Untitled Document

Another Washington Post article that follows the party line of the foreign policy elite:

Rice Key to Reversal on Iran
Expected Failure of International Effort Led to U.S. Turnaround

Though Bush administration officials had publicly always dismissed that possibility, officials at the highest levels -- including Cheney, frequently but inaccurately portrayed as an adamant foe of joining the talks -- realized that soon the administration would be forced to grapple with the question, five U.S. officials said in interviews last week. Otherwise, the options seemed to either be that Iran would get the bomb or the United States would be drawn into another war.

This article describes a massive change in US policy. President G.W. Bush has decided, after months of sending signals that he was willing to go to war against Iran, that this is not an option.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this article is that, though it is based on numerous White House insider interviews, and though its topic is to say the least, major news, it is on Page A17 of the Washington Post. Not only that, but its headline and its approach deceptively suggests it is a story about Secretary of State Rice and a process of inside discussions within the administration, when the big news is George W. Bush changing his mind -- and backing down.

After all, as he made clear clear, Bush is "the decider." So the article's details about Rice and her many conversations within the Administration are just window dressing. The article describes Rice as the architect of this change in policy, but makes clear that "Bush ultimately gave his final approval."

Since the Washington Post is the official daily journal of the US foreign policy elite, the fog with which this major Presidential decision is clouded is especially striking. Why would the Post stick a major story based on high-level background reporting so far back in the paper, and disguise its importance?

The reason is simple. This story has to be told somewhere in the Post. The signal has to be sent out to the insiders who carefully read the Post that attacking Iran is now off the table. But if the story were to go on the front page, as a story of this importance ordinarily would, the U.S. public would also be told, and told in brutally clear terms, that what Bush said in August -- "all options are on the table" -- was no longer true. Even in the Land of No Historical Memory (to quote myself) millions of people might recognize that this moment was a surrender by George W. Bush, that the whole administration was completely backing off of its military saber-rattling posture of only a few months ago. According to the article, the Administration has decided that it must choose some alternative other than being "drawn into another war." Since no informed person believes that the Administration has been "drawn into" its current wars, wars it obviously actively sought, in plain English, this means that that Administration has decided it cannot win a war against Iran.

The article states, in perhaps its most significant sentence, that "Bush made it clear he did not want the United States to be seen as weak in making this move....." But how else could he look than weak, after making warlike noises for months? Well, of course, he could look stupid and warlike. Which is how most liberals see him. Or he could look like the supposedly lovable figurehead of a totalitarian state that always has to be at war with some other profoundly evil state, but in fact is only engaged in controlling its own population through propaganda.

The one thing that the logical headline ("Bush Backs Off Iran War Threat") and equally logical front page placement of this article could not do is make Bush, as the foreign policy leader, look anything like good. And an article that makes Fearless Leader look really bad is no more acceptable in the Washington Post than it is in the Pyongyang Shinmun. Even if someday the Post finally sadly stops resisting the necessity for impeaching George W. Bush, it will still never admit the possibility that our nation's foreign policy is just a tool for short-term political advantage, and all the geopolitical arguments framed by high-powered pundits and think tank jockeys are so much crap.

The Washington Post is an institution in serious trouble, as indicated by its recent layoff of 70 staffers, which it euphemistically reported on June 1 as "Washington Post Staffers Take Early Retirement." Clearly it badly needs to either focus on being an actual local newspaper -- something the Washington area could badly use -- or on reporting the truth about foreign policy, an approach that would endear it to the 70% or so of the population that is disillusioned with current foreign policy. Instead, it continues to tie its fate to a President who has yet to get a majority to vote for him, who is now approaching Nixonian levels of public contempt, and who is probably the least competent administrator in the last century of U.S. empire. Nothing could make it clearer how completely the Post is, to quote myself again, "the house organ of those in power in the federal government."

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

This occasional feature showcases articles in the Washington Post that spin the news to protect the US government as we know it.

My thesis is that the Post is neither liberal nor conservative, but is the house organ of those in power in the federal government, whoever they are. (Of course at the moment they are "conservative," i.e. they claim to support culturally conservative values and small government, and to identity with white workingclass people with fundamentalist faith. These claims are a bit shaky.)

While the articles critiqued here were written by specific reporters, this critique is of the whole internal process of the Post. We can assume that what is printed is not necessarily what the bylined reporter wrote or wanted to write. Post reporters are mid-level employees of a large corporation, which, like all corporations, has a "political line" that its employees must follow, and that line overrides its commitment to fact-based journalism. Just as at Pravda under the Soviet Union, some "stars" get a little more leeway, and occasionally stories seem to stretch the party line a bit.

But the overall party line at the Post is consistent from day to day --

Federal power is exercised by responsible individuals who are motivated by sincere values and ideology to do the best thing for the nation and its people.
Political differences in Washington are almost always matters of principled opinion and personality, of region and local interest and agency infighting. They do not reflect corrupt power blocs of people seeking personal profit. They also do not reflect grassroots movements for social change.
Everyone worth taking seriously is a liberal or a conservative or a moderate, as defined by certain simple "hot button" issues. Radicals of all kinds are funny and silly.
"National security" decisions in particular are not driven by corporate profit or by lust for power, but by genuine concern for our safety. These decisions are sometimes mistaken, but are never foolish, pathological, or criminal. Only those who have been employed in "national security" work have standing to say what "national security" means; if they say so, keeping a dictator in power in Central Asia is vital, while preventing nuclear reactors here in the US from being blown up is a minor concern. As for civil liberties, it's nice to protect them procedurally, but security (as defined by experts) always comes first.
There may be a few "bad apples" in the high circles of federal power, but the independent mainstream media will seek them out and they will be punished. There never has been and never will be a corrupt conspiracy making our national decisions. There also never has been a grassroots movement based on popular outrage that has made a difference in people's lives.
While there are always scandals in Washington, they just come and go, always unrelated to each other, with no need for organized action by citizens to fundamentally change the system. There are no patterns of power and privilege operating behind the scenes.

And if you buy all that, I have a nice monument I want to sell you, with a great view of the White House and the Capitol and the place where they keep that Constitution thing people used to care about so much.

A note on national security written in July, 2004:

A year ago, most of Congress, most of the mainstream media, and Washington insiders in general agreed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that obviously the U.S. could prevail in Iraq in whatever way it chose to. Whoops. A few years before that, the same crowd believed that Enron was the exemplary business for a new era, and that tax cuts for the rich would create employment. Somewhere in there, we were told that SDI would work and that there was a new internet-based economy. Once upon a time, the precursors of this bunch believed that we could and had to "stop communism" in Vietnam. In these inner circles, there is deep heartfelt appreciation for every set of the emperor's new clothes . Let's face it, the claims of the "national security community" and the average highly paid pundit or pol are about as reliable as the average late-night infomercial -- and the cost of believing them is a lot higher.

Words worth remembering --

At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. From Chapter 3, 1984, by George Orwell.

Social Justice Connections -- A Personal Website

Want to see what else is on this site?

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

`click the door, open a selection from my novel`

`>>>>>>`