The Bush administration's ability not just to outrage, but to so frequently surpass and resurpass one's capacity for outrage is striking. All that's left now is a cold, callous, cynicism. My understanding is that the country was genuinely shocked to learn about 18 missing minutes on the Watergate tapes. Now what can one say about the hundreds of days of missing White House emails and all manner of dissembling and mumbo-jumbo lurking around the question of what's gone missing.
« On Day One | Main | The Difference »
The Case of the Vanishing Emails
23 Jan 2008 09:01 am
Comments (39)
One can say, "What happened to the subpoena power the Dems talked about so much prior to the 2006 elections?"
Your understanding is correct. I was a kid back during Watergate, more tuned into Saturday morning cartoons than the Saturday Night Massacre, but I remember so many of the plot twists and turns vividly, and the tapes proved the tipping point for the GOP in Congress. It's a true measure of how far the GOP has fallen that one simply can't imagine any Republicans -- zero, zip -- speaking out against this kind of chronic, comprehensive law-breaking. Where's Howard Baker when you need him?
Something I rarely see mentioned is the fact several laws regarding Presidential records retention appear to have been broken. Can you admit you've destroyed records where perfectly adequate (but not utilized) systems existed for retention and then somehow claim you're not to blame for breaking said laws? Who is responsible for saying people are going to be pursued for this and then initiating the prosecution? And what to do if the missing records include the very evidence pinpointing the individuals responsible for failing to preserve or deleting everything? Certainly there's an office called "Records Management and Retention" or some such title with a department head and underlings that need investigated and called to account for their actions. Who are they? Who is investigating them?
The Bush administration's ability not just to outrage, but to so frequently surpass and resurpass one's capacity for outrage is striking.
The key is that they indeed do surpass one's capacity for outrage. If they were quite a bit less bad, there would be outrage all over the country. But they are so unfathomly bad that it's just old news. This phenomenon needs a name. I propose we call it the Bush Phenomenon.
what can one say about the hundreds of days of missing White House emails and all manner of dissembling and mumbo-jumbo lurking around the question of what's gone missing
"Mr. Cheney, you're under arrest"?
The lesson Cheney took from the Nixon White House was that obstruction of justice is only a crime when you fail.
Well, I'd say the most crucial difference between then and now involves control of the national media.
Back then, I'd bet that 90% of the journalists/reporters/newscasters were hostile to Nixon, as were (maybe) 60% of the owners and publishers.
Today, I'd say that at least 60% of the leading journalists/reporters/newscasters are generally supportive of Bush and his neocon friends, together with 90% of the owners and publishers (weighted by media volume).
Basically, the biggest media outlet that's consistently run honest reporting over the last few years is McClatchy/Knight-Ridder, which isn't exactly the New York Times or CBS News in terms of reach and influence. I'll bet lots of elite NYC/DC people had never even previously *heard* of that chain.
It's hardly coincidental that the first action usually taken during a coup is seizing control of all the mass media.
As Orwell said, he who controls the past controls the future and he who controls the present controls the past. To which I would add: "And he who controls the media controls the present."
johnnybutter - awesome. I'm going to use that.
steve duncan - to be fair, anybody in Records Retention who didn't do their job was just following orders from above. Justice will not be served by the inevitable scapegoating of some appointed lackey in that office. We need to follow this paper trail to the top by pulling a bunch of ema....oh. Shit.
On so many fronts, we're in a kind of limbo. Bush is leaving office in a year. The Congressional Democratic party has no spine. And the vox populi is virtually silent. Dozens and dozens of serious violations of the law have been racked up by this administration. And the longer the lawbreaking is seen to have no consequences, the less likely it is that some sudden sluice of outrage will crash down upon the miscreants. It's another face of James Q. Wilson's "broken windows" theory: If crazy badness goes unpunished, maybe it isn't really crazy badness? You know, the Constitution of the Soviet Union was a beautiful thing; the only problem was that no one was there to implement it, so a criminal regime kind of ran things for two generations. Guess what, folks? The laws don't enforce themselves!
It's Bush's advantage in coming after the Clinton administration. Remember the missing phone logs? Recordings of fund raising events in the White house, where the camera was shut off shortly after everyone came in? Political opponents being referred to the IRS for audits?
Each administration sets a new ethical low, starting with what the last administration got away with, and exploring new ethical lows from there. The only way to stop the cycle is for a President to be held accountable for his wrongs, and that only happens if he outrages his OWN party.
Before you start screaming, I did just acknowledge above that Bush is worse than Clinton. If that's not enough, and I've got to pretend Clinton was some plaster saint, you can go do something unmentionable.
Right, Bellmore--just like Bush invaded Iraq because Clinton bombed Kosovo. It's Clinton's fault! It's Clinton's fault! Clinton farted, so Bush had to shit the place up good and proper! It's a historical law!
What's more frustrating is that by the time any of this stuff gets settled, we will be well in to the next presidency. By that time the Democrats will have given it up so as not to appear as if they are on a political witch hunt.
Sure, Bush is unusually dishonest even for an American president; but getting rid of him in another year isn't a real answer. We have a TV election system that consistently selects the most dishonest candidates; and then we don't have an independent branch of government dedicated to policing te other branches. The result is pervasive dishonesty and corruption.
These problems will only get worse. Dishonest politicians aren't going to enact measures to restrain their dishonesty. They will instead devise new ways to lie and steal. The only chance for improvement that I can imagine, unlikely as it is, would be a popular president who uses the bully pulpit to force legislators to enact effective anti-corruption laws and enforcement mechanisms.
Maladministration and criminality become abstractions when there's this much of it. If Bush had been just averagely-bad, Katrina would've 'crippled' his presidency. But it was just a blip - a big one, but still a blip - in a string of disasters. You have a bunch of former-Trotskyite assholes in there, so they probably understand the principle that if you're going to be shitty, it makes sense for you, in a 'rational-actor' (HA) sense, to be REALLY shitty. Stalin knew about this stuff.
Gee, a White House with missing e-mail? Seems like I've heard that before.
But, remember, when the Clinton White Houses loses e-mail, it's a mistake and any attempt to look into the matter is a witch hunt. When the Bush White House loses e-mail, its not just an "outrage", but so heinous that it "surpass[es] and resurpass[es] one's capacity for outrage."
It is clear that the Left's overriding position these days is: IOKIYAD. According to the Left, Democrats never do anything wrong, but if Republicans do the same things as Democrats do, the Republicans surpass one's capacity for outrage.
Sadly, a hackish post.
as a member of one of the more highly regulated industries (securities), I can tell you I would be arrested about 20 nanoseconds after I told the SEC I lost (deleted, destroyed, goldfish ate...) my emails, especially those of potentially interesting content.
I don't care about the clinton vs bush BS; the technology to store and retain emails is now and has been quite stable for quite some time.
Book'em danno.
Such concern for the rule of law is characteristic of liberal fascism.
Actually Al, Democrats and people on the left do nothing BUT accuse each other of doing something wrong, and it's been that way for a long time. Your Leaders know that very well. Of course they love it. Why is Rove almost always smiling in photos? He's smiling with bemused, slightly avuncular affection for the Democrats.
Tell me again why the criminal Bush regime is a legitimate government?
Oh, and I too am reading liberal fascism. Really, good to the last drop.
I am so old, I remember when "missing" info on whatever supposedly secure servers would get posted by a twelve-year-old hacker on slashdot within days of a challenge.
It makes me cry for how unmotivated today's youth are. Where are our new Kevin Mitnicks?
njorl puts it right on the money: cheney's conclusion was that the only thing nixon did wrong was to not burn the tapes.
brett bellmore, of course, is full of it: the nixon administration set a new low in presidential misbehavior that has gone unsurpassed until the bush administration.
Al, of course, is full of it, attempting to create a parallel where none exists because one of his right-wing buddies told him so. among the critical differences: the clinton white house didn't overwrite the backup tapes.
as for outrage: in a sense, the particularity of the 18-minute gap and the loyalty of rosemary woods made it perfectly clear that this was a direct coverup. the extent of the bush malfeasance is almost too big.
As someone who was older during Watergate, I'll confirm the previous posts: it was major news in every twist and turn, and there were moderate Republicans in Congress who responded to what happened. It also helps that the media, and some of the leaders of the Democrats, are in the middle of the primaries.
Al's argument above reminds me of another illustration of the Bush Phenom (although really, it's much older than these idiots): a preposterious argument is sometimes more effective than a plausable-but-wrong one. This sort of stuff is known by many names, no doubt. The American idiom is 'baffle 'em with bullshit...'. It's got to be the lowest form or rhetoric, and of course, they're proud of it.
What strikes me as I read this is that Hillary has her own missing files problem -- and we certainly know that she and Bill have (at best) a tenuous hold on the truth. So anyone who thinks she's going to be anything less than Bush Lite is deluding themselves.
anyone who thinks she's going to be anything less than Bush Lite is deluding themselves.
'Anything less' what?
I remember a time, probably on MY's other blog, when you wouldn't even try to palm off a logical fallacy in the comments (except Al). Whither Effective Deterrence?
hence the problem - you try and bring up the Bush's deliberate law-breaking in terms of things like deletion of the emails to anyone who isn't an interested Democrat, and immediately some ginned-up nonsense about Hillary Clinton is brought forth and the subject is immediately shut down. Back during Watergate you didn't really have that alternative universe for Republicans to cling to in the face of wrong-doing.
Don't worry, Ethel. In one year, the Queen will assume Her throne, and it will be ponies for all. And when she engages in similar activities, Liberal Blaghistan will decree, "B-Dit!" (Bush did it, too!)... and then return to their euphoric haze of ponydom.
It's another face of James Q. Wilson's "broken windows" theory: If crazy badness goes unpunished, maybe it isn't really crazy badness?
And if Bush isn't impeached, it's hard to imagine a GOP president doing anything impeachable for the next 50 years, since he would always be able to cite the fact that Bush left office on his own terms. More inoculation, just as impeaching Clinton inoculated Bush.
Marcy Wheeler has shown how the dates for missing email coincide with the kind of shit that Bush and Cheney want to hide. I don't see why they bothered, since the Dems don't have the spine to do anything about it.
But, remember, when the Clinton White Houses loses e-mail, it's a mistake and any attempt to look into the matter is a witch hunt.
Because Al is a worthless fucking hack, he expects us not to be aware of the problem in that case -- an archiving script that was case-sensitive. Because Al is a dishonest fucking hack, false equivalency is his stock in trade.
Of course, Al's in love with Dan Burton, a man who, if he visits your home, will rifle through your underwear drawer while you're not paying attention.
If I were a well-connected officially-acceptable composer like the perfectly-named John Adams, I'd start working now on my New Serious Opera called 'Rovian Laughter'.
Somewhat like Gregory way up at the top, if the question is 'what do we say about the missing EMails?' the answer is: Mr Cheney, you have the right to remain silent....oops.
We who are old enough to remember the Nixon Gang all are shaking our heads wondering 'where is Martha Mitchell?'
It's amazing that there's been no JohnDean in the WH, no Ellsberg in the Pentagon. The Repubs have purged their ranks of decent conservatives; they no longer tolerate patriots who value the Constitution.
It's sad. We are Rome and Ceasar has crossed the Rubicon.
What seems to have gotten lost here is the curious pattern of what's missing. Go here for more here:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002219
I think it's something of a cross between "outrage fatigue" and DeLong's "it’s worse than you could have imagined, even when you take into account the fact that it’s worse than you could have imagined."
"Brett Bellmore, of course, is full of it: The Nixon administration set a new low in presidential misbehavior that has gone unsurpassed until the Bush administration."
Geeze, what a load of fertilizer. Nixon would have been an ethics improvement over the Clinton administration, and could run against Bush as a reform candidate. You just recall Nixon as some kind of uber nasty because he was ahead of the ethics curve, more corrupt than we'd already been habituated to accept. His corruption was small potatoes compared to what we're used to today.
Try to remember that the reason Nixon fell was that he stopped stonewalling, and complied with subpoenas. And could actually be shamed into resigning from office. Try to remember that he threatened to have the IRS audit his enemies, Clinton actually DID IT.
The reason we're in this handbasket, and it's getting warm, is that neither party is willing to hold it's own accountable. Go ahead, whine about Republicans defending Bush, while you do the same for your crooks, even long after they've left office. Way to offer a good example!
Sometimes I think this country is beyond saving, other days I'm sure of it.
Try to remember that the reason Nixon fell was that he stopped stonewalling, and complied with subpoenas. And could actually be shamed into resigning from office.
Brett, you're a smart guy, but you're ignorant about Nixon. Maybe you're too young to remember. Nixon was going to be impeached and removed - that's why he resigned. Shame had nothing to do wtih it. The only option for him would've been to ignore the Senate conviction vote, a possiblilty that was certainly in the air at the time. I also remind you that Nixon did indeed use the IRS, among other agencies, against his 'enemies', and far more extensively than did Clinton. If Clinton did it, he is not excused, but even if he did, there is a big quantitative difference here. You aren't entitled to your own facts, dude.
On the contrary, as I understand it, while there is extensive evidence that Nixon wanted the IRS to go after his enemies, the record shows that the IRS refused to do it. While we not only know that Clinton asked the IRS to go after foes, (Judicial Watch got an admission of it in court.) but the audits actually happened. Conservative organizations spent the Clinton years being audited, over and over and over, a pattern of harassment that actually continued into the Bush administration, until Clinton appointed Rossotti left his job as IRS commissioner.
So, yeah, there's a qualitative difference, but it's not in Clinton's favor.
How naive. LOTS of 'enemies' were audited during the Nixon years. Kennedy and Johnson were not clean about their use of the IRS either. I don't excuse Clinton at all, but...take a look back at how Dick actually was - worse than Clinton overall, definitely.
"Where are our new Kevin Mitnicks?"
Actually Mitnick wasn't that good as a pure "hacker" able to penetrate systems - not that he couldn't do it in some cases. He was more a "social engineer".
Matt rages about missing emails - and, along with Josh Marshall, ignores the Sibel Edmonds case, which is about massive treason on the part of numerous elected and appointed officials.
While Nixon clearly had connections with organized crime (Bebe Rebozo), I don't know of anyone linking him to the selling of US nuclear secrets to Pakistan, Turkey and Israel like the Clinton and Bush administration crowd.
"Of course, Al's in love with Dan Burton, a man who, if he visits your home, will rifle through your underwear drawer while you're not paying attention."
Speaking of Dan Burton, his face is one of the pictures Sibel posted on her Web site as a "Rogues Gallery" without further comment - implying that he is one of the crooked Congressman involved in selling US nuclear secrets or otherwise being bribed by the American Turkish Council.
Found in Translation
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds spills her secrets.
by Philip Giraldi
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html
" Furthermore, Edmonds says that former House speaker Dennis Hastert and at least two other congressmen were investigated as suspected recipients of illegal political contributions or even bribes from Turkish sources. Her website gallery includes photos of Congressmen Roy Blount, Dan Burton, and Tom Lantos, though she has not otherwise implicated any of the three directly."
Strange how Josh Marshall, with his "All Republican Corruption All the Time" blog - and Matt - isn't interested in this topic. Could it be because Israel is involved in this?
BryklynLibrul, it's bad enough that the GOP doesn't care, but it doesn't appear to me that Democrats care either.
Comments closed February 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
time for a sternly-worded letter! i hope they use a lot of bold text in this one. nothing makes people shape up quite like disapproval expressed with bold text.
over 500 men in Congress, and there's not a testicle among them.
Posted by cleek | January 23, 2008 9:24 AM