You are a lawyer. What does it take to get someone to prosecute Dick Cheney, now that he has admitted to being a party to the commission of War Crimes?

is that none of these clowns even say a word about Senator David "Diapers" Vitter. Wasn't he caught using a prostitution service? Oh, that's right!! They can only get outraged at Democrats. Even though Democrats don't go around talking nonsense about family values and all the rest of their hypocritical BS.

It'll be interesting -- in some sense of the word -- to see what happens if, gods forbid, Obama follows the lead of the Bush Admin in any of their criminal policies. Will the Obama Administration be equally immune to criticism by the Serious People, or will those wise folks suddenly rediscover their commitment to human rights, the rule of law, etc?

They want Spitzer to give us a Swaggart-like apology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xw86SdDIUM&feature=related

But, to me, here is how such apologies appear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THRSndOOZik&feature=related

Right! I absolutely agree with large parts of what you say, Glenn. Your clarity of vision is commendable about the relative moral weights of the transgressions of the sexual offender, Eliot Spitzer Vs. the infinitely more reprehensible transgressions of, say, Dick Cheney (who is now about to head off to a luxury-filled and 'respectable' retirement).

What I don't understand is: why don't YOU start your own movement to get GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld - and all the rest of that loathsome gang of proven War Criminals imprisoned for the rest of their miserable lives? For all the crimes they've committed, that would be small punishment indeed! (I for one would gladly join you!

-- GSC

Apologies if this is posted twice.

You are a lawyer. What will it take for someone to now prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes, now that he has admitted his role in breaching the Geneva Conventions, and being a party to Torture?

Best post you've ever written, Glenn. Don't think for a moment that change has come to the media with the election of Barack Obama. The petty, insipid and outright false narratives will continue as ridiculous as ever.

The only good news is many Americans have wised up to the propaganda machine of Fox News, talk radio, and many of the bobbleheads on T.V.

Our hope is that they become more and more insular until the "sober, serious" frauds on Meet the Press have the relevancy of Jay Leno.

I think Obama intuits this (thus his cutting off the nonsensical question from the reporter yesterday that caused the Drudgebots to freak out).

Ironically we've brought change to Washington, but have yet to bring change to the media. It's just as important, and that's where you come in, Glenn.

It is important to remember that a vice is when you do something that hurts you yourself and no one else. We have many laws against vices and these laws are all unconstitutional as I read the constitution.

On the other hand, a crime is when you hurt someone else or her/his property without cause; ie. self-defense. We are a criminal nation based on the fact we start agressive wars and put in cages honest men who engage in a little vice. (and some "vices" may not even harm the person himself)

... for the Friedman link. It amazes me that he's portrayed as a liberal, when on this subject, he's as crazy as Cheney. That's not to mention his obsession with globalization.

Good piece, as usual, couldn't agree more.

I have one question about a choice of word, though. You wrote:

not because of his actual sin of hypocrisy as a former persecutor of prostitution rings

Are you sure you don't mean Spitzer, as NYS attorney general, was a prosecutor, and not a persecutor of prostitution?

I believe that to persecute is generally understood to oppressively harass a group based not so much on their activity or behavior but their identity, i.e., religion, race, ethnicity.

But I am asking, because I'm not familiar with Spitzer's actions as A.G. towards prostitution rings (and it's a little hard to Google at this point!). I have no doubt that if he prosecuted them, he did it quite zealously. But did he persecute them?

Not to take issue with your point - what hypocrisy. I wish prostitution was legal and well-regulated in my jurisdiction. I've never prosecuted a prostitution case and God willing, never will.

God, Glenn, you have GOT to write more for a mass audience. Even Salon readers usually don't plow all the way through your stuff. Please don't misunderstand. It is GOLD. We need you. But only a few of us are getting it. Certainly the MSM do not feel compelled to attend to these horrific facts and comparisons. I don't know how, but you need to produce a REAL best seller, one that ordinary people actually read, summarizing the points you have repeatedly made over these terrible years.

Always illustrative article of the Rolling Stone: "The Curse of Dick Cheney - The veep's career has been marred by one disaster after another" by T.D. ALLMAN:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/

Some excerpts:

This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life -- from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

"His thoughtful manner impressed people." Cheney's manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities," says Chas Freeman, who served under Bush's father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

The period between August 1974 and November 1976, when Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter, is essential to understanding George W. Bush's disastrous misjudgments -- and Dick Cheney's role in them. In both cases, Cheney and Rumsfeld played the key role in turning opportunity into chaos. Having turned Ford into their instrument, Rumsfeld and Cheney staged a palace coup. They pushed Ford to fire Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, tell Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to look for another job and remove Henry Kissinger from his post as national security adviser. Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense, and Cheney became chief of staff to the president.

George H.W. Bush named him to head the Defense Department, the Senate unanimously confirmed the choice. Not a single senator seems to have considered it anomalous that control of the strongest armed forces on earth was being conferred on a person who had gone to notable lengths to avoid service in those same armed forces. Appointed to another powerful position, Cheney promptly went about screwing it up. He pushed to turn many military duties over to private companies and began moving "defense intellectuals" with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon. Most notable among them was Paul Wolfowitz, who later masterminded much of the disastrous strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq.

By the end of the first Bush administration, others had come to the conclusion that Cheney and his followers were dangerous. "They were referred to collectively as the crazies," recalls Ray McGovern, a CIA professional who interpreted intelligence for presidents going back to Kennedy. "They were like cancer cells," says retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked on the Defense Department's Near East and South Asia desk during the buildup to the Iraq war. "They didn't care about the truth. They had an agenda. I'd never seen anything like it. They deformed everything."