Ban on photos of the war-dead lifted

Speaking of photos, here's some good news.

The U.S. military command in eastern Afghanistan has rescinded a ban on the publication of photos depicting slain U.S. military personnel, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

The month-old ban had triggered concerns among lawmakers as well as from several media organizations.

"I am relieved that this short-lived attempt to control the media and the public's right to know has come to an end," Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said in a written response to a query. "Prior restraint on photography is not a good policy for the Pentagon. It's always been my belief that the American people should see the hard reality of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A Pentagon official said the decision to undo the ban was internally driven and not caused by pressure from Congress. Some in the Defense Department expressed concern to the brass in Afghanistan that they had gone too far in censoring the press and urged reconsideration of the new policy, the official said.

Common sense, but take the victories where you can.

Part marketing, part vainglory

Here's some powerful sentiments from Carrie Brownstein on the commidifying of art and the powerful self ego, even with babies involved....

The folks over at Rockabye Baby! -- who turn everything from Queen to Aerosmith into child-friendly lullabies -- are aiming to infantilize Guns N' Roses next. Hard-rocking, balls-to-the-wall, guitar-laden tracks such as "Sweet Child O' Mine" and "Welcome to the Jungle" will soon be reinterpreted with harps, bells and xylophones.

As far as I'm concerned, these efforts to expose children to reggae-less versions of Bob Marley and cocaine-free versions of The Eagles has much more to do with the parents than with the kids themselves. I mean, do The Beatles and The Beach Boys really need to be more kid-friendly than they already are? Perhaps it's the adults who want things quieter and softer, who need the guitar turned down and the harp turned up, who need to be soothed after a long day of work and would rather stay home and watch Parks and Recreation than go to a rock show. And now, thanks to Rockabye, they can listen to benign, enervated versions of their old favorites and claim it was their kids who made them do it.

I completely agree with her (as someone that has no art output like Ms. Brownstein's). But I'm entitled to an opinion regardless. It's partly due to what can be called ... vainglory! (Cool word, right?)

Those pesky detainee photos....

Elmer Fudd Lieberman's horrendous bow-to-executive-power amendment passed the House last Thursday. The Senate will take it up soon, almost definitely this week (and almost definitely pass it). The amendment, tacked onto a Homeland Security appropriations bill (Joe Lieberman is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) would give the Defense secretary (Robert Gates presently) final authority to classify or conceal photos or other kind of media that proved America tortured and killed men held for dubious reasons in jails all over the world. It takes away oversight power of the Congress and basically hands it to the president. I mean, the secretary of Defense is a Cabinet member of the president. Of course what his commander-in-chief wants is a concealment of "further embarrassments to the tune of Abu Ghraib. These presidents, these parties are complicit in it now. Just maintain the status quo.

Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU on a large collection of detainee abuse photos, some additional Abu Ghraib images and the rest from Bagram in Afghanistan, being shut from public eye, in the Los Angeles Times today:

Their release would allow the public to understand better what took place in the military's detention centers, and why. They might show patterns that have until now gone unnoticed, and they would surely convey, better than mere text ever could, the cruelty of such practices as stress positions, hooding and mock executions. And disclosure of the photos might also spur calls for a more thorough investigation into prisoner abuse than has been conducted thus far.

The fear that the country's enemies will use the photos as propaganda is not baseless, but it is a mistake to give violent extremists a veto over the FOIA. The argument that the government has made in court -- and that animates the proposed legislation -- would give the greatest protection from disclosure to records that relate to the worst governmental misconduct, because it is those records that are most likely to be inflammatory. Suppressing such records might deprive the country's enemies of propaganda, but it would also deprive the American public of information that is crucial to the democratic process.

I think our credibility hangs in the balance here. But it's not a hot topic....

Why is no one in the Washington media picking up on this? It's too 'been there, done that' for them? "Oh, those messy detainee photos ... ah, gee, I don't know if I wanna cover that one boss," say those celebri-anchors and lazy correspondents that litter our nation's press. Not sexy enough. And they're tired of dragging the Cheneys on their air to defend torture. Maybe.

And no offense to the LA Times, but why were they the ones to run this? Why wouldn't the NY Times snatch this one (assuming the ACLU offered)? And why wouldn't the Washington Post hop at the chance to stack Jaffer's common sense alongside the likes of one of their Opinion pieces today by AHIP execu-lobbyist Karen Ignagni to plead for the sparing of the poor insurance companies?

Oh yeah, with them it's NO soft-on-terror drivel about detainee photos and shielding the poor little public from our wise executive and commander in chief. Bush or Obama.

Our mainstream media is failing us. Stuff like the refusal to cover this monumental issue -- the proof of sheer depravity and sinister behavior sanctioned by our leaders -- is shameful. It won't "put enough eyes on the tube" for them.

So then the ACLU is left alone to challenge these detentions and work their butt off to uphold the rule of law in this country. That shouldn't be on the ACLU to do. That's the press corps's job. When was the last time Chip Reid or Chuck Todd told you anything you needed to know?

From Italy, 1949

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-four, 10/19/09 - I always thought these statues -- four like these in all -- were so ominous at night when I had to ride by them to get to work. They sit just beyond the Lincoln Memorial welcoming cars to the Memorial Bridge headed to the the cemetery, or to the drive along the Potomac.)

Who we are

Good essay/blog post by Carrie Brownstein, formerly of Sleater-Kinney and current blogger for NPR. It's about music and costumes we wear and our sense of self.

That's all.

Update: Check out this reader comment on that Brownstein post:

Adam Vazquez (Sm00th1) wrote:

Thank you Carrie, an article with relevance. I always secretly liked you but don't tell anyone even though the cats out of the bag. I'm assuming no one will read this. Any way, I would highly appreciate it if you can change your cover picture to reflect a more modern Carrie; a more womanly sexly-kind of kitten that reflects you warm stories. Thanks again Carrie until the next blog. Keep writing; write on!

Classy!

How would I know that this could be my fate? (Glenn Beck version)

This is one of the better, most acute assessments of Glenn Beck's masquerade I've read, by davenoon, on Beck and his latest tear-jerker:

In any event, the entire clip is standard gauge Beck -- chalkboard, photos of administration officials hastily slapped up next to portraits of dictators, silences by turns reverential and mournful, the fake tears and the rest of it -- but by far the weirdest part comes about three and a half minutes in, as he uses Coke's old Mean Joe Greene spot along with one of Kodak's "Times of Your Life" ads to remind his (apparently middle-aged) viewers of a "simpler time" in the nation's history. Which is obviously a multiple tiers of bat-shit, given (a) the implied assumption that television advertising's generic nostalgia was somehow more sociologically accurate way back when, and (b) the fact that, in this case, "way back when" happened to be 1979 and 1975, respectively. I realize that Beck spends most of his time dreaming about kissing George Washington on the mouth, so more recent historical reference points might have veered away from true North, but seriously -- 1979? The annus horribilis of the Carter era? And 1975? The year that witnessed the collapse of South Vietnam and the beginnings of the Cambodian genocide? The year the Weather Underground bombed the State Department?

Zing! What fairy tale land does Beck think he grew up in? And how much of an indelible impact did advertising leave on young Glenn-boy? It's almost as if he wants to go back to having no real responsibility in life ... as if he were 12 or 13 years old eating ice cream on his adoring Gram-Gram's couch in the Summer heat as Gram-Gram shielded him from the "unpleasantries" and realities of the world. She filled his head with this yearning-for-simpler-times mindset. The odd resentment and paranoid insecurity of this hate-mongering set make me believe they feel left out for some reason. Especially now that the president's black and they're positive the Mexican illegal immigrants are coming for their jobs, women and political power.

The Aftermath

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-three, 10/18/09 - In the puddle.)

A Smattering of Links

- This piece on ABC World News was pretty pathetic:

Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

[...]

"I think he has been plenty tough. I think people want toughness, but they also want to have thoughtful leadership. And that -- and that requires reviewing these issues, thinking them through clearly, and bringing people along, and that's what he's doing," senior adviser David Axelrod said.

But the White House is angering its own party by declaring today a public option is not a necessity in a health care bill.

"He's not demanding that it's in there," said senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. "He thinks it's the best possible choice."

White House officials say all this talk about "is he tough enough" is only a matter of style -- the president is trying to build consensus. But that effort is also leading to the criticism, they say.

[...]

"The president has reached a tipping point whether deliberation is starting to look like hesitation," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden. "One of the biggest risks there, the American public begins to question whether or not you have the leadership skills."

I'm not one to shelter Obama, but this is typical mainstream media bullshit. He doesn't express joy in sending troops into a sinkhole war, so all of the sudden he's a pussy. I agree with them that showing little resolve in demanding a robust public option in health care is pretty spineless, but I question whether it means he's not tough or whether he ever really wanted to spend that rotten, vanity-laced thing we call political capital on a public option. I hope he can end up in the right place. Nevertheless, this storyline from Washington media is typical and sad journalism.

(And I loved how this ABC World News broadcast ended with this teaser for tomorrow: "And coming up tomorrow: What if the U.S. doesn't have enough swine flu vaccine? Tune in tomorrow for that." Your modern media.)

- Speaking of unfair assessments of President Obama, here's another one, via HBO documentary, though this one is more outdated than unfair. It has a Nobel Prize eight months later feel to it. It's called "By the People." I just saw a preview, but it looks to be about an array of campaign workers and volunteers throughout the country busting their ass to get him elected. Why they stood behind I'm sure is a fascinating study from person to person. It was a great moment that I'm glad is being documented, now frozen in time for history to revisit.

But seeing anything like that right now is pretty bitter to me. Again, it feels highly outdated and completely at odds with what many on the Left feel about him right now. I get it, it's a year later. But still....

I'm sure I'll watch if given the chance, but I probably should wait for a few years. I think it will sting right now. (I'll give my usual disclaimer: I never believed he would live up to the lofty hype surrounding him at times during the campaign. But I never expected him to be the George W. Bush Jr. Varsity squad.) It might lessen the real impact and sense of relief-turned-joy of November 4, 2008.

- Apparently the DC rap scene is up and coming. I had no idea. But it's a fascinating read for anyone interested in how a scene -- for any kind of music I imagine -- originates and lasts somewhere. DC's rap banner-carrier? A guy named Wale. I wish them luck.

- I'm morbidly excited for Washington Redskins hand-wringing the next few days. I caught some of the postgame from today's loss to the awful KC Chiefs. One commentator named Doc Walker, supposedly a Redskin great, looked directly into the camera and said, "Either you get it done or you surrender!" about head coach Jim Zorn. I then pissed myself. And I think former player Brian Mitchell was near tears rambling about how the current Redskins roster is tarnishing the storied history of the team, including Mitchell's many ... kick returns. They're serious around here.

U.S. Military in Afghanistan Isn't Going Anywhere

Somebody tell Barack Obama that they started without him. Ladies and gentlemen, your military industrial complex:

While the Obama administration weighs whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, the U.S. military is spending billions of dollars on construction projects to ensure the country's infrastructure can support American and coalition personnel in 2010 and years beyond.

The military has already spent roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years. Now, if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.

At the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, Bagram, the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving onto other sites. Under the proposed schedule, those facilities will not be completed until late 2010 and go into operation early in 2011, according to military sources.

This as reported by Walter Pincus in today's Washington Post. And yes, that's Gitmo Jr., Bagram Air Force Base getting the facelift. Further along in the story:

Pittman (Rear Adm. Hal Pittman, director of communications for U.S. Central Command)recalled that Bagram Air Base had cement block buildings constructed by the Soviets in the 1970s and '80s. When U.S. forces began to arrive in December 2001, most had to be put up in tents. While some troops are still housed in the Soviet-constructed buildings, close to $500 million has been spent to upgrade the base, which has 32 acres of ramp space, four large hangars, new barracks and an improvised terminal.

Now, there's a touch of America at the base, including fast-food options including Burger King and Pizza Hut.

Oh the irony. Our soldiers are staying in old Soviet-constructed barracks and we're upgrading them. The last empire to bog itself down in Afghanistan left the light on for us. What else are we using? British reinforcements? Oh. (My favorite part of that story about 500 British troops going to Afghanistan: Sir Peter Tapsell, a member of the Conservative opposition, said, “Anybody who believes that an Afghan army composed of different ethnic groups is going to defeat the Taliban is living in a political cloud-cuckoo-land.”) And they have Burker Hut! It's like they never left home.

Mirror on the Wall, Show Me Where Those Bombs Will Fall

I'm so proud of the congressman in my native district in Missouri. Rep. Ike Skelton has teamed up with fellow hawkish Democrat Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman (By the way, that Elmer Fudd nickname is fucking nice compared to what liberals should call him.) to write an impressive, if not predictable, drumbeat column calling for WAR! WAR! WAR! in today's Washington Post. The pair argue that Obama should give McChrystal whatever he wants so we can "win" and control extremism. The new Republicans:

Don't Settle for a Stalemate

Other critics justify opposition to a properly resourced counterinsurgency by pointing to other problems and priorities in the region that also require attention. But exactly how would sending fewer forces to Afghanistan put us in a stronger position to persuade the Afghan government to crack down on corruption and reform? Or persuade reconcilable elements of the Taliban to abandon insurgency and come over to our side? Or get nuclear-armed Pakistan to tackle the extremist threat on its own territory?

Failure to provide Gen. McChrystal with the military resources he needs to reverse the insurgency's momentum would make all these challenges harder to manage by reinforcing doubts throughout the region about our commitment to this fight and our capacity to prevail in it. But if we can roll back the Taliban and establish basic security in key population centers, as a properly resourced counterinsurgency will allow us to do, it will put us in a position of far greater strength and credibility from which to convince Afghans and others throughout the region that it is in their interest and worth the risk to work with us.

[...[

Here at home, we must stabilize public support by convincing an increasingly skeptical American people that the Afghan war is in fact winnable. This will happen when Americans begin to see the kind of visible gains that only a properly resourced counterinsurgency campaign can achieve through the use of additional troops to establish security and additional civilian resources to aid governmental reform and economic growth. On the other hand, if we send too few troops to regain the initiative from the insurgency and too few civilian resources to help cement those hard-won gains, public support will likely collapse.

There should be no confusion about what is at stake in this fight. The last time they were in power, the Taliban not only brutally suppressed the human rights of their own people, they also welcomed Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network into Afghanistan, refusing to give them up even after Sept. 11, 2001. Allowing the Taliban to return to power would represent a major victory for extremist forces throughout the world, tilt the balance of power in South Asia in their favor and further endanger America's homeland security from terrorists trained there.

The president was right to call the war in Afghanistan "a war of necessity." Now it is time to treat it as such and commit the decisive force that will allow Gen. McChrystal to break the Taliban's momentum as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis mine)

To sum up: Cracking down militarily is the only way victory, whatever that is or whatever we say it is, can be attained. The Afghan people should help us, not help themselves. The American public should be convinced that we can win, as if winning is the end all be all, and this war is worth American and Afghan lives. "Beating" the Taliban and extremism is the way we can stay safe; a re-examination, or reflection, of our foreign policy is not needed.

I know Skelton gets by being a Democrat only because he's ready to play the military card pretty quickly. He has a major base, Ft. Leonard Wood, plus Whiteman Air Force Base in his district. The district is ripe for a warmongering conservative Republican to set up shop for decades, just as Skelton has.

Different party, same lines.

Not a Hall of Famer

Announcer (Ian Eagle?) for CBS at the end of the awful field goal-laden, error-riddled Chief-Redskins game: "They won't be sending this tape to Canton ... in fact, they'll probably burn it."

Update: Chiefs up 9-6 on a ... field goal! 3:36 left in the game. I'm crying blood.

Another update: The Chiefs' kicker was Mr. Irrelevant of the draft! He's a success story!

NFL Genius or Incoherent Schizophrenia?

I can't decide if the CBS football halftime show, or NFL Today, is brilliance in modern sports marketing/infotainment? Or is the biggest load of forced-emotion, just-regular-guys-bullshitting drivel in the world?

Update: It gets worse: First Pearl Jam song (the laughable new single, The Fixer) on an NFL broadcast that I've ever seen/heard. Shit.

Another update: I love when the CBS (or any other group of) announcers all act like a game (Chiefs vs. Redskins) is the most sad, pathetic putrid joke of professional football (they being all former pretty good pros) imaginable. And the one non-former player announcer ends the "highlight" reel with a, "Ohhhhh, not pretty" send-off. That's when you know the teams (Chiefs vs. Redskins) are pretty bleak.

Another another update: Todd Collins is in! The Washington Savior! The cagey, wily veteran! And a field goal! Coronate him! Sorry Jason Campbell. Barring a Todd Collins ACL sever, you're on the bench. You have to hang out with Colt Brennan.

You Do Know There Are Ramifications to Racism, Right?

Remember those witch-hunting four members of the House GOP accusing a Muslim political advocacy group of trying to plant Muslim spies, or "interns," into Hill staff positions?

Former Bush official Suhail Khan, a Muslim-American, told TPMMuckraker a few things that the Republicans should think about pretty seriously. Do they want to continue down the avenues that only narrow the core of the party and scare off anyone on the fence (independents they are lauded as)?

Now the Fellow for Christian-Muslim Understanding at the Institute for Global Engagement, Khan says he thinks the types of charges made by the four Republicans this week could have a chilling effect on young Muslims considering careers in Washington.

And the high-profile charges have an effect on the other side of the job equation, too. "Really what they're trying to do here is to scare otherwise thoughtful members and chiefs of staff from hiring Muslims."

This doesn't seem like a party really trying to look forward and compete with new ideas, does it?

Day for the Rain

(Photo: 365 Project, Day forty-two, 10/17/09 - Eastern Market rooster.)




All photos around a neighborhood park, Union Station, Capitol Hill, Pennsylvania Ave., Eastern Market, 8th St. SE and North Carolina Ave. SE today. Many were with Cameron. (That guy on the Segueway thought I was a tourist taking his picture. He said, "Just another day on Capitol Hill...." It's storming and this guy's speeding around on a Segueway with an umbrella, like a Capitol Hill Mary Poppins.) Here's the Flickr link to all of them.

The United States of Goldman Sachs

The Obama administration invites another fox to guard the henhouse:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has hired a 29-year-old Goldman Sachs alumnus as managing executive of its enforcement division.

Adam Storch, who joined the securities watchdog this week, was a vice-president in the Business Intelligence Group at Goldman, a division that checks trades and investment banking deals for signs of fraud or reputational risk.

[...]

His hiring comes after a week in which Goldman has produced hand-wringing in Washington for its healthy bonus payments and amid long-standing concerns over the “revolving door” between the bank and government agencies.

“I am honoured to join the SEC at this crucial time,” said Mr Storch in a statement released by the commission. “I look forward to working with the talented and dedicated staff of the SEC.”

The managing executive role is a new job in a division that is going through extensive restructuring and is still reeling from its failure to spot frauds, including the Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff.

Allowing former Goldman Sachs executives to clean up a mess that Goldman Sachs was explicitly involved in creating is ludicrous and criminal in my mind. This is nothing new of course: former Bush adm. Treasury secretary Hank Paulson was a Goldman Sachs executive. He was on the phone with them constantly a year ago, when the financial crisis came to a head and institutions like Goldman were begging -- or ordering -- their boy Paulson to bail them out, as they were "too big to fail."

It's no better these days. The AP got access to Sec. Tim Geithner's phone records, via a FOIA request.

The calendars, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the continued influence of three companies — Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — whose executives can reach the nation's most powerful economic official on the phone, sometimes several times a day.

[...]

What the calendars show, however, is that only a select few can call the treasury secretary.

After one hectic week in May in which the U.S. faced the looming bankruptcy of General Motors and the prospect that the government would take over the automaker, Geithner wrapped up his night with a series of phone calls.

First he called Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and CEO at Goldman. Then he called Jamie Dimon, the boss at JPMorgan. Obama called next, and as soon as they hung up, Geithner was back on the phone with Dimon.

Glenn Greenwald has more, including a reminder that Goldman was the top contributor to Obama's presidential campaign. Round and round we go.

Loch Ness! Loch Ness Yeah!

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty-one, 10/16/09 - Godzilla on Massachusetts and 2nd St. NE)

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Forty, 10/15/09 - For Rent: This piece of shit.)

Whose Cult of Personality?

How will historians look back upon the exploitative vitriol of Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck era of American political and societal discourse? Not kindly, is my prediction.

I just read Conor Friedersdorf's article on why Rush Limbaugh is actually not a proven racist. But he is the worst kind of race-baiter. He calls everyone a racist. He accuses what he clams to abhor: immediate guilt of racism.

Limbaugh knows every dog whistle in the book of the Right Wing: Republicans, Libertarians, Fiscal conservatives, Christian conservatives, White Power zealots. He knows the resentful feeling many of these people share. They think the world perceives them as racists and they're afraid of being labeled the dreaded "racist" tag. So they turn to Rush to be their voice. They think they don't have anyone but Rush and Beck to speak up for them. But all these two do is play on the age-old stereotypical fears and preach the politics of resentment. Really, I think either of these two could go quite a long way with this schtick. They are the modern day charlatans of religion and racial button-pushing. They have few boundaries they won't touch. And they have major platforms.

Last Ditch Attempt at Hate

McCarthyism is back, from the minority party!

The Hill:

Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.

Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key panels. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee.

I love this guy, the CAIR spokeman:

“God forbid American Muslims take part in the political process and exercise their rights,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, in a telephone interview. “I suppose they’re going to investigate the Muslim Staffers Association next.

“If these people weren’t so hate-filled, it would be laughable, but unfortunately they have an audience and, given their positions, it’s going to get picked up by the hate blogs.”

This is a desperate grasp at some kind of primal racist, neo-con voice for the Republican Party, plain and simple. These representatives, if they actually go through with it, will be responsible for history: A landmark of hate and paranoid rage that fueled human beings in the early 21st century American democracy. Fomenting hate is the strategy.

Update: The question is whether Fox will pick up with it and run or pull back. If it's too crazy for Fox to get behind and push to its millions, you'll see some real cracks in the conservative ranks. Who will the party want to side with? I can't wait to hear what Michael Steele has to say about this. Wow. I'm imagining now, the denial-while-supporting answers. This is Steele's moment. Action!

Mushroom and Stilton Galette ... or Pizza

(Photos: 365 Project, Day thirty-nine, 10/14/09 - Mushroom and Stilton Galette, courtesy of Emily's recipe that I probably butchered -- it looks like a crude pizza. Good nonetheless.)

Desperation, the Preferred Human Emotion of the Cheneys

I like how the Cheney name has become synonymous with "dark fatalistic scowl."

A new non-profit org, Keep America Safe, is the brainchild of Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol that attempts to drive home the idea that Obama has made us less safe (when in actuality, he's not de-escalated much of anything George W. Bush's military did ... troops have left Iraq, but more have and will go to Afghanistan).

Scott Horton from Harper's:

I’d reduce the real purpose of Keep America Safe to this: “Please don’t prosecute my father!” It’s increasingly clear that Dick Cheney was the author of the Bush-era torture policies, and my hunch is that when the Justice Department releases the OPR report on the torture memos, we’re going to find more evidence of the invisible hand of Dick Cheney behind the whole project. Any fair-minded federal prosecutor looking into the matter would shortly be preparing to do what Patrick Fitzgerald probably wishes now he had done: indict Dick Cheney.

Again, this is some monumental scrambling on the family's part. Liz is the most passionate (or just most comfortable with a camera), though the rest are probably working their own preferred back channels underground and in assorted sinister places the Cheneys go at night.