Many of the problems of the American society are based on centralization of power

We have all heard Scott McClellan's words - "[T]he national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation…. the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq." (Quoted from the article published by Josh Silver.) The question is, why did so many journalists ALL go along with the Bush administration and fail to question.

Why didn't the serious questions get more TV air time? Why was the only bandwagon out there the one the Bush administration was driving?

The theory is that much of the Press is independent of the administration and can be expected to ask the embarrassing questions of the administration and then publish and explain the responses. Were all the journalists individually complicit in the Bush-directed rush to an unnecessary war?

Now, fives years too late, we get the answers. From Josh Silver's article:

More and more reporters, including major TV correspondents like Jessica Yellin and Chris Matthews have recently admitted that their bosses were pro-war and that it slanted their coverage.

Then from Ruth Rozen, Journalist and historian, we get her experience at what was the most "liberal" newspaper in America:

I worked as an editorial writer at The San Francisco Chronicle, where a liberal editorial board raised serious objections to the war. And yet, in the years following 9/11, I felt editorial restraints that never allowed us to tell the whole truth about the lies and deception that led to America’s most catastrophic foreign policy disaster. [Snip]

So what did I experience? An editor and an editorial board who felt that, in the absence of inside sources, we could not counter the administration’s lies.

Let me give you some examples. I was raised in a Republican family, but schooled by the great iconoclastic journalist I.F. Stone, who taught me that you can find the truth without inside sources, if only you’re willing to see beyond patriotic fervor and examine voices in the public domain that are marginalized, So, I would read national security experts who countered Donald Rumfeld’s ridiculous predictions; I would read the British, Canadian, Italian and French press; I would read the writings of experts in resource wars and weapons of mass destruction.

No, I didn’t know I was right. But I was sure that the administration was lying. And, I knew that at the very least that our editorials should be asking why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al should be believed when I had found strong evidence that they were cherry picking intelligence, and setting up their own office in the Pentagon, and acting in complete secrecy. [Snip]

When I heard Bush’s inaugural address, I heard two major lies embedded within his speech. But somehow that still wasn’t enough to accuse him of plagiarism and deception.

The truth is, even a liberal newspaper, blessed with a liberal editorial board, did not engage in truth telling. We raised some good questions, wrote about supporting the troops, but failed to describe the deception that led to the catastrophe that was unfolding right before our eyes. [Snip]

This week, I sat with a former colleague from the editorial board in a café, rather than in the room where we used to make our editorial decisions. He admitted that I had been right, but even more, that even in a liberal paper, the editor and most of the board, had felt restrained, afraid of seeming unpatriotic, afraid of saying the emperor wore no clothes, afraid of not giving the President the benefit of the doubt, afraid of truth telling without access to inside sources.

Even without inside sources it was clear early on that the Bush administration was lying and that the Press was either spreading those lies (FOX "News" and the other right-wing liars) or they were shading the news and omitting the opposition.

How did they get away with it?

There are three major TV networks and the cable news organizations, all owned and managed by a very few conservative individuals. The controls in TV regarding what is reported are in the hands of probably fewer than 25 or so individuals. Most local radio stations have been bought up by a very few networks like Clear Channel, and the same controls are applied to what is broadcast. And Newspapers?

The newspapers have lost their revenue streams as the downtown department stored moved to the malls, and the Reagan administration encouraged competing newspapers in the same city to merge or have one buy the other out and shut it down. Control of the news again resides in the hands of two or three people in each city, even if they aren't controlled by the few chains.

News in America is controlled by fewer than 200 individuals. They determine what will get a lot of coverage and what will be ignored.

The result? There is no free market in news in America. The many disasters of the Bush administration starting with Florida 2000 is a direct result of the central control of the news organizations. We have problems that fester because the news controllers do not want to upset the apple cart by telling the public about those problems, and most especially, they don't want to run counter to the wishes of the administration, particularly the Republican administrations.

I would bet that the 200 or so news-controlling individuals are afraid of the vindictiveness of the Republican administrations, which is why they avoid criticizing them while piling on to the Democratic administrations. That's just one of the many biases in the news media.

Another bias is that those 200 individuals are all very wealthy and belong to the class of individuals with great wealth. Chris Matthews gets $5,000,000 a year for what he does. Tim Russert gets even more. And they aren't the top decision-makers. Those top decision-makers can remove Matthews and Russert just as the head of CBS news removed Dan Rather when he became too inquisitive.

Those wealthy news-controllers don't want to upset their own apple carts, so they give labor and the poor short shrift. Better than those groups get propaganda on how to be better Americans (and support the wealthy) rather than that they learn that the social deck as stacked against them (by those wealthy individuals and their wealthy friends.)

Very large organizations do not exist to produce and sell products and services. They exist to make money, and the top CEO's control all their subordinate companies by controlling the money those companies get to keep or receive to invest. Those top CEO's are bankers, generally with little close knowledge of how the products they sell are created or used. All that matters is that revenues increase and costs be reduced.

This also applied to news organizations. Their purpose is not to collect and present their news. Their purpose is to make a profit by selling advertising, and the news department is bait to cause viewers/readers to look at the ads. Increasing revenue means selling more ads or selling ads at higher prices. Reducing costs means cutting newsroom staff - since distribution of the news is pretty much a fixed cost.

As a result, those of us who expected the news organizations to provide the information needed for an informed public who would vote for those who best manage America are sadly disappointed. IN the absence of an active and aggressive news media, we get bad government filled with corruption and ignoring the real problems that government has to deal with in an industrial society.

Welcome to the Reagan Revolution as it works its way into creating a Latin American society with about 10% wealthy 90% poor and no significant middle class. It is the result of too much centralization of power.

McClellan: Started writing as a Bush defender; upon investigation agreed with Bush's detractors

Ryan Grim of Politico reviewed a copy of the book proposal that Scott McClellan used to sell his memoir and reports that it started out to be a defense of George Bush, blaming the failures of his administration primarily on overly powerful Neo-Conservatives and Social Conservatives in the administration. He also intended to defend Bush from liberal caricatures.

After researching, thinking about and writing the book he reached very different conclusions.

Rather than take on President Bush, McClellan suggests in the proposal — which was circulating in New York publishing circles in January of last year — that social conservatives and neo-conservatives were responsible for much that went wrong during Bush’s tenure. In his book, the finger instead pointed squarely at the president.

He also offers in his proposal to counter the liberal caricatures of Bush. But as has been widely reported, he wound up only buttressing such portraits.

Sherer also finds that comparison of McClellan's book with the proposal showed that the book took a very different view of the failures of the media than were suggested in the proposal.

instead of whacking the press for not digging deep enough into the Bush administration's rationale for war, as he does in his memoir, the proposal dings the press for a left-wing bias. "Fairness is defined by the establishment media within the left-of-center boundaries they set," he offers. "They defend their reporting as fair because both sides are covered. But, how fair can it be when it is within the context of the liberal slant of the reporting? And, while the reporting of the establishment media may be based on true statements and facts, is it an accurate picture of what is really happening?"

Logically there are two possible rationales for the change in tone the book took from that of the proposal. Either Scotty decided to spice up the book to increase sales while settling scores with some of the White House insiders he felt had misused him, or he found that after research and reflection his earlier opinions of what had happened was overly influenced by his closeness to and liking for George Bush.

Working in the White House at Scotty's level gives very little time for investigation and reflection. I can envision that originally Scotty wrote the proposal based largely on the "common wisdom" that floated around inside the bubble of the White House, and then, while writing, began to become aware that that "common wisdom" is simply wrong. Since he doesn't suggest that Bush was one of those who misused him, but was himself misused by powerful White House insiders, I am inclined to think the second choice is the more significant reason for the way his book turned out.

---

Scott McClellans book proposal is available here

McClellan is awfully late say McClatchy reporters

Scotty McClellan made a big splash this week by saying that Bush/Cheney and company lied us into the mistaken Iraq war; and that the media were complicit in supporting both the lies and the war. As you might expect, the Bush people and the media people are both screaming like scalded cats that it's not true.

But one news organization, Knight-Ridder (purchased by McClatchy) did cover the story, ask the questions, and publish the answers. Now McClatchy correspondents Jonathan S. Landay (national security and intelligence), Warren P. Strobel (foreign affairs and the State Department), and Nancy Youssef (Pentagon) lay out what their news organization wrote piece by piece and ask the real question the media does not want asked; "Hey, guys, we were there! Where were you? Kissing Bush/Cheney ass?"

Go read it; then click through to the links and read those as well. It was all there when the pubic and Congress needed to know it. The questions were asked at the time, the answers published at the time, and the right-wing noise machine and timid or bought-off major press organizations simply ignored it. Just like they are currently doing with John McCain, and just as they are trying to do with Scotty McClellan's accusations. The media has failed.

But they'll come roaring back, angry that their honor has been questioned, and begin investigating even clear lies, just as they did with the Whitewater "investigations" of Bill and Hillary Clinton long after it was clear to everyone that there was no "there" there. Why not? They have Democrats to pillory now, and that's what the media love to do.Roll over fro Republicans and pillory Democrats.

And when they are called on it, they'll ignore the complaints or bluster "We did our job!" just as Charlie Gibson, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert did the other day when they went on TV to respond to McClellan's attack on their failures.

The news media - especially the fake TV "news" - is badly broken and they really like it that way.

"A man with a conscience" - words Bush and Cheney hate to hear

Scott McClellan appears to be a Republican with a conscience - the kind of person that I am sure Rove had hoped he, Cheney, and the Republican Congressional leadership (including Gingrich) had driven out of the Republican Party.



Not, mind you, that I don't think the money he will make from his book is negligible to Scotty. It better not be. He has burned his bridges to the conservatives. He'll never get wing-nut welfare like I. "Scooter" Libby has done since he fell on his sword and was convicted to protect Dick Cheney.

---

Addendum 3:51 PM CDT
The New York Times has a good article on the reaction to Scotty McClellan's revelations. In particular, Karl Rove,political strategist; Frances Fragos Townsend, former domestic security adviser; Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first press secretary, and Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to the president, are all using similar terms to describe McClellan as a disaffected former employee of the White House who appears to have been influenced by publishers to pump up sales of his book by making outrageous, untrue accusations.

The terminology they are all using - in concert - appears to have been crafted by White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino. It's a highly organized White House push-back against McClellan, something that he clearly knew to expect.

I'll bet those people, Bush, Cheney and Rice are all looking around them wondering who the next "person of conscience" will be. "Conscience" is clearly a word they don't recognize fondly.

Also interesting. Over at Huffington Post Arianna entitles her post "Scotty Come Lately" and asks "What took you so long" about McClellan's revelations. More interesting than McClellan's revelations, which anyone who reads the blogs knew about long ago, is the way the Inside the Beltway based media has come to attention and saluted the story which they have previously ignored.

This action on the part of the inside the beltway media seems to be a reaction to (1) hearing the story publicly from one of the premier inside the beltway individuals (Scotty) and at the same time, (2) represents a reaction to his highly credible accusations that the media didn't do its job in the run-up to the war.

The media still won't listen to anything from outside Washington, but they are clearly going to be a lot more aggressive about the administration from now on - now that it's a Democratic administration, just as they always have been.

So for the political media, this reaction is just more of their continued incompetence and general irrelevance. They are just taking advantage of Bush's long lame duckness to start early.

Bush: Out of touch or guilty of obstruction of justice

Did Bush commute of Scooter Libby's prison sentence as a payoff for Libby's self-sacrifice in protecting Dick Cheney? If it was a payoff, then Bush is guilty of obstruction of justice because he aided Libby in shutting down Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the ringleader of the Plame leak cover up. So far solid evidence that could be used to prove Bush's obstruction of justice in a court (or Senate trial of impeachment) has not surfaced. That makes the short blurb from Scotty McClellan's proposed book naming the five White House individuals who sent him out to lie to the public exciting.

Monday we learned that Bush's previous spokesman, Scott McClellan, intends to publish a book that names Karl Rove, 'Scooter' Libby, the vice President Dick Cheney, the President's chief of staff Andrew Card, and the president himself as having directed the cover up of the leak of Valerie Plame's name as a CIA officer. The term used was "were involved" in covering up who did it.

The exact actions behind the term "were involved" were not explicitly described beyond just lying to McClellan and getting him to lie to the public, but they are clear in context. The two events that provide the context are first, Patrick Fitzgerald's closing statement at the Libby trial in which Fitzgerald directly pointed the finger at Vice President Dick Cheney as the boss in charge of the Plame cover up and second, the obvious payoff to Libby when Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence. There is little room for doubt regarding what McClellan meant when he named the five principals who "were involved."

Today CNN Political Ticker reports an interview with Valerie Plame's husband, who clarifies what Scotty's revelation means.

(CNN) — The revelation by a former White House spokesman that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were "involved" in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity shows how the White House "closed ranks" to protect themselves, her husband, Joe Wilson, said Wednesday.

The information — from an upcoming book by Scott McClellan — also shows how important it was to the administration to commute the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Wilson said on CNN's "American Morning."

"I think it now makes it very clear the extent to which the vice president was involved, which, of course, then makes it very clear how important to the vice president the commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence was," the former U.S. ambassador said.

Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff, was convicted in March of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to investigators and a federal grand jury about his contacts with reporters concerning Wilson.

Just before Libby was to report to a federal prison in July to serve 30 months behind bars, Bush commuted his sentence, although the president stopped short of a full pardon and Libby still had to pay a $250,000 fine.

"They basically closed ranks, guaranteed that the cloud (special prosecutor Patrick) Fitzgerald said was over the vice president's head would not be lifted. And now because of McClellan's statement, that cloud is over the president himself.

"He is either completely out of touch or he's an accessory to an obstruction of justice both before the fact and after the fact," he said.
[Link added to the quotation - Editor WTF-o]

Scooter Libby was convicted in March for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was guilty of lying to FBI agents and to a grand jury to conceal his actions and those of others in revealing Valerie Plame's name to the Press. It was not provable who the others involved were because of Libby's lies.

Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine for his conviction. Just before he was to report to prison, President Bush commuted his sentence so that he did not have to spend any time in prison. That left the $250,000 fine and presumably the Republican high rollers paid the fine. And the damage to his post-White house career? There is little doubt that Libby will be on 'Wingnut welfare' so that he will not be hurting for money for the rest of his life. He quickly was hired by the conserative think tank, the Hudon Institute, at $160,000 per year. That's roughly what he was paid at the White House. The fix was in. Someone really didn't want Libby talking to avoid the prison sentence. Patrick Fitzgerald, in his concluding summary of the prosecution at Libby's trial stated There is a cloud over the vice President.

In no uncertain terms, in his most public statement, Fitzgerald made clear that he believed that Cheney was the one behind the crime for which he was prosecuting Libby. It was Cheney who was the boss, Cheney who gave the orders, and Cheney to whom Libby was the loyal soldier, and it is Cheney for whom Libby is covering up.

Scooter Libby's lies and obstruction of justice prevented Fitzgerald from going after the boss who directed the cover up, Cheney. Scooter was amply repaid for throwing himself onto his sword. Scotty's short excerpt from his book (promised for April 2008) reopens the entire story, placing both Cheney and Bush into the cross hairs. So why has McClellan made this statement? And why now? Five months before the release of the book seems a little early for the publisher simply just to be trying to build excitement for the book. Here's what I suspect.

Either someone failed to provide for Scotty McClellan in the way he expected and he is blowing the whistle, or this is a public move by Scotty telling the White House and Dick Cheney - "Meet my terms or I go public." I'd guess that when they meet his terms, the publisher will withdraw the short blurb they have presented and make excuses that say "Oops! Mr. McClellan didn't say that. Someone in our office was playing around on the computer and it accidentally got posted, but it's not true."

There is also the minor possibility that Scotty actually is an honest man with a conscience, but he is a Republican who acted as spokesman for the Bush White House, which makes that a very unlikely possibility.

This story is another tiny window into the actions of the single most incompetent, venal, dangerous and crooked Presidency America has ever had. It was obvious when bush kept Libby out of prison that he was paying Libby off. That is pure obstruction of justice. Can a case for obstruction of justice be proven in court? That's a separate question, but this really stirs that pot. We'll have to see where it goes.

---

Update 3:38 CDT
Well, that didn't take too long. Someone has gotten back to Scotty and made him an offer of some kind already. Go see Greg Sergent's report at The Horses Mouth, posted at 1:35 PM EST (12:35 PM CST.) I posted the above at 12:32 PM. "Publisher Of McClellan Book: Scottie Won't Implicate Bush For Lying About Plamegate, After All."

As I predicted.

Scotty is going to tell his story

Scott McClellan, Bush's Press Secretary prior to Dana Perino, is about to publish a book on his experience as Bush's Press Secretary. The title is to be What Happened. By the looks of the excerpt, the White House may not be pleased. Here is the teaser:

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.

It's due out in April 2008.

I sure hope this is not the best paragraph in the book.