Yglesias says that the neocons may not be as triumphant as we thought since John Bolton has been eighty-sixed. I’m not so sure. Bolton, for all of his insane ramblings, wasn’t really a neocon. He was Jesse Helms’s boy — reflexively anti-international, confrontational and crude. He’s more of a paranoid John Bircher than a starry-eyed neocon intellectual and while it’s true that their interest in unilateralism and American hegemony intersect, they really come from different schools. Bolton was a loose cannon. I’m not surprised the neos would want to see him gone.
Via the Poorman I see that the Columbia Journalism Review does a little fact checking on the fact checkers in the glorious blogospheric triumph of “Memogate.” The kerning sleuth’s scoops were actually inferior to the average newsflash in the Weekly World News, but in these heady days of faux internet journalism, as pioneered by our own William Paley — Drudge — it ranks right up there with “Monica’s talking points” for making utter fools of the mediawhores. That in itself is a triumph since they are so good at making fools of themselves.
…much of the bloggers’ vaunted fact-checking was seriously warped. Their driving assumptions were often drawn from flawed information or based on faulty logic. Personal attacks passed for analysis. Second, and worse, the reviled MSM often followed the bloggers’ lead. As mainstream media critics of CBS piled on, rumors shaped the news and conventions of sourcing and skepticism fell by the wayside. Dan Rather is not alone on this one; respected journalists made mistakes all around.
[…]
Would-be gumshoes typed up documents on their computers and fooled around with the images in Photoshop until their creation matched the originals. Someone remembered something his ex-military uncle told him, others recalled the quirks of an IBM typewriter not seen for twenty years. There was little new evidence and lots of pure speculation. But the speculation framed the story for the working press.
The very first post attacking the memos — nineteen minutes into the 60 Minutes II program — was on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com by an active Air Force officer, Paul Boley of Montgomery, Alabama, who went by the handle “TankerKC.” Nearly four hours later it was followed by postings from “Buckhead,” whom the Los Angeles Times later identified as Harry MacDougald, a Republican lawyer in Atlanta. (MacDougald refused to tell the Times how he was able to mount a case against the documents so quickly.) Other blogs quickly picked up the charges. One of the story’s top blogs, Rathergate.com, is registered to a firm run by Richard Viguerie, the legendary conservative fund-raiser. Some were fed by the conservative Media Research Center and by Creative Response Concepts, the same p.r. firm that promoted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. CRC’s executives bragged to PR Week that they helped legitimize the documents-are-fake story by supplying quotes from document experts as early as the day after the report, September 9. The goal, said president Greg Mueller, was to create a buzz online while at the same time showing journalists “it isn’t just Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge who are raising questions.”
Doggonnit to heck. And after all those false tips during the Clinton years. Whodda thunk that liberul media would get taken again?
There was actually a big story of blogospheric triumph this year that the mediawhores have conveniently ignored since they weren’t spoonfed the delicious details by their trusted RNC sources.(They’re very busy.) It was the story of a big media player being forced to back off a plan to air partisan propaganda as news in the waning days of the presidential campaign when the internet organized a boycott that made it’s way to institutional Wall Street investors and snowballed into a precipitous stock dive. But that’s a very dull story that didn’t feature even one adorable tale of an intrepid blogger cracking the DaVinci Code in his pyjamas. Who cares?
The Poorman notes another real blogospheric reportorial triumph with serious real life consequences. Not that it matters.
Unfogged is right; barring a miracle of competence and media responsibility, opposing torture will end up making the Democrats look like we get the vapors whenever the menfolk whip out the cigars and talk terrorism. Our press flacks are are ineffective, our caucus can’t stick to a message, and we don’t have a party leader charged with articulating our position to the public.
Doesn’t matter. Torture just isn’t something you compromise on. I’m as coldly political as the next guy, but not torture. That’s not part of the country I grew up believing in.
But, you see, the mere act of finally drawing that line in the sand, of saying “No More” is the very thing that refutes the charge. It’s hemming and hawing and splitting the difference and “meeting halfway” and offering compromises on matters of principle that makes the charge of Democratic splinelessness believable. This isn’t about a special interest giving money or bending to the will of a powerful constituency. People can feel the difference. There is nothing weak about simply and forcefully standing up for what is right.
A number of the commenters to the post below are convinced that the American people actually approve of torture so this will not be a very salient issue for the Democrats. I disagree. I think it may just be a defining issue for Democrats.
It’s not that I believe that all Americans are horrified, or even a majority of Americans are horrified. Clearly, the dittoheads think it is just ducky. But that isn’t the point. Just because they aren’t horrified or even endorse it on some level doesn’t mean that they don’t know that it’s wrong. They do. And it is very uncomfortable to be put in the position of defending yourself when you know you are wrong. Even good people find ways, but it cuts a little piece out of their self respect every time they do it.
Every person alive in America today grew up with the belief that torture is wrong. Popular culture, religion, folklore and every other form of cultural instruction for decades in this country has taught that it is wrong, from sermons and lectures to films about slavery to photographs of Auschwitz to crime shows about serial killers. It is embedded in our consciousness. We teach our children that it is wrong to torture animals and other kids. We don’t say that there are exceptions for when the animals or kids are really, really bad. We have laws on the books that outright outlaw it. The words “cruel and unusual” are written into our constitution.
The problem is not that there isn’t a widely accepted admonition not to conduct torture, it’s that many people, as with all crimes, will choose to ignore the admonition under certain circumstances. However, that does not mean that they do not know that what they are doing is wrong. There is nothing surprising in that. It’s why we have laws.
The arguments for torture being raised by the right are rationalizations for what they know is immoral and illegal conduct. Their discomfort with the subject clearly indicates that they don’t really want to defend it. (Witness the pathetic dance that even that S&M freak Rush Limbaugh had to do after his comments were widely disseminated.) Will they admit that they know it’s wrong? Of course not. But when they take up their manly jihad and accuse the Democrats of being swooning schoolgirls they will also be forced to positively defend something that many of them know very well is indefensible. And every time they do that their credibility on values and morals is chipped away a little bit.
I don’t expect them to change their tune. Way too much of this comes from a defect in temperament and garden variety racism and that’s not going to go away. But Democrats have to thicken their skins and be prepared for the usual attacks and insist over and over again that it is against the values and principles of the United States to torture people, period. It is not only right, it is smart.
As I wrote below, the opposition will bluster and fidget and scream bloody murder. But listen to the tenor of their arguments. The WSJ article below rails against the “glib abuse of the word” as if they can run away from the issue by engaging in a game of semantics. They are reduced to claiming that unless we torture it will be unilateral disarmament. We, the most powerful military force the world has ever known, will be defeated by a bunch of third world religious misfits if we don’t engage in torturing suspects. Just who sounds weak?
The White House appears to be dreading today’s confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales now that Democrats seem ready to blame the Attorney General nominee for Abu Ghraib and other detainee mistreatment. But this is actually a great chance for the Administration to do itself, and the cause of fighting terror, some good by forcefully repudiating all the glib and dangerous abuse of the word “torture.”
For what’s at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians. And the Democratic position, Mr. Gonzales shouldn’t be afraid to say, amounts to a form of unilateral disarmament that is likely to do far more harm to civil liberties than anything even imagined so far.
Gonzales certainly wasn’t afraid to use the word torture. In fact, he personally asked for a definition and a legal finding as to whether the president had the authority in wartime to ignore the laws against it, both American and international. Why the squeamishness about the word now?
Perhaps because they have waded into quicksand on this issue and they know the only thing that will save them is if the Democrats throw them a lifeline by refusing to expose the shallow prurience of their “values.” We should not do it. We should turn the spotlight back on those who made a fetish of morals and show them for what they are.
The right is going to accuse us of not caring about winning the GWOT but we should stand tough and not flinch when we say that torture is immoral. They are now caught in the bind of having to defend it (indeed, some relish defending it) and it is indefensible on both moral and practical grounds. We should not be afraid of their bluster. It is the sign of their weakness. Let them bellow.
The American people know that torture is wrong. They know. That does not mean, of course, that some don’t think we should use it. Even so they know it’s wrong . And because the modern Republican party has sold themselves as the party of values this discussion leaves them uncomfortable, squirming and impatient. Their smugness has turned to waspishness. They want desperately to change the subject.
This is the dawning of a new values debate and one which is far more defining for a great nation than tendentious posturing about personal sexual morality. This goes to the very core of what we, as Americans, really are. It’s time for us to take that fight to those who constantly use their cramped definition of morality to bludgeon us into a corner.
Human Rights First Blog is blogging the Gonzales confirmation hearings. There are also links to the audio in case you are tired of watching that Ken doll anchor on MSNBC commend the president for saying he doesn’t believe in torture.
As long as I’m approvingly linking to myself, I might as well pat myself on the back for seeing this one coming.Atrios points to a Nelson Report that says Junior refuses to hear bad news and has personally directed that his staff not burden him with it.
Our sources are firm in that they conclude this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.
I am not surprised. In fact a couple of weeks ago I wrote:
This is the big story of the second term. Bush himself is now completely in charge. He did what his old man couldn’t do. He has been freed of all constraints, all humility and all sense of proportion. Nobody can run him, not Cheney, not Condi, not Card. He has a sense of his power that he didn’t have before. You can see it. From now on nobody can tell him nothin. It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn’t it?
OK, so I’m linking to Josh Marshall twice in one day, but that’s tough. Here he talks about the Wehner memo and points out something important:
In other words, this isn’t about the fiscal soundness of Social Security or the babyboomers moving toward retirement or anything else. As Wehner himself says, this is the best chance the opponents of Social Security have had in six decades of trying to phase-out the program.
And this allows us to see the whole matter clearly. Social Security has been around for seventy years. How many people do you know who really don’t like Social Security? Back when I was younger I’d go spend part of my summer at the subsidized retirement community where my grandparents lived. And I don’t remember many people who lived there bad-mouthing Social Security. And those folks had lived under the program for pretty much all of their adults lives.
Or, the more relevant question, how about people today? How many people think Social Security is a bad thing? A program that never should have existed? I’m not saying how many worry that the program may not be there when they retire. How many people don’t even like the whole concept?
I think they’re in a distinct minority.
So now you can see from memos emerging from the White House itself that this isn’t about ‘saving’ Social Security. If it were, what would that sentence mean — (“For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win”)? The first time in six decades they can save it?
Clearly, this isn’t about ‘saving’ Social Security. It is a battle to end Social Security and replace with something that Wehner clearly understands is very different, indeed the antithesis of Social Security.
This entire debate is about ideology — between people who believe in the benefits Social Security has brought America in the last three-quarters of a century and those who think it was a bad idea from the start
Their motive for destroying social security is that it puts the lie to their contention that government can’t be trusted to do any positive social good. They are wrong and social security proves it. That’s why they must create the lie that it won’t work even while it’s clearly working. As the quotes above prove, they’ve been crying wolf for decades and yet the program continues to provide millions of old and disabled people a bare minimum of income when they are past their working years and it will continue to be funded, fairly painlessly, for at least another forty years. It’s very existence is a slap in the face to the Republican philosophy. That’s why they must destroy it.
And the fact that most people do not believe that social security is wrong means that they have to pull this dishonest scam.
“For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win — and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.”
They can’t make it any plainer than that. They have always wanted to destroy Social Security.
Update: Here’s a letter Tamara Baker sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I don’t know if they printed it, but it gets to the point quite nicely:
Don’t let the crocodile tears of the Republicans fool you. They have
wanted to destroy Social Security from the time President Roosevelt started it nearly seventy years ago. And they’ve always been using trumped-up claims of imminent doom as a way to con Americans into letting them at the Social Security cookie jar.
[…]
Republicans hate Social Security because it proves them wrong. They and their big-business buddies have spent many decades and many hundreds of millions of dollars saturating the media with bogus horror stories about Social Security. But as with everything else they say they want to “reform”, their real goal is to kill it. Don’t
I’m with Josh Marshallon this (regarding the DLC and Third Way reportedly coming out publicly against privatization of SS.)
Before proceeding, a side note: Democrats have plenty of things more important to do right now than to fight amongst themselves. And I know a lot of readers of this site have strong suspicions or negative feelings about the DLC — in some cases because of very real policy differences. But members of a coalition party have to strive to celebrate moments of agreement at least a bit more than they rush to clamor over the inevitable disagreements. So maybe take a moment to give these guys (DLC and Third Way) some encouragement for doing the right thing.
Whether we like it or not, the centrist groups are key to winning the fight on SS and it looks as though they are going to come through. If we care more about being right than doing right then we will spit in their faces. If we really want to preserve Social Security, a successful program that affects the real lives of real people, and which serves as the economic centerpiece of everything we believe in, then we will be generous right now and be thankful that these guys have decided to help us hold the line. We need every single ally. This battle is deadly serious.
Also, one other note. I noticed that Somerby gave Kevin Drum a serious going over for his op-ed in the LA Times because he claimed that Clinton and Gore and other democrats had participated in giving the impression that SS needed “saving.” I’m not sure why Somerby got so hot under the collar, but Kevin was right. They did and for some good tactical reasons at the time.
But more importantly, I think, some of us have to realize that Clinton and Gore are not sacred icons to be protected at all costs. I love both of those guys, but they would be the first to tell you that sometimes you have to be tough in politics and right now Kevin’s argument is key to persuading people that SS is not in crisis. By putting some of the blame on Clinton and the Democrats you can get some people to listen who otherwise wouldn’t. It’s just good politics.
Clinton and Gore are big boys and will be around a long time to defend their legacy. They don’t need to be defended on every single issue. (The witch hunts will do quite well to illustrate the perfidy of the media.) On policy, it can be very useful to use them as foils if need be. I suspect they’d be the first to agree.
The New York Times reveals that Alberto Gonzales circumvented established guidelines and personally requested the Justice Department to draft an opinion as to whether Commander Codpiece could order that detainees be given forced enemas and the like:
Until now, administration officials have been unwilling to provide details about the role Mr. Gonzales had in the production of the memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gonzales has spoken of the memorandum as a response to questions, without saying that most of the questions were his.
[…]
Mr. Yoo said that Mr. Gonzales was merely seeking to ‘understand all available options’ in a perilous time, when the United States faced unprecedented threats.
But a senior administration official disagreed, saying that the memorandum’s conclusions appeared to closely align with the prevailing White House view of interrogation practices. The official said the memorandum raised questions about whether the Office of Legal Counsel had maintained its longstanding tradition of dispensing objective legal advice to its clients in executive-branch agencies.
What senior administration official do you suppose that is?
The last few days have seen a flood of off the record statements to the NY Times indicting Gonzales. Evidently, there are quite a few people even within the administration who want to see this guy bloodied up if not derailed. This is highly unusual in the Bush administration, to say the least.
Gonzales is one of Bush’s closest cronies and like Kerik, there’s probably no telling the King that his boy is a problem. It looks to me as if plenty of people know that Gonzales is pathologically loyal to Junior and enables his worst impulses. And they also know that he’s likely to do even more harm to this country than even they are willing to do. That really says something.
I’m beginning to wonder if there maybe isn’t a chance to offload this guy completely rather than just bloody him up. Yesterday, Jeffrey Dubner at TAPPED set forth the idea that rehashing the Bernie Kerik episode might be a wiser use of the committee’s time. My initial reaction was that it was better to concentrate on the torture (I can’t believe I’m even writing that) because this was really an opportunity for Democrats to use a losing battle to put the Republicans on the defensive in the values debate. Now, I’m not so sure. If there is any real chance of peeling off a few Republicans, the Bernie Kerik episode is the one that will get the press to pay attention. Sleaze and trivia is what they understand, and the story is quite recent and still unfolding. Torture is so last spring.
I still lead heavily toward the idea that the hearings must be used to highlight the extreme immorality of the Republican Party, but this has certainly made me wonder if maybe Gonzales isn’t a lot weaker than we think.