...Russert, Williams & Matthews, Fixed News, CNN et al are far more concerned about Obama's flag pin than they are about George W. Bush breaking the law.

I would not think the same media that helped get Bush elected is now going to turn around & start reporting on Bush's criminal activites.

Obama/Clinton/McCain are the current shiny objects our traditional media children are running after via much glee. No time for hard work reporting when Russert can show up & play gotcha with Obama concerning Farrakan.

Our traditional media deems Bush's law breaking acumen a strength, not a weakness.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/
/2008/02/if_we_punish_lawbreaking_they.cfm

On a somewhat tangential note, let me to suggest to Fox News reporter Mike Emanuel that when you pose a friendly question so loaded that the president must walk you back from slandering his opponents, it is time to consider climbing out of the tank just a bit. Compare the question asked by pseudo-reporter Jeff Gannon in 2005:

Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work—you've said you are going to reach out to these people—how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

...with the one posed this morning by Mr Emanuel, a "real" reporter:

Do you worry that perhaps some House Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of wait-and-see? In terms of... If we get attacked, we all lose; if we don't get attacked, maybe that makes the case we don't need all the powers in FISA.

Mr Bush rejected the notion, saying: "That would be ascribing motives that are... I just don't think they're the motives of the House leaders, to do that." Which may be the kindest thing a prominent Republican has said about Democratic opponents of this reform bill: They are not cynically indiferrent to the prospect of a terrorist attack.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/
/2008/02/if_we_punish_lawbreaking_they.cfm

I'm not aware of a preemptive pardon ever being exercised before in the history of the Republic, are you?

Richard M. Nixon comes to mind.

Pardons is a subject which gets filed under "Things Republicans get outraged about when Democrats do it, in order to cover their own far worse transgressions of same"

That's a bit long for the old index card, so I shorten it to "Rich, Marc"

The pardon power is in dire need of a constitutional amendment. Eliminate it, reform it, make it senate confirmable I don't care, but currently it is a license to each president to order subordinates to commit crimes, then pardon them if they happen to get caught for those crimes.

The illegal spying began in February of 2001. At that time Bush was not concerned with terrorism;this to the distress of Richard Clark who ran around as if his 'hair was on fire' trying to warn of the attacks to come without being able to arouse the Bush administration from their inert state of torpor.

Terrorism was not the target of the illegal spying, or, if it was the target, the illegal spying was ineffective.

If terrorism was not the target of the illegal spying, then who or what was the target? If terrorism was the target of the illegal spying, it was not effective and contributed nothing to pre-911 security. Why, then, spy illegally?

However, the awful truth is that the media, simply put, are criminals in bed with the Bush administration, from 9/11 to Iraq to torture to economic mischief to spying.

I don't think this is a false statement at all. The Bush/Cheney administration has been very consistent in this. The American people and the constitution are the enemies of the Bush/Cheney administration, terrorists are a smoke screen.

Could the reluctance, silence or outright support (Rockefeller, etc.) on amnesty spring from the Dems in Congress having been briefed on the program way back when without raising their voices in opposition? If they raise a fuss about it now, doesn't it make them look like a bunch of partisan political hacks (the Republican line of attack) and not responsible government officials pledged to uphold the Constitution? Isn't the Dems complicity on this issue part of the problem?

here:

http://digg.com/politics/George_Bush_told_the_truth_yesterday

They find Bush's argument very persuasive... They don't ignore it.

The bit about Helping the Enemies is purely false, just standard Bush fear-mongering

I think for George Bush, 'enemies' includes Democrats and other Liberals...

Richard M. Nixon comes to mind.

Nixon was not under indictment.

Weinberger was indicted but had not yet gone to trial when he was pardoned.

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

government officials are free to break the law in secret by claiming that national security concerns prevent courts from ruling on what they did

Isn't that exactly what the state secrets doctrine is, and isn't it something which has been upheld by the Supreme Court -- which, when the original case in which it was upheld turned out to be a situation where the government lied to cover up wrongdoing, and didn't have any actual need for secrecy, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal?

the media isn't here to inform us(the TradMed anyway) ... as Glenn has made clear(with chumps like John King), and we have seen with the likes of Tweety and Teh Big Punkinhead(that's Matthews and Russert for the uninitiated) they don't know squat(or don't care) about most of the issues. Most of the commenters here are more informed about the issues than any of the news people on TV. With Russert's performance the other night, someone mentioned a piece James Fallows wrote 12 years ago now about why Americans hate the media. It is just as true now as it was then. If you click on my handle, it will go to my blog, which has a link to the Fallows article.