#Greatest Domestic Policy President in American History

[deadpresidents]

I agree that lbj is great but you forget to mention vietnam

Vietwhat? I'm sorry...you're breaking up...I think you'll have to call back when you have better reception and I'll answer that question in-depth. I'm definitely not dodging it.

[mightyflamethrower]

“Name me a single objective we’ve ever set out to accomplish that we’ve failed on. Name me one, in all of our history. Not one!”

-President Joe Biden, August 16, 2023 

Joe Biden in one of his now accustomed angry “get off my grass” moods dared the press to find just one of his policies/objectives that has not worked. Silence followed.

Perhaps it was polite to say nothing, given even the media knows almost every enacted Biden policy has failed.

Here is a summation of what he should instead apologize for.

Biden in late summer 2021 sought a 20th anniversary celebration of 9/11 and the 2001 subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. He wished to be the landmark president that yanked everyone out of Afghanistan after 20 years in country. But the result was the greatest military humiliation of the United States since the flight from Vietnam in 1975.

Consider the ripples of Biden’s disaster. U.S. deterrence was crippled worldwide. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea almost immediately began to bluster or return to their chronic harassment of U.S. and allied ships and planes. We left thousands of allied Afghans to face Taliban retribution, along with some Western contractors.

Biden abandoned a $1 billion embassy, and a $300 million remodeled Bagram airbase strategically located not far from China and Russia, and easily defensible. Perhaps $50 billion in U.S. weaponry and supplies were abandoned and now find their way into the international terrorist mart.

All our pride flags, our multimillion gender studies programs at Kabul University, and our George Floyd murals did not just come to naught, but were replaced by the Taliban’s anti-homosexual campaigns, burkas, and detestation of any trace of American popular culture.

Vladimir Putin sized up the skedaddle. He collated it with Biden’s unhinged quip that he would not get too excited if Putin just staged a “minor” invasion of Ukraine. He remembered Biden’s earlier request to Putin to modulate Russian hacking to exempt a few humanitarian American institutions. Then Russia concluded of our shaky Commander-in-Chief that he either did not care or could do nothing about another Russian invasion.

The result so far is more than 500,000 dead and wounded in the war, a Verdun-stand-off along with fortified lines, the steady depletion of our munitions and weapon stocks, and a new China/Russia/Iran/North Korean axis, with wink and nod assistance from NATO Turkey.

Biden blew up the Abraham accords, nudged Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States over to the dark side of Iran, China, and Russia. He humiliated the U.S. on the eve of the midterms by callously begging the likes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to pump more oil that he had damned as unclean at home and cut back its production. In Bidenomics, instead of producing oil, the president begs autocracies to export it to us at high prices while he drains the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve for short-term political advantage.

Biden deliberately alienated Israel by openly interfering in its domestic politics. He pursued the crackpot Iran Deal while his special Iranian envoy was removed for disclosing classified information.

No one can explain why Biden ignored the Chinese balloon espionage caper, kept mum about the engineered Covid virus that escaped the Wuhan lab, said not a word about a Chinese biolab discovered in rural California, and had his envoys either bow before Chinese leaders or take their insults in silence—other than he is either cognitively challenged or leveraged by his decade-long grifting partnership with his son Hunter.

Yet another Biden’s legacy will be erasing the southern border and with it, U.S. immigration law. Over seven million aliens simply crossed into the U.S. illegally with Biden’s tacit sanction—without audits, background checks, vaccinations, and COVID testing, much less English fluency, skills, or high-school diplomas.

Biden’s only immigration accomplishment was to render the entire illegal sanctuary city movement a cruel joke. Given the flood, mostly rich urban and vacation home dwellers made it very clear that while they fully support millions swarming into poor Latino communities of southern Texas and Arizona, they do not want any illegal aliens fouling their carefully cultivated nests.

Biden is mum about the 100,000 fentanyl deaths from cartel-imported and Chinese-supplied drugs across his open border. He seems to like the idea that Mexican President Obrador periodically mouths off, ordering his vast expatriate community to vote Democratic and against Trump.

Despite all the pseudo-blue collar dissimulation about Old Joe Biden from Scranton, he has little empathy for the working classes. Indeed, he derides them as chumps and dregs, urges miners to learn coding as the world covets their coal, and studiously avoids getting anywhere near the toxic mess in East Palestine, Ohio, or so far the moonscape on Maui.

Bidenomics is a synonym for printing up to $6 billion dollars at precisely the time post-Covid consumer demand was soaring, while previously dormant supply chains were months behind rebooting production and transportation. Biden is on track to increase the national debt more than any one-term president.

In Biden’s weird logic, if he raised the price of energy, gasoline, and key food staples 20-30 percent since his inauguration without a commensurate rise in wages, and then saw the worst inflation in 40 years occasionally decline from record highs one month to the next, then he “beat inflation.”

But the reason why more than 60 percent of the nation has no confidence in Bidenomics is because it destroyed their household budgets. Gas is nearly twice what it was in January 2021. Interest rates have about tripled. Key staple foods are often twice as costly—meat, vegetables, and fruits especially.

Biden has ended through his weaponized Attorney General Merrick Garland the age-old American commitment to equal justice under the law. The FBI, DOJ, CIA, and IRS are hopelessly politically compromised. Many of their bureaucrats serve as retrieval agents for lost Biden family incriminating laptops, diaries, and guns. In sum, Biden criminalized opposing political views.

Biden has unleashed the administrative state for the first time in history to destroy the Republican primary front runner and his likely opponent. His legacy will be the corruption of U.S. jurisprudence and the obliteration of the American reputation for transparent permanent government that should be always above politics, bribery, and corruption.

If in the future, an on-the-make conservative prosecutor in West Virginia, Utah, or Mississippi wishes to make a national name, then he has ample precedent to indict a Democrat President for receiving bad legal advice, questioning the integrity of an election, or using social media to express doubt that the new non-Election-Day balloting was on the up-and-up, or supposedly overvaluing his real estate.

The Biden family’s decade-long family grifting will likely expose Joe Biden as the first president in U.S. history who fitted precisely the Constitution’s definition of impeachment and removal—given his “high crimes and misdemeanors” appear “bribery”-related. If further evidence shows he altered U.S. foreign policy in accordance with the wishes from his benefactors in Ukraine, China, or Romania, then he committed constitutionally-defined “treason” as well.

Defunding the police, and pandemics of exempted looting, shoplifting, smashing, and grabbing, and carjacking merit no administrative attention. Nor does the ongoing systematic destruction of our blue bicoastal cities, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. All that, along with the disasters in East Palestine or Maui are out of sight, out of mind from a day at the beach at Biden’s mysteriously purchased nearly 6,000 square-foot beachfront mansion.

Biden ran on Barack Obama-like 2004 rhetoric (“Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America).”

And like Obama, he used that ecumenical sophistry to gain office only to divide further the U.S. No sooner than he was elected, we began hearing from the great unifier eerie screaming harangues about “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” dangerous zealots, replete with red-and black Phantom of the Opera backdrops.

What followed the unifying rhetoric was often amnesties and exemptions for violent offenders during the 120 days of rioting, looting, killing, and attacks on police officers in summer 2020.  In contrast, his administration lied when it alleged that numerous officers had died at the hands of the January 6 rioters. In addition, the Biden administration mandated long-term incarceration of many who committed no illegal act other than acting like buffoons and “illegally parading.”

The message was exemptions for torching a federal courthouse, a police precinct, or historic church or attempting to break into the White House grounds to get a president and his family—but long prison terms for wearing cow horns, a fur vest, and trespassing peacefully like a lost fool in the Capitol.

Finally, Biden’s most glaring failure was simply being unpresidential. He snaps at reporters, and shouts at importune times. He can no longer read off a big-print teleprompter. Even before a global audience, he cannot kick his lifelong creepy habit of turkey-gobbling on children necks, blowing into their ears and hair of young girls, and squeezing women far too long and far too hard.

His frailty redefined American presidential campaigning as basement seclusion and outsourcing propaganda to the media. And his disabilities only intensified during his presidency. Biden begins his day late and quits early. He has recalibrated the presidency as a 5-hour, 3-day a week job.

If Trump was the great exaggerator, Biden is our foremost liar. Little in his biography can be fully believed. He lies about everything from his train rides to the death of his son to his relationship with Biden-family foreign collaborators, to vaccinations to the economy. Anytime Biden mentions places visited, miles flown, or rails ridden, he is likely lying.

Biden continues with impunity because the media feels that a mentally challenged fabulist is preferable to Donald Trump and so contextualizes or ignores his falsehoods. Never has a U.S. president fallen and stumbled or gotten lost on stage so frequently—or been a single small trip away from incapacity.

So, yes, Biden’s initiatives have succeeded only in the sense of becoming successfully enacted—and therefore nearly destroying the country.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

You might assume that Dr. Anthony Fauci, after 54 years working at the National Institutes of Health and helping save countless lives, has retired so he can rest. However, Dr. Fauci doesn’t have time to retire.

Last month, Fauci joined Georgetown University School of Medicine’s Department of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases as a Distinguished Professor. He was also appointed to the university’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

“I’ve also been busy lecturing and writing my memoir, and since I’ve been out of the NIH for seven months, I’m not following the ins and outs of the government, but I am paying attention to what’s going on with PEPFAR,” he tells me.

PEPFAR is the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was signed into law 20 years ago this summer by President George W. Bush. It serves as a conduit to providing HIV medications to individuals in impoverished nations who would otherwise lack access to these drugs.

When I spoke to Fauci a couple years ago on the 40th anniversary of the discovery of HIV, he cited the opportunity to be the architect of the program as one of his greatest achievements. "It is the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history," he told me. "It's been an honor to help lead this. I really value my participation in this program that has already saved 15-18 million (in 2021) lives around the world."

“PEPFAR impact has been truly remarkable,” Fauci told me during our phone call Friday evening. "It is one of this country’s greatest global health policies in history. It’s been a resounding success, and has saved at least 25 million lives worldwide and it provides antiretroviral treatments for over 20 million people worldwide.”

However, groundless claims from anti-abortion activists have put the program in jeopardy. Conservative and anti-abortion groups sent a letter to Republicans in Congress who are responsible for PEPFAR’s reauthorization. The letter said that PEPFAR funds are “used by nongovernmental organizations that promote abortions and push a radical gender ideology abroad.” They provided no evidence to back their claim.

Also, the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation released a report that said Congress needs to “reassess” PEPFAR. The report claimed, “The Biden Administration has misused the program as a well-funded vehicle to promote its domestic radical social agenda overseas, as it has done with other foreign aid programs.” This so-called report also did not provide any proof.

As a result, Republicans in Congress are threatening not to reauthorize the program.

“The idea that this program would be interrupted, despite its overwhelming success, is unfortunate,” Fauci said. “There’s a real danger to associate the program with cultural issues as opposed to scientific ones that clearly show PEPFAR is saving lives.”

“It seems paradoxical that abortion rights groups who fight for life want to interfere with a program that has saved millions of lives,” Fauci pointed out. “If the program doesn’t function, lives aren’t saved, millions of them.”

Instead of castigating the program, shouldn't these groups, as well as all Americans, be celebrating the 20th anniversary of this milestone? “What’s ironic is that it was signed into law by a conservative Republican President, and it is without question George W. Bush’s greatest achievement. It took years to put together, in a bipartisan way, and it is one of the world’s signature global health initiatives. The thought of it not being authorized is not only dangerous, but disastrous.”

[milkboydotnet]

Two Sides of the Same Coin - Bayan USA

What would a Harris or Trump Presidency Mean for the Philippines and the Filipino People?

This U.S. presidential election, BAYAN USA holds no illusions that either candidate will bring genuine change for the Filipino people. The first Presidential debate on September 10 proved nothing more than that the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin: both anti-people and warmongering tools for the wealthy elite.

So what exactly can the Filipino people expect from either party? 

The Republic Party’s platform relies heavily on Project 2025, the much feared fixation of many U.S. liberals. Project 2025 is a 1,000 page document that wants to dismantle checks and balances of the Federal government and put near dictatorial power into the executive branch. Despite Trump’s distancing himself from the document, both spread hate rhetoric that is anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-Communist, all of which build up Trump’s rabid and fascist mass base. 

Trump places the blame for skyrocketing unemployment on undocumented immigrants and refugees “allowed” through the border by Democrat officials, accusing them of “stealing people’s jobs and causing havoc for traditional American values.” With slogans such as “Build the Greatest Economy in History,” he also openly criticizes corporate greed despite being a blatantly greedy capitalist himself.

Trump claims that he will make the U.S. “the most modern, lethal and powerful Force in the World.” His call for an Iron Dome Defense Shield to surround the U.S. would invite wasteful and deadly military spending, similar to the death traps being built by Republican governors along the hyper-militarized U.S.-Mexico border. 

On the other side, the Democratic Party touts itself as the progressive alternative to Trump. However, their policies are just as conservative and right-wing. Whether it be gun laws or immigration, Harris’ position is not much different from the GOP’s. In terms of foreign policy, Harris has stated she is not going to change anything about U.S. intervention. This is a slap in the face to the Filipino people and all nationally oppressed people around the world — especially our Palestinian siblings who have been suffering from the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide for almost one year. Harris has promised to build “the most lethal military in the world,” and force the country into a war with China that nobody wants except for war-profiteering corporations, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. 

Harris chooses to rely on fear-mongering and “lesser evilism” to goad the U.S. public into voting for her. Her slogan of “We Can Win This!” already gives away the skewed priorities of the Democrats, which is to win the race rather than pose any substantial policy platform that to truly alleviate the suffering of working class people in the U.S.

Whoever wins this election, the U.S. imperialist agenda will continue in the Philippines. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents alike, the Filipino people have faced violations of our national sovereignty through the installation of facto bases and military war games; U.S.-funded counterinsurgency that has resulted in war crimes against civilian communities; and economic crises spurred by foreign corporate plunder. These are made possible through unequal trade and military agreements. 

Marcos’ selling out of the Philippines to U.S. interests has forced Filipinos overseas to work even harder to send more money back home to support their families. This puts our people in more precarious work conditions, facing extreme exploitation, contract violations, and labor trafficking due to the widespread neoliberal policies found domestically in the U.S. — again, policies that both Democrats and Republicans have passed. Meanwhile, wages remain stagnant and prices continue to rise, all without any substantial support or protections from the U.S. or Philippine governments. Both states would rather spend freely on the budget for militarism and for subsidizing corporate greed rather than address the root problems of poverty and war. 

No matter the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, the Filipino people in both the U.S. and the Philippines cannot expect to see any significant change or relief from U.S. economic, military and political intervention. Both ruling imperialist parties have thoroughly proven themselves to be anti-people and rotten to the core. In fact, both the Democratic and the Republican parties have seen right-ward shifts in their politics and are forging a roadmap towards war and fascism. 

It is the people, not these two parties, who we can rely on to make concrete changes through collective action. In the days leading up to the U.S. elections, we invite all Filipinos to join us in supporting the Filipino American Agenda, and all working and oppressed peoples to support The People’s Platform of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle. Beyond the election, and no matter the result, we must continue building the organized mass movement to win real changes for our communities at home and around the world. 

Welfare, not warfare! Rights, not repression! U.S. out of the Philippines! US out of everywhere! From Palestine to the Philippines, stop the U.S. war machine! End the genocide in Palestine!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

On a highway near you ...

* * * *

THE GOP AND JANUARY 6

TCINLA :: [Thats Another Fine Mess]

JUN 19, 2024

I think we can all agree that Marjorie Traitor Goon belongs in locked padded cell in a secure mental facility. With her public performances over the past several days, it’s clear that her padded cell should be in the prison ward of the facility.

For those trying to avoid the news, Greene spoke this weekend at the Turning Points Action political conference as the introduction to Trump’s appearance. What she said needs to be seen as truly alarming.

Greene began her speech by saying, “Anyone that wants to continue shame us for January 6th can go to hell.” The raucous crowd responded with loud applause.

She continued on, bragging about her role on Jan. 6, based on her belief that Trump had won her home state of Georgia, despite no evidence to that effect.

She ended the speech by saying she was the one who organized the attempt to overturn the peaceful transfer of power - again to loud applause. As usual, she overstating her role; at most, she was a relatively minor character in the plot, though she was indeed involved in the planning. But the fact that she could make this claim to praise and applause is what is terrifying.

Note her initial line there: A civil war started on Election Day 2020 when Democrats stole the presidency from Trump.

The fact is, Greene is merely the most obvious of the GOP traitors, due to her essential stupidity. Just remember, however, that many of the Nazis were stupid people who were considered “clowns” prior to 1933. The entire Republican Party is now completely under the thrall of Trump. With his appearance last week at the scene of his greatest act of treason, where he was applauded by Republican office holders who were among those hiding in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in fear for their lives from the murderous mob of insurrectionists Trump summoned and launched at the seat of the government he had taken an oath to defend “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” where his arrival was met by applause, it should be clear to anyone that the two political parties in the United States are The Party of Government and the Party of Insurrectionary Treason.

As David Kurtz put it at TPM, “A lot about the last four years can be encapsulated by the notion that one side in American politics is fighting a cold civil war, and the other side is totally bewildered by it. That’s not what war fighters mean when they refer to an asymmetric battlefield, but the asymmetry is stark as hell.”

Unfortunately, too many Democrats seem to either be unable to see this or, if they do see it, they choose to deny the truth before their eyes.

In fact, there are too many Democrats who will attack anyone who points out the utter and complete evil of MAGA now, and the fact that the Democratic Party needs to have a stronger response, by claiming the speaker is “no better than” whatever MAGA traitor was mentioned.

For anyone who has studied the political history of the 1930s, there are two groups of people in Germany who were responsible for the Nazi takeover: the enablers - the German industrialists who gave money to the Nazis, the politicians who believed they could “manage” Hitler - and the fools who said people like Billy Wilder were “cranks” for their warnings about the true nature of the Nazis, who they claimed were nothing more than “clowns.”

Our new political normal is one in which far right populism is - and will be for the foreseeable future, regardless of the November election - a consistent competitor for power. In past times a political realignment usually involved a change of view about the role of government, or the ends of foreign policy. What we are seeing those from the Republican Party is a revolutionary recreation of government as a tool for minority rule and a rejection of the rule of law.

There’s a name for this problem: Motivated ignorance. The term refers to a person willfully blinding themself to facts and choosing not to know something. For many people, knowing the truth is simply too psychologically painful, too costly, too threatening to their core identity.

In greater numbers, people can be incentivized to adopt motivated ignorance and actively decide to remain in a state of disbelief. When presented with a strong argument against a position they hold, or being presented with compelling evidence disproving their personal narrative, that information will be rejected. Doing so fends off the psychological distress of the realization that they’ve been lying to themselves and to others. Motivated ignorance is a widespread phenomenon; most people, to one degree or another, employ it, and it is found equally among the Democrats who refuse the admit the nature of the threat, and the true believers who refuse to even listen to anyone attempting to discredit their cult leader.

In the case of MAGA true believers, the lies they believe as Trump supporters, or say they believe, are all obviously untrue and obviously destructive. But as can be seen in the 2025 Project book, the Trump true believers who will be in a position - should he win - to make and carry out policy, those policy decisions are being made on the belief that the lies are the truth. Over the past eight years, each succeeding conspiracy theory has been ratcheted up, being more preposterous and more malicious in order to keep the believers ready to act on their beliefs, no matter how deranged.

Unfortunately, the fact that these are all demonstrable lies allows the motivated ignorant in the Democratic Party to discount them, to denigrate those who say “when someone tells you what they want to do, believe them” as “cranks,” the term used by the disbelievers Billy Wilder knew.

Anti-anti-Trump is not confined to conservatives unwilling to become Never-Trumpers and possibly lose their social position by so doing.

It happened to Wilder’s friends in Berlin with their belief that the Nazis were “clowns” no matter the information received that the “clowns” were actually a direct personal threat to their continued well-being. A Wilder said, “When I returned twelve years later, all of my friends who told me the Nazis were clowns, were dead. Killed by the clowns.”

Things aren’t that dire here (yet), but the willingness of some Democrats to take a the statement of exasperation made by a strongly anti-Trump person, and then claim that statement is equally dangerous to whatever threat made by a ranking Trumper about what they intend to do when they take power, is to not only shut one’s eyes to what is happening in favor of a belief that we still live in a civilized society where one argues “properly,” but to actively oppose anyone presenting evidence to the contrary.

The question is, how complicit are people who live in a hall of mirrors inside a bubble, that nothing consequential has changed or threatened to change and have convinced themselves they represent the “proper response” and want to police the word and actions of those who threaten their belief those people are the real “threat” with their “incivility”?

The truth is that the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party, or even a radical party. The statements of intent over what will happen when the MAGA movement takes power are revolutionary in their desire to overturn everything. Just in the past 30 days there hasn’t been a MAGA Republican who hasn’t either made a direct threat against democracy, or tried to cover up such a statement by a fellow MAGA Republican when questioned in the media. They are now all complicit. The ones who say nothing but vote in favor of MAGA positions and policies are no different from the Marjorie Traitor Goons shouting it from the rooftops.

However, as Jonathan Last pointed out, “The Trumpist revolution’s weakness is that it has no ideas. It has goals, but these are motivated by nothing more than will-to-power. There is no logic—not even a faulty logic—behind them.”

While we - on the side that would like to preserve liberal democracy - are becoming exhausted, the people who want to destroy the Constitution are energized. The system has allowed and will allow without radical changes, for the MAGA “revolutionaries” to make their charge of the capitol a many times as they want to. And they only have to win once.

As the Old Gunnery Sergeant said to the Marines at Guadalcanal, “Off your dead asses and onto your dying feet. There’s work to be done!”

[TCinLA]

[mariacallous]

There’s an old saying in Israeli politics that a politician can be dead—or dead and buried. Whether a beleaguered Benjamin Netanyahu belongs to either of these unhappy groups is hard to say, but veteran Israeli political analysts are clear that he now faces the test of his life. Netanyahu must deal with a converging web of controversies and pressures, while also dealing with an increasingly unhappy Israeli public. These include rising frustration from the families of hostages taken on Oct. 7 by Hamas; dissension in the war cabinet; a rebellious right wing; the return of mobilized reservists (traditionally an anti-Netanyahu constituency); and growing strains with the United States—not to mention his ongoing trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in the Jerusalem District Court.

Having presided over the greatest intelligence failure and terror attack in Israel’s history and the bloodiest day for Jews since the Holocaust, Netanyahu may well be entering the twilight of his career. One way or another, it is unlikely that the current Netanyahu-led government will run its full term to October 2026. The average length of an Israeli government since independence is 1.8 years. And Israel, whose politics are fractious during normal times, has just weathered a stunningly abnormal—even traumatic—year, with Netanyahu leading efforts to weaken Israel’s judiciary and the Oct. 7 terror surge. Both traumas, his critics charge, were a direct result of Netanyahu’s failed policies.

That is not to say the political demise of Israel’s longest-governing prime minister will be quick. Right now, there are no direct mechanisms to remove him from power. Indeed, Netanyahu has a few more levers to pull, including from a most unlikely quarter: a U.S. president who is aiming to deliver an Israel-Saudi normalization accord before the American elections in November, if Netanyahu plays along.

In January, the Labor Party put forward a no-confidence motion for the government’s failure to redeem the hostages. The vote had no chance, but it signaled the beginning of the return of domestic politics, suspended in the interest of national unity since Oct. 7. Yair Lapid, the head of oppositional party Yesh Atid, talked publicly about holding early elections while former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of the General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, a nonvoting member of the war cabinet, publicly chastised the prime minister for his refusal to prioritize the release of hostages and lack of crisis leadership.

The public is by no means giving up on the war against Hamas. But the twin goals of destroying Hamas’s military organization and freeing the 136 hostages still held are now increasingly at odds with one another. Hamas used time—and its tunnel maze—to frustrate the IDF’s operations; a deal to free the hostages may be looming. That will be a fraught decision point for the prime minister as far-right members of his coalition insist the war must continue while centrists and the center-left push toward a hostage deal involving an extended pause in the fighting.

In this respect, Netanyahu could finally be cornered. As Anshel Pfeffer, perhaps the most astute observer of Netanyahu, has argued, what the prime minister fears the most isn’t the Americans or pressure from the hostages’ families but “losing the majority in the Knesset that took him four years and five election campaigns, including 18 frustrating months out of office, to secure.”

If a hostage deal that necessitates a lengthy cease-fire emerges, far-right Knesset members, notably National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir or Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (especially the former, whose party’s poll numbers have risen), may seek to cement their status as true believers of a maximalist war approach by bolting the coalition.

But if Netanyahu bows to pressure from his right, the looming threat of resignations by Benny Gantz and Eisenkot from the war cabinet remains a distinct possibility. Gantz and Eisenkot, members of the increasingly popular National Unity political alliance, have ramped up their criticism of Netanyahu in recent weeks. Eisenkot said Netanyahu bears “sharp and clear” responsibility for the Oct. 7 attacks. If they do resign, Gantz and Eisenkot could fuel a new wave of protests against Netanyahu and spark other government officials, perhaps even members of Netanyahu’s own party, to step aside.

Netanyahu’s political acumen—and sheer will—to stay in power should never be underestimated. But his staying power these days is also a result of the realities of Israel’s political process.

To send him packing, there are several pathways available for the Israeli opposition—all of them problematic. First, there is the vote of constructive no confidence. Modified in 2014 to ensure an alternative government must be proposed, any constructive vote of no confidence requires at least 61 Knesset member votes (out of 120) to enact. Alternatively, the Knesset can pass a bill supported by a simple majority to dissolve itself and move to elections. Right now, there seems to be no appetite in the current Knesset to send the country into yet another election in wartime, much less the votes needed for an alternative governing coalition.

The second mechanism to remove Netanyahu stems from the belief that resignations by Gantz and Eisenkot from the war cabinet, coupled with widespread protests, will serve as the catalysts for a handful of Likud MKs to abandon Netanyahu. But there’s no guarantee that Gantz and Eisenkot will voluntarily resign from their influential posts anytime soon. To them, overseeing Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s decisions, such as preventing further escalation in Lebanon, help blunt the coalition’s far-right actors. Also, Netanyahu still maintains control of his party. The Likud does not have a history of abandoning its leader and devouring its own. The idea that members of Netanyahu’s own party could see a path forward without their leader and drop from the governing coalition remains a long shot.

The third option that could in theory remove Netanyahu is often overlooked but has proved integral to political change after prior national traumas: a state commission of inquiry. Formed by the government or the Knesset State Control Committee, a state commission is highly consequential given its broad investigative powers, such as the ability to call witnesses and recommend resignations. State commissions are led by the president of the Supreme Court, who appoints its members, insulating the process from political interference.

State commissions of inquiry are powerful. After the failures in the leadup to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, relentless public pressure based on findings from the Agranat Commission forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign five months after the war ended and just one month after forming the 16th government of Israel following the December 1973 elections. Given the national trauma inflicted by Oct. 7, the creation of a commission of inquiry is a near certainty—the question is when, not if.

But any state commission of inquiry would take months to release its findings. The Agranat Commission took five months to release an interim report (April 1974) and nearly a year and a half to release the final version (January 1975).

Aside from the extended timeline, Netanyahu could seek to modify the creation of a commission of inquiry to shield himself from personal responsibility.

Take the Winograd Commission of 2006, for example. In the aftermath of the much-maligned 2006 stalemate with Hezbollah, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appointed former Mossad director Nahum Admoni to head the committee investigating the government’s management of the war in Lebanon (This later turned into a government commission of inquiry.). Ultimately managed by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd, Olmert was able to evade a state commission by the active president of the Supreme Court (Justice Dorit Beinisch)—a move that may pique Netanyahu’s interest given his well-documented critiques of Israel’s current Supreme Court.

Upon the release of Winograd’s damning findings, protests erupted across Israel calling for Olmert’s resignation. Olmert’s party, Kadima, stood behind him. The Knesset opposition leader at the time—a man by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu—called Olmert unfit to lead, arguing “the government is in charge of the military, and it failed miserably.” Despite relentless pressure, Olmert would survive for two more years, and a vote of no confidence in Winograd’s aftermath was never held.

And then, of course, there’s Netanyahu’s own trial—four years running with no signs of concluding any time soon. It could easily go another year and result in either a conviction or a plea bargain, including Netanyahu’s retirement from politics, to prevent that conviction result. The only certainty is that it will take time. Olmert was indicted in January 2012 over the Holyland affair, convicted on two counts of bribery in March 2014, and began serving a 19-month sentence only in February 2016.

There’s one additional pathway to remove Netanyahu from power; it’s a double-edged sword because it also contains an option for him to remain. Though the path ahead is fraught and uncertain, the Biden administration has embarked on an integrated regional initiative to move beyond the Israel-Hamas war and to stabilize the broader Arab-Israeli arena. Its centerpiece is the administration’s desire—evident well before Oct. 7—to push for an Israeli-Saudi normalization deal. The broad outlines involve a sequential series of steps: first, a hostage-for-prisoner release that would lead to an Israeli-Hamas temporary cease-fire lasting months, followed by a Saudi offer to normalize relations with Israel provided the Israelis agree to the creation of a Palestinian state and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. There would also be a package of deliverables to Saudi Arabia, including what is certain to be a controversial mutual defense treaty and help with its nascent nuclear program as well as undefined security guarantees for Israel.

The administration’s logic appears to be that such an offer would certainly break Netanyahu’s coalition. But perhaps Netanyahu, eager to remain in power, would abandon his extremist partners and take part of his Likud party into a new alignment with more centrist partners to do the deal and cement his legacy. If Netanyahu refused the deal, elections would follow, possibly leading to his defeat, and the new government would grab the deal. In the words of Haaretz military correspondent Amos Harel, the deal represents Netanyahu’s “lifeline.”

Who or what replaces him, if things do not work out, is also difficult to predict. The politics of Israel are dominated by the right and center-right, and more often than not, it’s the right wing that has gained from security crises. In 2001, Likud’s Ariel Sharon handed Ehud Barak one of the biggest defeats in Israeli politics following the failure of the Camp David summit and the outbreak of the Second Intifada; the 2006 Lebanon War would shake the Israeli electorate’s confidence in Olmert, whose resignation would lead to the beginning of Netanyahu’s long run as prime minister. It seems hard to imagine a resurgence of the center-left. In the latest election cycle, Labor barely reached the Knesset threshold with four seats, and the progressive Meretz did not qualify altogether. This political paradigm has not changed since Oct. 7. If anything, Israeli attitudes have moved further to the right than ever before.

Still, a course correction is coming—most likely a government led by Gantz, more focused on the protection of democracy, civil society, and the rule of law. Gantz’s new coalition would cast aside the counterproductive rhetoric Netanyahu deploys toward the United States, and perhaps would prove more pragmatic on issues pertaining to the conflict with the Palestinians. It’s doubtful if a new government, likely running the ideological gamut from right to left along the lines of the previous Bennett-Lapid coalition, would be able to make core decisions leading to a transformative, conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. Still, while it will not offer a quick solution to the elusive problem of the much-too-promised land, a new government might—with leadership changes on the Palestinian side as well—get the region a step closer.

[ciswomenofficial]

Serious work to improve the rights of queer and trans people grows out of the barrel of a gun. Maybe a literal gun, maybe a riot, or maybe the gun of a bourgeoisie police officer in the case of liberal reform, but it’s all possible because of guns. Our society would collapse if there were no violence in it. All societies existing in present conditions do so because of violence.

If you want gay liberation, women’s liberation, or trans liberation, than you will have to do the kind of reforming of the economy that is not possible under the gun of the bourgeoisie police officer. The most you can achieve without restructuring the economy into a socialist economy and cultural revolution is the liberation of the gay settler or the gay middle class. If we want a total emancipation of the whole gay people, we need to navigate it though the primary contradiction: ultimately class, but in a colonial context racialized class.

And the anti-capitalist and anti-colonial struggle in America has always at its best been armed and militant. Even Martin Luther Kings famous non-violent direct actions were attended by individuals wielding shotguns for self defence, to say nothing of the SNCC members who kept guns around their homes, the panthers, Malcom X, the American Indian Movement and many others among the chief forces and most politically advanced members of the colonized masses in that era. the anti- colonial struggle globally has also been armed and militant at its best; they fought a bloody war in Algeria, Nelson Mandela did bombings in South Africa, China valiantly fought off the Japanese invaders and the comparators who profited from American and European business interests. Even the first anti-colonial war of the modern era in Haiti was fought violently. Every slave revolt was fought through violence. Back in America some of those slave revolts (the ones happening domestically) and the fight fought by John Brown (supported by black anti-slavery activists such as Harriet Tubman) both drove the nation forward to the violent civil war that abolished slavery. The history of opposition to colonialism is bloody, and so it must be.

The idea that we must not give them resistance, the idea that resistance is what they want and makes us look bad is an ahistorical idea. No amount of hand-holding, or satire has ever defeated oppressors. Do you think there was no satire against the nazis? People didn’t take the nazis seriously enough because they were hypocritical and held probably false views. That did not stop them from taking over the Weimar government and declaring themselves the new German reich. No, the nazis were stopped by war. Civil war, international war, that is the most reliable way of stopping one’s enemies. Can we vote against the problem? Well, male Gen zers are—in general—turning to the right wing, and Trump is becoming more and more appealing to a lot of people while the democrats are losing ground by their own incompetence. Voting will not win is the issue any time soon—just as attempts at voting did not matter in the Weimar Republic and did not stop the nazis.

The force of fascism in society is not driven by poll numbers. Nor have other developments: Keynesian policies are popular in America, FDR is upheld as one of the greatest presidents, and yet his popular Keynesian reforms been being dismantled by neoliberal reforms since the Carter administration. No Democratic Party led government has reversed this purposed “Reganomics” as some erroneously call it. That is because these policies are driven by the historical changes in economic realities driven by the contradictions in capitalist economics. So is rising fascism. Rosa Luxembourg once said that either socialism will triumph or barbarism shall. The people of Germany chose nazi barbarism in the decades after that. We have two choices in the present: continue with capitalism and colonialism and fall into our own period of barbarism, or fight against them and prevent and defeat barbarism. Perhaps it will be a Keynesian barbarism and will not be barbaric to you personally. That does not seem as likely at the moment, when Bernie sanders campaign has failed so spectacularly, driven in part by Democratic Party scheming towards its emerging left wing. What is more likely is that we will be the subject of fascist barbarism.

[readitreviewit]

Donald Trump may not have been a conventional president, but he undoubtedly left his mark on American history. And now, thanks to the stunning pictorial book Trump 45: The Greatest American President, readers can gain an unprecedented glimpse into the life and work of this remarkable leader. At the heart of this book lies a collection of magnificent photographs, capturing Trump at his best as he navigates the complex, challenging world of politics. From negotiating tough trade deals to standing up for ordinary Americans, these images demonstrate the unwavering commitment and determination that Trump brought to his role as president. One thing that becomes clear from this book is just how much Trump worked for the American people. For too long, the forgotten men and women of this great nation had been overlooked by their leaders. But Trump was different. He was unapologetically passionate about putting America first, a stance that he would never waver from. Of course, there were challenges along the way. Trump faced opposition from many quarters, both domestically and abroad. Yet he never let that deter him. Whether speaking to Congress, forging peace with foreign leaders, or bringing troops home from overseas, Trump was singularly focused on what he believed to be in the best interests of the United States. As a result of this single-minded determination, Trump achieved incredible things during his presidency. From tax reform to job creation, his policies helped to transform the American economy, unleashing a wave of prosperity that was felt throughout the country. It's not just Trump's achievements that are captured so beautifully in this book, however. Equally impressive is his character. He was a man who was never afraid to be himself, even in the face of criticism or ridicule. Whether he was taking to Twitter to share his thoughts or descending the stairs of Air Force One with all the pomp and ceremony of a Hollywood star, Trump was always larger than life. The images in this book capture this essence of Trump perfectly. They show a man who was charismatic, dynamic, and endlessly fascinating. Whether he was addressing crowds of adoring fans or making deals with world leaders, Trump always commanded attention. Of course, no president is perfect, and Trump was no exception. His time in office was marked by controversies, some of which are discussed in this book. But what comes across most strongly is Trump's unflinching dedication to his beliefs and his country. At a time when politics is more divisive than ever, Trump 45: The Greatest American President provides a much-needed insight into a leader who dared to be different. This is a book that will appeal not just to Trump supporters but to anyone who's interested in politics, contemporary history, or photography. The production values of the book are also noteworthy. The hardcover edition boasts a generous 80 pages and is printed in English. It comes with an ISBN-10 of 1637581653 and an ISBN-13 of 978-1637581650. At 1.19 pounds, it's a substantial tome, but the dimensions of 10 inches by 0.4 inches by 10 inches make it easy to handle and appreciate. In conclusion, Trump 45: The Greatest American President is a must-read book for anyone who wants to understand the incredible impact that Donald Trump had on America during his presidency. With its stunning photographs and insightful commentary, this book is a visual feast that will leave readers spellbound from cover to cover. Highly recommended! "Don't wait another second - immerse yourself in this captivating story today! Order your own copy of the book or start your FREE 30-day trial of Audible now and experience the thrill of every page turning in your mind. Take the first step towards a world of adventure and discovery by clicking the button below." Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] - Details)

[reverseeyepatch]

Hoo boy, let's talk about that 1912 election. So of course this was before the party switch so the Republicans were the progressive party. In fact, Roosevelt was so progressive that after his successor, Taft, took over, he created his own Bull Moose Party that became that third party spoiler.

Now, progressive then did not mean the same as progressive now. Theodore Roosevelt was a huge imperialist and loved war because he grew up as a wimpy asthmatic kid and had a lot of insecurity surrounding his masculinity. He was a fan of the huge military state before it was ever a thing in the US, with the Spanish-American War in the Philippines and his whole speak softly and carry a big stick thing. Roosevelt did gunboat diplomacy, which basically amounted to sailing the navy around the world to show off.

Taft, on the other hand, was a genuinely great president. He was far from perfect, but he broke up monopolies and generally did pretty great on domestic policy. He also had by far the greatest post-presidential career of any POTUS and became a Supreme Court Justice. But he wasn't as Progressive (1912 version) as his predecessor, and ole Ted couldn't give up the limelight, so the whole election got spoiled by that third party.

This led to one of the worst presidents we've ever had, Woodrow Wilson, winning the office.

Wilson was a huge racist conspiracy theorist even for back then times. He had been a history professor who basically spearheaded the Lost Cause movement for the Civil War and rehabilitated the image of the antebellum south. He screened Birth of a Nation, the movie that started the modern clan, at the White House and proclaimed it to be absolutely true. He resegregated the military and accelerated Jim Crow. Things had already been rough for black folks since reconstruction ended at the end of the last century, but under Wilson it got a hell of a lot worse. Wilson was an absolute monster. His greatest accomplishment was the League of Nations post-WWI, which was basically a prototype UN that obviously didn't work because there was a WWII and the nativist racism in Wilson's USA was so bad that despite starting it, the United States never joined the League, which obviously greatly weakened it.

I'm sure there were good reasons for Roosevelt to run again, but thanks to him an unpopular white supremacist conspiracy theorist got enough of a vote to gain power and it fucked over a lot of people. We're still feeling it today.

What nobody understands about American politics is that creating a third party big enough to compete with the top two is a project that would take at least ten to twenty years, meaning it would still not be viable for decades worth of elections. It would have to be built up slowly and steadily first for all that time. Currently there are none who can get even 1% of the vote. They're jokes. Addiction parties exist only as a kind of nice gesture and tradition right now, barely getting news coverage other than novel curiosities.

In some other countries you can vote for your "preferred" choice and if they lose, your vote goes to your backup choices. Not in America. You get one vote for one guy and if they lose your vote evaporates.

Also, the electorates get the majority voting power and even if everyone in a district voted for a third party, every electorate is dedicated to voting either Republican or Democrat and will still do so.

[xhxhxhx]

I keep returning to Renata Adler’s introduction to Canaries in the Mineshaft (2001), a moving and revealing piece on how the New York Times works. I’ve sent excerpts to a few people, but it’s worth reading in full. 

It’s not online anywhere, so I’m posting it here, with Adler’s 12,500 words on the New York Times and what it can do to the people it covers:

Along with every other viewer of television during Operation Desert Storm, the Gulf War of 1991, I believed that I saw, time after time, American Patriot missiles knocking Iraqi Scuds out of the sky. Every major television reporter obviously shared this belief, along with a certainty that these Patriots were offering protection to the population of Israel—which the Desert Storm alliance, for political reasons, had kept from active participation in the war. Commentators actually cheered, with exclamations like “Bull’s-eye! No more Scud!” at each such interception by a Patriot of a Scud. Weeks earlier, I had read newspaper accounts of testimony before a committee of the Congress by a tearful young woman who claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers enter Kuwaiti hospitals, take babies out of their incubators, hurl the newborns to the floor, and steal the incubators. I believed this, too.

Only much later did I learn that not a single Patriot effectively hit a single Scud. The scenes on television were in fact repetitions of images from one film, made by the Pentagon in order to persuade Congress to allocate more money to the Patriot, an almost thirty-year-old weapon designed, in any case, not to destroy missiles but to intercept airplanes. In his exuberance, a high military official announced that Patriots had even managed to destroy “eighty-one Scud launchers”—interesting not only because the total number of Scud launchers previously ascribed to Iraq was fifty, but also because there is and was no such thing as a “Scud launcher.” The vehicles in question were old trucks, which had broken down.

What was at issue, in other words, was not even pro-American propaganda, which could be justified in time of war. It was domestic advertising for a product—not just harmlessly deceptive advertising, either. The Patriots, as it turned out, did more damage to the allied forces, and to Israel, than if they had not been used at all. The weeping young woman who had testified about the incubator thefts turned out to be the fifteen-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington; she had not, obviously, witnessed any such event. Whatever else the Iraqi invaders and occupiers may have done, this particular incident was a fabrication—invented by an American public relations firm in the employ of the Kuwaiti government.

During Operation Desert Storm itself, the American press corps, as it also turns out, accepted an arrangement with the U.S. military, whereby only a “pool” of journalists would be permitted to cover the war directly. That pool went wherever the American military press officer chose to take it. Nowhere near the front, if there was a front. Somehow, the pool and its military press guides often got lost. When other reporters, trying to get independent information, set out on their own, members of the pool actually berated them for jeopardizing the entire news-gathering arrangement.

It would have been difficult to learn all this, or any of it, from the press. I learned it from a very carefully researched and documented book, Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, by John R. MacArthur. The book, published in 1992, was well enough reviewed. But it was neither prominently reviewed nor treated as “news” or even information. A review, after all, is regarded only as a cultural and not a real—least of all a journalistic—event. It was not surprising that the Pentagon, after its experience in Vietnam, should want to keep the press at the greatest possible distance from any war. It was not surprising, either, that reporters, having after all not that much choice, should submit so readily to being confined to a pool, or even that reporters in that pool should resent any competitor who tried to work outside it. This is the position of a favored collaborator in any bureaucratic and coercive enterprise.

What was, if not surprising, a disturbing matter, and a symptom of what was to come, was this: The press did not report the utter failure of the Patriot, nor did it report the degree to which the press itself, and then its audience and readership, had been misled. This is not to suggest that the press, out of patriotism or for any other reason, printed propaganda to serve the purposes of the government—or even that it would be unworthy to do so. But millions of Americans surely still believe that Patriots destroyed the Scuds, and in the process saved, or at least defended, Israel. There seemed, in this instance, no reason why the press, any more than any person or other institution, should be eager to report failures of its own.

Almost all the pieces in this book have to do, in one way or another, with what I regard as misrepresentation, coercion, and abuse of public process, and, to a degree, the journalist’s role in it. At the time of the Vietnam War, it could be argued that the press had become too reflexively adversarial and skeptical of the policies of government. Now I believe the reverse is true. All bureaucracies have certain interests in common: self-perpetuation, ritual, dogma, a reluctance to take responsibility for their actions, a determination to eradicate dissent, a commitment to a notion of infallibility. As I write this, the Supreme Court has, in spite of eloquent and highly principled dissents, so far and so cynically exceeded any conceivable exercise of its constitutional powers as to choose, by one vote, its own preferred candidate for President. Some reporters, notably Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, have written intelligently and admirably about this. For the most part, however, the press itself has become a bureaucracy, quasi-governmental, and, far from calling attention to the collapse of public process, in particular to prosecutorial abuses, it has become an instrument of intimidation, an instrumentality even of the police function of the state.

Let us begin by acknowledging that, in our public life, this has been a period of unaccountable bitterness and absurdity. To begin with the attempts to impeach President Clinton. There is no question that the two sets of allegations, regarding Paula Jones and regarding Whitewater, with which the process began could not, as a matter of fact or law or for any other reason, constitute grounds for impeachment. Whatever they were, they preceded his presidency, and no President can be impeached for his prior acts. That was that. Then the Supreme Court, in what was certainly one of the silliest decisions in its history, ruled that the civil lawsuit by Paula Jones could proceed without delay because, in spite of the acknowledged importance of the President’s office, it appeared “highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of his time.” In 1994 a Special Prosecutor (for some reason, this office is still called the Independent Counsel) was appointed to investigate Whitewater—a press-generated inquiry, which could not possibly be material for a Special Prosecutor, no matter how defined, since it had nothing whatever to do with presidential conduct. Nonetheless, the first Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske, investigated and found nothing. A three-judge panel, appointed, under the Independent Counsel statute, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, fired Fiske. As head of the three-judge panel, Rehnquist had passed over several more senior judges, to choose Judge David Bryan Sentelle.

Judge Sentelle consulted at lunch with two ultra-right-wing senators from his own home state of North Carolina: Lauch Faircloth, who was convinced, among other things, that Vincent Foster, a White House counsel, had been murdered; and Jesse Helms, whose beliefs and powers would not be described by anyone as moderate. Judge Sentelle appointed as Fiske’s successor Kenneth W. Starr. North Carolina is, of course, a tobacco-growing state. Kenneth Starr had been, and remained virtually throughout his tenure as Special Prosecutor, a major, and very highly paid, attorney for the tobacco companies. He had also once drafted a pro bono amicus brief on behalf of Paula Jones.

The Office of Special Prosecutor—true conservatives said this from the first—had always been a constitutional abomination. To begin with, it impermissibly straddled the three branches of government. If President Nixon had not been in dire straits, he would never have permitted such an office, in the person of Archibald Cox, to exist. If President Clinton had not been sure of his innocence and—far more dangerously—overly certain of his charm, he would never have consented to such an appointment.

The press, however, loves Special Prosecutors. They can generate stories for each other. That something did not happen is not a story. That something does not matter is not a story. That an anecdote or an accusation is unfounded is not a story. There is this further commonality of interest. Leaks, anonymous sources, informers, agents, rumormongers, appear to offer stories—and possibilities for offers, pressures, threats, rewards. The journalist’s exchange of an attractive portrayal for a good story. There we are. The reporter and the prosecutor (the Special Prosecutor, that is; not as often the genuine prosecutor) are in each other’s pockets.

Starr did not find anything, either. Certainly no crime. He sent his staff to Little Rock, generated enormous legal expenses for people interviewed there, threw one unobliging witness (Susan McDougal) into jail for well over a year, indicted others (Webster Hubbell, for example) for offenses unrelated to the Clintons, convicted and jailed witnesses in hopes of getting testimony damaging to President Clinton, tried, after the release of those witnesses, to jail them again to get such testimony. Still no crime. So his people tried to generate one. This is not unusual behavior on the part of prosecutors going after hardened criminals: stings, indictments of racketeers and murderers for income tax offenses. But here was something new. Starr’s staff, for a time, counted heavily on sexual embarrassment: philandering, Monica Lewinsky. They even had a source, Linda Tripp. Ms. Tripp had testified for Special Prosecutor Fiske and later for Starr. She had testified in response to questions from her sympathetic interlocutor Senator Lauch Faircloth before Senator D’Amato’s Whitewater Committee. She had testified to agents of the FBI right in the Special Prosecutor’s office at least as early as April 12, 1994. An ultra-right-wing Republican herself, she not only believed White House Counsel Vincent Foster was murdered, she claimed to fear for her own life. She somehow had on the wall above her desk at the Pentagon, where her desk adjoined Monica Lewinsky’s, huge posters of President Clinton—which, perhaps not utterly surprisingly, drew Ms. Lewinsky’s attention. Somehow, in the fall of 1996 Ms. Tripp found herself eliciting, and taping, confidences from Ms. Lewinsky. In January of 1997, Ms. Tripp—who by her own account had previously abetted another White House volunteer, Kathleen Willey, in making sexual overtures to President Clinton—counseled Ms. Lewinsky to try again to visit President Clinton. By the end of February 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, who had not seen the President in more than eleven months, managed to arrange such a visit. Somehow, that visit was the only one in which she persuaded the President to ejaculate. Somehow, adept as Ms. Lewinsky claimed to be at fellatio, semen found its way onto her dress. Somehow, Ms. Tripp persuaded Ms. Lewinsky, who perhaps did not require much persuasion, to save that dress. Somehow, the Special Prosecutor got the dress. And somehow (absurdity of absurdities), there was the spectacle of the Special Prosecutor’s agents taking blood from the President to match the DNA on a dress.

Now, whatever other mistakes President Clinton may have made, in this or any other matter, he, too, had made utterly absurd mistakes of constitutional proportions. He had no obligation at all to go before the grand jury. It was a violation of the separation of powers and a mistake. Once again, he may have overestimated his charm. Charm gets you nowhere with prosecutors’ questions, answered before a grand jury under oath. And of course, Mr. Starr had managed to arrange questions—illegally, disingenuously, at the absolute last minute—which were calculated to make the President testify falsely at his deposition in the case of Paula Jones. Whether or not the President did testify falsely, the notion that “perjury” or even “obstruction of justice” in such a case could rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the sole constitutional grounds for impeachment, had no basis in history or in law.

One need not dwell on every aspect of the matter to realize this much: As sanctimonious as lawyers, congressmen, and even judges may be, most legal cases are simply not decided on arcane legal grounds. Most turn on conflicting evidence, conflicting testimony. And this conflict cannot, surely, in every case or even in most cases, be ascribed either to Rashomon phenomena or to memory lapses. In most cases—there is no other way to put it—one litigant or the other, and usually both, are lying. If this were to be treated as “perjury” or “obstruction of justice,” then, alas, most losers in litigation would be subject to indictment. Anyone who has studied grounds for impeachment at all knows that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” refers, in any event, only to crimes committed in the President’s official capacity and in the actual conduct of his office.

And now the press. Perhaps the most curious phenomenon in the recent affinity of the press with prosecutors has been a reversal, an inversion so acute that it passes any question of “blaming the victim.” It actually consists in casting persecutors as victims, and vilifying victims as persecutors. The New York Times is not alone in this, but it has been, until recently, the most respected of newspapers, and it has been, of late, the prime offender. A series of recent events there gives an indication of what is at stake.

In a retreat in Tarrytown, in mid-September, Joseph Lelyveld—in his time a distinguished reporter, now executive editor of the Times—gave a speech to eighty assembled Times newsroom editors, plus two editors of other publications, The New Yorker and Newsday. The ostensible subject of the retreat was “Competition.” Mr. Lelyveld’s purpose, he said, was to point out “imperfections in what I proudly believe to be the best New York Times ever—the best written, most consistent, and ambitious newspaper Times readers have ever had.” This was, in itself, an extraordinary assertion. It might have been just a mollifying tribute, a prelude to criticism of some kind. And so it was.

“I’m just driven by all the big stuff we’ve accomplished in recent years—our strong enterprise reporting, our competitive edge, our successful recruiting, our multimedia forays, our sheer ambition,” Lelyveld went on, “to worry” about “the small stuff,” particularly “the really big small stuff.” “I especially want to talk to you,” he said, “about corrections, and in particular, the malignancy of misspelled names, which, if you haven’t noticed, has become one of the great themes of our Corrections column.”

He might have been joking, but he wasn’t. “Did you know we’ve misspelled Katharine Graham’s name fourteen times? Or that we've misspelled the Madeleine in Madeleine Albright forty-nine times—even while running three corrections on each? … So far this year … there have been a hundred and ninety-eight corrections for misspelled given names and surnames, the overwhelming majority easily checkable on the Internet. … I want to argue that our commitment to being excellent and reliable in these matters is as vital to the impression we leave on readers, and the service we perform for them, as the brilliant things we accomplish most days on our front page and on our section-front displays.”

Lelyveld recalled the time, thirty years ago, when he had first come to the newspaper (a better paper, as it happens, an incomparably better paper, under his predecessors, whom present members of the staff tend to demonize). “Just about everything else we do today, it seems to me, we do better than they did then.” But, in view of “the brilliant things we accomplish most days” (”We don’t just claim to be a team. We don’t just aspire to be a team. Finally, I think we can say, we function as a team. We are a team”), he did want to talk about what he regarded as a matter of some importance: “Finally … there’s the matter of corrections (I almost said the ‘festering matter’ of corrections). As I see it, this is really big small stuff.”

A recent correction about a photo confusing monarch and queen butterflies, he said, might seem amusing—”amusing if you don’t much mind the fact that scores of lepidopterists are now likely to mistrust us on areas outside their specialty.”

And that, alas, turned out to be the point. This parody, this misplaced punctiliousness, was meant to reassure readers—lepidopterists, whomever—that whatever else appeared in the newspaper could be trusted and was true. Correction of “malignant” misspellings, of “given names and surnames,” middle initials, captions, headlines, the “overwhelming majority” of which, as Lelyveld put it, would have been “easily checkable on the Internet” was the Times’ substitute for conscience, and the basis of its assurance to readers that in every other respect it was an accurate paper, better than it had ever been, more worthy of their trust. Stendhal, for instance, had recently been misspelled, misidentified, and given a first name: Robert. “A visit to Amazon.com, just a couple of clicks away, could have cleared up the confusion.” Maybe so.

The trivial, as it happens often truly comic, corrections, persist, in quantity. The deep and consequential errors, inevitable in any enterprise, particularly those with deadlines, go unacknowledged. By this pedantic travesty of good faith, which is, in fact, a classic method of deception, the Times conceals not just every important error it makes but that it makes errors at all. It wants that poor trusting lepidopterist to think that, with the exception of this little lapse (now corrected), the paper is conscientious and infallible.

There exists, to this end, a wonderful set of locutions, euphemisms, conventions, codes, and explanations: “misspelled,” “misstated,” “referred imprecisely,” “referred incorrectly,” and recently—in some ways most mystifyingly—”paraphrase.”

On September 19, 2000, “An article on September 17 about a program of intellectual seminars organized by Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland, California, referred imprecisely to some criticisms of the series. The terms ‘Jerrification’ and ‘pointy-headed table talk’ were the article’s paraphrase of local critics, not the words of Willa White, president of the Jack London Association.”

On October 5, 2000, “A news analysis yesterday about the performances of Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas in their first debate referred imprecisely in some copies to a criticism of the candidates. The observation that they ‘took too much time niggling over details’ was a paraphrase of comments by former Mayor Pete Flaherty of Pittsburgh, not a quotation.”

On November 9, 2000, “An article on Sunday about the campaign for the Senate in Missouri said the Governor had ‘wondered’ about the decision of the late candidate’s wife to run for the Senate. But he did not use the words ‘I’m bothered somewhat by the idea of voting for a dead person’s wife, simply because she is a widow.’ That was a paraphrase of Mr. Wilson’s views and should not have appeared in quotation marks.”

On December 16, 2000, “Because of an editing error, an article yesterday referred erroneously to a comment by a board member,” about a recount. “‘A man has to do what a man has to do’ was a paraphrase of Mr. Torre’s views and should not have appeared in quotation marks.”

Apart from the obvious questions—What is the Times’ idea of “paraphrase"? What were the actual words being paraphrased? What can “Jerrification,” “pointy-headed table talk,” “niggling,” and even “A man has to do what a man has to do” possibly be paraphrases of—what purpose is served by these corrections? Is the implication that all other words, in the Times, attributed in quotation marks to speakers are accurate, verbatim quotations? I’m afraid the implication is inescapably that. That such an implication is preposterous is revealed by the very nature of these corrections. There is no quotation of which “Jerrification” and the rest can possibly be a paraphrase. Nor can the reporter have simply misheard anything that was actually said, nor can the result be characterized as having “referred imprecisely” or “referred erroneously,” let alone be the result of “an editing error.”

It cannot be. What is at issue in these miniscule corrections is the Times’ notion of what matters, its professionalism, its good faith, even its perception of what constitute accuracy and the truth. The overriding value is, after all, to allay the mistrust of readers, lepidopterists, colleagues. Within the newspaper, this sense of itself—trust us, the only errors we make are essentially typos, and we correct them; we never even misquote, we paraphrase—appears even in its columns.

In a column published in the Times on July 20, 2000, Martin Arnold of the Arts/Culture desk, for example, wrote unhesitatingly that, compared with book publishing, “Journalism has a more rigorous standard: What is printed is believed to be true, not merely unsuspected of being false. The first rule of journalism,” he wrote, “is don’t invent.”

“Except in the most scholarly work,” Mr. Arnold went on, “no such absolutes apply to book publishing. … A book writer is … not subject to the same discipline as a news reporter, for instance, who is an employee and whose integrity is a condition of his employment … a newspaper … is a brand name, and the reader knows exactly what to expect from the brand.” If book publishers, Mr. Arnold concluded, “seem lethargic” about “whether a book is right or wrong, it maybe [sic] because readers will cut books slack they don’t give their favorite newspaper.”

In this wonderful piece of self-regarding fatuity, Mr. Arnold has expressed the essence of the “team’s” view of its claim: The Times requires no “slack.” It readily makes its own corrections:

The Making Books column yesterday misspelled the name of the television host. … She is Oprah Winfrey, not Opra.

An article about Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Al Gore used a misspelled name and a non-existent name for the author of The Red and the Black. . . . The pen name is Stendhal, not Stendahl; Robert is not part of it.

The Advertising column in Business on Friday misspelled the surname of a singer and actress. … She is Lena Horne, not Horn.

An article about an accident in which a brick fell from a construction site atop the YMCA building on West 63rd Street, slightly injuring a woman, included an erroneous address from the police for the building near which she was standing. It was 25 Central Park West. (There is no No. 35). Because of an editing error, the Making Books column on Thursday … misstated the name of the publisher of a thriller by Tom Clancy. It is G. P. Putnam, not G. F.

An article on Monday about charges that Kathleen Hagen murdered her parents, Idella and James Hagen, at their home in Chatham Township, N.J., misspelled the street where they lived. It is Fairmount Avenue, not Fairmont.

And so on. Endlessly.

What is the reasoning, the intelligence, behind this daily travesty of concern for what is truthful? Mr. Arnold has the cant just about right. “Don’t invent.” (Pointy-headed table talk? Jerrification? Niggling? Paraphrase?) “Discipline”? “Integrity”? “Rigorous standard”? Not in a long time. “A newspaper is a brand name, and the reader knows exactly what to expect from the brand.” Well, there is the problem. Part of it is the delusion of punctilio. But there is something more. Every acknowledgment of an inconsequential error (and they are never identified as reporting errors, only errors of “editing,” or “production,” or “transmission,” and so forth), in the absence of acknowledgment of any major error, creates at best a newspaper that is closed to genuine inquiry. It declines responsibility for real errors, and creates as well an affinity for all orthodoxies. And when there is a subject genuinely suited to its professional skills and obligations, it abdicates. It almost reflexively shuns responsibility and delegates it to another institution.

Within a few weeks of its small retreat at Tarrytown, the Times, on two separate occasions, so seriously failed in its fundamental journalistic obligations as to call into question not just its judgment and good faith but whether it is still a newspaper at all. The first occasion returns in a way to the subject with which this introduction began: a pool.

On election night, television, it was generally acknowledged, had made an enormous error by delegating to a single consortium, the Voter News Service, the responsibility for both voter exit polls and calling the election results. The very existence of such a consortium of broadcasters raised questions in anti-trust, and VNS called its results wrongly, but that was not the point. The point was that the value of a free press in our society was always held to lie in competition. By a healthy competition among reporters, from media of every political point of view, the public would have access to reliable information, and a real basis on which to choose. A single monolithic, unitary voice, on the other hand, is anathema to any democratic society. It becomes the voice of every oppressive or totalitarian system of government.

The Times duly reported, and in its own way deplored, the results of the VNS debacle. Then, along with colleagues in the press (the Washington Post, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, AP, the Tribune Company), it promptly emulated it. This new consortium hired an organization called the National Opinion Research Center to undertake, on its behalf, a manual recount of Florida ballots for the presidential election. The Miami Herald, which had already been counting the votes for several weeks, was apparently the only publication to exercise its function as an independent newspaper. It refused to join the consortium. It had already hired an excellent accounting firm, BDO Seidman, to assist its examination of the ballots. NORC, by contrast, was not even an auditing firm but a survey group, much of whose work is for government projects.

The Times justified its (there seems no other word for it) hiding, along with seven collegial bureaucracies, behind a single entity, NORC, on economic grounds. Proceeding independently, it said, would have cost between $500,000 and $1 million. The Times, it may be noted, had put fifteen of its reporters to work for a solid year on a series called “Living Race in America.” If it had devoted just some of those resources and that cost to a genuine, even historic, issue of fact, it would have exercised its independent competitive function in a free society and produced something of value. There seems no question that is what the Times under any previous publisher or editors would have done.

In refusing to join the consortium, the Miami Herald said the recount was taking place, after all, “in our own back yard.” It was, of course, America’s backyard, and hardly any other members of the press could be troubled with their own resources and staff to enter it.

The second failure of judgment and good faith was in some ways more egregious. In late September of 2000 there was the Times’ appraisal of its coverage (more accurately, the Times’ response to other people’s reaction to its coverage) of the case of Wen Ho Lee.

For some days, there had been rumors that the Times was going to address in some way its coverage of the case of Wen Ho Lee, a sixty- year-old nuclear scientist at Los Alamos who had been held, shackled and without bail, in solitary confinement, for nine months—on the basis, in part, of testimony, which an FBI agent had since admitted to be false, that Lee had passed American nuclear secrets to China; and testimony, also false, that he had flunked a lie detector test about the matter; and testimony, false and in some ways most egregious, that granting him bail would constitute a “grave threat” to “hundreds of millions of lives” and the “nuclear balance” of the world. As part of a plea bargain, in which Lee acknowledged a minor offense, the government, on September 14, 2000, withdrew fifty-eight of its fifty-nine original charges. The Federal District Judge, James A. Parker, a Reagan appointee, apologized to Lee for the prosecutorial conduct of the government.

The Times had broken the story of the alleged espionage on March 6 of 1999, and pursued it both editorially and in its news columns for seventeen months. A correction, perhaps even an apology, was expected to appear in the Week in Review section, on Sunday, September 24, 2000. Two Times reporters flew up from Washington to register objections. The piece, whatever it had been originally, was edited and postponed until the following Tuesday. (The Sunday Times has nearly twice the readership of the daily paper.) Readers of the Week in Review section of Sunday, September 24, 1999, however, did find a correction. It was this:

An Ideas & Trends article last Sunday about a trend toward increasing size of women’s breasts referred incorrectly to the actress Demi Moore. She underwent breast augmentation surgery, but has not had the implants removed.

In the meantime, however, on Friday, September 22, 2000, there appeared an op-ed piece, “No One Won the Whitewater Case,” by James B. Stewart, in which the paper’s affinity with prosecution—in particular the Special Prosecutor—and the writer’s solidarity with the Times reporters most attuned to leaks from government accusers found almost bizarre expression. Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and the author of Blood Sport, wrote of Washington, during the Clinton administration, as a “culture of mutual political destruction.” In what sense the “destruction” could be deemed “mutual” was not entirely clear. Mr. Stewart praised an article about Whitewater, on March 8, 1992, written by Jeff Gerth (one of the original writers of the Wen Ho Lee pieces) as “a model of investigative reporting.” He wrote of “rabid Clinton haters” who believed that Vincent Foster was “murdered, preferably by Hillary Clinton herself”; he added, however, the Clintons “continued to stonewall,” providing “ample fodder for those opposed to the President.”

“The Independent Counsel’s mission,” he wrote, “was to get to the bottom of the morass.” No, it wasn’t. What morass? Then came this formulation:

Kenneth Starr and his top deputies were not instinctive politicians, and they became caught up in a political war for which they were woefully unprepared and ill-suited. The White House and its allies relentlessly attacked the Independent Counsel for what they thought were both illegal and unprincipled tactics, like intimidating witnesses and leaking to the press. Mr. Starr has been vindicated in the courts in nearly every instance, and he and his allies were maligned to a degree that will someday be seen as grossly unfair.

One’s heart of course goes out to these people incarcerating Susan McDougal; illegally detaining and threatening Monica Lewinsky; threatening a witness who refused to lie for them, by implying that her adoption of a small child was illegal; misleading the courts, the grand jury, the press, the witnesses about their actions. Persecuted victims, these prosecutors—”caught up,” “woefully unprepared,” “relentlessly attacked,” “maligned.”

The investigation unfolded with inexorable logic that made sense at every turn, yet lost all sight of the public purpose it was meant to serve. Mr. Starr’s failure was not one of logic or law but of simple common sense.

Quite apart from whatever he means by “public purpose,” what could Mr. Stewart possibly mean by “common sense”?

From early on, it should have been apparent that a criminal case could never be made against the Clintons. Who would testify against them?

Who indeed? Countless people, as the Times checkers, if it had any, might have told him—alleging rape, murder, threats, blackmail, drug abuse, bribery, and abductions of pet cats.

“The investigation does not clear the Clintons in all respects,” Mr. Stewart wrote, as though clearing people, especially in all respects, were the purpose of prosecutions. “The Independent Counsel law is already a casualty of Whitewater and its excesses.” What? What can this possibly mean? What “it,” for example, precedes “its excesses”? Whitewater’s excesses?

But as long as a culture of mutual political destruction reigns in Washington, the need for some independent resolution of charges against top officials, especially the President, will not go away. [A reigning culture of mutual destruction evidently needs another Special Prosecutor, to make charges go away.] After all, we did get something for our nearly $60 million. The charges against the Clintons were credibly resolved.

An extraordinary piece, certainly. Four days later, on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, the Times ran its long-awaited assessment, “From the Editors.” It was entitled “The Times and Wen Ho Lee.”

Certainly, the paper had never before published anything like this assessment. A break with tradition, however, is not an apology. What the Times did was to apportion blame elsewhere, endorse its own work, and cast itself as essentially a victim, having “attracted criticism” from three categories of persons: “competing journalists,” “media critics,” and “defenders of Dr. Lee.” Though there may, in hindsight, have been “flaws”—for example, a few other lines of investigation the Times might have pursued, “to humanize” Dr. Lee—the editors seemed basically to think they had produced what Mr. Stewart, in his op-ed piece, might have characterized as “a model of investigative reporting.” Other journalists interpreted this piece one way and another, but to a reader of ordinary intelligence and understanding there was no contrition in it. That evidently left the Times, however, with a variant of what might be called the underlying corrections problem: the lepidopterist and his trust. “Accusations leveled at this newspaper,” the editors wrote, “may have left many readers with questions about our coverage. That confusion—and the stakes involved, a man’s liberty and reputation—convince us that a public accounting is warranted.” The readers’ “confusion” is the issue. The “stakes,” in dashes, are an afterthought.

“On the whole,” the public accounting said, “we remain proud of work that brought into the open a major national security problem. Our review found careful reporting that included extensive cross-checking and vetting of multiple sources, despite enormous obstacles of official secrecy and government efforts to identify the Times’ sources.”

And right there is the nub of it, one nub of it anyway: the “efforts to identify the Times’ sources.” Because in this case, the sources were precisely governmental—the FBI, for example, in its attempt to intimidate Wen Ho Lee. The rest of the piece, with a few unconvincing afterthoughts about what the paper might have done differently, is self-serving and even overtly deceptive. “The Times stories—echoed and often oversimplified by politicians and other news organizations—touched off a fierce public debate”; “Now the Times neither imagined the security breach nor initiated the prosecution of Wen Ho Lee”; “That concern had previously been reported in the Wall Street Journal, but without the details provided by the Times in a painstaking narrative”; “Nothing in this experience undermines our faith in any of our reporters, who remained persistent and fair-minded in their news-gathering in the face of some fierce attacks.”

And there it is again: Wen Ho Lee in jail, alone, shackled, without bail—and yet it is the Times that is subject to “accusations,” Times reporters who were subjected to those “fierce attacks.”

The editors did express a reservation about their “tone.” “In place of a tone of journalistic detachment,” they wrote, they had perhaps echoed the alarmism of their sources. Anyone who has read the Times in recent years—let alone been a subject of its pieces—knows that “a tone of journalistic detachment” in the paper is almost entirely a thing of the past. What is so remarkable, however, is not only how completely the Times identifies with the prosecution, but also how clearly the inversion of hunter and prey has taken hold. The injustice, the editors clearly feel, has been done not to Dr. Lee (although they say at one point that they may not have given him, imagine, “the full benefit of the doubt”) but to the reporters, and the editors, and the institution itself.

Two days later, the editorial section checked in, with “An Overview: The Wen Ho Lee Case.” Some of it, oddly enough, was another attack on Wen Ho Lee, whose activities it described as “suspicious and ultimately illegal,” “beyond reasonable dispute.” It described the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, and Attorney General Janet Reno as being under “sharp attack.” The editorial was not free of self-justification; it was not open about its own contribution to the damage; it did seem concerned with “racial profiling”—a frequent preoccupation of the editorial page, in any case. The oddest sentences were these: “Moreover, transfer of technology to China and nuclear weapons security had been constant government concerns throughout this period. To withhold this information from readers is an unthinkable violation of the fundamental contract between a newspaper and its audience.” It had previously used a similar construction, for the prosecutors: “For the F.B.I. … not to react to Dr. Lee’s [conduct] would have been a dereliction of duty.” But the question was not whether the FBI should react (or not) but how, within our system, legally, ethically, constitutionally, to do so. And no one was asking the Times to “withhold information” about “government concerns,” least of all regarding alleged “transfer of technology to China” or “nuclear weapons security.” If the Times were asked to do anything in this matter, it might be to refrain from passing on, and repeating, and scolding, and generally presenting as “investigative reporting” what were in fact malign and exceedingly improper allegations, by “anonymous sources” with prosecutorial agendas, against virtually defenseless individuals.

There was—perhaps this goes without saying—no apology whatever to Wen Ho Lee. “The unthinkable violation of the fundamental contract between a newspaper and its audience” did not, obviously, extend to him. Lelyveld, too, had referred to a Corrections policy “to make our contract with readers more enforceable.” What “contract”? To rectify malignant misspelling of names? This concern, too, was not with facts, or substance, or subject, but to sustain, without earning or reciprocating, the trust of “readers.” The basis of “trust” was evidently quite tenuous. What had increased, perhaps in its stead, was this sense of being misunderstood, unfairly maligned, along with those other victims: FBI agents, informers, and all manner of prosecutors. No sympathy, no apology, certainly, for the man whom many, including in the end the judge, considered a victim—not least a victim of the Times.

That Times editors are by no means incapable of apology became clear on September 28, 2000, the same day as the editorial Overview. On that day, Bill Keller, the managing editor of the Times, posted a “Memorandum to the Staff,” which he sent as well to “media critics,” and which he said all staff members were “free to share outside the paper.”

It was an apology, and it was abject. “When we published our appraisal of our Wen Ho Lee coverage,” it said, “we anticipated that some people would misread it, and we figured that misreading was beyond our control. But one misreading is so agonizing to me that it requires a follow-up.”

“Through most of its many drafts,” Keller continued, the message had contained the words “of us” in a place where any reader of ordinary intelligence and understanding, one would have thought, would have known what was meant, since the words “to us” appear later in the same sentence. “Somewhere in the multiple scrubbings of this document,” however,

the words “of us” got lost. And that has led some people on the staff to a notion that never occurred to me—that the note meant to single out Steve Engelberg, who managed this coverage so masterfully, as the scapegoat for the shortcomings we acknowledged.

My reaction the first time I heard this theory was to laugh it off as preposterous. Joe and I tried to make clear in meetings with staff … that the paragraph referred to ourselves. … In the very specific sense that we laid our hands on these articles, and we overlooked some opportunities in our own direction of the coverage. We went to some lengths to assure that no one would take our message as a repudiation of our reporters, but I'm heartsick to discover that we failed to make the same clear point about one of the finest editors I know. Let the record show that we stand behind Steve and the other editors who played roles in developing this coverage. Coverage, as the message to readers said, of which we remain proud.

Bureaucracy at its purest. Reporters, editors, “masterfully directed” coverage, at worst some “opportunities” “overlooked.” The buck stops nowhere. “We remain proud” of the coverage in question, only “agonized” and “heartsick” at having been understood to fail to exonerate a member of this staff. The only man characterized as “the scapegoat” in the whole matter is—this is hardly worth remarking—one of the directors of the coverage, some might say the hounding, of Wen Ho Lee.

Something is obviously wrong here. Howell Raines, the editor of the editorial page (and the writer of the Overview) was, like Joe Lelyveld, a distinguished reporter. Editing and reporting are, of course, by no means the same. But one difficulty, perhaps with Keller as well, is that in an editing hierarchy, unqualified loyalty to staff, along with many other manifestations of the wish to be liked, can become a failing—intellectual, professional, moral. It may be that the editors’ wish for popularity with the staff has caused the perceptible and perhaps irreversible decline in the paper. There is, I think, something more profoundly wrong—not just the contrast between its utter solidarity, its self-regard, its sense of victimization and tender sympathy with its own, and its unconsciousness of its own weight as an institution, in the stories it claims to cover. Something else, perhaps more important, two developments actually—the emergence of the print reporter as celebrity and the proliferation of the anonymous source. There is an indication of where this has led us even in the Times editors’ own listing, among the “enormous obstacles” its reporters faced, of “government efforts to identify the Times’ sources.” The “sources” in question were, of course, precisely governmental. The Times should never have relied upon them, not just because they were, as they turned out to be, false, but because they were prosecutorial-—and they were turning the Times into their instrument.

In an earlier day, the Times would have had a safeguard against its own misreporting, including its “accounting” and its Overview of its coverage of the case of Wen Ho Lee. The paper used to publish in its pages long, unedited transcripts of important documents. The transcript of the FBI’s interrogation of Dr. Lee—on March 7, 1999, the day after the first of the Times articles appeared—exists. It runs to thirty-seven pages. Three agents have summoned Dr. Lee to their offices in “a cleared building facility.” They have refused him not only the presence of anybody known to him but permission to have lunch. They keep talking ominously of a “package” they have, and telephone calls they have been making about it to Washington. The contents of the package includes yesterday’s New York Times. They allude to it more than fifty times:

“You read that and it’s on the next page as well, Wen Ho. And let me call Washington real quick while you read that.”

“The important part is that, uh, basically that is indicating that there is a person at the laboratory that’s committed espionage and that points to you.”

“You, you read it. It’s not good, Wen Ho.”

“You know, this is, this is a big problem, but uh-mm, I think you need to read this article. Take a couple of minutes and, and read this article because there’s some things that have been raised by Washington that we’ve got to get resolved.”

And they resume:

“It might not even be a classified issue. … but Washington right now is under the impression that you’re a spy. And this newspaper article is, is doing everything except for coming out with your name … everything points to you. People in the community and people at the laboratory tomorrow are going to know. That this article is referring to you. …”

The agents tell him he is going to be fired (he is fired two days later), that his wages will be garnished, that he will lose his retirement, his clearance, his chance for other employment, his friends, his freedom. The only thing they mention more frequently than the article in the Times is his polygraph, and every mention of it is something they know to be false: that he “failed” it. They tell him this lie more than thirty times. Sometimes they mention it in conjunction with the Times article:

“You know, Wen Ho, this, it’s bad. I mean look at this newspaper article! I mean, ‘China Stole Secrets for Bombs.’ It all but says your name in here. The polygraph reports all say you’re failing … Pretty soon you’re going to have reporters knocking on your door.”

Then they get to the Rosenbergs:

“The Rosenbergs are the only people that never cooperated with the federal government in an espionage case. You know what happened to them? They electrocuted them, Wen Ho.”

“You know Aldrich Ames? He’s going to rot in jail! … He’s going to spend his dying days in jail.”

“Okay? Do you want to go down in history? Whether you’re professing your innocence like the Rosenbergs to the day they take you to the electric chair…”

Dr. Lee pleads with them, several times, not to interrupt him when he is trying to answer a question: “You want me, you want to listen two minutes from my explanation?” Not a chance:

“No, you stop a minute, Wen Ho. … Compared to what’s going to happen to you with this newspaper article…”

“The Rosenbergs are dead.”

“This is what’s going to do you more damage than anything. … Do you think the press prints everything that’s true? Do you think that everything that’s in this article is true? … The press doesn’t care.”

Now, it may be that the editors of the Times do not find this newsworthy, or that they believe their readers would have no interest in the fact that the FBI conducts its interrogations in this way. The Times might also, fairly, claim that it has no responsibility for the uses to which its front-page articles may be put, by the FBI or any other agency of government. Except for this. In both the editorial Overview and the “Note from the Editors,” as in Mr. Stewart’s op-ed piece, the Times’ sympathies are clearly with the forces of prosecution and the FBI. “Dr. Lee had already taken a lie detector test,” the editors write, for example, in their assessment, and “F.B.I. investigators believed that it showed deception when he was asked whether he had leaked secrets.”

In the days when the Times still published transcripts, the reader could have judged for himself. Nothing could be clearer than that the FBI investigators believed nothing of the kind. As they knew, Dr. Lee had, on the contrary, passed his polygraph—which is why, in his interrogation, they try so obsessively to convince him that he failed it. Even the editorial Overview, shorter and perhaps for that reason less misleading, shows where the Times’ sense of who is victimized resides. After two paragraphs of describing various activities of Dr. Lee’s as “improper and illegal,” “beyond reasonable dispute,” it describes, of all people, Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI (and Janet Reno, the attorney general) as being “under sharp attack.” Freeh was FBI director when agents of the Bureau, illegally detaining Monica Lewinsky, were conducting “investigations” of the same sort for the Office of the Independent Counsel. Freeh was also advocating, not just in government but directly to the press, more Special Prosecutors for more matters of all kinds.

But enough. The Times feels a responsibility to correct misimpressions it may have generated in readers—how names are spelled, what middle initials are, who is standing miscaptioned on which side of a photograph, which butterfly is which—is satisfied, in an important way, in its corrections. For the rest, it has looked at its coverage and found it good. The underlying fact, however, is this: For years readers have looked in the Times for what was once its unsurpassed strength: the uninflected coverage of the news. You can look and look, now, and you will not find it there. Some politically correct series and group therapy reflections on race relations perhaps. These appear harmless. They may even win prizes. Fifteen reporters working for one year might, perhaps, have been more usefully employed on some genuine issue of fact. More egregious, however, and in some ways more malign, was an article that appeared, on November 5, 2000, in the Sunday Times Magazine.

The piece was a cover story about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Everyone makes mistakes. This piece, blandly certain of its intelligence, actually consisted of them. Everything was wrong. At the most trivial level, the piece said Moynihan had held no hearings about President Clinton’s health plan and no meetings with him to discuss welfare. (In fact, the senator had held twenty-nine such hearings in committee and many such discussions with the President.) At the level of theory, it misapprehended the history, content, purpose, and fate of Moynihan’s proposal for a guaranteed annual income. It would require a book to set right what was wrong in the piece—and in fact, such a book existed, at least about the guaranteed annual income. But what was, in a way, most remarkable about what the New York Times has become appeared, once again, in the way it treated its own coverage.

The Sunday Magazine’s editors limited themselves to a little self- congratulatory note. The article, they reported, had “prompted a storm of protest.” “But many said that we got it right, and that our writer said what had long seemed to be unspeakable.” (”Unspeakable” may not be what they mean. Perhaps it was a paraphrase.) They published just one letter, which praised the piece as “incisive.”

The Corrections column, however, when it came, was a gem. “An article in the Times Magazine last Sunday about the legacy of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,” it began, “misidentified a former senator who was an expert on military affairs. He was Richard Russell, not Russell Long.”

The “article also,” the correction went on, had “referred imprecisely” (a fine way to put it) to the senator’s committee hearings on President Clinton’s health care. (Not a word about welfare.) But the Corrections column saved for last what the Times evidently regarded as most important. “The article also overstated [another fine word] Senator Moynihan’s English leanings while he attended the London School of Economics. Bowler, yes. Umbrella, yes. Monocle, no.”

No “malignant” misspellings here. But nothing a reader can trust any longer, either. Certainly no reliable, uninflected coverage of anything, least of all the news. The enterprise, whatever else it is, has almost ceased altogether to be a newspaper. It is still a habit. People glance at it and, on Sundays, complain about its weight. For news they must look elsewhere. What can have happened here?

“The turning point at the paper,” I once wrote, in a piece of fiction, “was the introduction of the byline.” I still believe that to be true. I simply had no idea how radical the consequences of that turning point were going to be. Until the early seventies, it was a mark of professionalism in reporters for newspapers, wire services, newsmagazines, to have their pieces speak, as it were, for themselves, with all the credibility and authority of the publication in which they anonymously appeared. Reviews, essays, regular columns were of course signed. They were expressions of opinion, as distinct from reporting, and readers had to know and evaluate whose opinion it was. But when a reader said of a piece of information, “The Times says,” or “The Wall Street Journal says,” he was relying on the credibility of the institution. With occasional exceptions— correspondents, syndicated columnists, or sportswriters whose names were household words, or in attributing a scoop of extraordinary historical importance—the reporter’s byline would have seemed intrusive and unprofessional.

In television reporting, of course, every element of the situation was different. It would be absurd to say “CBS (or ABC, NBC, or even CNN) says” or even “I saw it on” one network or another. It had to be Walter Cronkite, later Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings—not just because no television network or station had the authority of any favorite and trusted publication, but because seeing and hearing the person who conveyed the news (impossible, obviously, with the printed byline) was precisely the basis, for television viewers, of trust.

Once television reporters became celebrities, it was perhaps inevitable that print reporters would want at least their names known; and there were, especially at first, stories one did well to read on the basis of a trusted byline. There still existed what Mary McCarthy, in another context, called “the last of the tall timber.” But the tall timber in journalism is largely gone—replaced, as in many fields, by the phenomenon of celebrity. And gradually, in print journalism, the celebrity of the reporter began to overtake and then to undermine the reliability of pieces. Readers still say, “The Times says,” or “I read it in the Post” (so far as I can tell, except in the special case of gossip columns, readers hardly ever mention, or even notice, bylines), but trust in even once favorite newspapers has almost vanished. One is left with this oddly convoluted paradox: As survey after survey confirms, people generally despise journalists; yet they cite, as a source of information, newspapers. And though they have come, with good reason, to distrust newspapers as a whole, they still tend to believe each individual story as they read it. We all do. Though I may know a piece to be downright false, internally contradictory, in some profound and obvious way corrupted, I still, for a moment anyway, believe it. Believe the most obviously manufactured quotes, the slant, the spin, the prose, the argument with no capacity even to frame an issue and no underlying sense of what follows from what.

At the same time, a development in criticism, perhaps especially movie criticism, affected print journalism of every kind. It used to be that the celebrities featured on billboards and foremost in public consciousness were the movie stars themselves. For a while, it became auteurs, directors. Then, bizarrely but for a period of many years, it became critics, who starred in the discussion of movies. That period seems, fortunately, to have passed. But somehow, the journalist’s byline, influenced perhaps by the critic’s, began to bring with it a blurring of genres: reporting, essay, memoir, personal statement, anecdote, judgmental or critical review. Most of all, critical review—which is why government officials and citizens alike treat reporters in the same way artists regard most critics—with mixed fear and dismay. It is also why the subjects of news stories read each “news” piece as if it were a review on opening night.

There is no longer even a vestige or pretense, on the part of the print journalist, of any professional commitment to uninflected coverage of the news. The ambition is rather, under their bylines, to express themselves, their writing styles. Days pass without a single piece of what used to be called “hard news.” The celebrityhood, or even the aspiration to celebrity, of print reporters, not just in print but also on talk shows, has been perhaps the single most damaging development in the history of print journalism.

The second, less obvious, cause of decline in the very notion of reliable information was the proliferation of the “anonymous source”—especially as embodied, or rather disembodied, in Deep Throat. Many people have speculated about the “identity” of this phantom. Others have shown, more or less conclusively, that at least as described in All the President’s Men, by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, he did not, in fact could not, exist. Initially introduced as a narrative device, to hold together book and movie, this improbable creature was obviously both a composite, which Woodward, the only one who claims to have known and have consulted him, denies, and an utter fiction, which is denied by both Woodward and Bernstein—the better writer, who had, from the start, a “friend,” whose information in almost every significant respect coincides with, and even predates, Deep Throat’s. But the influence of this combination, the celebrity reporter and the chimera to whom the reporter alone has access, has been incalculable.

The implausibility of the saga of Deep Throat has been frequently pointed out. Virtually every element of the story—the all-night séances in garages; the signals conveyed by moved flowerpots on windowsills and drawings of clocks in newspapers; the notes left by prearrangement on ledges and pipes in those garages; the unidiomatic and essentially uninformative speech—has been demolished. Apart from its inherent impractibilities, for a man requiring secrecy and fearing for his life and the reporter’s, the strategy seems less like tradecraft than a series of attention- getting mechanisms. This is by no means to deny that Woodward and Bernstein had “sources,” some but far from all of whom preferred to remain anonymous. From the evidence in the book they include at least Fred Buzhardt, Hugh Sloan, John Sears, Mark Felt and other FBI agents, Leonard Garment, and, perhaps above all, the ubiquitous and not infrequently treacherous Alexander Haig. None of these qualify as Deep Throat, nor does anyone, as depicted in the movie or book. Woodward’s new rationale is this: the secret of the phantom’s name must be kept until the phantom himself reveals it—or else dies. Woodward is prepared, however, to disqualify candidates whom others—most recently Leonard Garment, in an entire book devoted to such speculation—may suggest, by telling, instance by instance, who Deep Throat is not. A long list, obviously, which embraces everyone.

It is no wonder that Woodward, having risked the logic of this, would risk as well an account of a mythical visit to the hospital bedside of former CIA Director William Casey, who was dying and who, according to doctors, had lost all power of speech. Casey’s hospital room was closely guarded against visits from all but his immediate family. Woodward claims to have entered the hospital room, asked Casey a question, observed him “nod,” and quotes him as saying, “I believed.”

There is more. Woodward now claims that the “anonymous source” for another book, The Brethren, was Justice Potter Stewart. Justice Stewart, perhaps needless to say, is dead. He was a highly respected and distinguished Justice. But that does not satisfactorily resolve the matter, because Justice Stewart can and does bear a sort of witness here. He wrote some important opinions. Some of the opinions most seriously misunderstood, misrepresented, and even misquoted in The Brethren are Potter Stewart’s. And nothing could be more obvious from the book than the fact that, apart from the clerks, Woodward’s primary source was in fact Justice Rehnquist.

The ramifications of this cult of the anonymous source—particularly as Deep Throat, this oracle to whom only a single priest, or acolyte, has access, have been, for journalism, enormous. No need any longer to publish long transcripts. Why bother? No need even to read them, or anything—public documents, the novels of Robert Stendahl. Two clicks to Amazon.com will give you spellings. And an “anonymous source” will either provide you with “information” or provide what your editors will accept as “cross-checking” for what you have already said. The celebrity reporter has created, beginning with Deep Throat, what one would have thought a journalistic oxymoron: a celebrity anonymous source. More than that: a celebrity anonymous source who does not even exist. As late as page 207 of Leonard Garment’s book, In Search of Deep Throat, Mr. Garment actually writes:

I was doggedly confident that Woodward, Bernstein, and, above all, their editor … would not have put themselves out on a long limb for a gimmick that would eventually be revealed and denounced as a journalistic fraud of historic proportions.

Not a gimmick. A device. When Woodward produced the noumenal encounter between the anonymous source and the celebrity reporter, it turns out, a religion was born, which has grown to affect not just journalism but the entire culture. In print journalism, you can usually tell, when such a source exists at all, who it is: the person most kindly treated in the story. And the religion, with all its corollaries, dogmas, and implications, has made of reporters not fallible individuals competing for facts and stories in the real world but fellow members of the cult. Whomever or whatever they go after—Wen Ho Lee, Whitewater, or “scandals” that did not pan out—or whomever they equally baselessly support— Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee, and FBI Director Louis Freeh—they tend to support dogmatically, and as one. Best of all, they like to consult and to write approvingly of one another and even, if need be, themselves. Administrations come and go. Quasi-governmental bureaucracies, with their hierarchies and often interlocking cults and interests, persist.

The convergence of the anonymous source with the celebrity reporter now has ramifications that could not have been foreseen. A certain journalistic laziness was perhaps predictable—phoning around as a form of “legwork,” attributing information to “sources,” in quotes, which no one was equipped either to verify or to deny. But the serious result, which no one could have foreseen, is this: The whole purpose of the “anonymous source” has been precisely reversed. The reason there exists a First Amendment protection for journalists’ confidential sources has always been to permit citizens—the weak, the vulnerable, the isolated—to be heard publicly, without fear of retaliation by the strong—by their employer, for example, or by the forces of government. The whistleblower or the innocent accused were to be protected. Instead, almost every “anonymous source” in the press, in recent years, has been an official of some kind, or a person in the course of a vendetta speaking from a position of power.

More disturbing, in spite of what has been at least since Vietnam an almost instinctive press hostility to the elected government (an adversarial position that can be healthy in a free society), the press now has an unmistakeable affinity with official accusers, in particular the Special Prosecutors and the FBI. And when those powerful institutions are allowed to “leak”—that is, become the press’s “anonymous sources”— the press becomes not an adversary but an instrument of all that is most secret and coercive—in attacks, not infrequently, with an elected administration but also with truly nameless individuals, those who have neither power nor celebrity of any kind, and who have no means of access, least of all as “anonymous sources,” to the press.

The press, in these matters, has become far more unified. There may be competition among those who will get the first interview of some celebrity or other, or first access to a treasured “anonymous source.” But it is the same celebrities and the same sources that journalists pursue, not excluding interviews with one another. Even among the apparently most irate and shouting television personalities whom Calvin Trillin has so memorably characterized as “Sabbath gasbags,” there is a sameness. Political views are permitted, routinely, along a spectrum from left to right; but the views of each participant, on virtually any subject, can be predicted from week to week.

The worst, however, is the mystique of the “sources.” Citizens of a democracy require reliable information. How can they check “sources”? What possible basis is there for relying on them? The word of the celebrity reporter who cannot bring himself to name them? What sort of reliability, what sort of information, what sort of journalism is this? Especially since there seems to be, among “investigative reporters” and the institutions that support them, a stubborn loyalty to and solidarity with sources—even when a source (as in the recent case of Charles Bakaly of the Special Prosecutor’s office) admits that he is the previously “anonymous source” in question, or, more puzzlingly, when the “source” has demonstrably deceived the reporter himself. In what may be a journalistic variant of the Stockholm syndrome (whereby hostages become extremely loyal to their captors), journalists and their editors defend and protect the anonymity, and even the reliability, of their sources, even when they have been most seriously misled. A sacred covenant, apparently. But what of the trust and “contract” with the reader? Forgotten, secular, a matter of spelling and perhaps the small stuff. There, for instance, is the Times, in its “assessment,” trying to establish the basis for a now utterly discredited story as “cross-checking sources” and resisting “obstacles” posed by other people’s having tried to “identify our sources.” Would this not have been the occasion to name at least the sources who deliberately misled them? Are the identities of self-serving liars, and particularly liars of this sort, who use the newspaper story as a weapon of intimidation, to be protected? Four months later, in February of 2001, the Times again reappraised its coverage of Wen Ho Lee. The pieces somehow, under a lot of cosmic obfuscation, seemed to have missed their underlying points: (1) that there was no evidence of spying by anyone at Los Alamos; (2) that there was no evidence of any spying by Wen Ho Lee. The suspicion of him rested largely on two incidents: that he had once telephoned a man under suspicion of something undefined and offered to help him, and that he had once entered, uninvited, a meeting at Los Alamos, and hugged a major Chinese scientist there. Typical spy behavior: a phone call and a hug.

If so, then you are speaking inescapably of the instruments of a police state, with secret informers, and the press just one in a set of interlocking and secretive bureaucracies. The alternative, it seems to me, is to proceed in a more diligent way, one by one, in the press, on the street, in the academy, to look for information and try to draw reasonable inferences from it. A combination of research and thinking and consulting, if need be, a genuine source—that is, someone who has information and is willing to impart it. No professional ideologies that paradoxically combine political correctness with self-serving orthodoxies and an affinity for prosecutors. No faith in Delphic utterances from unidentified persons. In spite of what might have affected generations of aspiring reporters, no one is going to contrive an absurd set of signals for you, meet you secretly and regularly and undetected by others in a garage by night and tell you anything worth knowing.

Pools, informers, leaks from prosecutors, celebrity reporters with anonymous sources—all of these are forms simultaneously of consolidation and of hiding, facets of what the enterprise has become. Consider the celebrity reporter, the particular powers of celebrity in a celebrity culture, especially when his nominal profession, after all, is the purveying of information, the dissemination of what the society will know about itself. Consider the prosecutorial affinity, which is both easy and immensely destructive. Wen Ho Lee, as it turned out, had nearly miraculous access, in the end, to good, pro bono lawyers. Most noncelebrity citizens simply have no such access—either to lawyers or to the press. They are not just truly anonymous. They are plain unheard.

Consider as well the use of pools. Not the imposed pools of the military, but voluntary, self-satisfied, bonded bureaucracies and consortiums. To use saving money as an excuse for not having the independence, the interest, the curiosity and inclination to go out there and see for yourself—it is simply not reconcilable with any notion of the working journalist. Under the First Amendment, the press enjoys special protections so that the public will hear from many competing individual and institutional voices, and so that debate, as Harry Kalven put it, can be “free, robust, and wide open.” Journalism has to be competitive or it is nothing. Television's mistake in using its consortium was understandable and should have been instructive. But television that night was in the business of prediction. In Florida, where something already existing is in dispute—in a state with sunshine laws specifically making facts available for public information—to send a surrogate institution is indefensible. For one thing, it virtually guarantees that the sunshine laws will atrophy. For another, it guarantees that the public will never know what the real count was. In lieu of NORC, it would have been better to send in, if not professional auditors, a group of diligent fourth-grade children who can count.

All monopolists collaborating in restraint of trade say they are cooperating to save everybody money. In this case, another unmistakeable and crucial motive has been to hide. That hiding reflects fear. Fear of being alone, fear of being out of step with the prevailing view. Fear even of being right when everyone else is wrong. So hide yourself in an orthodoxy and a group. Let no independent reporters and, lord help us, no independent newspaper in there. Try to co-opt the Miami Herald. Let the sociologists from NORC handle it. The administration, the government, will not be offended. At least not with us.

Oddly enough, even the policy of Corrections is a form simultaneously of consolidation of power and of hiding. The orthodoxy is: We are so scrupulous we correct even the smallest thing. Therefore, you can trust us as you would Mao, the Scripture, the Politburo. It is a form of Fundamentalism, it protects the ideology. Nothing more clearly exposed the essence of that Corrections policy than the Editors’ Note about Wen Ho Lee. They misrepresented what they had actually said. They defended, in glowing terms, what they did say. They gave themselves credit for “calling attention to the problem.” Much like those charities a few years ago when the child, who had been photographed so movingly and had corresponded so faithfully with its “adopted” parents, who sent ten dollars a month, turned out to have been long dead or not even to exist. The charities, too, said, “We were just calling attention to the problem.” If you do a textual analysis of what the Times did say, over a period of many months, and how its “accounting” or “assessment” now describes it, you have not just disinformation but an indication of what much of journalism has become. We were first, but we blame it on the Wall Street Journal, which was earlier, and on the misrepresentations of others, who came later. On the whole, we are proud. And the only one to whom we genuinely owe an apology is one of our staff, the editor of the series in question, “the scapegoat,” whom we must now praise in the most extravagant terms. And about whom we are abject, agonized, heartsick.

I know nothing about the editor in question. I did read, months ago, his irate and patronizing response, defending those very articles, to someone who had ventured, in Brill’s Content, to criticize them. There is, in general, in newspapers at least, almost no reliable, uninflected coverage of the news. No celebrity journalists seem even to aspire to it. There is opinion, a verdict, an assumption of the role—how to put it?—of critic to the day’s events. A verdict. We do not need a verdict. We need an account.

That is where the absence of those once long, verbatim transcripts is of great importance. The transcripts permitted none of that judging or tilting or hiding. They were straightforward. They were something that television, for example, with its scheduling and time constraints, could not do. Nor could tabloids.

Consolidating with others and going secret. From the anonymous source, to the prosecutor’s office, to the consortium, all are just steps. And correcting—either typos, or misspellings, or things everyone knows already or that matter to no one, or that correct themselves on a daily basis—is just the mask, the surface of the decay. One more indication of moral and factual authority—and, in consequence, another source of power. It may be, it is virtually certain, that newspapers, to regain their honor, will have to relinquish something of their power and think again.

The whole constitutional system had been, for some time, under attack by all three branches of government. There has been the behavior of the executive, as embodied not just by the President in his understanding of his office, but, paradoxically, by the Independent Counsel in his prosecutions. There has been the behavior of the legislature, in its lascivious travesty of the impeachment process. There has been the conduct of the Supreme Court, intruding on the province of the executive, the legislative, the states, and finally on the rights of every citizen. By making its decision in Gore v. Bush, explicitly, unique—to be regarded as having no precedent and setting none—it undermined the whole basis of Anglo Saxon law, which is grounded in the notion that the decisions derive their validity from being built upon, and in turn relied upon, as precedents.

The Supreme Court, in its power of judicial review, is regarded as nearly sacred within the system and beyond appeal—with one exception: the press. Judicial review is trumped by press review. The Justices are highly aware of this. Judges who claimed to be conservatives, even as they struck most radically at the Constitution, the balance of powers, federalism, the fundamental understandings of the society, played to journalists. Virtually the only decisions of this Court upholding freedoms, under the First Amendment, for example, have been decisions in favor of the press. The press seems less aware of this—still describing the most radical judges, obligingly, as “conservatives.” Somehow, comfortable and serene as the system still seems to be, and as though political life were still in some sense normal, the whole question of legitimacy seemed to rest on so few public officials—until recently Senator Moynihan, for example, and now Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer. There is always the possibility that there will be heroes, or that the system is self-correcting. But it will not do for the press, with very few exceptions, simply to join all other bureaucracies, to correct spellings or give us their impressions about race (there are still “tensions”) while, in the ultimate abdication, they miss the factual. Independent journalists have obligations of their own.

-2001

[eretzyisrael]

Israel’s Second Struggle for Independence

The USA has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter in recent years.

It is also Israel’s biggest problem.

Our dependence on American military aid has sharply limited our freedom of action, distorted our decisions about procurement of weapons, crippled the development of our own military industries, corrupted our decision-makers, and damaged our standing as a sovereign state.

It is true that on some occasions Israel has acted against America’s wishes, such as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. It is also true that far more frequently, Israel has been forced to bow to US demands, even when they are not in her best interests. In several wars and smaller operations, cease-fires have been dictated by American pressure, although Israel would have preferred to continue fighting longer in order to achieve a decisive victory. During the Gulf War, the US prevented Israel from retaliating for Iraqi Scud attacks. In peacetime, US pressure has prevented Israel from building in Judea and Samaria, and forced Israel to accept Palestinian demands for the release of prisoners. American opposition was a major factor in the decision not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2010-2012 period.

Israel’s relationship with the US has been better or worse depending on the direction of political winds there, but pressure to reverse the outcome of the 1967 war has been a constant ever since – with the notable exception of the Trump administration, which for the first time recognized Israeli rights to Jerusalem and the Golan heights. But now it seems that the US is taking a turn in the other direction; and this time – thanks to Israel’s conclusive loss of the cognitive war for the consciousness of American elites, the partisan division of attitudes toward Israel, and the new strength of the radical Left in American politics – our time in the wilderness may turn out to be much longer than before.

The inroads being made by elements hostile to Israel into the American educational system, previously limited to higher education, but now reaching into high school and even grade school levels, are troubling. The “intersectional” connections being made between every progressive cause, and the politicization of almost every field of endeavor, have injected the issue of Israel vs. the Palestinians into places where it was not found before.

This is a problem, because our enemies – particularly Iran – are taking advantage of the less pro-Israel climate in the US. The Biden Administration, which has already significantly released the pressure on Iran, appears to be galloping toward a full removal of sanctions, whether or not it will gain significant leverage over their nuclear weapons program. Trump’s sanctions had sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin, which helped energize the Iranian opposition to the repressive and backward regime of the Ayatollahs. Even today, Iranians are in the streets protesting against the regime. But the removal of sanctions will not help them; the regime will funnel cash into its nuclear program, into the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, and to build up Israel’s most dangerous enemy, Hezbollah.

At the same time, the Biden Administration, which has staffed its echelons dealing with the Middle East with people less than friendly to Israel – including some with a history of anti-Israel activism (see here, here, and here) – has already restored funding to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA, plans to re-open the Jerusalem consulate, the unofficial “US Embassy to the State of Palestine” in Jerusalem, and to allow the PLO to restore its embassy in Washington.

A recent poll shows that the Democratic Party, which now controls the House, Senate and the Presidency, has moved significantly away from its formerly solid support for Israel in recent years, with sympathy for Israel among Democrats maintaining a slight edge of only 3 percentage points over sympathy for the Palestinians. The “liberal” wing of the party is far worse, with the Palestinians holding a 15% margin over Israel. Younger respondents also were more likely to favor the Palestinians, which argues for a continuation of the trend. And there is a very vocal contingent in the US Congress that is strongly anti-Israel, and not at all constrained from giving voice to the most extreme anti-Israel propaganda.

The Israeli leadership must come to understand that the continued expectation that Israel will receive military and diplomatic support from the US is unrealistic and dangerous. Israel needs to take action now, to reduce its dependence on the US, to increase its freedom of action, and to build up its own resources in important areas.

There is only one way for a small country in a strategic area to obtain independence from the various empires that wish to make it a satellite, and it is difficult and precarious. That is to play the empires off against one another, and to make alliances with other unaligned nations. I believe that Binyamin Netanyahu understood this, and made small but steady progress in this direction. It remains to be seen if the present government, whose foreign policy appears to be in the hands of the obsequious Yair Lapid, can pull this off.

From the military standpoint, Israel needs to be its own main source of supply. That has implications for the kind of military forces it can field. For example, it may be unrealistic to try to maintain a large fleet of the most sophisticated manned combat aircraft. Drones and precision-guided missiles are far less expensive than F-35s, and while they can’t entirely replace conventional aircraft, a small country will find it more practical to produce and maintain them.

There are also economic considerations. Iron Dome is a wonderful thing, but if it costs $100,000 to intercept a $500 rocket, then massive-scale use of it will bankrupt us. It is much less expensive to deter rocket attacks with the threat of forceful reprisals than to depend on antimissile systems to ward them off. The former strategy is more appropriate for a smaller country whose defense budget is not bottomless. I don’t suggest doing away with antimissile systems entirely, just changing our strategy so that we will not need so many of them.

I recommend that we start moving in this direction now, by agreeing with the US to a gradual phase-out of military aid. At the same time, we will have to revitalize our domestic military industries. Barack Obama very cleverly did not decrease the level of military aid we received, to maintain the maximum leverage over our actions. But the percentage of that aid that could be spent outside of the US was set to gradually drop to zero over the next few years. This had the effect of increasing the subsidy that aid to Israel provided to US defense contractors, and weakening Israel’s home-grown industry. This made us more dependent and at the same time reduced the competition to American weapons suppliers in the world market. A win-win-win for the US, but a loss for us.

America is changing in ways that are not good for America, and not good for us. I hope that the political/cultural pendulum in the US will swing the other way. Probably it will, if the nation survives the present storm intact. But here on the other side of the world, Israel’s enemies are not waiting with their hands folded. She will either adapt to the new situation or find herself in deep trouble.

Abu Yehuda

[labelleizzy]

Biden’s 17 Executive Orders and Other Directives in Detail (NYT article)

The moves aim to strengthen protections for young immigrants, end construction of President Donald J. Trump’s border wall, end a travel ban and prioritize racial equity.

President Biden signed executive orders during his first few minutes in the Oval Office on Wednesday. photo Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Aishvarya Kavi

Jan. 20, 2021, 6:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — In 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations signed hours after his inauguration, President Biden moved swiftly on Wednesday to dismantle Trump administration policies his aides said have caused the “greatest damage” to the nation.

Despite an inaugural address that called for unity and compromise, Mr. Biden’s first actions as president are sharply aimed at sweeping aside former President Donald J. Trump’s pandemic response, reversing his environmental agenda, tearing down his anti-immigration policies, bolstering the teetering economic recovery and restoring federal efforts to promote diversity.

Here’s a look at what the measures aim to accomplish.

On the Pandemic

Mr. Biden has signed an executive order appointing Jeffrey D. Zients as the official Covid-19 response coordinator who will report to the president, in an effort to “aggressively” gear up the nation’s response to the pandemic. The order also restores the directorate for global health security and biodefense at the National Security Council, a group Mr. Trump had disbanded.

Though it is not a national mask mandate, which would most likely fall to a legal challenge, Mr. Biden is requiring social distancing and the wearing of masks on all federal property and by all federal employees. He is also starting a “100 days masking challenge” urging all Americans to wear masks and state and local officials to implement public measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Mr. Biden is also reinstating ties with the World Health Organization after the Trump administration chose to withdraw the nation’s membership and funding last year. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci will be the head of the U.S. delegation to the organization’s executive board and will jump into the role with a meeting this week.

On Immigration

With an executive order, Mr. Biden has bolstered the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects from deportation immigrants brought to the United States as children, often called Dreamers. Mr. Trump sought for years to end the program, known as DACA. The order also calls on Congress to enact legislation providing permanent status and a path to citizenship for those immigrants.

Another executive order revokes the Trump administration’s plan to exclude noncitizens from the census count, and another overturns a Trump executive order that pushed aggressive efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants. Yet another order blocks the deportation of Liberians who have been living in the United States.

In a blow to one of his predecessor’s earliest actions to limit immigration, Mr. Biden has also ended the so-called Muslim ban, which blocked travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim and African countries. Mr. Biden has directed the State Department to restart visa processing for individuals from the affected countries and to develop ways to address the harm caused to those who were prevented from coming to the United States because of the ban.

The Biden Administration

Live Updates: Inauguration Live Updates

Updated

Jan. 20, 2021, 8:52 p.m. ET55 minutes ago

55 minutes ago

Michael Ellis, a Trump appointee at the N.S.A. who was sworn in on Tuesday, has been placed on leave.

The Biden administration moved to remove a Trump labor appointee.

Inaugural concert with Bruce Springsteen, Justin Timberlake, John Legend and more begins.

Mr. Biden has also halted construction of Mr. Trump’s border wall with Mexico. The order includes an “immediate termination” of the national emergency declaration that allowed the Trump administration to redirect billions of dollars to the wall. It says the administration will begin “a close review” of the legality of the effort to divert federal money to fund the wall.

On Climate Change

Chief among executive orders that begin to tackle the issue of climate change, Mr. Biden has signed a letter to re-enter the United States in the Paris climate accords, which it will officially rejoin 30 days from now. In 2019, Mr. Trump formally notified the United Nations that the United States would withdraw from the coalition of nearly 200 countries working to move away from planet-warming fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

In additional executive orders, Mr. Biden began the reversal of a slew of the Trump administration’s environmental policies, including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline; reversing the rollbacks to vehicle emissions standards; undoing decisions to slash the size of several national monuments; enforcing a temporary moratorium on oil and natural gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and re-establishing a working group on the social costs of greenhouse gasses.

On Racial and L.G.B.T. Equality

Mr. Biden will end the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission, which released a report on Monday that historians said distorted the role of slavery in the United States, among other history. Mr. Biden also revoked Mr. Trump’s executive order limiting the ability of federal agencies, contractors and other institutions to hold diversity and inclusion training.

The president designated Susan E. Rice, who is the head of his Domestic Policy Council, as the leader of a “robust, interagency” effort requiring all federal agencies to make “rooting out systemic racism” central to their work. His order directs the agencies to review and report on equity in their ranks within 200 days, including a plan on how to remove barriers to opportunities in policies and programs. The order also moves to ensure that Americans of all backgrounds have equal access to federal government resources, benefits and services. It starts a data working group as well as the study of new methods to measure and assess federal equity and diversity efforts.

Another executive order reinforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a policy that reverses action by Mr. Trump’s administration.

On the Economy

Mr. Biden is moving to extend a federal moratorium on evictions and has asked agencies, including the Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Departments, to prolong a moratorium on foreclosures on federally guaranteed mortgages that was enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The extensions all run through at least the end of March.

The president is also moving to continue a pause on federal student loan interest and principal payments through the end of September, although progressive groups and some congressional Democrats have pushed Mr. Biden to go much further and cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per person.

On Government Accountability

Following in the footsteps of some of his predecessors, Mr. Biden has established ethics rules for those who serve in his administration that aim “to restore and maintain trust in the government.” He has ordered all of his appointees in the executive branch to sign an ethics pledge.

Finally, Mr. Biden issued a freeze on all new regulations put in motion by his predecessor to give his administration time to evaluate which ones it wants to move forward. The memorandum is aimed at preventing so-called midnight regulations, policies pushed through by a lame-duck president unconstrained by electoral considerations. The fast pace often cuts short the opportunity for the public or industry to review the policies.

Aishvarya Kavi is based in the Washington bureau. @AishvaryaKavi

[vamonumentlandscape]

Charlottesville Part 1: Monticello

Before heading home from Richmond, we took a slight detour to visit another iconic Virginia city. Charlottesville is a picturesque college town, rich with history and many sights to see. We began our trip at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. With COVID-19 policies still in a transition phase, we ended up only getting Grounds and Gardens tickets. This gave us full access to the garden areas, the basement exhibits, the enslaved peoples tour (including the exhibit on Sally Hemmings), and the burial grounds. The only part of Monticello we did not get to fully experience was the home itself, but we think that gives us all the more reason to return in the near future!

Thomas Jefferson is a complicated figure. He is known as the Father of the Declaration and a beloved American President. He is also known as one of the most infamous hypocrites in American history. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These are the words written in the Declaration of Independence that we have all been inspired by as American citizens. It is undeniable that the revolutionary principles our founding fathers believed in created a nation today like no other. The ideas of a country free from the oppression of the “divine” monarchy, the belief that a democracy could thrive by the people and for the people, and the use of enlightenment principles to create an entirely new government is something we owe to our forefathers. We do not believe in discrediting men like Jefferson who had one of the greatest impacts on American history, but we believe that the whole story should be told. Literally and figuratively, no one should be allowed to be put on a pedestal without the full truth being unveiled. There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism as we have seen in the years our country has developed. The man who helped create our fine nation was also the owner of slaves, a man who struggled with debt, and one who pushed Native Americans out of their own homeland. Again, our country would not be what it is today without men like Jefferson, but his full story deserves to be told.

Before the Slavery at Monticello tour, we decided to do a quick walkthrough of the basement level of Jefferson’s home. As a trained architect, Thomas Jefferson developed spaces for the main kitchen, a beer and wine cellar, an ice house, and more. We were fascinated to see the pulley system utilized in the beer and wine cellars to transfer goods up to the main parts of the home. It is important to note that the comfortable lives that the Jefferson family was able to live relied on the exploitation of enslaved labor. All spaces on this level have been converted into exhibitions and inform audiences of the people that worked within. Families that were featured included Hemmings, Gillette, Hern, and more. In truth, Jefferson was quite hypocritical when he wrote that “all men are created equal.” When we got to the far end of the house, we followed the crowd that gathered around three exhibition boards and a small room showing a short film. After the death of his wife, Martha, and upon his return to Virginia from France, Thomas Jefferson brought back Sally Hemings to Monticello. She was previously a “maid-servant” for his younger daughter, Maria. Hemings became pregnant soon after this return and it is almost certain that Thomas Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves, was the father. The title of “concubine” that was bestowed on Hemings is dehumanizing and limits any historical interpretation of her. They would have a total of four children together. Jefferson only freed a total of 7 enslaved people and they were all members of the Hemings family. However, Sally was never legally free after he had “given her time” upon dying. We highly recommend viewing The Life of Sally Hemings exhibit if visiting Monticello. It may make you question the legacy of Thomas Jefferson learned in schools around the country.

607. Over Jefferson’s lifetime, he owned 607 people. Our tour guide immediately gave us this number when we began our tour. After walking through the grounds and the basement, we began the Slavery at Monticello tour. Starting on Mulberry Row, which is named after the types of trees that line the dirt road, we saw small cabins and plots where these cabins sat. These were the homes of the enslaved people at Monticello. The one room cabins could not have been bigger than 12x12. With dirt floors, one stove, one bed, and a loft above that had extremely low ceilings, these cabins could have held anywhere from two to twelve people. Since many enslaved people had numerous children, the cabins were usually tight spaces. On the wall of the recreated cabin visitors could walk in to see a plaque that read “Not so bad?” Some people who have entered these small, nearly inhospitable spaces have made similar remarks, so Monticello has gone out of their way to ensure people know it was that bad. Enslaved families faced constant struggles like violence, separation, dehumanization from their “masters’, and much more that we cannot fathom. Moving forward in the tour, we had a fantastic guide who had been there for over fifteen years. She explained to us many parts and pieces of Mulberry Row and stories of those who lived there. “Sunup to sun down, six days a week,” she said, “Only small provisions were given each week per person to survive on, otherwise they had to find time outside of their work to grow more food.” She explained to us more of the personal stories as we went along. Jefferson owned a nailry, but the small working parts of the way nails were made required small people and small hands. Jefferson enslaved young boys from 7 to 14 to do this work. Once they had gotten too big to work for him the boys would be moved to other jobs on the plantation (also known as a labor camp) like carpentry, field work, or domestic works. Stories began to be more intimate as we went along as she told us more about the Hemmings family and the enslaved young man who attempted to free himself without success, James Hubbard. The personal stories they are able to tell are made possible through the research that the foundation has taken on, but more importantly come about from the stories of the Monticello enslaved. Without the help of descendents, our tour guide told us that they would not have been able to know half of the stories that they do. To conclude our tour, we asked our guide how things had changed with the tours she had given over the past 15 years at Monticello. “When I first started, the Sally Hemmings story was told much differently. We would have to say ‘there is a high probability that Jefferson is related to Hemmings’ to avoid scrutiny, instead of now where we definitively say ‘Jefferson fathered Sally Hemmings children.’ Also before being called Mulberry Row and the Slavery at Monticello Tour, it was the ‘Plantation Community.’” A lot of things have changed to tell the whole story at Monticello and it is encouraging to us all in seeing that both sides of Jefferson are presented equally.

Similar to other historical homes that had enslaved workers, there is a separate cemetery that was used for those that were white members of the Jefferson family. We had to ask a staff member if they could direct us to the small burial ground, and they were kind enough to oblige. We were able to see roughly 50 cross markers within a gated location in the middle of the parking lot. The markers were unnamed. We saw the toll that enslavement took on those at Monticello. Most of their lives were likely spent working for no pay with their basic human rights stripped away from them. There is ongoing work in and around the area of Charlottesville to find if there are other human remains of those that were forced to work for the Jefferson family. Unfortunately, the grave of Sally Hemings has yet to be found, but we are hopeful that this discovery will be made in the years to come. Thomas Jefferson is undoubtedly a very complicated figure in our history. Our visit to the African-American cemetery that followed the Slavery at Monticello tour was essential in understanding why historians continue to debate his legacy.

[goodwettoco2727]

Donald J. Trump: On the Threshold of Greatness

By Daniel Davies

Despite the many ways in which he’s reviled today, I believe that history will record Trump as one of America’s greatest presidents. Looking at America’s most admired presidents, I was able to identify the four criteria needed to earn that accolade:

• First and foremost, the president led the country through a life and death struggle. 

• Second, the president suffered intense defamation, attack, pernicious plots, and even demonization both domestic and foreign but prevailed.

• Third, the president defended and supported our Republic’s foundational documents and institutions: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including all Amendments, especially the Bill of Rights.

• Fourth, he supported American liberty, prosperity, and social welfare. All the greats promoted the actualization of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights during their presidencies.

Four presidents have met all those criteria: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. One president, Donald Trump, is on the threshold of meeting those criteria. His place is reserved at Mt. Rushmore and history will tell if he is successful. If he is not successful, our nation may perish in the face of the life and death struggle we are now in.

Donald Trump entered the office of the president in 2016 facing a life and death struggle. The previous administration had eviscerated the US military, created an unhealthy alliance with Iran, taken a stand against Israel, failed to take the ISIS caliphate seriously, and presided over a weakening NATO alliance in which member states failed to contribute to the mutual defense. In addition, both Iran and North Korea openly developed nuclear weapons and North Korea threatened an attack on the USA. The United States economy, still not recovered from the recession triggered by the 9/11/2001 attacks, suffered from unequal trade agreements and suffocating government regulations. Race war threatened to break out in a hyper divided nation. The USA also maintained a co-dependent relationship with China, enabling its campaign of total war against the USA in their quest to become the world’s only superpower.

As serious as all those challenges were, the most serious challenge came from within the USA (the second criterion). The previous administration colluded with the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and the federal court system. In addition, corporate media colluded with the administration. The previous administration’s executives entered into corrupt relationships with China, Russia, and Ukraine in return for money.

Despite the constant attack from domestic forces, especially the deep state media, deep state politicians, deep state executive branch departments which falsely accused Trump of racist policies, immorality, graft, collusion with Russia, fascist policies, poor health, and insanity, President Trump presided over the most successful presidency in history, thereby meeting the third and fourth criteria. He

• defused the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats,

• completely defeated the ISIS caliphate,

• concluded the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan,

• renegotiated trade agreements,

• strengthened NATO,

• brought energy independence to the USA,

• presided over the strongest economic recovery in history, especially for minorities,

• husbanded historic stock market highs,

• freed businesses from strangling regulations,

• advanced religious liberty,

• protected freedom of speech,

• thwarted illegal immigration,

• rebuilt the military,

• kept the promise to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,

• brokered peace treaties between Israel and former enemies,

• protected the rights of the unborn,

• protected Second Amendment rights,

• advanced health insurance reforms, and

• reformed the VA hospital system.

President Trump nearly single-handedly brought the USA back as the world leader. We were prosperous, at peace, and growing in national unity. All in the face of the most vicious and hostile attacks domestic and foreign.

Donald Trump’s election caught the ruling party by surprise. They had counted on manipulating the 2016 election to maintain control of the government. When that failed, the Deep State launched an all-out effort to remove Donald Trump from office by any means possible. The Deep State (including the CIA, DOJ, FBI, Congress, media including social media, and state governments loyal to the administration) colluded to remove Donald Trump from office through impeachment. When those efforts failed, the Deep State, led by the previous administration behind the scenes, ramped up its program to steal the election of 2020. 

In January 2020, both the first and second metrics reappeared (great national crisis; extreme attacks against the president). China unleashed a weapons-grade, biologically engineered virus on the world, the so-called COVID-19 virus. President Trump took quick action to thwart the attack by banning Chinese from traveling to the USA, providing care for the sick, and developing preventatives as well as vaccines. The Deep State immediately seized the opportunity to use the pandemic to consolidate control of the government (federal and state) and to damage President Trump politically.

The pandemic worked perfectly into their plan to steal the election from President Trump. They learned from the campaign of 2016 that they could not defeat President Trump in a fair election because most Americans rejected the Deep State’s anti-American values.

The Deep State’s plans to rig the election got aid from billions of dollars from social media giants and anti-American agents. They manipulated state governments through courts to permit unmonitored mail-in ballots, bypassing the state legislatures in key swing states. Through that and other types of fraud, the Deep State engineered a stolen election.

On January 6, 2021, when Congress convened to accept the electors’ votes for president and vice president, between 500,000 to 1 million Americans assembled in Washington D.C. to protest the stolen election and oppose Congress’s acceptance of electors. Despite overwhelming proof of election fraud, the swing states ramrodded through electors supporting the Deep State’s candidates. State and federal courts refused to review the evidence to delegitimize the election. Members of both political parties voted to accept the sham electors. The people who gave President Trump a landslide victory felt betrayed.

The Deep State, working hand in glove with domestic terrorists, co-opted a huge, peaceful protest into a small assault on the Capitol buildings. The Deep State media (included social media), through prearranged statements, immediately characterized the protest as an “insurrection” that President Trump engineered. The media censored any view to the opposite and sought to shut down all free speech.

This is a life and death threat to the Republic unlike the life and death threats faced by other great presidents. This is an attack on American institutions and values from within and without. If President Trump can save the country from this attack, he will take his place in Mr. Rushmore. I believe that he will.

[mariacallous]

LAS VEGAS (JTA) — Mike Pence chose a Jewish gathering to announce his exit from the presidential race, with a veiled warning that his onetime boss, Donald Trump, posed a threat to a robust American foreign policy that he said was vital to Israel’s interests.

Pence, the former vice president, elicited gasps and cries of “We love you!” when he addressed a presidential forum at the annual Republican Jewish Coalition conference in Las Vegas.

“I came here to say it’s become clear to me this is not my time,” Pence said.

Pence could not bring himself to mention the name of Trump, who was scheduled to speak later Saturday and who is far and away the favorite to win the nomination. Pence even avoided namechecking the former president while reviewing the record of what he called the most “pro-Israel administration” in American history.

But after delivering the expected exhortation to remove President Joe Biden, Pence made clear that he did not want Trump to retake the office, framing his concerns in the context of Israel’s war with Hamas.

“Will Republicans continue to be the party of the traditional conservatives that has defined our movement of the past 40 years, or will our party follow the siren song of populism unmoored to conservative principles?” Pence said.

“A new populist movement in the Republican Party says that America should retreat from her leadership position, turn inward and focus solely on domestic concerns,” he said. “Let me say from my heart, anyone who says that America cannot solve our problems at home and be the leader of the free world, there’s a pretty small view of the greatest nation that we have. We must and we will do both for the sake of America, Israel and the world.”

Trump has not said yet how his calls to reduce the American footprint overseas would affect assistance to Israel. He has distanced himself from some of the most robust pro-Israel figures from his term, including Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador; Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State; and Pence.

Trump’s most profound falling-out with Pence was on Jan. 6, 2021, when Pence rebuffed Trump’s exhortations to throw the election to Trump during the congressional review of electoral votes, something Pence was not empowered to do. Trump’s urgings spurred a violent insurrection, with some rioters seeking Pence’s assassination.

Another candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, has explicitly called for cutting funding to Israel.

Trump’s slogan since 2016, when he and Pence won the election, has been “America First,” a phrase that has echoes in an antisemitic movement of the 1930s and 1940s led by Charles Lindbergh.

In his current campaign, Trump has favored retreat from the international scene and has mocked Israel’s leadership for how it handled Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 invasion. He has called the Hezbollah terrorist movement, which is engaging with Israel from the north, “smart.”