Hey! It's not our system of Government that's Broken

Former Justice Department official Arnold I. Burns has an Op Ed in today's New York Times, Two Parties, One Law, where he suggests that the Justice Department should be depoliticized.

Whatever happens to Mr. Gonzales, the taint will remain. That’s why the only real solution is to depoliticize the Justice Department, to do away with the appearance of anyone playing politics there.

I suggest we begin by making the attorney general job no longer a cabinet position. When the nation was established, the president needed a lawyer at his side. But today the president has a White House staff full of them — a veritable law firm in his own home.

The solution is to have the attorney general appointed to a fixed term — say, 15 years — that wouldn’t be coterminous with the tenure of the president who appoints him. As with the director of the F.B.I. (a 10-year term) and the chairman of the Federal Reserve (a four-year, renewable term), the appointment would be made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress’s oversight would ensure that no political hack or crony of the president could be handed the job.

Likewise, the 93 United States attorneys should not be political apparatchiks, but talented lawyers selected half from Republican ranks and half from Democratic, following the system used for regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission. These men and women should also be subject to Senate confirmation.

Changes in the occupant of the White House should not affect the way justice is administered. If the Gonzales mess ends up giving us an apolitical Department of Justice, the American people will be well served.

I would suggest that the current system is not broken, it's the Rovian Bush administration is broken. The more the Bush administration abuses power the more cries there are to limit the power of the executive. This is the wrong approach. For starters George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be impeached for the impeachable offenses they have committed. If for no other reason than to warn future potential tyrants that they will be held accountable. Now we get down to the real thing that needs fixing. No it's not the government or the constitution - it's the media, yes that so called liberal media both print and television. We have discussed here and here how the media is as responsible for the fact we are in the debacle of an occupation in Iraq. They are responsible for much more. When they refused to investigate or refused to publish the results of their investigations of the 2000 election the enabled the Bush administration to steal yet another election in 2004. When they refused to investigate or report on the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration they made it possible for the election to be close enough to make a fix possible. The list of instances where the main stream media failed the American people would be a long list indeed. That includes establishment pundits like David Broder and Tom Friedman. The press is called the fourth estate for a reason, when it doesn't do the job it was intended to do our form of government will fail. Al-Qaeda need do nothing, the New York Times and the Washington Post are doing it for them. Unless some way can be found to restore an independent press changing the mechanics of government will accomplish nothing.

The truth about the "War on Terror"

I've said it, maybe you've said it but finally someone is saying it on the pages of a major US newspaper; the so called war on terror is destroying this country faster and more effectively than al-Qaeda could ever hope to. I have never been a real big fan of Zbigniew Brzezinski but he sure as hell gets it right in
Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

It's not and never was about protecting the American People - it was all about power.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

What should have been a unifying event, 911, instead became something that was used to divide the country for purely political purposes.

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

Yes, the very newspaper that Brzezinski's commentary appears is responsible for this weakening of America.

The Bush/Cheney "War on Terror' was always a war against the American way of life and it's people. They have used fear as well as any power lusting tyrant in history.

Unlearned Lessons of War

On the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq the Washington Post editorial board (Fred Hiatt)shows us that it has learned few lessons in four years. In the editorial, Lessons of War they admit they were kind of wrong but not really. It's wrong to blame the incompetence of the Bush administration for the debacle but there is really no body else to blame. The Washington Post could have done a better job in the lead up to the invasion but once again not really.

We will never know what might have happened had Saddam Hussein and his sons been left in power. Nor do we know how Iraq will evolve; history's judgment in five years or 10 may look very different than today's. But the picture today is dire, and very different from what we would have hoped or predicted four years ago. The cost in lives, injuries and dislocations, to Americans and Iraqis, has been tragic; the opportunity costs for U.S. leadership globally have been immense. So there is an obligation to reassess. What have we learned?

So what has the Post learned? Not much!

Unquestionably, for example, the experience has shown the risks of preemptive war. Yet it remains true in an era of ruthless, suicidal terrorists and easily smuggled weapons of unimaginable destructive power that not acting also can be dangerous. The risks of war with North Korea or Iran are evident; but the cost of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Il may not become evident until the price has been paid. And while Iraq illustrates the importance of challenging intelligence estimates, there will also be risks in waiting for certainty that may never be achievable.

Similarly, Iraq has shown the disadvantages of acting without full allied support. Multilateralism and U.N. authorization are force multipliers, morally and literally; unilateralism should be a last resort. But ask the victims of genocide in Darfur whether international law and multinational organizations can always be counted upon. And, yes, the past four years have demonstrated the difficulty of seeding democracy in unaccustomed soil. But no American foreign policy will be supported at home or abroad if it does not include as one ambition the spread of freedom.

So while the debacle that is the invasion of Iraq has shown us that a unilateral preemptive war is a really bad idea that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it in the future. And this:

It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

Now I don't know anyone who is making that argument. It's wrong to stay because it's counter productive and wrong to stay not because it was wrong to invade in the first place. And who is saying that "Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse"? The same idiots who got us into Iraq in the first place. We shouldn't have listened to them then and we certainly shouldn't listen to them now. Why should this man have any credibility left?

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~Willaim Kristol, April 4th, 2003

Where Credit Is Due

I have not been posting much on US Attorney-Gate since a quick trip over to memeorandum or any of the other excellent aggregators listed on the right will give you plenty of folks who are smarter than I who are. But I have to give credit where it is due and that credit goes to Time's Jay Carney for this:
Where Credit Is Due

Twelve days ago, after David Iglesias went public, I said that if there turned out to be a broad conspiracy behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, "I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning."

My hat is off. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings, and who dug around and kept writing about them while Iglesias decided whether to talk to the press or go quietly on to his next job, deserve tremendous credit.

When this story first surfaced, I thought the Bush White House and Justice Department were guilty of poorly executed acts of crass political patronage. I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were "concerned", but this was not a priority. The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I'd first thought. I was wrong. Very nice work, and thanks for holding my feet to the fire.

While this isn't the first time the "instincts" of bloggers have turned out to be right but it is certainly one of the few times someone from the MSM has been willing to admit it. Good job Jay!

Won't Get Fooled Again??

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
~The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

After being embarrassed over the weekend by their resident Bush administration propagandist, Michael Gordon, The New York Times saw fit to question the administration's Iran claims this morning.
Iran and the Nameless Briefers

Before things get any more out of hand, President Bush needs to make his intentions toward Iran clear. And Congress needs to make it clear that this time it will be neither tricked nor bullied into supporting another disastrous war.

How little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.

Consider last weekend’s supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed to the voters who are paying for this war with their taxes and their children’s blood. The briefers tried to prove the White House’s case that Iran is shipping deadly weapons, including armor-piercing explosives, to Shiite militias in Iraq.

Unlike Colin Powell’s infamous prewar presentation on Iraq at the United Nations, this briefing had actual weapons to look at. And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.

But the officials offered no evidence to support their charge that “the highest levels of the Iranian government” had authorized smuggling these weapons into Iraq for use against American forces. Nor could they adequately explain why they had been sitting on this urgent evidence since 2004. The only thing that was not surprising was the refusal of any of the briefers to allow their names to be published. Mr. Powell is probably wondering why he didn’t insist on the same deal.

Wow, that's a zinger. Not even Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is willing to buy the administrations claims. The Times continues:

If Mr. Bush is truly worried about Shiite militias killing Americans in Iraq — and he should be — he needs to start showing this evidence to Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He needs to demand that Mr. Maliki stop protecting the militias and make it clear that there will be serious consequences if he continues to refuse.

If Mr. Bush is truly worried about Iran fanning Iraq’s ever more bloody civil war — and he should be — he needs to stop fantasizing about regime change and start trying to find a way to persuade Iran’s leaders to help rein in the chaos in Iraq.

And if Mr. Bush is worried that Americans no longer believe him when he warns of mortal threats to the country — and he should be — he needs to start proving that he really understands who is most responsible for the Iraq disaster. And he needs to explain how he plans to extricate American troops without setting off an even bigger war.

That’s the briefing the American people need to hear. And they need to hear it from the most senior American official of all, George Walker Bush.

So will the press let us get fooled again? Too early to tell but perhaps because of pressure from the blogosphere® the press will be forced to do it's job and question what this administration says.

Are you still brain dead Wolf?

Via FP Passport Jack Cafferty obviously didn't get to finish his line of questioning.

Those are the top two stories from yesterday's episode of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Anna Nicole Smith, naturally, got top billing, with chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, on-scene reporter John Zarrella, entertainment correspondent Sibla Vargas, "Internet reporter" Jacki Schechner, and even talk show host Larry King brought in to provide expert commentary (he promised a full hour of coverage on his own show).

When Wolf finally moved on to the subject of Iran and Iraq, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty added his two cents, but couldn't resist getting in this less-than-subtle dig at the end:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead, Wolf?

BLITZER: Yes, we're going to -- updating our viewers coming up shortly on...

CAFFERTY: I can't wait for that.

BLITZER: ... the mysterious circumstances surrounding that, Jack. Thank you.

It's obvious that Jack's next question was are you still brain dead Wolf? It's just as obvious the answer is yes.

Don't call it journalism - continued

I have discussed the sorry state of the 4th estate here and how this played out in the coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith yesterday. Over at Editor and Publisher tells us about a "real" tragic death that went unreported yesterday:
Young Woman Meets Tragic End -- No, It's Not Anna Nicole

NEW YORK A young woman met a sudden and tragic end, it was reported on Thursday, leaving her family and people who knew her in great distress.

No, it's not Anna Nicole Smith. Her name is Jennifer Parcell, and she died in Iraq. But you'd be lucky if you could find any mention of her, amidst the front page and wall-to-wall media coverage of the likely drug-related death of "starlet" Smith.

In fact, as of noon today, there were only seven press mentions, all in the area of her native Maryland, according to a Google search.

In contrast to, say, Anna Nicole Smith, Parcell seemed to have a serious side. Even in Iraq, she was managing to take a course at the University of Maryland, the Baltimore Sun relates, adding: "Helping others was routine for the Marine corporal. She sponsored an African child through a mission charity. And when Pakistan was devastated by an earthquake last year, she and others in her unit were dispatched to the scene. She earned the Humanitarian Service Medal for her efforts."

Now I would imagine that we will be hearing about Ms Smith for days or even weeks unless of course her death can somehow be tied to the Bush administration. Now poor Jennifer Parcell was only a good human being who was doing what she thought was right - one of over 3100 such Americans we are encouraged by the press and the administration to not think about too much. Too bad that the 14 seconds the NBC Nightly News was not enough to mention Jennifer. I'll do my part, this post will have a tag for Jennifer Parcell but not for Ms Smith. Thank you Jennifer, you are a hero.

Don't call it journalism

I discussed the sorry state of the 4th estate here yesterday. On the very same day we had an example. When the TV "news" is not playing stenographer for the Bush administration they specialize in the tabloid journalism. There has been a shortage of missing white girls of late but the untimely death of Anna Nicole Smith gave the tabloids an excuse to avoid the news. Think Progress documents how they took full advantage of the opportunity.

The death of Anna Nicole Smith yesterday was a feeding frenzy for the national media, and coverage of the war was drowned out: NBC’s Nightly News devoted 14 seconds to Iraq compared to 3 minutes and 13 seconds to Anna Nicole. CNN referenced Anna Nicole 522% more frequently than it did Iraq. MSNBC was even worse — 708% more references to Anna Nicole than Iraq.

The lop-sided coverage largely ignored many key developments in Iraq, including the sixth downing of a U.S. helicopter in the past three weeks, the allegations that a deputy Iraqi health minister was aiding a Shiite militia in its attacks against U.S. troops, and the death of four Marines.

NBC was the worst offender. After 3PM MSNBC had 170 references to Smith and 24 to Iraq; the Nightly News devoted 3 minutes and 13 seconds to Smith and 14 seconds to Iraq.
Pathetic!

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?®

Yes, I stole the title from Brad DeLong. But that's the question that Gilbert Cranberg asks and he calls for an independent investigation as to why the press was reluctant to challenge authority at a time when the country most needed it most, the lead up to the Iraq war.

As the war in Iraq nears its fourth anniversary, and with no end in sight, Americans are owed explanations. The Senate Intelligence Committee has promised a report on whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence to justify the war against Iraq. An explanation is due also for how the U.S. press helped pave the way for war. An independent and thorough inquiry of pre-war press coverage would be a public service. Not least of the beneficiaries would be the press itself, which could be helped to understand its behavior and avoid a replay.

Better a study by outsiders than by insiders. Besides, journalism groups show no appetite for self-examination. Nor would a study by the press about the press have credibility. Now and then a news organization has published a mea culpa about its Iraq coverage, but isolated admissions of error are no substitute for comprehensive study.

The fundamental question: Why did the press as a whole fail to question sufficiently the administration’s case for war?

Mr Cranberg continues with a list of specific questions and concludes with this.

The press response to the build-up to the Iraq war simply is the latest manifestation of an underlying and ongoing reluctance to dissent from authority and prevailing opinion when emotions run high, especially on matters of war and peace, when the country most needs a questioning, vigorous press.

Foundations that invested in research into how and why the press behaved as it did on Iraq would make a profoundly important contribution.

Lucky for us Dan Froomkin gives us a few answers to Mr Cranberg's questions in Washington Journalism on Trial.

If you're a journalist, and a very senior White House official calls you up on the phone, what do you do? Do you try to get the official to address issues of urgent concern so that you can then relate that information to the public?

Not if you're NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert.

When then-vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby called Russert on July 10, 2003, to complain that his name was being unfairly bandied about by MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Russert apparently asked him nothing.

And get this: According to Russert's testimony yesterday at Libby's trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.

That's not reporting, that's enabling.

That's how you treat your friends when you're having an innocent chat, not the people you're supposed to be holding accountable.

Of course poor Tim is on the hot plate today but he's not alone. One of the reasons the press did not do it's job in the lead up to the war is for the most part the DC press corps is not made up journalists but narcissistic stars concerned more about maintaining contacts and invitations to the party circuit than reporting the news.

While we need to investigate what the administration did to get into this war it is just as important to investigate what happened to the fourth estate.