Post mortem (9/28)

A look at the Washington Post story that launched a week of partisan fury.
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com]

The partisan attack mill needs lots of grist, and this week, one single, somewhat misleading Washington Post article provided plenty. Dana Milbank's Wednesday dispatch was the source of the quote by President Bush that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., teed off on in his fiery speech on the Senate floor that day.

But Milbank's story, suggesting that the Bush administration has used the war for political purposes, took the quote from Bush somewhat out of context. "Four times in the past two days," the story said, "Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'" What actually happened was that, when discussing the dispute over the legislation that would create the Department of Homeland Security, Bush said "the House responded" to his plea for weaker civil service protections than Democrats support, "but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

This, of course, is wildly unfair -- even Andrew Sullivan wrote that "the president went over the line." But Bush did go on to say that "people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats" and that "this isn't a partisan issue." Plus he was clearly referring to Democrats in the Senate, not the entire party as Milbank implies, and the three similar statements he made Monday and Tuesday were not as strong as the one Milbank cites as representative.

Working from the story, Daschle presented Bush's quote with little context, simply saying, "[T]he president is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'" Some took this to mean Daschle thought Bush was referring to the debate over Iraq (Milbank's story appeared to imply as much -- it ran under a headline stating "Iraq Dominates" in Bush's speeches, and failed to clarify the homeland security context), but there's no clear evidence that Daschle implied this -- his speech appeared to refer to the larger "war" on terror. (He later rejected allegations that he took the quote out of context.)

Milbank's article also included this detail as its second piece of evidence: "At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). 'Cheney talks about Iraq at congressional fund-raiser/ Electing Taff would aid war effort,' read the headline in the Topeka Capital-Journal."

Daschle then quoted that headline in his speech, which criticized President Bush and Republicans for politicizing the war on terror. "And then I listened to reports of the vice president," he said. "The vice president comes to fundraisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fundraiser was, 'Cheney Talks About War; Electing Taff Would Aid War Effort.'"

But it's unfair for Milbank or Daschle to characterize what Cheney said on the basis of a headline. If his words were noteworthy, they should be quoted directly. It's likely that this didn't happen because the story in question did not provide any direct quotes in support of this claim; instead, it summarzed Cheney's remarks as follows: "Cheney said the administration's efforts would be helped by sending Taff to Congress. Taff is a Navy veteran running against two-term incumbent Democrat Dennis Moore, and Cheney said Taff's military experience would be an asset."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer stated during his press briefing Wednesday that what Cheney actually said was this: "President Bush and I are very grateful for the opportunity to serve our country. We thank you for your support -- not just for our efforts, but for candidates like Adam Taff, who will make a fine partner for us in the work ahead." Fleischer called this "hardly the stuff of politics."

A transcript of Cheney's speech is not available, but Kansas City Star political correspondent Steve Kraske (who covered the speech) told me that, after reviewing his tape, nothing in Cheney's remarks about Taff struck him as "particularly political in any way." They were the sort of "perfunctory" comments one hears at political fundraisers.

Other than the quote Fleischer highlighted, Kraske provided me with an exact transcript of the only other passage he located that seemed relevant (which he highlighted in his follow-up story on the controversy Friday). "I look forward to welcoming Adam to the nation's capital come January," Cheney said. "He'll be vital in helping us meet the key priorities for the nation in terms of winning the war on terror, strengthening the economy and defending our homeland." This is a rote recitation of the administration's priorities that did not even offend Moore, according to Kreske. Milbank's characterization of Cheney as claiming "security would be bolstered" if Taff won seems unsupported.

Moreover, the second part of the headline that Milbank quoted ("Electing Taff would aid war effort") never actually ran in the print edition of the paper as the "in the Topeka Capital-Journal" phrasing implies. Milbank told me that he quoted what he saw on the paper's Web site Tuesday. Here's what happened: The Capital-Journal ran an Associated Press story on Cheney's visit in its Tuesday print edition. According to executive editor Will Kennedy, the subhead Milbank quoted (which came from the original AP headline) was inadvertently added to the online version of this story and remained there until it was removed Wednesday morning. Kennedy said his paper asked the Post to set the record straight that day. After I called national editor Liz Spayd to raise the issue and she told me Thursday that a clarification would run Friday, it did.

Friday, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., picked up on the Milbank/Daschle claim in a New York Times Op-Ed. "In a recent speech in Kansas," he wrote, "Vice President Dick Cheney also entered the act, saying that our nation's security efforts would be stronger if a Republican candidate for Congress were elected." While this is better than quoting a newspaper headline, it is still fundamentally misleading to cite as evidence of the administration politicizing the war.

Politicians would be wise to verify their evidence and understand its context when making harsh allegations, rather than lazily basing their remarks on news reports. Because, as this case shows, reporters don't always get it right.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

[This post was previously available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]

9/28/2002 08:16:11 AM EST |

GOP tag team drags down Daschle debate (9/28)

By Brendan Nyhan

In the controversy over Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s speech Wednesday criticizing the Bush administration and the GOP for politicizing the war on terror, the comments of two Republican leaders stand out as among the worst.

Most significantly, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip, expanded on Bush’s statement in an interview on CNN’s “Inside Politics” Wednesday. Criticizing those in Congress who are “questioning the president's leadership, that are constantly throwing up hurdles to keep us from doing what we have to do to protect the American people,” DeLay said they keep “using the false arguments” and “throwing up” new questions to delay action.

In a breathtaking accusation, he then said, “These are people that don't want to protect the American people... [T]hey will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil.” Host Judy Woodruff asked DeLay if he meant to literally say that Democrats don't want to protect the American people, and he did not back off. Note that his phrasing is even stronger than Bush’s: Senate Democrats aren’t just “not interested” in security, as Bush said, but actively “don’t want to protect the American people” (DeLay).

One of his counterparts, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., headed to the Senate floor after Daschle to try to rebut his criticism of the President. "Who is the enemy here?” he asked. “The president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?” Back in May, the “enemy” was different, though, when Lott used the same tactic to attack Congressional Democrats (including Daschle) who raised questions about what the president knew prior to Sept. 11. "For us to be talking like our enemy is George W. Bush and not Osama bin Laden, that's not right," he said then.

Either way, it’s an absurd construction designed to shut down debate. Of course the President is not “the enemy,” but that doesn’t mean he can’t be criticized in a democracy, especially given that a war in Iraq has not yet begun. Let’s hope DeLay and Lott’s nasty tactics aren’t successful in squelching debate.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

9/28/2002 08:05:55 AM EST |

The "A" bomb (9/26)

Enraged Bush supporters are calling opponents of his Iraq war "appeasers." But even George Will knows that's a disgraceful smear.
By Ben Fritz
[First published on Salon.com]

In the debate over how to deal with Iraq, historical comparisons abound. Those who question the Bush administration's threats of a unilateral invasion (like Al Gore on Monday) point to the success of nation-building in Germany and Japan after World War II -- but how Afghanistan withered without international support after the Soviets withdrew. Supporters of Bush's approach point in response to the increased dangers posed by dictators, such as Hitler, allowed to go unchecked for too long.

But some Bush supporters also have been hurling a loaded term at their critics: appeasement. Although the word can sometimes mean to calm or to bring peace, many war supporters have clearly been using it in a specific, and historical, sense: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles" (as defined by Merriam-Webster Online). This, of course, brings up memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who is generally considered to have made a disastrous decision in allowing Hitler to take possession of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, in the hope that it would somehow appease the Führer. Instead, it was the first in a chain of events that led to World War II.

Given the power of this analogy, it's easy to see why the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol denounced "an axis of appeasement" that stretches "from Riyadh to Brussels to Foggy Bottom, from Howell Raines to Chuck Hagel to Brent Scowcroft" and syndicated columnist Paul Greenberg called United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan the "appeaser-in-chief."

But the label doesn't fit. No one of any consequence wants to cut a deal with Saddam Hussein, or to try and make him happy by offering him anything, much less territory, money or weapons. Opposition to a unilateral invasion simply does not constitute a negative version of appeasement -- the burden is on those who would use the term to explain how it applies.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped pundits from repeatedly using the term as an ad hominem attack. An editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette called war opponents "Appease-Firsters." Michael Ledeen commented in National Review Online that "Germany had accepted the leadership of the forces of global appeasement." The Dallas Morning News headlined an editorial (registration required), "Congress and Iraq: This is no time for appeasement." In the New York Daily News, Michael Kramer said of France, Germany, Russia and other nations that support renewed U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq: "It's appeasement, pure and simple." William Safire stated in his New York Times column that "[o]ld World-weary apostles of appeasement don't get it." And Andrew Sullivan has used the word (or variations, such as "appeasenik") eight times on his Web site in September alone. Misuse of the word hasn't been limited to those in the media. At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 10, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said, "[Bush] has got to put specifically the Security Council members -- Russia, China and France -- their feet to the fire and ask them how they can honestly expect us one year after this terrible tragedy as they continue to appease and continue to allow Saddam Hussein to do clearly what everyone recognizes that he does."

Remarkably, the clearest view on the subject came from pundit George Will in his syndicated column. Commenting on those who have criticized former President George Bush's National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft for questioning the wisdom of an Iraq invasion, Will, a supporter of Bush's approach, observed quite forcefully why appeasement is an unwarranted term:

"It is semantic vandalism to say that Scowcroft and others who share his apprehensions are 'appeasers.' Appeasement is the policy of resolving a conflict by making concessions to the most truculent side. Scowcroft believes, probably mistakenly, that containment and deterrence -- which, when applied to the Soviet Union, resulted in regime change -- can suffice to make Saddam Hussein's regime something America can live with. Or at least Scowcroft believes that the risks of reliance on containment and deterrence are less than those of regime change by war and its aftermath. This may be wishful thinking; it is not appeasement."

[This post was previously available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers on Salon.com. If you're not already a subscriber, we hope you'll consider signing up through our affiliate link for immediate access to our newest work, as well as all the other good stuff on Salon Premium.]

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

9/25/2002 11:00:45 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS