Politico says a reporter has resigned after editors determined she had plagiarized stories about transportation, most recently from a New York Times article.

Editor-in-chief John F. Harris and executive editor Jim VandeHei said in an online note that the stories by Kendra Marr "borrowed from the work of others, without attribution, in ways which we cannot defend and will not tolerate."

Editors said when they compared the articles and six other pieces by Marr, they found "troubling similarities to work earlier published by others." Read more;

Less than three years ago, Dick Cheney was presiding over policies that left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead from a war of aggression, constructed a worldwide torture regime, and spied on thousands of Americans without the warrants required by law, all of which resulted in his leaving office as one of the most reviled political figures in decades. But thanks to the decision to block all legal investigations into his chronic criminality, those matters have been relegated to mere pedestrian partisan disputes, and Cheney is thus now preparing to be feted -- and further enriched -- as a Wise and Serious Statesman with the release of his memoirs this week: one in which he proudly boasts (yet again) of the very crimes for which he was immunized.  As he embarks on his massive publicity-generating media tour of interviews, Cheney faces no indictments or criminal juries, but rather reverent, rehabilitative tributes, illustrated by this, from Politico today:

That's what happens when the Government -- marching under the deceitful Orwellian banner of Look Forward, Not Backward -- demands that its citizens avert their eyes from the crimes of their leaders so that all can be forgotten: the crimes become non-crimes, legitimate acts of political choice, and the criminals become instantly rehabilitated by the message that nothing they did warrants punishment.  That's the same reason people like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales are defending their torture and illegal spying actions not in a courtroom but in a lush conference of elites in Aspen.

The U.S. Government loves to demand that other countries hold their political leaders accountable for serious crimes, dispensing lectures on the imperatives of the rule of law.  Numerous states bar ordinary convicts from profiting from their crimes with books.  David Hicks, an Australian citizen imprisoned without charges for six years at Cheney's Guantanamo, just had $10,000 seized by the Australian government in revenue from his book about his time in that prison camp on the ground that he is barred from profiting from his uncharged, unproven crimes.  

By rather stark contrast, Dick Cheney will prance around the next several weeks in the nation's largest media venues, engaging in civil, Serious debates about whether he was right to invade other countries, torture, and illegally spy on Americans, and will profit greatly by doing so.  There are many factors accounting for his good fortune, the most important of which are the protective shield of immunity bestowed upon him by the current administration and the more generalized American principle that criminal accountability is only for ordinary citizens and other nations' (unfriendly) rulers.

Glenn Greenwald is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Glenn Greenwald

Barack Obama’s primetime address – in which he announced that the U.S. military will hand NATO allies enforcement of the no-fly zone and arms embargo in the North African nation – was roundly applauded by GOP moderates and conservatives alike.

House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) said Obama offered “surprising details” about America’s strategy and greatly clarified the question of how large a supporting role the U.S. military will play in Libya.

The Presidents speech satisfied concerns about his handling of America’s involvement in Libya,” Price said. “It provided a substantive plan for the future and that it has provided the type of clear, coherent leadership need.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said it was helpful for Americans to hear from Obama and they were very pleased to get satisfying answers to their questions on Libya.

“Whether it’s the American resources that will be required, our standards and objectives for engaging the rebel opposition, or how this action is consistent with U.S. policy goals, the speech provided Americans much clarity to our involvement in Libya,” Steel said in a statement. “Only nine days into this military intervention, and Americans can see the answer to the fundamental question: what does success in Libya look like?”

During his nearly half-hour address, Obama pledged to seek the ouster of Libya dictator Muammar Qadhafi through diplomatic efforts, but said using military force to remove him would be a “mistake.”

America had already gone down that road in a costly war in Iraq, Obama said.

“Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means,” Obama said. “But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

His 2008 presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), characterized Obama’s comments as “powerful,” adding that “Qadhafi must be very unnerved by that.”

“If we end up in a situation where Qadhafi is able to cling to power, then we could easily see a reenactment of the first Gulf War: stalemate, a no-fly zone that lasted for 10 years that didn’t bring Saddam Hussein out of power, I can see where President Obama is not going to allow that to happen.” McCain said during an interview on CNN.

Other GOP senators expressed similar confidence about improbability of a long-term military campaign in Libya.

“When our men and women in uniform are sent into harm’s way, Americans and troops deserve a clear mission from our commander-in-chief, like the one the President gave on Monday night,” said Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas.

Freshman Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Obama defined the goals and mission of U.S. involvement in Libya weeks ago, and called the president’s response to the Libya conflict “steady and certain.”

“I’m hopeful our efforts in Libya are met with quick success,” he said, “and at this time I remain deeply committed to the President’s strategy which I know will result in great respect for America in the region and throughout the world.”

Democratic leaders also lauded the speech, saying that he laid out a clear vision for Libya’s freedom. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) emphasized that the U.S. acted alongside a broad coalition of international partners.

“America and its allies stand alongside the Libyan people as they determine their future,” Reid said in a statement. “While I support the president’s decision not to commit ground troops to this mission, I share the president’s determination to see this tyrant removed from power.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also commended the president adding that members of Congress will receive classified briefings later this week about the U.S.’s role in the Libya conflict.

“Tonight, President Obama spoke to the nation about limited American participation in international efforts to protect innocent Libyans from the ‘show no mercy’ threat by Qaddafi,” she said. “Action was taken to stave off a humanitarian crisis saving thousands of lives.”

A handful of House Democrats said Obama’s speech still left them with unanswered questions.

“Tonight the president stated his rationale for the military action in Libya, but I still have significant questions about our involvement in that country,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Co.) said in a statement. “I remain eager to hear additional details regarding the causes for and the scope of our continued engagement in Libya on Wednesday, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates will provide a classified briefing to Congress.”

And Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) said he remained concerned “we didn’t get a clear and accurate accounting from the president” about the cost of the Libya conflict.

“We’ve got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and Americans deserve to hear from our President what this third conflict is going to cost us,” he said.

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who himself is entertaining a run for president, accused Obama of overstepping his executive authority by failing to seek Congress’s approval before ordering military strikes on Libya.

“If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict,” Paul said in a pre-taped video response to Obama’s speech.

“While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.”

But then that's just Rand Paul ...... he's an ass hole, ........ everybody knows that!

(I suppose I should have put a note at the top of the article saying this article should only be read on April 1st.) 8^)}

As it becomes more clear the Barack Obama is likely to get the democratic nomination, and as it is all but confirmed that McCain will get the republican nomination. The question now is, who will be their VP's? Condoleeza Rice this past week said she had no intention of running as a Vice Presidential candidate, but that just means there's still so many people to choose from, and so many more for Obama.

Will Obama pick Clinton and unite the divided party? First Women VICE President, still is a first....

Post your thoughts and opinions below, please.

The Whiz

The news media abhors a vacuum and will make mistakes in its rushed attempts to fill that vacuum. The problem is on both sides of the equations; readers and viewers demand answers to questions that can't yet be answered so writers and producers provide speculation.

The last 24 hours of news regarding U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards is a perfect example of this trend, which is frustrating to all sides.

Prior examples of this trend include the rush to print and report rumors, which later turned out to be false, about murders in stadiums and convention centers in New Orleans post-Katrina, as well as the reports, which also turned out to be tragically wrong, about the number of people killed in the mine accident in Sago, W. Va.

Obviously, this mistake and the event itself pale in comparison to those events but my point here is
to note the continuance of a disturbing trend.

When you hear that there is going to be a news conference the following day but that details won't be released until the time of the news conference something unhealthy happens: People Want Answers. Well, that part itself is not unhealthy and dangerous so much as it is a function of our curiosity (good), our impatience (bad) and our inability to deal with the fact that sometimes we just can't know everything (really bad.)

Feeling that their thirst for knowledge and information must be immediately sated some people then turn to the Internet and cable television.

To meet this demand people on television and on the Internet then provide speculation, much of it guesswork and a lot of it just plain wrong.

Old media will later blame the mess on new media but it's not a problem of the medium so much as it is the people involved, both the consumers and the providers.

Once you hear about the scheduling of a news conference on an important issue or by an important person – in this case John Edwards – your best bet is to just turn off your television, or at least stay away from television news stations because the odds are good that whatever is reported will be wrong. Actually avoiding television news is probably good advice all the time but especially during these times.

Sure enough, while Googling this morning I came across a report, quoting an unnamed source (that's always a red flag) saying that Edwards was going to halt his election campaign in order to stand by his woman (his wife) in the hour of need, as a doctor has found that she has cancer.

Turns out the much hyped new political web site, The Politico, reported at 11:06 a.m. that "John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely. . . ''

Other blogs reacted to that site and the report was taken by some as being gospel.

Meanwhile, Washington television station WYLT's Web site attributed to CBS news a report that Edwards was dropping out and the Drudge Report also announced Edwards was out of the race.

My initial reaction was respect and admiration for Edward's action, thinking, "Why that's just the kind of kind-hearted, noble deed I'd LIKE to see a president do."

I checked a few other Internet sites and saw some were not reporting this fact and that's also another red flag. Either someone jumped the gun or someone is about to fall on their face, I figured.

Indeed a few hours later the Associated Press was reporting that Edwards planned to continue his campaign despite his wife's repeat cancer diagnosis.

My reaction this time? "What a cold-hearted, selfish jerk," I thought. And yet I realized I would never have had that reaction were it not for that earlier false report, which is not Edward's fault at all.

This piece for the San Francisco Gate.com sums up the mess well.

You can expect there to be some of the usual handwringing by media watchdogs, as occurred post-Katrina and post-mine coverage, about what went wrong. The Politico reporter has apologized for his error.

But this is something that will happen again and again, each time there is a vacuum in the news.

Obviously, this mistake and the event itself pale in comparison to those events but my point here is
to note the continuance of a disturbing trend.

What's the solution? Patience would be good. But in today's world where people take cell phones and laptops with them on vacation for fear they might miss anything "important" it may be too much to expect people to wait for news until, well, it happened.

Instead, I guess, all I can say that this is one prediction which won't be proven wrong: This is a problem that is going to happen again and again. But then that prediction won't get me on CNN.

But I can live with that. Can you?