Scott Horton, over at Harper’s, is on the same page as Samantha Power that we need “a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States.” He writes:

“What does it mean to have senior government officers who commit a series of high crimes and get away with it? That all future officeholders will have the same right to conduct their affairs above the law? That would make this country into much less of a democracy that the Founding Fathers gave us in 1789. A subsequent prosecution is a proper approach. And today, it’s vitally important that documentation of the criminal acts which have been committed be safely stored away so it can be used in future prosecutions: that includes evidence of the formulation of torture policy; the systematic evasion of the FISA statute; the use of the criminal justice system as a tool for political persecution.”

What are the legal precedents for bringing criminal prosecutions against a previous administration?

I agree that a “historical reckoning” is absolutely necessary, but at this point, I’m sad to say, I’m having trouble even imagining a plausible scenario where that happens.

Anyone?

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000839

The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi needs to consult “a great neo-conservative mind” like George Bush before admitting something like torture. Neo-conservatives never admit mistakes - it is a sign of weakness.

In his press conference when Bush was asked about these reports of torture he wouldn’t admit even reading them, and just said, “We don’t torture.” That, apparently, was accepted as an adequate answer to that question.

Chris Matthews praised Bush’s performance as “powerful” on three occasions, while complimenting his “great mind.” Not admitting mistakes gives Bush power – he is “ready to fight like a rock through the rest of his term” gushed Matthews over Bush’s manliness.

In America, the issue isn’t about torture, it’s about how manly he looked when he avoided talking about it.

While rest of the world is focusing on what we do – “torture” – our Beltway media is focusing on “how we talk about it” – and Bush’s “powerful” avoidance of the question.

No wonder the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world is growing – our media considers avoiding reality a “strength.”

We are “faith-based” nation now, and our media reflects that - we simply believe that “we don’t torture” and that’s all that’s necessary.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/09/matthews-bush-monologue/

I don’t believe anyone has cited this article that describes and compares The American Enterprise Institute with The Council of Foreign Relations - both charter members in Serious Thinkers R Us. Lots of interesting tidbits in it. Especially the conclusion:

One general characteristic of ruling class thinking, both within the AEI and CFR, is a frequent underestimation of the rebellion capabilities of the larger population, at home and, more especially, in other countries. This rebellion has been the main reason for the defeat, so far at least, of U.S. plans for exploiting Iraq and its oil wealth. The CFR, at least, appears to have learned from this defeat, and perhaps is willing to pursue a new and somewhat more enlightened course in regard to both Iraq and Iran. But the CFR still wants to control Iraq using different tactics. It has a long history of support for imperialistic actions and an overlapping membership with the even more aggressively imperialistic AEI.Therefore, in the end, there is no substitute for the varied activities of people’s movements to prevent the worst outcomes from occurring. The AEI and CFR and the larger ruling class will sometimes battle each other and sometimes agree on what joint policies to follow. It is ultimately up to working class people to help decide, through their direct actions, or lack of them, what the outcome will be.

In the book/movie Fight Club mentioned by Glenn, one of my favorite lines is “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.”

Well, our Serious Thinkers seem to give us flawed ideas that find us pursuing policies we shouldn’t have so we have to fight wars we don’t need or want.

And the line from the movie that best describes what should be done with this “ruling class thinking” is this one:

“Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic; it's all going down, man.”

Serious thinkers take note.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2007/shoup.html

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack weren’t the only ones on that trip to Iraq there were others like Anthony Cordesman, but he came back with a completely different view that didn’t serve the administration’s propaganda blitz - so he’s not to be taken seriously.

The “unserious” Cordesman:

“It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country.

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence.”

Nothing to see here, just move along. It’s time to look for someone “we know who is serious or honest enough to talk to regardless of what their politics may be.”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/08/breaking_iraq_t.php