Wednesday, February 4, 2004 |
11:22 - Unbiased Reporting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/
|
(top) |
This week's Newsweek has a cover featuring a mosaic of nine figures: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Blair, and a couple others-- and Saddam. These pictures are intermingled with a humungous quote in block letters: WE WERE ALL WRONG. (And in very tiny letters underneath, the attribution to David Kay is made: "Former U.S. Weapons Inspector".)
How nice of them to include Saddam in the list, eh?
The ass-covering angle is that the tableau is presented as a rhetorical question: "Will Anyone Pay?" Gee, will this have negative impact on anyone's political career who's currently in office? Just an innocent question, asked out of curiosity.
But that's a pretty transparent pretext. If they were really honest about asking that question, we'd see photos of Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, and Chirac-- none of whom doubted the existence of WMDs in Iraq. They were "all wrong" too, weren't they? And with this in mind, the question "Will anyone pay?" comes across for what it more likely is: an angry, angry, vindictive, blinkered shout of rage over perceived betrayal. It's a call to arms. And even if the article itself is more evenhanded, more people will read the cover than the article.
Someone really wore down his teeth while Photoshopping this cover together.
My question is: why the hell isn't Bush on the airwaves doing damage control? Virginia Postrel has already noted this, but if Bush loses a ton of Middle America support, it'll be through letting magazine covers like this go unchallenged. No, no need to censor anybody, perish the thought-- but there is such a thing as defending oneself against slander. Otherwise "Bush Lied!" will be the title of Michael Moore's next movie, and any arguments that the war in Iraq was motivated by anything more noble than a fraudulent accusation of WMD possession and a cynical grab for oil (neither of which make sense if you try to work out the political and economic logic) will have been banished into the noise by the time the election rolls around.
Let's have some powerful campaign speeches about how our actions since 9/11 have fit into the grand plan of the war against terrorism. Let's see as much of that very plan as can safely be revealed without giving away the game. Let's make the case, shall we? Yes, the WoT is supposed to be an effort that takes longer than three years. But if there's a long-term and secret vision that balances so precariously on holding to a complex and tenuous course, what chance of success do you think it'll have if you sit back and let yourself be walked all over like this? What are you afraid of, another season of "That's My Bush" on Comedy Central?
It's well and good to fly to Baghdad for Thanksgiving to show the troops you know what you're doing. How about spending dinner with the rest of us once in a while?
|
|