What you read in the paper, and what I reproduced here, was the 27-inch version of Sunday’s column. Here are some of the bits that I cut out of the 63-inch version — my (very) rough draft. The first excerpt is an expansion of something I used. Most of the rest had to be cut out entirely:
… Taking sides is seen as not only unprofessional, but unethical.
In some ways, this is healthy. You don’t get uncritical reporting that formations of “many planes,” which according to a U.S. general were “undoubtedly enemy aircraft” had flown over the San Francisco Bay area. You aren’t told as late as nine days after the Pearl Harbor attack that the Japanese had succeeded in sinking only one of our battleships.
In some ways, it is excessive. It’s not hard to imagine how the events of 60-plus years ago would be reported today — and not only by the Times…. We’d learn that American paratroopers had been dropped everywhere except where they were supposed to be, that they had been drugged for airsickness, causing many of them to fall asleep on the way over the channel, and that they had been issued untested “leg bags” that ripped off when their ’chutes opened, causing many to land without weapons or ammunition. We’d hear estimates of French civilian casualties, and tallies of scores of Americans killed by friendly fire.
All of which would be true. And demoralizing.I was on vacation and therefore somewhat out of the loop the
week this story broke. I think the first I heard of the “Swift” operation was when I tuned in to the
middle of an interview about it on National Public Radio. An administration
official was assuring the interviewer that the program wasn’t all that
extensive, and therefore nothing to worry about on privacy grounds.(ROBERT) SIEGEL: So if I’m a Somali immigrant who drives a cab in Washington, D.C., but I’ve already had difficulty at the airport. I discover that I’m on some list somewhere. My transactions if they go through a bank that works with SWIFT, I should pretty well assume that they’re being, my transactions are being surveiled in that sense.
Mr. LEVEY: Truthfully, no. I think that even that is going too far. We don’t just do searches on everybody on any watch list or whatever. What happens is we’re doing counter terrorism, we’re pursuing a counter terrorism investigation, and we get a lead that this person is a terrorist facilitator. This person is the donor to a terrorist organization, or this person is an operative.(Stuart Levey is Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.)
My reaction was, “What?!? Why the hell not? What’s the point of having a list? Do we want another 9/11?” As security measures go, tracking such accounts would seem to beat frisking blue-haired grannies at the airport.
This, of course, was before I knew that the SWIFT program was at the center of a high-stakes confrontation between the Bush administration and the Fourth Estate. And if you read some of the comments on my blog, you might think this is a simple matter in which the Bush lovers are convinced that The New York Times wants us to lose to the terrorists, while the Bush-haters are celebrating the Times as the irreproachable champion of the people’s “right to know.”
Such a dichotomy leaves little room for those of us who believe passionately in a free press, sincerely want our nation to prevail on the war on terror, have a lot of problems with George W. Bush, and are not offended by having our phone or bank records included in databases that are combed for terrorist connections. People like me.
As I sort of halfway paid attention to the controversy over the next few days, it began to creep into my mind that this time, some of my more vaunted ink-stained brethren may have gone too far. It was not the first time I have had such thoughts…I may have started my professional career after the Watergate break-in, but when it comes to life-and-death decisions regarding national security, I tend to be a product of another age. I’m not volunteering to pour the lighter fluid when Bill Keller is tied to the stake or anything. But I do find myself questioning the judgment of many in this journalistic generation….
(Critics) think the press is partisan, arrogant and unAmerican. The truth is more complicated than that, but not necessarily more pleasant. I have known few journalists in my day who were consciously and openly partisan in their words and deeds (and among those few, some were actually Republican; imagine that). Of course, journalists are often masters of self-deception….
And yes, plenty of us are arrogant. Sort of like test pilots. If you didn’t have an exaggerated sense of your own abilities, you wouldn’t put your byline on a controversial front-page story any more than you would push a hurtling aircraft up against the edge of its performance envelope….
But here’s the flaw in their (Keller’s and Baquet’s) logic: It’s not like this just fell in their laps and they had to decide whether to run it or not. They had to decide first to pursue it. There’s a difference….
And unAmerican? No way. They reflect America, or great swathes of it, anyway. They have to survive in a free market. America in 1944 would not have tolerated newspapers that published such stories. America in 2006 may or may not. But it’s not the government who will determine that. Readers will. That’s why editors scramble to explain themselves when they are at the center of controversy….
I’ll be uncharacteristically generous and include the TV cowboys as “journalists” within this context. It seemed to me that they were the first to start us down this road. Since I get most of my news from print, I found myself wondering — oh, a couple of years back — why public confidence in our Iraq endeavor was declining. From what I was reading, things were proceeding about as I expected. Of course, I had expected us to spend pretty much the rest of my life building the nation back up. (Germany, an enormous economy that was more technologically advanced than we were in many fields, gave us a lot more to work with. And in case you hadn’t noticed, we still have a lot of troops there, 61 years after V-E Day.)
Then, I went to give blood down at the Red Cross one day (something I tried to do Friday, and something you should do, too, as there is a critical shortage of all types). As I was lying there trying not to think about what was flowing out of my arm, I actually paid attention to the network news report blaring from the screen hanging from the ceiling. Wow. Suicide bombing after mosque attack after IED, in seemingly endless profusion. And I understood. If that was what all the millions of people who “get their news from television” were seeing out of Iraq, the mere fact that we hadn’t withdrawn completely was impressive evidence of a steely national resolve.
Related Posts
Edmonton
Canada
July 9, 2006.
Dear Mr. Warthen;
In the absence of any terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001, many people are losing their fear that there even is a terrorist threat. As for Iraq, the war is already won, and decisively so. The whole thing was a one-sided massacre, and the Iraqis, and anyone else in the region, got the intended point, which was that Americans can kill anyone they don’t like, and an American president can con Americans into supporting the killing.
But now he occupation of Iraq is failing. The bill to continue the occupation is 500 American lives and 150 billion dollars a year, and the situation just keeps getting worse. Iraq’s new governors will be forced to set up a police state, and American forces will be forced to uphold it. Everyone in Washington and the Pentagon knows this, and the press knows it too, so it’s no wonder that many in the media want to hasten the inevitable day when the United States will quit Iraq.
Ian Coleman.
Brad,
Mark this on the calendar because for once I can’t anything for which to castigate you. I want a free press but I wish the traitors at the NYT would exercise a little responsibility. Fortunately, besides just hurting their own business prospects, this sort of treason also seems to be backfiring:
NYT’s Media Menagerie & Netroots Hand Reps 2006
Two core Democrat constituencies, mass media scrouges of the Bush administration and Leftist activists, are handing the 2006 elections to the Republicans.
For those who expected or feared the 2006 state and Congressional elections to be nationalized on the issue of widespread Iraq war-weariness, instead the nationalized issue is becoming the undermining of domestic security by the bridge-too-far route taken by the mass media allied with the New York Times and its netroots shock-troops (shock, in this case, being how outrageous can their conspiracy theories get).
Compared to the complexities and frustrations of military action in an alien culture halfway around the globe, on the issue of domestic security there is not widespread weariness nor confusion. The common American expectation is of safety at home, in one’s everyday peaceful pursuits, in the freedom to congregate or travel without fear, and that criminals – especially foreign-allied terrorists – should be vigorously stopped.
Always astute and succinct Robert Caldwell today summarizes the survey data about how this is “A political battle Bush is winning.” A href=http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/002643.html> Here’s the Whole Thing.
Ian, living peacefully up there in Edmonton under the military umbrella of the USA, while not paying a dime for that protection, harps on against the war. If Ian didnt have American protection, he would have been under Russian rule long ago. So Ian can afford to yak like John Lennon, All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance and feel so self righteous about it. Maybe if one of those N.Korean missiles lands on Edmonton he may wise up someday.
What joke to receive criticism from Canada, the model of mongrelization. They sold immigration and citizenship to anyone with $250,000, and now are overrun with illegal aliens and racial gangs.
The leader of the plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel was a professor in Canada.
Canada won’t even let any American come there on business or vacation if they have had a misdemeanor conviction in the last 5 years, but they are let in Arab hijackers and bombers.
If any Canadian is worried about a “police state”, they should start with repealing Canada’s absurd gun registration laws.
Brad, your memory is a bit selective on this matter. In the early stages of this Iraq war, most of the coverage (by the embedded reporters) was pretty rah-rah and positive regarding American success in the initial invasion. The first Gulf War was also covered in a way which primarily celebrated our success with new military technology which we were finally given a chance to try out.
You’re probably mostly right about the different way WWII was covered; but to me that has at least as much to do with the different role America had in the world then versus now. There was vigorous difference of opinion between Sept. 1939 and Dec. 1941 about whether the US should have gotten involved in the war, but after Pearl Harbor, the nation was more or less united. There were clear battle lines drawn between nation-states, a continuation really of conflicts from at least the early nineteenth century. The Allied military effort was a truly internationally supported cause; press coverage of that war largely reflected the nearly unanimous support in America for the war effort. (Of course, positive press spin to boost morale isn’t a guarantee of military success—the Germans were consistently told they were doing just great right up until Allied tanks rolled across their border).
Vietnam, CIA adventurism in Iran and Guatemala in the 50’s, Chile in 1973, funding of rightist death squads in Central America in the 70’s and 80’s, Iran-Contra, and now Iraq has given many in the world a different view of the role that America is playing in the world, different than the role we played in the 1940’s.
Press coverage in the months following 9/11 reflected the more “united state” of this country at that time, the greater international support. You are forgetting that as well. Bush and pals squandered this support by seizing on it as a chance to implement long-treasured geopolitical theories and an alteration of the constitutional balance of powers, and press coverage now reflects a widespread suspicion of their motives. What’s the great mystery?
“Vietnam, CIA adventurism in Iran and Guatemala in the 50’s, Chile in 1973, funding of rightist death squads in Central America in the 70’s and 80’s, Iran-Contra, and now Iraq”
Would you mind also detailing the earlier depredations, incursions and invasions by the communists, and now Islamic fascists, that caused us to intervene in those places?
Pseudo-liberals have selective memory, forgetting the ethnic cleansing by the Sandanistas to grab the lands of native tribes in Nicaragua. Socialist Democrats were thrilled to see the Soviets putting a footprint in Central America while Jimmy Carter stook idly by as the communists conducted terror campaigns against elected officials throughout the region.
Reagan and Ollie North did the right thing, trying to increase the political power of Iranian moderates by enabling them to bring in medical supplies. The Democrats and press mislabeled it “arms dealing”, and helped the Islamic radicals purge all voices of moderation.
Sure, LexWolf, I’d be happy to. Democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in Iran, early 1950’s, dared to attempt to nationalize the oil industry; US (CIA) and Britain, appalled, instigated a coup. Democratically elected Guatemalan leader Arbenz gets United Fruit Company peeved, is ousted in coup engineered in part by CIA in alliance with right-wing military forces in Guatamala. Estimates of civilians killed between 1954-1990: roughly 100,000. All communists, I suppose, LW. Vietnam speaks for itself, history is already pretty clear on that subject. Islamic fascists? You can call Saddam Hussein a lot of things, thug, murderer, despot, but Islamic fascism had nothing to do with what his regime was all about. His was not an Islamic state. Iran, yes.
This is a truly great country, LexWolf, and one of the things that makes me most proud to live here is that we, the citizens, can freely admit that our nation has not always acted out of the most benevolent motivations. But if we discourage the frank examination of some of the more unsavory episodes of our history, we create a climate where our leaders can pursue tragic courses of action without hindrance, whether for profit, power, or both.
The Mossadegh Myth
Reconsidering the 1953 “Coup” in Iran
History abhors a vacuum, and so the void created by the classification (and later destruction) of CIA records concerning the 1953 crisis in Iran has been filled with partial truths and fabrications that have endured despite persuasive scholarly rebuttal.
Thus, for example, “In 1953 Kermit [Roosevelt] and a few fellows manipulated that crowd which toppled [Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad] Mossadegh without any trouble at all,” according to former CIA officer David Atlee Phillips’ book The Night Watch.
American covert action in Iran during the 1950s is “something the whole world already knew about,” according to a Washington Post editorial (8/17/97). The CIA’s destruction of documents concerning its role in the 1953 coup in Iran is “a self-accusation,” wrote Theodore Draper in the New York Review of Books (8/14/97). “The CIA had much to hide and decided to do it in the most effective way– by destroying the official record.”
But what the whole world already knew may be mistaken, and what the destroyed CIA records might have shown in this case is not how much the Agency had to hide, but just how little the CIA actually had to do with the removal of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh from power in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah to his throne.
The CIA and the enemies of the Shah both had an interest in exaggerating the role of the Agency in the 1953 crisis. Asserting a “victory” in Iran helped the CIA to establish its competence, and to demonstrate its apparent ability to shape events in foreign lands. At the same time, by portraying the Shah as a American puppet who was returned to power by CIA dirty tricks, the Shah’s enemies sought to undermine his legitimacy.
In reality, however, by 1953 the Mossadegh regime was already unstable, having lost the support of many elements of Iranian society, from the military to the mullahs. “Overthrowing Mossadegh had been like pushing on an already-opened door,” wrote Barry Rubin in Paved With Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran (p. 89).
Nevertheless, “the belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran,” observed Gary Sick in his definitive work All Fall Down: America’s Tragic Encounter with Iran (1985, p. 7).
“According to the yarns woven by the CIA on the one hand and anti-shah elements on the other, the entire August [1953] uprising had been an American enterprise whose success was solely due to CIA money and intrigue,” wrote Amir Taheri, who was editor of Iran’s largest daily newspaper from 1973 to 1979.
“What actually happened was not the successful conclusion of a conspiracy but a genuine popular uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice,” Taheri wrote in his 1988 book Nest of Spies (p. 36). He goes so far as to argue that “[E]xamination of the mass of evidence now available proves that the CIA and its former agents deliberately exaggerated their role in those events.” He notes that out of the $1 million allocated for the CIA’s Operation AJAX (supposedly “to wash the Red out of Iran”), no more than $75,000 was actually used for the purpose of mobilizing crowds in Teheran.
In any case, distorted history can easily overwhelm a secret truth, and the myth of the CIA’s overthrow of Mossadegh, propagated notably by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt in his 1979 book Countercoup, is no less consequential for having been, in important respects, inaccurate and misleading.
Phillip, the problem with your point of view is that you are so obsessed with alleged mistakes of the past, that you are incapable of acting in the present.
LW, Brad’s post was a comparison of WWII press coverage with Iraq War press coverage. My response to him drew on several examples in the historical record, the interpretations of which can certainly be argued from various viewpoints. I know we live in a TV-addled, short-attention-span culture where what happened one month ago is considered irrelevant ancient history, but how my mere invocation of some episodes from the past half-century constitutes being “obsessed with alleged mistakes of the past”, well, that eludes me completely.
Action in the present must be informed by some knowledge of the past, both recent and distant. You know the famous Santayana quote, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” I see nothing in what I have written that endorses inaction.
Incidentally, it is not only errors America has committed in the past that should be instructive for our future path. Our history is full of shining examples of positive actions, sometimes correcting a previous course of action, to which we can look for inspiration.
Phillip, ON a recent thread, there was a post about an author who wrote what the world would be like without the USA. As imperfect as we are, the world would be barbaric and chaotic without us. I like your comment about us being in a truly great country. So often that gets lost in the bitterness over policy subleties. Thanks for that comment.
Dave, here’s the article again:
A World Without America
By Peter Brookes
For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, today – America’s 230th birthday – provides an opportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good ol’ Uncle Sam.
The picture isn’t pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century – just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.
CLICK HERE for the rest of the piece.
Phillip, could you provide us with 3 or 4 of our country’s overseas actions over, say, the past 50 years, that you supported?
IMO most of the US interventions over the years are vastly preferable for the natives than the unspeakable horrors they would have suffered under communist rule. Even for Guatemala you claim “only” 100,000 over 46 years, with no reliable statistics to support your claim. The Khmer Rouge did that in a week or two as they killed close to 2 million Cambodians, over 1/3 of the entire population, in the infamous killing fields.
A world without America would sort of be like a Disney World without Mickey Mouse.
Well, LW, you’ll notice that in my earlier “list” of regrettable US military or covert adventurism, I did NOT include Gulf War I. Though I had some misgivings at the time as I recall, the truly international alliance that Bush the First assembled for that action and the carefully planned and circumscribed nature of that operation makes the sloppy haphazard unilateralist approach of his son all the more obvious by comparison. I’d also say I favored action in Bosnia. That’s about it. I’d like to see the US and the international community really put some teeth into ending the Sudan genocide, but obviously this issue is not as important to the US as the Iraq situation is. Just goes to show that the U.S. generally does not intervene purely for the sake of noble humanitarian reasons or the advance of democracy (sorry to break that news to you Brad) (we’ve certainly tolerated or supported many dictators over the years), but primarily where self-interest is paramount. True, other nations also act out of self-interest. But we’re certainly not exempt from that.
When I referred to “shining examples of positive actions” in our recent history, I was not referring to our military interventions, which history will ultimately come to view as examples of a kind of “soft imperialism.” Rather, the things I think about that make me proud of American society are: the Civil Rights movement and the advances made therein; Watergate, in which an orderly investigation of executive abuses was made and the executive removed, peacefully—this is rare in history; women’s rights, the advances women have made in our society closer to a position of true gender equality; and the economic vitality of the country and vigorous diversity of political discourse (though Cheney might be hoping to rein in the latter).
Regarding your other question, is that the only choice Third World countries had in the 50’s through the 80’s?–to be client states of either the Soviet Union or the US? This is the tragedy of the Cold War, and you evidently still hold fast to those misguided beliefs, the Domino Theory and all that.
As an American, undoubtedly you believe in the right of self-determination for a people, yes? Folks all over the world hunger for that same right of self-determination, and resist foreign occupation of their soil. The mistake of the Cold War was to read virtually every situation or conflict within the Third World as a superpower-proxy conflict (or to make it so). This is what happened in Vietnam and much of Central America.
I keep coming back to Guatemala because I’ve spent time there and have friends and know of innocent civilians who were killed there. Arbenz was democratically elected and simply because he dared to institute land reform and take on the United Fruit Company, we deemed him a Communist stooge and triggered a thirty-year civil war. We continually backed right-wing death squads throughout Central America right through the Reagan Administration. Dead is dead, LexWolf. Those innocent civilians who died in Central America are not comforted by the fact that the Wall finally came down in Berlin; nor do I think they are looking down from heaven feeling as though the snuffing out of their lives contributed to the fact that you can buy a Big Mac in Moscow now.
I know you’ll come back for the last word which I’ll gladly let you have. First, two quick comments—the Khmer Rouge were bitter enemies of the communist Vietnamese regime. Secondly, to Dave and you–thank you for the link to “a world without America”—but why is it that dissent is seen by so many on the right, such as you two, as some kind of wish that America didn’t exist? I’m an 8th-generation American and I know no greater patriot than myself. That’s why I dissent against those I feel are sending our country down a very dangerous path. I’ll sign out with some quotes from Robert McNamara, from the documentary the “Fog of War,” lessons from Vietnam. They could apply to Central America, or to much of the current situation in the middle east. He arrived at these conclusions too late to save the lives of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese, unfortunately:
“We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.”
“Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.”
“We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.”
“We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.”
“We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.”
America is helping the Iraqi people determine their own destiny, by arresting and killing the terrorists who have held that country hostage.
“the U.S. generally does not intervene purely for the sake of noble humanitarian reasons or the advance of democracy (sorry to break that news to you Brad) (we’ve certainly tolerated or supported many dictators over the years), but primarily where self-interest is paramount.”
I don’t know about about you but I would certainly hope that every last one of our international actions is at least primarily, if not totally, due to our self-interest.
“Regarding your other question, is that the only choice Third World countries had in the 50’s through the 80’s?–to be client states of either the Soviet Union or the US?”
No, actually there was also the option of strict neutrality and many countries chose that option. Once the communists made a strong push to destabilize a country (as in Chile and much of Central America), we had every right to intervene.
“As an American, undoubtedly you believe in the right of self-determination for a people, yes? Folks all over the world hunger for that same right of self-determination, and resist foreign occupation of their soil.”
That’s precisely why I have no patience for people who didn’t make a peep when communist agitators invaded many countries in an attempt to impose a communist regime. Yet those very same people cry crocodile tears and point accusing fingers at the US for having the audacity to defend these countries’ rights to self-determination. Let’s not forget that very few communist countries ever became communist through a free election. If there was one, they immediately implemented the One Vote principle: one vote, one time, never again!
“First, two quick comments—the Khmer Rouge were bitter enemies of the communist Vietnamese regime.”
So? The USSR and China were also bitter enemies, yet all 4 regimes were responsible for killing millions of their own people.
McNamara drew exactly the wrong lessons out of his massive failures in Vietnam.
The US invaded Iraq to get rid of a dictator who was training and financing terrorists who had repeatedly attacked the USA. Setting up a more honest government is just a necessary by-product of that mission.
We did the same in Afghanistan.
We haven’t had to invade Libya, Jordan or Lebanon. They have felt the Iraq Effect, and turned over nuclear weapons (Libya) and terrorists who were hiding there (Lebanon and Jordan).
Iran is the major remaining problem from the years of Clinton neglect. Their only hope is the election of another coward Democrat as US President.
Finally the truth is revealed and everything makes sense again:
Rove Secretly Runs The New York Times
By Bill Smith
New York, New York (SatireNewsService) – In a stunning development that would appear to have broad implications for the independence of America’s newspaper industry, New York Times Publisher, Edwin ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger today revealed that longtime President Bush advisor Karl Rove has been secretly running the Times’ news and editorial operation for almost four years.
According to well-placed insiders on the Times’ Board of Directors, a shaken Sulzberger made that announcement in a hastily convened meeting of the Board of the Times’ parent company, The New York Times Corp. Sulzberger reportedly told the board that the discovery was made last week.
“During an internal investigation, we reached the regrettable conclusion that Karl Rove has been running this newspaper since at least August, 2002,” Sulzberger reportedly stated. “His intention is clear – to ruin the reputation of the newspaper and the party that our editorial policy supports.”
Sulzberger reportedly continued: “I ordered an investigation to determine how the Times had come to publish detailed information about a top-secret government monitoring operation of the international financial transactions of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The publication of this information clearly helps an enemy that killed thousands of people just a few blocks from here. Endangering Americans is something the Times would never intentionally do. Unfortunately this story fits a pattern of publication that has almost ruined the Times’ reputation for probity and journalistic honesty as well as causing incalculable damage to the Democratic party that our editorial policy supports.”
Edith Steingehirn, the Times’ internal investigator who made the Rove discovery, told the board: “Our investigation into the publication of the terror financing story quickly led us to discover other frightening actions taken by our news and editorial divisions during the past four years.”
“One example of these actions,” said Steingehirn was the paper’s disclosure six months ago that, the Bush administration had secretly engaged in eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails involving terrorist connections. We published that story just as the successful Iraqi elections were making the news and the Senate was voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act. The timing could not have been better for the Bush administration – it made it look as though the Times would do anything – absolutely anything – to undermine the administration and Iraqi efforts to build a functioning society.”
CLICK HERE for many more stunning revelations!