Scott Horton Discusses GITMO on MSNBC

After writing this extensive piece for Harper's the other day, Scott Horton appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night to discuss his article. You can read my summary of his piece here, but his work certainly deserves a full read.

Here is the video from Countdown last night:



It is simply a lie when you continue to hear either former Bush Administration officials or other pundits continue to claim that torture was not the official policy of the United States. There are documented instances of many detainees that have died while in U.S. custody and there are credible accounts of mistreatment and torture that continue to be brought to light. The "look to the future, not to the past" mantra of the Obama Administration on this topic continues to become more insulting as more and more stories of mistreatment are reported. It is especially alarming when (as appears to be the case in this instance) the Obama Administration actually has a chance to investigate substantive claims of wrong-doing and actively refuse to do so.

We are said to live in a nation where no one is above the law, but instead we are witnessing a system where those in power are actively shielding their eyes from those who break the law. We deserve better.

Old Debates Resurface in Lieu of Foiled Terror Attack

After the foiled terrorist attack on a Christmas Day inbound flight to Detroit, familiar conversations are popping up on the news networks and on blogs. There are renewed debates on racial profiling and people like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have floated the idea of preemptive action against Yemen.

Spencer Ackerman was on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning debating Pat Buchanan who advanced many of the same arguments that we see made after an incident like this:



Buchanan's calls for torture and for trading judicial procedure for shadowy, behind-the-scenes tactics really seems crazy when you consider events of the last decade. It sure doesn't take long for figures like Buchanan to forget what we have learned when a situation allows for a reactionary response.

Rachel Maddow to Liz Cheny: "I Will Not Bite"

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol have launched a new organization called "Keep America Safe" whose mission statement reads in part:

Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement. By turning away from the policies that have kept us safe, by treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, giving foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens, launching investigations of CIA agents, cutting defense spending, breaking faith with our allies and attempting to appease our adversaries, the current administration is weakening the nation, and making it more difficult for us to defend our security and our interests.

Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strength. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.

They have also launched a new web ad:



Cheney's group is obviously targeting MSNBC in this ad though it is unclear whether the "they" that are referring to in the ad is MSNBC specifically or anyone who opposes the agenda of this conservative group. Regardless, Rachel Maddow responded last night on her show:



Considering that Rachel Maddow has invited many guests on her show to debate substantive issues in a respectful manner, it is going to be interesting to see if Cheney decides to take up Maddow's offer. I know one thing, if this does happen, it will be must see TV and I would like to see Maddow's full hour show devoted to this discussion.

General Electric and News Corporation Censor Their News Divisions

One of the most disturbing stories that came out over the weekend was this story in The New York Times:

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

[...]

At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

Yes, you read that correctly, the parent companies of NBC and Fox (General Electric and News Corporation respectively) negotiated a cease-fire between two of their commentators which has resulted in Keith Olbermann ceasing to attack Fox host Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly backing off of his criticism of General Electric Chairman, Jeffrey Immelt. Why did executives of these parent companies feel that these actions were appropriate? (emphasis mine):

“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.

The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.

“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”

In other words, the decisions by the hosts of these programs were negatively effecting the business interests of the parent corporations. General Electric and News Corporation then decided that it would be a good business maneuver to exercise control over their news divisions by dictating what kind of coverage is off-limits. Can there be a more explicit example of how media consolidation and the corporate control of newsrooms has a negative effect on free speech and journalistic independence? It is for this very reason that I often use the phrase "stenographers to power" in describing the so-called "mainstream" media.

Glenn Greenwald has his usual insightful analysis:

Does anyone need it explained to them why it is so dangerous and destructive to have our political debates controlled by GE executives, sitting in their offices censoring the journalism of our leading media outlets in the name of "civility," code for: you will respect those who can harm us? Our entire political culture is already designed to ensure corporate control of our political institutions. Their lobbyists literally write the laws enacted by Congress and control their implementation. The reason the journalism industry insisted for so long on the ludicrous fiction that corporate parents never violated the sanctity of journalistic independence is precisely because everyone understood why that would be so dangerous. Apparently, they no longer feel a need to maintain that fiction.

Rachel Maddow Fact Checks Pat Buchanan in a Follow-Up Segment

Last week I posted the video of a debate from The Rachel Maddow Show between host Rachel Maddow and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan. The debate focused on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama. Buchanan claims that Sotomayor was simply an unqualified "affirmative action candidate" for this job and that since her education relied on affirmative action, there are more qualified candidates that Obama could have picked. The debate spilled over to discuss affirmative action in a broader sense which Buchanan states is an "evil" program of which the primary goal is to discriminate against white males.

Last night Rachel Maddow did a follow-up segment during which she examined some of the statements that Pat Buchanan made and just how truthful they are. The clip is below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Today's Cage Match Between Obama and Cheney

President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney will both be giving speeches on the topic of anti-terrorism and national security later this morning and the corporate media are eating this up, portraying this as if it were a championship fight between two heavyweight boxers.

"Obama vs. Cheney" reads this headline on MSNBC and Politico has a headline entitled, "Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches". My how the media loves a good political speech-off! So much so, that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all plan to carrying Dick Cheney's speech in its entirety and predictably, will debate both speeches as if they carry equal weight.

I, for one, would like to see analysis of these speeches given in the following context. President Obama's speech, which will reportedly focus on Guantanamo Bay and the issues surrounding the closure of the base, actually has meaning considering that Obama is the President. Dick Cheney's speech, which will reportedly focus on how torture is a necessary tool in combating terror, are the words of a man who is not only making torture a partisan issue, but has been on a media tour trying to justify the lawless legacy that the Bush Administration has left behind.

This is only a "duel" because the corporate media are presenting it that way. What we really have is one speech by the President of the United States and another speech by a former Vice President who is desperate to defend the lawless legacy that he has left behind and in doing so, will rely on his continued strategy of defending torture and using fearmongering to claim we are "less safe" under Obama.

More thoughts and reactions on this after the two speeches.

Liz Cheney: We Did Not Torture

Liz Cheney joins the ranks of those who are defending torture. Somehow she thinks that because the United States used waterboarding as part of the SERE training and that since we would not torture our own people, that this means that waterboarding (along with the other techniques described in the torture memos) are not torture. She even goes so far as to say that the memos were very careful in outlining how far we could go before it was considered torture. (Waterboarding for 39 seconds = not torture, waterboarding for 41 seconds = torture?) Nevermind the fact that the Bush Administration did not even abide by the regulations set out in their own legal memos.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama To Release Torture Memos

It is now being reported that President Obama has made the decision to release the Bush Administration's infamous "torture memos" with minimal redaction. This is very encouraging news considering the considerable pressure that Obama faced from former CIA Director Michael Hayden and other CIA officials.

While these CIA officials (including Obama's terrorism advisor, John Brennan) argued that releasing these memos would hurt national security and burden CIA officers with inquiries, Glenn Greenwald is right to point out:

I want to underscore one vital point about this controversy that is continuously overlooked and will be undoubtedly distorted today in the event of non-disclosure: these documents are not intelligence documents. They are legal documents and, more specifically, they constitute what can only be described as secret law under which the U.S. was governed during the Bush era. Thus, the question posed by the release of these OLC memos is not whether Obama will release to the public classified intelligence programs. The question is whether he will release to the public the legal doctrines under which the U.S. Government conducted itself regarding interrogation techniques he claims are no longer being used.

It is also being reported that Obama agreed to release these memos while promising that no CIA officials would be prosecuted for the torture of detainees in U.S. custody. In fact, it is believed that the CIA agent's names are going to be the only portion of these memos that will be redacted. We will have to wait and see if this is the case, but it indicates that President Obama has attempted to issue a kind of compromise in the release of these memos, but did not extend this same promise to Bush Administration officials.

In the same breath Obama, once again, used "look to the future, not the past" type of language when making this announcement:

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

This should mark the beginning in taking the necessary action to make sure that this type of behavior never happens again. Simply releasing these memos will not allow us to "move forward with confidence". We should make this the first step in recommitting this country to a land where political leaders are not above the law.

With that being said, Obama certainly deserves credit for making a decision that was a true test of his commitment to move away from some of the secrecy of the last eight years. Here is a clip of Former CIA Director Hayden on MSNBC to underscore the pressure that Obama was up against in making such a decision:



UPDATE: This story is breaking and the memos are slowly becoming available. Here is the August 1, 2002 memo.

May 10, 2005 Number One

May 10, 2005 Number Two

May 30, 2005

I have just glanced at these so far, but they are quite disturbing and worth your time. I will be reviewing them over the next few days and will have more analysis.

More on the Tax Day Tea Parties

It is tax day which means that tea parties are happening all over the United States. Here is a collection of thoughts from around the web on the events:

Domenico Montanaro of MSNBC:

But let’s be clear about one thing: These tea parties are hardly non-partisan events. While there’s certainly a grassroots component here, these parties have been co-opted by a major America political party (the RNC's Web site allows for creating send-a-tea-bag post cards to Dem leaders) and an entire cable news channel (which has been promoting the events). The main Web site for the events today, Tax Day Tea Party, is funded by conservative groups, and a public records search shows it's registered to a conservative techie, Allen B. Fuller, who used to be a legislative correspondent for GOP Sen. Richard Shelby and who touts creating Web sites for Republican elected officials. Also reportedly involved in today’s protest events are FreedomWorks, a conservative group founded by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Americans for Prosperity.

Glenn Reynolds disagrees in the Wall Street Journal:

So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize.

[...]

The movement grew so fast that some bloggers at the Playboy Web site -- apparently unaware that we've entered the 21st century -- suggested that some secret organization must be behind all of this. But, in fact, today's technology means you don't need an organization, secret or otherwise, to get organized. After considerable ridicule, the claim was withdrawn, but that hasn't stopped other media outlets from echoing it.

"Bloggers at the Playboy Web site" Reynolds says. As if the promotion by Fox News and the funding by corporate lobbyists are just a figment of the imagination of bloggers on Playboy's website. Nice try Glenn.

So we have those like Reynolds who still continue to claim that these protests are not being organized by organizations who are funded by corporate lobbyists, while at the same time these very same organizations are admitting that they are helping to organize these events. From the Freedom Works website:

Thank you for joining the massive movement of citizens that are opposed to the trillions of dollars in federal spending and the bailouts of Wall Street and failed businesses. With your help, we have been able to organize hundreds of Taxpayer Tea Parties across the country, from Santa Barbara, California to Amarillo, Texas, and all the way to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Together, as one united force for liberty, we can take our country back!

Adam Brandon of Freedom Works says that they are helping coordinate these events much like MoveOn.org helps to coordinate similar events:

"If you look at MoveOn's model...if you consider that AstroTurfing, I'd probably have to say that we're AstroTurfing," Brandon told me. But if critics assume the organization is top-down, he said, "they're gonna underestimate us."

but as Digby has pointed out, there is quite the difference between the two organizations. Here is how MoveOn does business:

MoveOn uses e-mail as its main conduit for communicating with members, sending action alerts at least once a week.

The MoveOn.org web site also uses multi-media, including videos, audio downloads, and images. In addition to communicating via the Internet, MoveOn advertises using traditional print and broadcast media, as well as billboards, bus signs, and bumper stickers, digital versions of which are downloadable from its web site. It also contains an area called the "Action Forum", which functions much like a traditional electronic discussion group. The Action Forums act as a grassroots organization allowing members to propose priorities and strategies.

Through this grassroots methodology, MoveOn collaborates with groups like Meetup.com in organizing street demonstrations, bake sales, house parties, and other opportunities for people to meet personally and act collectively in their own communities.

Some of its core principles are that it is not dependent on foundation money and that it has the ability to use 'hard money' – as opposed to grants and tax-deductible contributions – which enables them to be partisan, contribute to political campaigns, and exercise clout in the political process.

and here is how Freedom Works does business:

FreedomWorks claims a membership of over 360,000 and a multi-tentacled legal structure that includes a 501 c(3), a 501 c(4), a 527, a federal PAC, and various state PACs. John Stauber, co-author of Banana Republicans: How The Right Wing is Turning America into a One-Party State, recently pointed out that that according to internal documents leaked to the Washington Post in January 2000, the bulk of Citizens for a Sound Economy's revenues ($15.5 million in 1998) came not from its members, but from contributions of $250,000 and up from large corporations, including Allied Signal, Archer Daniels Midland, DaimlerChrysler, Emerson Electric Company, Enron, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Philip Morris and U.S. West (now Qwest).

While the differences in these organizations are clear, Andrew Sullivan continues to maintain that the goals of these tea party protests are anything but clear:

But it seems odd to describe this as anything but a first stab at creating opposition to the Obama administration's spending plans, manned by people who made no serious objections to George W. Bush's. The tea-parties are as post-partisan as Reynolds, one of the most relentlessly partisan bloggers on the web. When you see them holding up effigies of Bush, who was, unlike Obama, supposed to be the fiscal conservative, let me know.

But the substantive critique must remain the primary one. Protesting government spending is meaningless unless you say what you'd cut.


If you favor no bailouts, then say so. If you want to see the banking system collapse, then say so. If you think the recession demands no fiscal stimulus, then say so. If you favor big cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, social security and defense, then say so. I keep waiting for Reynolds to tell us what these protests are for; and he can only spin what they they are against.

All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.

I think Sullivan's points are quite valid and deserve mentioning when we are engaged in discussion surrounding these protests.

Michael Steele's Revisionist History

I am sure that many of you have heard about the fighting that has been going on between the RNC Chair Michael Steele and the conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. In case you are late to this story here is an intentionally brief summary:

- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail.
- Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:




After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. …There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:




In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.

It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:

A Rare Challenge to the Beltway Mindset

Believe me, I was just as surprised as anyone to see MSNBC's Contessa Brewer provide a brief moment of clarity that was able to cut through the mindset of beltway journalism. Kudos to Crooks and Liars for catching this exchange with Sheryl Gay Stolberg, White House Correspondent for the New York Times:

Brewer: Is President Obama able to control his message against than the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism Can he slowly change the ways of Washington?

Stolberg: Obama wanted a big bipartisan vote and he didn't get it. He passed it just like George Bush passed his...by pushing through a one party bill.

Harwood: Are you respond as a Nattering Nabob since he's at 66%?

Stolberg: I am a Nattering Nabob of Fairness instead

Stolberg: Obama went courting Republicans...he framed bill as a show of unity. Instead it could have been a lesson in setting expectations. We need this measure and if it get Republican votes fine, but it's a high priority for us.

Brewer: Didn't he do just that....Cocktails etc. Reaching across the aisle. But they wanted what? a Republican stamp on the bill. After all the Democrats won.

Stolberg: (long reply about the "I won" statement from POTUS meaning nothing) Even so the pres made such a strong point in his campaign of about changing the ways of Washington, it couldn't help but be a disappointment when it didn't get
republican votes.

Brewer: Perhaps it was the Republicans with the deaf ears on that front

Stolberg (Taken aback and stutters) "Well perhaps.....

Brewer: Let's make that the last word on that

Stolberg: Okay I'll let you have the last word.

You can view video of the exchange here. It really is amazing to watch what happens when an anchor has a moment of clarity and dare challenge the beltway mentality, that Obama failed in his mission for a bipartisan stimulus bill. Nevermind if the Republicans turned "deaf ears" to any idea of bargaining and nevermind that Obama weakened his own bill in order to appease the minority, a minority that ends up patting itself on the back for not voting for the bill. This is the new definition of bipartisanship, President Obama moves to the right by accommodating the wants of the Republicans and they react by not bargaining in good faith and end up voting in a bloc against the legislation. This narrative has failed to get through to the beltway journalists and it is moments like this that are a little bit refreshing.