We Told You So

by: David Sirota

Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 00:55

So, apparently it's shocking news to some that Tom Ridge today admitted that he faced political pressure to raise terror alerts leading up to the 2004 election. I'd just like to point out that Judd Legum and I wrote a cover story for The Nation on September 9th, 2004 about "mounting evidence indicat[ing] that the timing and substance of the government's terror warnings are being driven, in part, by political considerations."

You can read that whole piece here. As Glenn Greenwald notes, the evidence we and others pointed out at the time showing that this was going on was summarily ignored by the rest of the media. So to that same media, I'd just like to say: I hate to say we told you so...but we told you so.

David Sirota :: We Told You So

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

We Told You So | 10 comments
Talk to Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic... (4.00 / 2)
He called us all DFH's for even thinking about it... he has since apologized...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Like Jay Carney at TIME... (4.00 / 2)
over the US Attorney firings.

Sensing a pattern...

[ Parent ]
though his apology (4.00 / 1)
is painful to read. For example:

"[Liberal distrust of the Bush administration] was ideological and based on their intepretation of a pattern of facts that, in retrospect, seems much more reasonable than it did."

WTF? It wasn't ideological, it's that Bush was a liar, fairly blatantly, from day 1 (I remember, for example, the "Texas Miracle" where Bush magically made all the students of Texas smarter by fudging their test scores).

And "In retrospect"? Distrust of government makes sense ALL THE TIME. It should be the de facto position of every journalist.  

[ Parent ]
Arrest the son-of-a-bitch! (0.00 / 0)
Malfeasance in office is supposedly difficult to define, because public office-holders are so reluctant to charge each other that there isn't much relevant case-law, but the little that there is makes Tom Ridge look right for the charge.

Let's begin with Wikipedia...

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
"Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do."

An old text, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Wills, Administration, by Albert H. Putney, is more to the point...

Any public officer who being prompted by corrupt or dishonest motives, does any act as an officer which he is not by law authorized to do, in such a manner as is likely to deceive and mislead others, commits the offense of malfeasance in office. For instance one who wilfully disregards his plain duty as a public officer in awarding a contract for the public and lets the contract to the disadvantage of the public, commits an offense.

It may be satisfying for David Sirota to proclaim his superior insight, and I don't deny it, but for the rest of us, a little revenge would also be welcome.

"I hate to say we told you so" That's pure rhetoric, right? (0.00 / 0)
There's nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction for the verification that your fact based suspicions have shown to be on target! And the corporate media deserves a high amount of ridicule for their total ignorance and naivity in this matter. They'll never learn anything if you play nice and somewhat excuse their shortcomings. They failed, big time, and it's necessary to tell them so!

shh! (4.00 / 1)
If you remind people you were right, you turn from a shrill left-wing loon into a distasteful "triumphalist"!

How I wish I were joking:

[ Parent ]
The biggest obstacle to understanding (4.00 / 1)
is the taboo against "conspiracy theories".

Conspiratorial behavior is the status quo amongst human beings, not the exception.

Yup! This wilful ignorance prevents digging up the truth... (0.00 / 0)
..even on utterly important issues. And it's really somewhat explainable, since you only have to watch some of those "true crime" shows to find evidence that conspiracies happen, that they are not neglible exceptions, and that they can have tragic consequences.

So, where does the widespread stubborn insistence on initially opposing the sheer possibility of a conspiracy come from? Something related to the basic programming of most people's brains? The persistence of the prejudice against all conspiracy theories, regardless of the facts, leaves me puzzled. It's a relic from medieval times that doesn't really fitinto our modern times.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but you were still wrong. (0.00 / 0)
You were writing liberal-left stuff, so, true or not, you were wrong, you know, because you were writing it contemporaneously.

It is only okay to write that kind of hawk-challenging stuff somewhere between 5 and 20 years after those policies are carried out, when it's old news and shouldn't be on the front pages.

Yeah but the only reason you wrote it was (0.00 / 0)
The facts just had a basic gut hatred of Bush.

We Told You So | 10 comments

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox