We’re seeing a new era in Washington DC. Probably nothing makes that more clear than Glenn Kessler’s outstanding slapdown of the President’s misleading use of rhetoric in his SOTU speech that appears on page A13 of today’s Washington Post. When such articles begin appearing on page A1 of the Post then we will have reached critical meltdown territory. As it stands now, we are not quite to a Three Mile Island situation, but I still wouldn’t drink the milk.
The Washington Establishment is a curious beast. It sees itself as responsible for the success of American foreign and business policy. Those are its first and highest priorities. The truth comes somewhere further down the line. Because they put their priorities in this order, they are vulnerable to making the same mistakes that the intelligence community, especially the CIA, repeatedly makes. The CIA answers to the President and the National Security Council. The Congress has some oversight (not nearly enough) and they can ask the CIA to give them information. But the CIA exists to serve the executive branch. And if the executive branch decides that New Zealand is the most evil, dictatorial, terrorist supporting, WMD proliferating, drug-running regime in the entire world? Well, then the CIA is damn well going to do their darnedest to convince the world of the evils of New Zealand.
They won’t do it easily. They’ll gripe. They’ll leak. There will be resignations. But they’ll do it because once the President sets a policy, no matter how hare-brained and delusional, it is their duty to try to make it work. And that is, albeit to a much lesser extent, also the view of the Washington Establishment.
But, after four years of disaster after disaster and deterioration after deterioration, the Washington Establishment finds themselves in a bind. The people have decided that the national interests are not the President’s interests and that the nation’s interests cannot be advanced by following the President’s interests. Congress is beginning to respond to this and we see the evidence most plainly in the competing resolutions in the Senate against any increase in our troop levels in Iraq.
The Bush administration lost the editorial board of the New York Times a long time ago. The NYT’s editorial board has become increasingly shrill and vituperative in their criticism of torture, detainee treatment, habeas corpus, the war in Iraq, and domestic surveillance. The Washington Post editorial board, however, has more nearly parroted Joe Lieberman’s advice that we criticize a President in a time of war at our peril. But the nation and, yes even the Senate, has passed the Washington Post by. And they still don’t get it. Here’s their review of Bush’s SOTU speech.
He missed key opportunities to put forward areas for such cooperation — and in the past six years, he’s done much to persuade Democrats that they have little to gain from partnership. Nonetheless, in the new political order that will dominate the final two years of the Bush presidency, it may be in the Democrats’ interest as well as the nation’s to seek bipartisan accomplishment. On energy, health care, education and immigration, Mr. Bush last night offered at least a reasonable basis for further discussion. Congress should engage, not reflexively dismiss.
Without getting into the details of Bush’s individual proposals, the fact of the matter is that his proposals are not reasonable. Teddy Kennedy, for example, has no incentive to even discuss Bush’s health care proposal. He wasn’t consulted, he doesn’t support it, his base doesn’t support it, and it’s terrible policy.
This is just a symptom of the greater problem, which is increasingly the elephant in the room. The Bush administration cannot govern. They are detached from reality. They are a liability to everyone that associates with them, including all of our allies around the world. Every day they remain in office is a day where American interests are damaged. They need to be impeached and thrown into Nixon’s scrapheap of history. Anyone that doesn’t know this is also detached from reality.
Bush has almost impossibly low approval ratings. The Washington Post and the Washington Establishment’s poll ratings must be similarly low and it is a direct result of their confusing their role. Their role has never been, like the CIA, to carry water for the executive branch. By acting like that is their role, they have helped lead this nation down a rathole. And their reputation, diminished as it is, is well deserved. Journalism is about the truth. A free press is our guarantor of good government. When our Establishment press fails to do their job, our current circumstances are the result.
When articles like Glenn Kessler’s start appearing on the front-page of the Washington Post I will begin to believe that the Washington Post gets it. But until they begin agitating for impeachment I won’t have much respect for them. Impeachment is the absolutely essential prerequisite for restoring faith in the U.S. government and the U.S. Establishment press.
Nice post BooMan.
Maybe, CNN has seen the light. Dick Cheney interviewed
via TPMcafe the full text of Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Dick Cheney earlier today to be aired later this evening. Wolf slipped up some putting words in Cheney’s mouth. Then he went head to head with Cheney. But all in all give Wolf some credit.
…words fail to describe the VP. AT the best level one can say Cheney is delusional, should be under care in a padded room. Things in Iraq would you believe Iraq is not bad, 3 elections, democratic, functioning government, blah, blah Al-Qaeda. Why are there critics? Here is the link
Go read the rest. Like Josh Marshall said..”It’s a doozy.”
How prophetic is Laura Rozen? check this out, written 2 years ago: He’s Done
hell of an interview. Cheney is unhinged.
No doubt Cheney is still smarting from the fireworks and bombshell in opening day of Libby’s trial with the press, right and left, speculating Fitz has him in his cross-hairs. Pardon the pun.
Makes you wonder whose more delusional, Cheney or Bush? They all just seem to live in some sort of alternate reality made up of whole cloth in their heads. And his response to Wolfies mentioning his daughter was really prickish wasn’t it.
I read the whole interview and I’m about to watch it on
Sheep’s,um, Wolf’sLeslie’s show. It’s nice to see him be slightly more aggressive than a limp dish rag, but he’ll NEVER make up for all the sucking up he’s done for years now.All anybody has ever had to do get Cheney to go all bug-eyed is ask him a question that doesn’t agree with his warped view of the world and be slightly insistent about it. Now that this administration is so beaten down that it will never get up off the mat, Leslie thinks it’s OK to ask
“very tough”semi-sweet questions…insight from Common Dreams today:
Webb offered a populist, anti-corporate stand on economics and a blunt attack on Bush for “recklessly” dragging our country into the Iraq war – a sharply-worded address that must have startled millions of TV viewers accustomed to Democrat vacillation.
But Webb’s speech was not just a rebuttal to Bush. It was also a pointed response to the tepid pablum that comes out of the mouths of mainstream media-anointed Democratic presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
TV viewers could easily see the contrast between Webb’s words and those of Clinton and Obama, since the two candidates were featured one after another on TV network after network soon after Bush and Webb. Yet they said so little.
Clinton and Obama were the only two Democrats so heavily spotlighted last night – which is how corporate media shape and bias the Democratic race while pretending to just be covering it. John Edwards appeared on a couple shows last night, and was more forceful. (Jeff Cohen)
I listened to Ralph Nader speak about Webb (on KPFK) because he always has something to say about Dems and Repubs. He said a new political hero was born today. He said the real measure of a political speech is how much you talk about giving power to the people.
One of the failures of the MSM that’s bugged me for a very long time is their ignoring of the basic facts of American government. For the Post and all the rest who have so belatedly taken up this “civility” and “compromise” bullshit, here’s a reminder: the Executive Branch is called that because its job is to execute the laws that the Legislative Branch is responsible for creating.
There is no Constitutional reason for the president and Congress to “cooperate”. Their responsibility is for them to do the jobs they were hired to do. It is Congress’s job to make laws. It is Bush’s job to accept or veto them and take the praise or the censure for doing so. The Constitution is clear. The MSM in its delusionary belief that it is part of the government has fallen down on its job of reporting reality and instead become an agent of the disease called the Imperial Presidency.
and support progressive media like PBS, NPR (we can change their dependence on advertising) Tht Nation, Pacifica, The Progressive, The Monthly Review, etc. If progressives supported progressive media soon they could have a progressive USA Today. After all England has the Guardian and the Independent.
the Executive Branch is called that because its job is to execute the laws that the Legislative Branch is responsible for creating.
Except when the president is acting in his Commander-in-chief role. I believe that the reason why many repubs like constant war environments is that they find it more efficient to get their interests advanced by giving THEIR executive leaders the latent powers that can only be release by wartime presidential status! Thus the Bush constant phrase that he is a wartime president and will have to save us all from evil on his own!
Amen. Another really nice post. Why I keep this on my short list.
When the speech is viewed from abroad you see the media give all the defernce to “the President” as he comes to give it. There are nice greetings and standing ovations and handshakes by all and sundry in the congress, and then the media gives big headlines to “the President’s” speech. It is easy to miss the criticism.
All of this when one hell of a lot of the international public view Bush as a bully, warmongering and a mass murderer. What was seen before, during and after the speech makes it look like all America is behind King George, which is not a good idea when considering the world publics sentiments towards the man and his policies. Of ocurse I am quite sure some of the sycophantic leaders who rely on him, his arms, and torture training were clapping and cheering, but few of their subjects would have been.