, a Constitution, etc., in the first place. That we have a Congress that does not understand these principles, or worse, does not believe in them, is not.

It is more than a little interesting that the last two proposed Amendments to our Constitution, both sought restrictions, rather than expansions, of the rights of individuals. That is not exactly "burning" the Constitution," but it comes awfully close. (On a far less tongue in cheek note, this actually comes much closer, because at least the last two proposed Amendments, however misguided, followed the rule of law and the basic structure set up by the Constitution in the first place.)

Iraq War Spin

2006-06-18T17:27:00.000-07:00

This comes from a great post on the Daily Kos by SusanG earlier today, and a great comment therein.

As the piece noted, this AP article included a quote by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) from CBS's "Face the Nation:

"If we do shows every Sunday talking about every mistake, we're going to lose this war."

As Katchen aptly noted therein, what Graham probably really meant was:

"If we do shows every Sunday talking about every mistake, we're going to lose this election."

The Bush administration and the media is starting to spin Iraq into the arbiter of this presidency -- and not whether going was a strategically sound move, not whether it was misrepresented to the American people, not whether it has been poorly managed, but whether or not Iraq ultimately turns into a semi viable democracy.

John Harwood, CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent, and the Wall street Journal's political columnist, is an apt example:

Last week on MSNBC's countdown (Wednesday, June 14), Harwood reiterated a Bush adminstration talking point straight from its own playbook. He talked about "staying the course," and how Bush has "doubled down" on Iraq, and, as have many journalists and pundits, how he has "staked his presidency on it."

What Harwood, allegedly but hardly an objective journalist, nevertheless chooses to ignore in his appearance on Countdown, is that the President has no choice, Iraq may become a democracy even if we leave and even if staying is the wrong idea, he can't win on this issue by leaving, and that if we achieve democracy in Iraq, this is hardly the crowning achievement that it has been made to be, costs and controversy aside. It is a good thing. That is all it is. It is one small piece to the international puzzle. And the international puzzle, in turn is only one piece of the Bush presdiency, let alone of the pressing needs of democracy here at home in America. (And it is a good thing relevant to the present situation, which was the expenditure of countless dollars, lives, and international capital to turn Iraq potentially into something it was not before the war: a breeding ground for international terrorism. )

But Harwood, and others, since the Bush presidency has been wildly unsucessful, is turning it into something much different. The end all be all, of all things good and bad.

In other words, it will be spun as if the world is now safe, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was no more connected to international terrorism than dozens of other countries, Iraq had no WMD and inspectors there were starting to tell us this back in march of '03 just before we went, and as if the 400 plus billion dollars that perhaps could have been better spent in the war on terror, or countless soldiers' lives lost, or pattern of mismanagement that exacerbated the process, are not relevant. It will be spun like this: See, Bush was right.
What will be largely lost in the mainstream media is the far more relevant inquiry About what?

Keith Olbermann, al-Zarqawi, Joe McCarthy, and Bill O'Reilly

2006-06-16T07:31:00.000-07:00

Keith Olberman finally got fed up.

While writing back insulting emails can never be good strategy, I can't imagine even a string of the most horrendous curse words and insults approaching the antagonism level of such an outrageously illogical statement as calling Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Olbermann's "hero."

Granted, it's just a taunt. But unlike the taunt of a string of insulting four letter words or similar, it is a taunt that is also usually, at least in part, based upon a profound ignorance and miscontruction of what are fairly serious issues.

So, as the Daily News gleefully reports, Olbermann lost his cool and wrote back to a few of the worst emailers, hurling insults right back at them. Unprofessional, inadvisable, and flat out wrong, and for which, Olbermann apologized.

On a seemingly unrelated note, McCarthyism, from the 1950's, has become synonymous with political persecution and "witch hunt." (See also the highly acclaimed film "Good Night and Good Luck.")

One rather well written website, however, seems to have otherwise merged the two:

Wondering if Olbermann would name Worst Person in the World someone who engages in McCarthy-esque “acriminious” exchanges in which that person writes “insulting and frequently obscene” e-mails. That person? Keith Olbermann.

The only commonality here is that the issue was politics, and unfair. And by this extremely broad, if not almost ubiquitous standard, it would seem that the original e mailers are the more apt (if, again, poor) comparison. All Olbermann did was write some insulting emails back to emailers who used twisted and emotionally inflammatory logic in their hurled political insults.

Keith Olbermann, always providing a good story -- even when it's not about Bill O'Reilly, whom, in tepid defense of the Website's analogy, Olbermann calls "this generation's Joe McCarthy. From a broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown, as reported by media matters, here :

He has solidified in his status as this generation's Joe McCarthy. Just like the"Red Baiter," he now has his own list. His website reads: "The following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left Web sites." The list: the New York Daily News, the St. Petersburg Times, and MSNBC! You call it defamation, Bill. We call it precise quotes from your show.