The Dish

In a post today, Jonah Goldberg says:

For a great many of us — journalists, bloggers, citizens etc — this story has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. This is my own personal sense of it, but I don’t think very many people who are wading into the Rather story care about what Bush did thirty years ago. I’m sure quite a few of them even dislike Bush a great deal or they aren’t supporting him. Andrew Sullivan (who’s got a good outraged post today) despises Bush. Howard Kurtz is no partisan. The good folks at ABC News are never at the VRWC bingo night Etc, etc.

I think he’s right in his basic point. But I do want to quibble: I do not despise Bush; and I think it’s highly unhelpful to conflate criticism of this president with hatred. I noticed this last night watching Shep Smith on Fox News introduce a segment on Kerry’s criticism of the president as “Bush-bashing.” Yes, there is Bush-bashing. Michael Moore, for example. But there’s also Bush-criticism. I have never met the president, although I know a few people close to him. But he seems like a nice enough guy to me. I’m angry at the way in which he has clearly botched a war I believe in and want to succeed. I’m mad that he has ended fiscal conservatism for a generation, attacked gay civil rights and empowered the religious right. But that doesn’t mean I despise him. I’ve written plenty of fawning things about him in the past – as well as sharp criticism from as long ago as the spring of 2000. I just think he has failed in the most fundamental task set before him: to win the war in Iraq – the primary front in the war on terror. I think he failed to prepare sufficiently, has been too slow to correct error, and has a dangerously out-of-touch attitide to the growing crisis. My anger is deeper because I once believed and hoped. But it is not hatred.

The Green Zone in Baghdad is no longer completely secure. Money quote:

US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees.
At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone’s perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound’s defences.
The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad’s centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it.

(My italics). The president has no excuse for not knowing the disaster that his conduct of the war has unleashed, as his own internal assessment has been bleak. But he refuses to ackowledge reality – perhaps the most dangerous characteristic in a war-president. At this rate, it won’t matter that John Kerry seems unable to make the case against the president. The shambles that this president has created in Iraq war will do it for him.

I have to say that the risible statement given by CBS News last night finally did it for me. Who do these people think they are? They have failed to find a single expert who will back the authenticity of the memos; their own experts say they warned CBS not to go with the story; Killian’s secretary thinks they’re fakes … and yet Rather and Heyward say they stand by their story and will continue to investigate the provenance and dubiousness of the forgeries! This beggars belief. How do I put this to Rather: it doesn’t matter if the underlying story is true. All that matters is that CBS’s evidence is fake. Get it? End of story. For what it’s worth: I believe Bush got into the Guard because of his dad’s connections. I believe he probably didn’t perform his duties adequately in his final two years. When I first read the CBS story, I thought the docs were “devastating.” I’m not backing this president for re-election. But all that is completely beside the frigging point. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate evidence for their claims. CBS didn’t. And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject. The correct response – the one they’d teach you in kindergarten journalism class – is immediately to check the authenticity of the documents as best you can, and if the doubts persist, to apologize immediately and yank the story. Can you imagine what CBS News would do if a government official found to be peddling fake documents refused to acknowledge it? And kept repeating his story nonetheless? They’d be all over it. But, you see, they are above politicians. They are above criticism. And they are stratospheres above bloggers who caught them red-handed.

THE COUP DE GRACE: And then this astonishing statement from Rather to Howie Kurtz:

“If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story. Any time I’m wrong, I want to be right out front and say, ‘Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.'”

Memo to Rather: you can’t break that story, because someone else in pajamas already did. Check the frequency, Kenneth. You are so far from being out front on this, you are leagues behind in the dust. Have you heard of the Internet? You can find it on that weird machine in your office they call a computer. All this proves is the fathomless cocooning of Rather and Heyward. They still think this is the 1980s. They have no idea what media world they are living in. Like Howell Raines, they are so out of it, they don’t even know they’re finished. Above all, they are not acting as journalists. They are acting as political operators, determined to win a news cycle, to inflict as much damage on their opponents as possible, while stonewalling on their own glaring, obvious errors. So this is a test of the blogosphere. We have to keep at these guys day and night to force them to live up to the most basic ethical requirements of their profession. After all this stonewalling and arrogance, an apology and retraction will no longer suffice. These guys have to resign or be fired.

THE ROLE OF BIAS: I was hammered on the Paula Zahn show last night for claiming that the reason for this colossal embarrassment is the obvious anti-Bush bias of Dan Rather and CBS News. No, I don’t think they tried to frame the president (although at this point, nothing would surprise me). I think they so desperately wanted the documents to be legit that they rushed this story onto the air without taking the proper precautions. I know the feeling. I remember back when I was editing TNR, we were sent documents that seemed to prove that Senator Phil Gramm had once been in the KKK. Everything looked legit. And, of course, we were thrilled to have a big story about a politician most of us deeply disliked. But it’s precisely the story that you want to be true that you have to be the most careful about. After many weeks of investigation, and much emotional investment in the story, the docs turned out to be fakes. Bummer, as far as we were concerned. The story never ran. I’m not bragging. It was self-interest that kept us from making an ass out of ourselves. And we were running a liberal opinion magazine, not a newspaper or “60 Minutes.” So what possessed Rather? I think he loathes this president so much that he couldn’t bring himself to see the fakes in front of him. That’s bad enough. But to keep digging in and to try the rescue the story by further reporting is a far worse offense. He’s got to go.

WHO FAKED THEM? Which brings us to the real, juicy question: who did this? I don’t know. Michael Dobbs’ story in today’s Washington Post obviously points toward Bill Burkett. Was he sophisticated enough to create fakes? Did anyone help him? I have no idea. But we should find out. And if and when CBS acknowledges that the docs are fakes, they have no reason to protect their source. He’s not a source. He’s a fraud. Who is he? Answer, the question, Dan. Answer it.

“It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it – and makes so much money!” – a young Iranian, seeing the real lesson of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

KITTY: Mike Crowley has the goods on Kelley. I think of her as a slightly less reliable National Enquirer. Which puts her one step above CBS News.

GET THE HANKIES OUT: Here’s a website devoted to poems about pet loss. Yep, the web has everything.

“Overall, I have many of the same lamentations about Big-Government-Bush as you, and as my views are generally libertarian I find much of the social conservatism distasteful as well. But while I was struggling with how to approach this election for those reasons, I must say that this unspeakably disgusting behavior by CBS has now made my decision easy. I always thought the clear liberal bias at CBS (and others) was just a natural consequence of the way the liberal journalists dominating MSM see the world rather than a concerted effort to push a liberal agenda (the fish don’t feel the water theory, as others have put it). I now see how wrong I was. If CBS is willing to not only shred even the pretense of journalistic ethics, but to actually conspire to commit fraud (as I think the evidence of ignoring experts and standing behind such obvious forgeries shows) in a desperate attempt to throw a presidential election and install their candidate, then I must do everything I can to oppose them. This means becoming an active supporter of President Bush. I would never have imagined that would happen, but all I can say is thanks, CBS, for exposing yourself and clearing things up.” More feedback on the Letters Page. By the way, I’m on Paula Zahn at 8pm wit Howie Kurtz discussing Rathergate.

The roundhead right’s anti-gay constitutional amendment doesn’t seem to be gaining traction in Michigan. Polls tend to under-estimate hostility to gay marriage (people feel a little ashamed of their prejudices when talking to pollsters) but it’s striking to me that in the latest Michigan polls, the ban on gay marriage is currently losing:

Among likely voters, 51 percent said they would vote against such a ban, while just 45 percent said they would support it. Among registered voters, 51 percent were opposed and 44 percent said they would support it, the poll found.

Maybe this stuff will backfire in a few places. Here’s hoping.

This Rather story has the potential to become huge. We can have a few ideas about what’s going on behind closed doors at CBS. Rather is refusing to apologize or quit. Or he’s threatening to bring others down with him. Or the sources for the forgeries are political dynamite – whether they’re connected to the Kerry or the Bush campaigns – and so decisions have to be made about whether to expose them. It’s like a good Washington thriller. And it has the potential to transform the election.

“Just a personal observation about campaign organization which I think HAS to reflect on general organization(or lack of) as well: went to see Kerry the day after the convention in downtown Scranton. Showed up over two hours past scheduled start time, in the heat. Many people pissed off due to the caste structure of proximity to the stage. Had water trucks but ran out of cups. EVERYONE from Ben Affleck through Teresa through the Edwards’ and finally Kerry, blathered on endlessly. Bush comes to Scranton day after convention at the local baseball stadium. Scheduled for 9:30. He and Laura step out of the dugout at exactly 9:30. Beverages and Krispy Kreme donuts for sale. Everyone happy because it is set up so everyone can see either from the seats or on the field.” And people wonder why Bush is winning.

“Yesterday was primary day in Massachusetts and it was a good day for marriage equality. Every incumbent who voted for equality and who faced an opponent won. In addition, two anti-equality incumbents lost to equality challengers. Neither will face an opponent in November. And a pro-equality candidate won an open seat being vacated by an anti-equality representative.
In a related couple of stories, today’s polls in the Boston Globe show that gay marriage is not high on the voters’ priority list here and that Gov. Romney’s popularity continues a slow but steady decline. Maybe because of this, Romney has been saying that gay marriage will not be a Republican theme in this year’s November elections here. He has decided that Republicans have a wide range of opinions on the topic and it is best left to each individual to decide. Sounds to me like he’s discovered that anti-marriage equality is a loosing proposition here.” I have a feeling that marriage equality forces are going to win a popular mandate in Massachusetts. And then the roundhead right will have to make their case not on the judicial activism point but on the substantive argument that gay people must be kept out of marriage for the institution to survive. They’ll lose that argument, because they have no hard evidence to support it. And against the appeal of formal equality and states’ rights, they will have an uphill struggle.

This new story seems to me to show reckless indifference to the truth in the pursuit of political pay-dirt. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up. If a couple of years back, someone had predicted that a) Howell Raines would be brought down by a fabricating affirmative action hire; b) the BBC would lose its director-general because of shoddy anti-war propaganda tarted up as journalism; and c) that Dan Rather would flame out over forged documents designed to wreak revenge on the Bush family; then I would think it was Brent Bozell having a wet dream. But it’s all true. Bernie Goldberg, pour yourself a drink. Eric Alterman, just go home and cry.