NPR hosts Obama-Cheney debate

President Obama engaged former vice president Dick Cheney in a heated debate last week on both administrations' use of torture and other violations of human rights.

Actually, the debate never happened; the two men were in completely different locations, each attacking the policies of the other administration and defending their own positions in speeches in front of friendly audiences unable to challenge them. Nonetheless, ME presented them as a face-to-face debate between the two men, alternating soundbites from each.

Yes, this is the same Dick Cheney who determinedly avoided all forms of open information and accountability during the eight miserably long years he was VP, and who has every motivation to cover up the various crimes committed under his reign in the Bush administration. So one might reasonably ask, Who gives a shit what Dick Cheney has to say now?

Well, evidently NPR does, because they gave Cheney equal billing with the president in a piece titled "Obama, Cheney: Different Views on National Security." The title is offensive not only because it presents Cheney's views as equally relevant as the current president's, but also because it refers to the crimes of torture, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and indefinite detention without trial, as simply "national security." (At least the extended web version of the "debate" is titled "Obama, Cheney face off on torture.")

And in case you were wondering who won the debate, Steve Inskeep introduces the article with:

"Cheney warned that the new administration was tearing down the policies that kept America safe, yet the new president also faces criticism for keeping the essence of many Bush administration policies in place."

I am not going to get into the details of the misreprentations and dissembling in both speeches. These have been covered well elsewhere. My point here is to just to ask why NPR decided it was appropriate to present Cheney's blatantly self-serving propaganda as anything remotely relevant to current policy.

Don Gonyea attempted to explain it by saying: "The administration seemed to relish the mano a mano competition, pitting the popular Mr. Obama against an unpopular former vice president."

Actually, it was NPR that seemed to relish it most. And, of course, Gonyea couldn't help but jump into the make-believe debate himself, with his own thoughts on just how darn difficult it is to stop torturing people:

"But the real battle for President Obama is not in outshining Dick Cheney but persuading a reluctant Congress and public that he can shudder Guantanamo without compromising security."

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

Listening to John Ydstie and Deborah Amos "explain" the current outbreak of fighting in and around the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee in Tripoli, Lebanon, I couldn't help but wonder what is the story they are not telling. You don't have to work too hard to figure it out--and as usual it ain't pretty: Tony Karon does an excellent job of sizing up the situation and exposing the sinister machinations of our own Lord Voldemort--Dick Cheney.

Also useful are a couple of links describing the Fatah al-Islam group (this from Al Jazeera and this from the Council on Foreign Relations).

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

A reader of this blog commented in the "Open Thread" section today on the presence of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on Democracy Now! together -- amazing. This reader prefaced the comment with the note "not NPR related," however, I would beg to differ. Contrast such a feature with this "analysis" from Cokie Roberts:

"And the President and Vice President both over the weekend made strong cases against the Democratic plan to set a time period for US troops to withdraw from Iraq…both called the Democratic plan irresponsible…the surest route to failure…ridiculous…irresponsible…"

Does Roberts think that repeating the propaganda of Bush and Cheney is analysis? Then noting the problems dogging this stupid, violent, corrupt administration represented by the latest scandal involving Wolfowitz, Roberts hypothesizes that "it’s indicative of what happens six years into an administration. Everybody starts to get tired and arrogant and sloppy and administrations start to fall apart at this point."

Ah, so you see, in Cokie-World, the implosion of the Bush administration has nothing to do with the fact that this administration has been ignorant, arrogant, flouting laws and treaties, violating civil and human rights at will, and launching wars of aggression with manufactured intelligence - no, it's just the six-year slump that happens to all administrations.

So what will it be: discussion and analysis with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!, or seat-of-the-pants idiocy from NPR?

Team Bush

"Amen," I thought when I saw the guilty verdict against Libby pop up on the Internet this afternoon. That's one sleazeball down - out of many occupying the Bush White House. As Dave Lindorf noted on Common Dreams, if we have a press with any integrity left, this will be just a starting point for outing the rest of the thugs and liars running the executive branch. Regarding the Libby verdict, I also saw where Cursor.org picked up this prescient warning from Media Matters about lies in the media to watch out for.

And then I made the mistake of tuning in to ATC as they came storming out of the dugout to see what damage control they could effect for Bush-Cheney. Within minutes of the guilty verdict, someone at NPR must have been busy on the phone seeking out one of their many go-to right wing extremists. They rounded up one of their favorites, Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute (interestingly NPR has run into trouble with this creep before).

Here are a few of the whoppers that Goure, who at least is identified as a former employee of Libby's, is allowed to air without any challenge:

• "We now know that neither he nor Cheney first outed Ms. Plame.
• "No one in the Vice President’s was responsible for the leak."
• "Cheney did not leak."
• "...a miscarriage of justice."

So why does NPR want to have on a liar like Dan Goure to defend Libby? And if they are going to give such important airtime to him, where is the counterbalance? Why bring someone like him on the first news show after the Libby conviction? Why don't we get to hear from someone with a progressive viewpoint to challenge these falsehoods? (Interviewing Wilson doesn't count--he's not a progressive.) Why not at lease have on someone like The Nation's David Corn who has written about the full scope of the operation that was being waged against Wilson?

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the crucial first commentary NPR airs on the case, the first impression that its listeners get, is one that is fully loaded with misinformation favoring Bush and Cheney - and that is really sickening.

Added Wed. am: For a refresher on the whole sordid Libby-Bush-Cheney-Rove affair take a look at Juan Cole's Wed. post here.

Ha Ha

If an eighth-grader habitually stalked the school playground punching, kicking and tormenting third-graders and then ran off to hide and shift the blame onto someone else-NPR might open a report on such a kid with Melissa Block saying "Since coming onto the playground this feisty eighth-grader has never backed away from a fight." And so in opening David Greene's homage to Cheney, Block tells us, "Since he took office in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney has never backed down from a fight." Of course, this overlooks Fightin' Deferment Dick's attempts scuttle democratic oversight into his infamous "Energy Taskforce" (which, by the way, laid out plans for Iraq's oilfields long before 9/11).

Greene has the chutzpah to announce his threadbare report by claiming, "This is going to be one of those stories that Dick Cheney just doesn’t like. " On the contrary, Cheney couldn't have written a more dishonest, uninformative bit of blather himself.

Greene's story makes a big deal out of Cheney not running for President in 2008 and states "there are several reasons: age, a history of heart problems, very low poll ratings, and a media image that’s irresistible for late night comedians like Jon Stewart." THAT'S IT! Greene reduces the well-documented violence and sleaze of Cheney's life to heart problems and media image - nothing about his love of torture and his fondness for launching wars he doesn't have to be in.

Greene turns to Cheney's "long time adviser" Mary Madeline for input. She doesn't disappoint, snarling praise for Cheney. Greene also looks to academia, speaking to Professor Joel K. Goldstein, who when asked to sum up Cheney's vice presidency says, "What’s happened with the vice presidency beginning with Mondale is I think a very positive thing....” Unbelievable- except when you consider Cheney's Likudnik leanings and Goldstein writing an article called "Israel at 49: The Ultimate Democracy."

You know mainstream journalism has sunk pretty low when you have to turn to GQ for the most substantive reporting on Dick Cheney, but that is what it's come to. The GQ article by Wil S. Hylton is well worth reading - presenting the reasons for Cheney's impeachment replete with specific details and evidence.