Untrammeled Hypocracisy

That rank hypocrisy dominates the baseless and puerile rhetoric that passes for argument and fact among the Bush Administration and its apologists and supporters should, by this point, no longer be considered a new story. This week has seen conservatives offer several striking examples of limitless hypocrisy.

Nearly before the judge's gavel had struck for the final time the right wing was falling all over itself in a rush to call for a pardon for Scooter Libby and to dismiss his conviction as a 'travesty of justice.' These were largely the same individuals and outlets who had called for President Clinton's head on a platter during his impeachment. Remember President Clinton was impeached on the grounds that he perjured himself in regards to a sexual infidelity. Mr. Libby stood accused and has now been convicted of perjury in regards to the disclosure of a covert agents identity, obstruction of justice and making false statements. If President Clinton's transgressions merited his impeachment then surely Mr. Libby's crimes deserved prosecution.

Apparently the rule of law is only an important concept to be upheld as long as it does not go against the conservatives. Unfortunately for the American public the rule of law means little if anything to the current Administration who continues to disregard the law and the Constitution as it sees fit.

One of President Clinton's most prominent detractors, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted today that he was engaged in an extra-marital affair while leading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for lying about having an extra-marital affair. Perhaps a new level of hypocrisy even for Mr. Gingrich.

To round out the hypocritical field Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Think Progress, pointed out some of President Bush's more glaring moments of hypocrisy in regards to military readiness. In 2000 Mr. Bush, then a candidate said:

So let’s get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect. [CNN, 11/3/00]

While the military then was not dangerously over-extended and ill-equipped it certainly is now. Is Mr. Bush willing to stand by his earlier statements and take responsibility for the illogical and embarrassingly poor treatment and state of the American Military or would he rather pass the buck and expose his true, hypocritical nature.

Hypocrisy is never a pretty sight. It is particularly sickening to see it celebrated throughout the mainstream media and foisted upon the American public and the world at large by the Bush Administration.

Pardon Scooter Libby, Not So Fast

Most mainstream news outlets have been bandying about the prospect of a pardon for former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby since he was convicted of four felonies this week. The White House has downplayed the possibility of a pardon and refused to comment on the situation, claiming it is an ongoing legal matter. Conservatives across the board have called for an immediate pardon, and Democrats and liberals have cautioned against doing so.

All of this debate may well be beside the point. As Media Matters for America reports, the Justice Department rules that govern clemency procedures would not allow President Bush to pardon Mr. Libby. Part 1.2 of the Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency titled Eligibility for filing petition for pardon states that:

No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.

President Bush has indicated that his decisions on and treatment of pardons are rooted in and follow the Justice Department rules. If Mr. Bush remains true to his word and obeys the Justice Department rules he will be unable to issue a pardon to Mr. Libby.

Doing what they say, telling the truth, and following the rules have proven to be extremely difficult for the Bush Administration, so maybe the pardon debate is warranted after all.

Edwards Stands Up to Fox

When former Senator and current presidential candidate John Edwards announced that he would not participate in a Nevada Primary debate hosted by Fox News he demonstrated that he does indeed have the courage of his convictions and that he is willing to take a stand.

In recent memory the Democratic Party has been short on backbone as well as the ability to stand behind an issue. Mr. Edwards has, of late been doing his best to reverse that trend. Beginning with his apology for his vote to authorize the Iraq war and continuing this week with his refusal to legitimate the right wing soap-box that is Fox News.

Fox News is anything but 'fair and balanced' and to agree to let them host and moderate a Democratic primary debate is ludicrous and laughable at best. Thankfully Mr. Edwards has taken the crucial step of refusing to attend, perhaps now that he has opened the door to taking a principled stand against legitimizing a venomous and hateful propaganda machine.

Mr. Edwards has made the right decision, is it too much to ask that other democrats will follow his example. Unfortunately it may well be, if Mr. Edwards' apology for voting for the war in Iraq is any example.

The other Democratic candidates should heed the calls of their constituents and join Mr. Edwards in a boycott of the Fox News debate. Fox News has no business pretending to bring national news to the American public, it certainly shouldn't be allowed to stain and degrade any political debates among legitimate candidates, let alone a Democratic one.

Closer coverage of the potential debate can be found at DailyKos and MyDD.

Jim Shea And The Hartford Courant Can't Handle The Truth

To: Hartford Courant Reader Representative / Associate Editor Karen Hunter

Subject: Specious and Personal Partisan Attacks Have No Business In News Section

Ms. Hunter,

I am writing in regards to Jim Shea’s Raucous column of Wednesday, March 7, 2007 titled JUST DRAIN THE POOL, AL which appeared on page A2 of the Courant. Mr. Shea’s specious and personal partisan attacks on Mr. Gore have no business running alongside important and (hopefully) accurate stories within the News section of the Courant. Mr. Shea’s column shared a page with stories on; the continuing investigation into sales practices at Best Buy, a single-engine plane crash, medication errors and their tragic effects, and the recent devastating earthquake in Indonesia. These are legitimate news stories; Mr. Shea’s column is not.

The placement of Mr. Shea’s column on page A2 among these stories invites and encourages it to be mistaken for factual reporting. I am sure that Mr. Shea will respond by pointing out that his column is meant to be humorous and not a news item. While this may be true it certainly does not excuse its placement, which offers it the obnoxious opportunity to masquerade as truth.

Furthermore Mr. Shea could at least make an effort to be timely with his slanders; the so called controversy to which he refers first reared its ugly head on Monday, February 26. Not only is Mr. Shea late to the party but he has failed to do his homework. A few minutes of research would have revealed to Mr. Shea the baseless nature of the claims of hypocrisy leveled against Mr. Gore.

First of all the Gore household purchases ‘green’ electricity and ‘carbon offsets’ which reduce its carbon footprint to zero, hardly Mr. Shea’s ‘Bigfoot’. Additionally Mr. Gore’s energy consumption as defined per square footage falls well within, in fact below the average for the region, as defined and reported by the US Department of Energy. Yes Mr. Gore would certainly use less electricity if he moved into a tent, as would we all. Mr. Shea’s claim that Mr. Gore’s credibility has taken a hit over this flap is ludicrous in the extreme. I will refrain from commenting on the nature of the petty personal attacks on Mr. Gore’s personal appearance.

Mr. Shea’s shoddy attempts at humor in the guise of childish insults and supported by fabrications as to Mr. Gore’s lifestyle choices should not appear among news stories. Mr. Shea’s column should be moved to the opinion section of the Courant, or to the Life section where other humor pieces, both more comical and more accurate can be found.

The saddest revelation of Mr. Shea’s column is his emergence as the latest mouth piece in the right-wing echo chamber. Mr. Shea swallowed whole the talking points of a decidedly partisan think tank and lent his name and stature to their fabrications. Is it now too much to ask that even the smallest bit of effort be expended to determine the veracity of a story before a reporter or columnist puts their name to it? I had come to expect more from Mr. Shea and from the Courant, I see now that I was mistaken.

Sincerely,

Henry Coppola

Cc: Jim Shea, Letters to the Courant

Jim Shea's column is here.

This fiasco was well dealt with by both Think Progress and The Anonymous Liberal, who provides the energy department numbers and links.

Coulteral Problems

Ann Coulter isn't really the problem. Neither, for that matter, is Maureen Dowd, who as Bob Somerby has demonstrated is often nothing more than a cleaned up, intellectualized, and mainstreamed version of Ms. Coulter.

Sure they say terrible, hateful things, as do many other conservative pundits. They viciously denigrate Arabs and Muslims in general and attack the masculinity of any and all leading Democrats. This is all ground that has already been well covered by a variety of other bloggers, Glenn Greenwald has a good overview here.

The problem isn't even that major Republican groups invite Ms. Coulter to speak and endorse and encourage her vile rhetoric.

The problem is that the national media continues to condone and even encourage such actions. Despite denunciations by the major Republican candidates the mainstream media has reacted to Ms. Coulter's latest outburst with a shrug. Perhaps this is a responsible reaction, surely ignoring Ms. Coulter's remarks and refusing to legitimize them by deeming them newsworthy is a step in the right direction. While this argument on its surface seems sound the rank hypocrisy that underlies its application is devastating to its legitimacy. If Al Frankin or Arriana Huffington called President Bush a faggot the media would be all over the story.

There is a story here, what does it say about Republicans in general and conservatives in particular that they treat Ms. Coulter as a hero? What does it say that she is the key note speaker at the year's most important conservative convention, CPAC ? What does it say that current presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says it is a 'good thing' to hear from Ms. Coulter?

Why is so much of the conservative platform based around hurling insults at their detractors? Again Glenn Greenwald has an answer.

This goes deeper than that though. Republicans, especially the neo-conservative wing of the party, do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to supporting their policies. Instead of explaining and defending their decisions Republicans call their detractors faggots, or label them unpatriotic, or say that they embolden the enemy.

Rebuplicans have a problem with the truth because it can only hurt them. The mainstream media has a problem with the truth because it is easier to go along with the Republican talking points than actually do any reporting or investigating.

Wasted Sacrifices

In the past month two of the leading 2008 Presidential candidates have criticized the war in Iraq for 'wasting' American lives. While both Barack Obama, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican, quickly retreated from their statements, they never the less raise several interesting questions which should at least be asked.

The different tacts taken by the two candidates in explaining their comments are of interest, as are the reactions to and especially the media coverage of their original statements.

Most importantly it should be asked whether the lives of the 3171 American soldiers killed in Iraq to date have been wasted or sacrificed.

Speaking with David Letterman on his late night television show Sen. McCain said;

Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.

His comments closely resembled those of Sen. Obama's, made at a rally in Ames, Iowa;

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

When Sen. Obama gave his speech, nearly a month prior to Sen. McCain's interview, his use of the word 'wasted' garnered immediate mainstream media coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times as well as among many other news outlets. In contrast Sen. McCain's comments were only picked up by the AP, while the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times all failed to mention Sen. McCain's 'wasted' utterance despite covering his appearance on Mr. Letterman's show. Media Matters for America has more on the disparity in coverage presented by the mainstream media as does Keith Olbermann.

Two candidates made almost the same statement and were treated completely differently over it, why? This one, arguably, small story says much about the level to which the mainstream media has bought into the right-wing fallacy that Democrats are failing to support the troops, while Republicans support the troops completely.

In response to media coverage and calls to apologize both candidates backed away from their original use of 'wasted' to describe the loss of American life in Iraq. Both men said that they should have used 'sacrificed' instead of 'wasted.' Which brings up the much more important question of which term is more appropriate as a description of American deaths in Iraq?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sacrifice as;

Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

and waste as:

To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.

The war in Iraq has not made America safer, it is the creation of neo-conservative war-mongers who do not possess the courage of their convictions and will never themselves pay the ultimate price and have their lives or the lives of their loved ones wasted. Those who have lost loved ones do decry the waste. It is these war-mongers who insist on referring to lost lives in this war as sacrifices. This war in Iraq does not have a 'greater value', it never has. The sad truth is that the American soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq have been 'thoughtlessly and carelessly expended.'

It is well past time for this waste to be acknowledged and an end to it demanded. War opponents and their elected representatives must stand up and do so.

War-mongers must be questioned, they must be made to explain specifically and in detail why the war in Iraq has a higher value than the lives of so many young Americans. Empty rhetoric must not be excepted and passed on any longer.

The national media must reclaim its post and fulfill its journalistic obligation to the American People that it has forfeited for the past six years.

Tom Toles weighs in.

Axis of Misinformation

With a flurry of recent news stories involving both investigative journalism, testimony before congress and the issuance of new reports and findings President Bush's 'Axis of Evil' has collapsed like the shoddy house of cards it was.

In his 2002 State of the Union address President Bush labeled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an 'Axis of Evil' claiming:

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

From its very inception the 'Axis of Evil' has at the least been a misnomer. By any accepted definition an axis constitutes an active alliance with coordination of policy and mutual aid and support. Iran and Iraq fought a prolonged and bloody war, and neither have ever been reliably linked to North Korea. These nations hardly form an axis in the traditional sense, but that is beside the point.

President Bush choose to lump these three nations together and assert that they posed a 'grave and growing danger' due to their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration claimed that Iraq had or would very soon have these terrible weapons and the ability to use them against the United States and on these pretenses invaded Iraq. In the wake of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, all of the previously offered evidence has proven to have been either incorrect or completely fabricated. The Administration's claims have turned out to be nothing more than excited rhetoric. For more on the faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq please see the Iraq Survey Group Report and the wide body of reporting that followed its issuance.

In the past week the evidence against Iran and North Korea has also crumbled, proving to be much less certain than was originally stated by the Bush Administration if not completely incorrect. On Sunday the Los Angeles Times reported on the lack of credibility of evidence that the US has passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency; "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. For more on this article please see the previous post.

Today the Washington Post carried a front page article entitled New Doubts On Nuclear Efforts by North Korea. Among other things the Post reports that:

The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.

The US chief intelligence officer for North Korea, Joesph DeTrani, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, and Former UN inspector David Albright have all recently shed new light on the Administrations earlier claims as to North Korea's weapons capability. DeTrani testified before Congress that confidence is high that North Korea has materials for uranium production that there is only 'mid-confidence' that a program exists. Hill, speaking at a recent conference, said that it was now unclear that North Korea had developed the techniques necessary for an enrichment program. Perhaps most strikingly Albright's current organization, The Institute for Science and International Security, issued a report comparing the pre-war intelligence on Iraq to the intelligence on North Korea, writing 'The analysis about North Korea's program also appears to be flawed.'

Before the US invaded Iraq the Bush Administration claimed to know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These accusations, since proven to be false, led the country into the current quagmire in Iraq. Similar Administration claims about North Korea's nuclear programs led to the breakdown of the 1994 agreement, which had North Korea freeze its plutonium production in exchange for fuel oil. With that agreement no longer in place North Korea resumed plutonium production and tested its first nuclear weapon in late 2006.

The Bush Administration has pursued two of the members of its Axis of Evil with faulty information and rhetoric and come to disasterous results, i.e. the current situation in Iraq and North Korea's nuclear armament. Now the Administration has set its sights on Iran, with perhaps not an equal fervor but apparently with equally flawed and false information.

The Axis of Evil existed only in the words and plans of the Bush Administration and its neo-conservative allies. They used false and erroneous intelligence to mislead the American people and when their plans went south they moved on to the next target. With the war-hawks setting their sights on Iran it is important to remember the last two times that the Administration said it knew that someone had weapons of mass destruction and turned out to be wrong. 'Trust us' long ago lost all currency and the Bush Administration is already been shown to offer false information on its next target.

Iraq, North Korea, and Iran were and remain a group of poorly behaved, possibly dangerous regimes. They have certainly failed to live up to their billing as an Axis of Evil.