Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Amen!
Former Bush-Cheney Administration member Philip Zelikow explains the true meaning of "non-ideological".
PBS NewsHour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/natlsecurity_12-01.html
Obama Crafts Team to Rethink Foreign Policy Challenges
JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on today's announcement, we get three views.
Madeleine Albright served as secretary of state under President Bill Clinton. Her latest book is "Memo to the President-elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership."
[...]
And Philip Zelikow is a former counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: [...] this is a non-ideological team.
[...]
JUDY WOODRUFF: Phil Zelikow, a non-ideological team?
PHILIP ZELIKOW: It is a team that's not ideological in the sense of it's not a team that's associated with the Democratic Party's ideology. [...]
- - PBS NewsHour
I wonder if there was something specific you had in mind when you reserved the brunt of your anger for DC's last decade.
This topic comes up a lot. Some of the abuses of the last eight years were completely new inventions. Many -- probably most -- had their roots in prior years, even prior decades, but were extended to unparalleled lengths.
Standard Washington lobbyist sleaze and corruption obviously pre-dates the Bush years, as I think I made clear. But the total destruction of virtually everything is unique to this decade.
Washington has been corrupt and imperialistic for quite some time. But the extreme combination of limitless ineptitude and power abuses are the hallmark of the Bush administration.
I often refer to "the last eight years" as a way of keeping focus on recent events, not to suggest that everything I'm describing having taken place in the last eight years is brand new and was never seen before.
I understand that Eric Holder didn't exactly display Saturday Night Massacre morals in his handling of Marc Rich. I really do. I understand, and in fact believe, that the blogosphere should fully and deeply vet every nomination decision and statement by President-Elect Barack Obama. And keep on doing so when he becomes president. It's truth to power, and it is a good thing.
What I don't understand, and haven't understood since Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, or maybe before, when he himself was being prosecuted for a blow job, or maybe even before that, when he Haircutgate and Travelgate and all the other -gates were being thrown up for 8 years, is this:
Why is the pardon of Marc Rich an enduring and deep scandal worthy of 8 years of deliberation, and the pardon of Casper Weinberger, Elliot Abrams, Bud McFarlane, Duey Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George is not?
I mean, to their credit, the Iran-Contra people were not multi-millionaires accused of cheating on their taxes and fleeing the country, so that must be it, right? Everyone knows that deliberately subverting the Boland Amendment and raising and spending funds not appropriated by Congress through sales of missiles to Iran and funding people accused of running death squads -- all just water over the dam, not worth the scrutiny of a foul and evil guy like Marc Rich, right?
Only reason for bringing this up (except that someday I'd really like an answer) is that another appointment was involved with these other pardonees, he also argued vociferously, or perhaps à la Gonzales, rope-a-dopedly, on their behalf: In congressional testimony, under oath, case dropped without indictment due to Lawrence Walsh being unable to penetrate the defenses, à la Scooter Libby trial.
Here's a link to Amy Goodman on Bob Gates approval processes in the past:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/9/defense_secretary_nominee_robert_gates_tied
I am trying, I really am. I know that if torture is not as high a crime or misdemeanor as receiving oral sex, then it makes sense that supporting death squads, selling missiles, and subverting the express will of Congress with illegally raised funds aren't as despicable a pardon as Marc Rich. But the scholars of the law that are delving into Eric Holder need to explain the silence on Dr. Robert M. Gates to me, please, one more time. I sat through each and every minute of the Iran-Contra hearings, read the Tower Commission report, read Lawrence Walsh's book, read Mitchell and Cohen's book, and I just don't understand how Marc Rich ends up closer to Pol Pot than the guys George H.W. Bush pardoned.
Yeah, that's it.He's keeping his powder dry.
As Pelosi and Reid are doing.
Where's all that powder?
They must have Himalayan sized mountains of it by now.
This reminds me of an argument here in the comments section Long Ago, to the effect that Pelosi really hadn't taken impeachment off the table, that she was just keeping her powder dry and would spring the impeachment on Bush/Cheney when the time was right.
Don't worry about Obama. Its also in the realm of the possible that I'll be president in 12 years. So, don't worry, I'll take care of all that shit.
Excellent post, as usual.
I am beginning to think that Obama, now that he's won election, just plain doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks.
I winced at the Gates nomination as I've winced at most, if not ALL, Obama's choices because, their past deeds aside, I can't see where recycling retreads will lead to anything except more of the same bullshit from Washington.
Sorry, Glenn.....no pass here.
Looseheadprop at FDL offers a little bit more on Holder.
Referring to Eric Lichtbau and David Johnston's NYT piece she wonders
How does Holder know he's going to "work it out" BEFORE he even knows what the case is about? Oh, and later in the article, there is a claim that the case is an example of Rudy Giuliani being overzealous. No, not Rudy. Hell, Rudy left before the Clinton Admin even began. There were two USA's -- Benito Romano and Otto Obermier -- between him and Mary Jo, so any Holder spin about an overcharge by Rudy is bullfeathers. That indictment was reviewed by 3 subsequent US Attorneys, and it was Democrat Mary Jo White that Holder stabbed in the back with his end run around her authority.
ondelette, as is customary for you, you ask a great question. As is customary for me, I have no good answers. But, I hope you keep asking those questions. They're right on, IMHO.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
