Press conferences are invaluable. I would much rather read the transcript of a press conference than the articles written derived from it. Doug Henwood
-----------
At several points in the long forgotten past, the left, meaning civil rights and anti-war groups did excellent press conferences and basically framed the entire domain of the discourse through well crafted presentations---along with skilled back and forth exchanges with reporters.
Press conferences are an art form all their own. They need a context which in the past was usually a mass demonstration. The press conferences were held before and after to encapsulate the event and the issues surrounding it.
Both Johnson and Nixon were terrible at press conferences, so the contrast between the establishment presentations coming from the White House and the out-of-power ad hoc political group presentations were often stunning. The former were dead, cruel, hard to watch. The latter were lively, talkative, and enjoyable to watch.
In the early 60s, Kennedy did well at press conferences until the civil rights movement leaders got on tv and basically up-staged him. Then people like Malcolm X made press conferences dangerous, adding a level of gravitas that was awesome---and completely capable of threatening the established orders.
Regardless of all the back biting going on in the Cindy Sheehan protests recently, I thought she did an excellent job talking with reporters---especially since she started off as a complete novice and had to find her voice on camera. That kind of growth takes a lot of personal commitment and composure. Good for her. And the contrast with Bush's weak and stupid remarks just illustrated what an appallingly empty political order we live under.
And finally to the Fitzgerald press conference yesterday. I thought it was solid and forceful. But he was obviously used to presenting cases as a prosecutor and basically gave an opening statement before a jury. Fair enough. But at the end of the day, only Libby is standing alone at the dock when he should be among a crowd. The excuse given was that Libby blocked the investigation---which implies that it could have gone further except L refused to rat out his superiors Rove, Cheney, and Bush. He took the fall. I don't buy it. I think that most prosecutors find ways to circumvent the front con-man in a conspiracy.
I think a comparison with Wategate makes an interesting contrast. In Watergate the media were outside the loop and fought to pry loose bits and pieces of information to assemble a mosaic. A similar process unfolded with Iran-Contra. But in the Iraq case, the media were co-opted from the beginning and willingly joined the propaganda machine to promulgate the war. Butler and Novak, and by extension the NYTimes for example were and are accomplices, and therefore have no interest in disclosures---and probably have done all they could to stall rather than facilitate investigations. The once given transparency of journalism itself has been made part of the process of political obfuscation. Sure lefties like Chomsky have made this point for years, but in Iraq the process went way over the top.
So instead of an ever widening mosaic that embraces all the different facets of corruption of the political processes that have characterized the Bush administration from its very inception---including voting fraud and the SC decision that install it in power---Fitzgerald gave us one small piece. Even so its something to see, given that Fitzgerald's boss, Alberto Gonzales wrote the executive branch guidelines to enable the US to imprison, torture, and execute any one it chooses to name as an enemy combatant. Presumably to be done in the name of bringing democracy to a needy world.
But who knows. Maybe we will get lucky. Maybe the judge will become another John Sirica. Recall that the first indictments and trial of the Cubans started off with the presumption that the break in was a CIA operation. Maybe Libby will turn in the course of the trial when he realizes that he is going to take the fall and the fall is going to kill him. If he really faces conviction with ten to twenty years at his age, it is essentially a death sentence. If he is lucky, he will get out long after the dust has settled on this vicious and pathetic administration.
Libby must be asking himself is it worth it?
``Well, if you get a good break, you'll be out of Tehachapi in twenty years and you can come back to me then. I hope they don't hang you, precious, by that sweet neck. Yes, angel, I'm gonna send you over. The chances are you'll get off with life. That means if you're a good girl you'll be out in twenty years. I'll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I'll always remember you.''
CG