Controlling the message and the messenger by any means
A recent post on The Washington Note highlights yet another instance of Bush administration supression of information -- as personal threat to the writer and stifling of the message.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php
Cited also by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011611.php
Along the lines of government suppression of information, here is a link related to suppressed data on attack levels in Iraq:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002169.php (via Crooks and Liars)
I want to reiterate the view that national politicians (including those who read this blog) need to seriously consider what it means that they fail to take on the Bush administration’s apparent institutionalization of a bunker mentality, with threats and punitive action to stifle expression, much less dissent.
Admittedly, politicians, particularly in Congress, seem ever behind the curve when it comes to recognizing and acting (versus just speech making, though that would be a start) when execution of executive authority –- on which they are explicitly supposed to represent a check -- has stepped over the line. The moreso when the retort from the WH would be unmerciful (with a hypocritical nod to “freedom of speech” . . . on their terms, i.e., terra, terra, terra). I have no doubt that virtually each politician would rather have the next stick his/her neck out first when it comes to speaking forthrightly about the emperor’s nakedness and abuses (or label the lone wolf a radical, out of the mainstream, or whatever). And this after an election in which the rulers and their policy have been rejected in historic proportions.
Shall we just say that “the terrorists” have just won? That the US political system has been ground into a parody of the democracy that supposedly was the true spiritual wealth of our body politic?
Are politicians so out of touch and in love with their jobs, afraid of being vilified by the WH and the pundits, uncertain of what any thinking person’s eyes and ears sense, unsure of their own logical processes, wedded to conventional expectations of what a “serious” politican says, that they will continue to disgrace the immense trust bestowed by the electorate? For shame.
Juan Cole, blogging in his "Informed Commet", proposes this as a watershed moment, particulary to rid the administration of Elliot Abrams:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/bush-white-house-censors-op-ed-on-iran.html
Digby,among others, seconds the motion:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116647918572493872
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php
Cited also by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011611.php
Along the lines of government suppression of information, here is a link related to suppressed data on attack levels in Iraq:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002169.php (via Crooks and Liars)
I want to reiterate the view that national politicians (including those who read this blog) need to seriously consider what it means that they fail to take on the Bush administration’s apparent institutionalization of a bunker mentality, with threats and punitive action to stifle expression, much less dissent.
Admittedly, politicians, particularly in Congress, seem ever behind the curve when it comes to recognizing and acting (versus just speech making, though that would be a start) when execution of executive authority –- on which they are explicitly supposed to represent a check -- has stepped over the line. The moreso when the retort from the WH would be unmerciful (with a hypocritical nod to “freedom of speech” . . . on their terms, i.e., terra, terra, terra). I have no doubt that virtually each politician would rather have the next stick his/her neck out first when it comes to speaking forthrightly about the emperor’s nakedness and abuses (or label the lone wolf a radical, out of the mainstream, or whatever). And this after an election in which the rulers and their policy have been rejected in historic proportions.
Shall we just say that “the terrorists” have just won? That the US political system has been ground into a parody of the democracy that supposedly was the true spiritual wealth of our body politic?
Are politicians so out of touch and in love with their jobs, afraid of being vilified by the WH and the pundits, uncertain of what any thinking person’s eyes and ears sense, unsure of their own logical processes, wedded to conventional expectations of what a “serious” politican says, that they will continue to disgrace the immense trust bestowed by the electorate? For shame.
Juan Cole, blogging in his "Informed Commet", proposes this as a watershed moment, particulary to rid the administration of Elliot Abrams:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/bush-white-house-censors-op-ed-on-iran.html
Digby,among others, seconds the motion:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116647918572493872
