Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Generative Consequences

“Men’s liberation” aside, there are many many people, both male and female, who believe that a woman should be required to inform her husband that she is pregnant — after all, they reason, the baby is his too, right?

I don’t believe that women should have to inform anyone of their decision to have an abortion because it infringes on her fundamental right to personal autonomy. But even those who disagree with that should recognise that it’s not always so simple:

The name of the woman pictured below is Gerri Twerdy Santoro. She was just 28 years old. She was a sister, a daughter, and she was the mother of two daughters when she died a very painful and frightening death.

This New York coroner’s picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri’s picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion. While it was assumed that she died at the hands of a back alley butcher, the family later confirmed that she died the way most women died before Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in this country in 1973; she died from a self-induced abortion attempt.

Gerri was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him. Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon’s baby she was carrying, he would kill her. She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy. That desperation and determination made her akin to thousands upon thousands of women in those days that were desperate and determined enough to terminate their unintended pregnancies in spite of the fact that abortion was illegal. Illegality affected the safety of abortion but it never affected the number of abortions that were performed.

Gerri was 6 ½ months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri’s boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room. She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn’t. How frightened she must have been, knowing she was going to die. She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.

You can go to the link to see the picture, if you need to see the horror.

The new nominee for the Supreme Court voted that a woman today, in the same position this woman was in in 1964, would probably have to do the same thing Gerri Santoro did. Informing her husband would put her in the exact position she is desperate to avoid. And that woman might very well end up the same way Gerri Santoro did.

Now, I’m sure there are many on the right who believe that this poor woman deserved what she got for being unfaithful to her abusive husband. Her crime was having unauthorized sex and she should have had to “pay the price” by bringing a child into an angry abusive marriage — or perhaps being killed by her violent husband.

Indeed, great thinkers on the right are now saying this right out loud.

From Pandagon I find out that Leon Kass is dead serious about outlawing birth control, because it has unhinged women’s “desire” from its “consequences:”

The sexual revolution that liberated (especially) female sexual desire from the confines of marriage, and even from love and intimacy, would almost certainly not have occurred had there not been available cheap and effective female birth control — the pill — which for the first time severed female sexual activity from its generative consequences.

[…]

Her menstrual cycle, since puberty a regular reminder of her natural maternal destiny, is now anovulatory and directed instead by her will and her medications, serving goals only of pleasure and convenience, enjoyable without apparent risk to personal health and safet

[…]

Her sexuality unlinked to procreation, its exercise no longer needs to be concerned with the character of her partner and whether he is suitable to be the father and co-rearer of her yet-to-be-born children.

How touching. If it weren’t for birth control we could pretend we’re in Victorian England and have a nice cup of tea. Sadly, his little fantasy wasn’t even true during that time for any but the richest Mayfair heiresses (who were also bartered off like cattle) and it sure wasn’t true for women who had no means.

I think it’s time to call upon some down home wisdom from somebody red staters revere about the “character” of partners and the “generative consequences” for women in a life without repropductive freedom:

You wined me and dined me
When I was your girl
Promised if I’d be your wife
You’d show me the world
But all I’ve seen of this old world
Is a bed and a doctor bill
I’m tearin’ down your brooder house
‘Cause now I’ve got the pill

All these years I’ve stayed at home
While you had all your fun
And every year thats gone by
Another babys come
There’s a gonna be some changes made
Right here on nursery hill
You’ve set this chicken your last time
‘Cause now I’ve got the pill

This old maternity dress I’ve got
Is goin’ in the garbage
The clothes I’m wearin’ from now on
Won’t take up so much yardage
Miniskirts, hot pants and a few little fancy frills
Yeah I’m makin’ up for all those years
Since I’ve got the pill

I’m tired of all your crowin’
How you and your hens play
While holdin’ a couple in my arms
Another’s on the way
This chicken’s done tore up her nest
And I’m ready to make a deal
And ya can’t afford to turn it down
‘Cause you know I’ve got the pill

This incubator is overused
Because you’ve kept it filled
The feelin’ good comes easy now
Since I’ve got the pill
It’s gettin’ dark it’s roostin’ time
Tonight’s too good to be real
Oh but daddy don’t you worry none
‘Cause mama’s got the pill
Oh daddy don’t you worry none
‘Cause mama’s got the pill

Loretta Lynn 1972

Scalito doesn’t want women to have family leave when they get pregnant, and he thinks that women should have to inform their husbands if they want an abortion (at least until he can outlaw it all together.) Considering his views are considered to be in the same ballpark as Scalia, I assume that he thinks that Griswold should be overturned as well — all the best right wing fascists do.

Good luck with this. If these guys have their way it’s going to be a rude awakening for the women in this country.

Update: Excuse me, I just found out that Scalito believes that there should have been an exception to the “inform the husband” provision — she would have had to go to court and reveal all of her private business to a judge in order to get permission not to tell her estranged, abusive husband. The supreme court found that to be an undue burden. I’m sure he and Nino will take care of that nonsense the first chance they get.

.

It’s Traitorgate, Stupid.

Alito, schmalito. Of course, he stinks, and stinks worse than usual. You expected a reasonable nominee from Bush? Are you joking?

Now look. Of course, if Alito isn’t vigorously opposed and if he gets to the court, the extreme right will advance one more ominous giant step along the road to establishing the US as a Christian Taliban state (and no, rightwing nuts: I don’t think they’ll convert baseball stadiums for use as mass execution centers of heretics, liberals, abortion doctors, their patients, and gays. Well, at least not for a few more years, anyway.)

But look at where we were up to 1 second before Bush announced Alito’s name, and where we still are. Bush is perceived by the press and politicos as wounded. And the wound is serious: The perception of his administration’s ability to protect us, to keep our secrets, and to tell us the truth is heavily, perhaps permanently damaged. With Bush injured, now is the time to press harder exactly where it hurts, and vigorously rub it with salt.

By contrast, Alito is for Bush as Oxycontin is for Limbaugh. Alito is intended to ease the pain of Fitzgerald’s indictments and continuing investigation by changing the subject. Bush, Cheney and Rove expect us to play along on their timetable, which requires that the country get distracted quickly from the brief glimpse Fitzgerald provided everyone, even Kristof, of the enormously fetid swamp of crimes and traitorous behavior behind the sealed gates of the Bush White House. No one, except Bush’s base, can be anything but disgusted at what was revealed on Friday.

And Bush’s base will rally around Alito no matter what. They have their carefully honed defenses of Alito ready to roll out. But they are not planning on having the country stay focused on Traitorgate. And that is why I’m saying we must.

I’m NOT saying ignore Alito. What I’m saying is DON’T LET BUSH CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Yes, we should attack Alito hard, but only when it’s entirely to our advantage to do so, and not when Bush thinks we will, when it he expects it to work mostly to his advantage. And so, don’t forget:

It’s Traitorgate, stupid.

It’s the foul stench of betrayal of country that will follow Libby around for the rest of his life. And in the mainstream (and even some places on the right), the sense that Rove and even Cheney have engaged in utterly unacceptable, if not outright criminal, behavior has begun to catch on as within the bounds of acceptable discourse. Look at what Reid said, he’s calling for Rove to resign regardless of indictment! (And he’s right.)

And so, it is on Traitorgate we should push. Alito can wait a bit for that heavy concerted effort to oppose him. Please, folks, think twice before jumping whenever Bush snaps. It’s Traitorgate right now, not rightwing courtpacking. Let’s make sure no one forgets it.

Krugman

Sing it:

Let me be frank: it has been a long political nightmare. For some of us, daily life has remained safe and comfortable, so the nightmare has merely been intellectual: we realized early on that this administration was cynical, dishonest and incompetent, but spent a long time unable to get others to see the obvious. For others – above all, of course, those Americans risking their lives in a war whose real rationale has never been explained – the nightmare has been all too concrete.

[SNIP]

So the Bush administration has lost the myths that sustained its mojo, and with them much of its power to do harm. But the nightmare won’t be fully over until two things happen.

First, politicians will have to admit that they were misled. Second, the news media will have to face up to their role in allowing incompetents to pose as leaders and political apparatchiks to pose as patriots.

It’s a sad commentary on the timidity of most Democrats that even now, with Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, telling us how policy was “hijacked” by the Cheney-Rumsfeld “cabal,” it’s hard to get leading figures to admit that they were misled into supporting the Iraq war. Kudos to John Kerry for finally saying just that last week.

And as for the media: these days, there is much harsh, justified criticism of the failure of major news organizations, this one included, to exert due diligence on rationales for the war. But the failures that made the long nightmare possible began much earlier, during the weeks after 9/11, when the media eagerly helped our political leaders build up a completely false picture of who they were.

So the long nightmare won’t really be over until journalists ask themselves: what did we know, when did we know it, and why didn’t we tell the public?

It’s hard to believe how isolated a voice Krugman was from, say, about Spring 2000 to about January, 2004. There was all but nowhere else in the mainstream press where Bush’s total absence of presidential qualifications, his incompetence, and his lack of personal integrity were being honestly discussed.

And no one believed him. He was ignored and ridiculed by fellow journalists as shrill, he went mostly unread by mainstream politicians. He was disbelieved by ordinary readers including literally all of my milieu, who seemed desperate to believe that Bush – whose negligence and incompetence were crystal clear to me even when the towers were still smoking and the networks were overwhelmed with ominous reports and rumours – would actually save and protect us from the horrible fate that befell our fellow New Yorkers.

So now, if Krugman wants to tell the country and especially his colleagues, “I told you so,” he deserves to. He told us exactly so. When no one else dared.

Paul, I owe you. Big time.

(Edited slightly after original posting.)

Fitz In The Tank?

Michael Isikoff reports:

Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush’s own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president’s closest aide would not be charged.

Holy Shit. Can someone tell me why Fitzgerald would go to President Bush’s personal lawyer on Friday to tell him that Bush’s “closest aide wouldn’t be charged?” Is it in any possible sense ethical for the prosecutor to be telling the president’s lawyer information that isn’t available to the public about members of the president’s staff in the middle of an investigation?

If this is true, I think Mr Fitzgerald has some splainin’ to do, otherwise it might look like he’s got some back channel communication with the White House about a case that directly affects it. This would not seem in character for Mr Fitzgerald, who is by all acounts a very ethical prosecutor. If this is true, it’s a bomb shell. Fitzgerald has no business discussing Karl Rove with anyone but Karl Rove and Karl Rove’s lawyer.

Michael Isikoff repeats this line as if it is a matter of objective truth, but there is no way to know that, of course. This prosecutor doesn’t leak so this is coming from Rove’s lawyer, Luskin, or Bush’s lawyer, Sharp. I’m unaware of any leaking from Sharp but there has been a ton of it from Luskin over the past few months. I think reporters like Isikoff should probably take a little inventory of all the blind alleys they’ve been led down by Robert Luskin these past few months. Here are just a few of the highlights:

“Karl has truthfully told everyone who’s asked him that he did not circulate Valerie Plame’s name to punish her husband, Joe Wilson,” Luskin said. Asked if that included President Bush, Luskin said, “Everyone is everyone.”

Added Luskin, “Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else … Who outed this woman? … It wasn’t Karl.”
Luskin said Rove “certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information.”

“If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it’s not Karl he’s protecting.”

Luskin is a defense lawyer. It’s part of his job. I’m not criticising him for it. But, he and Rove are working overtime to get Rove out of this jam — and prepare the ground for a big PR push if Rove is indicted — and all reporters should think carefully about credulously repeating what they are saying.

You’d think Luskin would be very careful before he charges Fitzgerald with unauthorized discussions of the case with Bush’s lawyer. If it isn’t true, Fitzgerald might just get a little testy about it.

Turdblossom In The Punchbowl

Karl Rove is spinning like Tanya Harding at the nationals right now, telling everyone who will listen that he wasn’t part of any conspiracy to leak Plame’s identity to the press, that he has a major case of CRS disease (can’t remember shit.) But it just doesn’t hold water.

One thing we do know is that Official A in LIbby’s indictment has been acknowledged to be Rove. Here’s the passage that refers to him:

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.

Interesting phrasing, isn’t it? Rove knew that Novak was writing a story “about Wilson’s wife” — not about Cheney’s non-involvement, not about Joe Wilson never submitting a report, but “about Wilson’s wife.”

And here I thought Karl was just trying to warn reporters off Wilson’s allegations and mentioned Wilson’s wife to Cooper as an afterthought. Byron York interviewed Rove’s lawyer Luskin back in July:

“Look at the Cooper e-mail,” Luskin continues. “Karl speaks to him on double super secret background…I don’t think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson’s wife.”

According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are “indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out.”

Yet Karl “Official A” Rove specifically informed Libby that Novak would be writing a story “about Wilson’s wife.” Perhaps they were just idly sharing small tid-bits of their conversations with journalists over the urinals, but it certainly would seem that Karl had an interest in “Wilson’s wife” as opposed to Wilson’s alleged misstatements.

I am not a lawyer so I’m probably missing something vitally important here, but can someone explain to me why this item is included in the obstruction count? From what I gather the obstruction charge rests on the fact that he lied so often and so completely that the Grand Jury concluded that he was actively obstructing the investigation. But it does not appear that he lied about this conversation, or at least it isn’t mentioned in the enumerated lies in the perjury counts. So, what does this conversation with Rove have to do with Libby’s obstruction activities?

Karl, of course, has been telling everyone who will listen that he’s only potentially on the hook for perjury about Matt Cooper and that he just forgot. Luskin has been spinning this as Karl presenting evidence at the eleventh hour that gave Fitzgerald “pause” because Karl never mentioned his conversation with Cooper to his flunky so he must not have remembered it. (I think Jane has the best take on that silly defense.)

Karl has a history of memory lapses about his ratfucking activity going way back. But it’s always been a little bit hard to swallow, since he can recall the most arcane electoral information for any district in the country and can recite passages of books he’s read verbatim. You see, Karl doesn’t just have a good memory, or a prodigious memory — he has a photographic memory.

[His sister Reba] told journalist Miriam Rozen the family used to rely on Rove’s photographic memory for evening entertainment.

“The game was, “see if you can stump Karl,” she said in an interview published in the Dallas Observer. His older brother Eric would read a passafe from abook Karl had read the week before. That challenge was to guess which word his brother had intentionally left out. (Bush’s Brain, p.116)

Once people with photographic memories see something they remember it. If Karl Rove wrote an e-mail, he remembered it.

.

Pakistan

Ann-Marie Slaughter reprints a letter from Pakistan:

The situation is, as per any and all analyses, profoundly dire. The statistics speak for themselves, both in terms of the damage done and the lives lost, but more importantly, for the people still at risk (at least 3.5 million). By UN estimates, the relief challenge is three times that of the tsunami.

As we have discussed, my family is actively involved in social and development work in Northern Pakistan; I myself have spent much time working in the region. I am writing to you because, having just visited the region and spoken to many community leaders across the NWFP and Pakistani-held Kashmir, it is apparent that there is a tremendous strategic opportunity for the United States and its allies. For a fraction of the cost of what is spent in other arenas of the War on Terror, an extremely volatile region and country’s hearts and minds can be won over. All that is required is a very substantial, very visible US relief effort. [Emphasis added.]

‘Nuff said. And needless to say, if the US doesn’t help in a substantive way, it will be interpreted as the worst kind of punishment and abandonment.

39% Approval? After Everything That’s Happened?!?

What is wrong with this country? Bush’s approval is at 39%. True, it’s the lowest ever for the Post/ABC survey but think about it. How could more than 1/3 of the people think this president, whose performance in office makes it clear that Yale was already cursed with serious grade inflation when they gave him a C+, be so clueless? Look at it this way.

We just got a wonderful puppy who loves everyone; he’s trusting, affectionate, and was easily housetrained. But what if I was so negligent that I let a known dog hater from the next block attack him so violently that two of his legs had to be amputated? What if I forced him through obedience training to sit, to beg, to rollover, and then as a reward, I gave all the well-fed dogs on the block delicious yummy treats while putting my puppy on a starvation diet? What if, then, on the hottest days of the year, I arranged for my dog to participate in a totally pointlesss cockfight with no end, a fight which left him bleeding, exhausted, and humiliated? What if I grabbed other dogs off the street and tortured them right in front of my dog, so they associated their pain with my dog’s loving face? What if I then nearly drowned my dog in a clogged sewer, leaving him there for half a week while I joked about how I once partied hard down there, when it was an elegant cabana?

Yes, the average puppy scores twice as high as Jeb Bush on scholastic aptitude tests, but let’s face it: there are smarter critters out there. But even so, don’t you think that any puppy, if they endured what I’ve imagined mine enduring, would just about now start thinking there was something majorly seriously wrong with the guy tugging his leash? Don’t you think that any puppy would snap and bite whenever I came within 10 feet of him? Or snarl menacingly whenever I pretended once again to feed him but gave his food away to the big fat dogs who regularly stomp on him at the dog run?

Am I saying that over 1/3 of the American public is dumber and more complacent than my 10 month old puppy? Not at all. Here’s another possible explanation.

Headline of the Year

On or about September 26, 2003

the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

On or about October 7, 2003.

Karl Rove says to George W. Bush, “Reporters do a very good job of protecting leakers, Mr President. Don’t worry.”

October 8, 2003:

I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers,” he said. “You tell me: How many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or had been exposed? Probably none. I mean, this town is a town full of people who like to leak information.

October 14, 2003

LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

Can there be any doubt that the Bush administration bet the farm on the idea that the press would keep their mouths shut? And can we all see that they were very close to being right? If Fitzgerald hadn’t been willing to take it to the mat, they would have gotten off scott free.

The Republican (Washington) estabishment very wisely have figured out that they can use the press to disseminate anything they choose and the press will either eagerly report it or “decline” to follow up. They consider the press a cog in their noise machine and the press is willing to be a cog as long as they are given access.

It’s not just Judy Miller. It’s the whole lot of them.

Recall, if you will, the unbelivable performance of reporters at the presidential and department of defense press conferences in which they laughed uproariously at every lame joke as if it were Robin Williams at Carnegie Hall. Remember the way they reported the president’s halting, ignorant, inarticulate answersd to questions as if they were handed down from the Oracle of Delphi. Remember how they dutifully reported every single lie the administration spewed forth in the run up to the war — between khaki safari jacket fittings and salute lessons in anticipation of their thrilling (em)bedding with the he-men of the American military. It was enough to make you sick.

The Bush administration must be reeling with betrayal. I can certainly understand why they believed that the press would do exactly as they were told. They always had before.

They didn’t realize that for Tim Russert, it was a matter of picking which government official he would keep silent for. And they couldn’t have anticipated that Pat Fitzgerald would see that since reporters were first hand witnesses to a crime of national security that he would put the squeeze on them so hard they had to cooperate.

I have no doubt that Karl and Scooter gave their bosses complete assurance that the press would never talk. They wouldn’t have received any more official leaks on backround if they didn’t and then they would have to do real reporting. Nobody could imagine such a thing.

.

No Hero

Now that Tim Russert has finally told his story — and it appears to be central to the case — a lot of people are saying that we owe him an apology for giving him grief.

While I certainly agree with Atrios that this notion of default confidentiality any time you speak to a government official is mind-boggling (and I give Russert some credit for not being a total Bush toady on this) but I don’t think Russert gets any kudos for his behavior. I know that Fitzgerald asked him to keep quiet, but I don’t think it’s any more ethical for a reporter not to report what he knows for that reason, than if he kept quiet because he allowed Scooter to assume that he had confidentiality. There is no secrecy required for Grand Jury witnesses and there certainly is no secrecy required for discussions with the prosecutor. Where there is no secrecy required, which should be a little as possible, reporters should report. We are all better off if these people don’t go around deciding whether the government is doing the right thing by keeping secrets. We the people are the government and we have a right to know.

NBC put put out a lawyerly press release which turns out to be pretty much the extent of Russert’s testimony. In the context of the case it became ripe for parsing, using such words as it did about”the name” and the word “operative” which had been discussed in great depth in the context of Novak’s column. By never clarifying what he meant by those words — by never ever even addressing them — he allowed misconceptions and speculation to simmer for months. He failed in his job as a journalist by not clearing that up.

But Russert’s biggest crime was consistently discussing this case, and grilling those involved, without ever mentioning his own involvement. For two years he has been reporting this story and leaving out relevant information (as it turns out extremely relevant information) about this case. He grilled Joe Wilson like a criminal, he never challenged the Vice president, he had Bob Novak right in front of him and he talked about the case and speculated grandly while never (except in one very bizarre instance) coming clean about what he knew.

Here’s the one bizarre instance from July 25, 2005:

MR. GREGORY: … There’s a political problem and then potentially a legal problem because I think what the special prosecutor is looking at right now is who might have actually blown Valerie Plame’s cover, or did somebody lie, in their testimony, about their conversations with reporters? The White House defense has been that they learned about Valerie Plame from reporters. There is now information, including a classified State Department memo, that may contradict that. There at least is the potential that White House officials were aware of who she was, what she did and her role in sending her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger to investigate this uranium-Iraq thing.

MR. RUSSERT: There has to be an original source, somebody.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Even if it came from a reporter…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: …the reporter got it from someplace.

MS. TOTENBERG: Right. And…

MR. RUSSERT: But I was asked what I said. I did not know.

I have no idea what he meant by that, but it certainly didn’t inform the discussion. (And, of course, nobody followed up. Russert is godhead.)

Unless Russert had an explicit legal obligation to stay quiet, he should not have done it. His job is to inform the public of what he knows, period. By not clearing up the press release and speaking up in various roundtables and interviews he passively misinformed the public for months.

The bottom line is that a reporter’s obligation is not to the government, it’s to his readers or viewers, whether the government is represented by Scooter Libby or Patrick Fitzgerald. They are the Fourth Estate, empowered by a heavy duty constitutional right — freedom of the press, which was not put in the bill of rights so that reporters could get delicious gossip about people with whom they socialize along with their tasty official propaganda. It also wasn’t put into the Bill of Rights so that they could help prosecutors. Our democracy will not function if they do not operate in a separate sphere of responsibility from the government they cover.

I’m reminded of this little exhange between Russert and the Dean from a few months back:

Russert: David Broder, explain to our viewers what you have observed, and why journalists have this code where they simply will not divulge their sources.

Broder: The principle is pretty simple. It is the government’s responsibility to keep the government’s secrets secret. It is not the press’ responsibility. Our inclination, once we have information, is to try to verify it, to amplify as much as we can, the background and the context. But our basic obligation, then, is to share information with the public.

It seems that many members of the Washington press corpse believe that the story stops with printing what their favored confidential sources feed them. Then they go back for more. They’ve been doing this for a long time and the result has been a disasterous kind of incentuous amplification of the political establishment’s efforts to guide the discourse in the direction they choose.

In this case, even after all this manipulation and lying on the part of the administration, even blaming reporters for their own misdeeds and using the threat of betraying omerta to silence them, the press is still serving as little more than conduits for the target’s lawyers’ public relations roll out. Their reporting on the underlying issues about the war is perfunctory at best, thrown in at the end of each article like so much filler, and calling it “context.”

I heard John Dean last night on Keith Olbermann make an interesting claim: that the Nixon administration as part of their Stonewall Defense had wanted the case to be investigated in the Grand Jury because of the secrecy requirement. (Remenber Nixon’s famous words on the tape: “I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment; cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it; save the plan.”) Dean said that if congress hadn’t investigated Watergate, it would have died behind the wall of Grand Jury secrecy and the facts behind this case may die there too.

However, there was at the time, some intrepid reporting taking place as well, some of which was aggressive interviewing of reluctant Grand Jury witnesses — former employees of CREEP and the like. Reporters worked hard to get them to tell their tales and it was the constant revelations coming out in the Washington Post, informed by Mark Feldt but reported with shoe leather investigative work, that propelled the congress to act. Today, we have reporters who are actually part of the story refusing to tell their tales all because they are protecting, in one way or another, the government.(Andsadly, one of the reporters involved in that story is now a total whore for the Bush administration.)

This is one of the most perverse aspects of this entire story. The culture of Washington has become so insular that reporters are in the business of protecting the government’s secrets on a constant basis. (The only secrets they refuse to keep are lurid tales of people’s private sex lives.)

I’m glad that Fitzgerald was able to make a perjury case against Scooter Libby, since he is obviously covering up something bigger than gossip or he wouldn’t have done something so uncharacteristically dumb.(“Stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment; cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it; save the plan.”) He deserves to be prosecuted. But I can’t help but wonder how I would look at this if the prosecutor were Ken Starr and Tim Russert had helped him rather than do his job.

Oh wait, I forgot. He did.

.