Glenn Greenwald: Establishment Washington unifies against prosecutions

If you call for prosecutions . . . you're a "Liberal Score-Settler" . . .


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/ignatius/

Thursday Jan. 15, 2009 05:53 EST

EXCERPT - QUOTE

First, Bush officials didn't commit these crimes by themselves. Virtually the entire Washington establishment supported or at least enabled most of it. It isn't merely that leading Congressional Democrats were, to one degree or another, complicit in these acts and are therefore hamstrung in investigating crimes of which they were aware and did nothing to stop, though that is true. The enabling of all of this extends far beyond the leadership of the two parties.

As confirmed accounts emerged years ago of chronic presidential lawbreaking, warrantless eavesdropping, systematic torture, rendition, "black site" prisons, corruption in every realm, and all sorts of other dark crimes, where were journalists and other opinion-making elites? Very few of them with any significant platform can point to anything they did or said to oppose or stop any of it -- and they know that. Many of them, even when much of this became conclusively proven, were still explicitly praising Bush officials. Most of them supported the underlying enabling policies (Guantanamo and the permanent state of war in Iraq and "on terror"), and then cheered on laws -- the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act -- designed to legalize these activities and retroactively immunize the lawbreakers and war criminals from prosecution.

So when these media and political elites are defending Bush officials, mitigating their crimes, and arguing that they shouldn't be held accountable, they're actually defending themselves. Just as Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller can't possibly demand investigations for crimes in which they were complicit, media stars can't possibly condemn acts which they supported or, at the very best, towards which they turned a blissfully blind eye. They can't indict Bush officials for what they did because to do so would be to indict themselves. Bush officials need to be exonerated, or at least have their crimes forgotten (look to the future and ignore the past, they all chime in unison), so that their own involvement in it will also be cleansed and then forgotten.

Second, and quite relatedly, is that establishment elites have, by definition, a vested interest in glorifying and protecting the Washington establishment. It's perfectly fine to have a President who is inept or even somewhat corrupt. A titillating, tawdry sex scandal is also fun, even desirable, as that keeps entertainment levels high. That's all just part of the political cycle.

But to acknowledge that our highest political officials are felons (which is what people are, by definition, who break our laws) or war criminals (which is what people are, by definition, who violate the laws of war) is to threaten the system of power which, above all else, they are desperate to maintain, as it is their role within it as royal court spokespeople that provides them with their access, prominence, wealth and self-esteem. Their prime mandate is to protect and defend establishment Washington -- most media figures are integral parts of that establishment, not outside of it -- and that means, above all else, attacking anyone who would dare suggest that the establishment has been rotten, criminal and evil at its core.

True enough.

That is We the People, liberty and justice.

If we are not a nation of laws, then we
are a nation of thugs and criminals.

would be such a crescendo of razzing, demonizing, marginalizing, and spin that it would make the reporting around the Kucinich Bush Impeachment hearing look like something out of "Good Night and Good Luck".

The only way it will go forward is if the public outcry is so huge that it drowns out the talking heads' vapid denounciations.

Thanks for posting this, defendandprotect.

If there's going to be prosecutions for these war crimes, we need to support any investigations and let the chips fall where they may. If it turns out that there are Democrats complicit in the Bush administration's crimes, they should go down, too. See, that's what breaking the law means. It doesn't matter if you're a perfumed courtier, one of the stenographers or anyone else in this circus of royalty, you break the law, you're liable to prosecution.

It's not a difficult concept, no matter what the media chuckleheads say.

framed by us -- and ignore the questions they are prompting ---

with a set of observations from the Wright flap and a corporate media that couldn't bear any thought of any of its own possible weakening relevance:




"Better Buckle Up : Obama In Crosshairs Of America's Criminal Oligarchy"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5718959

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04282008.html

aren't we all ignoring media . . . ???

Haven't they made themselves irrelevant to every citizen?

Blood on their hands, too. To ignore them is to absolve them. Can we afford the implications?

As with here and just this very day:

Pentagon Pundit Whitewash

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4845578

and only a couple pop into mind.

which in the main is being paid by corporations to ignore them -- !!!

After the coup on JFK, the vote steals began to ensure they wouldn't be

tossed out. Violence and intimidation kept cover-up going with their man

LBJ in presidency. Warren Commission was a cover-up, naturally.


By the time we get to Nixon, they are clearly moving in on the press...

but the then liberal Washington Post keeps the Watergate story moving.

Watergate was about stealing elections against a background of right-wing

political violence. Two investigators looking into vote steals by computer

had just been to see Larry O'Brien at the Democratic HQ's in the Watergate..

where their offices were bugged by GOP/Nixon. Nixon has to resign.


By the time the large computer counters used by media came in, the crashes and

odd increases in votes for less favored candidates and decreases in votes for favored

candidates, would have had to have caused suspicion among journalists.

As for the heads of media giants -- and what the CIA/MOCKINGBIRD role might have

been -- I'd presume active awareness and the expected cooperation.

I doubt anyone would now say there is anything left of our press --


"the myth of a free press died with JFK assassination."

The key to elections in 2010 and 2012 will be how we "liberal score settlers" are handled.

Jon Stewart has done that --

Olbermann, too --

There is no changing media committed to working with and for corporate power --

the media is dependent upon it for ads -- and CIA/MOCKINGBIRD has most of it tied up

in keeping a lid on reality of American political violence around the world.

Also, n keeping MIC/Intelligence industry supplied with lion's share of our tax dollars/FEAR.


The answer is for everyone to turn off the TVs --

And can't believe how many here still watch TV "news" -- and even Sunday morning shows!!!????

why am I not surprised? Actually I suspect they have been part of the problem from word go