I will tell you why Maddow's "Hubris" aired NOW and not back then. And you won't like it.

[CoffeeCat]

I apologize for my cynicism, but this is basically the sad and cold situation.

The neocons wanted war with Iraq long before Bush launched it. Iraq was their springboard into the Middle East that would give them a foothold in the region from which to launch a series of conquests--Iran, Syria, Libya. That is not drama or me making up nonsense. That is what the PNACers (or neocons) posted on their very own website: http://www.newamericancentury.org in their manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

It's all there.

And they begged then-President Clinton for war with Iraq in 1998. Need proof? Here's the letter that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other assorted neocons wrote to Clinton: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

They were going to invade Iraq--come hell or high water. Part of pulling off this lie-based farce was to quell opposition and to control the media. The reason that the Rachel Maddow show or Anderson Cooper Live didn't feature a truth-telling expose of the Iraq War--was because these neocons control the corporations that own the media.

They wouldn't allow it.

Do you know why it's being allowed now? It's being allowed because the Iraq War is a fait accompli. It's irreversible. It's done. There's not a damn thing we can do. What do they care if we ruminate and complain and call for Dick Cheney to be put in prison? They love our whining. It's political porn for them.

You want the linchpin to almost every horrible thing these neocon bastards have done to our country? It's a couple of sentences that Karl Rove said in 2008 to Ron Suskind, the New York Times Magazine reporter. While at the White House, researching an article on President George Bush, Suskind asked Rove a question about the war on terror and Rove snapped back:

"Guys like you are in--what we call--'the reality-based community'. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Maddow's "Hubris" was truthful, necessary and I commend her for it. However, per usual--it is irrelevant to the reality that these psychopaths are creating. They're onto their next crimes by the time we're allowed to talk about what they've done.

It's the same formula with the mortgage implosion, the BP oil disaster, fracking, climate change, the demonizing and dismantling of our public education system, drones, The Patriot Act, torture, Guantanamo, election theft, corporations being categorized as 'people', illegal wiretapping, the militarization of our police and on and on and on...

They do what they want. They're "history's actors" doncha know? They control the messaging, as they want. We get to watch Rachel Maddow and read Taibbi and ruminate over the two-hour Frontline scandals---months, if not years, after the crimes have been committed and the criminals are well into their next project.

It's disgusting, but that is the reality. It doesn't have to stay this way, but for now--it is this way.

[Puzzledtraveller]

1. I can agree

[SkyDaddy7]

162. Seriously, imagine this...

How different the world would be had the SCOTUS not selected W & allowed a state wide recount. And folks say elections don't matter & the two parties are the same...BULLSHIT!!

Our relations with Russia & Iran could have been much better had we had a smart Commander in Chief after 9/11...Both countries were more than willing to help us & Iran even offered to help with no conditions because both countries fear the Taliban & Al Qaeda...But Boy Blunder basically told both countries to fuck off & it cost us big time!!

Not to mention the Iraq War cost $1.5 TRILLION to $3 TRILLION dollars & untold amount of dead on both sides...Could you imagine how much that $1.5 TRILLION to $3 TRILLION could help us right now??

I could go on & on from stem cell research to almost every domestic program to religious nuts dominating our judicial system...The Bush Administration crush the USA!!

We have literally lost more than a decade as we try to repair the damage done by Republicans in full control!!!

[chimpymustgo]

165. You wanna talk 9/11? The neocons admitted they needed a "Pearl Harbor-type event" to invade Iraq.

They got it.

Yes, they are the actors. The murderers, the plunderers, the thieves. And we are the shocked and awed.

[leveymg]

177. If you really study how they did it, all they have to do is nothing. It doesn't even have to be on

purpose to create a "Pearl Harbor-type event." All that one need do is allow password protected compartmentalized programs to operate with no outside accountability according to their own classified rules, remove some inner controls, and allow the system to proceed to it logical, inevitable conclusions. 9/11. The Iraq War. The Global War on Terrorism.

Operation Cyclone was originally created at Langley in the 1980s with the Saudis and Pakistanis to recruit and organize Islamic terrorists worldwide -- including cells in the U.S. -- to fight the Russians in Afghanistan (later in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and a dozen less-known conflicts in oil-rich regions). A number of similar successor programs were spun-off and are still run by their own rules, with only the most superficial oversight.

In 2000, the Director took personal interest in one such program, after an al-Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur is attended by several CIA double-agents, but interest wanes later at the top after the President makes it clear he doesn't want to know the details, "You've covered your ass, now."

These same programs routinely allow the members of terrorist attack cells under surveillance into the country, even though some don't even have proper visas. Notification cables drafted by an FBI liaison officer at the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CIA/CTC) in 2000 was ordered withheld, because the program and the cover of foreign liaison agencies operating inside the U.S. would be jeopardized if every Bureau gumshoe in Minneapolis was alerted every time a program operative was let in. The program's management no longer does its own control of the terrorists - most of that is palmed off to "friendly" foreign agencies. Some are less than friendly, and themselves are the tools of other third-parties, who are delighted to see "the world's last rogue superpower" overextend itself.

There is no accountability even after the inevitable catastrophe results. Those involved in management of the programs get medals and retirement bonuses, and those with the greatest personal knowledge are appointed to the Boards of privatized intelligence and paramilitary firms and become very rich on Agency contracts. The system is so highly classified that nothing can be done publicly to anyone who runs it - it is fail-safe, designed only to protect itself. The system creates its own cover stories, including a cast of international scapegoats, villains and victims who are expendable, and the wars begin with the nation's leaders enjoying 90 percent approval. Anyone smart enough can see where this will lead, if you just do nothing.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. I hear what you're saying

I viewed that little quote as a Mein Kampf moment. At the time people thought it was Cheney, was it confirmed as Rove? Same shit, different piles. But man, what a moment of clarity. This is what they believe, this is how they will act, and damned if they weren't telling the truth! No lie there, no sir! Shit, it's like the villain monologuing.

I think it's important only so much as for those of us in the reality-based community, communicating with people persuadable by facts. If we establish they lie, cannot be trusted, then future statements can be disregarded.

The question as whether the country at large can be persuaded by facts or are all bovine-eyed idiots waiting to be led by the nose into the next misadventure, visions of bread and circuses dancing in their heads.

So this raises a very dangerous question. Do we fight them on our terms of theirs? Do we fight fire with fact or fight fire with fire? At this point I'm of the opinion that the gloves should come off and we go to the mattresses, wage total war. Exterminate them. Find out every dirty secret and ruin them politically. Who are they fucking, who do they owe money to, who has markers to call in, every bit of dirt we can find and end them. Hound them from public life. Because if we don't, they come back like fungus. They need to have a reputation lower than Nazis, rapists and pedophile priests. They need to be branded as war criminals and enemies of civilization.

Republicans praised Ford's pardon of Nixon and this just meant that his henchmen were able to come back with the Iraq war.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

8. It's possible to do both.

That is, to employ both tactics - with the caveat that they are not mutually exclusive. I'm a big believer in not having my adversary frame the debate for me. I will call them out on it each and every time. Also, armed with facts it is possible to "wage total war." The media, in the rare times that they did actually report facts, was too timid, or danced around the issue, or otherwise implied, that even though they were reporting facts, there was a 'legitimate' counterpoint to be addressed - which is totally self-defeating. Some counterpoints, when not based in reality, do not deserve to be debated in the public arena. Would the media put on a white supremacist to get his/her perspective on race relations? Surely not! But they did with these neoconservatives, even though they admit that their policies are not rooted in reality!

So, yes, we can fight fire with fire, and fight fire with facts.

[jollyreaper2112]

36. the problem with the media

It's the same as came out on Jon Stewart recently, talking with an insider from the government side of regulating finance. You don't play the game, you're cast out. And out is a very cold, unfriendly place to be.

Business, government, media, they're all in cahoots. You play the game, don't make waves, get along and get ahead. Calm, steady promotion and advancement up the ladder. Esepcially between government and industry, there's that old revolving door.

If a reporter inside the beltway burns people, and by burn I mean tells too much truth, he's not invited to parties anymore, he loses access, he becomes worthless to his employer.

In smaller organizations, this sort of buddy culture lasts until a fuckup of such magnitude occurs that it's blasted to pieces, new people move in to assume control and are terrified about a repeat blasting. This is what should have happened with the exposure of the war lies, 2008 financial crisis, etc, but consequences never happened.

It's just like Senator Wide Stance. A democrat gets caught in a sex scandal, he resigns. A republican is caught, he'll try to brazen it out. He doesn't actually have to leave unless he's impeached. And that's how Larry Craig finished out his term.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. You get no argument from me.

The corporate/media/government confluence is a major problem that needs to be addressed. It is, effectively, fascism - even though no one once to broach that subject.

[HiPointDem]

103. 'A democrat gets caught in a sex scandal, he resigns'...uh, clinton?

[jollyreaper2112]

110. depends on your value of sex scandal

Clinton didn't commit any sort of sex crime. Cheating on his wife is not a criminal offense even if it could be grounds for divorce.

What he did do, and is unforgivably stupid, is give the Republicans ammunition. No, he did more than that. He knew they wanted to put a bullet through his skull and he bought them a gun, a bullet, loaded it into the gun, put it in their hands with finger on the drigger and stuck it in his mouth. There was a goddamn bow on it.

Now contrast with Spitzer. While I think that anti-prostitution laws are stupid, he is a sitting governor who broke the law, laws that he put people in jail for breaking as attorney-general. Likewise, Senator Wide Stance was doing the public bathroom sex thing which is also illegal. That's not what bothered me so much as his vociferous attacks on homosexuals. I don't care that he's a pervert (and by that I mean the bathroom sex, that's kinky), he's a goddamn hypocrite. That's my problem with him.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. They will "come back like fungus."

Why?

Because we elected some influential Democrats who took "impeachment off the table," who will not go after war profiteers, who will not prosecute happy, openly-admitted war criminals, and whose political stance is that "It could be worse under the Republicans."

Because such influential Democratic politicians not only defeat the efforts of other Democratic politicians who value traditional Democratic values, they have triangulated and adopted many of the Republican values, and repeatedly betrayed their base.

Because such politicians know that the American middle-class (or what was the American middle-class) is hurting economically but they promote policies which continue to hurt what is left of the American middle-class for the benefit of the rich and international super-rich.

As ignorant and stupid as many Republicans are, sooner or later they will get around to supporting Republican candidates with Ronald-Reagan type personalities whose public policies will be in alignment with the influential Democratic politicians mentioned above.

Do we want endless wars with unprosecuted war criminals? We don't, but that's what we got. Do we want even more let's-send-jobs to foreign countries "free-trade" agreements? No, if you are a thinking person who is part of the American middle class.

Name any traditional Democratic value that you can - including the right to privacy, the right to due process of law, and support for Social Security - and you will find influential Democratic politicians who are like or are ready to be like Republicans on the issue.

What will really bring back the Republicans "like fungus" is something similar to the assault-weapons ban of the 1990's which led to the 1994 defeat of a great many Democrats in Congress (per Bill Clinton in his biography, as one source). Suposedly, people like Rahm Emanuel who said that liberals are "fucking retarded," purport to believe that all good liberals are in favor of gun control even when gun-control proposals are irrational and include banning cosmetic features.

Count on it. The Republicans will "come back like fungus."

[jollyreaper2112]

41. Vichy Dems

The problem is that it's still a one-party country, corporate party. I admit I hate the Republicans a lot because they're so openly evil but the Dems give them cover, good cop vs. bad cop, both work for the same police force.

I think there's more light between the parties at the local level but, nationally, they're the same thing. They're all working for the same billionares, chasing the same dollars, and enriching themselves off the same cons.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. Yes. Veni, Vidi, Vichy.

[jollyreaper2112]

70. I'll bastardize the Latin

I came, I saw, I sold out?

[disndat]

174. The fungus analogy

may be too pessimistic. Not until a large majority of blacks and hispanics becomes Republicans after becoming fully integrated in the U.S. society and economy, a long time off, or "when pigs fly."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

175. When a well-known influential 3rd-Wayer participated in the promotion of Republican principles

in the name of Democratic Party and then said with respect to Democrats that do not want Republican principles and 3rd-Way actions, "Where are they going to go," that indicates that they are already among us.



Do those persons with a (D) after their names who think similarly need to have an official (R) after their names?

[xxqqqzme]

90. "...his henchmen were able

to come back with the Iraq war." Which is why I call Ford's placement as VP, the first coup d'etat.

[cali]

3. There is not ONE SINGLE new thing in 'Hubris'

and anyone paying even a little bit of attention knew fucking well that that the IWR was based on bullshit and lies and that it was a blank check. That's not bullshit. It's FACT. Of course as you should know, neither Maddow or Cooper had a show back then but it was being said by Keith, for instance.

This bullshit lie that no one spoke out is totally unfair to the many who did. Consider educating yourself instead of making shit up.

Here's some evidence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022397306

[Fantastic Anarchist]

9. Respectfully, I didn't take that away from the OP at all.

I was speaking out and paying attention at the time, as well. I think the media chose to ignore that. I remember record breaking protests (which I was a part of) in the US and internationally. There were a few alternate media such as DemocracyNow! and others, such as Keith (a bit after the start of the war, if I recall).

But I don't think that is what the OP implied.

[Tippy]

19. Very good cali....

When the Maddow piece broke...I sat down and cried for my kids. I always figured that if I figured out what was going on back then where were all the so called smart people...Why were they alowing our Country to go to War...

[yardwork]

63. The OP didn't say that nobody spoke out. Calm down.

[zeemike]

83. You have to read between the lines.

"Non one spoke out (that counted)
And those many of us that did where just blown off and accused of being a CTer because we provided a motive for it.
Even the few in congress that spoke up were marginalized and threatened with the "support the troops" crap.

[CoffeeCat]

97. Wow, you are dead wrong in your interpretation of what I wrote...

That is fine. You seem a bit too out of sorts for me.

[JuniperLea]

115. You got that right!

DU was ablaze with discussion, and links. There is absolutely nothing new... unless the masses in total finally buy that clue card.

[BlueStreak]

133. There is plenty of truth in the OP

MSNBC is no different from any other big media outlet. They are looking for a niche that will give them high enough ratings to sell the advertising that pays the bills. It ain't nuthin' but a business proposition.

But I think there is one element to that that the OP overlooked. The fact that MSNBC thinks it is helpful (to their bottom line of course -- nothing else really matters) to air that story now is evidence of a shifting landscape. There is plenty of other evidence: The election of people like Warren, the loss of Faux ratings, the collapse of Limbaugh's syndication revenue, etc.

So we should celebrate the fact that there is enough of a shift to cause MSNBC to change their calculations, even if it would have been a lot more helpful to do this much sooner.

I do think it is interesting that Maddow began with the parallel to the Gulf of Tonkin, and noted that it took 10 years for there to be a real backlash against that. It has been 10 years since we were railroaded into war and we really don't have the "Gulf of Tonkin Backlash" yet. Maybe this will be the beginning of a period of truth telling.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. Very good point and astute observation.

One minor question: Was Maddow a media journalist back prior to, or during the invasion? I know it's totally irrelevant to your thesis, but I just wanted to know for information purposes.

Great OP. Thanks for posting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Air America

[Fantastic Anarchist]

24. Ah, forgot about that.

[patrice]

44. A LIFE saver for my sanity in those days! nt

[treestar]

5. Very true

The good news is they are being caught out at it. The media is on them all the time and they don't have a gentleman's club type mentality any more.

[Buzz Clik]

6. It's not like Keith Olbermann never talked about this stuff.

We heard it every night. The facts were there, and we heard them.

[karynnj]

31. Rachel did not have a show in 2002 or 2003.

I don't think Olbermann did either.

I think that once the inspectors were in in late 2002 (after the vote), the facts became clearer to people reading the news. It was still confusing as papers like the NYT and WP that I (and and I suspect others) had trusted for years were among the most dishonest. The protests were largest in January/February 2003 and public opinion WAS changing against war - though we were still considerably below 50%. I suspect that the IWR did delay war about 5 to 6 months - but Bush was going with or without a resolution - and no matter what caveats and conditions were included in the resolution.

Going completely off target, looking back at this now leads me to a thought on Democrats vs Republicans. In the current period of Republican obstruction, that might in retrospect show the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Almost all Democrats rejected the original version of the bill (no vote, just comments) and they worked hard in committee and in the Senate to change the worst parts of the language. This did result in a bill that listed (with no teeth) the steps Bush told them he would take before going to war - unlike the original Lieberman version. What it did then was to pull in Democrats leery of Bush but believing that they should help give the President leverage to negotiate inspections and peace. The Republicans have since conflated that vote 5 months before Bush started the war with the decision to start the war - even though by March ANY doubts about possible WMD were not reality based. In October 2002 no inspectors had been there since 1998. They then have taken CONDITIONAL statements (using words like "if&quot on that possibility by Democrats as equivalent to the outright lies of the Bush administration. This vote really is a good example of where the Democrats desire to compromise and work together led to votes that most of them now regret and hate - even as they know what was in their hearts at that point and likely that the in terms of whether there was to be war, it did not matter (and the Downing Street memos back that war was happening regardless) However, even voting this down would not have precluded war (especially as the next Congress was controlled by Republicans), it did give the Republicans the ability to say that it was bipartisan.

Obviously the Republicans, on literally everything have done the opposite in the last 4 years. They will not even vote for things that they were SPONSORS of in past years. It was so disheartening to see that this was not just the right wing, but people like Collins and Snowe who voted against things like a healthcare plan - that in the Finance committee - Snowe voted for so as not to be on the wrong side of history. Yet having said that, she was a "no" in the full Senate.

The Hagel nomination is pathetic and I suspect it comes down to nothing more than that Hagel did not move lock step with the Republicans on foreign policy. His position was actually not far from that of Lugar, the Chair of committee. Even before 2004, they were cautioning Bush on how they were conducting the war - and they were both quoted in the debates by Kerry. It was not until 2007 that Hagel vocally supported virtually all the Democrats who were against the surge. (In 2006, he did not support Kerry/Feingold, but after he and Warner visited Iraq in (I think) August, they both moved behind the idea that a time line to get out or a deadline was needed.) Bush was pushed to define a timeline - and it was that timeline that gave Obama cover to get out.

In addition, Hagel was honest enough to publicly repeat what the SFRC hearings had spoken of - that it was not so much the surge, but the fact that the Sunni leaders turned against AQ, wanting to end the violence that led to Iraq becoming less violent. The media has backed the Bush/Cheney/McCain view that it was the surge that fixed everything - and that gave more power to those supporting a huge surge in Afghanistan. (That Gates and Clinton backed it is part of why Obama went with a more moderate version of the surge proposed, but still far more than people like Biden, Kerry, and Reid had spoken of.)

Still, even if this is an attempt to "win" the verdict of history. it is still amazing that there are so few Republicans willing to take the position of Feingold, who voted for people like Dr Rice who he never agreed with, because he said a President should get the cabinet of his choice unless there is a serious disqualifier.

[randome]

7. Corporate conspiracies mean nothing if people stand up for the truth.

A lot of people stood up for the truth during the Iraq war. But not enough.

[KaryninMiami]

15. Correct-aside from Keith and Air America - there was no public outcry of the outrage

I think the media was very much to blame. None of the mainstream investigative reporters had the courage to take this on- head on. Sunday talking heads were totally one sided- Chaney and the rest of the criminals were given full reign to dump their lies and distortions on the American people and did so non-stop. Had someone- anyone- with a national megaphone started really questioning what the hell was going on- we might have had some action sooner. Even the NY Times played along- remember Judy Miller? Keith was great but Cable is not national news. Part of the reason might have been that the main sponsors of these media outlets were afraid to rock the boat or were in cahoots with the GOP- but it was extremely upsetting for those of us who knew what was going on- not to see anyone of media stature, stand up and stay THESE ARE ALL LIES or even question the garbage being barraged into our living rooms. It was disgusting frankly- and those reporters were not doing their jobs. Perhaps now there's an opening and in the future they will do their jobs as reporters- we can only hope.

[IdaBriggs]

20. *Except for the millions of people who took to the streets. nt

[dhill926]

25. yep....

and very little coverage of it, as I remember...

[JuniperLea]

117. All day long on CSpan...

Bawled my eyes out all day... plenty saw it.

[KaryninMiami]

30. Yes- I was one of them but the media barely covered it.

I remember they even lied about how many of us were out there marching. Without support from the media, we were never going to make a big impact.

[6000eliot]

157. Put 10 teabaggers on the corner and see what coverage they get.

[truedelphi]

118. + 10 million (Number of people world wide who protested) n/t

[HiPointDem]

153. keith & air america didn't exist when the war started. there was basically no one in the msm

questioning the narrative.

the biggest antiwar force at the time was the 'far left,' e.g. the answer coalition, which was doing most of the heany lifting on organizing demos, etc.

and they were vilified.

olbermann didn't start questioning the central narrative till years later,

[maddiemom]

166. Well, there was Phil Donahue,

and we know what happened there, despite the fact he had MSNBC's highest rated show.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. Google "Operation Mockingbird." They say that it has been discontinued. n/t

[OldDem2012]

58. Maybe the name has, but not the operation itself. nt.

[haikugal]

73. Thank You for this...

[forestpath]

12. K&R

[Coyotl]

13. The reason humanity seems like a mindless zombie consuming life is

it is. There are myriad actors doing what they please, and the sum of all the actions is endangering all life on the planet. What needs to happen is for there to be some kind of "mind" in charge of the human experiment which responds to the collective interest instead of everyone taking care of their personal; interests to the periil of the group. That "mind" has to be the mindset of a global cultural revolution that is reality-based and supplants the current ego-manical and delusional religious view that humans dominate nature.

[bullwinkle428]

14. Charlie Pierce just made a GREAT point about "Hubris" on Steph Miller's show this A.M.

He said that they really had to soft-pedal the media complicity angle simply because of Tim Russert's efforts in particular, to whip up a frenzy for America to "get their war on"!

[grasswire]

35. MSNBC was complicit.

I suppose Jack Welch had something to do with that.

I remember every day they ran their prettiest employee out in front of the American flags to do a segment about the soldiers that were killed that day, and the heroes who were serving. I wonder what those women think now, having participated in the slaughter.

[Mnpaul]

109. and they still are

This is nothing but a fluff piece. I posted this in the Youtube thread:

No mention of the fact that Bush pulled security clearances for almost everyone in congress

No mention of the fact that ElBaradei debunked the Niger documents in less that an hour using Google and how those documents ended up on Feith's desk. ElBaradei quickly noticed that even the names of the people holding offices in the documents were wrong.

No mention of the terrorist training camps lie that were really anti-terrorism training camps set up by the Brits. The anti part was omitted from weapons inspector reports.

No mention of the lie that weapons inspectors were denied access which was contradicted by the actual report by Blix and no mention of how the media distorted his comments.

No mention of the fact that the "mobile weapons labs" were really hydrogen generators for weather balloons sold to Saddam by the Brits.

No mention of the fact that Democrats in the Senate wanted a deeper investigation into the Curveball claims by the FBI but were blocked by the Republicans.

No mention of the fact that members of Congress only had limited access to the intel and were forbidden from discussing the intel before voting.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. you said it way better than I did. nt

[Solly Mack]

17. k/r

[Baitball Blogger]

18. It's true. They create their own reality.

Just like Marie Antoinette created her own reality.

[City Lights]

21. Excellent post!

Maddening, but true!

[wiggs]

22. That quote should be in front of the public every day. It's importance

can't be overstated.

Not sure it was Rove that said it, but someone similar in the administration.

[TheProgressive]

23. Thanks for this...

I just shake my head in disgust on what they get away with...

[global1]

26. Wow!!! When I Read That Quote By Rove - It Makes The Hair On The Back Of My Neck Stand Out....

Just re-read this and consider how sinister this is:

"Guys like you are in--what we call--'the reality-based community'. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

And Rove is - in some circles - respected? He is considered a spokesperson in the Repug party?

As an aside:

This makes me think of the office that BushCo wanted to set up. I recall something about an office that provided disinformation or was to dissiminate disinformation. Can anyone expand on this if you recall what I'm thinking about.

[JuniperLea]

116. Can't expand, but have a recollection of it...

Reading this again makes me realize why Rove had that deer in the headlights look when he was trying to argue that all the votes weren't in yet...

[watoos]

27. The MSM is controlled by 6 multi-national corporations

and yes, they control the narrative. There were record numbers of Keystone, and climate change protesters in DC last weekend. Little coverage of it. Wait for a dozen T/baggers to meet on a street corner and all of the press will show up.
I used to go to the Huff Post quite often, but now, since being taken over by AOL, a CPAC sponsor, they are getting bad.
The biggest lie out there, and it is propped up by the media, is that the media is liberal.

[MuseRider]

28. Creating reality

for all of us no matter how we feel about it. Nice guys. Thanks a pant load.

Great post. Sickens me each and every time and it continues. We have to get ahead of them and stop it. You can not win running after and spending all your time on the backside of things but it is very very hard to get in front of this kind of thing.

Thanks.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

29. The key was owning the media.

Now they can do what they want and it will be buried beneath the lasted fake news story like the cruise from hell.

[grasswire]

32. In 2001, Ann Coulter said....

...."we're in charge now, and we're going to make you like it."

They will not stop until they feel some pain.

[patrice]

33. Agreed. And an important part of the implementation of the whole thing has been the recognition

of the necessity, even though they own the media and government and the Pentagon, of DOING the one on one, face to face, piece of building their base and they have two groups of functionaries for that: churches and employers.

Some of the enforcement from those two agents, churches and employers, is outright intentionally strategic, managed by folks like Ralph Reed and James Dobson, the Koch brothers, ALEC, Chambers of Commerce, and the NRA, but some effects are de facto propaganda, amongst, more or less ignorant, more or less naive grassroots, that is, the alleged spontaneous fruits of all of the cultural engineers and the social inertia that their deliberate actions set in motion.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think the best way to respond to what you describe is to address that face to face piece in a way that works better than it has previously. The reason it works so well for the 1% and their LiberTea Tories is because it's happening in churches, where there's a social motive for civility and compliance, and in the workplace, where there's a financial motive for civility and compliance.

Those two environments need to be effectively addressed. In our state, a past attorney general, Phil Kline, even outright bragged about campaign fund raising in our churches and has been protected ever since by the Republican party for giving the green light on such activities. Now, our state has regular Justice Sundays in which national campaigns to elect our entire judiciary are implemented.

Trying not to over-simplify here. I recognize the profound challenge you sketch, CoffeeCat, just trying to suggest there are steps we could take, but are ignoring because they represent a different kind of commitment than conventional, and obsolete, political models, and I think one step that should be fully prioritized would be to go around the Torie propaganda apparatus and go directly to the people themselves to commit to face to face with one another and then to DIFFERENT others.

[haikugal]

77. This is important

Well said Patrice...I concur. Could this be why the administration cut down OWS the way they did? We were making headway with this message.

[patrice]

98. I'm not sure they did. There were some people around OWS who were close to others who

are racists, whether "OWS" knew that or not. The corporate personhood money is driving a bunch of freelancers. Gadsen's flag was NOT just a symbol; it is a rallying point for many people with legitimate social and economic justice problems, plus a small active committed and well funded minority moving toward states' rights possibly in the same manner as we have seen come to light in Wisconsin NRA activists recently.

I physically supported our Occupy with my presence for over a year. OWS is essentially anarchic (although I understand there are various shades and grades of anarchy, which I'm not familiar with); this means that what you see is not necessarily what anyone gets. Then there are many social drivers out there which can be exploited: long-standing authentic economic injustice; War CRIMES; police brutality; environmental change; ethnic and gender-based infringement of Civil Rights; immigration; 2A claims being made about militias armed with assault weapons of the sort that turned up in Wisconsin; Veterans' issues; anti-women's rights, not only choice to reproductive services, but another REAL biggie, pay parity; churches, a big one in our area, speaking in support of Civil War II; the war on drugs, especially as it is being affected by the possibility of the legalization of cannabis and hemp; homelessness; EDUCATION . . . .

Throw all of that together and tell them to do their GAs and get AUTHENTIC horizontal empowerment going on, which is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF CULTURE and a RADICALLY different cognitive paradigm, and see what comes of it. Even if an environment like that wasn't being intentionally exploited in specifically organized way, it was extremely vulnerable and paranoid in ways that can easily produce violence. Some Occupies were homogenous enough to overcome these factors and put things together for horizontal empowerment and proceed. Others just generated more chaos and, whether some of the more destructive influence was intentional or just the effect of anarchy upon people with more or less (but mostly way LESS) personal resources to process it functionally, the fact is that dysfunctions don't get better in that kind of environment and in some cases whatever chance those who deserved a chance the most might have gotten in that environment, that chance can be (and was in a few instances) thrown away by other more or less intentional and not entirely manifest purposes, some of them with REAL options other than the Occupy.

So, I don't think it was OWS itself, whatever that was, that became a matter of concern and, btw, there are still some strong OWS relationships out there alive and functioning in other ways now. I think some doors are even still quite open for OWS in re specific issues. Different OWS had different experiences. There are some great ones that I have personally visited and met in our own camp.

But, as much as I try to be an authentic revolutionary for the people, there's a basic principle I CANNOT turn away from no matter how many times I reality test it: talk of violent overthrow of our government is fascism and those who engage in that sort of thing (for whatever their personal and private reasons) are WRONG.

Perhaps when people are reacting to what they assume is the Obama administration's negative judgement of OWS itself, they should consider a question as to whether that's a reaction to the principles and processes (AUTHENTIC horizontal empowerment), i.e. the identity, of OWS or a reaction to what some behavioral factors could, or possibly were, doing with it (e.g. Black Block), or is their reaction to others' reactions (e.g. Obama administration's reaction) a reaction to a label.

It is a true thing about OWS GAs, btw, that the Block-with-Intention-to-LEAVE was an essential aspect of the vitality of the revolutionary process itself, as a self-propagating function, whether any of it ever bears the label OWS or not (though I'd bet there was, on the average, no specific concrete commitment to Block-with-Intention-to-Leave, even though that is how things worked out in a de facto manner in our own Occupy). As a teacher, I approve of that trait, Block-with-Intention-to-Leave, for the potential that it creates for individuals to adapt appropriately in order to manifest personally identified values ir-respective of the politically charged labels that they wear. "Lather, rinse, repeat."

[TheKentuckian]

151. I still don't get the practical definition

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

The merger of state and business, according to Mussolini.

I can see authoritarian but fascist in a world with folks alive that remember the regimes that embraced the governing system seems to be a disservice and a dangerous conflation.

It also gives cover to the direction of our system for a generation.

[patrice]

154. General usage: intolerant views or practices; strong demogogic approach; obedience to strong leader

contempt for democracy.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism

I will try to switch to fascistic.

[TheKentuckian]

185. Okay, I see where you are coming from.

I think it makes it kind muddy on a political site but I get what you mean.

[Marr]

37. It aired now in response to McCain's questioning of Hagel.

He attempted to grill Hagel with a line of questioning that assumed the invasion of Iraq was righteous. Maddow rightfully noted the night after that hearing that if the establishment cannot even acknowledge the invasion of IRAQ as-- at the very LEAST, a mistake-- then we're only setting ourselves up to repeat this same kind of fiasco in the future.

The same people who perpetrated that shameful fraud back then are attempted to rewrite history now. They are no less delusional, and those delusions are no less dangerous.

[deutsey]

38. I thought of that quote as well in regard to "Hubris"

It sounds just like something O'Brien would've said to Winston Smith in 1984, doesn't it?

[MynameisBlarney]

39. Maybe I'm wrong

but I don't think this film existed back then, did it?

[patrice]

50. CoffeeCat may be referring to the fact that ALL of the necessary information was publicly

available, e.g. the DU was processing it as it all went down & there were probably very private other environments who were looking at it too.

[CoffeeCat]

96. I was trying to make the point...

...that a film like Hubris was made and shown NOW, because it is ok with the neocon powers that be. They made their progress. However, a film like Hubris would have been prevented from being made or shown because the neocons needed the public on their side. Any MSM effort to produce or disseminate such messaging would not have been allowed back then.

[MynameisBlarney]

99. D'oh!

I get your point now.

[CoffeeCat]

139. Well, I understand...

The title of my post is a bit awkward and others have misunderstood as well.

I could have done a better job of wording that title.

[barbtries]

40. well done CoffeeCat

very well done.

those motherfuckers.

[freedom fighter jh]

42. A current issue is climate.

I say "a" current issue, because they're probably busy with more than one thing.

The biggest issue we face now is climate change. The science has been clear for at least 15 years, and not all that unclear before: carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere by our use of fossil fuel is making the planet warmer, with disastrous consequences. Yet there is no planet-wide, human-race-wide solution. Why not? Because that would not fit the agenda of "history's actors."

So we get the climate denial industry, convincing people that climate change is nothing but a hoax.

[AZ Progressive]

93. So shouldn't this mean that aggressive behavior against "history's actors" is pretty much necessary?

I mean, pretty much a down and dirty fight with these people is necessary in order to save earth and ultimately the human race? It's that otherwise so many ecosystems will die and hundreds of millions to billions of people will die.

[freedom fighter jh]

143. What's necessary, I think, is to see that the truth prevails.

Any sane person who knows the truth about climate has got to support a winding down in the use of fossil fuel.

We have to get the word out.

[Auggie]

43. Excellent post

[Zorra]

45. That quote by Rove chilled me to the bone.

We need a worldwide general strike and we need to hunt down and root out Rove and all of his co-conspirators, confiscate their assets and give them to their victims, and put them in the highest security prison for the rest of their lives so they are limited in who they can cause more harm to. Otherwise, they will just continue to steal, murder, pollute, and destroy.

We really need to stop the madness and make a new and better world for ourselves and our descendants.

[patrice]

46. I think another thing that is affecting our ability to respond is how we compartmentalize our ISSUES

That's divide and conquer, fueled by the ambitions of separate issue activists.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

47. I think it has has much to do with who now owns NBC...

as anything else. GE is a huge military contractor, now that it is a minority shareholder (perhaps soon to divest completely) we may see more timely reporting of this warmongering crap. Comcast may not be a 'progressive' organization, but it has different agenda.

I can only speak for myself, but since Comcast became majority shareholder, MSNBC has, in my opinion, moved left. MoJo being the exception, but even he has had to find some items on the liberal agenda to support...gun control, for example...Perhaps the truth about
our perpetual war economy will at last be broadcast far and wide.

[renate]

54. that is a very important observation about GE--good point!

It would probably make us sick to hear the behind-the-scenes discussions at NBC (or any of the major news outlets) about whether to support the war or to allow any real reporting. GE's ownership of NBC might not have made any real difference in the end, given the Republicans' success in equating patriotism with supporting the war--but maybe a company that wouldn't have benefited financially from war might have allowed journalists to report on the worldwide anti-war marches and the dodgy nature of the evidence against Iraq, etc.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

59. I'm old enough to remember

when networks were independent entities and news broadcasts were not commercial enterprises. It's not just Iraq and war but so many other things in our society that have been demonized or ignored since news became 'commercial' in order to increase the profits of the corporations that bought up the networks.

[CoffeeCat]

94. Yes, exactly...And the energy companies are some of the worst culprits...

The energy companies use the media to tout many lies. That solar energy is too expensive and
wouldn't work. That wind and other alternatives are hippie, pie-in-the-sky ideas.

They also cover up the horrible reality of fracking and convince the public that we need to frack to
save the economy and create jobs.

They also helped BP to cover up the real damage of their catastrophe in the Gulf.

When I saw that BP was using our Coast Guard to prevent the media from filming oil-soaked wildlife, I knew it was all
over. A corporate commandeered our CG. And they also ignored Obama's/EPA's demands to stop dumping Corexit
into the Gulf.

The corporations own our government. They can do with it what they want. They're a cancer within the Pentagon,
the DOD, the military, the CIA and the NSA. As evidenced by how powerless Obama was with respect to BP, it appears
that they can circumvent the President.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

107. If you consider

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

that there would be much less use for our gargantuan military machine if we didn't have to protect those oil interests all around the world, you have the complete picture.

There was a battle within the Bush neocons....one group wanted to literally take over the Iraqi oil fields for American oil companies and the other wanted to put them out for bid to all oil companies. The latter won, but the ultimate conclusion which must be drawn is that the only reason we went into Iraq was the hand-in-glove MIC and Oil industries.

[Occulus]

121. If we developed fusion energy the oil era would end

and we could tell all those nations to go pound sand.

I only point that out because it is The Answer to so many of these issues.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

122. Are you talking cold fusion?

[Occulus]

124. Nope. Star in a bottle.

There are a few very promising research projects that are very close to break-even.

The Tokamak is not one of them. That's a boondoggle money hole that cannot ever possibly work as designed. A recent development involving a (I think) barium or boron coating- I forget which- on the interior of the containment chamber supposedly mitigates some of the problems with plasma fluctuations, but I'm not sure if that will be an answer to the fundamental problems of plasma flow control associated with that design.

I had hope for the Polywell design created by Dr. Bussard, but I haven't heard anything since the Navy re-upped their funding for the project. I suppose no news is good news, though, and the fact that they did continue backing the project is a Good Thing.

There's another project involving laser ignition, but I'm not as familiar with that as I am with the other two.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

134. Thanks...

I shall have to investigate 'star in bottle'

[CoffeeCat]

129. Very well said. The reality is so chilling (nt)

[Sekhmets Daughter]

132. Some lessons scar you for life....

I lost a younger brother in 1969 in Vietnam...I hate the MIC with the same passion I hate pedophiles.

[CoffeeCat]

140. I would dare to say...

...that MIC players and pedophiles are very, very similar creatures. They lack empathy. They derive
power and probably a high--from powering up on the vulnerable and the powerless. Plus, they're all
a bunch of dysfunctional cowards who have no inner peace, and as a result so many suffer for their
warped thinking.

I imagine there are untold numbers of pedophiles in these echelons.

Setting aside all of that ickiness, I am so sorry about your brother. It's not fair.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

142. Excellent observation as to the twisted psyches

of MIC players and pedophiles.

Thanks, and no it never fair.

[OldDem2012]

64. Comcast bought out the remainder of GE's interest in NBC on 2-12-2013....

Comcast Buys Rest of NBC in Early Sale

QUOTE:

9:28 a.m. | Updated Comcast gave NBCUniversal a $16.7 billion vote of confidence on Tuesday, agreeing to pay that sum to acquire General Electric’s remaining 49 percent stake in the entertainment company. The deal accelerated a sales process that was expected to take several more years.

Brian Roberts, chief executive of Comcast, said the acquisition, which will be completed by the end of March, underscored a commitment to NBCUniversal and its highly profitable cable channels, expanding theme parks and the resurgent NBC broadcast network.

One interesting note as of 2-19-2013....

Gun-free zone: Comcast cable blacklists gun-related ads

[Sekhmets Daughter]

69. I wasn't certain the deal had approval....

Thanks for the update. Frankly, as a captive Comcast customer, I wasn't thrilled about this when I first read it. Then I began thinking about MSNBC and realized there is a correlation between the initial Comcast investment and the liberalization of that channel. Thanks for the link. I am encouraged.

[onpatrol98]

131. Dangerous

I believe MSNBC has moved left because it's economically practical. When it's no longer profitable, they'll move in another direction. With corporations, it's about money. They looked around, saw Fox was making money falling off the cliff right, and decided leaning left looked like a winner.

If their pockets decide it's not viable, they'll be reborn again.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

137. Of course it is all about profit...

The issue is what drives the profit. As a major military contractor, GE was not about to allow too much anti-war talk either on NBC or MSNBC. Comcast has an entirely different agenda and is free to take a left leaning posture. Looking at current trends and demographics,
it appears we are at the beginning of a swing left....Our political cycles last about 40 years in this country. It is good business sense for Comcast to position itself ahead of the curve. In fact, in terms of positioning, Comcast is earlier than Fox was in the conservative cycle.
My only concern, is what Comcast will do once the final sale is completed in March.

[progressoid]

49. Phil Donahue tried to expose it and MSNBC FIRED HIM because of it.

In July 2002, Phil Donahue returned to television after seven years of retirement to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC. On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show, citing his opposition to the imminent invasion of Iraq by the United States military. Donahue was the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time it was canceled, managing to beat out Chris Matthews' MSNBC show "Hardball" in the ratings.[15] But Matthews was a big proponent of the Iraq invasion and he cultivated a good relationship with MSNBC's management before Donahue came to the network. He played a crucial role in procuring the firing of Donahue and "saw himself as MSNBC's biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue's show."[16] In the fall of 2002, U.S. News & World Report ran a gossip item that had Matthews saying over lunch in Washington that if Donahue stays on the air, he could bring down the network. After the item was published, Matthews showed up at Donahue's office and apologized.

Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."[17] Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned by military contractors General Electric and Microsoft Corp., required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[18] In 2005 Norman Solomon's book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State came to the same conclusion.

Donahue continued to oppose the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq after MSNBC fired him. He participated in public marches and rallies against the occupation and even debated Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, who strongly supported the war.[19] During his 2005 appearance on O'Reilly's show, he told O'Reilly, "In the last year, two things have doubled. The number of dead American troops in Iraq has doubled from over a thousand to almost two thousand. You know what also doubled, Billy? The price of Halliburton stock -- from thirty-three to sixty-six dollars. That doesn't shame you? That doesn't make you wonder whether this is an enterprise that is worth the support of the American people?" (Halliburton Company, through its subsidiary KBR, received billions of dollars in government contracts to help manage the military's occupation of Iraq.)[20] Donahue continued, "There is no democracy without dissent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program

[maddiemom]

168. Yes, Chris "we're all Neocons now" Matthews and his fawning over Bush's Mission Accomplished moment

made me sick at the time. His about face over the whole Iraq war and Cheney/Bush in recent years is even more disgusting.

[riverbendviewgal]

51. what we have now and hopefully they won't take away is

THE INTERNET.
Wikipedia
Wikileaks

It is incredibly hard to keep secrets anymore.

That is why the pope is seeking sanctuary in the Vatican.

The truth is coming out so much now.

What we need now is to be united together and keep finding and feeding the truth to our friends, family, towns people .

We must join together. and stop the destruction of a free middle class

[southernyankeebelle]

52. You knew they were all lying when Phil Donague tried to tell the truth and they

fired him on MSNBC. They didn't want the truth. We are in very deep trouble in this country. While we all are sitting around watching Honey Boo Boo and all reality shows we are doing nothing that really means anything in this country. I don't know what it is going to take. Where are the young people in this country to get out there like the 60s and start to support your middle class before its to late.

[truedelphi]

119. Exactly! n/t

[raouldukelives]

53. + 10000

That is exactly how the cookie crumbles. The inexorable push to serfdom for all the world and the destruction of our now limited natural resources for short term gains. With no other concern than profits and no other thought but for themselves. All brought to you by the wonderful conglomeration of corporations, mass media and their silent but salivating partners, the investor.

[Javaman]

55. I wrote this yesterday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394222

Madhound posted this very good piece regarding who believed and didn't believe the lies told to us regarding the Iraq war...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022389078

And Madhound asks the million dollar question with the title, "Why this sudden push to rewrite history about the Iraq war?"

With a GOP bereft of new ideas, concepts or direction, they have to reshape their past and mold it into something useful for their future if they think they are going to survive.

All sorts of talking heads from the right wing are starting to dip their toe into an image overhaul. While the right wing is famous for using blunt force in their wars, they are long term planners when wanting that war.

We are seeing the first testings of the water for their future mission. What is that mission? Take your pick of countries. The obvious would be Iran, but there is a long list of nations that have natural resources that they the republicans wish to exploit for their own monetary gains at the expense of "collateral damage" aka 3rd world people.

If anyone is paying attention to the Hegal hearings, you will see McCain going out of his way to try and pin down Hegal for a yes or no response regarding the surge and it's usefulness. This line of questioning isn't about the surge, it's about rewriting history, the over arching perception of the Iraqi war and McCain's roll in that decision to invade. Think of it as his legacy and suddenly things get weirder.

Unless there is another 9/11 type incident (heaven help us) for the right wing to exploit, they will have to use the tactic of trying to change the publics perception.

If 5 to 10 years from now, we are presented with another situation that resembles Iraq, take a step back and count the sometimes immeasurable gains and chess like movements by the right wing. Sometimes the most innocuous move is something that is planned with it's effect only be felt years later. The minutia of this could get so obtuse as reading tea leaves. And that is what the right wing depends on, the seemingly boring is actually the devil in the detail.

I'm reminded of two things george w. bush* said regarding "money trumping peace" and "catapulting the propaganda". When you combine those two statements you reveal a terrifying scenario, one which we experienced in their rush to the Iraqi war.

However, it appears as opportunity for such a rush is not at hand, so they begin the slow creep. Which to me, is far worse. The GOP's job is to change the publics perception and depend on poor memories by the lazy masses to convince them that whatever lies in our future is a gigantic security threat to the nation.

We here at DU can state that we will remember, but we are a small minority. We paid attention, we posted links, we tried to spread the word, but alas, we still got "shock and awe" at the hand of those in power. We were looked upon a kooks and conspiracy nuts when we protested and demanded proof of WMD's or evidence of Al Qeada in Iraq. We were laughed at as being "unAmerican".

Here we are, the very slow, almost imperceptible creep toward that same right wing goal yet again. It's like looking at a clock without a second hand, it doesn't seem to move, but look away then back and lo and behold the minute hand moved.

And before you know it, we will find ourselves in that same fix again and wonder, "how did we get here?"

Here is now.

[haikugal]

87. Excellent post..

that's exactly how they 'operate'...I really hate these people!

[benld74]

56. Karma will not be kind to the Rove Man I tinks?

[MotherPetrie]

57. ICAM. So where do you think Obama fits in? To what degree is he complicit?

[rhett o rick]

147. There are a couple of possibilities. The CT version is that he made a deal with the devil

to get the presidency. That deal included not prosecuting our war criminals. And maybe even pardoning them at the end of his term.

The other possibility is that he just kicked the can down the street. We have lived with war criminals in the elite for decades. To try to fix the problem would be mayhem as the roots of corruption run very, very deep. He may not want that on his legacy.

[MotherPetrie]

172. Maybe it's a combination of the two. If it's the latter, I think his legacy is already tarnished

by his inaction.

[CoffeeCat]

167. That is the million dollar question...

...and one for which I do not have an answer. All we can do is guess.

However, I do know this. Obama was not a Washington insider. He had only been in DC a short time, in the Senate. I remember reading a piece in Time about his unwillingness to play the DC cocktail circuit. He worked out a lot and spent tie with his family and avoided the big-time social game. You know the parties with the power brokers from both parties and their corptastic friends in high places.

Also, I remember during the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama released his "Blueprint for America" which contained his plans and policies that he would implement if he was elected. It was a thick booklet and I read it cover to cover. The booklet contained a couple of paragraphs on restoring Habeas Corpus, which Bush snatched from us. Basically, the government can charge you with a crime without "a body of evidence" and Obama thought this issue was important enough to mention and put in his "blueprint."

Most people don't know what Habeas is. They also don't know that it has been taken away. This is a rather obscure reference, but Obama thought it was important. He wanted it back. I don't think a man/politician who thinks that way is on the inside of the rotting corpse that is the neocons.

Once elected, Obama did the opposite. His Justice Department had the opportunity to take a stand--with a case--and reinstate Habeas. Because of this, I have come to believe that whatever this cancer is that has metastacized in our government, it is bigger and more powerful than the President. I think Obama fights it, but really, I think there is little that he can do. Of course he can do some things, but all of this nefarious crap--drones, illegal wiretapping, assassinations, torture. This is the work of the neocons. They're entrenched.

That's they way I see it anyway. I don't think Obama would be nominating Hagel if he was in on the joke. Hagel is one of the very few politicians (that includes Dems!) who stand up and publicly refuse to kow tow to Israel. That means he won't help the neocons perpetuate their Middle East warmongering. I think that's paradigm shifting.

[MotherPetrie]

171. You make some good points. Bottom line for me is I have seen no evidence Obama is even fighting it.

He made it clear from the very start he was going to ignore the crimes of his predecessors. He's just totally passive. And he has gone on to emulate the Bush administration in its most troubling non-transparent ways. Not to mention some of the people he surrounds himself with and nominates (like John Brennan) also indicate that Obama doesn't have as much of a problem with the Bush administration's criminal actions as he led people to believe.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

176. x2

[OLDMDDEM]

60. No one could have said it better.

I commend you on your dissertation about Hubris. While watching it I got mad all over again. These guys did not fool me the first time however they have such a huge criminal mind that they would try anything again and again. This war was "for profit." Look at the companies involved, expecially Halliburton. Enough said. Imopentoit.com

[yardwork]

61. This is true and it's why Cheney caused 9/11 to happen as well.

9/11 had to happen to get the country to agree to the next steps.

[radhika]

62. Totally agree!

Everything covered is well known to news junkies like me, although obviously new to younger viewers. Yes, they are working to undermine McCain etc in areas of defense, Hagel, Benghazi. But I'd have way more respect for MSNBC if it was willing to look at itself too.

I had hoped for some hint of examining the role of media in this tragedy. Including MSNBC dumping Phil Donohue for not being pro-war enough.

[Tikki]

65. We knew what we were headed for by the caliber of the man...Where was the careful vetting by the...

media on Bush. From before he threw his whirly beanie into the ring to
today everyone should have been told this little man is incapable of framing
anything around real truths.


Tikki

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. At least they are out of power at the moment

And we have an opportunity to learn from what happened. Too little, too late for all of the victims of Iraq 2 sure but maybe just in time for Iran 1

Based on what we saw this weekend w/McCain, maybe the media might be a little more skeptical if/when they try to take us somewhere else.

[CoffeeCat]

105. Yes, and I love Obama's choice of Hagel...

Hagel is one of the rare politicians who has stood up to the neocons. By not kow towing to
Israel, and making it clear that we will not always go along with their desire to pull America
into more war--Hagel has proved himself courageous.

We all know what Hagel's courage signals--that he will not go to war with Iran. Very proud of
Obama for taking this stance.

[Taverner]

68. Truth. Remember the neocons were already in El Salvador

Before the ink dried on what we knew about Vietnam...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. Too late to do anything about it. The only justice will come when these people burn in hell!

[Blue4Texas]

72. Yes, they make things up

And up to us not to call it true

[BainsBane]

74. It was based on this book, published in 2007

http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X

[Fla Dem]

75. Just a point of fact: Rachael's show didn't start until 2008, Keith's in 2003, Cooper Sept 2003.

Others should have been reporting the "truth", but these three came along after the 3/20/2003 beginning of the war. As I remember, Keith did a lot of negative Iraqi war reporting and commentary.

[valerief]

76. Right. It prevents NOTHING. Whoever controls the anthrax controls the world. nt

[12zelda12]

78. Takeover warning

You all were discussing the takeover by the media but we are experiencing also a takeover by the Republicans at the county level. The chair is a hard core Republican. He installed an administrator who has taken over control down to the minutes. He reviews and edits them before they are published. The minutes on-line also do not match the actual minutes. It is total and complete fascism and right now not many people know about it. I won't go into all the details but please really watch your county boards and do what you can to elect board members chosen and selected by the people. Put up a really big stink if they try to install an administrator with power over everything.

[EC]

79. Also when Cheney was still with Haliburton

he wrote and lobbyed for Clinton to stop the sanctions on Iraq so they could go in there and get the oil. That's what I figured Cheney wanted all along one way or another...he sure got Haliburton in there didn't he?


I also wonder about why now. MSNBC is under new ownership than it was back then. I think they did it now because now the writers of Hubris are now employed by MSNBC.

[Blue Owl]

80. For most, war is hell. For Dick, war is business.

Shameful, sinister, and selfish motives that profit from death and destruction = pure evil.

[Strat0]

81. Just cleaning up the quote a bit:

Great post, i don't mean this as a criticism, however, I went searching for the origins of the probable Rove quote and noticed that on many sites it began with "Guys like me" instead of "Guys like you". At first I figured it was Right wing editing of WIKI sites, cut and pasted around, so I went to the original article. Here is the actual quote (of which the op captured the correct jist) with the preceding paragraph for context.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Here's a link to the article, which is a great read.
http://ronsuskind.com/articles/000106.html

[riderinthestorm]

88. Thanks for the full quote. Its always good to get to the source. Welcome to DU! nt

[stupidicus]

82. well, let's not forget the how and why that's possible

The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996[25] and 6 in 2005.[26] An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.[27]

In the 2003 edition of his book, A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn wrote about alternative media, community newspapers and the creation of street newspapers trying the break the corporate control of information. On that topic, he talked about the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

"...the Telecommunications Act of 1996...enabled the handful of corporations :dominating the airwaves to expand their power further. Mergers enabled tighter :control of information...The Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano :commented..."Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few."[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

the abomination Clinton signed.

Here's one of the reasons I was eager to vote BHO in 2008

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/388/encourage-diversity-in-media-ownership/

Here's more of what we got http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+media+consolodation&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

and sadly, it's an issue that is on the radar of far too few despite the role it has played in the fruition of "the plan" you addressed here

[Stinky The Clown]

84. I agree with every word you said.

Not to put Maddow down, but she lives and works under the duress of our Owners.

George Orwell was wrong only on some specific names and the timing of it all.

[maddiemom]

173. Forget Ayn Rand.It's always seemed that Rove and his ilk read Huxley and Welles

and identified with Big Brother and the forces of control and suppression. Understandable in pudgy, unpopular teenagers; scary if they get in control of
weak, easily led politicians.

[Coyotl]

85. Media control has weakened, thankfully. Control of politics and media matters. Boycott $$$ Media.

[CoffeeCat]

100. Yes, the Internet has made a mockery of the MSM, hasn't it?

The neocons and corporatists must really hate the Internet. We can communicate with each other and fully
expose how irrelevant and fake the MSM is.

Also, the comments sections on the MSM articles are priceless. I especially love the comments on the
New York Times articles. Some idiot writes a false and propaganda-soaked article about the nuclear
plant in Fukushima and how "all is well" and you've suddenly got 20 energy experts and other scientists
calling them out on their crap. It's just beautiful.

It's pretty telling when you get more truth from Reddit, DU or other sites--than you can from network news
or some of the big cable outlets, like CNN.

But hey--if you lie to us and kow tow to the corporations--we'll just go around you, MSM.

[jinx1]

86. I propose they devise their future realities from a prison.

Lets see how imaginative they are at the Hague in front of a world court...the same one they sent Saddam to.

[Zen Democrat]

89. Phil Donahue spoke out at MSNBC. They fired him because of it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. K&R. Too little, too late. You've certainly nailed that head, but make no mistake, it is still

going on just has it has for centuries. The only thing that has changed is that they are much more efficient and can move more quickly than was previously possible.

Those of us that have no power or control are always either ignorant of what is being done or marginalized until it it is too late to do anything about it.

On this thread there is mention of climate change, green energy, and media control. All of these are perceived as being among the current issues, but the reality is that it's too late to do anything about them now.

The cycle of global warming passed the tipping point five minutes after anyone outside the field cared anything about it. We had some of those people telling us what was going on 40 years ago, but they were ignored and marginalized because stopping it would hurt the energy interests. By the time Al Gore was writing his book and road show the cycle was irreversible and the best that could be done was immediate action on a global scale to slow it and alleviate some of the worst consequences. A decade later we're still talking about what might be done 20 years from now.

Green energy is part and parcel to the warming of our planet and the resulting changes in weather patterns, but again, the best we can do is to try to catch up with what we should and could have been doing for at least 30 years. This is not to say we shouldn't do anything, but I use it to point out the real flaw is our own submission to the "pragmatic" voices that dominate every conversation and the underlying instruction to comply with authority.

If we're going to change what is being done to us we have to look at what is coming, instead of focusing entirely on what has passed. If we are to make any difference. The major part of that is going to be to take back our power from those that hold it. Nationality or political party affiliation are irrelevant. Those in power don't care about them, they only care about gaining or holding power and will change their line or location in any way that helps them achieve those goals.

For those of us that knew what was going on in 2001 - 2002, don't waste the energy re-fighting a battle that has been over for a decade, look at what is happening now, at the preparations those with real power are making, and focus your energy there. For those of you that didn't get it then, perhaps you might want to give some credit to the people who were right and listen to what they're saying now, instead of ridiculing and marginalizing them because what they're telling you is uncomfortable or inconvenient to you.

[AZ Progressive]

92. THIS is the REAL reality

These people create their own reality because they think they don't have to play by the rules, classic bullies and aggressive behavior, they think they are above everyone else and they laugh at people who try to play by the rules. They think people like us are stupid and too nice.

[Recursion]

95. Except it did air back then, in real time

Honestly Fahrenheit 911 had more surprises; this was a recap of reporting that was current at the time. I'm not sure why Rachel made such a big deal about it?

[HiPointDem]

101. and meanwhile new crimes are being committed that we are not allowed to talk about, are called

'conspiracy theories,' etc.

often by the same people getting all righteous about the crimes of the past.

[ensemble]

150. some things don't change...

'conspiracy theories,' etc.

often by the same people getting all righteous about the crimes of the past.

This stuff was known at the time. I suppose it does some good to rehash it.
Other, hidden crimes that allowed this are still not talked about.

[laundry_queen]

178. This has been a HUGE

problem here recently. Some of us remember when we were getting laughed at for this Iraq stuff in real time, and being called CTers. Guess what, we were right. It's why some of us getting really pissed at all the 'woo' and 'ct' labels being thrown around. Reminds me of what the neocons and media did after 9/11 and in the lead up to Iraq. Don't talk about it, don't question anything....um, sorry, I WILL talk about it and I WILL question.

[HiPointDem]

181. +1.

[colsohlibgal]

102. MSNBC Led The Cheers For That War

It was disgusting. What they did to Donahue was reprehensible. When media types are ostracized for asking tough questions it usually doesn't end well - in this case it enabled the US to, for the first time, to "first strike".

I have to credit the one ex US republican legislator who expressed guilt for being duped into voting for the war, that's a rare species this day and age, a republican with a conscience.

[malaise]

104. Very well said

Rec

[Rex]

106. And now history has decided unanimously to label Rove as a terrorist

which is correct. I hope he eats every last word.

[Duer 157099]

108. Kick for the sad, unvarnished truth n/t

[astalfort]

111. No wmd

It always amazed me that so many fell for the Bushies claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. All one had to do was read the papers (granted the articles were buried) and listen to the inspectors who appeared on TV. McClatchy did a good job of raising questions and not fling for the hype. So many lives lst when an ordinary citizen could figure out the truth.

[NRaleighLiberal]

123. well said. and welcome to DU!

[felix_numinous]

112. Republicans like to rename their crimes,

'hoax', like 'dirty tricks' and 'misunderstandings' are dumbed down words that cover up their propaganda and censorship of the news, the disappearances of so many key people who would have exposed their lies, and the horrors of a war they planned out.

The disappearance of trillions of dollars (of our money) on the eve of 911, the patriot act, no doubt stolen to pay off or to just off people to further their interests--created their alternative universe and bought consent for these wars.

The message from these neo cons, starting with the assassinations of the 60s --is that no one can get in their way. They assassinated the hopes and dreams of so many young people then. With 911, not ONE TRIAL happened, as if this is the new normal.

These neo cons and all of their stolen money have robbed and looted America, created many more enemies overseas and ruined our international standing. They have robbed us of our education, health and safety, and our infrastructure--laughing all the way to the bank.

The American people LEARNED long ago not to take these people on--'the powers that be', 'MIC', "the banks'--because nothing we do puts a dent in the trillions of dollars they get without oversight. NOTHING.

Anyone who brings this up is laughed at, called truthers, conspiracy theorists and told to sit down and shut up BY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT. This is why we get nothing done--because too many people are assimilated into the illusion of the program that is RIGGED--it is set up so that democracy loses, so that we continue losing our Constitutional and Human Rights.

And NO I am not against good people working hard in the government--they are what stands between us and an all out dictatorship.

[Hotler]

113. So when are we the people going to get really pissed and do something about those fuckers???????

Oh never mind. Americans have no fight.

[Squinch]

114. Sadly, you are right. But there may be some people who have finally become

disillusioned with the right who never heard it. Educating them can only be positive.

I remember having an argument with my sister, around the beginning of the war, where I quoted to her that 3 out of 5 Americans still thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. She looked at me blankly and said, "well didn't it?" So I verbally smacked her around a little for that, and she started to read things that I read. Now she's at least as left as I am politically.

This election may have knocked some people's brains toward the left, and stuffing in some truth about things that have happened in the past might be useful to them.

[Skraxx]

120. Except Real Reality Has Real Consequences

Even for "history's actors". See Obama's reelection for example.

"created realities" have a way of crashing down hard around those that built them, despite their insistence to the contrary.

Let them continue to live in their world believing Romney is President. They will become less and less relevannt as they tear eachother to pieces over their each, individual created realities.

In the meantime, those of us in real reality WILL find solutions from judicious study of discernible reality. Indeed, we will progress despite them.

[George II]

125. She didn't have a show back then

[JuniperLea]

126. Air America

Since March 2004

[George II]

144. Not that it really matters; she got her first show in mid-2005, long after the run-up and invasion.

...but the OP is creating reasons why it wasn't aired back then. In hindsight, some speculation we had at the time ultimately were proven true, but we really didn't know until several years afterward. There were little or no known facts that could be documented as it was in the show last night.

But, remember, Bob Woodward published his book, "State of Denial" seven years ago in 2006.

[jeff47]

145. That's 1 year after the invasion. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

128. The point of the OP is not so much about Rachel but about why a program like HUBRIS

wasn't presented then, if not by Rachel or by anyone else either for that matter.

Phil Donahue could've done it, but they fired him because he spoke too many inconvenient truths.

Corporate conglomerate control of the nation's media is the primary culprit which serves to dumb down the American People while enabling the neocon types to carry out their nefarious schemes.

[Jamastiene]

127. K&R

You are exactly right.

[davidthegnome]

130. Accurate.

I'd have to say you're pretty much completely right. It still makes me sick that this happened. During the build up to the Iraq war, I had just earned my GED and was working as a telemarketer up here in Northern Maine. Day after day, I'd be one of those irritating people calling you to sell you Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance. I hated it, but it paid (some of) the bills. Then one day my Father told me there was going to be a presentation at a local University about the sanctions.

What I learned there just blew my mind. I'd always had this sort of fragile image of our Nation, of America being essentially good and just. Honest. Honorable. Hundreds of thousands dead as a result of the sanctions? So many of them children? Denied medical supplies that could possibly be used to make some sort of weapon. Little electricity, clean water, food. The images, the voices... it all shook me to my core.

Up until that point, I might very well have been one of those conservadems who went along with the invasion. Instead, I started reading more, talking to others more about what was really going on in the world outside. I became a war protestor, I learned to despise corporations and the military industrial complex. I moved much further to the left once I learned the truth.

Still, in a way I wish I could go back to the simplicity of my previous understanding. "We're good guys, they're bad guys". When it comes right down to it, a lot of us live in ignorance because the truth is painful, depressing, scary. It's not simply the wool being pulled over one's eyes, but deliberate ignorance of facts and reality.

It makes me sick, all the damage we have done, all the needless killing and destruction. There just aren't words to do it justice.

[Fuddnik]

135. I believe the Suskind quote was much earlier.

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I was reading "The Price of Loyalty" in 2006, and it was in there.

As for the program last night, it was nothing new that wasn't covered in better news outlets years ago.



on edit: Ooops. It was the "One Percent Doctrine", which was published, and hit #3 on the NYT bestseller list in July 2006.

[PufPuf23]

136. The military bases used to invade Afghanistan were also in place before 9-11

in Krygystan and Uzbekistan. We no longer have those bases because they kicked us out with Russian verbal support.

Georgia was the aggressor and loser in the war they initiated. There was USA and Israeli military equipment and advisors in Georgia, the neocons didn't plan for a Russian military response.

Post 9-11 the Taliban offered up OBL with Pakistan as an intermediatary.

We know Iraq was a fraud and many of us and most of the world knew at the time.

Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador (Rumsfeld's axis of evil of the western hemisphere) were surrounded by new USA DoD bases under the rubrique of the War on Drugs prior to 9-11. We lost the bases in Manta, Equator and Paraquay and supported failed coups in Venezuela and Bolivia under GWB. Plan Colombia began under Clinton.

Post Obama there were a successful coups in Honduras and Paraquay and an expansion of military presense in Colombia and Costa Rica. One of Zelaya's "sins" in Honduras is that he wanted to make the airbase a public airport, the USA's largest base in Latin America, main staging area for Iran-Conta, and refueling stop for the plane for the Zelaya coup.

The major military base in Djibouti was also in place at the pinch between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and AFRICOM was in the works. There has been a steady expansion of small DoD bases / footprint in Africa ever since, most that are hard to find any public information about.

All these initiatives flow out of the Project for a New American Century plans that were published under Clinton.

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, the US Forest Service offered the heavy lift helicopters and airtankers (for fires) used in the western USA for wildfires and were refused.

The Gulf Horizon was permitted with a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA (National Environmental Planning Act, good Nixon era environmental legislation. There are three levels of review under NEPA: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Categorical Exclusion (CE), in declining intensity and time of scientific planning and assessment ad public opportunies to review. The Gulf Horizon CE spill plan was boiler plate with wildlife and fisheries species protections from Alaska NEPA documents. A Fed employee signed that CE and presented the responsibilty of a chain of command through the federal bureaucracy to political appointees at the Secretary and Deputy Secretary level. Why weren't they prosecuted or at least fired like the token fines and criminal convictions of BP and associated employees and companies?

[Dustlawyer]

138. I agree with what you say, but when I post a thread

calling for complete campaign finance reform and how that is the big fight that would solve much of the problems griped about here at DU, it only gets a tepid response. Either I am wrong on this, or people just don't see that the legalized bribery that we have in this country for our politicians allow for much of this to happen.

[ancianita]

184. You're not wrong on this. Don't feel alone. I'd K & R such a thread.

I think the tepid response is about how we just can't get anything done at the federal level. And the time to try to get that done was at the start of the last term. Every elected fox is making too much money at guarding this henhouse to change the rules.

[mojowork_n]

141. K n R One of the best summaries I've seen here in a while. There is actually...

a wiki page on that term, "reality-based community."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

FWIW

[MichaelSoE]

146. Here, here. Well said. Hopefully you are not preaching to the choir and some of the lurkers

have an epiphany.

[xtraxritical]

148. The glass is half full?

[rocktivity]

149. You're not being cynical, you're just being reality-based.

I do wish Hubris had concentrated more on the script that the Bush regime's "actors" wrote for the corporate media -- between the neocon control and the envelopes that went out that included either white powder or a pink slip.

As for their invading Iraq "come hell or high water," I came to that conclusion a few minutes into Colin Powell's UN hearing testimony:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1618232&mesg_id=1618538


rocktivity

[Rosa Luxemburg]

152. some people are hearing this for the first time

some were young in 2001

[Chico Man]

155. You forgot to mention the election

How soon we forget the insanity of the election run up in 2012!!! Media fueled madness!!! Shock and awe of a different flavor.

[Fire Walk With Me]

156. We, also, can act. n/t

[Fedaykin]

158. 'Hubris Isn't the Half of It'

"As our government was making a fraudulent case to attack Iraq in 2002-2003, the MSNBC television network was doing everything it could to help, including booting Phil Donahue and Jeff Cohen off the air..."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34020.htm

[Veri1138]

159. Yep...

"Hubris" is the feel-good message. PR flack. Propaganda. It gives outrage and a forum for people to vent their frustration.

Before returning to what they were doing before.

There was a mini-series called "Amerika" back in the 1980s. The plot was Cold War propaganda and a little bad science fiction. However, there is a telling scene in there. The Soviet occupiers would allow young people to gather and engage in hooliganism. As was explained in the show, the Soviet occupiers would allow such behaviour as a control mechanism so that young people could vent their rage and frustration at the Soviet occupiers before crushing the young hooligans. While the status quo was maintained.

Think about OWS and the Right's response. The Republicans, Tea Party, and Libertarians cheered on the crushing of OWS by the government. The very same government said Republicans, Tea Party, and Libertarians say is Big Brother and a danger to our freedoms. How is that for psychotic. The government, occupied by plutocratic collaborators, sent The DHS, the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies to the banks. Two months before OWS even had a protest. To begin planning the management of the OWS protests.

Meanwhile, Liberals got to feel good that something was being done. That "consciousness" of inequality was thrust into the spotlight - very effective management of PR by the media. The results? Nothing is ever done and the plutocratic occupiers can be satisfied that another management of a threat was successfully accomplished while Liberals got to pat themselves on the back and say they did something.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party was trying to figure out how to turn OWS from a spontaneous - as opposed to a corporate sponsored political movement (The Tea Party) - and co-opt the message for their own political ends - to maintain the status quo.

The plutocratic occupiers in our government successfully managed the protests.

"Hubris" is just a feel-good PR propaganda film, while true, will manage the public's perception very effectively. While nothing is done other than the production of a documentary. It will give the Left a means of venting their feelings. Before returning and voting Democratic, straight party ticket, lest the Republicans win.

Nothing in Washington, D.C. (I like to call it District of Corruption) will change. You will vote Democratic lest the Republicans take back Congress and The Presidency and further destroy America. Meanwhile, the Democratic Good Cops will be providing cover.

The only true "protest" by Democrats are when they stay home on vote-night because they feel dissatisfied with their leadership. Meaning a Republican win. The plutocrats will still feel safe at night.

Realize that you and Main Street are not wealthy enough to plan for a decade or a few decades. You are too busy trying to survive, daily. To think that far ahead. Your plutocrats, however, have the wealth and security to do so. To plan for the future. A future that secures theirs and their friend's and families futures. Ensuring that a few - ten, twenty, and thirty years from now - will still be in control.

"Hubris" unintended consequences of allowing the Liberals to point out that criminality was engaged in; to provide a means of venting their frustration, of allowing Liberals to point out they were right all along. Is just part of your futility.

[BEZERKO]

160. I would say only

that they're sociopaths, not psychopaths.

[sendero]

161. Why would...

... TPTB EVER want the truth to be told? How does it help their next exploit for people to understand how the last one went down?

I agree with some of what you are saying, but it wasn't "corporate control" that made this happen it was liars at the top and a population that wanted revenge, revenge on someone/anyone, that let this happen.

I'll bet if you took a poll right now you would find that a significant percentage of Americans still think the Iraq war was the right thing to do. We live in a country full of fools and we will all pay the price.

[CoffeeCat]

170. This is the big frustration...

The neocons and corporatists use talk radio and other right-wing outlets to bring these lemmings along.

It's so revolting and it's like watching brainwashing in action.

All Glenn Beck has to do is discuss a topic, create talking points and lies---and they eat it up like starving lemmings. They go into their communities and repeat these obvious and bizarre talking points.

I once had a conversation with a right winger, after the housing implosion. He spouted off about how the entire thing was the fault of minorities and poor people who had "bought more house than they could afford." I can't tell you how aghast I was. I went beyond angry, to deeply, deeply concerned about this country--because of these fools who lap up the lies.

They're carrying water for corporations, rich people and the elite who will destroy them, in the end.

It's like watching a train wreck.

[sendero]

180. A wingnut I work with...

... (back in 2009 or so) tried the Limbaugh bullshit that the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was responsible for the housing crisis. I shut him down and left him stammering and he never put forth a wingnut talking point in my presence again.

But for all I know he still believes any nonsense justification based on racism that is fed to him. It's easy to believe anything once it dovetails seamlessly with your core dysfunctional beliefs.

[Madmiddle]

163. It

will be their downfall. Rove is irrelevant.

[libdude]

164. Learning from history

For me, the value of presentations such as Hubris, is that we can learn from history and evaluate current trends and events and in some cases individuals that are still active players, Karl Rove, Dan Senor, etc. Note the reaction of the nation collectively after the Vietnam war.
I think that the social media and particuarily sites just like DU give all concerned citizens a timely ability to not only know but to speak out.
The evidence how effective this current tech-
nology is was shown in the 2012 election, there was a report that the Koch brothers were shaking up their PAC and looking to use the same technology in 2014.

[ProSense]

169. "It doesn't have to stay this way"

I'm focusing on the last two points in the OP:

They do what they want. They're "history's actors" doncha know? They control the messaging, as they want. We get to watch Rachel Maddow and read Taibbi and ruminate over the two-hour Frontline scandals---months, if not years, after the crimes have been committed and the criminals are well into their next project.

It's disgusting, but that is the reality. It doesn't have to stay this way, but for now--it is this way.

It starts here:

Walker drops bomb #2, this time on Wisconsin's private sector unions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022402759

Poll: With A Lofty Approval Rating, Christie Trounces Likely Challenger In Guv Race
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-still-holding-lofty-approval-rating-christie-trounces

Actually, it starts at even more local levels, but it gets real there. These are the assholes being cultivated to reek havoc on Americans, to carry on the legacy of deception, militarization and stolen elections.

The 2010 elections were a huge disappointment. Christie's election was too, as he is Governor of my state. Watching the hype of his inevitable re-election is sickening.

What's the difference between Christie and a teabagger? Think Progress posted his position on various issues:

Minimum Wage

Christie issued a “conditional veto” to the legislature’s minimum wage increase, objecting to the size of the increase ($8.50-per-hour), the speed of implementation, and the fact that it was indexed to inflation, incorrectly asserting that the measure would “jeopardize the economic recovery.”

Millionaire’s Tax

Three years in a row, Christie has vetoed an incoming tax increase for the state’s wealthiest citizens, incorrectly asserting that it would lead to a mass exodus of rich people. Instead, he has insisted to massive spending cuts.

Abortion Access

Christie opposes a woman’s right to choose. At a 2011 rally opposing the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision, he said eliminating abortion was “an issue whose time has come.” He also cut state funding to Planned Parenthood.

Marriage Equality

Christie used his veto power to block marriage equality in New Jersey, saying marriage equality is not about “gay rights.” Instead, he proposed marriage equality should be subject to a harmful and expensive public referendum.

Climate Change

Though Christie claims to believe climate change is real, he pulled New Jersey out of a regional compact aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Gun Violence Prevention

Christie opposed New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month limit and has been strongly critical of President Obama’s approach, calling instead for “violence control.”

Obamacare

Christie vetoed a bill to allow New Jersey to setup a health insurance exchange under Obamacare.

School Vouchers

Christie has pushed for private school vouchers, which would take public education money and siphon it off to private and parochial schools.

DREAM Act

Christie has opposed offering in-state tuition for undocumented college students whose parents brought them to the United States as children. He said, “I do not believe that, for the people who came here illegally, that we should be subsidizing, with taxpayer money, through in-state tuition, their education.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/19/1608041/chris-christie-andrew-cuomo/

This is the guy being hyped as a moderate Republican (there currently is no such being).

[Octafish]

179. Letting it air now allows MSNBC to make the claim the media are ''liberal.''

Keeping it off air in 2003 makes it clear the media are nothing but Corporate McPravda.

What Glenn Greenwald said:

MSNBC Boldly Moves to Plug Its One Remaining Hole

By hiring long-time Obama spokesmen Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, the cable news network clarifies its function

by Glenn Greenwald
Published on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 by The Guardian

Last month, MSNBC's Al Sharpton conducted a spirited debate about whether Obama belongs on Mount Rushmore or instead deserves a separate monument to his greatness (just weeks before replacing frequent Obama critic Cenk Uygur as MSNBC host, Sharpton publicly vowed never to criticize Barack Obama under any circumstances: a vow he has faithfully maintained). Earlier that day on the same network, a solemn discussion was held, in response to complaints from MSNBC viewers, about whether it is permissible to ever allow Barack Obama's name to pass through one's lips without prefacing it with an honorific such as "President" or "the Honorable" or perhaps "His Excellency" (that really did happen).

SNIP...

MSNBC is far from aberrational. The overriding attribute defining the relationship of the US media to those in power is servitude (recall how even George Bush's own Press Secretary wrote a book mocking the media for extreme deference to the Bush White House). Politico today has a long article voicing the complaints of the White House press corps about a lack of access to the president. Revealingly, these complaints exploded into public view this weekend when Obama played golf with Tiger Woods and didn't let the angry journalists even see the match or take pictures of Tiger!

CONTINUED...

Corporate McPravda: On Bended Knee Since November 22, 1963

[HiPointDem]

182. +1

[Octafish]

183. The traitors are so arrogant, they know if they break the law, they won't be punished.

THat is to my shame and to that of the United States. And to think ther are DUers who don't believe the BFEE has been making war for profit for four generations, from financing and arming Hitler and later Saddam.

[wildbilln864]

186. k & r! Well said. nt