Glenn Greenwald's Blog, page 115

Criminalizing free speech

Alex Seitz-Wald of Think Progress rightly takes Sen. Rand Paul to task for going on Sean Hannity's radio program -- one week after commendably leading opposition to the Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds -- and advocating the arrest of people who "attend radical political speeches."  After claiming to be against racial and religious profiling, Paul said:  "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison."  Seitz-Wald correctly notes the obvious:  "Paul's suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process." 

Indeed, the First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech.  The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence.  That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1967 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.

The KKK leader in Brandenburg was convicted under an Ohio statute that made it a crime to "advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and/or to "voluntarily assemble with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."  The Court struck down the statute on the ground that it "purports to punish mere advocacy" and thus "sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control."  The Court ruled that "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" -- meaning conduct such as standing outside someone's house with an angry mob and urging them to burn the house down that moment -- "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force" (emphasis added).

As Think Progress explains, Paul's argument runs directly afoul of these established constitutional principles and "is especially appalling coming from someone who fashions himself as a staunch defender of civil liberties."  There's no doubt about that (and, ironically, some of the rallies from the Tea Party movement, the faction most responsible for Paul's election, as well as many pro-life rallies, may well qualify as "speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government" if viewed by a hostile government official). 

But what Think Progress doesn't mention is that the Obama administration is not only advocating views that violently breach the same principle, but has been attempting to act on those violations for more than a year now as they try to kill the American-born Terrorist suspect Anwar al-Awlaki (along with at least three other unknown U.S. citizens targeted for assassination).  Indeed, this is one of the prime principles that has made me view the President's assassination program as so odious from the start.

What has made Awlaki of such great concern for American officials is not any alleged operational role in Terrorism, but rather the fact that he advocates violent jihad and does so with some degree of efficacy.  To see how true that is, just consider this morning's New York Times debate forum that asks: "How Dangerous Is Anwar al-Awlaki? With Yemen on the verge of civil war, how aggressive should the U.S. be in trying to kill an American-born cleric?"  The responses from five Terrorism experts span the range of opinion from "he's not particularly dangerous" to "he's extremely dangerous," but all of them emphasize the speeches he gives and ideas he advocates, and make only the most passing and cursory reference to the unproven government assertions that he's involved in plotting Terrorist attacks:

Gerges: Awlaki "is not even the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . a more effective measure [than killing him] would be to shut down Awlaki's propaganda shop by convincing the tribe that gives him shelter, the Awalik in southern Yemen, to turn him over to the Yemeni authorities."

Bodurian and Nelson:  "Awlaki's real danger -- his potential to incite Islamist terrorism among far-flung constituencies living in the United States, Europe and even Asia. The American-born, Yemeni-raised cleric delivers scathing English-language online lectures to audiences in the West. Awlaki's rhetoric plays up a war between the West and Islam and has led some Muslims living throughout the world to embrace Al Qaeda's toxic ideology and to plan attacks."

Benotman:  "Awlaki's fluent English certainly sets him apart from most other Al Qaeda members. It also makes him a potent force among Western Muslims. Thanks to a long immersion in American culture and many years of working with Muslims living in the West, he understands how to recruit impressionable young Muslims with his message that Muslims will never be accepted by the West, and that the only correct Islamic response to the West's cultural, political and economic influence is jihad."

Khalil:  "Awlaki remains a potent threat to U.S. security. He has a proven ability to radicalize would-be violent extremists in the West in a way that Bin Laden, Zawahiri and others could never have. He has a unique talent in reaching out to a segment of disaffected people, mostly male and English-speaking, who may or may not have originally come from a Muslim background. . . . He is able to reach them through snazzy graphics, videos and speeches posted online. Inspire Magazine, an online English publication thought to be published by Awlaki . . . ."

Mendelsohn:  "Few jihadists represent a bigger threat to the United States than Anwar al-Awlaki. He played an important role in a string of attacks in the West and, more than any other figure, proved to be great inspiration for homegrown cells and lone terrorists."

Plainly, the American obsession with Awlaki has everything to do with his advocacy and, especially, the fear that it's effective because he can speak to English-speaking Muslims.  In other words, the U.S. Government is trying to kill him becuase of his constitutionally-protected speech in advocating the justifiability and necessity of violence.

This is not an academic question.  The right at stake here is absolutely vital.  It is crucial to protect and preserve the right to argue that a government has become so tyrannical or dangerous that violence is justified against it.  That was the argument on which the American Founding was based; it is pure political speech; and criminalizing the expression of that idea poses a grave danger to free speech and the ability to organize against abusive governments.  To allow the government to punish citizens -- let alone to kill them -- because their political advocacy is threatening to the government is infinitely more dangerous than whatever ideas are being targeted for punishment, even if that idea is violent jihad.

Indeed, it is simply obvious that an American citizen -- Muslim or otherwise -- is and should be Constitutionally permitted to stand up and make the following argument:

For decades, the U.S. Government has been engaging in violence and otherwise interfering in the Muslim world.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children have died as a result.  There is no end in sight to this American assault on the Muslim world and those of its client states.  Therefore, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Muslims to engage in violence against Americans as a means of self-defense and to deter further violence against Muslims.  That is the only available means for fighting back against the world's greatest military superpower.  The only alternative is continuing passive submission to this onslaught of violence aimed at Muslims.

That is the Awlaki's core message in explaining why he supports the use of violence aimed at Americans (while arguing that it should be aimed at military rather than civilian targets):

I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than 60 years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, US missiles have killed 17 women and 23 children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a US civil jet after all this. The 300 Americans [targeted by Abdulmutallab] are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed. . . . The American people are the ones who have voted twice for Bush the criminal and elected Obama who is not different from Bush as his first remarks stated that he would not abandon Israel, despite the fact that there were other anti-war candidates in the US elections, but they won very few votes. The American people take part in all its government's crimes.  If they oppose that, let them change their government.

One can find that view odious and repugnant.  One can find it dangerous and frightening.  But what one cannot do is dispute that it is pure political speech squarely within the zone of First Amendment protection, as established by Brandenburg.  And to punish or kill an American citizen for expressing those views -- which is exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to do with Awlaki -- is a grave assault on core free speech rights (let alone to do so without any judicial process).   The Supreme Court, in Claiborne, has also ruled -- unanimously -- that the First Amendment bars imposing liability on someone for the criminal acts "inspired" by their speech (it so ruled when protecting NAACP officials from attempts by the State of Mississippi to hold them liable for the violent acts their fiery speeches inspired on the part of their followers). If one wants to argue that Awlaki's speech falls outside the scope of Brandenburg and Claiborne protections, the place to do that is a courtroom after indicting him, not vesting the President with the power to act as judge, jury and executioner.

In recognition of that fact, the Obama administration -- once the existence of its hit list became public -- began asserting, with no evidence presented and usually anonymously, that Awlaki has an "operational role" in Al Qaeda.  But as Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen said today in response to the NYT debate: "We suspect a great deal about Anwar al-Awlaki, but we know very little, precious little when it comes to his operational role"; he added in response to Mendelsohn's claim that Awlaki "played an important role in a string of attacks in the West":  "We just don't know this, we suspect it but don't know it."  Of course, punishing (or killing) Americans based on government accusations that have never been proven in court happens to violate a different though equally critical Constitutional principle (the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of life [or] liberty . . . without due process of law).

It will never cease to amaze me how acquiescent the country is to the seizure by this President of the extremist and warped power to target American citizens, far from any battlefield for killing, all without a shred of due process.  It's not just a profound assault on due process rights but also free speech rights. 

Submission to this power is, I believe, based on three factors:  (1) blind faith in political leaders of the type that led Americans to accept the due-process-free punishment at Guantanamo ("my President accuses this person of being a Terrorist and therefore it's true; I don't need a trial to know it's true"); (2) acceptance of anything done to a fellow citizen as long as he has a foreign-sounding, Muslim-ish name like "Anwar al-Awlaki," who dresses in white cleric robes and is in Yemen and is thus probably guilty of something or other; and (3) the automatic and enthusiastic embrace by America's Foreign Policy Community of the use of force in response to any problem, as epitomized by this bloodthirsty-rant-masquerading-as-Serious-analysis in Foreign Policy, which notes that Awlaki's role in Al Qaeda has been drastically overstated but nonetheless concludes -- citing the fact that he's a "brilliant and captivating orator" and that Yemeni officials privately describe "Awlaki's sermons as convincing and dangerous" -- with this:

The most omnipresent terrorist threat the United States faces today is the opportunistic attacks that are either homegrown or stem from weak or failing states, not the spectacular attacks that take months of preparation. . . . And those are the kind of attacks Awlaki has the power to inspire. In the end, it doesn't help much to ask who the next bin Laden is, since the problem is bigger than any one man. Regardless of whose image captivates the world, al Qaeda figures, including Awlaki, are busy plotting terrorist mayhem. And Washington needs to do all it can to reduce the risk of another attack.

The government "needs to do all it can" in the name of Terrorism:  even targeting its own citizens with assassination without a trial based on the mere suspicion that he's doing something criminal  -- or invading other countries that haven't attacked us -- or dropping a continuous stream of missiles on people's homes who are purely innocent -- or locking people up for life without a trial.  This is the sociopathic mindset of the security fetishist that dominates our political discourse -- Terrorism:  the meaningless though all-justifying slogan -- and, more than anything else, this is what explains why something as extreme and warped as the President's due-process-free assassination program aimed at American citizens triggers so little objection.  "Washington needs to do all it can" -- no matter how violent and lawless -- "to reduce the risk of another attack."  To a militarized, authoritarian, collapsing Empire in a posture of Endless War, security is the only cognizable value.

Afghanistan "sovereignty"

A spate of horrific civilian killings by NATO in Afghanistan has led Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand that NATO cease all air attacks on homes.  That is likely to be exactly as significant as you think it would be, as The Los Angeles Times makes clear:

"This should be the last attack on people's houses," the president told a news conference in Kabul. "Such attacks will no longer be allowed."

Karzai's call was viewed as mainly symbolic. Western military officials cited existing cooperation with Afghan authorities and pledged to continue consultations, but said privately that presidential authority does not include veto power over specific targeting decisions made in the heat of battle.

So we're in Afghanistan to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Afghan People, but the President of the country has no power whatsoever to tell us to stop bombing Afghan homes.  His decrees are simply requests, merely "symbolic." Karzai, of course, is speaking not only for himself, but even more so for (and under pressure from) the Afghan People: the ones we're there to liberate, but who -- due to their strange, primitive, inscrutable culture and religion -- are bizarrely angry about being continuously liberated from their lives: "Karzai's statements . . . underscored widespread anger among Afghans over the deaths of noncombatants at the hands of foreign forces."

Indeed, the Afghan People -- on whose behalf we are fighting so valiantly -- are total ingrates and simply do not appreciate all that we're doing for them.  A poll of Afghan men released earlier this month by the International Council on Security and Development found overwhelming opposition to NATO operations in their country.  First there was this in Southern Afghanistan, where most of the fighting has taken place and where we are liberating residents from Taliban tyranny:

[image error]

Then there's this from Northern Afghanistan, long said to be the region most sympathetic to NATO's fighting:

[image error]

The Taliban is widely unpopular among Afghans (though in the South, a majority oppose military operations against them); but whatever else is true, 8 out of 10 men, spread throughout all regions of that country, believe that NATO operations are bad for the Afghan people.  

So the decisions of the Afghan President are totally irrelevant (when it conflicts with what we want).  The views of the Afghan People are equally irrelevant.  But we're there to bring them Freedom and Democracy (while we decree their elected leaders' decisions "merely mainly symbolic") and are fighting for their own good (even though virtually none of them recognize that).  What a great war, now America's longest and close to a decade old.  

Establishment thought and the War on Terror

PBS' News Hour conducted a discussion of the Obama-supported, reform-free Patriot Act extension with conservative David Brooks and "liberal" Mark Shields, and it magnificently highlights conventional establishment thought on such matters (h/t reader DM).  First we have this from Brooks:

If you cover politics on the campaign trail, the Patriot Act is extremely unpopular, and can -- people running for office rail against it.

Once they get in office, especially those in charge of the national -- nation's security, they tend to support it. So, I assume, once they get in office and they understand what it's doing behind the scenes, they tend to think it's probably a good idea.

And this is what's happened to President Obama. It's what's happened to most people who are privy to how it actually works.

Our Leaders know secret things that we don't that make them know better, and justify their complete abandonment of what they promise when campaigning (and as I've said many times, if that's really what happened -- if Obama got into office and learned Secret Things that showed him that his criticisms of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies were misguided -- then don't he and his defenders owe the GOP a serious apology for the inaccurate harsh criticisms they spewed all those years?).  Then Shields offered this "counterpoint":

I think the indispensable part that intelligence played in the capture and [sic] -- of Osama bin Laden probably strengthened the case for the Patriot Act's -- Patriot Act's reinstatement. And I would say intelligence remains the cornerstone of the exit strategy from Afghanistan and to Iraq to a considerable degree. And I think that neutralized some of the opposition.

Now that we killed bin Laden, we need civil-liberties-eroding measures like the Patriot Act more than ever.  The notion that the death of bin Laden would trigger a winding down in the War on Terror -- as though bin Laden was the cause of those policies rather than pretext for them -- will prove to be one of the more absurd notions advanced on such matters.  Speaking of which:

At least 14 civilians, including women and children, have been killed in a NATO air raid in the Afghan southern province of Helmand, local authorities say. . . .

The statement said the dead included five girls, seven boys and two women. . . .

Afghan authorities said on Sunday NATO had killed 52 people, mostly civilians, in air strikes against fighters, as violence picked up in recent weeks with the start of the fighting season.

Separately, the governor of Nuristan on Sunday said that 18 civilians and 20 police were killed by "friendly fire" during recent US-led air strikes against al-Qaeda-linked fighters in his troubled northeastern province.

More Afghans liberated by the U.S. . . . from their lives:  because, as we know, the killing of bin Laden changed everything.  When it comes to the absurdity department, one of the few things that can compete with the claim that the bin Laden killing will restrain the War on Terror is this event.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin's impressive feat

Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland genuinely deserves an award . . . for reaching all new heights of projection, nationalistic self-regard, and hypocrisy.  Even for D.C.'s lowly standards, what he's doing is really quite a feat.  

Cardin has been on a crusade to punish Russian officials because of their intolerance for whistleblowers.  In conjunction with Sen. John McCain, he has been pushing bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on Russians who were involved in the mistreatment and death of Sergei Magnitsky, the whistleblowing lawyer who died in the custody of Russian police after being denied medical care, as well as lambasting Russians generally for their attacks on whistleblowers.  Yesterday, Cardin went to the Senate floor (beginning at 3:06) to denounce Russia and other tyrannical nations who pay lip service to the virtues of whistleblowing while hypocritically taking actions against them (h/t Jebbie):

Actions always speak louder than words.  The diplomatic manner of dealing with human rights abuses is frequently condemned by the abuser [sic] -- often publicly -- with the hope that these statements will be all they need to do.  The say:  "oh, yes we're against these human rights violations -- we're for the rule of law -- we're for people being able to come forward and tell us about problems and be able to correct things"  . . . . They think that their words will be enough.  But we know differently.  We know what's happening with Russia. Here's a person whose only crime was to bring to the public attention the problem of public corruption in Russia. 

So the Russians are heinous for punishing those "whose only crime was to bring to the public attention the problem of public corruption."  In public, the Russians say "we're for people being able to come forward and tell us about problems and be able to correct things," but their actions prove they want to punish that very behavior.  Behold the Russian hypocrisy and tyranny, Cardin urged.

This is the very same Sen. Benjamin Cardin who has also introduced legislation that, if enacted, would be the most severe legislative attack on whistleblowers in the United States in the last several decades at least.  In particular, his bill, as Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists explained, "would broadly criminalize leaks of classified information" and would, in effect, turn all disclosures of classified information into a felony, regardless of how corrupt or even illegal the exposed conduct was:

Under existing law, criminal penalties apply only to the unauthorized disclosure of a handful of specified categories of classified information (in non-espionage cases). These categories include codes, cryptography, communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, and nuclear weapons design information. The new bill would amend the espionage statutes to extend such penalties to the unauthorized disclosure of any classified information. . . .

The bill does not provide for a "public interest" defense, i.e. an argument that any damage to national security was outweighed by a benefit to the nation. It does not address the issue of overclassification, nor does it admit the possibility of "good" leaks. Disclosing that the President authorized waterboarding of detainees or that the government conducted unlawful domestic surveillance would be considered legally equivalent to revealing the identities of intelligence sources, the design of secret military technologies or the details of ongoing military operations.

Open Congress added that Cardin's bill "makes it a felony for government employees and contractors to disclose any information in violation of their nondisclosure agreements, regardless of whether or not the discloser was trying to help a foreign government or harm the U.S."  Worse, the bill creates a "presumption" that any and all leaks harm national security, and then imposes the burden on the accused leaker to prove that the leak (contrary to government claims) did not result in such harm, a burden Aftergood says "would be nearly impossible to meet."  

In sum, Cardin's bill would turn virtually all whistleblowing into a felony punishable by decades in prison.  It would drastically expand the scope of covered information from the limited categories now covered into all classified information (which is basically anything and everything the government does of any significance).  If Cardin's bill were enacted, it would single-handedly stifle the vast majority of whistleblowing -- one of the very few remaining avenues for learning about what government officials do (as "authorized" whistleblowing processes typically achieve nothing other than recriminations for the whistleblower) -- as nobody in their right mind would even consider leaking classified information once all such acts are presumptively criminal.

Yet there was Ben Cardin yesterday on the Senate floor urging us to look over there at how those awful Russians pay lip service to the virtues of whistleblowing while taking action to punish it.  Meanwhile, Cardin spouts all sorts of words about the virtues of whistleblowers while taking severe actions against them.  And while it's true that Russia brutalizes its whistleblowers (the Magnitsky case was horrendous), Cardin sat silently while the U.S. -- the country for whose conduct he's responsible -- did the same (in fact, Time suggested that Cardin's anti-whistleblowing legislation was motivated by the alleged leak of Bradley Manning).  Cardin, needless to say, has also never objected to the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers in his own country, nor to his Democratic Senate colleague's effort to prosecute WikiLeaks for "espionage":  something that would criminalize all investigative journalism.

But this is typical of U.S. officials; it's one of their favorite pasttimes.  They love to point over there and denounce the conduct of those Other Countries while they engage in exactly the behavior that they flamboyantly condemn.  It's one of the most potent and destructive forms of propaganda (it constantly bolsters the idea that oppression and tyranny happens only in Other Countries, never in the U.S.).  It's just that in this case, Cardin's conduct -- condemning Russia for hypocritical defenses of whistleblowers while Cardin does exactly the same thing -- is so brazen it's hard to believe someone didn't tell him to refrain.

* * * * *

One of my favorite cases of this type of nationalistic self-regard was when the Bush State Department condemend Russia in 2006 for illegally spying on its citizens without judicial oversight and then, worse, failing to hold accountable the officials who were responsible.  That condemnation of Russia came less than one year after The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans without the warrants required by law, lawbreaking for which nobody was ever held accountable.

A more recent example came when evidence emerged that the U.S. cooperated with Israel in unleashing a sophisticated computer virus in Iran, an act that would clearly be an "act of war" pursuant to cyberwar standards recently promulgated by the Obama administration.

But what makes Cardin's conduct special is that he wasn't merely condemning exactly that which he does; that would just be garden-variety nationalistic hypocrisy.  It's that he went a step further by specifically denouncing those who hypocritically defend values they simultaneously subvert: it's a double, meta form of hypocrisy that is really difficult to construct.  That's what makes it impressive.

Questions about Ratko Mladic

The individual whom The New York Times describes as Europe's "most wanted war crimes suspect" was captured yesterday in Serbia and will likely be extradited to be tried before an international war crimes tribunal at the Hague:

Ratko Mladic, the former Bosnian Serb general held responsible for the massacre of some 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995, was arrested on Thursday . . .

The massacre at Srebrenica was the worst ethnically motivated mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Mr. Mladic was also accused of war crimes for the three-and-a-half-year siege of Sarajevo, in which 10,000 people died, including 3,500 children. . . .

Mr. Mladic's crimes remained an emotional issue for the Dutch, whose peacekeepers were overrun at Srebrenica, allowing Mr. Mladic's soldiers to mow down men and boys, their hands tied behind their backs.

"His arrest gives a strong signal to the world that anyone accused of the worst crimes can be brought to justice," said Serge Brammertz, the prosecutor for the United Nations-based war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

I have two questions about this:

(1) The NYT says that, for Europe, Mladic's arrest "has a resonance on the magnitude of the killing of Osama bin Laden for Americans."  That's understandable, as the crimes of which Mladic is accused are at least as grave and serious as those bin Laden allegedly committed.  Mladic is almost certainly responsible for more deaths than the Al Qaeda leader was.  There is probably less doubt about his guilt worldwide than there was (and is) about bin Laden's.  And when he was found, Mladic "had two pistols with him" (though "he made no attempt to use" them).

In light of all that, what's the point of arresting Mladic and putting him on trial?  Why is that considered "bringing him to justice"?  Why not just pump his skull full of bullets and dump his corpse into the ocean, and then proclaim that "justice has been done"?  For those who have embraced the idea that we are "at war" with Al Qaeda, one could argue that that "war" is still ongoing while the Bosnian war has long been over, but, beyond legalisms, why is that a difference that matters?  If "justice" demands that this heinous Serbian war criminal be arrested and tried before being punished, why was the same not true for bin Laden?

(2) This European fixation on apprehending Mladic was the ultimate exercise in "Looking Backward, not Forward."  His accused crimes took place more than 15 years ago in a war that has been over for more than a decade.  He's now 75 years old, completely stripped of any remnants of power, and reportedly in ill health ("he appeared disoriented and tired, and [] one of his hands appeared to be paralyzed, possibly because of a stroke").  Moreover, his trial is certain to spawn extreme divisiveness, potentially opening up still-sensitive wounds in that region, given that -- like Slobodan Milosevic, whose arrest sparked widespread Serbian anger -- Mladic is still considered a hero by many Serbian nationalists:

Some Serbian officials also reacted with anger, illustrating that the country was still struggling to come to terms with the past. Boris Aleksic, a spokesman for the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party, said: "Serb traitors have arrested a Serb hero. This shameful arrest of a Serb general is a blow to our national interests and the state."

By all accounts, Serbian authorities could have arrested him long ago but finally did so because of the extreme pressure brought to bear by EU leaders. 

Why is it legitimate to demand that Serbians Look Backward and risk extreme domestic divisiveness in order to punish their accused war criminals, while the U.S. refuses to do so?  Conversely, why is it legitimate to shield accused American war criminals of all accountability on the ground that investigating and prosecuting them would distract from The Future and trigger political conflict, but not allow Serbians the same luxury?  I have no doubt that there are hordes of Americans happy about Mladic's arrest while simultaneously supportive of Obama's Look Forward decree for American war criminals, all without bothering to resolve -- or even recognize -- the glaring, self-serving inconsistency at the heart of that mentality.

Various matters

(updated below - Update II)

Travel yesterday and today has prevented and will continue to prevent extensive posting until later today, perhaps tomorrow morning (for those in Boston, I'll be speaking at this ACLU of Massachusetts event this evening).  Here are a few items worth noting until then:

(1) Democrats continue to cowardly distance themselves from Obama's very unremarkable comments about Israel, while Republicans continue to accuse him (falsely) of the ultimate political sin:  "President Obama is not Israel's friend."

(2) In response to the growing recognition (in both parties) that the war in Libya is patently illegal, the White House has requested that Congress vote for a resolution supporting the war, but Congress thus far appears unwilling to do so.  If we were a country that even pretended to believe that the President is bound by the law, that would be a serious problem.

(3) All the giddy, chest-beating victory rituals over Osama bin Laden's death are likely to be inconsequential if this continues; then again, it seems to be affecting only those whose interests are rarely heard in establishment media discourse.  That, combined with the extraordinary weakness of the GOP presidential field, makes Obama's re-election seem quite likely, at least at this point, even if this economic suffering continues to be ignored.

(4) GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is absolutely horrendous on civil liberties, as this interview with The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf (among other things) proves, yet even he finds Obama's targeting of U.S. citizens for assassination as Terrorist suspects to be a bridge too far (the interview with Friedersdorf was the first Cain learned about this policy; he might try reading some newspapers).

(5) In an interview with Spencer Ackerman, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden claims that abuses of the Patriot Act are far worse than is known; indeed, he claims that the way in which the Executive Branch is interpreting the law is unknown to the public and far more vast than is widely understood (despite that, Wyden failed to join the 8 Senators -- 4 from each party -- to vote against cloture on the Reid/McConnell proposal to extend the Patriot Act for four years without a single reform:  something even the Warriors-on-Terror at The Washington Post Editorial Page oppose).  Meanwhile, reflecting how little partisanship matters in such areas: consider who is attempting to enact reforms and who is blocking them. 

Similarly, Harry "Rove" Reid now joins Dianne Feinstein in announcing that any Senators who try to delay extension of the Patriot Act are risking a Terrorist attack.  Here's what the Majority Leader said about Rand Paul's attempts to add reforms:

"If the senator from Kentucky refuses to relent," Reid said earlier Wednesday, "that would increase the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida."

It's so outrageous how those Rovian Republicans try to exploit the Terrorist threat to extract civil-liberties-abridging legislation they want, isn't it?  In sum, Congress -- with the Democratic leadership and the White House fully on board -- is trying not only to extend the Patriot Act with no reforms, but prevent any debate on whether that should happen.

(6) Julian Assange yesterday participated in a press conference about Bradley Manning and voiced some acerbic and accurate critiques of media coverage of that matter (I was scheduled to participate in that call as well, but scheduling conflicts prevented that).

(7) I was interviewed by Dylan Ratigan for roughly 30 minutes for his podcast show late last week; the discussion, regarding the Obama presidency, can be heard here, along with a full transcript.

 

UPDATE:  The New York Times today -- with no explanation as to why -- grants anonymity to a "senior administration official" to voice the same fear-mongering claims Reid is voicing over the Patriot Act:

If there is a lapse, a senior administration official said, the F.B.I. would be able to continue using orders it had already obtained, but it would not be able to apply for new ones if further tips and leads came in about a possible terrorist operation. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, reacted with alarm to that prospect, saying no one could predict what the consequences of a temporary lapse might be.

"This is unprecedented," the official said. "We don't believe the risk is worth it."

In other words: extend the Patriot Act immediately with no reforms, no amendments, no debate -- or prepare to die at the hands of the Terrorists.  That, of course, is the same fear-mongering tactic the Bush administration constantly used to extract whatever civil-liberties-destroying legislation it demanded, and now Democratic Congressional leaders along with the White House (and an assist from the anonymity-granting New York Times) are using exactly the same playbook.

 

UPDATE II:  This is amazing:  in 2005, Russ Feingold led a filibuster, supported by most Democrats and 4 Republicans, to block extension of the Patriot Act in order to ensure that reforms were added (he was ultimately unsuccessful).  Just look at the fear-mongering claims the GOP spewed about that, and more so, look at what Harry Reid was saying back then as he opportunistically pretended -- like so many Democrats -- to care about such matters because doing so was a means of bashing Bush for partisan gain (h/t rpenner):

Senate Democrats yesterday began filibustering a proposal to extend the USA Patriot Act, raising the probability that key provisions of the anti-terrorism law will expire in two weeks. . . .

Republicans warned that allowing the current provisions to expire could have devastating consequences and said Democrats would be punished in next year's elections for letting it lapse.

"The Patriot Act expires on December 31, but the terrorists' threat does not," Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said . . . .

"We killed the Patriot Act," boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote. . . .

Republicans privately marveled that Democrats would open themselves up to being blamed for the Patriot Act's demise.

"For our colleagues to allow it to expire is to play with fire," said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican. "It is to take the chance that terrorists will not act in that interim, in that period where the act falls and we're relegated to using the authorities that we had before September 11th" . . .

Mr. Bush issued a statement crediting the Patriot Act with protecting "American liberty" and saving "American lives" since its passage after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"These senators need to understand that the Patriot Act expires in 15 days, but the terrorist threat to America will not expire on that schedule," Mr. Bush said. "The terrorists want to attack America again and kill the innocent and inflict even greater damage than they did on September 11th -- and the Congress has a responsibility not to take away this vital tool … to protect the American people."

"'We killed the Patriot Act,' boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote."  To say that Harry Reid and the Democrats have now fully adopted Bush and the GOP's fear-mongering tactics -- on exactly the same topic -- is to understate the case.  And to say that Harry Reid -- who previously demanded that the Park51 Community Center be moved and that Guantanamo detainees not be tried in the U.S. -- is a duplicitous, soul-less, craven, worthless politician is also to understate the case.

Great American Patriots

This morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress, just as the U.S. President does each year.  Here is how the American Congress -- especially the super-patriots of the American Right -- reacted to their own President the last two times he addressed them (with frosty coolness and even passive-aggressive hostility):

And here is how the super-patriots of the American Right -- largely joined by their Democratic colleagues -- reacted to the speech given today by this foreign leader: with multiple standing ovations, including for ludicrous and absurd proclamations such as equating Hamas with Al Qaeda and claiming that Israel is "not a foreign occupier" in the West Bank:

Indeed, according to ABC News, Netanyahu received more standing ovations from the U.S. Congress (29) than the U.S. President did the last time he spoke (25); all of the ones Netanyahu received were from the super-patriots of the GOP caucus (and most from the Democratic caucus as well), whereas those right-wing patriots joined in only a small fraction of the ones received by their own country's President.  

What makes this more remarkable still is that this foreign leader whom they were cheering so boisterously and continuously just completed a public, ugly conflict with the American leader and has a long record of demonstrated indifference to American interests; yet the super-patriots of the American Right sided so brazenly and publicly with this foreign leader over their own country's President.  Meanwhile, both political parties in Congress are in a frantic competition to see which one can lavish Netanyahu with more obsequious praise; this statement sent out in the name of Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey is typical of the entries.  For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ran to AIPAC to undercut (and rebuke) his own President and the leader of his own party on Israel, something that -- as Andrew Sullivan correctly observed --  would be inconceivable on any foreign policy issue other than Israel.

In sum, the same faction that spent the last decade demanding fealty to the Commander-in-Chief in a Time of War upon pain of being accused of a lack of patriotism (or worse) now openly sides with a foreign leader over their own President.  The U.S. Congress humiliates itself by expressing greater admiration for and loyalty to this foreign leader than their own country's.  And because this is all about Israel, few will find this spectacle strange, or at least will be willing to say so.

David Brooks' political dream

(updated below)

David Brooks flew to London so now he's an expert on British politics, and in his New York Times column this morning, he explains why "the British political system is basically functional while the American system is not."  Here's the crux of what makes their system so admirable in his eyes:

Britain is also blessed with a functioning political culture. It is dominated by people who live in London and who have often known each other since prep school. This makes it gossipy and often incestuous. But the plusses outweigh the minuses.

It has long been the supreme fantasy of establishment guardians in general, and David Brooks in particular, that American politics would be dominated by an incestuous, culturally homogeneous, superior elite "who live in [Washington] and who have often known each other since prep school."  And while these establishment guardians love to endlessly masquerade as spokespeople for the Ordinary American, what they most loathe is the interference by the dirty rabble in what should be their exclusive, harmonious club of political stewardship, where conflicts are amicably resolved by ladies and gentlemen of the highest breeding without any messy public conflict.

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, Brooks fondly recollected that "once, there was a financial elite in this country" -- "middle-aged men with names like Mellon and McCloy led Wall Street firms, corporate boards and white-shoe law firms and occasionally emerged to serve in government" -- but that glorious "cohesive financial elite began to fall apart" in the 1960s.  The 2008 financial crisis, celebrated Brooks, would lead to a rejuvenation of political power of "the sort that used to be wielded by the Mellons and Rockefellers and other rich men in private clubs" -- "unlimited authority to a small coterie of policy makers" that "does not rely on any system of checks and balances, but on the wisdom and public spiritedness of those in charge."  This would usher in "an era of the educated establishment."  "A new center and a new establishment is emerging," he gushed, one that will be disliked by liberals and conservatives alike; in other words, once you get rid of the commoners and the rambunctious ideologues, the somber, Serious elites will impose, with top-down magnanimity, true centrist wisdom (which just coincidentally happens to match the specific centrist-right views of David Brooks).

Brooks is widely loved by establishment figures because he thinks like them, speaks for them, and tirelessly defends their interests, most especially with this democracy-hating mindset.  The obvious flaw in his post-financial-crisis fantasy was that the near-economic-collapse was the direct result of the very council of oligarchical elites he yearned to empower ("the safe heads from the investment banks. . . people like [former Goldman CEO Hank] Paulson . . . [and former Goldman CEO] Robert Rubin") -- just as the architects and bipartisan cheerleaders of the Iraq War (prominently including Brooks) continue to wield Seriousness status and exert dominance over America's foreign and military policy. 

But more generally, what Brooks so envies about British political culture -- a small, incestuous, aristocratic, homogenized group of trans-ideological elites harmoniously resolving their differences -- is exactly what already drives American policy and politics.  And that is what establishment spokespeople like Brooks always mean when they yearn for "bipartisanship":  wise old men getting together in secret and reaching agreements that exclude democratic debate and render irrelevant genuine differences among the citizenry.

Consider last week's non-public deal between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to extend the most controversial and abused provisions of the Patriot Act by four years without any reforms.  Here's how Associated Press described the impetus for that agreement:

The idea is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government.

Similarly, the White House -- without a shred of democratic consent or Congressional debate -- was able to start a new war in Libya and fight it for more than the 60 days allowed (under the best case scenario) by the War Powers Resolution because the public is wary of the costs and purposes of that war, and unilateral presidential war-making avoids such messy debates, as one key member of the President's own party acknowledged:

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, told CNN before news of the letter broke that he believed Obama was trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States" . . . . [Sherman] says congressional leaders in both parties are letting this go and shirking responsibility because they don't want to have to take a tough vote on whether to give the president authority for military action in Libya. "Americans are not of one mind on this, and some of my colleagues would just as soon not do their job because this is a difficult part of it," Sherman said.

When the President's Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission -- the ultimate dream of bipartisanship fetishists and "centrist" (i.e., corporatist)-elite ideologues -- met to plot solutions to the nation's fiscal problems, they met in total secrecy, with the idea that they would unveil their majestic wisdom to the public and Congress would then simply enact it without any opportunity to change it.  The Federal Reserve has long managed America's economy in virtually complete darkness, and fought vehemently with the aid of establishment consensus to avoid even the most minimal transparency and audit, succeeding in avoiding all but the most watered-down version.  Most of what the U.S. Government does of any significance takes place behind closed doors: dominated by corporatist elites and their lobbyists (whom Brooks charmingly considers noble "experts") and away from the knowledge or involvement of the prying, ignorant masses; that, for instance, was how President Obama's health care legislation was actually shaped, and it's obviously how virtually all foreign policy is shaped and implemented. 

Indeed, the Congress -- from top to bottom -- is now structured to avoid any actual democratic debate and instead ensures the resolution of all matters in secret.  In response to last night's 74-8 cloture vote on the Patriot Act, the always-superb, hyper-informed commenter pow wow -- in a comment that I highly recommend everyone read -- explained perfectly how this works.  Citing the joint efforts of both parties' leadership to block any debate over authorization of the war in Libya, he explained: "the Party (= fundraising) organizations and their leadership [] operate almost entirely off the public record and out of public view. Their objective at all times: avoid unpredictable democratic floor action, and the accountability of public debate."

It is true that public opinion very occasionally plays an important role in determining what happens in Washington (it sidetracked Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security, and is likely to prevent any serious dismantling of Medicare).  But that's what Brooks and his like-minded establishment mavens are angriest about:  that the ignorant, ignoble masses very periodically are able to prevent David Brooks' establishment political views from being implemented; that dreary problem would be solved by vesting all political power in "people who live in [Washington] and who have often known each other since prep school" -- and who think just like David Brooks.

One can debate whether that undemocratic model is desirable.  But what's not debatable is whether American political culture is already dominated by that model.  It plainly is.  And that's what explains most of what has happened -- and continues to happen -- to the country.

* * * * *

As for Brooks' idealization of British politics, I'll leave that to actual experts in British politics to address, but what I do know is that British political elites were every bit as deceitful in the run-up to the Iraq war as America's political and media class.  I'd assume, though, that Brooks -- in light of his own conduct -- does not consider that to be a negative and probably considers it a positive.

UPDATE:  In comments, spinozista points to this observation from Thomas Jefferson, in his 1824 letter to Henry Lee, that so perfectly captures David Brooks and his like-minded comrades:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.

What I find most odious about Brooks and most of the members of the establishment media who think like him is not that they are in Jefferson's category (1) -- though they obviously are.  It's that they never stop insisting on the deceitful pretense that they're in category (2).

The Patriot Act and bipartisanship

Several days ago I noted that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell had agreed to a four-year extension of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act -- a bill Democrats everywhere once claimed to revile -- without a single reform (despite the long and documented history of its abuse and despite Obama's previously claimed desire to reform it).  Tonight, a cloture vote was taken in the Senate on the four-year extension and it passed by a vote of 74-8.  The law that was once the symbolic shorthand for evil Bush/Cheney post-9/11 radicalism just received a vote in favor of its four-year, reform-free extension by a vote of 74-8: only resolutions to support Israel command more lopsided majorities.

As I've noted several times, I once thought that the greatest American political myth was "The Liberal Media," but I realized some time ago that it's actually the claim that "there is very little bipartisanship."  Washington is driven by overwhelming amounts of bipartisanship, as today's vote (and the Reid/McConnell agreement that preceded it) yet again demonstrates.  The 8 Senators voting against cloture were Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democrats Jeff Merkley, Mark Begich, Max Baucus, and John Tester, and GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Dean Heller (GOP Sen. Mike Lee announced he'd vote NO but missed the vote due to inclement weather).  Sen. Paul, along with Sen. Tester, took the lead in speaking out against the excesses and abuses of the Patriot Act and the vital need for reforms.

But what's most notable isn't the vote itself, but the comments made afterward.  Sen. Paul announced that he was considering using delaying tactics to hold up passage of the bill in order to extract some reforms (including ones he is co-sponsoring with the Democrats' Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Leahy, who -- despite voicing "concerns" about the bill -- voted for cloture).  Paul's announcement of his delaying intentions provoked this fear-mongering, Terrorism-exploiting, bullying threat from the Democrats' Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein:

"I think it would be a huge mistake," Feinstein told reporters. "If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that's a big, big weight to bear."

In other words:  Paul and the other dissenting Senators better give up their objections and submit to quick Patriot Act passage or else they'll have blood on their hands from the Terrorist attack they will cause.  That, of course, was the classic Bush/Cheney tactic for years to pressure Democrats into supporting every civil-liberties-destroying measure the Bush White House demanded (including, of course, the original Patriot Act itself), and now we have the Democrats -- ensconced in power -- using it just as brazenly and shamelessly (recall how Bush's DNI, Michael McConnell, warned Congressional Democrats in 2007 that unless they quickly passed without changes the new FISA bill the Bush White House was demanding, a Terrorist attack would likely occur at the Congress in a matter of "days, not weeks"; McConnell then told The New Yorker: "If we don't update FISA, the nation is significantly at risk"). Feinstein learned well.

Meanwhile, Electronic Frontier Foundation -- the organization that heroically sued over and over to stop Bush/Cheney excesses to the cheers of progressives -- is tonight praising Rand Paul "for defending 4th Amendment rights in Patriot Act debate."  A similar dynamic occurred several months ago when newly elected conservative House members (including some from the Tea Party caucus) joined with the most liberal Democrats to temporarily block quick passage of the Patriot Act extension on privacy and civil liberties grounds.

So when they were out of power, the Democrats reviled the Patriot Act and constantly complained about fear-mongering tactics and exploitation of the Terrorist threat being used to stifle civil liberties and privacy concerns.  Now that they're in power and a Democratic administration is arguing for extension of the Patriot Act, they use fear-mongering tactics and exploitation of the Terrorist threat to stifle civil liberties and privacy concerns ("If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that's a big, big weight to bear," warned Feinstein).  And they're joined in those efforts by the vast majority of the GOP caucus.  Remember, though:  there is no bipartisanship in Washington, the parties are constantly at each other's throats, and they don't agree on anything significant, and thus can't get anything done.  If only that were true. 

* * * * *

Is it not so very inspiring how the death of Osama bin Laden has enabled the country to take a respite from its fear-driven assault on civil liberties in the name of Terrorism?

Obama and the Israel Lobby

(updated below)

This week's hysterical, reality-deprived reaction to President Obama's pronouncements on the Israel/Palestine conflict genuinely provoked laughter on several occasions.  That happened when I thought of the intense controversy triggered by publication of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, which examined the "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction," a coalition driven by "a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority."  This week's events underscore how remarkable it is that that book's argument was demonized as some sort of radical, hateful conspiracy tract rather than treated as what it was: a statement of the bleeding obvious (albeit a brave one, given that discussions of that reality had previously been taboo).  

Obama's call for a peace deal ultimately "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" is not even arguably a change from past American policy.  Though he's the first President to publicly call for such an outcome, that's been the working premise of American policy for decades.  It's controversial in one sense -- it unduly rewards Israel for its illegal seizures of land by suggesting they should be able to permanently keep West Bank settlements (the "land swap" aspect of the formula) -- but it does not remotely constitute a step in an anti-Israel direction.  When even Israel-devoted stalwarts such as former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg and the ADL's Abe Foxman are dismissive of the condemnation of Obama's statements, it's crystal clear that they pose no challenge to the dominant pro-Israel orthodoxy that has shaped American policy (and political discourse) for decades. 

At most, Obama's public endorsement of this position was a symbolic gesture to chide Netanyahu for his overt indifference to U.S. interests (and, more so, belligerence toward Obama), and a small rhetorical fig leaf to the populist forces driving the Arab rebellion.  Yet even the most microscopic deviation from the dictates of the Israel Government produce shrill and ludicrous backlash from The inside-the-U.S. Israel Lobby.

The Right Wing Noise Machine all but accused Obama of trying to destroy Israel, with the GOP's leading presidential candidates condemning the President for the crime of "disrespecting" and "throwing Israel under the bus," Glenn Beck denouncing him for "betraying Israel," and Matt Drudge exploiting ignorance to screech in headlines that "Obama Sides With Palestinians."  Meanwhile, a former AIPAC spokesman demanded that Obama take a renewed public pledge of devotion to Israel, and circulated to the media statements of condemnation from numerous "pro-Israel" Democrats in Congress.  The neoconservative Israel-devotees at The Washington Post editorialized against Obama and predictably blamed him for the resulting tension with Netanyahu, siding (as usual) with this foreign government over their own.  And a Reuters article this morning claims that "some prominent Jewish Americans are rethinking their support for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid" due to that speech:

The backlash after Obama's keynote speech on the Middle East has Democratic Party operatives scrambling to mollify the Jewish community as the president prepares to seek a second term in the White House. . . .

"I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days -- former supporters -- who are very upset and feel alienated," billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

"He'll get less political support, fewer activists for his campaign, and I am sure that will extend to financial support as well."

But remember: it's so very heinous and hateful to suggest -- as Walt and Mearsheimer shamefully did -- that some Americans are driven by devotion to Israel as their primary political preoccupation and that, banded together, they exert substantial influence.  Perish the thought.

* * * * *

This is one area where I think President Obama deserves support and some modest credit.  From the start of his administration -- from appointing George Mitchell as his envoy to  demanding a settlement freeze in the West Bank -- the White House has appeared to recognize that tongue-wagging subservience to the Israeli Government is a counter-productive policy.  Of course, the movement away from such blind support has been extremely slow and cautious -- Obama was silent in the wake of the attack on Gaza, supportive after the flotilla assault, and recently vetoed a thoroughly uncontroversial U.N. Resolution calling for a settlement freeze -- but there have been signs of a genuine desire to push the Israelis in a direction they plainly do not want to go.

I don't believe Obama is guided in these efforts by any principled concern or moral empathy for the plight of Palestinians or the injustice of the 45-year-old occupation; it seems clear that he isn't ever driven by considerations of that sort.  But what he is, at least compared to the prior President, is a competent technocrat, a more calculating imperial manager, able to rationally assess costs and benefits with a ruthless analytical stoicism.  And Obama has been surrounded by top advisers -- such as Gen. James Jones and David Petraeus -- who clearly recognize, and have publicly said, that the festering Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the (obviously accurate) perception in the Muslim world that the U.S. enables Israel, is harmful in numerous ways to U.S. interests in the region.  Especially with largely anti-Israel Arab public opinion starting to supplant easily manipulated, U.S.-serving Arab tyrants, it is vital -- for what the U.S. government perceives to be its interests in the region -- that Israel reach a peace agreement, and that in turn requires that the U.S. use its leverage to pressure Israel to do things it plainly does not want to do.

What made this last week significant is that it underscores how politically difficult such an undertaking is for any American President: precisely because of the obsessive, relentless Israel Lobby that Walt and Mearsheimer invented in their conspiratorial, bigoted heads.  If even the tiniest step provokes the backlash that we saw this week, imagine the domestic political upheaval which a true effort would engender.  The New Yorker's Hendrick Hertzberg put it this way:

The President wants to make peace and presumably knows that it won't happen without a huge and politically brutal American effort. Such an effort would probably provoke the Israel lobby (a better name for which would be the Likud lobby) into an all-out fight against his reëlection. 

Andrew Sullivan added:  "To achieve this, he has to face down the apocalyptic Christianist right, the entire FNC-RNC media machine, a sizable chunk of his party's financial base, and the US Congress."

It's far from clear that Obama's commitment to this outcome is genuine.  I've seen very little evidence that the President is willing to sacrifice his political self-interest in pursuit of a deeply held conviction, and ample evidence that he isn't.  But whatever else is true, even these minimal applications of presidential pressure open up the discussion about our Israel policy wider than it's ever been, trigger very rare criticisms of the Israeli government in U.S. political discourse (from the President's loyalists, angry at Netanyahu), and shine a much-needed light on the multiple ways that U.S. policy toward Israel is so harmful to the national interest (aside from being morally unjust).    

Regardless of Obama's intentions here -- and that remains unclear -- a prerequisite to any meaningful change in U.S./Israel policy is the defeat of those who want to suppress the debate entirely.  Those are the people now wildly demonizing the President for his tepid Middle East speech, and it's why it is incumbent upon anyone who desires real change in this area to defend him from those attacks.  At the very least, the notion that defying the Israeli Government is some sort of supreme evil -- and, conversely, that loyalty to that government is a solemn duty -- needs to be demolished.

 

UPDATE:  Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress - having been invited by House Republicans -- and David Frum excitedly wonders this:

[image error]

I think a better question is whether the ovation will be longer and more enthusiastic than those accorded American Presidents. It is ironic indeed that the same GOP members who will stand and cheer wildly for this foreign leader in conflict with their own country's President are typically the first to scream "unpatriotic!" accusations at others.