Under Your Bed

You have no dominion here:

The administration argued it was not obligated to preserve the videotapes and told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about them “could potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter.”

Thing is, people bought this shit back in 2002, which is when I first became aware of it. People bought this shit because hey, you never know, and these guys might not be completely full of shit, and despite our long national nightmares with Nixon and Iran-Contra people still kind of figured there was a place where they’d stop. People were dumb, what can I say, and it was a very, very few DFH’s back then who were screaming that our laws weren’t designed to protect the obviously innocent, they were designed to protect us all, and if you don’t think there’s a big fucking difference cover the federal courts for a while. Or, you know, turn on a TV, or, like, read.

Fast-forward a half-decade. It’s been definitively proven this bunch can’t prosecute its way out of a paper bag, that the only thing they’re counting on is being given the benefit of the doubt, and that all we can hope to have happen here is a big wide grin and a “hey, trust us!” And everybody willing to give them the benefit of the doubt is now professing shock and horror, and acting like all this crap started happening in 2005, as if the date of the beginning of the end and the date the New York Times made it okay to talk about the end are the same fucking thing.

I mean it, it drives me wild. The problem with half the crap comes out of these people’s mouths isn’t that it is, on its face, wrong. All the words are true, in that there are circumstances in which this defense could actually hold water. Problem is, we will never, ever, ever be able to give them the benefit of the doubt again, and that’s dangerous. The point of the story about the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf actually shows up in the end.

A.

6 thoughts on “Under Your Bed

  1. virgotex says:

    Thing is, they’ll never make it to the fucking wolf, because everything is suspended in one big “ongoing” operation- everything is either an ongoing investigation, an ongoing inquiry, an ongoing effort, as if “ongoing” intrinsically means-every time-that it cannot be interrupted.
    One might assume the 2005 order to safeguard the tapes presumed an “ongoing” effort to do so but it didn’t stop them from destroying them.

  2. Nora says:

    . . . potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter.
    But of course, since it’s always Opposite Day in the Bush Administration’s world, what they’re really saying is that it would potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to PREVENT a full factual understanding of the matter. And everybody with half a brain knows what this means.
    How long IS it going to take to get to the point where those of us who have been paying attention are going to believe a word we hear from the President or Congress? How long is it going to take before we can read the newspapers without a corrosively cynical thought about “Who pushed this little story into your hot little hands and how much of an investigation did you really do into whether this was true or not?”
    This is not a good thing for a democratic republic. We should be wary of those in power; that’s our job as citizens. But we shouldn’t have to start from the position that they are compulsively lying to us, but that’s where we are.

  3. Nora says:

    . . . potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to arrive at a full factual understanding of the matter.
    But of course, since it’s always Opposite Day in the Bush Administration’s world, what they’re really saying is that it would potentially complicate the ongoing efforts to PREVENT a full factual understanding of the matter. And everybody with half a brain knows what this means.
    How long IS it going to take to get to the point where those of us who have been paying attention are going to believe a word we hear from the President or Congress? How long is it going to take before we can read the newspapers without a corrosively cynical thought about “Who pushed this little story into your hot little hands and how much of an investigation did you really do into whether this was true or not?”
    This is not a good thing for a democratic republic. We should be wary of those in power; that’s our job as citizens. But we shouldn’t have to start from the position that they are compulsively lying to us, but that’s where we are.

  4. s p ocko says:

    They are given the benefit of the doubt over and over again because of 9/11 and the 40 years of mythmaking and working the refs and creating media-friendly experts and media savvy radio and cable TV people. But 9/11 is the all purpose excuse. Another all purpose “get out of trouble free card” is W using his born again status to allow all past sins to be forgiven.
    Bush used born again like Rudy uses 9/11.
    “Drug use?” born again.
    “DWI?” born again.
    “AWOL?” born again.
    I heard Obama talking about his teen age drug use and I thought about how brilliant the Bush born again trick was. Obama had to say, “Hey we don’t really look at what people did 30 years ago.” Well yes we do when we want to judge “the character” of someone, but what if you had a free pass, a Big Event that washed away your sins? Then you could chastise your critics and give your supporters a reason to allow for past transgressions. Bush was doing crap up until he was 40!!!! And if he got caught doing it again? “Forgive me.” (Even if you weren’t a Christian, people can use that trick. I heard TOM DELAY using it the other day!)
    Krugman pointed it out a long time ago. They are radicals. But nobody in power really wants to believe that.
    I think that it is the Big Events that drive many people’s views even in the face of lots and lots of little events. These are the people who keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. They only remember the “Big Events” and the potential upcoming Big Event. They don’t see the Non-Big Event. And even if they don’t see one the Bush admin uses that too. “It could happen!” This is the perfect strategy for people who aren’t paying attention.
    If the Democrats weren’t just playing out the clock they would be going on the offensive. With something big and TV Friendly and Showy. Not procedural maneuvers. For example. The Telco immunity. They are an easy villain. Why not vilify them? Find someone who hates the Telcos and who can make money fighting them. Get some lawyers on this! Lawyers doing PR against the Telcos. It would also be GOOD for the American people AND they could make money on the lawsuits. I don’t get why nobody is doing this. The lawyers could pick on someone that people hate more than them!
    I have to think that TV plays a big part in this. As well as people’s personal experience.
    For example, I was going on and on for ages about the horrible things that the hosts at K S F O were saying. The worst was Lee Rod gers. But since he was never on TV what he said didn’t really “count”. But B rian S ussman was a TV weatherman and people only knew him as “that nice weatherguy who worked with foster kids”.
    Or Melanie M organ who was a TV anchor person. What was interesting was that the power of the previous “brand” kept winning in some people’s minds who weren’t really paying attention. I STILL get that comment from people about S ussman. “I thought he was that nice weatherman on channel 5.”
    And your point about the wolf showing up? They have already prepared us for it. In fact, they have told us that they caught the wolf several times. Top line views that “we caught a terrorist cell” are what make the tv. Two years later “we let them go because there weren’t really terrorists” doesn’t register.
    The inability to push back HARD on these bullsh*t terrorist plots is what helps their brand. At one time the media did this (at least tried to) but they don’t really do that any more.
    And a final note I like to make when people say, “You are preaching to the choir.” Sometimes the people in the choir need to understand the music so they can share it with new members of the church who didn’t show up to choir practice or who only attend church when there is a tragedy.

  5. hoppy says:

    We are seeing something like a well known Greek Tragedy being played out. We all know how it ends, we all pretty well know what everybody will say and when. And, we recognize that all of this is just theater anyway.
    What I am saying is that there will never be a “day in court” for the Repub crooks headed by GWBush. It just doesn’t play out that way. What actually happens is that when the Democrats finally regain control of all branches of the federal government, the past will just be relegated to being the past, of no real interest today. But, assume some US Attorney decides that his job requires him to bring actual charges against a high up member of the crooks. That would be distracting, so the Democratic President just pardons the whole gang. Anything to get our minds off of the dark ages when Bush reigned.
    So, excuse me while I head for the mens room, stop afterwards for a bag of popcorn, read the “coming attractions” posters, chat with the janitor awhile, and finally return sometime after January 2009. I won’t have missed a thing.

  6. pansypoo says:

    i never gave georgie and his masters a benefit of a doubt. they never deserved it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: