Billmon writes that the the press, in its rather mindless acceptance of the lies being propagated by Bush and Cheney about their time in office, are in a "pre-amnesia" state and about to banish the crimes of past eight years from memory:
[A]s in late Soviet times, the absurdity of the official story line is only reinforced by the other systemic failures that surround it: in our case, financial collapse, plunging asset prices, massive fraud and a corrupt, sclerotic political system that may be incapable of doing even the most simple, obvious things (like printing and spending sufficient quantities of fiat money) to stave off an deeper downward spiral.
This being the case, I have a strong hunch the political-media complex (i.e. the Village) is going to want to move fairly quickly to the post-Soviet solution I described earlier — skipping right over the perestroika and glasnost to get directly to the willful amnesia and live-in-the-moment materialism of mid-1990s Russia.
Which means, in turn, that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Feith and the whole noxious crew are about to get flushed straight down the memory hole: banished fairly quickly from public discussion and corporate media coverage — in much the way the Iran-Contra scandal (go ahead, Wiki it) was almost immediately forgotten or ignored once it became clear that the fix was in. America apparently had its big experiment with truthtelling and reform in the post-Watergate era, and the experience was so unpleasant that nobody (or nobody who counts) is willing to go there again. That would be like expecting the Baby Boomers to start dropping acid again.
That could well happen. But I’m not sure the "villagers," such as they are, control the conversation any more.
I’m certainly not an internet idealist — there are limits to what people can do online to offset what is happening in the virtual media world. But the ability to drive public perception has been occasionally hijacked by the online world (Social Security, FISA, Plame, the US Attorneys), and the ability to do so is usually a function of achieving critical mass sufficient to overcome the inertia and self-interest of the corporate media-generated political narrative.
Jay Rosen has an article entitled Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press, in which he explores the dynamic that we witnessed in our community during the Plame days when like-minded people connected in a "virtual water cooler" situation:
In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized — meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.
In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.
There was a quantum shift in the ability of a few propagandists and a willing "village" to control the narrative of Whitewater relative to what happened during the Libby trial.
Many will also remember the sad lesson learned by the Washington Post when Deborah Howell wrote that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats (he didn’t) and they thought they could stonewall critics by simply removing their comments from the site. They never tried that again.
All of which is to say that I hold out hope that Billmon’s parallels with Soviet Russia won’t hold up. The "village" are clearly in active whitewashing phase. But I’m heartened by Bob Fertik’s efforts and the transparency of the Obama administration that allowed 70,000 people to show up and demand a Special Prosecutor on the change.gov site. It’s the kind of "critical mass" event that defies the ability of a few people to limit the sphere of debate as easily as they have in the past, and shifts the power of defining "consensus" even if slightly in favor people willing to connect and speak up.
Let’s hope in this case it’s enough.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

The United States of Alzheimers: USA! USA! USA!
There is a push to have the Senate Judiciary Committee push Holder to enforce the law on past Bush crimes. Call them.
1) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
2) Senator Dick Durbin (IL)
3) Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
4) Senator Russ Feingold (WI)
Please call each of the four above if you can, and do some other Democrats if you have time. Other possible good advocates are Senator Ted Kennedy (MA), and even maybe Senator Chuck Schumer (NY).
‘Mornin’, Jane!
That reminds me — John Cole noticed in Bush’s last press bamboozling that Bush actually copped to having arranged the whole “Mission Accomplished” bullshit, right down to the banner:
As John points out, when things started to go to shit six months after the Mission Accomplished banner, the administration said it was the Navy’s idea:
But as Cole goes on to mention, the Bushies were eventually forced to admit that they’d done the whole thing.
I would like to flush Bush/Cheney but not down a memory hole.
But, Jane, I thought it was just the DFHs who have a problem with short term memory. You know what I’m saying?
I only worry that sometime in the next 130 or so hours we’ll see a huge blanket pardon for everyone connected to the Bush administration, followed by W himself resigning on the 19th and President Cheney issuing a Ford-esque style pardon to Bush. Ah, nightmares…
I have had that same nightmare.
Enema of the People!
If they don’t go to jail, I’m hoping that BushCheney will at least spend the rest of their miserable lives in court. Correct me if I’m wrong Jane, but these bums can still be sued even if they get a federal pardon, yes?
It is a crime that Billmom isn’t published 3 times a week in the NYTs.
We have to set the record straight. If the president breaks the law it is illegal and we will not accept it again.
Hope springs eternal. Is there a statute of limitations for conspiracy?
Noted in an early morning thread that Doris Kearns Goodwin blathered to Imus about how we mustn’t have an investigation because it was “vindictive.” Yet another reason she fails the historian test.
Word to Doris the Plagiarist: refusal to look at the history of what happened these last eight years is itself a crime against humanity. Shame on you. Go sit in the Bubble with the man-child and have your pity party together.
The Village is in denial and needs an intervention. They’ve dragged US low enough.
Is anyone blogging the hearing of Hillary for SecState ?
Any bets on what Dubya will say on Thursday night? Must pick out some liquid foritude to imbibe in order to watch that (particularly after yesterday’s presser).
Bingo.
And that’s not “vindictive.”
Vindictive is refusing to call on Helen Thomas at your presser.
Vindictive is announcing you’re going to write a book and get back at people.
Bush-Chee-knee own vindictive.
I cannot emphasize how strongly I feel that we should not let this pass or “move on” until this is egregious insult by Bushco is dealt with. I know I will not forget it. I will also not forget that Reid and Pelosi enabled and abetted a lot of this crap.
I greatly appreciate FDL’s efforts and the people that support this.
Whitehouse said on NPR this morning that congress has a separate (from the White House) responsibility to look into the issues of torture and detention.
You could make it a drinking game…every time he lies you take a shot. I figure you’ll last four minutes
“at least he kept us safe..” keeps poppin up in village spews. I think if you can walk and chew gum you know that is not true.
Letting BushCo crimes go unpunished destroys the very foundation of this country.
Might as well burn the Constitution. It is meaningless now.
Remember his letter to me ? This ain’t over by half.
OT, TPM reports DOJ has released report on politicized hiring. Yet another example of BushCo crimes.
If they are pardoned then don’t they lose their 5th Amendement protection? If pardoned couldn’t they then be forced to testify in some sort of “Truth Commission” type setting? If pardoned doesn’t that only cover crimes under US law? When they testify at the “Truth Commission” can’t that testimony be used by some other Court (read Foreign)? If pardoned and they don’t testify at the “Truth Commission” wouldn’t that be contempt of Congress and a jailable offense?
There are many ways to peel this onion if they they really want to peel it.
Yes. I think Obama wants us to force his hand too.
The people’s e-mail network has a ton of you tube links to Judiciary Committee members questioning Mukasey and talking about looking backward. If anyone wants to go to their web site to get all the links that can now be used to put them all on the spot when they question Holder, I suggest their site at usalone dot com
here’s the thing, we have in our very immediate past a mistake, if we don’t learn from our mistakes we WILL repeat them;
the mistake;
Clinton did not prosecute treason committed against our constitution and congress and those very same players did the same thing yet again, Rumsfeld and rummy should have never again had the opportunity to “serve” in our government, yet there they are
and though we did not expect ford to prosecute Nixon for his crimes we have to point out again it was Rumsfeld and Cheney that tried to undermine Nixon’s détente by inventing data with their “team b”, they tried desperately to get us into armed conflict with Russia because they simply do not want peace there is no profit for these war profiteers in peace
Funny these Joe the Journalists weren’t up in arms about the vindictive, face shoved in shit Rovian tactics used by Bush, Delay and the rest of the far right quasi Nazis for eight years.
Now they want to force the victim to marry the racist in the spirit of comity.
Sick people.
-G
Using the law to create political imprisonments smacks of the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Alien and Sedition trials, not to mention Watergate which led to Borking which led to impeachment. NOT a good way to run a country. Let sleeping Presidents go back to their ranch and cut brush and the Vice President to hunt quail. Enough already.
Ooops. GOP Fruedian slip. I meant rapist not racist.
-G
here’s a snippet from the link I posted on 27;
does any of this look familiar?
it should, they used the EXACT playbook to lie us into Iraq, we did not learn from our mistakes, we did not prosecute these treasonous criminals and we had to repeat our mistakes
we MUST hold traitors to account, they must be brought to the bar of justice
was that on radio?
He does want a groundswell of support for hearings and trials, however the next 6 months has to be focused on the Economy and Whirled Peas ! (H/T Suz)
Professor Turley said on KO that Obama has a very fshort period of time to act to brin the criminals to justice, or else Obama himself becomes complicit in their crimes.
I wonder if that message is getting inside the Obma bubble?
Can anyone think of a single person who has done more to destroy America than ‘Dick’ Cheney?
Excellent post, Jane. The combination of the blogosphere, google, Wikipedia, Youtube, and ubiquitous video cameras is a bulwark against attempts to bullshit the people by the plutocrats and their minions
Perhaps there is a better reason. Not only would any investigation necessarily include members of Congress, including Democratic leadership, a point made before on this board, but perhaps more importantly, focusing on the policy of a prior administration through the criminal prism sets a terrible precedent.
If one were to point to a single element of our country that makes it so great, I would suggest that it is the peaceful transition of power. Politicians, especially Presidents, are held accountable for their decisions every four years through the electoral process.
If one administration starts to open criminal investigations of a prior administration, this would set a precedent for all future Presidents to exact revenge on their predecessors. The country derives no benefit from that.
President Obama has a country to govern, and this country has a great many problems that he is faced with. One of those issues is how to deal with persons held overseas for interrogation. Although it is his prerogative to issue orders declaring how they will be treated going forward, it serves no benefit to the country for him to focus on the conduct of the past.
If the political and media elites flush the crimes of the Bush adminstration down the memory hole then all they are doing is setting the stage for a coming revolution that will restore accountability and the rule of law. Without these the sham of a hypocritical and corrupt system is exposed for all to see and a system built on corruption and hypocrisy cannot stand.
DING!!!
John Kerry should sell DVDs of his speeches … ‘twould replace *mbien as the “cure” for insomnia …
None of us will forget it or allow it to be forgotten. That’s why we’re here !
Excellent post. Campaigns and governing must always be forward-looking not efforts to scapegoat the past.
“Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”
Also, we must ridicule anyone, including Obama, who blithers on about “looking forward” or “moving on,” etc., somehow trying to imply that the nation is incapable of multitasking. If someone, e.g., Obaman, is too busy to manage the investigation and prosecution, that’s what God created special prosecutors for.
Spew!
something else, which iirc jane has written about, is that we can develop and share our own institutional memory to be a counter to the M$M memory hole affect. hugh’s list is my favorite example of this.
p.s. btw jane, if you haven’t visited hugh’s list recently you might take a look – over 120,000 words, 399 items, hundreds (i think, i haven’t counted) links and organized by category.
Perhaps I’m wrong but as a self- improvement teacher, I see his phrase “looking forward” as apt … a part of moving on is healing past grievances. He cannot come across as vindictive or militant but I am sure that full hearings will ensue, so long as a large group keeps pushing for it.
HRC musta had 5-6 shots of Espresso to stay awake … *g*
Please sit on your hands a while longer, first things first: new SCOTUS appointments.
Beware the Jebster of Unintended Consequences – he will run against y’all.
I can’t see anyway that these criminals get prosecuted. It ain’t right- but that’s the way it will go down I predict. Part of the problem is that if ANYONE is going to be prosecuted, then BUSH must be and americans just couldnt handle the trial and imprisonment and perhaps execution of a president
not even clusterfuck
the benefit of deterrence.
In what case has this “deterrence” worked? Did it stop the next group? Did not Robespierre lead the way to Napolean? Did not Reconstruction lead to to the Klan? Did not the Church Committee lead to Iran-Contra? Which led the way to impeachment? At what point shouldn’t we stop at say “STOP….”; there are real problems which have to be faced, not these interminable political disputes!
Exactly. The self-improvement movement often uses the term “closure” in this regard.
For me there’ll be no closure until those jerks are brought to justice and pay their debt to society.
excuse me?
you think that would be a bad thing?
you are entireley wrong, I WANT each and every president to fear the next on who will be taking office
you want more crimes?…then ignore these, you want even more treason?…allow this treason
you want this country to go silently into the night then you ignore what has been done to our country and her constitution
Agreed !
The Rule of Law is apparently only an illusion to keep the little people in their place.
Once those illusions shatter, watch out!
Thanks, Jane! I didn’t even know Billmon was posting again; I don’t know how I missed that. But I think he is definitely right that the press wants to be done with Bush and never look back. And the word “candid,” used to decribe the President in his exit interviews, is an obscenity.
Excuse the plug, but I hope some FDL’ers will go and read my post. It does help put what this site has been about in some context. Cheers, everyone.
I’m all for stopping the endless parade of Republican presidents who commit crimes against the constitution and go unpunished.
No President should FEAR the consequence of the decisions they make. That would encourage decision by committee, and deter the kind of bold thinking that leads to real breakthroughs. This constant backbiting is what destroys the institutions of our government.
Hi Jay. Thanks for the fine work you are doing.
Go Hugh.
“Stopping” Republican presidents, just like “stopping” Democrat Presidents leads to a perversion of the constitutional framework and ultimately could lead to Civil War. Each party gets its say…right now the Democrats will get their chance. They COULD screw it up by focusing on the past instead of trying to do their best to make things better.
It is to be audaciously hoped that Barack Obama might peruse Hugh’s List.
Or, at least, send some minion to ‘check it out’.
Maybe Sunstein is available, but then, he is not a mere minion …
I’m pretty sure that the Constitution provides for a significant deterrent for a sitting President to commit crimes. It’s called impeachment – I’m quite certain you’ve heard of it.
If the democratic Congress (from which the incoming President comes) has not seen fit to contemplate impeachment proceedings, I think we can draw one of two conclusions:
1. the conduct was not criminal; or
2. the conduct was criminal, but they have blood on their own hands.
DW !
I’ll betcha Dollars to Donuts that Obama knows of Hugh’s list
Ah, Petro,
“Knowing” and doing something with such ‘knowledge” are two different things.
Kind of like dollars and donuts …
;~D
BO is the master of timing though … I’ll wait to see how he times these hearings but my guess is, late fall – early spring … just in time for 2010 election cycle.
Great snark. That was snark, right? What happened with Bush was that he did whatever he wanted and then used the power of his office and a docile media to get himself elected to a second term. Then he continued to do whatever he wanted. That is the flaw in your theory, well actually two flaws. Not being re-elected is not a punishment, and even when it should happen it doesn’t. And for a President in his/her second term, it can’t.
We have had numerous discussions recently about the rule of law. There were disagreements about its application, but the one thing that I think we all agreed on was that it should not apply to some but not others. You advocate one law for us and another for officeholders and those who serve them. This is profoundly anti-democratic and promotes precisely the criminality we see in our leaders.
BTW thanks folks for the nice comments about my list. Glad that it has helped and yes, it was meant to combat the convenient amnesia of our political and media leaders.
I don’t think many sitting Presidents regard not being re-elected as NOT a punishment. Ask Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush. Nevertheless, you run the risk of using “rule of law” as simply another term for “exacting revenge”. That is not healthy in a democracy any more than other injustices. And given the harm caused to the political process by one party criminally accusing another, I think “rule of law” should be applied with extreme caution lest political disputes be conflated with legal ones.
Right, only impeachments about blow-jobs should be done. Actual crimes against the Constitution? Not so much.
If members of the Democratic leadership (and Republican leadership) in Congress were complicit in crimes, I have no problems what so ever in holding them ALL accountable.
Or are you a believer that it isn’t a crime if it is done by a high enough level of government official? That all actions are by definition exempt when you reach the POTUS/VPOTUS/Dept Secretary level.
Now how DID that work with Japan and Germany?
yes, indeed I have heard of it, it also provides for criminal prosecution…perhaps YOU heard of that?
you cannot possibly know the scope of a presdient’s crime while he’s in office he will impede and obstruct(obvious to some of us but not to others I guess)
and of course perhaps you know (but I doubt it) that impeachment cand be conducted post office>
so there you have it
Whether you believe in the Nuremburg precedent or not (a great body of law existed that posited “victor’s justice” was an unjustifiable use of power — Sen. Robert Taft)..that was in the context of a war against a State Enemy. One cannot compare the Democrat/Republican fight inside this country as having the same magnitude.
Vindictive is starting a war and killing over a million people to get the man your father couldn’t capture.
I’ll add to your list
vindictive is exposing a covert security asset to get back at her husband for breing a patriot, reporting your findings and revealing the lies that would bring us to war
If the actions of the worst President in our history should not be investigated, then nothing that happens under any President should be. Our Founding Fathers believed that power must be highly conditioned and limited because they had seen what unrestained power could do. They constructed our system to reflect this concern. They believed that no one was above the law. They said in our land the law is king. They thought accountability was essential.
What you advocate is the very opposite of this. It goes against the heart and soul of the Constitution. It is the philosophy of John Yoo and David Addington. It is the idea of Richard Nixon that if the President does it that means it’s not illegal. And yes, it is antithetical to the rule of law.
The Founders wanted us to be governed by laws not men. You would reverse this.
My point is merely that, by seeking to bring criminal charges against a prior administration for its policy decisions, you risk undermining the Office of the Presidency, perhaps even more than the underlying conduct may have. (and yes, I agree that the Clinton impeachment had the same effect, although it cannot be left unsaid that he was impeached for his act of perjury, the single act that most undermines the judicial system that the President is charged with protecting, not for a blow job, as you indelicately put it)
I have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency, even during times when my respect for the person occupying that office is diminished. Although no one is above the law, it is certainly true that the enforcement of the law necessarily requires an examination of the implications of prosecuting offenders. The prosecution of a sitting or former President for his policy decisions would have grave consequences on the Office of the President. As a result, the occasions on which prosecution against a former or sitting President is appropriate may very well be limited.
I would simply leave the judgement of history to be done by historians, not by lawyers of the opposite political party.
No one is talking about criminalizing policy decisions. We are talking about criminalizing criminality.
I may disagree somewhat in that I don’t believe this is about the Office of the President in this case. This is about the abuse of power that can result when the actions that the President takes, in “our” name, are in direct conflict with either existing laws or the Constitution. A simple example that comes directly to mind is the Executive Order barring release of Presidential Papers. This EO was in direct violation of an existing law.
While I would obviously disagree with the policies (especially foreign policy) I would have less argument about them if the process was above board and that my disagreements stem only from philosophical differences. This isn’t about Republican vs. Democratic ideology, it’s about abuse of power and making sure future President’s are held accountable and transparency in government is again brought to the table.
I’m sorry but lying to get us into a war of choice is not “policy differences.” Nor is condoning and supporting torture. Nor is outing CIA undercover operatives. Nor is creating extra-constitutional authority. Nor is using the DoJ is a personal machine for retribution against political enemies.
And I’m sorry but lying in a deposition about a blow job that had nothing to do with the law suit for which the deposition was being held is a far cry from all the lies told by the Bush Admin. The only thing the Clinton Impeachment was done for was as payback for the Nixon Impeachment. You know, crimes where the power of the Presidency was used against political enemies? The fact that it also served to keep the Dem leadership from going after Bush for his crimes just worked as gravy for the Rs who did nothing for the 6 years they controlled Congress but cheerlead for the Bush crimes and help cover them up by neglect.
Again this is just a strawman. We are not talking about the judgement of history. We are talking about the prosecution of violations of law. While the Bush Administration engaged in massive politicization of the Department of Justice, the history here too is that employees at Justice serve the law not the President. Again “lawyers of the opposite political party” is just another strawman since for you any lawyer who would prosecute any politician or officeholder could only act according to their political biases and would only be chosen for them. If this is how you believe the justice system works, then we might as well go back to our caveman days because law and justice are impossible, a fraud that the few perpetrate on the many.
A trial WOULD weaken the Office of the President, whether intended or not. The CIA operatives have already had to take out legal insurance on their own dime against these kinds of things. It is a policy difference. Democrats originally supported all the policies they later came to disown for political reasons. I know it goes against current conventional wisdom, but there is little the Bush Justice Department did that wouldn’t have been condoned by the Reno Justice department. I did not concur with all that Reno did in the Gonzales and Randy Weaver cases but to go after her after the fact would have been to weaken the Executive Office of the President. Same here.
The judgment of historians now will differ from the judgment of historians later. Truman looks much different now than he did immediately after his Administration.
Whether or not the order violated existing law or perhaps was justified by inherent Article II authority has to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Transperency and adherence to rule of law principles will be established by the Courts in relationship to FUTURE Presidents. It would be an enormous waste of judicial AND Obama’s political capital (it would be HIS justice department that would pursue such cases) and resources (tax money in the midst of economic difficulties) to engage in such political gamesmanship.
You really should lay off that koolaid. You are hallucinating. And given the imperial Presidency, I would think that office could use some weakening. You condone lawbreaking. You condone the selective application of the laws. You condone dictatorship. You are very hard to take seriously.
I think that as the administration and/or oligarchic efforts to control the media were increasingly successful, the audience began to shrink. I found the internet and specifically firedoglake during the Valerie Plame scandal.
I am of an age when we remember newspapers doing that kind of reporting and analysis. We remember it. The memory has not been washed down the memory hole, so that the difference with today’s media is clear.
I think that the obvious political lens of MSM and as well as the decline in substance are major factors in their fall in readership/viewership and the rise in the use of the internet.
So it’s amusing to hear media titans speak of the competition from the internet hurting their news operations. My god, they gave up the news operations, and that is why the internet grew — to replace what the readers had lost.
Now if anyone knows this, it must certainly include the villagers of an age to remember the difference–
I can’t imagine that everyone active in media is in denial of this explanation for the failure of the MSM. But perhaps so. In acceding to the political demands of those in power, the media lost its audience, gradually, but definitely, over the last twenty years.
As we have long suspected, and now are more sure of, the public center is far to the left of where the MSM has been telling us it is.
So I think politics, their own politics, is a very significant factor, in the failure of media.
Now I have wondered over recent years why there has not been much significant movement to change that lens, to get an audience back. (Rachel Maddow is a very new addition.) I began to conclude that the propaganda function must be more important to ruling elites than circulation figures or viewership. If the media did not keep pumping out the right wing noise propaganda, the whole right wing Bush administration might have collapsed.
I really think there was nothing more holding it together.
But if right wing political propaganda is clearly more important than circulation figures, than the propagandists are also holding the air waves closely, filled with nonsense and lack of content, in order to prevent
this venue from being used to communicate other ideas. It is fenced off.
A kind of no man’s land.
We saw the rise in recent years of independent political documentaries, because the previous medium for these ideas, television, was closed to us by the right wing political gate-keepers.
The censorship is blatant. Very little coverage of the coal ash spill.
How can that be? In America?
Thanks for getting back on point.
Keep in mind one thing. I think it’s important not to come to the conclusion that any amount of media manipulation is done without the complete complicity of the media itself. Censorship is a strong word. I think the better word is self-censorship.
It is true that the media does a horrible job of what it is supposed to do, but I refuse to believe that they have any reason to do so other than the fact that they want to.
unfortunatley the US is now more rot than not and it does not look like anything of any real importance is going to “change”. Obama has already indicated that his desire is to ignore the “rule of law” where it would apply to BushCo. The main reason being that there are way to many big Dems who would be exposed as being complicit. None of it could of happened without them. The spiral will continue down without a full “House” cleaning.
I could handle it. I would welcome it.