My earlier diary,"Narcissism, The Bubble Economy and American Exceptionalism--Part 2a", began looking at malignant narcissism via a weirdly exculpatory NYT Op-Ed from a British psychologist, Belinda Board, who semi-excused John Bolton, and "high-ranking business executives" like him who might share many traits with the criminal class, but managed to keep themselves from getting locked up.
But what happens when they don't keep themselves from getting locked up? That question is no longer a merely idle one, as the US abdication of its responsibilities under international law is now opening the door wide for foreign prosecutions of US war crimes and related violations of international law. As they NY Times now reports, "Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials":
LONDON - A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.
The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor's office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was "highly probable" that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.
David Iglesias is the prototype twenty first century Republican: charismatic, Hispanic, an evangelical Christian and a captain in the Navy Reserve who served for many years in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps ("JAG"). In 1998, Iglesias campaigned to become Attorney General of New Mexico against the heavily favored Patricia Madrid. He nearly pulled off an upset and the Republican Party took notice. In 2000, Iglesias paid his party dues and worked for George W. Bush's election.
I generally take the last week in August off because it's almost always the second slowest week in national politics (after only the week between Christmas and New Year's Day- and with the early caucuses this year, that week won't be so slow either). But with the Republicans around to entertain us, the last week wasn't so slow. Since I've been gone:
-Alberto Gonzales finally resigned
-Larry Craig resigned after his public restroom escapades were revealed
-The overwhelmingly negative GAO report on Iraq came out
-John Warner decided to retire
-Tony Snow also decided to take off
That's a pretty big week for an October of an election year, let alone the last week in August. And all of it bad news for the Republicans. I guess I should go on vacation more often.
It's always fascinating to be back home in the Midwest when big national news is going on, because that part of the country is the ultimate in low information news, and it's fascinating to see what sinks in and how people back home react to it. The Lincoln Journal-Star and Omaha World-Herald are both terrible papers, and the local TV news is pretty awful as well. High-speed internet is available in Lincoln, but not at all on the family farm, or small towns surrounding it, and people don't tend to check it much for news. People sometimes watch CNN or Fox News to get national news, but as we know, that's not exactly informative coverage.
So which of these big stories got noticed? John Warner got a small page three story, but was hardly noticed or talked about except among my total political junkie friends. Gonzalez resigning was noticed, and people mentioned it, mostly being relieved. The GAO report got a tiny ripple, but people are so used to bad news about Iraq that it didn't receive any comment at all. But the Larry Craig story was very, very big. That combination of scandal, sex and hypocrisy, with a dash of politics mixed in, was irresistible, and everybody and their mother (mine included) talked about it a lot. Good old-fashioned family fun.
The monumental challenges of building a national progressive majority really settle in after weeks like this at home, with a lot of important stories happening but not much notice of the ones that don't involve playing footsie in public restrooms. Having a national broadband policy like the one Matt Stoller and Dick Durbin have been working on in the Legislation 2.0 project would certainly help, but it's going to take a lot more organizing, both in terms of our political organizing and communicating, and in terms of building new strategies for media.
I'd love to know what ideas the OpenLeft.com community has in terms of getting a consistent message out in smaller states and in rural communities.
Here is a partial list of prominent Bush administration resignations since the 2006 midterm elections, all of which occurred in conjunction with some sort of major scandal in their relevant field:
With this obvious exceptions of Bush and Cheney themselves, since the midterms virtually every major Bush administration figure involved in a major scandal has been forced out. All of these changes were the result of public and congressional pressure on the administration, in the form of elections, congressional investigations, media scandals, and repeatedly low approval ratings.
My first reaction to this list is note that Democratic electoral success and subsequent investigations have led to a significant amount of resignations, but has not resulted in a significant change in Bush administration policy. I think this is connected to how the progressive campaigns against the Bush administration are focusing on individuals committing criminal, incompetent, and unethical acts, rather than on a core set of values as to how government should be run. To put it one way, the progressive campaigns against Bush administration scandals have largely been waged from a practical, technocratic liberal perspective, where the central values of government are not debated and only competence and pragmatic problem solving are foregrounded as values. In other words, progressives seem to be targeting individuals who have engaged in criminal, incompetent and unethical acts, rather than engaging in a attack on the ideological bent of the Bush administration itself. This is displayed with how often Democrats and progressive make ideology itself the focus of their accusations on the Bush administration, ie, that the Bush administration is abusing government by using it to achieve ideological ends. As a result, we end up with an enormous laundry list of Bush administration resignations, not to mention large grassroots campaigns to impeach Bush and Cheney, but without a sustained, effective campaign to change the ideological focus of the administration itself. Individual cogs are removed from the ideological machine, but the machine itself continues operating without a hitch.
Back in July, Matt suggested that one of the reasons the campaigns to impeach Bush and Cheney have not been very effective to date is because they were targeting individuals engaged in criminal acts, rather than being based in a set of oft-expressed values on how government should function. Considering the exceptional progressive tack record of being able to force individual resignations, but our utter failure to change administration policy itself, I think this critique is more relevant today than ever. We get the scalps from the criminals, the incompetent, and the unethical, but we are not changing the policies. I think this is a demonstration of the weakness of the anti-ideological argument many have pushed on the Democratic side for these past few years, not to mention serves as another example of the general ineffectiveness of technocratic liberalism when faced with the ideological, conservative movement. It isn't just about Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld or Gonzales. It is about a different vision for the way government should function, and the values that are at the core of those visions. We are not doing a very good job of articulating our values in these disputes, and so we end up with a lot of scalps, but also with very little change in the operation of the federal government itself.
In his response to the resignation of AG Alberto Gonzales today, President Bush intends to declare a recess appointment of himself as Attorney General of the United States.
Asked why he would take such a strange course of action, he explained that even having a wingnut like Ashcroft as AG meant he wouldn't ALWAYS get what he wanted. He then explained that the problem with nominating someone incompetent like Gonzales to heed his every word at justice is that incompetent people tend to be incompetent, which sometimes gets them into trouble.
He then went on to explain that he trusted himself best to uphold his laws, and if you don't you're probably a terrorist. He then cited executive privileged without making it clear what he was claiming executive privilege from.
More breaking coverage and reactions below the fold.
Josh Marshall, who knows a great deal about this White House and corruption and actually broke the US Attorney scandal, said in May that there was no way Bush could fire Gonzales.
No, President Bush would have to nominate someone who's actually qualified for the job - which is to say, a respected legal professional who can be expected to place his responsibility to enforce the law above political loyalty to the White House. And that's something that the White House just can't tolerate under present circumstances.
I'm curious how Josh has updated his view. I tend to trust Josh on matters like this, and this White House is quite unpredictable. Perhaps the White House feels the scandal is over. Perhaps the White House believes that Bush is untouchable regardless of what happens. Perhaps the White House and Bush think Democrats will cave.
And so I guess we'll see what the Senate Democrats are made of. Will they let actually force the appointment of a respected legal professional? Or will they let Michael Chertoff get the nod?
There's been some chatter about whether Bush Dog Democrats should apply to the Senate. This is a good time to start thinking about that question.
Everyone knows Gonzales is lying.
Everyone knows Comey is a boy scout.
Mueller is now confirming Comey's testimony.
Of course, Mueller may just be trying to save his own hide.
But wait! There is someone with no ax to grind, no reason to lie. Why is she never mentioned by the media? Why is no one interested in publicly questioning her?
I'm talking about the person who set this whole drama in motion -- the woman who called Comey. This is a woman with impeccable conservative credentials. She is a devoted wife and mother. She is a seasoned lawyer in good standing. She is a respected member of her church. She is also a material witness with evidence that could crucify George Bush.
We're not talking about personally embarrassing questions. Actually, she just has to answer one question. It's about a phone call she received from the White House.
"Mrs. Ashcroft, did the President of the United States call you on the night in question?"
I think we'd all like to hear her answer that and related questions.
Raw is reporting that Rep. Jerry Nadler is calling for a Special Prosecutor to investigate if Guido lied misled Congress. I say it's about time.
"Attorney General Gonzales has shown an apparent reckless disregard for the rule of law and a fundamental lack of respect for the oversight responsibilities of Congress," said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. "The man entrusted with enforcing our nation's laws must also abide by them - and Mr. Gonzales has apparently failed in that duty."
This is about the recent disclosures that Guido knew about things the FBI had done wrong, but did not inform Congress when asked at a recent hearing. We all know that lying to Congress is a Felony, even if it's pardonable.
STATE BLOGS
But wait! There is someone with no ax to grind, no reason to lie. Why is she never mentioned by the media? Why is no one interested in publicly questioning her?