Conservatives with integrity finally fed up

This letter from Pete McCloskey is so spot-on it deserves a link here.

There is another strong reason, I believe, for Republicans to work this fall for Democrat challengers against the DeLay-type Republicans like Pombo and Doolittle. That is the clear abdication by the House over the past five years of the Congress' constitutional power and duty to exercise oversight over abuses of power, cronyism, incompetence and excessive secrecy on the part of the Executive Branch. When does anyone remember House Committee hearings to examine into the patent failures of the Bush Administration to adhere to laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or to the arrogant refusal of the President to accept the congressionally-enacted limits on torture of prisoners? When can anyone remember the House's use of the subpoena power to compel answers from Administration officials? Why have there been no oversight hearings into the Cunningham bribery affair or Abramoff's Indian gaming and exploitation of women labor in the Marianas?

Nice work if you can get it

"You heard that rhetoric, oh, all he's going to do is tax the rich. In order to make sure he can -- in order to make sure he fulfills a little bit of his promises, he said he's going to tax the rich. We've heard that kind of language before. Yes, the rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason -- to stick you with the bill. We're not going to let the Senator tax you, we're going to whip him in November." -- George Bush, Oct. 9, 2004

Since DB is in Utah today, this news from the Washington Post seems appropriate:

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and his relatives have claimed millions of dollars in tax deductions through a type of charitable foundation they created that until recently paid out very little in actual charity, tax records show.

Instead, much of the foundation's money has been invested or lent to the family's business interests and real estate holdings, or contributed to the Leavitt family genealogical society.

The Leavitts used nearly $9 million of their assets to set up the foundation in 2000 under an obscure provision of the federal tax code. But unlike standard private foundations, which are required to give away at least 5 percent of their assets to charitable causes, the Leavitt organization donated less than 1 percent of its assets in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The donations jumped to 6.3 percent of total assets last year, after the sale of family water interests that also allowed the foundation to increase its lending to Leavitt business interests.

...

According to tax documents, the Leavitt Foundation donated $49,087 of its $9 million trust -- or 0.5 percent -- in 2002 and $52,312 -- or 0.6 percent -- in 2003, the only years of tax data available.

"They're basically sitting on all this money, getting a charitable write-off and doing nothing with it," Cohen said.

Guess Bush was right about rich people -- his "base" -- evading their responsibilities. What a shock.

But what was Bush's point, anyway? Cut rich people's taxes or they'll just get out of paying them? That makes no sense and obviously doesn't work. Why not raise taxes on the rich to 100 percent if they're just going to get out of it? And since when does the IRS come knocking on poor people's doors to collect Leavitt's unpaid taxes?

Tell the Lincoln Group to STICK IT

One debating tactic used in Washington is the isolation of one narrow aspect of a subject -- a point that can either be won or fought to an acceptable stalemate. DB calls that point a "stick," a term derived from the football scheme in which defenders line up at "the sticks" -- the line the offense must cross to get a first down. It's a low risk play of semi-concession for the defense, who are not going for a sack or anything; a nine-yard gain by the offense will still result in a turnover on downs.

Where the analogy comes up short is that in football, passing the sticks may be the offense's goal. In a debate, the stick is a distraction from a more relevant point of debate. But it's DB's analogy and we're, well... sticking to it.

For example, torture. Is it effective? Or will people just lie and say anything to stop the pain? An interesting academic debate.

And completely irrelevant to DB.

Why? Because torture is immoral and un-American. Period. Any time spent debating the effectiveness of torture is a waste of time that could otherwise be used to remind people what it is that we stand for as Americans -- in this case, humane treatment of prisoners and respect for the law. Is torture effective? Is selling meth to teenagers profitable? Who cares? They're both wrong.

Simple right? So why bring this up today? Because it is the preferred tactic of those who would tell us that the spreading of propaganda in Iraq is justified.

DB has heard three arguments in favor of the Pentagon's actions:

• The stories that were planted are all "true"
  
• It is an effective strategy and our troops need every break they can get
  
• This is a time of war and overseas disinformation is ethical
  

All three points are sticks.

1. Are the stories really "true?" Who knows? It depends upon whether they're opinions or factual reports of progress. It depends upon how much information has been omitted and how much has been included. Are the included facts "cherrypicked?" DB hasn't read these stories and won't. It simply doesn't matter. One thing DB does know is that this administration doesn't have a whole lot of credibility when it comes to telling the truth.

2. Is propaganda effective? Some believe it is, others do not. While DB thinks there are certain examples of disinformation and propaganda that are helpful in a time of war, it is the opinion of this blogger in regards to the current situation in Iraq that the risks outweighed the rewards and that there exist far more effective, less cynical and less costly ways of aiding and protecting our troops while winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

3. Is it unethical to use propaganda overseas during a war? This is the classic stick -- a nice hypothetical/philosophical question when there is an actual event to evaluate. Bush destroyed Kerry with this kind of stick when the president got his opponent to clarify his views on the doctrine of preemption and his "global test" while Bush's actual elective war was being waged.

All three of these debates should be immediately dismissed and the focus should remain on the following:

This administration already poisoned these waters with its similar domestic tactics.

Paying Armstrong Williams and others, granting media access to fake journalists like Jeff Gannon and creating fake news to promote their domestic agenda at home has destroyed any chance the administration had to innocently claim that these tactics are acceptable because of the unique situation in Iraq and the war.

This administration has a record of using the media as an echo chamber for propaganda at home.

As Maureen Dowd pointed out on David Letterman this week and as Arianna Huffington praised Chris Matthews for repeating, the Bush Administration planted dubious and outright false information in the papers, not only to support their claims, but timed to exactly precede key television appearances by members of the administration. This way, people like Condi Rice and Dick Cheney could point to the stories the administration planted as confirmation of its own claims.

The U.S. borders do not protect its citizens from receiving administration propaganda.

In his excellent piece in Rolling Stone, James Bamford writes:

By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies."

We hear over and over from administration allies that the MSM fails to report all the good news. But when they turn around and point to the "good news" reported in Iraq, they are (willingly or otherwise) fulfilling this psychological operation performed on Americans by our own government.

That the military reporters have an obligation to censor sensitive information is a given that any reasonable American must accept. That they will report "good news" and limit "bad news" is a reality that should also be accepted despite the fact that it is somewhat unpalatable.

But a strategy by the administration to plant stories in Iraq, or anywhere else outside our borders, in concert with an effort at home to point to the propaganda in an effort to push their agenda here is entirely unacceptable to DB.

Found: Media Outrage

When the Libby indictment came down last Friday, DB wondered where the media outrage was.

After all:

Members of the administration were lying to reporters. Take one example, one which Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball caught: Libby told Judy Miller that the still-classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contained "even stronger" evidence of the uranium claims. The document, later declassified, revealed the opposite. Not only should this be an outrage to reporters who put trust in sources, but -- memo to Pat Roberts -- there's a reason you should be investigating "Phase II."

As Arianna Huffington points out that Chris Matthews points out (and DB now points out), they used the grey ladies and the boob tube in concert to play the American public like a pipe, planting stories in the NY Times to control the topics on their Sunday morning TV appearances and bolster the credibility of their claims.

Members of the administration were lying on TV shows. Take one example: Dick Cheney flat out lied to the American people on "Meet the Press" when he said he didn't know anything about Joe Wilson, his trip or who sent him. All host Tim Russert had to say about that interview when the Libby indictment came down was that it "would be scrutinized." Come on, where's the outrage? He used you.

They directed the prosecutor to the media and placed a significant burden on reporters. This should be the biggest source of outrage. According to the indictment, Libby told Fitzgerald that he heard about Plame from Russert. He caused reporters like Russert to fall under the scrutiny of the prosecutor. All the legal fees, hastles, worrying and damage to their reputations, inability to report on the case with the appearance of impartiality... all of it because of Libby's loose lips and pointed fingers.

DB continues to be baffled by the revelation from Russert that Libby "didn't call me as a source; he called me as a viewer." Then why on earth did you fight a battle all the way to the Supreme Court? To protect viewer mail? Members of the media fought an important battle for the First Amendment, only to have it undermined by the administration's cynical use of the press.

Well, as promised in the title of this post, DB has found some quality media outrage, a column in the LA Times by Robert Scheer.

Let the rage flow, media members. You will all feel better. You'll trust just about anybody, apparently. Why not trust DB?

Dubious government super-fun quiz!

Can you guess which of these latest polls is from the United States and which is from Russia?

Country A: "In the October poll, 52 percent of respondents said they did not consider a single branch of power to be honest; 30 percent said they believed [the President] was honest."

Country B: "The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes [there are] wider problems 'with ethical wrongdoing' in the [President's administration]... And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, [the public says] the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under [the President]."

Almost as tough as "In which country can a citizen be indefinitely detained with no counsel, phone call or charges?"