If you believe the corporate newsmedia, we are supposed to feel warm fuzzies about President Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad. Why are we supposed to feel good about it? Because he made a very public and very scripted show of supporting the troops which consisted of a whopping three hours with 600 (no doubt carefully selected) troops? Or perhaps because his conduct of a bloody, senseless war and a bloody, pointless occupation has turned the Iraqi people against him so much that he has to sneak into Baghdad like a thief in the night?
You might think that my cynicism about George Bush’s personality is getting the better of me: these lies, for example, are ultimately quite inconsequential bits of venality on the White House story-tellers. Isn’t it kind of petty to harp on them, especially when Bush’s bigger lies led us into an unjustified and illegal war?
Well, in one sense this sort of thing is venal and inconsequential. But in another sense, it goes right to the rotten heart of the Bush administration—that is, a man who is essentially petty and venal at his own core. Bush is, after all, the same man who evidently delights in hollow Caesarian triumphs like the landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln back in May, parades around in the bomber jacket that he earned by going AWOL on a cushy Air National Guard post during Vietnam, and who continues to set new standards for contemptuous official secrecy and scripting of press conferences. It has become common on the Left to see George Bush as the diabolical figurehead of a neferious Right-wing conspiracy against truth, justice, and the American way, with resources bordering on the limitless and motives bordering on the Satanic. But he is nowhere near as grandiose in his wickedness as all that (very few evil people actually are — Dante was closer to the truth about the Devil than Milton). Bush is, ultimately, a sad little man with sad little pretensions to the alleged glory of power. If the Bush administration seems like a political Leviathan at the moment, it’s only because it is bloated up with a lot of gas: the best way to deal with it is not to assail it with apocalyptic rhetoric but rather to deflate it, and show it up for the sorry mistake that it is.
I’ve already posted my thoughts for Veteran’s Day in this space; President Bush, meanwhile, got an early start on his Veteran’s Day festivities by refusing to use Saddam Hussein’s seized assets to compensate 17 Gulf War I P.O.W.s who were tortured by Saddam Hussein. Federal law allowed them to sue the regime and to access its seized assets, but here’s what White House Press flack Scott McClellan
had to say about that:
Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration’s position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?
I don’t know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States — first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. That’s what our view is.
But, so — but isn’t it true that this White House —
They think they’re is an —
Excuse me, Helen — that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
Again, there’s simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering —
Why won’t you spell out what your position is?
I’m coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?
I disagree with the way you characterize it.
But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn’t that money, per a judge’s order, available to these victims?
That’s why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through —
— you don’t think they should get money?
— at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served —
That’s not the issue —
— who heroically served our nation.
Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.
No, but it hasn’t been addressed. They’re entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?
I don’t view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was —
But you are opposed to them getting the money.
This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there’s simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein —
Last Friday L. and I met up with some friends to go see Michael Moore, who was giving a talk in Ypsilanti. It was hilarious of course–with a protesting delegation of the Young Americans for Freedom providing spreading some unintentional extra humor outside. One of the best points that Mike made during the night was his briefly mentioning how Al Franken had succeeded where so many other liberal and Leftist commentators had failed: taking down FOX News. It didn’t happen through a bunch of whining and accusations of bias; it happened by telling the truth, making it funny, and then using their own public belligerence to reveal what collosal asses they are. Now, FOX News is just a national joke. (Albeit still a very rich and high-rated national joke.)
Of course, that doesn’t mean that there’s no role for a bit of whining and hectoring from time to time; dour pedantry provides a necessary base of information for uncovering the simple truths that wittier people tell. At least, that’s what I tell myself to help justify my own project. In that spirit, I’d like to note the following:
(text from former FOX News employee Charlie Reina, link thanks to Tom Tomorrow)
The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there – as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox – including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America – did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn’t warning me to be careful how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan (You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him.), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean (You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don’t get the last word.)
. . .
But the roots of FNC’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration’s point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious – information on who is where and what they’ll be covering – there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors’ copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan’s remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are with the Iraqi people. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought. Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only food for thought, but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General’s remarks as utterly incomprehensible?
The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox’s newsroom personnel into action – or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be whining about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent’s report on the day’s fighting – simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.
These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management’s politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management’s point of view, and, in case they’re not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.
Let me repeat a bit of that again:
They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible.
There is a story that, when Nixon made his historic trip to China in 1972, he and Kissinger watched as Zhou Enlai was presented with a folderful of papers, which he leafed through, and handed back with a nod. When Kissinger asked what had happened, the translator told him that Zhou had just approved the layout of the next day’s People’s Daily. Nixon, it is said, muttered, I’d like to rearrange a front page now and then.
Need I make the obvious point? Don’t let anyone tell you that there’s been no political progress in the past 30 years.
One of the favorite satirical devices of Karl Kraus, an acerbic critic writing in the last days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was to simply print verbatim quotes from prominent Viennese figures, without any additional commentary. Sadly, the tactic has only become more necessary since the end of the Great War–particularly within the discursive world of televised debate.
While inspectors in Iraq continue searching for weapons of mass destruction, some Americans are outraged at the president that so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our next guest thinks that’s grounds for impeachment.
We’re joined by the publisher of Harper’s magazine, John MacArthur, who’s with us. And the author of the best selling book, Treason, Ann Coulter is with us.
It’s not even really intellectually worth discussing. After reading your article, my first reaction is to bubble and fizz and get mad. My second reaction is this is beyond silly, you know, but you really believe this?
Why do you invite me to go on the show if you think it’s beyond discussion?
Because Alan wanted you on. That’s why.
OK. But clearly…
It wasn’t my first choice.
Clearly, if the president of the United States has lied on a grand scale to Congress…
Name me one lie. Name me one lie.
Let me finish.
If you’re going to call him a liar, back it
up.
I will, yes. I’ll talk about what he said
to Bush…Blair at the press conference on September 7 at Camp
David. He said…he cited a non-existent report from the
International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that Saddam was six
months away from developing a nuclear weapon and infamously said,
What more evidence do we need? And from there…
We don’t have time for a speech.
… we moved on to aluminum tubes. We
moved on to connections with Al Qaeda.
Did you call…
We talked about an atomic bomb threat
that did not exist. Sean, this didn’t exist. This didn’t exist.
This isn’t a speech time.
You need me to give you the facts.
I’ve got to ask you, did you call for the
impeachment of Bill Clinton?
I wasn’t interested in the impeachment of
Bill Clinton.
You weren’t interested? So you’re only
interested in the impeachment of Republicans?
No, no, no, no. I mean, it’s…Listen, I
can’t stand Bill Clinton.
Did Bill Clinton lie to the American
people?
Yes.
Why do you have one standard for him and
another standard for a Republican?
I have the same standard for both of
them.
No, you don’t. Because you didn’t write an
article asking for his impeachment.
Actually, what I’m trying to tell you is
that if you, as Senator Graham put it a few months ago very
intelligently, if you apply the same standard to Bush that was
applied to Clinton, then it’s impeachable. He should be impeached.
Absolutely.
Ann…
Because as Alexander Hamilton said in
The Federalist Papers, this has to do with the
immediate consequences and harm done to society. What could be
greater harm than the deaths of American soldiers…
Excuse me. The immediate
consequences…Sir, you have yet to…
… in Iraq, who have been sent to Iraq
on a fraudulent pretext, utterly…
My patience is really running thin.
… and they’re dying.
Could you please be quiet, because there
are other people on the panel?
OK. Sure.
The idea here, he cannot give a specific
example.
I did give a specific example.
He’s full of crap.
I did give an example.
And this is just, hatred of George W. Bush
now has become a sport for these guys.
Ann Coulter?
First of
all, I agree with you. I hate to treat this seriously by
responding, but the particular lie that he cited as his leading,
case in chief of the president lying, yes, Bush cited something
like the Atomic Energy Commission. He misspoke.
Right.
It was the International Institute for
Strategic Studies or something. He misspoke about the name of the
institute.
No, he didn’t. He didn’t.
It’s my turn now. You stop that.
OK.
Point two, as you know, I’m something of an
authority on the grounds for impeachment. And this is precisely the
sort of thing that impeachment is not for. I mean, it’s not for
policy disagreements. It’s certainly not for something that is in
the president’s prerogative, such as waging war, for example.
To take a decision that I think is appalling, but is not grounds
for impeachment. Bill Clinton sending a small Cuban boy back to a
Bolshevik monster in Cuba. That is not grounds for impeachment,
because that is part of the president’s authority.
Ann…
You don’t impeach for disagreements over
policy. It is for misbehavior; that is what misdemeanor means. It’s
for bad decorum.
Ann, we didn’t let Rick make a speech. You
can’t make a speech, either.
Well, actually, you did.
I know it’s hard, but if you look to your
left, I know that’s difficult.
Look, I don’t think he should be impeached. I disagree with Rick
about that.
That’s very big of you.
Thank you. I think I’d rather put our time
and effort toward 2004, and just like I don’t think Bill Clinton
should have been impeached, I don’t.
But I understand Rick’s point. There are many Americans who
increasingly seem to feel that we were not leveled with, for
whatever reason, whether it was Bush who did it or people in his
administration who gave him false information.
He did say the IAEA reported that Iraq was six months away from a
nuclear capability, which turned out not to be true. It’s a scare
tactic.
He got the name of the institute wrong.
Saying I misspoke, and they said they
misspoke about a number of things. Misspoke about uranium. They
misspoke about tubes, misspoke about how many things.
Right.
Misspoke lets him off the hook?
No. Liberals don’t want to fight terrorism.
You want there to be lots of 9/11’s.
Glad tidings!Today, Roy Moore faced an ethics panel for his defiance of a federal court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building. And the news just in is that they have issued a formal complaint against Moore — suspending him from his duties on the Alabama Supreme Court while the complaint goes before the Court of the Judiciary. If the complaint is upheld in the Court, Moore could be removed from the bench — a victory not only for the rule of law, but for the people of Alabama: someone who is willing to defy a federal court order in order to pull a petty political stunt and push his fundamentalist agenda is a threat to all of us.
Whichever way it turns out, the Associate Justices have at least found the backbone to unanimously overrule Moore and order that the monument be removed from the rotunda [WSFA]. (They can overrule the normal administrative authority of the Chief Justice by a unanimous vote.) So the state of Alabama will most likely not be facing fines for non-compliance, and the damn thing will be moved.
This phase of the battle is winding down, and unless something unexpected happens, you can count on the story to drop out of the national limelight soon. Unfortunately, the whole chain of events has left the national press more or less mystified as to what was going on. Worse, they didn’t realize that they were mystified; they simply substituted their own cariacature of Southern politics for the facts of the matter — redneck jamboree might be an apt description of the picture you get of the events in Montgomery from the coverage in, say, the Washington Post or the New York Times. So let me take a moment to talk about some of these misconceptions.
First, while Moore certainly has a strong base of support amongst white conservatives in Alabama — that’s how he got elected, after all — the crazy-Right Christian fundamentalist demonstrators who have been picked out as mouthpieces for Moore are, by and large, not from Alabama. The events in Montgomery were coordinated on the ground by flacks of the Christian Coalition; supporting organizations flew people in from nearly every state. Although there were certainly Alabamians demonstrating outside of the courthouse, local newsreporters found that they were distinctly a minority amidst the crowds brought in by the Christian Defense Council, Christian Coalition, and others. Meanwhile in television punditry, the only major Alabama faces were John Giles of the Alabama Christian Coalition and Roy Moore himself. Most commentary came from yet more out-of-state professional Christians, such as representatives from Concerned Women for America.
The point of all this is that national media has gotten it wrong about who they are reporting on; it’s not a matter of Alabamians, but rather a matter of the nation-wide network of Religious Right fundamentalists, who happen to be using events in Alabama as their focal point. To say that this reflects one way or another on Alabama is no more accurate than to say the 500 attendees of Southern Girls Convention 2001 in Auburn make Alabama a hotbed of radical feminist activism.
Closely related to this misunderstanding are the incessant comparisons that the national press makes between Roy Moore and George Wallace. Sure, both of them are Southern demagogues who rode a hard Right white quasi-populism to public office and national attention. Sure, both of them acted in defiance of federal courts demanding protection of the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Sure, both of them had a penchant for flamboyant confrontation and ultimately served to embarass the state of Alabama in the national spotlight. But the similarities end there. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Roy Moore’s position and his motivations to read this as just another crisis over the powers of Southern states vis-a-vis the federal government. Although some of those supporting Roy Moore have given states’ rights as a reason against obeying the federal court, that is not the primary reasons that Roy Moore gives. Here are the reasons that Moore gives:
Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from
our government. It was never meant to separate God from our
law.
The question is not whether I will remove the monument. It is not a
question of whether I will disobey or obey a court order. The real
question is whether or not I will deny the God that created us.
It’s not about states’ rights for Moore; it’s about Jesus. The issue is not his understanding of federalism but rather his understanding of the proper relationship between God and the State. His aims are not decentralist, but rather theocratic. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the new breed of confrontational conservatism that Moore and his followers represent — a breed of conservatism that the Religious Right has been spreading for the past 30 years or so now.
Complaining about the Yankee press, of course, is not to say that there are not plenty of homegrown misunderstandings of Moore — there are lots, coming from his own defenders. But comments on the Right-wing deviationists will have to wait for a while. In the meantime, let’s just bask in the glow of these happy events: Roy Moore is suspended from his position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Hosanna, and amen.
