Sorry to learn of the passing of Walter Cronkite before he could be interviewed by Rachel Maddow. I have my own memories, too, which include the safe return of Apollo 13; somebody's calling Cronkite "Old Iron-Butt" for his legendary staying power on election nights; and the abiding sense as a young kid that the news was "true" when Cronkite was reporting it.

But with the events of the last week, my thoughts didn't turn to comparisons to the "giants" -- to use a term facetiously and with disdain -- of our MSM such as Gregory, Williams (Joe Klein? Brian Ross?). I instead can't help thinking of what should be, but doesn't appear to be, getting recognized as the institutional crashing and burning of Chuck Todd and his mentality right here at this site.

The first comment I see here referring to Chuck Todd, from Kitt a while back, rightly juxtaposed Cronkite's observations with this Todd argument with Glenn in their interview:

Todd: "Then you have the realistic view of how this town works, and what would happen, and is it good for our reputation around the world if we're essentially putting on trial the previous administration? We would look at another country doing that, and say, geez, boy, this is..."

I've been ruminating on that quote for a couple of days and it strikes me as being even more obtusely subservient of the Beltway Personages than it even first appears. Todd's comment reflects an apparent conviction/belief not only that the Washington Elite would not want to engage in trials enforcing the Rule of Law against other members of the Washington Elite, but a presumption that this perception actually reflects a larger "position" of the Government of the United States, writ large, such that the United States Government would not advocate taking positions like challenging a former government's personnel because to do so would be inconsistent with international standing and integrity.

So, if that's Todd's understanding of the "lay of the land" -- that the United States of America would not be benefitted within the international community by holding lawless former leaders accountable -- what might Todd do with this published pronouncement of the President of the United States upon the occasion of the newly-constituted Yugoslavian government rendering up Milosevic to the Hague for trial as a war criminal:

"The transfer of Milosevic to the Hague is an unequivocal message to those persons who brought such tragedy and brutality to the Balkans that they will be held accountable for their crimes. Milosevic’s transfer further signals the commitment of the new leadership in Belgrade to turn Yugoslavia away from its tragic past and toward a brighter future as a full member of the community of European democracies."

Yes, those were the official words of President George W. Bush in 2001, they were published on the website of the White House throughout the Presidency of George W. Bush. THOSE words reflect the official policy of the United States Government. Who was Todd alluding to in suggesting the policy of the United States has ever been, or should be, otherwise? The answer to that is, he was referring only to what the individuals implicated in the actions would now want to see, not what the United States Government has articulated as an official policy.

This, it seems to me, is a basic problem underlying the "Beltway Mentality" of Todd and his ilk, of the "we'll be a friendly forum" subservience of Gregory, "letting Cheney control the message" of Russert. They presume to be reoprting upon and representing the views of "the United States Government" but that's the last thing they're interested in doing. If they were interested in reporting on the positions of the United States Government, we would hear about the constitutionality or legality of things, not whether Krauthammer thinks the law regarding torture can be ignored if you have "good motives" or Cheney suggests "the torture worked". Todd's mission, as reflected in the comment above, is no more than to protect the individuals within the Beltway who he thinks provide him with "important access", not to report on matters that might reflect poorly on those individuals and thereby diminish his own "access" and "importance" -- but it is important to clothe that mission in a false presumption that by doing only this, he is somehow advancing the cause of the United States and its principles.

The "principles" of the United States are pretty clearly stated, and there's nothing about the principles of the United States that support any suggestion that our government would object to another government holding its officers accountable for violating the law (just to write that out as a proposition is pretty breathtaking), and for Todd so glibly to suggest otherwise, as if it were a given, is a complete confirmation that his perception of the "Government of the United States" is wholly subsumed by his relationship to his personal "contacts" within the Beltway.

And I don't think Mr. Cronkite would have approved. Mr. Todd is the embodiment of the little snippet from 1975 that has just been posted. Thank you.