Carl Bernstein's famous 1977 article entitled "The CIA & The Media" from Rolling Stone (10/20/77) made it abundantly clear: William Colby confirmed the facts about CIA and media complicity. "By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc."

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --William Colby, former CIA Director

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible." --The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

To think that there is any independence, any integrity at all, in the traditional media is naive and foolhardy. Even Dowd's "mistake" - her plagiarism of a blogger voicing support for prosecution of the Bush administration for torture - was no doubt an intentional lapse, enhancing the relevance and synchronicity of DFH's with mainstream 'journalism.' Clever woman.

But for those who would actually heed the ramifications of CIA and media complicity, one sees a direct correlation with trad media's misplaced loyalty in exchange for their place on NSA's early warning telephone tree: Many news outlets were openly urged not to travel on 9/11 because of "increased chatter."

It would be a huge and impolitic mistake - and possibly unpatriotic - to posit that this should not be the case when officials have made it so abundantly clear. The fourth estate has been co-opted for years. All that remains is a US government as propaganda outlet with traditional news media serving as town criers.

One need only read the newspaper today to understand that Afghanistan is now on the radar for assault and invasion to counter what Juan Cole implies is really just a small sect of 5,000 brutal, unpopular, hairy people who disguise themselves by shaving to avoid the Indian Army regulars in Afghanistan who despise them. It is a joke to think that they will take over Pakistani nukes, but that's the fear-mongering the Administration must use to drive the military budget. And false flag ops will "prove" the Taliban are taking over Islamabad.

The real touchy problem, India & Pakistan vying for Kashmir, is discussed only in hushed tones.

Schadenfreude!!

It's a two-fer to see President Obama doing the right thing with Israel on their settlements AND fighting illicit AIPAC money-for-votes influence in Congress.

Maybe Obama will connect more of the dots for us in our other foreign relationships. It's so complicated.

I stopped reading it in 2006 shortly after they tried to deny that they had the wiretapping violations story in October 2004 - which would have been just in time to have absolutely queered Bush's chance to win the '04 elections.

In December 2005, they tried to admit they didn't have the story until December 2004, which was a pure, unadulterated and bald-faced lie. It seems quaint now, by any measure, in the face of the rest of their treacherous and disgusting regime.

Bob Herbert & Paul Krugman are as deep as I will tread into their effete sludgepile. But I still highly recommend their jr. tabloid size pages for puppy training (But only use the previous day's fact-checked news for the pups, please. Use page two, since the front page crowns up and pee often runs off the page.)

Thanks for keeping up with it, Glenn. I don't have the stomach for their tripe anymore.

What truth is there to the claim that Cheney sought to enhance the value of his moribund Halliburton stock options through the abuse of the power of his office fomenting a war of choice in Iraq?

...would deny that this is torture? And what kind of person would argue that those who ordered that should be immune from investigation and prosecution?" you ask.

Only a politician.

A Statesman would have no trouble at all in denouncing and degrading his opponents. A Statesman and a Constitutional law professor would have no trouble at all in exposing their immorality, indecency and contempt for our U.S. code of law, treaty obligations, American values and simple human decency. He could even take care of this through AG Holder if he cared to.

A Statesman would have the courage, the anger and the fury to decry them and deny extremist, usurpative, treacherous, fear-mongering right winger spokesmen in our society the platform that they currently occupy by proxy: O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Coulter, Murdoch, et al. Cheney matters little, but he bears a real threat: This wretched little man dares much and is loyal to no one. (Therein lies his weakness.) He can only lead his nefarious cadre of insurgents for so long. With JSOC still answering Cheney's calls, Obama can do little.

Behold Obama...a politician who masquerades as a Statesman only when it is convenient and he knows he can win. Flawed at best, and yet he can change that in a NY minute. First, he'll have to get rid of the people holding him back who are keeping this entirely out of the Oval. Then he'll have to be rid of Cheney. Time will tell.

Only an exceptional President, elected by Democrats, would dare to be seen eschewing pride and almost begging...shamefully begging the question that we dare ask only here: When will the Bush miscreants be held to account?

Torture is not an American value. It is against the law, and no man is above the law. Nixon proved it, but Bush ran out the clock on resignation.

Our laws reflect mercy, even in the face of guilt, but they do not sanction rapacious audacity, illegal violence and abuse of power for cowardice and greed, or we are a nation without laws ...or men.