You Say Goodbye and I Say Hello

So, we accept the premise that those pushing for investigation or potential prosecution for these crimes are merely in it for political vengeance, and not justice and the very soul of Western rule of law?

Please, read up on your Hilzoy.

Geez, Jay. What did that song ever do to you?

Thank you. People have asked what exactly is "beltway wisdom". You put it all in your piece.
.
The undercurrent is not just "the club takes care of our own" but a certain contempt for both the ability of the governors to do hard things and for the governed to handle it.
.
Again, thank you for that service.

Indeed, this was written exacly like you were already anticipating the likely reaction from Swamplanders but I have to belabor the obvious anyway.
.
First of all you're lumping all the Bush scandals together in a way that detracts from the particularly dire nature of the torture scandal. You use word 'moderate' and 'left' in Villager-friendly but objectively false ways. There's nothing particularly 'moderate' about covering up a crime and there's nothing particularly leftist about favoring a thorough investigation. And for what its worth, I'm not enamoured enough with Obama's legislative agenda that it would break my heart to see it impeded by partisan sniping anyway.
.
I might add that our compliance or failure to comply with the 1984 Convention against Torture rather affects our foreign policy going forward. The choice between looking forward or behind is a false one.
.
And contrary to Mr Thurber's assertion, Obama isn't using a whit of his political capital. The calls for investigation have quite a life of their own.

When did America become Minority Report? We are talking about criminal investigations. BY FREAKING DEFINITION, we are talking about "looking back". That is what criminal investigations do. Because crimes occur, like, in the past and stuff.
.
Prosecuting crimes is not optional. If Obama chooses to direct his Attorney General to not prosecute the crimes of the past administration, he will not only become morally culpable, he will basically obstructing justice, exposing himself to international criminal prosecutions, and further politicizing the DOJ.
.
Too bad Jay couldn't have addressed any of that.

So we can't deal, as a country, with a flagrant violation of international and domestic law by some of the most powerful people in the country over the last eight years because it's a political nightmare?

God forbid another Republican ever gets elected president again. They'll have Guantanamo Bay back open by sundown on their first day in office.

Ditto to Pinto. That so called piece (of crap) is replete with 100% all-natural CW. As I type this, I look slightly to the right and see who--JNS & AS. Swarm and hubris are the two words that spring to mind, what's left of it at least. Was it Rose who mentioned anti-intellectualism earlier? These two writers take it to a whole 'nother level: read them often enough and U2 can say sayonara to your intellect. Please, no mas, no mas. It's enough (almost) to make a fella miss MS.

Using political capital on something people want? Doesn't that earn political capital?
.
"A new Gallup Poll finds 51% of Americans in favor and 42% opposed to an investigation into the use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush administration"
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx
.
And that was BEFORE the memos became public.
.
But if both Peggy Noonan and Norm Ornstein agree that's enough for me.
.
Contempt is the only word that seems to fit.

Edit: That was supposed to be smarm, as in (M-W):
~
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality

And just to be clear, though no one is more deserving of our unfettered contempt than most of the MSM, if investigation/prosecution does not go FWD, it's the president who will be above all/buck-stopping to blame. Would it provide more cover for him if the media weren't shilling for the black-chopper crowd, sure, but that hardly veils him from the condemnation he should and will receive.

Yesterday...
torture was an easy game to play,
now its time to make the culprits pay,
Oh I believe, in Yesterday.
.
Suddenly...
Rumsfeld's calling his pal Dick Che-ney,
"There's a shadow hanging over me."
Yesterday left suddenly.
.
Why'd...they...break the law?
I don't know, they wouldn't say.
They...trashed...Ge-ne-va,
Now it's time, they're put away-ay-ay-ay...
.
Yes, Today.

PNNTO: And that was BEFORE the memos became public. But it was also before the full court wingnut press that what matters is whether is worked, led by Cheney, echoed by the usual suspects, and dutifully and stenographically broadcast by the msm. Now, there remains substantial doubt that torture provided any useful information that wouldn't have been, or already was, retrieved by traditional methods.
.
But I am afraid the "debate" has been successfully shifted.

wvng, I hear what you are saying but I disagree.
This reminds me of the "widely popular Bush" when he was in fact widely unpopular. Or "President Clinton must resign" even as his numbers stayed high.
.
The "debate" may have shifted in their echo chamber but not in the public. And as jcapan mentions BHO may regret listening to those wise and helpful Beltway types.

everyone remembers the price the GOP paid for its zealous pursuit of President Bill Clinton in the 1990's.

.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
.
HA
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
.
Am I the only one who remembers the Republicans retaining both houses of Congress and gaining stealing the Presidency after they tried impeach Clinton for getting some head? Does anybody remember a price the GOP paid for investigating Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich in the form of Congressional hearings?
.
I take great solace in knowing that Time magazine will have to do more downsizing real soon....

The Village theory of justice, cribbed from Michael Palin as the Lord of Swamp Castle: "'Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!'"

SG-I think that is Beltway speak for-
.
"In 1998, the Senate held steady and the Democrats picked up five House seats. That result—the first time since 1822 that the party not in control of the White House had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a president's second term—was understood as a protest against impeachment inquiries then underway against a by-then-popular Clinton. "
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0611.glastris.html

PNNTO
.
If the Dems were guaranteed to lose just 5 seats in the House in order to nail those bastards I am pretty sure everyone would be down with that tradeoff.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
In striving to hit that middle ground...
.
...which explains the moderate path it has chosen to follow.
.
"For Obama, there is no great plus in looking back and trying to make the Democrats' adversaries from the Bush years pay with an extra pound of flesh," says Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Independents, including those who drifted over from the GOP because of their unhappiness with the rightward turn of the party — and its incompetence — are not likely to resonate to attacks, and most voters want a focus on problem-solving, meaning looking to today and tomorrow, not yesterday,"
.
As much as they would enjoy some retribution, most congressional Democrats also understand the peril...
.
...the pressure is mounting from the left wing...
.
...both parties might have very good reasons to look forward and leave the past behind
.
There is an identifiable (at least to outsiders like us) set of assumptions and premises --an ideology, if you will-- that underlie these claims, Jay Netwon-Small, namely:

1) The "middle ground" is always the prudent, responsible and successful path for governance, and also politically.
.
2) Justice for the crimes of elites --along with public investigation of their conduct-- is by definition retribution exacted by political winners
.
3) The most important populist political constituency to be courted is always the low-information, low-engagement political center ("Independents...who drifted over from the GOP")
.
4) The public, always centrist in its leanings, can't tell the difference --even if it were to be enunciated to them as such-- between retributive political theater (the Lewinsky impeachment) and substantive resolution of misdeeds in governance (Iran-Contra), and so can always be counted upon to look darkly upon such proceedings, regardless of polling data.
.
5) Washington politicians know that the public demands centrism of them --regardless of what their constituents actually want in terms of representation-- and therefore understand "the peril" of straying from the middle on important issues
.
6) Popular unhappiness with the centrist policies and positions of their representatives is leftism, and organized public expressions of that unhappiness is "pressure from the left wing"
.
7) Both political parties would be more successful in terms of public favorability, if they were more centrist...especially now that Democrats are in power

What I find interesting about this piece of yours is that you've managed to muddy the difference between the public's disapproval of Congress --and therefore Congressional Investigations into Bush Administration criminality

Poll: Public Does Not Want Torture Probe
.
CBS News/N.Y. Times Survey: Most Say Waterboarding Is Torture, But Disagree With Calls For Congressional Investigation
.
The recent release of detailed memos describing harsh interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists under the Bush administration has fueled calls for a Congressional investigation.
.
But most Americans do not want an investigation, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
.
According to the poll, sixty-two percent of Americans do not think Congress should hold hearings to investigate the administration's treatment of detainees. Only a third of Americans thinks Congress should investigate. That's the same proportion as thought so in February.
.
Republicans overwhelming oppose Congress holding such hearings, and sixty percent of independents agree. Democrats - much like Democratic representatives in Congress -- are more divided. Forty-six percent say Congress should hold hearings, while fifty-one percent say they are not necessary.

, and Justice Department or Independent Prosecutor criminal investigations into Bush Administration criminality

Poll: Most want inquiry into anti-terror tactics
.
WASHINGTON — Even as Americans struggle with two wars and an economy in tatters, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the "war on terror" broke the law.
.
Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.
.

Just because the public is anti-Congress doesn't mean that we are anti-investigation...we're just wary of another eight years of Whitewater-style wastes of time and money that culminate in another orgy of Lewinsky-esque revelations. We do want the law enforced for elites suspected of heinous crimes, however.
.
It seems as if you've effectively confused these two distinct ideas, Jay Newton-Small, in some sort of strangely obtuse effort to define proper, normal investigation of past misdeeds in the worst political light available.
.
I understand that you probably believe that you've simply reported the facts as they are in the Beltway political universe without passion or favor. I understand that you probably believe that you have made every effort to exclude political ideology from your description of events. Unfortunately for your efforts, this entire professional methodology of yours is itself an expression of an ideology, and results in a product that is inherently political in content (and consequences for the political environment), and not in any way neutral. All you have done by advertising the centrist political philosophy that imbues your reporting is to further alienate your readership, who can sense the difference between your ideas and theirs, and who no longer trust you enough to ascribe that difference to your proclaimed objectivity. The rightists learned a long time ago that they could make journalists uncomfortable by describing that alienation from the public as "the liberal media" (thus the "Fair and Balanced" campaign), but the public now suspects it's something else, and are more and more aware that their interests are not being represented by a press corps that defines itself by its opposition to them and their non-centrist, non-technocratic, non-objective political sympathies.
.
Do you understand why the claim that centrism is the professional ideology of the national political press corps resonates so strongly with engaged news consumers, Jay Newton-Small?
.
Can you understand that you have written a profoundly centrist description of reality into this piece of yours?

Euphemisms for torture: Check.
.
The rule of law = vengence or "a pound of flesh": Check
.
The criminal justice system = "looking back": Check.
.
Monica Lewinsky morally equivalent to possible war crimes: Check.
.
Did you even put a moment's thought into this piece? This is pure unadulterated conventional-wisdom drivel. You didn't have to wait for the release of the torture memos to write this crap.
.
At least Joe Klein sounds like he's wrestling a bit with the question of why he doesn't believe the law applies to the powerful.
.
And when all this happens again, you'll all be spouting the same garbage again, mark my words.
.
Jesus H F'ing Christ!

Naturally my explitive-laced rant comes in just seconds after Stuart's carefully reasoned arguments.
.
JNS: Ignore my comment and read Stuart's. He's actually trying to engage with you people.

Also I hate emoticons.

Stuart, thank you for that. Should be required reading for the lot of them. Let's start with JNS and AS, and maybe people could send it on over to the entire WaPo staff and MoDo too while they are at it.

calkate:
.
MoDo too
.
Maureen Dowd is a deeply psychologically disturbed, frustrated, amateur fetish sex worker:

File under: Another Modo “Beautiful Agony” column.
.
Reading Maureen Dowd's piece in the NYT, “Shake, Rattle and Roll”, shed absolutely no new light on the subjects it alleged itself to be about: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani.
.
None.
.
But that clearly wasn't the point. Because what it did accomplish, very effectively, was to let Ms. Dowd peel herself down to her taxi shoes and nipple clamps and walk giddily around the block in front of a whole bunch of people.
.
Stripped of what passed for its context, here is the just the vocabulary she used in her column; just the subtext, staked out spread-eagle for your prying eyes.

dominatrix
.
disciplining
.
upstart
.
flick the whip
.
unapproachable
.
voice, gaze and body language
.
punishing
.
brought to heel
.
mesmerizing display,
.
iced them.
.
responds
.
belittling
.
strong woman
.
keep him in line
.
master
.
the art of (the) loving
.
refused to meet his eyes
.
she owned him
.
tortured
.
brazenly
.
cut
.
dragged
.
control freak
.
letting her take control.
.
all the vulnerable places
.
Without ever uttering her name
.
laced
.
spank

Now it is a little hard to suss out whether or not Ms. Dowd is trolling for a new lover or telegraphing her erotic shopping list her to an existing one, but from her perch atop the NYT she is without doubt doing one or the other.
.
And while I have my very strong impression of which side of the stockade she wants to be on, whether she likes to be the one on her knees and trembling, or the one circling slowly and whispering is still a trifle ambiguous.
.
What is not difficult to figure out -- regardless of which end of the leash she yearns for -- is that Ms. Dowd very much likes the idea of being put through her paces in front of a crowd.
.
Very, very much likes the idea.
.
And while I respect all of consensual, adult Roads of Excess that lead to the Palace of Naughty, Bad Fun, I really do wish Ms. Dowd would quit twisting reality, bending the politics of people she clearly despises over a barrel, and then flogging it to a pulp just to suit her barely sublimated need for a particular brand of gratification.
.
Write mediocre erotica, Ms. Dowd, or write about politics.
.
Or write both.
.
But as thrilling as it may make you feel down in the ol' Dowd Fun Area, please quit using your column to badly trick out one and pretend it's the other.

, so it is worthless for her to read serious commentary, except in combination with several anticonvulsives, and only as a form of experimental sensory deprivation therapy for her profound psychosis.

OT, but that's kind of the point of my post...
.
I don't know if anyone watched CBS news, but the situation in Mexico is scary. This Guardian piece is also worrying: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-search-outbreak-source I understand that the MSM is trying to calm people, but there are some important questions someone needs to ask. First, is there a procedure for implementing an emergency international public health apparatus in Mexico? We may be nearing that point. Second, what measures are being taken to ensure that stocks of antiviral medication are not unnecessarily depleted? Third, what are authorities doing to ensure that undocumented immigrants (many of whom have undoubtedly been to Mexico recently) with flu symptoms feel free to access medical facilities?
.
There are obvious holes in the official Mexican narrative about the flu. For example, they are maintaining - or at least they were a few hours ago; I haven't checked recently - that no one under the age of 20 has died. That is clearly untrue. And the lack of reliable data from Mexico makes international efforts to evaluate the flu threat far more difficult. Given the transnational nature of these types of illnesses, the public health failures of individual countries put everyone at increased risk. I understand the need to avoid panic, especially since the swine flu does not appear to be especially virulent, unlike SARS with its 15% mortality rate. And I understand the need to respect Mexico's sovereignty. But the media needs to start asking these questions that are just begging to be asked; it's not a matter of seeking out the tough questions, it's a matter of not running away from them.
.
We all hope, and I expect, that we are not moving towards a pandemic. But eventually a pandemic will emerge. When that happens we will need an active media to help keep foreign and domestic governments honest and keep us informed about medical developments.

The public's approval for such things shouldn't be such a big factor as it apparently is. What's right is right. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe the law was broken it should be investigated. In my opinion, public opinion is relevant when it comes to domestic/social policy, but on legal policy, it's simply a matter of right and wrong. It only takes a few moments of interaction with the general public to know that they aren't well-qualified to judge on matter such as these.
.
And sg, Clinton wasn't impeached for "getting some head". He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Just because it was about sex doesn't diminish it. And I seem to remember Clinton's approval ratings going up during the scandal and the Republicans' ratings going down. Also, while they gained the White House in 2000 (535 votes, while a small margin, still counts), they lost ground in the congressional elections (notably losing for Senate seats).