| |
| |
| ||||
| | | Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place!  apj.us / correntewire.com Feb. 12, 2006 (correntewire.com / apj.us) -- One of APJ's favorite bloggers, Peter Daou, indirectly suggests in a recent posting that the new corrupt media narrative may be that America is plagued by "scandal fatigue" flogged by the "angry left." He is correct, however, when he says that "Bush and his team count on the opposition's lack of focus, joyfully handing them more catnip. Perhaps that explains the ubiquitous and infamous administration smirk, most recently gracing Alberto Gonzales' face as he humored the Senate Judiciary Committee about breaking the law." Now, let's take a look at Daou's list of eleven scandals from that latest posting that have come into play during the last week -- reworded a tad to put them in an even more appropriate perspective.
Here's where Daou's observations deserve to get kicked up a notch: were ANY of these items at the top of any of the Sunday Washington-based network political talk shows' agenda? You've gotta be kidding. Worse yet, the guest list for the shows sure looked to be "balanced" for once -- until you realize that too many of the scheduled Democrats are of the GOP-friendly variety:
Yep, it's the Biden and Lieberman show. Funny how the two most overexposed Democrats on the Sunday chatter circuit are also two politicians who can be counted on to undermine the Democratic Party's rank and file. To Biden's credit, he is sounding tough on national security, and he has cut the Bush Misadministration little slack on the debacles that are Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Osama -- but he's become a big tool of the usurious credit card industry and the greedy insurance cartel. And don't get me started on Lieberman. Here's a little of what we had to tolerate this Sunday... EDITOR'S NOTE: As this last segment of Pundit Pap goes to press, more details of the incident in which Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a fellow quail hunter and big-dollar contributor are coming to light -- for example, the fact that it happened almost a full day ago! Anyone get the feeling that they didn't want that embarrassing little bit of news coming out just in time to "ruin" the Sunday Morning Mouths?
ABC This Week Democrats are absolutely right about the Imperial Presidency, unlawfulness of domestic surveillance, Republican inability to govern—but it doesn’t matter because the Nation Is Not With Them (i.e. doesn’t care, or in the case of surveillance actively supports Der Leader) about these issues, and besides, although Republicans can’t govern for shit, the Republicans Always Win on Message. Now on to the gory details…. Smilin’ Georgie S. opens with Candoleezza Rice. Either they’ve adjusted her meds or she has “grown into the job” as they say, although of course in the Republican view the job is Giving Good Television, not necessarily being an effective diplomat. On Iran: We have a real coalition this time! Really! And everybody, not just us, sez Iran must back off the nuke weapons program. If they want peaceful nuclear power they should buy it from Russia or the Europeans, because we can’t trust them with the toys—er, I think she meant “tools”—of basic nuclear research because they might play badly with them and wind up with bombs just by oopsie. On the Sunday (UK) Telegraph story (which interestingly enough is being reported heavily all over the fu©king world except the US) on Pentagon plans for a “devastating strike” in Iran’s nuclear site, she in essence confirmed every word, falling back on the “President must keep all options on the table” line. Message to Security Council: Do what we want so we don’t have to do this. Stop us before we bomb again. On the Cartoon Riots—Heavy push on Iran, Syria. Riots government-instigated, because nobody does anything in those countries without government control. Unworthy of comment were the peaceful demonstrations—which I note came to Philadelphia yesterday, so Mayor Street had best watch his ass—all over the world. Syria Syria Syria, Iran Iran Iran. Oops, wait a sec while I whap the side of my head, obviously a needle is stuck somewhere. On Hillary’s quote noting that the US “Can’t seem to catch the tallest man in Afghanistan”—Slight fluster here, Condi annoyed at Uppity Woman. We may not have caught him exactly but he’s On The Run which is just about as good. Weak attempt to play “Clinton should have caught him in the ’90s” card and complete failure to mention any even earlier time when Osama was our buddy and we sent him weapons and stuff. We are shocked, shocked at this lapse. Closed with a “We look to a hopeful future” bit of blather about spreading democracy and women’s rights. Excuse me while I go swallow then hack up a hairball, which is the only response I can think of to that line. On to Guest No. 2: Sen. Joseph Biden (D-MBNA). Mr. Talks Great, Votes..Eh, Not So Much. He was on his game today though, so give him a B+: George S: The public favors Democratic positions on every single issue except National Security. Can you fight this perception? Joe B: Yeppers. Look at Bush’s own speech (“Axis of Evil”) then look at where we are with North Korea and Iran. Iraq is in chaos. Our ports and shipping aren’t protected. Their focus is out of focus. Bush’s own Inspector Generals’ report on the $9 billion missing in Iraq, his own IG calling the situation “chaos”. Failing grades across the board from the 9-11 Commission. Cutting $1 billion from local law enforcement in the just-released budget. Under Bush’s priorities we are not as secure. Biden Bullet Point: George S. asks about Iran, is there anything that could have been done. Biden: There’s something we can do NOW: Prepare the nation for oil sanctions against Iran. Our allies [unspoken dig at Condi’s assertion that they really are “allies”][the word “China” comes to mind] must join in to support the oil boycott to keep Iran from just selling it elsewhere. George S appeared severely startled by this proposal but couldn’t follow up as they were out of time. [Skipping the Lynn Swann interview as it is of primarily local PA interest. Only item of national note was a query about why the f$#@ blacks should vote Republican. Swann first tried to pitch the notion that most blacks are now middle class and should therefore vote their money not their principles, but didn’t seem to even believe that himself. Then he pointed out that you could get WAY more attention as a suck-up token Republican, citing Colin and Condi and that loon Steel of Maryland and a number of Cabinet appointees, some of whom are not even under indictment yet, as examples of the shining future Black Republican Tokens could expect. Of course he did not phrase it quite that way.] On the Round table, things were not quite as grim as one would anticipate with a lineup of David Gergen, Donna Brazile, and the never-goes-the-fuck-away George Will. Gergen was his usual milquetoasty self—his major message was that while of course Republicans were wrong on everything it didn’t matter because Republicans always “win on message.” George Will chimed in to agree that Democrats had a good case on the surveillance issue but should drop it because “the country isn’t with them and won’t be,” nobody cares if the Gummit listens in on their phone calls. Brazile made a much better than usual comeback on this, reiterating that Dems “would bring the battle” and “would fight on national security subjects”. Um, hint, Donna? This is more of the “yeah, this is what we’re gonna do” crap. You are supposed to use these occasions to, like, fucking DO the crap. In fairness she then tried, using what I hope will be a Democratic Talking Point next week and thereafter, that Bush Could Have Done This Shit Legally But Didn’t. Gergen blathered something about the Gang of 14 should solve the wiretap business and that Democrats have nothing to offer going forward. This writer took opportunity to massage hand cramp. George Will, who God help us may be what passes for a Principled Conservative these days, creaked up onto his hind legs to say some Rude Things at this point. The words “Monarchial Assertions” passed his withered lips in reference to his president. The FISA proposals and indeed the Patriot Act essentially allow the executive to shut down the other 2 branches of government. George Steph jumps in to agree that the country doesn’t care about the government listening in on their communications. (Hmm, does it seem to anybody else that there was quite a project to say this over and over and over again today? Hmmm.) George Will got in a couple of other PC cracks on other subjects. Noted that the Brownie hearings and other reports confirm that Bush was just lying his ass off with “there was no way anybody could anticipate” a disaster with New Orleans. National Weather Service gave warning 56 hours before landfall of precisely that. And that the “we didn’t know” line after it happened “lacked truthfulness” as there were 28 recorded reports of disaster the first day. Gergen now notes that a House committee is due to hand in a 600 page report Monday eviscerating the Federal response to Katrina. Hastens to add that while this “calls into question Republican competence”…they’re still Better On Message so Democrats won’t be able to use this against them. The Funnies were relatively weak this week, although he did run Colbert’s take on Gonzales line that “Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all used electronic surveillance against their enemies.” A good laugh was had by all. --
Face the Nation This is the first time I’ve fired up The Tube in about three years. In fact, if I think back, the last time I had the TV on was to watch the twin towers go down. Oh yeah, and watching Gilmore Girls once when I was really sick. It was the only thing on, I swear! So, the casing is covered with dust. And no matter how I twiddle the rabbit ears, the snow on the screen is as heavy as the snow outside—too many tall buildings in Center City, Philly. No, I don’t have cable…. PREVIEW: Dean said that if what Scooter Libby says is true—that his superiors told him to leak—then Cheney “cannot remain in office.” MORE TO COME. I’m going to make my way out through the drifts and see if there’s any place open where I can achieve a state of caffeination, and file the rest of this story. UPDATE Yes! They’re open! In a blizzard that’s still going on! My local, Hausbrandt, totally rules. Plus, they don’t burn their coffee and the WiFi is free. Dramatis Personae:
In some ways, the snow on the screen was an advantage this morning, because all I had to go on was the voices. I’m sure that Condi looks confident, and her words are well-chosen and on message, but her voice is high-pitched, breathy, and very stressed. I think she questions her own adequacy and the pointy shoes are overcompensation. Then again, maybe it’s just that her feet hurt. Schieffer: The cartoons. I have to say that the cartoon controversy strikes me as a very smart move by Iran, obviously designed to make it hard for Bush to get Israeli help in taking out Iran’s nuclear program. [Troll prophylactic: The Iranian regime, like all theocracies, is a Bad Thing.] Rice: We would draw a distinction between peaceful protests and incitement to violence; that is beyond the pale. The “need to” locution really grates on me, as it must on other. “What X needs to do is…” The Republicans consistently take a rhetorical stance that infantilizes the other; or, in less highfalutin’ language, these guys treat everybody else like five-year-olds. Probably that “strong Daddy” frame Lakoff speaks of. But it gets old, doesn’t it? Bumiller: What’s our strategy on Iran? Isn’t it inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons? Returning the United States to the “community of responsible states” is exactly what the Democrats want to do and this crowd can’t. After WMDs, Abu Ghraib, prison camps… Schieffer: The Iran question moved to UN, but you slowed down the UN taking action at the request of Russia. More and more, Putin takes positions that differ from the United States. For example, Putin says he’ll invite Hamas to Russia. Are you satisfied with the way you are handling him? Bottom line: Condi’s weak. That means Bush likes his cabinet members weak. Probably Condi’s only asset is her relationship with Bush. Howard Dean’s voice has deepened and changed since I saw him in 2004. It’s an improvement. Dean too stays on message, doesn’t let the questioners shake him, and doesn’t get irritated, or raise his voice. Here’s a man who can learn, and who keeps getting better at what he does. Somehow, I don’t get the feeling Dean wears pointy shoes—or needs to. Schieffer: What would the Democrats do about Iraq? Reiteration of the Republican talking point on “options”—which commits nobody to anything—without any expression of support. Nice little piece of jiu-jitsu. [NOTE: I’m not sure whether Dean actually used that insanely irritating formulation “this President” that the Republicans used for Clinton, but if they aren’t I think they ought to. In every turn of phrase, the Democrats must signal that Republicans are not fit to govern, and have forfeited the respect that their high offices would otherwise have entitled them to.] Bumiller: Some say that the Democrats are losing their voice. Do you agree?
And he rattles them off, just like that. Nice work. Short and concise. Is this a roll-out of the Democratic 2006 message? Readers? Bumiller: Do you think your message will have a hard time getting traction? Sounds a lot like Murtha… Schieffer: The President and the Vice President suggest that the election should be about national security, and that eavesdropping should be on the table. Nice work again. “Let’s find out if it is true” is a statement that is useful for any Republican scandal (and there are so very, very many of them), and it ties into the notion of truth-seeking through evidence and reasoning—see points 1 and 2 in the agenda above. Also, though Schieffer tried to sucker Dean into using the I-word, Dean was having none of it. Finally, it was wonderful to hear Dean say “the Vice President has no credibility on national security.” That exact sentence should be used by all Democrat whenever they’re discussing national security. It’s also interesting to contrast “let’s find out if it’s true” with Republican behavior during the scandals they themselves ginned up during the Clinton years, when literally anything and everything the VRWC said was treated as gospel, by Lizzie Bumiller, among others, no matter how ludicrous. Bumiller: Ken Mehlman says that Hillary is too angry. Do you agree? This “angry” meme is like a constant low-grade infection in the American body politic. I would prefer to see Dean address it head on. The segue into “mislead” was a pleasure to see, though. Seems like we’ve settled on “mislead” instead of “lie.” Excellent! Because now we can dust off all our old “Dear Misleader” snark. But Dean might have been more effective if he had said something more like: “With this President misleading on Iraq, Katrina, prescription drugs, and on and on and on, it’s only natural that people might get a little irritated. Some people take being misled very seriously. I don’t know what was in Hillary’s mind and heart, of course. But I agree with what she said about the President continuing to mislead.” --
FAUX News Sunday It's been a while since we checked in on FAUX News Sunday -- so this morning, we donned the protective gear, locked down the apartment, and fired up the ol' cable box. Chris Wallace, the immoderator of FNS, played the fear card at the top of the show, claiming that a "terror plot" had been "uncovered" right here in the USA. Apparently, some idiot in Pennsylvania with some sort of tenuous ties to some form or another of "Al Qaeda" wanted to blow up the Alaskan oil pipeline. Be afraid! Be VERY afraid! Gotta love Wallace -- he's on Rove's message, all right. The first two guests were Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). Chris set up Allen to bash Hillary Clinton over remarks she made this week about the Misadministration and the GOP playing the fear card. Naturally, Chris talked about thwarted so-called terror plots. Allen said wiretaps are fine. Hey George, Democrats feel the same way -- if they're done legally. Can you say FISA? Chris then played a clip of former Halliburton Grand Vizier Richard "Dick" Cheney bloviating about national security before depicting Democrats as "wrong" on wiretaps and security. Reed blasted the administration on failure to provide troops deployed to Iraq with body armor (a point which would also be made by Howard Dean over on Face the Nation) before blasting the GOP for using juiced-up "security" issues to "bludgeon" Democrats. Reed, sadly, does not come across as a "fire in the belly" guest -- what we needed was a guest who would have gone a step further, blasting Chris's employers as having been "wrong" on Iraq by playing up White House half-truths as "news," pointing out that Chris's boss Roger Ailes is a career GOP shill, and nailing FAUX News as a propaganda component of the GOP's pathological culture of corruption. Sure, Reed would've never been invited back, but we would've loved to see the look on Chris Wallace's face. Next, Allen blathered about terrorists -- "you don't get a warrant to attack a building with terrorists in it." Oh, yes you do, George -- it's the law. You DO get a warrant. Unless you have a problem with the Constitution's due process language -- not to mention the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Sounds to us, George, like you do. Why do you hate the Constitution, George? Why do you hate America? And Reed fired back: the FISA process is in place and the President is law-bound to use it, but he didn't -- just like he didn't follow law, convention or treaties over torture and other issues. Allen responded with a barely-concealed look of contempt flashing across his face, saying in effect that while checks and balances are good, they get in the way. (So should they be abolished, George? See above, particularly the parts about the fourth and fourteenth amendments.) Chris made a lot out of the Bush boy's anger over "leaks" to the NY Times about NSA leaks (the correct term, Mr. Wallace, is "whistleblowing" -- but then, that word isn't in Karl Rove's script, for some unfathomable reason). Chris followed up that bullet point with the suggestion that the leaking of information by Scooter Libby (in a naked attempt to discredit and punish Ambassador Joseph Wilson) was somehow OK because the Prez and Veep can OK declassification of information. (Really? Does that include the identity of a CIA non-official cover operative whose identity we now know the CIA was fiercely working to keep secret?) Reed said that Pat Fitzgerald should investigate the "superiors" who authorized the leak (and lest we forget, Libby's "superior" is Dick Cheney. "Superiors"? A certain ex-governor of Texas comes to mind...). Allen called Fitz a professional, thorough prosecutor in his non-answer (which means he thinks Fitz isn't going to move against the Veep) and nobody should "leak" classified data. (That's right, George -- because every time someone blows the whistle by leaking information, the Bush Misadministration gets a black eye.) Next, Chris tried to cast the Democrats' talk about the GOCOCP's culture of corruption as "negative" (parroting the latest crybaby GOP talking point -- "Boo, hoo! They're going NEGATIVE on our boy Jack Abramoff!") Reed focused on abuses of the law -- and reminded Chris that as the minority party, Democrats don't set the agenda, and they demand a stronger focus on national security and a better budget. Allen telegraphed frustration at poll numbers that show most Americans now think Democrats would do a better job running the nation -- before rattling off a litany of ridiculous GOP position points and lies (for example, that old chestnut about Democrats supporting a tax increase, which is a completely dishonest representation of their real position, namely making the tax system more progressive and abolishing tax givebacks for the already wealthy). Allen's weirdest attack line tried to cast Dems as weak on the judiciary: "Judges is a big values issue." (Translation: it's about the GOP packing the courts with right-wing Federalist Society judicial activists who will kowtow to crony corporatists and evangelical theocrat nutcases.) Then Chris lied -- claiming that Jack Abramoff said "Send Harry Reid money" -- and Jack Reed blew it by saying, "That may be the case." Okay, Reed was on message about the fact that the Abramoff mess is a GOP scandal -- but he should have jumped down Chris's throat about making up Abramoff's words: "Have you SEEN a memo from Abramoff that tells his clients to send Harry Reid more money, Chris? Is FAUX News sitting on it? Or are you just making stuff up? Could it in fact be that Abramoff advised his clients to send Harry Reid LESS money, Chris? Do you ever check the facts before you open your corrupt media piehole, Chris?" Reed was barely up to the task of appearing on a Sunday television show. Memo to Howard Dean -- the corrupt media's Sunday bookers love to schedule pink tutu Democrats and reliably off-message celebrity senators like Joseph Biden (D-MBNA) and Joe Lieberman (DINO-1600) because they THINK their viewers and sponsors "accept" Senate surrender-monkeys. Here's what you need to do:
Chris's next guest was the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the minister who presided at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Chris's first unctuous question insinuated that blacks should settle for being pleased that the Son King honored Mrs. King by the mere act of attending her funeral, and it was rude for speakers at the funeral to -- horrors! -- bring up embarrassing political issues that make Dear Leader look bad. Lowery serenely and systematically smacked down Chris's suggestion, in a vivid reminder that Lowery, an organizer of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Coretta Scott King's husband, has no fear of speaking truth to power, no hesitation in putting Chris to shame about even daring to suggest that people speaking at the funeral of an activist civil rights leader shouldn't bring up political issues, be it wiretapping, Katrina, or the continued undercurrent of racism in the United States. Chris, of course, tried to cast Democrats as "using" blacks: "President Johnson declared war on poverty back in the '60s. Since then, there have been a number of Democratic presidents, mostly Democratic Congresses. They don't seem to have gotten much done for blacks." Lowery's comeback was priceless: "that's part of our history, and I regret that. Listen, make sure you understand, Chris, that I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I'm Methodist. I have grievances with both parties. One takes us for granted. The other one just takes us." Oops! Chris wanted to make Democrats look bad. He made Republicans -- and Junior -- look worse! Toward the end of the segment, Chris brought up a new book by his next guest, an embittered black conservative named Ron Christie, in which he writes, "We maintain that these leaders represented the 'shakedown crew' element of black America. Finding discrimination and trouble behind every corner, these folks were extremely successful in extorting ridiculous sums of money from government and corporations." Lowery pounced: "Well, I don't know him, and I don't know what he said." (Snap! Good move by Lowery -- Christie is in fact a nonentity, and Lowery took him down a few pegs from even that status!) ... What I'm concerned about is public policy. We need a public policy that addresses the needs of the poor, that works toward full employment, that develops more opportunities for training, for job development, job training, for health care." (In other words, what Christie is saying is nothing but a distraction for the pivotal, underlying facts and issues.) Rev. Lowery was terrific -- he is eloquent, dignified, and a straight shooter whose rhetorical hip boots kept him high and dry as he waded through the Ailesian effluvium that passes for rational discussion of issues on FAUX News Channel. Next up was the afore-mentioned Ron Christie, who, it turns out, was also a staffer in the Bush misadministration before he turned to making a fast buck by slandering civil rights leaders as "shakedown artists" in a book that no doubt will hit the New York Times nonfiction best seller list with a dagger (meaning that think tanks and right-wing groups bought the book in bulk to beef up sales that would likely never have happened without their largesse). As soon as he said that he stands by his statement, we shut off the digital cable box (we are NOT going to give this bozo any ratings points -- even if it means missing Christie making the completely bogus claim that Lowery "overshadowed" Coretta King at her own funeral in a vain attempt to create another phony "Wellstone moment") and went outside to enjoy the foot of snow that has fallen on New York City and appreciate the privilege of living within a three-minute walk of Central Park. Snow angels, here we come... --
Meet the Press Breakin’ the Law, Breakin’ the Law! MTP opened with two video clips, the second one from Bush’s January 23, 2006 speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan.: ... [W]hen people say to me, "Well, he was just breaking the law". If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? ... followed by a very audible “heh” while he leans forward on the podium and smirks at the audience. This Contra Costa [CA] Times article has that quote preceded by “It’s amazing..” Yeah, amazing stuff. Who are the “people” who say to Bush that he was breaking the law? Rove? Andy Card? That would be truly amazing. What Bush means is “when I hear that some people are saying…” Bush’s embarrassingly poor command of the English language coupled with his exaggerated Texas accent and his sarcastic posturing make him sound like a dimwitted Cowboy Movie villain sippin’ some whiskey at the Saloon. Are You Being Briefed? Right after the clip, Pumpkinhead [Russert] launches aggressively into the questioning starting with Daschle: Russert: “…were you briefed and to what extent?” Daschle’s answer is rambling and far too long. “I can’t get into the details…”. He tries to make the point that he knows far more now about the surveillance program from the news articles than he knew after he was briefed 2-3 years ago. So, no, he was not fully briefed at all. Good point, but poorly executed. Tom Daschle’s way of speaking on TV always annoyed me. From the days when he would give the Democratic “response” to the State of the Union. Then, as now, he sounds patronizing. Smiling as he speaks slowly and softly. He needs to hire Howard Dean’s Media Trainer. I Object! Russert: In those briefings, did anyone object to the plan? If this isn’t a GOP/White House talking point already, it will be soon. “If this NSA surveillance program is so illegal and terrible, why didn’t you Democrats say so at the time? Why didn’t you try to do anything about it?”. Somewhere in his rambling response Daschle mentions Sen. Rockefeller’s letter. A concise response would have been to say “Sen. Rockefeller raised objections to the Vice President and he was ignored”. Sen. Pat Roberts follows the Right-wing story line by saying his recollection of the briefings is that nobody raised any objections. He says the briefers would ask the briefees if they had any questions or concerns. Luckily for Daschle, Pumpkinhead helps him out by reading Rockefeller’s July 2003 letter. Tell No One About What You Have Seen Here Roberts responds with a stream of absolute horse hockey: Sen. Roberts: Well, you know, that letter was kept in a safe for three years. What is he trying to imply here? That Rockefeller waited three years to send the letter? This is demonstrably false. That Rockefeller should have taken the letter out of the safe and leaked it to the press sooner? According to Rockefeller he wasn’t even allowed to tell his fellow Senators about it. It was classified information that had to be kept super-secret. These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues. Roberts goes on to say that Representatives and Senators have a “variety of tools at their disposal” if they’re upset with the program. He mentions that they could “de-authorize the program” or write an amendment. He says that “feigning helplessness” is not a useful tool. Daschle has a look of quizzical amazement on his face, but tries to smile at the same time. Democrats could never have de-authorized the program all by themselves, without the cooperation of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee (Roberts). It would be especially hard to introduce an amendment on the floor if they were forbidden from even mentioning the program’s existence. This is a lesson Democrats repeatedly fail to learn about their “go along to get along with the Bushies” strategy. The GOP/White House gets what it wants, Dems get nothing in return and when things go horribly wrong (like, Iraq, fr’instance) they turn around and say “you guys signed off on this, or at least you didn’t try to stop us, so you’re just as responsible as we are”. Why Didn’t You Say So Sooner? Sen. Harman: I talked to absolutely no one about it, because I would have been violating about three federal criminal statutes had I done so. Pumpkinhead grills the Democrats about why they didn’t single-handedly shut down the program or why they didn’t raise more objections, sooner, to more people. Harman responds with a good point: She could not even ask her staff or outside experts to advise her on the constitutionality of the surveillance program under penalty of law. Only after Bush spoke about it after the NYT article was published, she began to have people research the legal issues. That is why the Democrats didn’t speak out in public about it then and why they are doing so now. Jane Harman looks and talks like someone who you don’t want to mess with. Despite a couple defensive assurances that she supports the program and the war on terra, she was direct and convincing. -- More on Meet the Press This week’s edition of Meet the Press was a snapshot of political discourse in the bizarro legislative atmosphere that has devolved in the aftermath of the tragedies of 9/11. Uncover one of their massive campaigns of untruth, and ruling Republicans respond with unruly indignation in the presence of simple truth and obvious evidence. Democrats, in turn, become docile as Hindu cows in the presence of simple television cameras. Senate Intelligence Committee chair Pat Roberts (R-KA) played his part to perfection for Tim Russert’s special roundtable on the NSA eavesdropping controversy Sunday morning. Allowed to use the show as his personal soapbox by Russert, with a boost from yelping cohort, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (MI), Roberts launched into diatribe upon diatribe, ridiculing any objection to the spying program and fulminating over its disclosure to the public. When ranking House Intelligence Dem Jane Harman (CA) pointed out that Congress changed FISA to allow a warrant to be sought retroactively within three days of a new wiretap, Roberts scolded those who do not understand the new world order, with all its high tech gadgets and gizmos, like cordless telephones. Roberts, meanwhile, asserted that the Constitution afforded the president legal allowance to disregard any legislation deemed by, well, the President, to be getting in the way of national security interests. He conveniently ignored the clip of Bush declaring (i.e., lying), “A wiretap requires a court order.” Oh! Russert pressed his point. “So the federal government has instituted a constitutionally questionable secret spying program in the hopes that terrorists will give themselves away by slipping out of their indoor voices?” In reality, Tim didn’t raise any of these challenges. In fact, nobody raised these questions. Really, there was no need to have Russert there, to be sure no use. Even when Roberts said that the President “has a constitutional authority that rises above any law passed by the congress” – and Daschle kept his self-muting switch on – shouldn’t the host/ moderator /journalist be obliged to question this? Isn’t Russert obligated, by his designation as The Press, to see that his guests are Met by The Press? This was more like Meet Pat Roberts. Eric Alterman's comments in the February 20 issue of The Nation address this media tendency to let the liars' lies go unchallenged. He says, "While the punditocracy, much like a scorned lover, resented Clinton, it cannot shake its affection for Bush, no matter how much contempt he showers on their collective heads." Polls show that two-thirds of Americans neither like nor trust Bush, but the Press? Alterman says, "But the insider press corps cannot connect Bush's war lies to his unpopularity, because it has so much difficulty acknowledging either one. " If this valid, we're fighting uphill. So do guys like Russert play to their insider fraternity more than their holy obligation to expose the truth? Today's Meet Pat Roberts Show is not reassuring. Late Edition Gasbaggery indeed. No longer "the latest in Sunday talk" since CNN moved the program up to compete with MTP and This Week, Wolf hosted a full house, mainly from abroad, sandwiched around two Senators clearly picked for their Tweedle-de-dum symmetry. The headline for the two hours is no doubt this comment from Chuck Hagel, cast as a Republican maverick to Joe Lieberman’s version of a Democratic one, an almost casual remark which must have made the good Senator from Connecticut gulp: We must be very careful what we're doing here, because in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven't gone the way the administration said and others said it was going to go. In fact, I think we're in more trouble today than we've ever been in Iraq… Wolf’s first guest was the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, being everything you’d expect a Danish Prime Minister to be, handsome, intelligent, measured, and as scintillating as a Hans Christian Lumbye polka. PM Rasmussen mouthed all the correct words, the sacred twin freedoms of speech and the press; then again, no freedom sans responsibility; no, no, Danes don’t see this as a clash of civilizations; no, no, no, Danes aren’t reluctant to welcome immigrants, and yes, there does seem to have been an over reaction on the part of Muslims around the world. Next, Wolf ushered on the matched set of Senators, though Hagel was to prove himself a good deal less tweedle-de-dum, both Senators gave a pretty good imitation of the Tweedle twins in responding to the “cartoon uproar.” Both were all in favor of our western freedoms, and of responsibility in their use, in these “combustible times,” as Hagel put it. Both roundly criticized those who would seek to fan the flames of Muslim outrage, like say, Syria and Iran, special emphasis on Iran’s naughty role here from Lieberman, along with the smug observation that in the face of similarly outrageous cartoons aimed at Jews or Christians, neither riots or violence ensued. No one thought to point out, of course, how difficult it is to think of a recent instance of a Christian or otherwise Western country being invaded by a Muslim one. Indeed, what was totally lacking from these two hours, as from almost every other discussion of this subject I’ve listened to, any impulse to ask what would seem like an obvious question: is there a relationship between the stunning eruption of deadly fury anger by Muslims we’ve seen displayed around the world, and the response of the Bush administration to 9/11, i.e., their version of the War On Terror? In fact, Lieberman went in the opposite direction: It should tell us a few things. One is that the war against terrorism is a world war, that the worldwide reaction stimulated by the extremists leading to a point of people shouting, “behead the cartoonist, death to America” — America had nothing to do with it. In fact, our president and secretary of state condemned the cartoon as offensive — reminds us this is a world war. I want to say one other word. We have said, and I believe we’re right, that this war against terrorism is mostly being fought out within the Muslim world. And the question is to strengthen the moderate voices. Where are the moderate voices? (all quotes are from my notes, no transcript being available yet) Lieberman did point to a few such voices, and rightly lauded the Muslim-American community for it’s loyalty to American values, even while many were appalled by the cartoons themselves. And speaking of Iran, Wolf wondered if the “use of force,” was “on the table.” While acknowledging such is always the case in like situations, Senator Hagel came down hard on the side of caution: But I think we are a long, long way — I hope we are a long way from seriously considering a military option, because I don’t think it would result in the objective here. While acknowledging the genuine threat a nuclear Iran would pose not merely to us, but to much of the rest of the world, and praising the administration for it’s willingness to work with other countries for a change, and through international channels, lest the administration has any notion that the run-up to the Iraqi invasion is a model for gaining acceptance for the use of a military option, Hagel made it clear, he won’t be on board. It may well be that the United States is going to have to find some way to engage the Iranians off channel. That doesn’t mean negotiate. That doesn’t mean diplomatically recognize them. But if we are to get to the core of the issue here, the Iranians are surrounded by, in their minds — reverse the optics for a minute. When you’re talking with people you always have to — Israel with nuclear capacity, the Paks, the Indians. And sure, they’re going to have some sense of their own national security interest. I’m not defending that. And I found it very interesting today, too, and we need to be careful with this and work with those inside Iran on this issue. Former President Rafsanjani, the former speaker of the parliament, said some things today — yesterday about everybody calm down here, let’s talk this through. That’s the more responsible way to do it. And I think some incentives within the framework of how we deal with Iran is the way we will get to the objective. Blitzer immediately pointed out that Rafsanjani wasn’t elected, music to Senator Lieberman’s ears. Again, no one ventured to ask what pressures brought to bear by us might have contributed to the election of President Ahmadinejad, but Joe took as his text, the extreme nature of Iran’s new President - this man’s presence in Iran makes it “another front in our war against radical Islamist terrorism, because Ahmadinejad has proclaimed himself, in some sense, the leader of those forces.” Going to be interesting to see how, with the help of Lieberman, the administration is going to be able to paint a duly elected President of a country which is acting strictly within its own borders as a terrorist and his terrorist state, but I don’t doubt they’ll find a way. Any doubts you might have had that Lieberman has learned absolutely nothing from our experience in Iraq, you can set aside: And yes, I agree with John McCain, in the last analysis, if we’re that serious about the danger that Iran with nuclear weapons poses to the rest of the world, and most particularly to us, the United States of America, we’ve got to leave the military option on the table. Think its fair to say that John McCain isn’t exactly a quick learner, either. It was in the context of Iran that Hagel made his headline-worthy statement about Iraq, when Wolf asked Hagel if he was sure that our intelligence agencies had it right about Iran’s nuclear program. I go back to the conversation we just had here, the three of us, over the last five minutes, about Iran. We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because, in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said, and others said, it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq, and that limits our options in Iran, it limits our foreign policy options everywhere. We need to think through where we’re going. We need to think through consequences. We talk about sanctions. Well, sanctions, that’s fine. Where would that lead? Where would that go? We’ve got to bore down here a little bit more in our thoughtful analysis. Intelligence is a very key part of that. But it’s imperfect. We don’t have all the pieces. One of the — I think one of the results of us having no relationship with Iran, when all of our allies do, is that the intelligence we get is pretty much third-hand. We don’t have any presence in Iran. To sum up: Chuck Hagel thinks the last thing we ought to be thinking about is doing anything with a military option but leave it on the table, while Senator Lieberman is forging yet another test of foreign policy seriousness by daring America to be unafraid of an option that will probably result in a 100 years war with a billion Muslims. Good one, Joe. If the subject of intelligence is raised, can the issue of those NSA warrantless wiretaps be far behind? Give Wolf limited credit, he did use the word “warrantless,” but he didn’t use the word “domestic,” although he did use the word, “surveillence,” once. Come on, you couldn’t seriously have thought he was going to put the two together? Here’s the context: Hagel is the cover story on the NYTimes magazine this Sunday, which provided the explicit set-up for Wolf to pair off Hagel and Lieberman as Senators who remain stubbornly independent of their parties. Hagel was a good deal more impressive here than Lieberman, making the point that, though a Republican, his first responsibility is to his constituents, the country as a whole, and to the constitution. Lieberman, presented with that loathsome statement he made about Democrats needing to accept the fact that Bush is president for the next three years, made a meaningless distinction between being critical for partisan reasons, which is bad, and being responsible and non-partisan, which seems to mean, one simply doesn’t criticize the President, especially not on his foreign policy. Which led Wolf to the NSA: BLITZER: Are you on board with the president’s decision to go ahead and authorize these warrantless wiretaps without getting any congressional authority? HAGEL: Quick answer is no. We have a law on the books. It has worked. But more to the point, we are a nation that not only respects our laws, but we are a nation rooted in law. And that foundation has been built by the Constitution of the United States. For over 200 years, we’ve protected civil liberties of Americans and our national security interests. We can do both. We have done both. I think we need to accommodate, at a time when technology has changed, threats have changed, a new way to respond to these threats. Interestingly, Wolf didn’t ask Leiberman his view, and the Democratic Senator (I have to remind myself) didn’t indicate he had anything to say on the matter. Katrina and her discontents rounded out the Senatorial portion of the program; quoting from a Wa Po article that states a Republican report is about to come out which says Michael Chertoff was detached from what was going on, and that the White House failed to engage the President in what was going on - the quote didn’t make much more sense than that, Wolf then asked Lieberman if his Senate committee investigation will show the same thing, to which Lieberman was only too happy to say that yes, that is exactly what he and Senator Collins are finding. The rest was a perfect example of Lieberman’s conception of not being partisan, which seems to translate into an almost automatic need to exempt the President from any responsibility for his own administration’s actions, i.e., after a long list of the failures of the administration in responding to a predicted disaster, Lieberman’s final conclusion was this: I’ll tell you, the president ought to be outraged. This — our whole apparatus failed to protect the people of New Orleans. And next time, God forbid, it could be a terrorist attack, and there’s not going to be a warning from the weather service. We got a lot to do, and we better do it together and quickly. Couldn’t agree more, Joe, but I wonder how you’ve managed not to notice that this White House has no desire to work together, not with anyone who isn’t already in their pocket. 2nd hour had Allawi talking about Iraq, and three Middle East Ambassadors; summary to follow. 
Gene Gaudette is a music and video producer, managing partner of a production company, and publisher/ringmaster/chief bottle washer of American Politics Journal. Eli Dansky is a freelance writer and sometime song and dance man. A graduate of the writing program at the New School for Social Research (now New School University) in New York City, he serves as the loyal opposition to his father, Howard. When not venting his liberal spleen, Howard Dansky is a consultant in workforce development and education. Living in the Philly area, he's a Sixers fan who prefers AI's straight talk to McCain's. | |
| | | |
| Copyright © 2005, 1999-2004, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us. Operating software by Underwriters Digital Research. Data development by Gaudette & Associates. ISSN No. 1523-1690 |   | |
