I agree that the media narrative is a HUGE problem on this issue and others. I also agree that our establishment media is projecting their own guilt onto everyone including the public.

I actually wondered the other day when the Washington Post was trying to change the topic of conversation by writing a blue million pieces focusing on Nancy Pelosi whether the WH had met with media owners to "brief" them on torture long before any of us knew about it. I wondered if those owners agreed to downplay the torture story whenever they could. For instance how long did the Post hold back publishing the CIA black site story?

The stories on Pelosi in the Post this past weekend all failed to include important (and very obvious) facts because they didn't fit the narrative that our establishment media was pushing. I even wrote a post on my blog about the Post ignoring a 2006 front page story from the Post where a former deputy inspector general, Mary McCarthy, had accused the CIA of lying to Congress in their briefings to Congress. Ms. McCarthy was actually one of the Post's key sources for Dana Priest's CIA Black Site story and yet not one word about her claims that the CIA lied to Congress appeared in any story or opinion piece in the Post. Why not?

I agree with you. I'd sure like to know what the media knew and when they knew it because I'm real tired of the continuing propaganda campaign directed at the public.

I think people in the establishment media who say "the left" with such disdain do so because they know that we know they aren't telling the truth. They can't refute what we say so they try to paint us as crazy so that no one will believe the facts that we use to confront them and will instead believe their distortion of the facts.

David Gregory, Jon Meacham, Mark Halperin, Joe Scarborough, David Ignatius, Richard Cohen, Ruth Marcus and all the rest of them don't want any legal accountability for war crimes but some of them are now willing to entertain the possibility of an investigation as long as it's like a 911 type Commission that doesn't recommend any prosecution. Peggy Noonan really spells out what they want.

Someone has raised the idea of a 911 type commission that literally - that does not make value judgements that literally does not use adjectives - that will gather info and report in a data rich but not pejorative way exactly what happened. That may be the best that can come of this

The video of Noonan can be found at my blog. Link at sig.

Amazing...MSNBC just showed a split screen where they showed video of the site for Obama's speech on the "left" of the screen and video of the site for Dick Cheney's speech on the "right" of the screen. If anyone says our news is not politicized they have their head in the sand.

Oh great. MSNBC has Chris "just execute them" Matthews anchoring their coverage of the "dueling" speeches.

Andrea Mitchell tells Matthews Cheney is not doing this speech because of politics, he's doing it because he really believes that the country is less safe. GAWD!

Pat Buchanan is also commenting on the speeches. Great. Cheney won the debate because Obama is moving to Bush's position (sadly, Pat is closer to the truth than any of them).

Lawrence O'Donnell now up to stick up for Obama.

Where is the person that represents OUR VIEW?

Wow, Cheney is not getting a very rousing response to his speech at the AEI. Maybe it's because even they recognize that he is lying is ass off.

Wow, Cheney did not get a very rousing response to his speech at the AEI. Maybe it's because even they recognize that he is lying is ass off.

Chuck Todd saying you have two of the most credible people debating this issue...Obama and Cheney. LOL Could this man be any more clueless?

David Gregory...the president really doesn't want to relitigate the Bush/Cheney years...yada, yada, yada

That's it! TV is off for the day!

I wasn't fast enough with the remote and heard this:

Todd to Gregory...it's the ultimate in high minded debate and that's why they tune in to watch you on Meet the Press.

We are doomed. Can our establishment press be any more clueless than Todd and Gregory. No wonder our country went to hell in a hand basket.

I'm coming late to Glenn's column today so forgive me if this has already been posted but in a chat on Firedoglake this morning this is what Sheldon Whitehouse said about preventive detention:

Jesterfox: Welcome to Firedoglake, Senator Whitehouse.

How can we return to the rule of law while President Obama is expressing his support for preventive detention? We’ve been holding people for years without charging them. Now, he says, we won’t be able to charge and prosecute some of them, but we’ll have to continue to imprison them for the public’s safety. How does this comport with the rule of law?

Whitehouse: To argue by analogy, one can go to court and to a civil standard of proof show that someone is a danger to themselves or others, and obtain a civil commitment restricting their freedom. If we can do this with Americans, it seems logical that we could also do it with foreign terrorists. The question is, what checks and balances should surround the initial determination of danger, and what safeguards should stay with the person through the period of confinement? I look forward to hearing more from the Obama Administration about what schedule of rule of law safeguards they intend to apply, but I think that the example of civil commitment shows that it is not categorically forbidden to restrict someone’s freedom based on a finding of danger.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/22/fdl-welcomes-senator-sheldon-whitehouse/