Politics and Press

The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities.

John

Murdock’s Outrageous Outage

By

Two weeks ago Bill Moyers saved a bit of time on his weekly PBS show, Bill Moyers’ Journal, to blast Rupert Murdock and his proposed take-over of The Wall Street Journal. As Moyers stated,

“[Murdock is] not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with FOX News is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism. FOX News huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he’s about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.”

Well, just this Friday, Rupert Murdock got Moyers back – at least that’s my sneaking suspicion. Moyers’ Journal began normally enough this past Friday. It comes into my home via DirecTV which, like FOX, is owned by Murdock. Less than five minutes into Moyers’ show, my screen went black. Then DirecTV put up an announcement on screen warning viewers not to call DirecTV – that our local station was having technical difficulties.
Now, understand that DirecTV provides great video service. It fails occasionally during a heavy rain or snow storm when the satellite signal may be blocked, but in the 10-12 years I have been a subscriber to DirecTV I cannot remember a time when a single station went dark. I was suspicious immediately because I watched Moyers blast Murdock two weeks ago – and because the subject of Moyers show this night was the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Rupert Murdock is a great supporter of Bush and was one of the loudest supporters of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, claiming that the greatest thing to come out of the war would be “$20 a barrel for oil.”
I immediately thought Murdock’s DirecTV may have dumped Moyers’ show from the air. Luckily I had a tv in the house that used an antenna to pull in signals off the air. With the cause of the blackout, according to DirecTV, local tv station technical difficulties, I wasn’t sure Moyer’s Journal would be viewable on my other tv set but I gave it a try. Lo and behold, I could watch Moyers’ show on my 2nd set – apparently the “local tv signal difficulties” did not extend beyond DirecTV. I learned subsequently that cable subscribers did not lose service either – just Murdock’s DirecTV subscribers like me. That night, on Moyers Journal, Bruce Fein, a conservative Reaganite, and John Nichols of the Nation magazine put forth the argument that impeachment was necessary to pull the country back from the illegalities and excesses of this Administration. It was an excellent show even if you may not agree with the arguments of the two program guests [note that one was conservative and one liberal – for all the criticism, Moyers’ programs are exceptionally balanced].
Bill Moyers has had a lot to contend with just to bring his ideas to tv. First it was Bush appointee Tomlinson and his actions as Chief of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now, it appears Murdock has Moyers in his sights. But this is not just a concern of Bill Moyers – everyone should think long and hard whether someone like Rupert Murdock is good for this country. Can we really afford to have so much media power in the hands of a single individual – particularly a single individual like Rupert Murdock?

The Omnipotent Mr. Cheney

By

The Washington Post is running a 4-part report on the Vice Presidency of Richard Cheney. The report, prepared by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker and entitled “Angler” which is Mr. Cheney’s secret service code name, paints a picture of our Vice President as the man behind the throne, pulling strings, Oz-like, that direct many of our most critical domestic and foreign policy programs. One example is the role Mr. Cheney played in how the United States would handle “terrorists” captured during the apparently unending “war on terror”. Mr. Cheney developed the draft order that Mr.Bush signed, putting into operation the policy permitting the indefinite confinement of foreign terrorism suspects without any access to the courts. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condi Rice, nominally in charge of such things, knew nothing about the order until after it was executed. The secrecy is typical of Cheney’s modus operandi. As stated in the Gellman/Becker report:

“Across the board, the vice president’s office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that “the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,” and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

“In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president’s office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down.”

Mr. Cheney has played a similar role in approving use of extremely inhumane treatment of “terrorist” prisoners (which many believe amounts to torture), gatekeeping Supreme Court nominees, and squelching environmental initiatives – all with a degree of secrecy that is startling. Past vice-presidents have attended state funerals and promoted run-of-the-mill programs, such as Mr. Gore’s efforts to improve the bureaucracy’s efficiency. Not so Mr. Cheney. While the President signs the executive orders and makes the public appearances, Mr. Cheney pulls the strings from his undisclosed locations. The Post report confirms that Mr. Cheney is in fact our co-President, exercising power as Vice-President as it has never been exercised before.

Clarification from the Resident-in-Chief

By

“In terms of a deadline, there needs to be one. It needs to happen.”
— George W. Bush, June 9, 2007, on the urgency of completing UN talks on the future of Kosovo
“I don’t think I called for a deadline…I did? What exactly did I say? I said ‘deadline?’…OK. Yes, then I meant what I said.”
— George W. Bush, asked about his statement the next day

Scooter – Holy Cow, they’re locking him up

By

Scooter the Second [Scooter the First being Phil Rizzuto, of course] has been convicted of lying to the grand jury and sentenced this week to 2 and a half years behind bars. I don’t think many people thought much about his plight or really cared how severe a sentence he would receive. And, as it turns out, the severity of the sentence should have been no surprise, in part because he had a bunch of clowns, incompetents, and criminals in his corner as character references. Appearing on Scooter’s behalf through letters and other testimonials were the usual suspects, all of whom cited Scooter as a family man, a dedicated public servant, and specifically not an idealogue. How do we know this? Because the likes of Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith [manipulators of US foreign policy in the middle east and instigators of the disasterous Iraq invasion] said so. So did Donald Rumsfeld [the man responsible for sending 125,000 men and women to do a job that would have been tough for 500,000 – and then never acknowledging his deadly errors]. But the creme of the bunch is Henry Kissinger, he of Cambodia invasion fame [2 million dead by the time the Kymer Rouge finally lost power] and the government official who approved the overthrow of Salvador Allende [assassinated during the takeover] and the installation of the murderous Pinochet in Chile [and the subsequent deaths of thousands]. Kissinger said in defense of Libby that he knew what it was like, with all the pressures of federal service, to “forget” how and when things happened. Let us never forget the role of Kissinger in the darker pages of US history. It continues to amaze how he, like a bad penny, keeps cropping up.

They Don’t Know What They’re Doing

By

I watched General Zinni on Meet The Press yesterday. He was plugging a book and explaining that the Bush Administration doesn’t have a clue about what it did wrong in Iraq and what is happening there now. He cited General Sheehan as still another top military mind who is bewildered by the Bush policy [or whatever it is]. General Sheehan was approached in the past few weeks by Bush to become Iraq War Czar [don’t you love it], but he wouldn’t even begin to consider the notion.
When Bush announced his Iraq “surge” a couple of months ago, it was so apparently dumb that I thought I must be missing something. I am no military expert certainly, so I guessed that there may be some kernal of validity to the surge notion. After all, Bush persuaded General Petraeus to lead the effort and Petraeus seems to be well-regarded. But, it turns out, Petraeus must simply be a good, follow-the-directives-of-the-Commander-in-Chief type of general because Iraq is, almost incredibly, sinking deeper into the morass despite his best efforts. The increased US presence in Baghdad neighborhoods has fomented greater opposition and violence – a logical and predictable result.
Most recently, Al-Sadr has essentially declared war on the US. Al-Sadr has gone underground since Bush declared we were going to be “surging.” Only last week, he directed a massive anti-US rally seeking the removal of US troops. He may not be highly respected in the West, but Al-Sadr is the apparent leader of many Shiites in Iraq. Just yesterday, he ordered six Iraqi cabinet ministers loyal to him to withdraw from the government because of the government’s failure to endorse a US withdrawal timetable. The Democratic leadership in the US still supports a timetable for withdrawal [though that support may be weakening]. Bush, of course, is adamant in his opposition to a timetable – as is the current Iraqi government.
Zinni says there is no quick fix in Iraq and that a timetable is not the way to go. He says we need to stay for 5,6, or more years. But that’s the “general” in him speaking. An alternative is to get the hell out now. Bow to the will of the majority of Iraqis and get the hell out now. Will there be continuing “hostilities”? Yes. Can it get much worse than it is with the US in there? Possibly, but it is very, very bad there now – surge or no surge. With the US no longer a target [principally in the form of road-side bombs and sniper attacks], the hostilities may begin to wind down. The years of separation and hatred between the Sunnis and Shiites could support years of killing. But without the US in Iraq, the Iraqis will have less of an excuse to continue fighting. They could even direct their attention to the other foreigners in their midst, such as Al-Qaeda, and put them down. The US should take the cover that the Shiites are offering [i.e., the demand that we get out] and – with some further cover from Iraq’s neighbors, which would likely come – we should simply leave – our soldiers should come home.

Iraq and Imus: The Press Chooses

By

The surge does not appear to be working. It’s still early, but the latest development is that al-Sadr has essentially declared war on the US. 10s of thousands march “peaceably” to protest the US’s continued presence, and US military spokesmen say we invaded to establish a democracy [oh?] and the Shia demonstration is democratic so we all deserve a clap on the back – all that’s some spin. But the important development is that al-Satyr has now asked all Iraqis to stop fighting each other and fight the US presence.

Meanwhile, TV news covers not al-Satyr, but Imus and The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. The Rev said it best: “We have to make a choice – choose us or Im-us.” Lordy, Lordy.

The Man is Baffling

By

“HANOI, Nov. 17 — In his first day in the capital of a country that was America’s wartime enemy during his youth, President Bush said today that the American experience in Vietnam contained lessons for the war in Iraq. Chief among them, he said, was that ‘we’ll succeed unless we quit.’ ” [link to NYTimes]

So stated our President during a visit to the nation the US fought for over 10 years before retreating bloodied and bowed. The US lost more than 57,000 in Vietnam and the Vietnamese lost more than 2 million. And here comes Bush telling the Vietnamese that we should have fought longer – “stayed the course” as it were. He is the first sitting President to visit Vietnam (I believe) since that dreadful episode in our nation’s history. So what does he offer? Gracious apologies? No. Essentially he says that – and this is said on Vietnamese soil – if we had just stayed longer, whatever it would have taken – 5, 10, 50 years – we could have beaten those commies. And that’s the lesson of Vietnam according this man – if we just stay in Iraq for 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes -we’re gonna beat those Iraqis. Whew. Nothing else to say to that.

Bush and the Philanderer

By

The Washington Post ran a fun piece this morning written by Dana Milbank, entitled “During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer.” Congressman Sherwood has settled a $5 million lawsuit brought against him by his mistress of five years for allegedly beating her. And surprise, surprise, the case has come up during Sherwood’s campaign to stay in the House. Sherwood would be well-advised to follow the efforts of Senator George Allen (who is running for his life in Virginia) to convince the voters that this election is about issues and not about character – since neither of them have any.

The Coming Vote To Impeach

By

All votes are important. All elections are important. But in the general election fast approaching this November we have a chance to dump enough Republicans from Congress and elect enough [angry] Democrats to produce an impeachment team in the House and a majority vote to convict in the Senate. The target of course is George W. Bush. This man will go down in history as one of our worst Presidents – he is guilty of deception and incompetence on a grand scale. Those two qualities are a tough combination, almost an oxymoron, but Bush has managed both. It is a combination that equates to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitutional requirement for impeachment. We can use other terms, such as abuse of power and gross misconduct, to justify Bush’s impeachment, but deception and incompetence seem to capture the man. His grand deception is Iraq, which is also his greatest failure. But that is not to say that there are no contenders. The failure to deal with Katrina would stand out in any other presidency and forever brand such a president for that failure alone. But Bush has so much more. His domestic spying. His “off-site” prisons. His abandonment of Afghanistan. His ignorance of all things environmental. His perverted tax policies. But it is his deception, which he used to convince too many Americans and far too many Congressman, that we must invade Iraq and his incompetence in dealing with Iraq post-invasion that are the foundation of his impeachment. He followed the neo-cons’ grand strategy of empire. Publicly, he argued the need to separate Hussein from non-existent WMD. He represented to Congress only those facts that supported the invasion. His administration ignored, and even attacked, those who presented contrary facts. This rush to war, this deception has resulted in, according to one very recent estimate, over 600,000 Iraqi dead. Bush’s startling incompetence in the aftermath of the invasion has torn that country apart – the infrastructure is gone, the rule of law [such as it was] is gone, civil and social life is gone. The Iraqi people are dying. US and British soldiers are dying. The world is tired of it all. We, the people are tired of Bush and his deception, his incompetence. We need a new Congress – a Congress that will act to rid us and the world of this man. Vote this November and let the games begin.

Bush: Relying On Relics

By

Lord knows George W. has made his share of mistakes [and then some]: he has branded regimes as members of an “Axis of Evil” [which is similar to the damaging invective Chavez used in his UN speech, in which he called Bush a sulfur-smelling Devil]; he invaded Iraq when it posed no threat to the US while he diverted resources from Afghanistan [thereby losing two conflicts at once]; he continues to conflate 9/11 with Saddam Hussein; he relies on corporate polluters to make voluntary pro-environmental decisions [that one is a doozy]; he reserves tax reductions only for those who already make more than enough; and he relies on oil exploration to the exclusion of oil conservation [and then accuses us of being “addicted to oil”!!] – the list goes on and on. In fact, it’s difficult to identify one good call Bush has made. Give that man a set of facts and he’ll reach the wrong conclusion. It’s amazing and predictable – there should be some way of betting on it. At least then, we could win our bets, providing some consolation, as the Nation slides deeper down the tube.
Part of the fault [dear Brutus] lies in the advisors Bush selects. Fingers point to Cheney and Rumsfeld often enough as the originators and/or implementers of major pieces of the Bush Mess. These two old pros began their White House careers back in the 1970s with Nixon and Ford. The Cheney-Rumsfeld “cabal” is not new. They were with Nixon when Vietnam was still raging. The idea of “appeasing” that enemy was never considered back then and the idea of “appeasing” the enemy in Iraq doesn’t get much traction with these two today. What a surprise. Another little surprise, highlighted in Bob Woodward’s new book, is the involvement of another “blast from the past” in the Bush Mess. It’s Henry A. Kissinger! One of the architects of Vietnam. He of Cambodian Bombing fame. Supporter of Pinochet and the murderous regimes in South America of that period. His quote on Iraq, taken from the Washington Post, is straight out of the 1970s, “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” That’s a strategy he followed for years on Vietnam – and you know where that got us. Lord, save us.
On a related aspect of Bush’s reliance on these “oldies but goodies,” Christopher Hitchens, a writer on current events [much more than a pundit] has written wonderfully and extensively on the “crimes” of Henry Kissinger. But Hitchens has also written extensively on the evils of Saddam Hussein and radical Islam. Hitchens was an impressive leftist writer in days gone by. Today he is a Bush supporter. So also today, Hitchens finds himself allied with Kissinger on the problems of Iraq and Islam. Now there is a set of strange bedfellows.