California Conservative

Drudge pointed me to this Carl Bernstein piece, “Senate Hearings on Bush, Now”. The blogosphere seems to be roundly ignoring it. Frankly, Bernstein was before my time and I haven’t come across any of his work in years. That may be my own ignorance, but he is hardly a “present” voice on a par with the Mark Steyns and Christopher Hitchens of the world.

What is interesting, and widely noted, is our mainstream press’ fascination with the 70’s, and its refusal to deal in the present or future. Of course there are many exceptions, but they are unfortunately outnumbered by journalists who are more interested in “speaking truth to power”, rather than reporting. Like most of the American left, the MSM is ultimately all about the self.

Anyway, since there is nary an echo on what might otherwise be a controversial piece, allow me to try to find meaning in Bernstein’s words. The subhead asks:

Should Republicans on the Hill take the high road and save themselves come November? [...]

Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.

If the Republicans lose in November, it will be because they have disappointed their base, not because they failed to “take the high road”. Bush’s problems can certainly reflect poorly on Republicans, just as he can reflect well on them when he is popular.

But this is marginal compared to the fact that too many ‘Pubs have abandoned their first principles. Their base might stay home, and that is their electoral problem. The same polls put Democratic and general Congressional support even lower than the Republicans and Bush, by the way.

So what then shall be the article’s focus?

The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

Fine, a valid subject. There are serious arguments pro and con. Is that the basis for this article, then?

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor’s office in downtown Washington.

Alright, so then it’s about Iraq, Katrina and Libby too? Each has its own merits and have been debated extensively inside and outside the Beltway.

More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee’s investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

We are four paragraphs in and the term “Watergate” has been used seven times already. Note that he wants to investigate the presidency — an excellent way to avoid having to debate any issue on its merits.

So far, no substantial assertions about anything that has occured since, say, Bush’s election in 2000. Mr. Bernstein may be telegraphing his frame of reference, just a bit.

How much evidence is there to justify such action?

Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason [...]

Alright, he does not point out any evidence — would have been a good opportunity I think — but more importantly, let’s look at what he would like his hearing to investigate. What the president and the vice president knew and when; what they have done; whether what they did was legal or illegal; and whether those undefined legal or illegal things were well-intended. That certainly narrows it down.

The first fundamental question that needs to be answered by and about the president, the vice president, and their political and national-security aides, from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleezza Rice, to Karl Rove, to Michael Chertoff, to Colin Powell, to George Tenet, to Paul Wolfowitz, to Andrew Card (and a dozen others), is whether lying, disinformation, misinformation, and manipulation of information have been a basic matter of policy—used to overwhelm dissent; to hide troublesome truths and inconvenient data from the press, public, and Congress; and to defend the president and his actions when he and they have gone awry or utterly failed.

That is one “fundamental” question? Allow me do a little math: he names ten people and alludes to a dozen more. Multiply times four possible actions (lying, disinformation, etc). Times three possible motives (overwhelm dissent, hide troublesome truths, defend the president) and again by three audiences (press, public and Congress). That one fundamental question sounds like more like 792, by my count. And we are just getting started.

Most of what we have learned about the reality of this administration—and the disconcerting mind-set and decision-making process of President Bush himself [...]

Translation: I know the soul of the president, though I have never met him.

Almost invariably, their accounts have revealed what the president and those serving him have deliberately concealed—torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and its apparent authorization by presidential fiat;

Would love to see that fiat.

wholesale N.S.A. domestic wiretapping in contravention of specific prohibitive law;

Not sure what wholesale means here, and I don’t doubt there have been abuses by bureaucrats. There is a serious constitutional argument to be had here, but Bernstein’s not having it.

brutal interrogations of prisoners shipped secretly by the C.I.A. and U.S. military to Third World gulags;

Certainly possible. What does Mr. Bernstein believe a gulag to be? And which prisoners? Evidence please.

the nonexistence of W.M.D. in Iraq;

Oy, at least he’s caught up to the current century. Has this point not been debated enough? Was there an intelligence agency anywhere in the world who disagreed on that point?

the role of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney’s chief of staff in divulging the name of an undercover C.I.A. employee;

After two years and $20 million, the special prosecutor has not charged anyone with this offense. Will Senate hearings do better?

the non-role of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the events of 9/11;

Please show me where Bush or Cheney asserted that Iraq was involved with the events of 9/11.

the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman (whose mother, Mary Tillman, told journalist Robert Scheer, "The administration tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him");

An ugly incident, no doubt. What does this have to do with Congress or the president?

the lack of a coherent post-invasion strategy for Iraq, with all its consequent tragedy and loss and destabilizing global implications;

As it happens, the explosion of the fictional “Arab street” simply did not happen. Is Mr. Bernstein an adherent to the canard of 50 years of peace in the Middle East? Does he believe Iraq was peaceful prior to the invasion? If Saddam were allowed to stay in power, would the world be more stable now?

the failure to coordinate economic policies for America’s long-term financial health (including the misguided tax cuts) with funding a war that will drive the national debt above a trillion dollars;

The “misguided” tax cuts, especially on capital gains, have created 5 million jobs, which means that 5 million people have gone from zero income to a substantial one. Spending is out of control, no doubt. But war spending is currently less than 4% of GDP, as opposed to 9% in the Vietnam era, 14% in Korea and a whopping 37% in WWII [data]. Sounds like progress to me, but again, Mr. Bernstein is of another time.

Our fiscal trouble lies in entitlements including Social Security, the prescription drug benefit, the farm bill, ad nauseum…these dwarf war spending in the long run.

But most grievous and momentous is the willingness [...] to invent almost any justification for going to war in Iraq (including sending up an American U-2 plane painted with U.N. markings to be deliberately shot down by Saddam Hussein’s air force, a plan hatched while the president, the vice president, and Blair insisted to the world that war would be initiated "only as a last resort").

The U2 plane was in the (single-sourced) Downing Street memo? That sounds like an invention alright. Mr. Bernstein does not address any motives for the war, but rather begins with the premise that Bush was determined to have it, whatever it takes. That is a very strange idea, but is not foreign to the antiwar crowd.

In any case, I will let you, dear reader, um, read it for yourself. It is long, tiresome and unoriginal. I found no new facts in there, though there were a few novel assertions. He does try to tie it all together, a valiant effort.

The piece is an extended analogy to Nixon and Watergate. As such, it is a Hail Mary. In the final analysis, it is an embarassing attempt for Bernstein to be struck by journalistic lightning twice in one career.

Mr. Bernstein greatly underestimates the criticality of his reader, as well. Bush may be every bit as bad as he says. But 6000 words later, Bernstein hasn’t made a case.

Cross-posted at The Only Republican in San Francisco

This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 at 7:55 am and is filed under Author: Matt S., Media, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.