What The GOP Is

Politico asks:

Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?

Republican talking head Brad Blakeman answers:

I would rather see the New York Times prosecuted for their constant and continued abuse of the First Amendment. Their treasonous behavior on almost a daily basis is far more damaging to our country than anything a Bush Administration official past or present is alleged.

This is one of the Serious People of the Washington Establishment. That is why so much went wrong and so much wrong was done in the past 8 years - because people like Brad Blakeman are taken seriously while people who ask that the rule of law be upheld are considered DFHs.

Speaking for me only

< Late Night: Keith Richards Turns 65 | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So let's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:40:27 AM EST
    have the DoJ investigate the NYTimes!

    By Obama's logic, that'll get them on our side!

    Has Politico asked the President-Elect (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    how he feels about getting this job done on his watch:
    Having the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?

    I mean, as the Media Darling, he should be up to the task of going along with what the craven media is now recommending regarding the most flagrant lawlessness under the Bush/Cheney torture regime.


    That is a bright spot (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    that the media is saying something, printing something, archiving ideas about holding Bushies accountable to the law they swore to preserve and uphold, and then dictatorially shred and broke.

    Yes it's a ray of light in (none / 0) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    a dungeon and even that is encouraging at this point.

    I don't know what "other" press entities have "urged" this, aside from the NYT. I could Google it and go hacking around the 'ether' net, but am bone-tired of trying to keep atop this day to day.


    Other MSM sources talking about war crimes... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    As always, Gleen Greenwald is on the ball: "Demands for war crimes prosecutions are now growing in the mainstream".

    Blakemen is auditioning for (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    a speaking role at the inauguration.

    Since many of the things the Bush (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:03:48 AM EST
    Administration has done consists of levying various wars against the American people and against the conceptual and the physical understanding of America itself, Brad Blakeman is adhering to enemies of the American people and giving them aid or comfort. I could also make charges of treason against Mr. Blakeman.  I'm also betting that at least one other credible honest witness is willing to testify to witnessing this same act from Mr. Brad Blakemean as well.

    um (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Nasarius on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:17:49 AM EST
    prosecuted for their constant and continued abuse of the First Amendment

    Among other things, isn't this logically incoherent? If they're (ab)using the First Amendment when publishing certain information, they can't be prosecuted for it.

    Also, if we're going after the NYT for revealing secret information, can we put Bob Novak on the chopping block too?

    Maybe he's right! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    In a lot of ways the Times has been very kind to the GOP and Bush over the last 8 yrs.

    I might want to prosecute the Times for holding back on the wire tapping story long enough to hand Bush the 2004 election! Or possibly for their enabling Bush to advance the Iraq War with shoddy journalism. These actions may not be illegal but they certainly are unethical.

    I don't think the GOP has any gripe at how they've been treated by the MSM during this disasterous administration.

    It's what they do best! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    There's nobody better at playing the victim than the GOP.  

    Their failings are always the fault of someone else.  Lots of bluster about personal responsibility, but when it gets down to it they just can't bring themselves to walk the talk.


    In all honesty, what you say is true (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    and yet the Dem leadership of Reid and Pelosi is littered with so much of the same "I'm a victim" and things are failing so miserably because "It's hard work".......Daschle and Gephardt so much the same as well.  I am so sick and tired of the whining Dem. victim and then later on having it affirmed what I already knew.......they had been briefed on the torture, they are complicit in being bought off by corporations, they too would like to use a crazy flipped out evangelical base so lets grow one.

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    ...the Congressional leadership on our side are, for the most part, are just as bad.  Spineless wimps only looking out for their own self-interests.

    The days of having people in positions of power putting what's best for the Country ahead of personal/party gain are long behind us, I'm afraid.  


    I think they are behind us right now (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    as in today.  We have some serious problems ahead though that will affect all of us. The spineless will either find the spine and find the social conscience or they will be replaced because people are seriously going to be hurting this time next year and there will be no other whining conscienceless options tolerable.

    Uh, why not both? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bocajeff on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST

    Okay :) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    This post plus Greenwald's (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    post on what playing nice with the Right gets you makes me think that the thing to do with the Right is to be as superficially kissy face as you like and then give not a micrometer on legislation.

    Obama could probably master the air kisses, but I doubt that he or Pelosi or Reid have the necessary lust for bloody legislative brawls.  And if they won't do it, who is going to?  It had better be us, because I don't see anyone else stepping up.

    Become the Change (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    We are the ball

    yeah, I wonder if they will (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    bring impeachment motions against Obama this year,or if they'll be kind and wait til next.

    What was/is it that B. Clinton's closest (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    friends and associates claim is his greatest leadership weakness again?  Something about refusing to acknowledge that he really does have REAL enemies :)?

    With Clinton out of the Senate.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by sallywally on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    there isn't anyone.

    Franken? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    Maybe Clinton's replacement as long as it isn't some socialite lightweight.

    I get a very warm fuzzy feeling knowing (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    that things are looking up for a Franken win.  Also a feeling of relief.  He isn't as left as the Wellstone we lost, but he has emotional intelligence alongside some serious intellect, and he has a conscience he doesn't sideline. His communication skills are off the charts.  Am I wrong to feel a sense of relief knowing that chances are looking up that I'm going to get a Senator Franken?

    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sallywally on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    I'd love to hear him on bloviator shows and questioning witnesses on C-Span Senatorial hearings!

    He can really explain things in a nutshell.


    liz holtzman has asked to be considered (none / 0) (#49)
    by conchita on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:34:47 PM EST
    for hrc's seat.  she would do it.  

    Never will happen (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM EST
    I just don't believe that Obama will sign off on any serious investigations. It goes against the image of the "uniter".

    I also think that there are several high powered Democrat's that want no part of any inquiries. Cheney and Bush wouldn't be the only ones to answer for all of this. I think we'd find out our own leaders were right there cheering them on.

    Aren't there investigations that (none / 0) (#41)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    His Oneness doesn't have to "sign off on"?

    Running the clock (none / 0) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:44:13 PM EST
    Sure, but I doubt if Obama's AG will advance any of them come January. I think the investigations that have been going on are just to give the illusion that they're doing something. All the real players in the Bush admin have refused to testify. And the Dem's have folded as usual.

    It isn't over till the entire (none / 0) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    Bush/Cheney cabal croaks. Outside the US, they will never be immune to prosecution for war crimes

    Not going to happen (none / 0) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    I'm not sure any country would risk the backlash from such an action.  Plus I don't see either Bush or Cheney going on any international good will tours in the near future!

    They plan to stay in the US for the (none / 0) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    rest of their mortal lives? As for the presumed invincibility of the US: I'm not so sure that the US has an interminable future as the tail that wags the dog.

    Remember, China is our creditor not our debtor.


    I wonder what people like Blakeman really think (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    Surely on some level they do not believe their own BS, or are they really that stupid and blind? How can they look at the last 8 years and think the NYT was the most criminal entity?

    When I talk to the Republicans I know, even as they rattle off the talking points, I can see a glimmer in their eye, and sometimes a half smile that says there are parts of it they don't believe.

    It must be hard to have to lie on a daily basis.

    But on another level I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    he is an idiot.

    For sure (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    Pretending you believe that drivel is just as idiotic as actually believing it.

    Whatever the NYT's shortcomings - (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    and they are many - it's ridiculous on its face to suggest that a newspaper, with a much less widespread readership than Blakeman assumes, could possibly be more damaging to the country than Bush administration policies and practices deliberately established and undertaken with breathtaking assumptions of power; the damage wreaked on a host of core principles that form the foundation of this country, and on our standing and reputation in the world, compare in no way, shape or form to anything the NYT has done.  The NYT certainly failed in its responsibility to timely report and question a host of Bush administration actions and programs, but it was the Bush administration that instituted those things.

    That Blakeman could take such a ludicrous position - one which I'm sure is shared by others of his ilk - tells me that the democracy is still very much at risk.

    I love it (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    As long as the leadership and republicans in general can only focus on boogymen, they won't be able to gain traction with the American people.  The blame game worked before, but at least right now, it can't work as the Democratic leadership is finally politically savvy enough and the media likes the top dog enough, that most of their gimmicks will be revealed as such.

    i assume mr. blakeman is (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    is currently not taking his prescribed medications, resulting in his obvious delusions.

    of course, if you want to discuss "abuses" of the bill of rights, we could go on to the 4th, 5th, 8th, etc., etc. etc. geez, is there an amendment this administration hasn't abused in the last 8 years?

    what a putz.

    3rd (none / 0) (#5)
    by Nasarius on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    He hasn't quartered soldiers in our houses!

    I might ask for a few (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    Won't happen (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    Shouldn't happen.

    But it makes for tizziness among the chattering class.

    I don't think that BTD (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    is saying anything about it happening.  We all know the New York Times being charged with treason will never happen.  BTD is pointing out the mentality that defines the current GOP and the people that the D.C. beltway has considered "serious" for the past eight years.  It is a sad little mentality too that is not long for this world.  Many of the items that BTD points out about the GOP would be very beneficial to the GOP as well if the GOP base was made up of individuals capable of processing constructive criticism.

    Good morning Tracy (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    If the GOP did what the Democrats want, would they be the GOP?

    Should the NYT be held to account for their acts? In my mind, yes. But I am smart enough to know that it won't happen, and shouldn't happen because of the chilling effect it would have and as bad as I dislike various members of our chatterers I also believe in free speech and freedom of the press.

    Besides, the Times is failing and will eventually destroy itself.


    Hmmm, strange opinion on the Times (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    I think they are about to begin to make a recovery.

    Which of those (none / 0) (#38)
    by standingup on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:51:45 PM EST
    could the New York Times even be prosecuted for committing? Just because a GOP talking head bloviates about prosecuting the Times doesn't mean there was anything close to a crime committed. This shoot the messenger mentality of the GOP (and Independents leaning toward the GOP) drives me crazy. The moron in the oval office and what he was doing is the problem, not the newspaper that reported the story.

    Something else (none / 0) (#37)
    by lilburro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    that can barely be taken seriously...from WSJ

    "The Real 'Torture' Disgrace":

    As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.

    Another Fox Outlet (none / 0) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    I would expect a Murdock production like the WSJ to read like that! No one has ever accused him of being part of the "liberal media". His outlets play to their audience, not letting the facts get in the way.

    We are way down the rabbit hole and (none / 0) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    below that there's a memory hole. It may be another diversion from the Afghanistan "surge" or wev. Sick, sick, sick.

    The First Amendment doesn't ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    include a prosecution clause.

    And with Times v. Sullivan the law of the land, abusing your First Amendment privileges is also a right.

    This, of course, doesn't excuse the NYT of their shabby excuse for journalism.  But they have a history of that.  Back in the twenties, they regularly ran pro-spiritualism stories on their front pages ... as news.

    But, under the First Amendment, shabbiness is not a crime.