[updated below - Update II (w/ statement from Sen. Wyden's office) -

Update III]

Time constraints prevented me yesterday from writing about Dianne Feinstein's comments concerning torture in yesterday's New York Times, in which the California Senator -- who will replace Jay Rockefeller as Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- rather clearly backtracked on what had been her repeated, unequivocal insistence throughout the year that the CIA should be required to comply with the Army Field Manual when interrogating detainees.  But Time's Michael Scherer picked up on the same backtracking and did a very good job of highlighting what appears to be Feinstein's (as well as Ron Wyden's) conspicuous, and rather disturbing, reversals.

But it's actually somewhat worse even than Scherer suggests.  According to Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, who wrote the article, Feinstein and Wyden are just two of the "senior Democratic lawmakers" who have "seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases" -- despite the fact that both Feinstein and Wyden said throughout the year that they emphatically favored such a measure and even co-sponsored legislation requiring it.

From the Times article:  "in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility."  And:  "'I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,' she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures."  Wyden's comments were even worse:  

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.”  But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

What makes this so notable is that, for the last year, Feinstein and Wyden were both insistent that the only way to end torture and restore America's standing in the world was to require CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual -- period.  But as long as George Bush was President, it was cheap and easy for Feinstein and Wyden to argue that, because they knew there was no chance it would ever happen.  As they well knew, they lacked the votes to override Bush's inevitable veto of any such legislation.  So as long as Bush was President, it was all just posturing, strutting around demanding absolute anti-torture legislation they knew would never pass.  

But that has all changed now.  Although Obama's top intelligence adviser, John Brennan, has questioned whether it was necessary or wise to do so, Obama himself said repeatedly and unequivocally during the campaign that he supports legislation to compel CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual, making it virtually impossible for him to veto any such legislation if Congress passes it.  Thus, Senate Democrats now know that if they pass the law they claimed so vehemently to support, it would actually get enacted.

So now, suddenly, Feinstein and Wyden are sending at least preliminary signals that they are far more "flexible" on the issue -- I believe the all-justifying catchword in vogue now is "pragmatic" -- than they ever were before.  What had been an unequivocal principle has instantly transformed into caveat-riddled buzzphrases.  I'm sure we'll be hearing shortly -- from many precincts -- that those of us who insist that Democrats fulfill their commitment to compel the CIA's compliance in all cases with the extant Army Field Manual (not some brand new, more permissive set of guidelines written and issued in secret and which provides for exceptions), are guilty of being dreaded "ideologues," purity trolls and civil liberties extremists.  

Just to get a flavor for how unequivocal Democrats had been on this issue, here is a statement Feinstein herself issued on October 15 -- less than two months ago:

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today denounced the Bush Administration's secret approval of torture methods used by the CIA during interrogations, and renewed her call for all U.S. intelligence agencies to be required to follow the Army Field Manual's rules on interrogations. . . .

"To me, this further demonstrates why a single standard for interrogations across all branches of the government - including the CIA - is necessary," Senator Feinstein said. "I believe it is very dangerous not to set this standard across the board, and the only document that does this is the revised Army Field Manual. The abuses we've seen at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and in Afghanistan clearly show the spillover results of allowing the CIA to engage in coercive interrogations.

Let's repeat what Feinstein said:  "the only document that does this is the revised Army Field Manual." 

In an Op-Ed she co-wrote last February with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse for The San Diego Union-Tribune, urging the President to sign their bill to compel the CIA's compliance with the Army Field Manual (co-sponsored by Sen. Wyden), Feinstein was just as emphatic:

Here's why this is so important:

It is the right thing to do. . . .

Our intelligence agencies would be able to effectively interrogate detainees – by using 19 techniques that are today used with success by the military . . . .

The Army Field Manual has been in use for decades. It was updated in 2006 to reflect lessons learned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .

The 19 interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual come with strict protocols for their use. Most of these techniques involve psychological approaches – for example, making a prisoner believe cooperation could save his country by ending a war more quickly.  Military commanders say these methods produce good intelligence.

And listen to the unequivocal vow Feinstein made, as reported by CQ on April 28, 2008:

“The CIA has heard the message that a majority in both houses of Congress want the uniform standard provided by the Army field manual,” [Feinstein] said the day before Bush vetoed the 2008 bill in March. “We will not stop until it becomes law.”

After the House failed to override the veto, Feinstein said, “We’ll just keep sending it back, and he can keep vetoing it.” 

"We will not stop until it becomes law."

Wyden has been just as emphatic, giving a speech on the Senate floor in supporting Feinstein's no-exceptions bill (which he himself co-sponsored) back in February in which he said: 

With respect to the role of the military, they already abide by interrogation rules that are flexible and effective. They have been used by professional military interrogators with many years of experience and they are clearly effective . . .

The Army Field Manual actually makes it quite clear which techniques are authorized for all service members and which require special permission. So there it is, the need for this legislation - just on the basis of the developments of the last few weeks - is even more important than it was.

There was no talk whatsoever by either of them of the need for "flexibility" in "extreme cases" or using noncoercive measures only "to the greatest extent possible" or the need for "special measures" in times of heightened threat environments or "approv[ing] interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual" or the need to have the interrogation laws be kept secret -- all the things which Feinstein and Wyden are suddenly telling The New York Times they are now considering.  What changed?

What is needed in order to put an end to the Bush torture regime are absolute, unequivocal, and transparent legal prohibitions governing interrogations, ones that are devoid of ambiguity, flexibility and secrecy.  Feinstein and Wyden certainly purported to recognize exactly that all year long when, as they well knew, they weren't in a position to do anything about it.  Now that they are, they ought to follow through on what they repeatedly said they intended to do.

Obviously, the CIA can and should develop specific interrogation tactics that are classified, but only within the parameters of unambiguous and fully disclosed laws.  As Feinstein and Wyden have argued -- correctly -- all year long, the Army Field Manual authorizes robust and effective interrogation techniques, and there is no reason to re-write it for the CIA or to carve out exceptions to it.  

Anyone who doubts that should just read this Washington Post Op-Ed from the military interrogator who used those techniques in Iraq to find Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and who wrote that they were far more effective than techniques that go beyond the Field Manual.  And, as Mazzetti and Shane reported:  "a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules."

Several members of Congress, such as Rush Holt, have called on Obama not to wait for Congress to act and, instead, to immediately issue an Executive Order compelling government-wide compliance with the Army Field Manual.  Obama should do that.  But, as Holt recognizes, this is really an area where Congress can and must legislate. 

For that to happen, Feinstein and Wyden need to return to the clear, principled position they claimed to believe in throughout the year.  All this sudden talk of exceptions and "special measures" and new, secret guidelines do nothing but cloud an issue where absolute clarity is most needed.  That's exactly the wrong message to be sending -- both about the authenticity of the Democrats' pledge to end torture and about the country's intent to cleanse itself of the abuses of the last eight years.

UPDATE:  I received an email from Sen. Wyden's Director of Communications, Jennifer Hoelzer, claiming that I "misunderstood" the Senator's position and requesting to speak with me about it.  I spoke with her for roughly 15 minutes and, rather than concluding that I misunderstood his position, I became even more convinced that my principal point is completely accurate:  namely, Sen. Wyden spent all year advocating that the CIA be compelled to comply with the Army Field Manual, but now -- due to a change in administrations -- is quite open to authorizing interrogation techniques beyond that.  In other words, his position has clearly changed, in a rather significant way.

I invited Hoelzer to submit a written statement from Sen. Wyden, which I said I will post in full, and she indicated he will provide one.  I'll post it as soon as I get it.  

Sen. Feinstein's office tried to dispute the characterization of Time's Scherer by sending him the full statement which Feinstein gave to the Times, but as Scherer noted -- correctly:

That full statement, however, seems to only confirm the Times' suggestion that Feinstein is backing away from the Army Field Manual standard for all interrogations, in favor of an alternative, still undefined, "single standard across the government.

That is exactly the point about Wyden that was, in my view, bolstered -- not undermined -- as a result of my discussion with Wyden's spokesperson. 

Ultimately, only time will tell whether Democrats were serious about their emphatic commitment to end torture with an unambiguous legal regime.  I'll be the first to acknowledge, and celebrate, if they carry through with that.  But these early signals are not promising.  As anyone who has observed Senate Democrats for any length of time knows, this is exactly how their capitulations and backtracking always begin.

UPDATE II:  The full statement I just received on behalf of Sen. Wyden in response to what I wrote is here.  Everyone can judge for themselves if they think he has changed his position and/or if I described his position accurately.

UPDATE III:  Sen. Feinstein has just now issued another statement, to Time's Scherer, asserting -- much like Wyden just did -- "that she still wants a law that mandates the Field Manual as the sole interrogation standard, but that she may be willing to be talked back from that position by the Obama Administration, if it chooses to do so."  She adds:  "I plan to introduce legislation in January that would close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees."

It's unclear why there seems to be an expectation that the Obama administration might want to "talk back" Democratic Senators from their insistence that the CIA comply with the Army Field Manual, given that Obama himself repeatedly embraced that position.  In any event, actions -- i.e., legislation and Executive Orders -- will speak much louder than words and promises.  At the very least, this process today has been a constructive one, as it's important that they know that these issues are a very high priority for a lot of people and their actions are being closely scrutinized.

(updated below)

Bill Clinton yesterday was forced to deny speculation that he would be appointed to replace his wife in the U.S. Senate.  Leading candidates for that seat still include John F. Kennedy's daughter (Caroline), Robert Kennedy's son (RFK, Jr.), and Mario Cuomo's son (Andrew).  In Illinois, a leading contender to replace Barack Obama in the Senate is Jesse Jackson's son (Jesse, Jr.).  In Delaware, it was widely speculated that Joe Biden would be replaced by his son, Beau, and after Beau took his name out of the running because he's now serving in Iraq, the naming of the actual replacement -- lone-time (Joe) Biden aide Ted Kaufmann -- "upset local Democrats who believe the move was a ham-handed attempt to engineer the election of Biden’s son, Beau, to the Senate in 2010."

Meanwhile, in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed by her father to take his seat in the U.S. Senate when he became Governor, yesterday warned Sarah Palin not to challenge her in a 2010 primary, a by-product of tension between those two as a result of Palin's defeat of Lisa's dad for Governor.  In Florida, Mel Martinez's announcement that he won't seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President's brother, Jeb, might run for that seat.  And all of that's just from the last couple of weeks.

The Senate alone -- to say nothing of the House -- is literally filled with people whose fathers or other close relatives previously held their seat or similar high office (those links identify at least 15 current U.S. Senators -- 15 -- with immediate family members who previously occupied high elected office).  And, of course, the current President on his way out was the son of a former President and grandson of a former U.S. Senator.

Isn't this all a bit much?  It's true that our political/media class in general is intensely incestuous and nepotistic.  Virtually the entire neoconservative "intelligentsia" (using that term as loosely as it can possibly be used) is one big paean to nepotistic succession -- the Kristols, the Kagans, the Podhoretzes, Lucinanne Goldberg and her boy.  Upon Tim Russert's death, NBC News excitedly hired his son, Luke.  Mike Wallace's son hosts Fox's Sunday show.  The most influential political opinion space in the country, The New York Times Op-Ed page, is, like the Times itself, teeming with family successions and connections.  Inter-marriages between and among media stars and political figures -- and lobbyists, operatives and powerful political officials -- are now more common than arranged royal marriages were among 16th Century European monarchs.

But this fixation on parent-child, sibling and spousal succession for elected office is particularly problematic.  It's certainly true that one can find, in individual cases, instances of self-sufficiency and merit even among those benefiting from nepotism and family names.  But the fact that it is now so commonplace -- almost presumptively expected -- for political power to be passed along to close family members is quite anti-democratic.  The number of families possessing some sort of aristocratic-like claim to elected office is clearly increasing.  By definition, that diminishes the role of merit and the need for democratic persuasion in how elected leaders are chosen.  And this dynamic, in turn, fuels how insular, incestuous, unaccountable and bloated with entitlement the Beltway culture is.

There are numerous factors that account for this artistocratization of our politics.  Viewing political officials through the combined prism of royalty and celebrity naturally generates interest in, and affection for, their family members.  The same deeply sad mentality that makes it worthwhile for celebrity magazines to pay many millions of dollars for celebrities' baby photos is part of what makes so many people eager to vote for the sons, wives, and brothers of their favorite political star.  Independently, a rapid worsening of America's rich-poor gap stratifies the society in terms of opportunities and access and breeds a merit-deprived aristocratic culture.

Beyond that, the massive structural advantages of incumbency easily allow resources and other favors to be heaped on chosen family members for succession, and for loyalties and affections to be transferred for no reason other than family connection.  Then there is the  large number of uninformed voters -- working in tandem with our vapid, gossip-obsessed political media -- that place a huge premium on family name recognition and even generates some voter confusion that further aids family succession (how many voters who cast a ballot for Bob Casey and John Sununu in their Senate races -- or elected Harold Ford, Dan Boren, Connie Mack and Bill Schuster to the House -- mistakenly thought they were voting for their elected-official dads who had the same or very similar names?).

Family succession is hardly unheard of in U.S. political history, but what was once quite rare has now become pervasive.  As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it in 2005:

With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs.

Illustrating that radical change, here's a revealing 1929 article from Time Magazine expressing some mild disapproval for what was, back then, the rare occurrence of a son who was elected to succeed his father in a Minnesota Congressional seat after the father was killed in a tragic fire (the new son-Congressman, the article noted, was "an engaging young man, thoroughly Nordic in appearance").  About this single familial succession, Time sternly intoned:  "Primogeniture and hereditary public office have no place in U. S. tradition."

That is clearly no longer true.  One of the most encouraging aspects of Barack Obama's success -- and, for that matter, the ascension of someone like Sarah Palin or Bill Clinton -- is the pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind it.  But even pointing that out demonstrates how meritocratic self-sufficiency has almost become the exception rather than the rule.  That we now treat Presidents like Kings and expect them to exercise similar powers is consistent with the broader trend whereby we are ruled by a Versailles on the Potomac, with all the bloated, decadent insularity that implies.

UPDATE:  In the comment section, Brenton Williams -- a Professor of American Constitutional & Legal History at DePaul University -- details one of the most egregiously undemocratic cases of nepotistic succession:  Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Dan Lipinski:

His father, Bill, the long-time incumbent ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and won easily.  A few weeks before the general election he withdrew and the Illinois Democratic Committee met with him for 15 minutes, late at night, behind closed doors before emerging with their new nominee, his son, then residing in central Tennessee where he was an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee. . . .

Still worse, a family friend [Ryan Chlada] with no funding ran as the Republican in 2004 to help insure that Dan faced no more than token resistance.

As Professor Williams notes, the Lipinski son, ever since, has been vigorously supported by the Democratic establishment, particularly Rahm Emanuel, in order to defeat progressive (and meritocratic) primary challengers.  He was simply handed the seat by his dad.

(updated below)

When The Army Times, in September, reported that for "the first time an active [U.S. Army] unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities," those of us who raised questions and concerns about that deployment were told that this was but one little brigade -- just 4,500 combat troops -- and nothing meaningful could be done with such a deployment.  

That was never the point, of course; the issue was the precedent of allowing the President to command permanently deployed, war-trained Army brigades inside the U.S., in order -- as The Army Times put it -- "to help with civil unrest and crowd control," as well as long-standing legal prohibitions on using the military for such purposes domestically. 

Yesterday, The Washington Post reported on a much-expanded plan:  "The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011."  Like most expansions of government power, it was the Terrorist Threat that was invoked to "justify" this radical shift in policy:  

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

My guest today on Salon Radio to discuss this new Pentagon plan is Gene Healy, Vice President at the Cato Institute and author of the genuinely excellent book, released earlier this year, entitled:  The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.   The Post article yesterday noted that those objecting to this domestic deployment plan include those "in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians," and quotes both the ACLU and Healy as expressing serious concerns about the dangers.  I discuss those objections with Healy, as well his relative optimism about what an Obama presidency might mean for executive power abuses.

The discussion is roughly 25 minutes and the transcript is here -- link fixed (I previously interviewed the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz about this matter, here).

One programming note:  effective immediately, we have decided to scale back Salon Radio from three broadcasts a week to two per week, and they will now be posted every Tuesday and Friday at 2:00 p.m. EST.  The prior schedule was simply too burdensome to maintain in light of other obligations.

UPDATE:  As a reminder, and in response to several recent inquiries:  all podcasts are available as MP3's (here) and iTunes (here).  Permanent links to those pages can be found at the top right-hand corner of this page (under "Glenn Greenwald Radio").

(updated below - Update II)

Two weeks ago, in a largely positive assessment about Obama's likely Attorney General nominee -- entitled "Preliminary facts and thoughts about Eric Holder" -- I wrote:

Holder's involvement in the sleazy Marc Rich pardon is definitely a blemish, though, given his peripheral role, it's a relatively minor one.

Since then, The New York Times has published two pieces -- an Op-Ed by George Lardner and this article today by Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston -- which make conclusively clear that the word "peripheral" is inaccurate.  Though Holder wasn't the driving force behind the Rich pardon, the assembled facts nonetheless demonstrate that his involvement in that process was substantial, continuous, and concerted:  much, much more than "peripheral."

Everyone can decide for themselves how much weight to assign to that eight-year-old episode.  It doesn't substantially alter my view of Holder's nomination, which I still view as being, on balance, a positive step.  The reasons for that conclusion raise some points that are well worth examining -- not so much about Eric Holder, but about the Washington establishment.

What is most striking -- and revealing -- about Holder's involvement in the Rich case is that, at the time, he was the number 2 person in the Justice Department, the Deputy Attorney General.  Despite that, as the NYT reports today, "Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums."  

Why would such a high-ranking DOJ official be so interested in the outcome of a single prosecution of a single defendant?  Do you think that the average criminal defense attorney, representing some common criminal, even one facing massive jail time, could get the Deputy Attorney General to take a single call about the case in order to voice complaints about an overly zealous prosecution, let alone induce the DAG to devote repeated and intense attention to the defendant's plight?  To ask the question is to answer it.

So what made Holder care so much about one defendant, Marc Rich?  It's because, at a 1998 corporate dinner, a "public-relations executive" sat next to Holder, raised Marc Rich's "plight" with him, asked Holder what Rich should do, and Holder -- as the NYT today detailed -- told the executive:  "'hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.'  Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. 'There’s Jack Quinn,' he said. 'He’s a perfect example.'"  Rich then followed Holder's advice and hired Quinn as his lead lawyer, and then everything magically happened for him.

Jack Quinn was Legal Counsel to Al Gore -- who, during most of Holder's work on the Rich case, looked to be the likely next President.  After his work with Gore, Quinn became Clinton's White House counsel.  He left the Clinton administration in 1996 to form a lobbying firm with Republican Ed Gillespie -- Quinn Gillespie & Associates -- one of the early pioneers of the now-common, sleazy, bipartisan influence-peddling rings that dominate how the Beltway functions.  Eric Holder swung his doors wide open for Marc Rich because Jack Quinn was a highly influential power-broker in Democratic Party circles and was a former and quite possibly future colleague of Holder's.  It's just as simple as that.  

In a very uncharacteristically -- one could even say shockingly -- cogent column this morning, The Washington Post's Richard Cohen observes:  

[The Rich pardon] suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. . . . Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was elected to end.  He is not one of Obama's loathed lobbyists; he was merely their instrument.

An inability, or an unwillingness, to "say no to power" is not exactly a desired trait in an Attorney General, to put that mildly.

* * * * *

Having said all of that, why doesn't Holder's involvement in the Rich pardon make him unqualified to be Attorney General?  Aside from the vital fact that there are many other factors that must be taken into account -- principally, the likelihood that Holder can and will reverse the extreme Justice Department abuses of the last eight years, which I think is relatively high (though he should renounce his disturbing 2002 pro-Rumsfeld statements about Guantanamo and the Geneva Conventions) -- it's because none of these sins are unique to Holder.  

This is vintage Washington.  This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed.  It's what fuels how the Beltway operates.  It's the leading cause of why it functions as a corrupt, dysfunctional, bloated, incestuous royal court.  That's what Washington is.  For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately:  who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease.

More than anything else, Obama's endless invocation of the "change" mantra was not about promises of sharp ideological or even policy shifts -- as needed as those may be -- but instead, was about changing this core Beltway dynamic, delousing the Washington culture.  A consensus has emerged, which I more or less share, that condemning the not-yet-inaugurated Obama presidency based merely on his appointments of establishment re-treads and war supporters is premature, irrational and unfair. 

Obama has repeatedly said that his appointees are there to implement and carry out his agenda.  There are reasons to believe Obama can and will carry through on his "change" commitments, and there are also ample, reasonable grounds for doubting that he will.  Either way, though it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments, it makes sense to wait to see what Obama himself actually does as President before assessing whether his commitments are illusory.

But -- as the Holder nomination perfectly illustrates -- one thing that has become quite tiresome, and irrational in the extreme, are those people who, on the one hand, insist that criticisms of Obama based on his appointments are premature and unfair, but on the other hand, are falling all over themselves with praise for Obama based on his supposedly ingenuous appointments.  If Obama critics are well-advised to withhold criticism until Obama is actually in office and begins to do things (as I think is true), then Obama loyalists are equally well-advised to wait before joyously celebrating the smashing success of his presidency. 

Despite that, it is now commonplace among giddy establishment pundits and Obama-reverent bloggers (two increasingly indistinguishable groups) to righteously announce that "the adults are back in charge."  David Ignatius pronounced that Robert Gates is "the most reassuring figure of all, as a reminder that the adults will be in charge here."  Fred Hiatt this morning is celebrating Obama's appointments as a "Team of Centrists" who are "proven pragmatists and team players."  One limitlessly Obama-enamored blogger adopted Beltway Seriousness lingo to gush that Obama "has effectively sidelined critics of his foreign policy vision [which includes war opponents such as Dennis Kucinich] to the kiddie table over there in the corner" and "they will all continue to screech now and then, and the adults [Obama's team of mostly establishment figures and war supporters] will look over condescendingly and tell them to pipe down or there's no dessert."  

* * * * *

The harmonious celebration of these appointments is mystifying indeed.  The Washington establishment has ruined everything it's touched over the last decade.  The Republicans have wielded more power and thus led the way, but Beltway Democrats -- including many of these appointees who are being heralded as our New Magnanimous Serious Adult Guardians -- have been acquiescent to virtually all of it, complicit in most of it, and beneficiaries of the system that spawned it all.  They're everything but crusading reformists.

It's true that these appointments, standing alone, don't prove that Obama will change nothing meaningful and that his campaign commitments were illusory.  That will be determined by him, not by them.

But it's at least just as true that these appointments don't demonstrate that joyous and transformative change and Benevolent Adult Leadership has arrived.  How could they?  These are all the same people -- Tom Daschle, Bob Gates, Greg Craig, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton, to say nothing of the armies of recycled allies and underlings they'll bring with them -- who have been wielding plenty of power in Washington for years and years, who are leading pillars in the Washington establishment, who have been feeding off of the very system that Obama himself has repeatedly identified as the root of most of our problems, the system that led to Marc Rich's pardon and countless other, far more significant transgressions.

By all means, wait to judge Obama based on his decisions and policies, not who he appoints to administer them.  But that should be true for both praise and criticism.  Heaping praise and gratitude on the very same people who have been integral parts of the broken, dirty Washington system -- thank God that Tom Daschle, Bob Gates, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are in charge! -- borders on the masochistic, particularly without seeing evidence that they will do things differently than what they've done in the past.  Will Eric Holder operate by different rules than what guided him in the Rich pardon?  One won't know until he begins operating, but skepticism (i.e., demanding evidence before issuing praise of political officials) is far more constructive than giddy, unearned optimism.

If you're someone who basically thinks that the Washington political system works fine and has been run by the Good, Serious Adults who rule over the rabble for their own good -- in other words, if you're Fred Hiatt or David Ignatius -- it makes perfect sense to celebrate these appointments.  For anyone else, skepticism is warranted -- how could it not be? -- and praise and gratitude and celebratory Change parades make sense if and when they're actually warranted by actions.  The closer one's proximity has been to the bipartisan Washington establishment, the less entitled they are -- not the more -- to a presumption of Magnanimous, Serious, Adult, Transformative leadership.

UPDATE:  Some past highlights from the "thankfully-the-adults-are-in-charge-again" platitude:

* Al Hunt, Wall St. Journal, 4/19/2001: "When the Bush national security team was formed, many Washington insiders were ecstatic, claiming the 'adults' were back in charge."

* Robert Kagan/Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard, May 14, 2001: "During last year's presidential campaign, we were assured that George W. Bush's foreign policy team would be far superior in skill and experience to the much derided Clintonites. When Bush came to power, the 'adults' would be in charge."

* Chicago Tribune, December 30, 2000: "[Ken] Ruberg said Bush also wisely opted for experience in naming such figures as Colin Powell for secretary of state and Donald Rumsfeld for defense secretary. Along with Vice President-elect Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary in the Bush administration, and Condoleezza Rice, the new national security adviser, he said they give strength in the two areas the president-elect is least experienced: foreign policy and national security."

* David Ignatius, today: "I remember, too, the enthusiasm that initially greeted President George W. Bush’s all-star team -- the veterans Colin Powell at State, Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and, as a special bonus, Dick Cheney as vice president. They were certified foreign-policy superstars and, what's more, they had all worked together before."

And, as Ignatius notes, the same cliché was hauled out to christen Reagan's "all-star" team of Capser Weinberger, George Schultz and Richard Allen as the Return of the Adults. The establishment loves its own and, when the parties swap power, typically praise the new/old officials as The Return of the Adults.  Like most establishment pronouncements, the track record of that platitude isn't really promising and merits a healthy dose of wait-and-see skepticism.

UPDATE II:  Chris Bowers was on Hardball last night and -- despite saying today that he's normally too shy to do television appearances -- did a really good job of articulating the issues here in a balanced, substantive, reasoned way:

(updated below - Update II)

Following up on yesterday's post regarding NBC News' suppression of the "military analyst" scandal and its ongoing reliance on the deeply conflicted Barry McCaffrey:  I have obtained, from a very trustworthy source, emails sent last week between NBC News executives and McCaffrey (which cc:d Brian Williams), reflecting the extensive collaboration between NBC and McCaffrey to formulate a coordinated response to David Barstow's story.  The emails are re-printed here.  

Rather than honestly investigate the numerous facts which Barstow uncovered about McCaffery's severe conflicts, NBC instead is clearly in self-protective mode, working in tandem with McCaffrey to create justifications for what they have done.  As these emails reflect, both this weekend's story about McCaffrey and the earlier NYT story in April have caused NBC News to expend substantial amounts of time, effort and resources trying to manage the P.R. aspects of this story. 

But remarkably, this "news organization" has still not uttered a peep to its viewers about these stories; has not reported on any of the indisputably newsworthy events surrounding the Pentagon's "military analyst" program; and continues to present McCaffrey to its viewers as an objective source without disclosing any of the multiple connections and interests he has that would lead any reasonable person to question his objectivity.

Perhaps most notable of all is how plainly dishonest the NBC response to Barstow is -- a response which, unsurprisingly (given their coordination) is tracked by the response posted on McCaffrey's website and by his hired P.R. agent, Robert Weiner, who is pasting a defense of McCaffrey in various places on the Internet (including my comment section yesterday) without identifying himself as such.  As their only defense to these accusations, both NBC and McCaffrey are repeatedly emphasizing that McCaffrey criticized the Bush administration and Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq War, as though that proves that McCaffrey's NBC commentary was independent and honest and not influenced by his numerous business connections to defense contractors.

Both NBC and McCaffrey are either incapable of understanding, or are deliberately ignoring, the central point:  in those instances where McCaffrey criticized Rumsfeld for his war strategy, it was to criticize him for spending insufficient amounts of money on the war, or for refusing to pursue strategies that would have directly benefited the numerous companies with which McCaffrey is associated. 

McCaffrey's criticism of Bush's war management doesn't disprove accusations that he was deeply conflicted when appearing as an NBC "analyst"; to the contrary, the criticisms he voiced constitute some of the most compelling evidence proving that McCaffrey should never have been on NBC -- and still should not be.  As I documented back in late April about McCaffrey's supposed status as a "war critic":

It's true, as [Brian] Williams points out as though it is exculpatory, that -- like Bill Kristol and plenty of other hard-core war supporters -- McCaffrey wanted more U.S. troops in Iraq. He even signed a 2005 letter from PNAC -- along with the likes of Kristol, the mighty Kagan Brothers, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, Michael O'Hanlon and Peter Beinart -- demanding that more troops be deployed to Iraq (the Kagans, O'Hanlon and Beinart -- despite their relative youth -- were all unavailable for duty).

It really ought to go without saying by now that advocating more troops for the War hardly made one a "war critic" nor did it demonstrate independence from the Bush administration's propaganda campaign for the War. To the contrary, the fact that both McCaffrey and Downing had financial ties to the defense industry which would stand to profit from policies entailing more defense spending further calls into question their independence, rather than resolves those questions.

The April, 2003 Nation article -- which long ago put NBC News on specific notice about the glaring conflicts precluding McCaffrey's objectivity -- made this point explicitly:

McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and . . . the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT [on whose Board of Directors McCaffrey sat] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware.

Is it even possible for there to be more incriminating evidence than this?  Just compare NBC News' appallingly false email statement that "We've yet to see concrete proof of a correlation between any of his outside business interests and his statements made on our air" with the fact that McCaffrey used NBC to "criticize Rumsfeld" by gushing praise for the very tanks from which IDT greatly profits but which Rumsfeld was failing to sufficiently appreciate.  How dishonest do you have to be to deny that that constitutes a serious journalistic conflict?  And that's to say nothing of the endless support McCaffrey expressed on NBC for the War in Iraq and the greater "War on Terror" while he had all sorts of extensive ties to defense contractors that profited greatly from increased spending on both, and while he participated in the Pentagon's propaganda program.

Note, especially, that none of the responses -- from NBC, McCaffrey or his P.R. firm -- even pretend to address, let alone dispute, any of the ample facts that have been set forth in the case against NBC and McCaffrey.  Instead, NBC points to the numerous shiny medals on McCaffrey's chest in order to imply that it is simply wrong and offensive to question the propriety of such a great and credentialed man ("General McCaffrey is a retired Four Star General, a two-time recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second highest award for valor . . . He is a true American hero").  That's the same "defense" on which its anchor, Brian Williams, relied when assuring us in April that he had formed a "close friendship" with McCaffrey and knew him to be a "passionate patriot," and therefore it was outrageous for anyone to dare suggest that there might be wrongdoing here.  

Can one even imagine a supposed news organization exhibiting a more unhealthy and more unquestioning reverence for a General than this?  Is that the same credential-revering, authority-worshiping mentality that drives NBC's coverage of Pentagon officials and war Generals? (yes, that's a rhetorical question, though this mini-profile of Brian Williams answers it).  Amazingly, the executive who submitted NBC's formal reply to Barstow, Allison Gollust, actually wrote this:

Our relationship with General McCaffrey is based on trust, a basic tenant [sic] of journalism.

Actually, basic tenets of journalism include investigation, skepticism and disclosure of facts -- all the things missing from NBC News' conduct.  But blindly trusting government officials and their military medals are not basic tenets of journalism, at least not in theory -- and at least not outside of establishment news outlets such as NBC News.  Is that the NBC News motto engraved on its letterhead and wall plaques:  We trust in government officials and military leaders -- a basic tenant of journalism.

In his emails to NBC executives, McCaffrey -- undoubtedly aware that the biggest blow to his reputation would come from having NBC News finally address, in a forthright manner, its years-long reliance on such a hopelessly conflicted "analyst" -- heaps sycophantic praise on them for their defense of McCaffrey to Barstow:

Very balanced, objective response.

Underscores my view of NBC as an enterprise based on journalistics [sic] ethics --- and courage.

Proud to be associated with this team of professionals.

Describing NBC as an organization of "journalistic ethics" and "courage" here is almost as ludicrous as NBC's claim in those emails that its "viewers have been, and will continue to be, well served by [McCaffrey's] incisive and thoughtful comments."  One can scarcely imagine cowardice and unethical behavior as brazen as this.  But NBC News knows full well that few people turn to it for those attributes, and -- even after two massive, abundantly documented front-page NYT exposés -- it thus obviously lacks even the slightest interest in addressing, let alone rectifying, what it has done here.

* * * * * 

One last point:  I do hope none of this ruins my chances of succeeding Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

UPDATE:  In the Columbia Journalism Review, Charles Kaiser asks -- rhetorically:  "Is there any limit to the shamelessness of NBC News?" and then explains:

It turns out that McCaffrey is the living embodiment of all the worst aspects of entrenched Washington corruption—a man who shares with scores of other retired officers a huge financial interest in having America conduct its wars for as long as possible.

He adds:  "And yet, to this day, NBC News has never once disclosed any of McCaffrey’s multiple conflicts of interest on the air — and as recently as last Thursday Williams was still using the retired general on Nightly News to opine about Afghanistan." 

Someone apparently forgot to tell the Columbia Journalism Review that Brian Williams developed a "close friendship" with McCaffrey and knows him to be a "passionate patriot" and that NBC's "relationship with General McCaffrey is based on trust, a basic tenant of journalism."  That changes everything.  

UPDATE II:  This superb comment astutely points out the numerous parallels between the behavior of NBC News here and Bush/Cheney circa 2003.

(updated below - Update II)

The New York Times's David Barstow, whose excellent and aggressive journalism led to the uncovering last April of the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving network "military analysts," today returns to this topic with another lengthy front-page exposé.  Barstow focuses today on the numerous, undisclosed conflicts of interest of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who continues to be featured frequently by NBC News as an objective analyst as he opines about war policies in which he has a substantial (and concealed) financial stake.

Some of the key facts which Barstow reports concerning the improper behavior of McCaffrey and NBC News were documented all the way back in April, 2003, in this excellent article from The Nation, which Barstow probably should have credited today.  That article -- entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts" -- detailed the numerous defense contractors to which McCaffrey had a substantial connection -- including Mitretek, Veritas and Integrated Defense Technologies, all featured by Barstow today -- and highlighted how the policies and viewpoints McCaffrey was advocating as a "military analyst" on NBC directly benefited those companies.   

Because those conflicts were brought to light by the anti-war Nation, and because that article was published in April, 2003, as the country was drowning in a war-crazed frenzy, NBC was able to blithely dismiss these concerns, unbelievably telling The Nation that its military analysts' business interests were "not their concern."  Unsurprisingly, the Nation article generated little attention and controversy. Few people were interested back then in challenging war-praising retired Generals and the networks which were glorifying the invasion.  NBC continued without objection to feature McCaffrey, and the similarly-conflicted retired Gen. Wayne Downing, as objective "military analysts."

Still, what was -- and remains -- most incredible about Barstow's April, 2008 exposé was that, to this day, the networks which featured these highly conflicted "analysts" have never uttered a word about the controversy over the Pentagon's program, despite the fact that it was the subject of an enormous front-page NYT story; members of Congress accused the Pentagon -- rightfully so -- of operating a potentially illegal propaganda operation and demanded information directly from the networks; both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Pentagon's program; and even the Pentagon felt compelled to terminate the program in the wake of the controversy.  None of that merited a mention by any of the networks, despite (more accurately: because of) the fact that their own reporting was so directly implicated by the controversy.

As I documented at length at the time, using the thousands of documents Barstow had obtained, the propaganda that the networks broadcast as a result of this "military analyst" program -- about Iraq, Guantanamo and a host of other related issues -- was very coordinated and, by design, implanted falsehoods in virtually every aspect of their "reporting".

The active suppression of this story by the networks -- their decision to conceal from their own viewers the fact that, for years, they presented as "independent" analysts individuals who were working in tandem on "message amplification" with the Pentagon and who had significant business interests in their analysis -- was so severe, so remarkable, that even establishment defenders such as Howie Kurtz and The Politico emphatically protested the networks' silence.  Clocks were even created to count the number of days the networks blackballed Barstow's story -- and it currently stands at 223 days, and counting. 

Last April, in the wake of Barstow's front-page story, I documented at length numerous other facts featured in today's Barstow article -- including the countless times McCaffrey went on NBC News shows to advocate war policies that directly benefited his undisclosed business interests, as well as the completely deceitful way NBC presented McCaffrey as an independent and objective analyst without ever mentioning any of his multiple activities that clearly called into question his objectivity as an "analyst."

A couple of weeks after Barstow's story was published in April, I noted that Brian Williams had taken the time on his blog to write about and mock multiple, trivial NYT stories from that week, yet had never once mentioned -- either on his network news show or even on his blog -- the extremely incriminating story in the NYT about his repeated reliance over the years on retired Generals -- such as McCaffrey and Downing -- who were active participants in the Pentagon's propaganda program and who were burdened with all sorts of economic ties that created clear though undisclosed conflicts of interests.

In response, Williams finally addressed Barstow's story on his blog (but not on his network news broadcast), yet did so only by ignoring all of the specific, substantive issues that were raised, instead offering a patronizing little lecture about how Williams himself had developed what he called "a close friendship" with both McCaffrey and Downing, and could therefore assure us that "these men are passionate patriots" who would never offer anything but the most honest and forthright assessments.  That was the full extent of NBC and Williams' response to this story.

Not only has NBC and Williams suppressed this story, but -- more amazingly still -- they continue to feature McCaffrey as an "analyst" on American war policies still without disclosing or even alluding to his participation in the Pentagon program and/or his still-extant business stakes in the policies he's being asked to assess.  Just this past Thursday night -- 3 days ago -- Williams featured McCaffrey on his NBC Nightly News program to opine about American policy in Afghanistan, and McCaffrey was identified only as a Retired General and NBC Military Analyst.

Earlier that same day, McCaffrey was on a different NBC News show to opine about our occupation of Iraq.  Williams also featured McCaffrey on September 6 to opine about Iraq, and on September 9, McCaffrey was featured on MSNBC as having just returned from Afghanistan, and was then asked to analyze American policy in both Afghanistan and Iraq while being identified only as an "NBC military analyst."

All of this took place after the publication of Barstow's April story on the military analysts program which featured McCaffrey, years after The Nation highlighted McCaffrey's numerous business conflicts, and after ample documentation -- including in this space -- of how McCaffrey used his NBC platform repeatedly over the years to advocate pro-war policies that advanced his undisclosed financial interests.  Brian Williams and NBC just ignored all of that.  Indeed, to Bartsow last April, NBC arrogantly "declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts," instead issuing this purposely vague -- and obviously false -- statement:

We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest

Even after that statement was issued, they continued to feature McCaffrey as an analyst to speak about exactly the wars in which -- as Barstow documents even more conclusively today -- he has an overwhelming financial stake.

Just as was true for the media's own complicity in the Bush administration's false pre-war claims (which no network television show, to date, has addressed), as well as for the direct involvement of numerous media stars in the Lewis Libby crimes (which they reported on while pretending that they had no involvement), here is yet another case where major media outlets simply suppress stories that severely indict the integrity of their own "journalism." 

Worse than mere suppression, NBC and Brian Williams have just outright ignored this scandal, continuing to use McCaffrey as an analyst without requiring that he sever -- or even disclose -- his numerous conflicts, allowing him to continue to use NBC News to propagandize for the military policies from which his affiliated companies benefit.  Now that Barstow has added substantially to the set of incriminating facts, it remains to be seen whether NBC will finally be forced to tell its viewers about what happened with its own involvement in the Pentagon's program and/or to take corrective action.

UPDATE:  As several commenters observe, and as I've noted before, there is an irony to this story:  namely, few companies benefit more from massive military spending and wars than NBC's own parent company, General Electric.  Still, the GE/NBC relationship is publicly known and, therefore, everyone can decide for themselves how reliable, if at all, NBC's reporting is on issues that directly affect the company which owns it.  By important contrast, the conflicts of McCaffrey (and other analysts) have been largely undisclosed, thus deceiving viewers when these networks present them as independent analysts of America's war policies.

UPDATE II:  Matt Yglesias:

Barstow published a piece on this back in April. None of the TV networks addressed the issue he raised in anything resembling a serious manner. And, again, we now have NBC News caught flat-out in the midst of corruption, deceiving their viewers. And NBC News isn’t sorry. They’re not apologizing. They’re not ashamed. Because they’re beyond shame. They never had a reputation for honor, so they don’t even see this sort of thing as damaging.

I really don't see how any of that can be denied.  Nonetheless, the damage they caused, and continue to cause, has been immense.

With a new administration ascending to power in a matter of weeks, witnessing Beltway denizens desperately scampering to re-write their role in the last eight years is nothing short of dizzying:

Tom Friedman, New York Times, today:

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect Iraq to have relations with Israel anytime soon, but the fact that it may be developing an independent judiciary is good news. It’s a reminder of the most important reason for the Iraq war: to try to collaborate with Iraqis to build progressive politics and rule of law in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, a region that stands out for its lack of consensual politics and independent judiciaries.

Tom Friedman, The Charlie Rose Show, May 30, 2003 (as part of the #1 museum video exhibit illustrating America's political class during the Bush Era):

ROSE:  Now that the war is over, and there's some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?

FRIEDMAN:  I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.  I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the war was about . . . . What we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I'm afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. . . .

And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: which part of this sentence do you understand?  You don't think we care about our open society? . . . .

Well, Suck. On. This.  That, Charlie, was what this war was about.  

We could have hit Saudi Arabia.  It was part of that bubble.  Could have hit Pakistan.  We hit Iraq because we could.  That's the real truth.

Tom Freidman, NPR's Talk of the Nation, September 23, 2003:

What we had to do, I believe at some point, was to go into the very heart of that world and burst that bubble. And the message was, "Ladies and gentlemen, which part of this sentence don't you understand?" . . . . And that's what I believe ultimately this war was about. And guess what? People there got the message, OK, in the neighborhood. This is a rough neighborhood, and sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 across the side of the head to get that message. But they got the message and the message was, "You will now be held accountable" . . . .

From the deranged desire to force Iraqi civilians from Basra to Baghdad to "suck on" his imaginary "very big stick" -- "pound them across the side of their heads" with his "2-by-4" -- to his magnanimous goal of "collaborating with them" to "build progressive politics," Freidman's justification for the invasion radically changes without notice or acknowledgment. 

Even as recently as May of this year, Friedman was arguing that the "real umbrella story in the Middle East today" is the "Cold War" between what he called -- with typical adolescent, banner-waving simplicity --"Team America" and Iran, and he confessed that everything we're doing in the Middle East is about our our "struggle for influence across the region."  In November of last year, Friedman was again beating his little chest while instructing Barack Obama that -- in order to deal with Iran -- he would need "Tony Soprano by your side, not Big Bird" and would require "a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat [another big stick] into his palm."  Yet today, Friedman seamlessly hauls out the self-glorifying claim that the "most important reason" for the invasion of Iraq is that we wanted to teach them the joys of Freedom.

In 2006 and 2007, our political class was openly flirting with involuntary regret -- and even admissions of wrongdoing -- for its almost unanimous support for the attack on Iraq.  That the war was a disaster was so undeniably clear that support for it was coming to be seen as a source of shame, and some of the most prominent supporters of the war were even resorting to outright falsehoods in order to pretend that they had opposed it from the start.

All of that is changing again.  Even as Americans still overwhelmingly view the war itself as a mistake, we're back to the conventional wisdom among our political class that the invasion was not only justified and wise, but also noble in spirit and motive.  The only problem was Bush's mismanagement of our benevolent quest to free the oppressed.  As Friedman puts it today:

In 2003, the United States, under President Bush, invaded Iraq to change the regime. Terrible postwar execution and unrelenting attempts by Al Qaeda to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war turned the Iraqi geopolitical space into a different problem -- a maelstrom of violence for four years, with U.S. troops caught in the middle. A huge price was paid by Iraqis and Americans. This was the Iraq that Barack Obama ran against.

Freidman's ideological soulmate, The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, similarly editorializes today that what destroyed Bush's presidency was not the war itself or the fact that it was launched based on purely false pretenses and was illegitimate and wrong, but instead, was merely Bush's "mismanagement of the war." 

The war itself was fine and right.  Only its execution was flawed.  We just need better war managers next time.  That's the consensus that has re-emerged.  And much of the palpable establishment excitement over the Obama administration is grounded not in the expectation that he will change this core mentality -- they clearly think, rightly or wrongly, that he won't -- but only that he'll execute and manage it more competently.

For a short while, it appeared that the one silver lining in the carnage and devastation wreaked by the U.S. attack on Iraq would be a palliative effect on the war-loving pathology among our political establishment.  As Vietnam did for some short period of time, Iraq could have re-taught both the evil and stupidity of commencing optional wars against countries that haven't attacked us and couldn't do so, and more generally, could have underscored the grave error in viewing the battle against Muslim extremism through the glorious prism of "War."  

But with this intense Friedmanesque revisionism well underway -- whereby war cheerleaders like Friedman were Right and Good all along and it was only the incompetent Bush and Rumsfeld who ruined everything with their "bumbling" -- it seems increasingly likely that the opposite lesson will be learned.  Attacking, invading and occupying other countries in order to change their governments to ones we prefer is the smart, wise and just thing to do.  Friedman's term for it today is "collaborating with them to build progressive politics."  Especially if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- but even if there isn't -- the only lesson being drawn from the Iraq debacle in these precincts is that from now on, we just need to plan and execute it better, so that the Good and Just people who cheer these wars on have their noble schemes vindicated a lot sooner and a lot more proficiently.