|
|
Monday, May 24, 2004
|
|
 THE PASSION OF CARL BERSNSTEIN
You ever see those singers from the 50's, usually on a telethon late on a Sunday afternoon? The glory has long since faded, but they get up there and, as the spotlight hits them and they start singing that one big hit they had forty years ago, They are 22 year old Gods again, if only in their own minds. You can see the bloat from years of alcohol and disappointment right there on their jaded faces.
Carl Bernstein is one of those guys. You don't see his face much, but you can read it in his writing.
Back in 1976, you couldn't be bigger in journalism than Woodward and Berstein. Just as the Beatles inspired millions of kids to pick up guitars, the book (and subsequent film) All The President's Men sent millions of morons to journalism school. These highly competent typists were deluded enough to think if they graduated fourth in their class from Sandusky Community College's journalism program, that they too could topple their very own president of the United States someday. To this day, if you stop ten people on the street and asked them to name the first journalist they could think of, I'm willing to bet that six of them would answer "Woodward" or "Bernstein." The other four would confuse them as one person and answer, "Woodwardbernstein."
You don't get much more influential than that in a profession as lacking in influence as journalism.
All The President's Men was followed by The Final Days , a nasty little book chronicling the the year before Nixon's resignation. There are several unsubstantiated tales in the book, such as a drunken president talking to the portraits of his predecessors, a story found only in this book and not in any of the dozens of memoirs written by people who were in the White House. The Final Days also alleged that President Nixon had not enjoyed carnal relations with his wife for the previous fourteen years. That story is only plausible if Pat Nixon were the source, which is unlikely given that she suffered a massive stroke after reading the book.
And then, just like the Beatles, Woodward and Berstein broke up. Apparently, the division of success was unequal. Bob Woodward went on to have the solo careers of John, Paul AND George. Carl was...well, Carl was Ringo. Actually, he wrote one pretty good book on the persecution his Communist father suffered in the McCarty era, called Loyalties. I think I'm the only person other than Carl to have read the book though. He also co-wrote a book on Pope John II that I own but haven't read.
Bersnstein is obsessed with his greatest, if only triumph. As with most people who succeed young only to see it all slip away, he is fixated on Watergate. Everything in his life reverts to Watergate. For example, if he awoke tomorrow badly constipated, he would refer to it as being, "Worse than Watergate" before joking about needing a "plumber." It's sad to see actually.
So it was with some interest that I read Bernstein's editorial in USA Today this afternoon. Guess what? Abu Ghraib is worse than Watergate! Bet you never would've guessed. Let's examine Mr. Bernstein's logic point by point, shall we?
Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law. Firstly, I would argue, and history would support, that while bad, what came to be known as "Watergate" was not "unprecedented crimes...against the Constitution and the people of the United States". All of Nixon's postwar predecessor's committed similiar (and in some cases, much worse) offenses. They just didn't have Woodward and Berstein finding out about it. "What did the president know and when did he know it?" a Republican senator — Howard Baker of Tennessee — famously asked of Nixon 30 springtimes ago. Actually, it was 31. I love to quibble. Today, confronted by the graphic horrors of Abu Ghraib prison, by ginned-up intelligence to justify war, by 652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished," Republican leaders have yet to suggest that George W. Bush be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq and that perhaps he, not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is ill-suited for his job. This is perhaps because elections serve the function of determining suitability for office. And there's one coming in November, Carl! Unless you're suggesting what I think you are.... Having read the report of Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, I expect Baker's question will resound again in another congressional investigation. The equally relevant question is whether Republicans will, Pavlov-like, continue to defend their president with ideological and partisan reflex, or remember the example of principled predecessors who pursued truth at another dark moment. It is starting to sound like he is suggesting what I think he is. Today, the issue may not be high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather Bush's failure, or inability, to lead competently and honestly. Ummm, I hate to get all technical on the point, Carl but the Constitution is pretty specific about requiring "high crimes and misdemanors" for Congress to remove a president. It says so and everything. Check it out, sometime. Its a great springtime read. And to make another point, if competence and honesty were requirements for the presidency, John Kerry wouldn't even be allowed within Washington city limits, let alone become a candidate for that office. "You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror," Bush told Rumsfeld in a Wizard-of-Oz moment May 10, as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and senior generals looked on. "You are a strong secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." The scene recalled another Oz moment: Nixon praising his enablers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as "two of the finest public servants I've ever known." Which may or may not be a fair analogy, but in and of itself, who cares? Like Nixon, this president decided the Constitution could be bent on his watch. Terrorism justified it, and Rumsfeld's Pentagon promoted policies making inevitable what happened at Abu Ghraib — and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legal justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions regarding humane treatment of prisoners was enunciated in a memo to Bush, dated Jan. 25, 2002, from the White House counsel.
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint. Here's another technical point. The Constitution predates the Geneva Conventions by about 130 years. When the Constitution was written, prisoners were routinely shot on the spot. Besides, the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights extends to foreign citizens on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has ruled that way repeatedly. Since January, Bush and Rumsfeld have been aware of credible complaints of systematic torture. In March, Taguba's report reached Rumsfeld. Yet neither Bush nor his Defense secretary expressed concern publicly or leveled with Congress until photographic evidence of an American Gulag, possessed for months by the administration, was broadcast to the world. The "American Gulag" comment demonstrates a shocking ignorance of history. The Gulag system, as instituted in the Soviet Union and still practiced in places like North Korea, was designed to physically exterminate as many political prisoners as possible through viciously stupid forced labor. As bad as Abu Ghraib is, it is nothing compared to the gulags. To compare the two is to equate a pimple with lung cancer. Rumsfeld then explained, "You read it, as I say, it's one thing. You see these photographs and it's just unbelievable. ... It wasn't three-dimensional. It wasn't video. It wasn't color. It was quite a different thing." But the report also described atrocities never photographed or taped that were, often, even worse than the pictures — just as Nixon's actions were frequently far worse than his tapes recorded. How can Nixon's actions BE "frequently far worse than his tapes recorded?" The taping system was sound activated and recorded EVERYTHING for nearly two years. Unless of course, you count the 18-and-a-half-minute gap, which is used to justify every single unsubstantiated allegation of the five and a half years Nixon was president. He must've been speaking exceptionally quickly for those 20 minutes. It continues to amaze me that Nixon had the time to do stuff like desegregate the schools, establish the Environmental Protection Agency, create PBS, open relations with the People's Republic of China and end the Vietnam war. Evil must not fill up enough of some people's day. It was Barry Goldwater, the revered conservative, who convinced Nixon that he must resign or face certain conviction by the Senate — and perhaps jail. Goldwater delivered his message in person, at the White House, accompanied by Republican congressional leaders. Goldwater knew the gig was up. So did Nixon. According to Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, Nixon had already decided to resign. But the senior Republican leadership, lead by Goldwater, did go to White House on August 7, 1974 and told him so. It was effective that Bill Clinton lived in mortal terror of a similar visit throughout 1998. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee likewise put principle above party to cast votes for articles of impeachment. On the eve of his mission, Goldwater told his wife that it might cost him his Senate seat on Election Day. Instead, the courage of Republicans willing to dissociate their party from Nixon helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency six years later, unencumbered by Watergate. This is also flawed logic. Reagan won because Carter was such a disaster as president. The Republicans could've nominated Charles Manson and beaten him. On the other hand, Gerald Ford, perhaps the most decent man to be president, wasn't even in the Executive Branch when the break-in and cover-up occurred. The Republicans getting rid of Nixon didn't stop him from getting his ass kicked in 1976. Or, I could conversely point out, Clinton's scandals didn't prevent Al Gore from winning the popular vote in 2000. Another precedent is apt: In 1968, a few Democratic senators — J. William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert F. Kennedy — challenged their party's torpor and insisted that President Lyndon Johnson be held accountable for his disastrous and disingenuous conduct of the Vietnam War, adding weight to public pressure, which, eventually, forced Johnson not to seek re-election. Huh? the '68 campaign may have well as been in the 13th century, insofar as the development of the primary system goes. Bobby Kennedy declared his candidacy on March 1, 1968. On March 1 of this year, John Kerry was already the presumptive nominee. Today, the United States is confronted by another ill-considered war, conceived in ideological zeal and pursued with contempt for truth, disregard of history and an arrogant assertion of American power that has stunned and alienated much of the world, including traditional allies. At a juncture in history when the United States needed a president to intelligently and forcefully lead a real international campaign against terrorism and its causes, Bush decided instead to unilaterally declare war on a totalitarian state that never represented a terrorist threat; to claim exemption from international law regarding the treatment of prisoners; to suspend constitutional guarantees even to non-combatants at home and abroad; and to ignore sound military advice from the only member of his Cabinet — Powell — with the most requisite experience. Instead of using America's moral authority to lead a great global cause, Bush squandered it. All of that could be true, but it still doesn't add up to high crimes and misdemeanors, which you still need to establish to remove a president outside of an election or assassins bullet. In Republican cloakrooms, as in the Oval Office, response to catastrophe these days is more concerned with politics and PR than principle. Said Tom DeLay, House majority leader: "A full-fledged congressional investigation — that's like saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street." Okay, Tom Delay is a moron. We all know that. He should've said something like this: "Jesus, you'd think that somebody lied about sex, we call it stuff like, 'perjury' and 'obstruction of justice.'" I'm sure the Democrats like seeing their chickens coming home to roost. To curtail any hint of dissension in the ranks, Bush scheduled a "pep rally" with congressional Republicans — speaking 35 minutes, after which, characteristically, he took no questions and lawmakers dutifully circled the wagons.
What did George W. Bush know and when did he know it? Another wartime president, Harry Truman, observed that the buck stops at the president's desk, not the Pentagon.
But among Republicans today, there seems to be scant interest in asking tough questions — or honoring the example of courageous leaders of Congress who, not long ago, stepped forward, setting principle before party, to hold accountable presidents who put their country in peril. While Bernstein doesn't come right out and call for impeachment, or even use the word in relation to Bush, it reads pretty clearly that that's what he'd like to see. What's interesting is that LBJ's "disastrous and disingenuous" policies were worthy of his being removed through the primaries, yet Bush's should be referred to Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. Bernstein was also one of those who said that President Clinton's conduct was felonious, yet not impeachable. Let's tally Carl's scorecard on this. Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, not impeachable; Richard Nixon and George Bush, impeachable. See a pattern developing? There is much about the lead up to this war that is disturbing. Some, if proven, is undoubtedly impeachable. If this president deliberately lied to Congress and manufactured intelligence to support those lies, he should be impeached. On this, the Constitution is absolutely clear. What bothers me even more than the allegations is the cynicism with which Democrats (and their sympathizers) treat them. As I noted before, there's an election this year and Bush is on the ballot. Democrats are screaming phrases like "lied to Congress", "manufactured a war" and "sent innocent young Americans to their deaths in the sands of Iraq." Yet not ONE has called for an impeachment inquiry. Nothing screams like silence and the silence on impeachment is deafening. This silence, and positions like Bernstein's, is that nobody in the Democratic party thinks that John Kerry will win this election. Impeachment would be redundant if Kerry won. Instead, they are "building the public mood" for impeachment once Kerry loses. My guess is that we'll hear Democrats saying it out loud starting the second week in November. CURRENTLY READING: Coincidentally, Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward (that that, Carl) Labels: Fun With Politics, Journalists Are Swine
|
|
|
| |
