Right-wing noise machine, from American Insurgency
Now that the hows and whys of the Bush Administration's torture policies are becoming more apparent, the new Obama Administration is sort of getting backed into a corner on what to do about it. On the surface, it would seem that President Obama just wants it to go away. As someone who voted for him, I'm hopeful that there's a little more to it than that, some sort of "master plan" for dealing with the issue in a way that doesn't let war crimes go unpunished.
Politics is tricky business, I know. Timing is very important. Not irritating your own party is important. Dealing with the right-wing noise machine, and making sure that it doesn't drive public sentiment is important. But you know what else is important? Rule of law. Torture is a federal and international crime. Despite the innumerable protestations by George W. Bush, Dana Perino and others, the United States did torture. As policy.
The Republicans (and their apologists) are having a little bit of trouble with this issue too. They can't--most of them--outright endorse torture. They have to downplay the torture that did happen as "not torture." Which is getting more and more implausible the more that we learn. So to muddy the issue, they've got to paint this as a liberal vendetta. A way to get even for years out of power. A way to even the score for Clinton's impeachment. Look for the bulk of conservative outrage on this to focus on that, rather than to take apart the actual issues.
Obama has one big advantage here, and that is the President isn't really the guy to pursue this anyway. It's the Justice Department's and Congress' job to investigate, and if Obama wants, he can pretty much leave it in their hands. Still, many of us peons probably don't know or see the divisions there, so it will be difficult for Obama to steer completely clear.
Nancy Skinner, the radio talk show host who took Randi Rhodes' place when Nova M Radio folded, is of the Peggy Noonan "walk away" crowd on the issue. Skinner is ostensibly a liberal/progressive, but of the token FOX "News" variety. There is too much to do, Skinner argues, from global climate change, to the economy, to health care. The torture issue would be a distraction, and would derail the rest of Obama's agenda.*
Maybe. And that would be unfortunate. But anti-torture laws are laws. There simply isn't a legal argument to not investigate them. As pretty as "looking forward and not back" might sound, it is terrible reasoning. All crimes happened in the past. You don't just decide to be magnanimous about theft, murder, or other crimes because they happened in the past. This might be sticky politics, but it is necessary.
We know how the right-wing noise machine works now. We can guess what they're going to squawk about before they even get revved up. It is incumbent upon the Obama Administration and its supporters to fight the screaming with facts, as fast as they lob a "poutrage" outburst. It's a big task, but it's an important fight.
*UPDATE: Nancy Skinner herself has a response to my opinion of her opinion. I don't ever intentionally misrepresent the facts or try to mislead, but I'm completely capable of being wrong. So read Nancy's comment below, and make up your own mind. Thanks!
Dear Greenlee Gazette,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughtful comments about the political implications of Bush prosecutions.
But if you want people to absorb them, then you should not deceive them about me or what I said. (Tip: you'll lose credibility as anyone can replay the podcast on the internets.)
My listeners know that I posed the question of timing ONLY (hardly Peggy Noonen) and if we can do both at the same time or pass cap and trade legislation FIRST (whose demise you call unfortunate when I would choose the word DEVASTATING to all humanity). If I'm right we get both (unless the statue of limitations on torture is 90 days). If we do it your way, we have a 50/50 chance. Who cares if it’s a gamble? It's only survival of our species - no biggie.
Obama didn't run on prosecuting Bush officials. He ran on getting the change (energy, healthcare) that we the people have wanted for decades. We can pass those bills (preferably through budget reconciliation so they don't get watered down by the GOP moderates) and still uphold the rule of law following.
As for your gratuitous swipe at me for being a token "Fox News" liberal, I'll take that for what it is. I'm sure its just a little bit easier for me battle a panel of 4 right-wingers at a time (for ten years now) than it must be for you to misrepresent me from the comfort of your anonymous blog.
Fondly,
Nancy Skinner
Nancy,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thanks for stopping by. You are--as far as I know--only the second "celebrity" to do so. The other was Jeff Gannon, for what that's worth.
Secondly, I'm not trying to deceive anybody. I gave my honest opinion of your take on the issue as I saw it. As an at-work radio listener, I will concede that I'm not able to listen with undivided attention, and may have missed something key.
Sorry if I offended you, truly. I'm a hobbyist blogger with a TINY readership. The piece you are responding to was one of my rare opinion/rant-only posts, with no links elsewhere. I heard your take on the torture issue for a couple of days, and it prompted me to write this particular rant. I still disagree with you. I think that this is an urgent matter that shouldn't be put off til later.
My comments were not directed at Nancy Skinner, nice person. They were directed at Nancy Skinner, media personality. And I see FOX News as an illigitimate news outlet. That is not an opinion you will be able to change. The three- or four-on-one format they put you in is inherantly unfair, and I don't know why anyone would agree to it. I'm totally of the "starve the beast" camp as it pertains to liberals appearing on FOX.
While I have criticized your program here, I don't mean to be nasty. Your take on the issue really rubbed me the wrong way, and I suppose that will happen with just about any political talk program, right? I have listened to your show nearly every work day since Randi left. So, while I'm not fond of every element of your program, I have been listening.
Anyway, I assure you, my intent on this blog is never to deceive. I may be utterly wrong sometimes, but it isn't ever with intent to mislead. As evidence, note the edit to my story. Thanks for stopping by.
One more thing, Nancy.
ReplyDeleteIn my critique of you, I may have gotten the wrong impression. But in your critique of me, you got something wrong too.
". . .misrepresent me from the comfort of your anonymous blog."
I'm not anonymous. I'm really James L. Greenlee, and just about everything about me is right there at the upper left of the blog. Under "Mission Statement" I tell people that I'm no expert, and I'm totally capable of being wrong about something.
Your response has reawakened me to the fact that I'm talking about real people, and to temper my critiques. I will try to be less snarky and bitchy in the future. But if the subject is Sean Hannity, or your Hunny-bunny, all bets are off. . .