...is the one-size-fits-all dismissal of any outrage or even call for inquiries into illegal behavior as the "criminalization of policy disputes" -- as if the breaking of actual laws and the shredding of constitutional rights, as well as the flat-out embrace of murder and torture -- were nothing more than a topic to be tapped around a bit at debate class or moot court.

spend any time at all with official washington, and you will eventually hear this rationalization burble to the fore. unhappily, the only response that has any meaning -- since they will never do a day in jail -- is to hold these sociopathic narcissists up for the ridicule they deserve.

...how the folks who say well, we should move on are always the folks who have committed the action (or supported its committion) that raised the fuss in the first place?

...which is just as easily conveyed. thanks be to rosen and greenwald both.

to stress one point they made: the underpinning for washington journalists' use of such sorting mechanisms as what's likely/unlikely to occur is EXACTLY the outcome when the journalist follows the path that rosen and greenwald note, almost in passing, here.

that is, journalists have laregly retreated from actually raising issues themselves -- because, weirdly, they believe that makes them too "political" or biased -- to take the default position of finding out two sides of a given issues and quoting them, i.e. if republicans say x, what will democrats do? (and those are the conscientious reporters, who are doing the job as they AND their news organizations expect them to do.)

but this isn't the FUNCTION of journalism, this is a CORRUPTION of what journalism is supposed to do in this democracy. as ever noted, journalists who limit themselves to this are nothing more than stenographers -- and actually not as good as stenos, who at least provide a full record of what is said.

Analysis isn't advocacy and inquiry isn't bias, though it's convenient to think so when true inquiry is so demanding of time and study and energy. but the great reporters, from ida tarbell on, know their subjects, press their interviews, confront and question authority.

having abdicated this responsibility, and confronted by a technology shift that leaves them vulnerable to informed review, the mainstream media have become secondary players in discerning and disseminating the reality of what "is likely to happen." it's already obvious that the best blogs are outlying indicators about where any issue is headed.

margaret mead's quote, about not doubting that "a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world," was never more meaningful than in this internet age. the biggest concern is that the internet is so powerful a tool for organizing dissent that i fear its imminent overregulation (using arguments about security and safety, of course).

thanks again.

...except that no, torture, unlawful detentions, and investigations into high crimes and misdemeanors actually aren't -- nor should they be -- issues that are defined by the political spectrum.

indeed what this poll shows is how UNAMERICAN these bushite actions have been. if it wasn't a reflection of just how warped and demented the previous administration was -- and how warped and demented they made the politics/policies of this country -- then the blindered lockstep of congress and a cowardly press on these matters would be cause for amusement. derision is the only thing available to us now.

still, that's something. who doubts no matter how dimwitted former president bush is (and isn't it great to keep writing that?) that it didn't sink in how low he is regarded. favorite inaugural moment? the full-throated singing by a million-plus of "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" while waving to Marine 1 overhead.

if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then mockery is the final word of history's verdict.

...mcardle, the dull and stupid sort who somehow is allowed under the auspices of a once-proud magazine to opine mindlessly on topics outside her self-proclaimed field of expertise -- economics); and

reynolds, who if he is a law professor of any true sort is supposed to keep track of those areas of jurisprudence he offers his opinion on (however uninformed they might be). for him to nod approvingly suggests a higher type of danger than mcardle's emily litella nobody-asked-me-but brand of idiocy -- that of willful and knowing dishonesty.

there's your choice these days with most right-wing commentators: ignorance or lies. because facts, as they know, are stupid things.

...the academy couldn't ignore robert downey's work in "iron man" (one of the few blockbusters this year, another hollywood tradition) yet didn't want to give him a spot among the nominations for best actor. so they throw the bone of a nomination in supporting actor. duh. sometimes critics could also stand to get out more.

it's actually the reason WHY he asked questions. The longer you stay in Washington, the more quickly you become kept by the very forces you're supposed to be overseeing.

good on him. i hope he maintains this line of questioning. and gets some answers. it would be a true change if congress began actually taking on the responsibility of its true job of providing oversight. else it's all window-dressing, regardless of whether that's a D or an R after his name.

...and yet, he and his ilk are oblivous to it (the highest good) or dismissive of it (next best).

because, don't you know, the fact that those who support the point glenn is making are CORRECT is part of the joke to the beltway kids. if you do the right thing, they figure, not only is it afflicting the comfortable -- themselves included --you're not tough enough to order deli meat with the big boys. i'd call these folks contemptible power whores, 'cept that's giving them too much credit for working hard.