I posted an extended guest entry on Crooks and Liars earlier today explaining why I think Ann Coulter should not be ignored by the online community. Since Coulter-fatigue is setting in, I'm posting the entire essay below to reiterate why I believe it's premature to drop the issue and why the media should be held accountable for giving her a platform.
First this (via QandO), from an interview on Right Wing News:
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals...
John Murtha:The reason soldiers invented "fragging."
Here's the definition of "fragging" for those who don't know:
"Frag is a term from the Vietnam War, most commonly meaning to assassinate an unpopular member of one's own fighting unit by dropping a fragmentation grenade into the victim's tent at night. A fragging victim could also be killed by intentional friendly fire during combat. In either case, the death would be blamed on the enemy, and, due to the dead man's unpopularity, no one would contradict the cover story. The intended victim of a fragging was sometimes given warnings, of which the first might be a grenade pin on the sheet of the victim, and later on, a tear gas grenade."
"Absolutely disgusting. I have very little love for Mr. Murtha - and I recently agreed with his opponent Diana Irey when she said his words and actions of late were not that of a patriot. But there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter."
Yet NBC, a major U.S. media outlet, has given Coulter extended play in recent days. They have knowingly given a public forum to a woman who slandered 9/11 widows and who is now on the record identifying a U.S. Congressman, a Marine, as an ideal target for murder.
Here's how I view the Coulter problem (as posted on C&L):
Anybody who watched Ann Coulter's June 14th appearance on the Tonight Show had to realize that it was a watershed moment in the war between the establishment media and the progressive netroots, a community fresh off the successful YearlyKos convention. It was also a signal to Democrats that liberal ideology can be denigrated with impunity. Had the words "Jew" or "Christian" or "Conservative" been substituted for "Liberal" we'd be waking up to a national scandal.
Never mind that Jay Leno and George Carlin sat like trembling lambs while Coulter spewed gutter-level invective at millions of Americans - we've already seen the same obsequiousness from Larry King, Matt Lauer (who ended his faux-debate with Coulter by saying "always fun to have you") and others. The larger issue here is that despite an uproar from the progressive netroots, NBC saw fit to give Coulter a platform to continue her liberal-scapegoating and to slander women who lost their husbands on 9/11. (For the record, many rightwing bloggers denounced Coulter and several Democrats attacked her, but their focus was the substance of Coulter's words, not a criticism of the media outlets who continue to provide her a national forum.)
It's hard to deny that Coulter's words border on incitement. What she says is neither amusing nor smart nor humorous nor factual nor worthy of airing on a major media outlet. It treats a substantial segment of the population as sub-human, as creatures deserving of public scorn and worse (She said Jesus would say that "we are called upon to do battle" on liberalism). Careful not to violate Godwin's Law, I'll refrain from the obvious comparisons, but what we're dealing with here is a dangerous inflection point in American politics. When this kind of opprobrium is peddled by major media outlets, it's high time that the Democratic establishment and the larger progressive community understand that this is a make-or-break showdown with the media.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their ilk have made an industry out of liberal-bashing. Coulter fits in perfectly with those hate-traffickers. And contrary to the false Michael Moore comparisons made by Leno and others, there is no progressive counterpart to these people on the national stage. The basic thrust of the left's critique is that George W. Bush and his administration are bad for America. It is in our tradition for citizens to defend the Constitution and to question the actions of their elected leaders. Rightwingers may characterize it as Bush Derangement Syndrome, but the progressive community, by and large, is going after government corruption and lies, not vilifying an entire group of Americans as Bin Laden-loving traitors.
The issue here is not the damage done to America's public discourse - we already know that liberals have become the equivalent of terrorists in the minds of millions of Americans. Nor is the issue the media's hunger for ratings (what's next, snuff films?) The issue is the establishment media's symbiotic relationship with these rightwing blatherers:
"I've argued that the propagation of anti-left and pro-right narratives by the establishment media is more insidious - and thus more dangerous - than the cowardly bleating of people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh. When Coulter is invited to spout her putrescence on Larry King Live, the legitimacy granted to her is CNN's fault, not Coulter's. After all, there's no shortage of desperate attention seekers willing to say and do outlandish things to get noticed. The question is, why does CNN grant an open forum to this particular whack-job and not others?
The symbiotic relationship between far right screamers and the establishment media dresses up extremist rhetoric in a veneer of decorum. When Tim Russert, David Broder, Chris Matthews, and the New York Times peek into the Clinton bedroom, they are using their supposed 'neutrality' to disseminate rightwing talking points, thereby magnifying the rightwing echo chamber."
I respect those who think ignoring Ann Coulter's hideous rantings is the best way to deal with her. In normal circumstances, she'd be relegated to fringe websites and would be seen as nothing more than a sleazy political circus act. These are not normal circumstances. Attacking someone as disturbed as Coulter is a meaningless endeavor, but as I've written previously:
"This race to the bottom by the establishment media leaves the progressive netroots in a quandary: if the only thing these so-called 'journalists' want is to create an uproar, how do we respond? Some bloggers advocate ignoring slime-traffickers like Coulter and Glenn Beck, others attack them for the scum they peddle. My preferred tactic is to excoriate the media outlet that gives them a forum - it may play into their need for attention, but I think it's imperative for us to create a public record of these media transgressions...
One thing is for sure: responding to Coulter's assertions is pointless. When she speaks the unspeakable about the 9/11 widows ("I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much") and when Glenn Beck does the same (calling hurricane survivors in New Orleans "scumbags" and saying he "hates" 9-11 families), reasoned discussion is not on the table."
There have been dozens of battles in the war between the blogs and the establishment media, from the Deborah Howell fiasco to Chris Matthews to Joe Klein to Tim Russert and more. Sites and blogs like Media Matters, dKos, Atrios, Crooks and Liars, FDL, Digby, Think Progress, TPM, and others are the netroots' front line in this increasingly bitter fight. This latest Coulter incident should be a wake-up call to the larger progressive community and to the Democratic leadership. Parading Coulter on national television is a statement from the establishment media that we don't matter, that our 'pressure' is meaningless, that our voices are worthless.
What's the proper course of action in response to this challenge? For the netroots, it's to keep growing and organizing, to hammer away at those in the media who enable the sliming of 9/11 widows, to respond to such media transgressions with ferocity of wit and will, and to badger elected Democrats and progressive leaders about the media problem.
For those on the left who still have blinders on, the response is to get a clue about what's happening. A good start is to read this series of essays from Jamison Foser, who explains the problem eloquently:
"The defining issue of our time is not the Iraq war. It is not the "global war on terror." It is not our inability (or unwillingness) to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care. Nor is it immigration, outsourcing, or growing income inequity. It is not education, it is not global warming, and it is not Social Security.
The defining issue of our time is the media.
The dominant political force of our time is not Karl Rove or the Christian Right or Bill Clinton. It is not the ruthlessness or the tactical and strategic superiority of the Republicans, and it is not your favorite theory about what is wrong with the Democrats.
The dominant political force of our time is the media.
Time after time, the news media have covered progressives and conservatives in wildly different ways -- and, time after time, they do so to the benefit of conservatives."
You often hear that Wal-Mart simply can't afford to pay its workers more than it does, because then it would have to raise those "always low prices" for which it's so famous. Now I have a problem with the whole concept of "always low prices", but a new study by the Economic Policy Institute points out that the argument's wrong in any case.
According to EPI, Wal-Mart could have raised the wages and benefits of each of its non-supervisory employees in 2005 by more than $2,000 without raising prices a penny and still maintaining a profit margin almost 50 percent greater than Costco (although lower than it is now). So really, there's no excuse.
Okay, I'm a bit confused as to why it's perfectly acceptable to alert every single member of al-Qaeda in Iraq that we have a "huge treasure" of information about them, but somehow it's not okay to discuss the details of a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program in court because doing so would cause "grave harm to United States national security." Never mind, I guess this is the rhetorical question section.
Anyway, it also seems a bit suspicious that Zarqawi just happened to be carrying files on hundreds and hundreds of his associates[~]especially since he was traveling with such minimal security at the time of his death[~]and that that explains why the Iraqi government is now, today, killing so many "insurgents." George Friedman of Stratfor thinks that what's really going on is that the native Sunni insurgents who are really running things have agreed to sell out foreign fighters like Zarqawi in exchange for some sort of political deal with the Iraqi government. Who knows, really?
The plan: pardon some of the insurgents who killed or wounded American soldiers. The Washington Post is reporting today:
"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said."
Surely the Bush Administration must be opposed to this. Insurgents -- "the terrorists" -- set free to perhaps kill again? No way President Bush likes this idea. No.
Q: What are your feelings about discussions in the new Iraqi government of amnesty for insurgents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- I talked to the Prime Minister about -- his question is, possible amnesty. The Prime Minister I think would say "reconciliation." This is an issue that is on the minds of a lot of the folks there in Iraq. In other words, they're trying to figure out how to reconcile an ugly past with a hopeful future. And part of that is reconciliation.
[...]
One of the things I was looking for was -- first of all, I'm convinced this government will succeed. And one of the reasons I am is because there is a sense of hopefulness. If you're a person stuck in the past, you tend to be bitter and look for ways to seek revenge.
[...]
Gregory, fine-looking scarf -- not scarf, what do you call that thing?"
Here's the translation: "Pardoning insurgents is cool but whatever, just so long as Karl's free and I got my photo-op. And Gregory has a scarf. I call him Scarfy! Eh-eh-eh-eh!"
This is the same man who presided over the execution of at least five retarded people in Texas and now he's so focussed on shaping the public perception of the Iraq War, he's willing to sell out the lives of dead and wounded American soldiers.
Bring 'em on has become Set 'em free.
There's more. In the president's opening statement yesterday, he detailed this reconciliation plan but, based on his words, what kind average American watching the event would know that this plan includes freeing insurgents:
"Prime Minister Maliki is promoting reconciliation among the Iraqi people. And during my discussions with his cabinet and others, the concept of reconciliation kept coming up. People know they've got to reconcile the past in order to have a bright future. He told us he's going to soon appoint a reconciliation committee that will focus on resolving specific concerns of different Iraqi communities. We will support his efforts to bring the Iraqis together by encouraging leaders from countries like South Africa to share their experiences with this new government, to help them reconcile the past."
When I heard this section of the president's press conference yesterday, I had no idea that "reconciliation" meant "amnesty" and that "amnesty" referred to insurgents who, in some cases, attacked American soldiers. That's the whole idea, obviously, of using the word "reconciliation". Al-Maliki's White House handlers have taught him the fine art of deliberately deceptive language, a la "Clear Skies" and "Help America Vote". Besides, can you imagine the president telling the press, "We will support his efforts to pardon insurgents who killed our soldiers."
It all comes right back to the defining principle of the Bush Administration and the congressional Republicans: politics trumps everything. The only reason they could ever possibly support something this ridiculous is to keep up the guise that the Iraqi government and the nation as a whole is stable, sweet-smelling, and hunky-dory.
If the president had returned from his photo-op and told the press, "They're going to pardon insurgents who killed Americans. Next question -- Stretch!" the whole idea of the trip would've been entirely negated and instead of fashioning some false hope about Iraq, they'd shoot themselves in the foot -- like always.
But it happened anyway. We have the president on the record saying that he supports al-Maliki's plan to free some of the insurgents who killed our boys, just so long as Karl Rove can provide the president with some false political momentum.
The movie "Road to Guantanamo" arrives just when the debate about Gitmo's secret practices is reaching critical mass: three detainee suicides, yesterday's expulsion of journalists, the growing calls for its closure. News of what goes on there has, of course, been kept to a minimum (but not counterspin, of course), but that is the subject of the new film from Michael Winterbottom (Tristam Shandy, 24 Hour Party People) and Mat Whitecross, a frequent editor on Winterbottom's films. Part documentary, part dramatization, the film tells the story of the "Tipton Three" - three British muslims on their way to a wedding in Pakistan who were captured while crossing through Afghanistan and were sent to Guantanamo, where they were held without charges for two years.
In the clip below (exclusive to the Huffington Post), former detainee Shafiq Rasul recounts a method of torture used by the US Army against the Gitmo detainees: being chained to the floor of a holding cell in a crouch position for up to six hours with a strobe light fixed on his face and deafening music blasting in his cell. In the trailer above, that moment is juxtaposed with Donald Rumsfeld's voice: "The fact remains, the treatment is proper...there is no doubt in my mind that it is humane, and consistent with the Geneva convention, for the most part." That "for the most part" is what "Road To Guantanamo" is all about.
Today from 1-2pm EST on Gather.com, co-director Matt Whitecross will be live to answer questions and discuss theistory; the Tipton Three — Shafiq, Asif, and Ruhel — will field questions as they are posted on the site. Comments may be posted directly to the link above and the livechat will be here.
"Road To Guantanamo" - Exclusive Clip for The Huffington Post:
While I never discuss classified information received during my years in government, as someone with more than twenty years of intelligence and security experience as a Sam Nunn-John Glenn-Bob Kerrey Democrat I have never seen anything even remotely similar to what has been done in the name of our country at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, probably Haditha, possibly in other cases.
The sick truth is, in Iraq and elsewhere, our country is in a battle of ideas with an enemy that commits mass murder against the innocent and there is a real danger, based on recent polling, that President Bush is in danger of losing this battle of ideas and creating a whole new generation of terrorists.
This is incredible, amazing, and unbelievable and future historians will look back on these days, as many around the world do today, with horror that our President and our Congress allowed this travesty against our tradition and good name to continue to this day.
Here is a solution I have offered privately and obviously unsuccessfully, to a number of high officials in both parties. We should demand a full powered independent commission led by a jurist of internationally recognized integrity and honor, such as Sandra Day O'Connor, and composed of respected figures from all points of view at the stage in their career where they will do what is right.
The kind of people who might serve on this commission could include Howard Baker, Nancy Kassebaum, Bob Kerrey, John Glenn, George Mitchell, Alan Simpson, Cardinal Keeler, Elie Wiesl, or others of eminent stature This commission should have complete confidential access to all classified information relevant to potential abuses; they should issue direct advice to the President and Congress and include a public non-classified report, and have the authority to present their finding to any court of law they deem appropriate.
We have become a nation of secret courts, secret trials, secret defendants, secret evidence and a whole tier of fundamental policies to guard our security that compromise a virtual secret government in key regards which is an open invitation to abuse, with horrifying damage to our national honor, tradition and moral crediblity throughout the world.
We have had an executive branch that claims unilateral power to violate the constitution, our bill of rights and our laws of the land; they claim the power to do this in secret; and then they seek to prosecute, intimidate or bully those who believe that in America we are a nation of laws, with ultimate power residing in an informed citizenry.
There have been efforts to ignore and bypass courts and Congress; and both parties in the Congress, including far too many Democrats, have been derelict in their obligation for oversight. As many checks and balances have been unilaterally surrendered as taken away, and taken together, the abuses that have become far too common are in fact inevitable results of secret government that openly dishonors the very notion of the rule of law.
Having dealt with sensitive intelligence information I am well aware and accept that there must be some limits to public disclosure. For this reason I propose a fairly small number of nationally and globally respected figures who have a history of being trusted with confidential information, and the honor and integrity to fight in appropriate ways for simple justice and the rule of law.
I have written and said this many times, the single most despicable and unacceptable statement I have ever heard in my lifetime of public life, was when Alberto Gonzales described the Geneva Convention as some sort of quaint relic. Geneva was put in place to protect not only our values, but our troops who in my experience, from the Joint Chiefs to the newest enlisted men and women, support Geneva and the values and ideas behind Geneva in overwhelming and almost universal numbers.
It is staggering, that our country has a Vice President who is in fact, the leading lobbyist for torture, of any public figure, who has ever served in a comparable position, in any major democratic nation. It is Orwellian how those who defend this, are usually the same people who mocked and scorned President Clinton for defining what is, is, while they triangulate and evade the hard truth, of what torture, is.
Donald Rumsfeld, in one of his famous memos, once asked, correctly, whether the policy is creating more terrorists than it kills. The blunt and hard truth is, it almost certainly is, and at the least, the continuing toleration of torture and abuse by any name is doing extreme damage to the safety of our troops, is creating new generations of terrorists, and does grave damage to the very policies the President asserts are the most important to our nation.
America does not do torture; we do not do war crimes; we do not cover them up; we do not hide them; we do not redefine them; we do not excuse, tolerate, triangulate or condone acts that are contrary to our national heritage, that destroy our honor and reputation in what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind, that create more danger for our troops today, and threaten our communities tomorrow, which may someday be attacked by new terrorists recruited by enemies who exploit the outrage generated by this conduct.
At this point, rather than trust a president or Congress that have allowed this infamy to damage our country for so long, it is time for a highest level, maximum credibility, fully independent commission to put a stop to this, now and forever, once and for all, and send a message to our people and the world that will restore our unquestioned moral leadership, at a time when it is more urgently needed than ever.
