Praising Fox News is not very Democratic, and it certainly does not display Leadership.

Leutisha has more.

Andrew Bacevich has reviewed a new book by New Yorker staff writer jane Mayer (maybe she will start dropping the New Yorker tag from her resume after the magazine's frightful Obama caricature) that reminds us of the scope of what has taken place over the past seven years.  Mayer's book, The Dark Side, catalogs the worst wrongdoings of the Bush administration–holding detainees, including U.S. citizens, for years without charges, creating an "American gulag" where thousands of detainees (many of whom are innocent and ultimately released) are "subjected to ritual abuse and humiliation", and "making torture the official law of the land in all but name".  It is easy to mistake these as "allegations" (Bacevich even uses that word)–in fact, Mayer has documented these facts with corroboration from military officials, intelligence professionals, and "conservative Bush appointees".

It is hard to write about this without sounding overly dramatic, but the reality is that American democracy is unmoored, wildly off course.  Die-hard Bush supporters seem to think that the 80-plus % of us who understand that the country is moving in the wrong direction take some pleasure from that fact.  Hardly.  I am outraged, frustrated, let down, and committed to seeing the United States return to its ideals–the rule of law, open government, due process, basic humanity. 

There is a lot to clean up, a lot to set right.  The first step is understanding what has gone wrong.  John McCain helped Bush win re-election, accepted his endorsement, and appears with him at fundraising events.  I don't think Obama is perfect, but he understands that it is time to close the book on the past seven years and to move toward fundamental democratic ideals we once took for granted

Update: Welcome Huffington Post, Open Left, Crooks and Liars, Unclaimed Territory, Talk Left, Raising Kaine and Reddit readers.

Download audio file (webb.mp3)

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.

All emphasis is mine.

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs… the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don’t even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I’ll be honest with you, that’s why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.

The good is, when there are allegations made, in any variety of formats, there are people who know the facts, and step forward, and correct the facts. People who put their name on it and correct. We had, from day one we had strong support from people in the blogging community. In fact, I wasn’t even sure I was going to run for office. After Katrina, I went up and saw my friend Bob Kerrey, the guy who told me that Moynihan wrote 17 books. And talked to him for the first time about the mechanics of running. I’d obviously been involved in political commentary for a very long time. In listening to Bob Kerrey I sort of thought I was going to do it and then I looked at what it would take to raise the money and all the rest of this and I wasn’t sure. There were people in the blogging community who heard that I was thinking about running and on their own they started a draft Webb for Senate campaign. They got 1,000 signatures on this, they came over and saw me, I spent an hour and a half talking with them. And you know that was a big part in terms of convincing me that yea well maybe I oughtta step forward and do this.

With respect to legislation, what I, I think the blogs really communicate, in a very intelligent way, on a couple of these really complicated issues, I would hope they wouldn’t lock themselves into positions so early, uh, there’s some really complex pieces of legislation that kind of get boiled down…

Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?

Jim Webb: Specifically I’m thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

(laughter)

That’s a very complicated issue and I’ve looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I’m very strong on privacy rights. It’s not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.

It's hard to imagine any right-wing outlet doing something so clumsy.  This will be red meat to a media that thrives on gossip and "controversy".   

Eventually, the article did appear, but not until talk of censorship and other possible shenanigans had been bantied about in the comment sections.  The possibility that Digg was suppressing certain controversial topics in order to further their own commercial interests was raised, although Digg officials maintain that the omission was merely a glitch in the algorithm.

Now I'm not trying to accuse Digg of anything.  I honestly can't tell you why the story about FISA didn't make the front page.  But supposing for the sake of argument that it was censorship, and supposing that the story was suppressed in an effort to make Digg more commercially attractive - did Digg do anything wrong? 

From a legal point of view, of course, there was nothing wrong with Digg's alleged actions.  It is a private enterprise that is provided free to its users, and its owner(s) and administrators have the right to promote or to suppress stories as they see fit. 

But just because something is legal doesn't make it right.  Can we consider it immoral or unethical when a media outlet intentionally suppresses relevant and important information in order to protect or promote its own interests?  And are such actions a violation of the right to free speech?

So many people have grown cynical about the mainstream media and their inability to cover the news that really affects our lives.  Much confidence has been placed in Internet sites like Digg and Reddit that are perceived to be merit-based and not governed by the hand of partisan politics or the pursuit of the almighty dollar.  And whether or not this particular incident was commercially motivated, it is clear from the thousands of comments that this confidence is starting to erode.  

Bottom Line:  Does the right to speak freely mean that you won't get arrested for what you say, or that your words will get the opportunity to be heard?  Or to put it another way, do those who control the media have an obligation to ensure that voices are not suppressed?  Does an organization like Digg have an ethical duty not to engage in censorship?  In an age when media ownership is consolidating at an alrming rate and when many valid points of views are being excluded from the public conversation, these are questions that we need to be asking ourselves.

If you don't read/watch Current, check it out.

This isn't diplomatic, it's not presidential, it's not even funny. McCain's friends in the media may lap up this bluster as further evidence of McCain's supposed bona fides on foreign policy. The reality is that McCain is unpolished and lacks the tact necessary to be a statesman. This is hardly the first time he has said something intemperate, tone-deaf, or just plain stupid when it comes to foreign affairs.

By the way, does McCain think our beef is with Iran's leaders, or the Iranian people? His painful joke suggests he makes no distinction.

Howard Wolfson, who was a top strategist for the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is going where some Democrats were unwilling to go during the early days of the election season: the Fox News Channel.

Foreshadowed by Terry McAuliffe's outburst a few months ago, the move comes as a slap in the face to progressives, media critics and bloggers, who have maintained for years that Fox is in fact anything but Fair and Balanced.

Wolfson spoke with the NYT over the phone on Monday:

“I thought that Fox’s coverage during the primary was comprehensive and fair and evenhanded,” Mr. Wolfson said Monday in a telephone interview from Liverpool, England, where he was vacationing. “It’s a huge audience, and it is important to have a strong, progressive voice on the network.”

It makes me absolutely sick to see another 'Democrat' legitimizing, and even going as far as praising, Fox News channel as anything more than the low-class propaganda dump that it is.

How is this for fair coverage during the primary?

It seems to me that Howard Wolfson has more allegiance to the name Clinton than he does to the Democratic party or the values it ostensibly adheres to.

I'll place money right now on the fact that Fox will use Howard Wolfson as a concern troll, allowing him to point out Obama's weaknesses and McCain's strengths, to create the illusion of fair and balanced coverage. John Moody, an Executive VP at Fox hinted at this when he commented on the hire to Reuters yesterday.

"We really think we've got the chess board covered," Moody said.

The Democrats are going to have to do some serious housecleaning before long. There are a lot of us who don't see the political value of sharing associations with folks like Howard Wolfson and Terry McCauliffe.

Update: Nick Juliano has more:

Much of the Clinton campaign came to favor Fox toward the end of the campaign in the face of what they saw as a pro-Obama bent from the rest of the networks. (For example, unlike, say, CNN or MSNBC, Fox gleefully spread the rumor that Obama was educated in a Madrassa, referred to his fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab," implied his wife was an unwed mother and hosted a guest who joked about killing Obama.)

Update 2: FishBowl DC has Fox's Statement:

FOX News Channel (FNC) has signed Howard Wolfson as a contributor, announced John Moody, Executive Vice President of News Editorial. Wolfson, the former co-chief strategist and communications director for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for President, is scheduled to make his debut on the network on Wednesday, July 9th.

In making the announcement, Moody said, "Howard was part of the inner working circle of Senator Clinton's campaign and has a unique perspective on just how unconventional this election year already is. He has proven himself on key campaigns throughout the last decade and is recognized as one of the top communications and political thinkers in the Democratic Party. We look forward to benefiting from his insight during the general election campaign and beyond."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: Schlafly's Eagle Forum, founded in 1972, has taken the lead in preventing kids from reading John Steinback while making sure they get a healthy dose of creationism (I won't link, but if you're interested, check out the nutty stuff Schlafly has written on this subject).  Schlafly has called sex education classes "in home sales parties for abortion."  Schlafly has denounced "illegal aliens" as carriers of disease and rails against GLBT people.

Matthew Staver, Liberty Counsel: Liberty Counsel brings lawsuits that it says are aimed at "restoring the culture one case at a time."  "Restoring the culture", of course, means bringing religion into every aspect of the public schools, railing against abortion, and "defending marriage" against the gay bogeyman.  Liberty Counsel (like McCain) wants to roll back Roe v. Wade.   Staver threatened to sue a library that gave children certificates for completing Harry Potter books–Staver said the library was promoting witchcraft. 

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" series: Americans United describes Tim LaHaye as "a fundamentalist extremist who hates church-state separation, seeks a government-enforced "Christian nation", and has a long track record of attacking other religions and promoting bizarre conspiracy theories."  Mr. LaHaye envisions an ideal world where abortion is outlawed, homosexuality is lumped in with pedophilia and prostitution as "perverse sexual practices" that are universally shunned.  Public schools lead daily prayers and teach creationism.  Women stay home to raise babies and submit to their husbands' authority.  LaHaye's "Left Behind" series describes a post-Rapture world where the anti-Christ joins forces with evil UN officials (at last, someone who understands the real threat we face!  Do I smell a National Security Advisor position under McCain?).

These are just a few examples of the radicals uniting behind McCain (one unnamed leader suggested that defeating Obama is a divine mission, saying these leaders don't want to be able to "meet their maker" without saying they did all they could to defeat Obama). 

None of these religious extremists is a household name, and it's unlikely we'll hear anything about how radical these McCain supporters are.  I'd like to know if McCain agrees that (a) encouraging kids to read Harry Potter promotes witchcraft; (b) public schools ought to lead daily prayers and teach creationism; (c) God wants followers who work to defeat Obama.  McCain has some radical new friends with an extremist (far from "conservative") agenda for America.  Will the media tell us what these McCain supporters believe, and why they want to elect McCain?

Well, part of it, anyway.

The part where the Chinese commandant brainwashes Americans such as Laurence Harvey (never mind that accent) and Frank Sinatra.

I don’t know if Richard Condon had seen the article titled Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War which was published two years before his novel The Manchurian Candidate came out in 1959, but I could not read the Times article without flashing on the 1962 film.

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The chart was part of collection of documents made public a couple of weeks ago at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, but the connection to the Chinese version was not realized till an independent interrogation expert pointed it out to the New York Times. This chart, mind you, was taken verbatim from the Chinese version as published a half-century ago—only the title at the top was changed before the thing was brought down to Guantanamo to train interrogators there.

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Alfred D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

Those orchestrated confessions led to allegations that the American prisoners had been “brainwashed,” and provoked the military to revamp its training to give some military personnel a taste of the enemies’ harsh methods to inoculate them against quick capitulation if captured.

In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.

Is it historical amnesia, or is it willful ignorance? I gotta ask, because this is hardly the first piece of evidence we’ve had that the Bush Administration adopted a policy of torturing detainees using techniques repeatedly proven to be ineffective, and, most likely, counterproductive. Techniques that were also known to be in direct conflict with standing American policy and the Geneva Conventions. Techniques that were repeatedly labeled as torture and/or “brainwashing” by the US government throughout the previous six decades.

And, perhaps it is not only the administration apparatchiks who have pretended that they know nothing.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that “every American would be shocked” by the origin of the training document.

“What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,” Mr. Levin said. “People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.”

Every American—and apparently Senator Levin—would be shocked, shocked, to discover that there is torture going on in American-run establishments.

Would be shocked? Who is going to make sure that they are shocked, Senator? Who is going to shout it from the highest hill? Who is going to cut off funding to the prisons and programs that practice these cruel and inhuman techniques? Who is going to hold the perpetrators and their bosses accountable for this historical amnesia? Who is going to overturn the now thoroughly discredited Military Commissions Act? Who is going to restore Habeas rights so that more about the sub-human practices inside the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld gulag system can come to light?

I’m sorry, I’m being a little rhetorical. Perhaps I’m overacting a bit. Just imagine I’m Sinatra in high dudgeon, rendered in Black and White (lord knows I do sometimes).

The bottom line here is that the Bush Administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were never about keeping America safe—there was far too much evidence in the public and classified record that demonstrated just how counterproductive this torture was and is. Maybe it was about an executive power grab, maybe it was done out of cowardice, panic, or shear vindictiveness, but let no one claim it was done to gain the advantage in the War on Terror™—that just isn’t credible.

As fans of the book or movie know, things in The Manchurian Candidate don’t end well. The “brainwashing” is exposed, there is a psychotic break or two, much Oedipal drama, and a great deal of blood is spilled. After seven-and-a-half years of torture, bloodshed, and Oedipal drama, is it really so shocking to discover another disgusting misuse of executive authority? And, is it really too much to ask that someone in the loyal opposition takes to heart Laurence Harvey’s final words? (No, nut-o-sphere, not his final deeds—just his words.)

You couldn't have stopped them, the Army couldn't have stopped them. So I had to.

- - - - -
(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)