Blustering Bullies and Their Media Friends
How Mickey Kaus & company help the GOP mau-mau the New York Times and the rest of the press
by Tamara Baker

Sept. 9, 2002 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJP) -- This is a "good news, bad news" column today.

The good news: The Republican efforts to bully the press into pretending that the GOP doesn't support privatization are starting to backfire, as writers like Joshua Micah Marshall, Bob Somerby and Paul Krugman are joined by Slate's Timothy Noah and even the National Review in reaming out the NRCC for its dishonestly.

The bad news: The Republican efforts to bully the New York Times into repudiating its reportage of Henry Kissinger's views on Iraq have succeeded -- and no one is happier about this than leading neocon Mickey "I Love Isikoff" Kaus.

As Josh Marshall says at the link above:

Even the Times' mea culpa has a touch of comedy in it since the editors seem to strain to find something to apologize for. The key passage reads like one of those loopy show trial moments when the victim has utterly given up the fight, can't wait to admit to something, but can't quite figure out what to confess to. So he looks inquiringly at his accuser for some hint or lead as to what crime he's supposed to cop to. It's about as uplifting as watching a black-eyed wife tearfully apologize to her husband after he beats her up.

Indeed. Or like watching a hysterical Winston Smith in 1984 being driven slowly insane by O'Brien of the Brotherhood, trying oh-so-hard to please O'Brien by believing that two and two make something other than four:

"How can I help it," he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

But, as always, Josh Marshall says it better than I can -- and mind you, he's a longtime friend of Mickey Kaus, who helped him earlier in his career:

Times critics can jump up and down like monkeys because of their victory. And it is a victory: the Times caved. (They now refuse to report even the fact that Kissinger supports the inspectors -- first approach.) But that doesn't alter the essential dishonesty of the attack. Kissinger dissents from key aspects of White House policy like inspections and he's a supporter of White House policy. Powell dissents on the same grounds but he's a dissenter who should be sent packing.

Kissinger's critique was different from Scowcroft's. But then Tyler and Purdum said it was different. But it turns out, says the Times mea culpa, they "should have made a clearer distinction between [Kissinger's] views and those of Mr. Scowcroft." Tyler and Purdum's error apparently was insufficient special-pleading on behalf of the neo-conservatives and warhawks.

The issue here of course isn't Kissinger. Who cares what Kissinger thinks about Iraq? But who knew it would be so easy for a few conservative columnists and their yahoos-in-waiting to bitch-slap the Times into saying that up is down or humiliate two good reporters who zigged when the neos were demanding a zag???

Actually, cowing the mainstream press has been very easy for conservatives to do over the last decade, and if anything it's gotten easier. Just look at how the US press seems to be ignoring the evidence reported in foreign papers like the UK Telegraph that Bush has already started softening up Iraq prior to a probable October invasion that they hope will give the GOP a desperately-needed "rally round the flag" boost at the polls:

About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

The Prime Minister promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans "when the shooting starts".

The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months. Although only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.

But wait! There's more!

In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar.

Thomas White, the army secretary, said: "We have done a lot with pre-positioned stocks in the Gulf, making sure that they are in the right spot to support whatever the president wants to do."

Hmmmm. Looks like Mr. "Who Cares What You Think?" Bush is just plowing arrogantly ahead, as usual. And, as usual, our cowed, battered and blinkered mainstream US media won't bother to tell us.

Gee, I miss having a free press in America.