To Russia With Love?

Looking into Putin's soul these days, it's possible to see many things.

You see a pragmatic leader with whom Bush felt comfortable enough to strike a nuclear agreement.

You see a man who has given the U.S. some help in the war on terror..

But you also see a man who has stripped away many of Russia's freedoms with Soviet-style efficiency.

A man who has cracked down on freedom of the press.

A man who has eliminated the direct election of regional governors.

A man who has gone after business leaders who have crossed the Kremlin.

A man who has used questionable tactics in Chechnya.

And that's precisely the problem. In Bush's inaugural speech, he spoke grandly of spreading freedom around the world. But freedom is clearly shrinking in Russia. At the same time, Bush needs Vladimir Putin to achieve certain geopolitical goals. So how does the president square his lofty rhetoric with the hard work of realpolitik?

In its diminished state, Russia is less important to us than in the days of the Nixon-Brezhnev or Bush 41-Gorbachev or Clinton-Yeltsin summits. But the Russians are still important players. And sometimes, Bush is learning, a man's actions are as important as his soul.

Some newspaper reports from Slovakia, beginning with the Los Angeles Times:

"Russian President Vladimir V. Putin said today that his nation was irrevocably committed to democracy and, during an often tense joint news conference with President Bush, he accused critics of lacking a 'full understanding of what is taking place' in Russia. "After meeting for more than two hours, the two leaders openly acknowledged their conflicting views toward Russia's record on human rights and the rule of law, but they agreed to keep talking, saying that Washington and Moscow have far more in common than they do differences."

Bush applauded Putin for having "declared his absolute support for democracy in Russia, and they're not turning back." And, "in their post-summit news conference, both emphasized their personal rapport."

The New York Times dispatch has a sharper edge:

"President Bush gently expressed concern about President Vladimir V. Putin's retreat from democracy as he stood at Mr. Putin's side tonight here, and Mr. Putin responded that the United States had its own domestic problems and that he would listen to some of Mr. Bush's ideas but not comment on others.

"In a joint news conference at Bratislava Castle that was intended to portray unity but offered glimpses of tension, Mr. Bush said that he and Mr. Putin had just had a 'frank' exchange in a one-on-one meeting that lasted more than an hour, the longest the two leaders have ever met alone, with interpreters the only other people in the room."

Now comes the spin: "Mr. Bush did not say what he meant by 'frank,' but a senior administration official who briefed reporters on Mr. Bush's meeting with President Jacques Chirac of France this week said he did not want to describe that session as 'frank' because 'it usually means a euphemism for "bad."'

"In the news conference, which had been built up during Mr. Bush's four-day trip across Europe as a showdown with Mr. Putin, Mr. Bush said Russia had undergone an "amazing transformation" toward democracy, which he said included universal principles like the rule of law, protection of minorities, a free press and a viable political opposition."

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

"President Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin tried to show unity yesterday, but their blunt and sometimes testy exchanges over Putin's commitment to democracy showed that relations between the two remained sensitive.

"On the final day of his five-day tour to repair relations with Europe, a jocular Bush found himself at a news conference standing next to a stone-faced Putin, who appeared peeved at questions on whether he was rolling back democratic government as he consolidated power."

The Washington Times:

"President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin downplayed their differences over the Kremlin's crackdown on Russia's free press and businesses, although there was sharper disagreement behind the scenes at yesterday's U.S.-Russia summit here."

Don't overlook this little scoop from the German paper Der Spiegel:

During his trip to Germany on Wednesday, the main highlight of George W. Bush's trip was meant to be a "town hall"-style meeting with average Germans. But with the German government unwilling to permit a scripted event with questions approved in advance, the White House has quietly put the event on ice. Was Bush afraid the event might focus on prickly questions about Iraq and Iran rather than the rosy future he's been touting in Europe this week?"

Which brought the following response from The Left Coaster:

"Since the White House used this tactic at all of Bush's public appearances during the fall campaign, and since Condi got away with a selected audience and pre-screened questions in France last week, the White House obviously felt that they could get away with this again in another country.

"Guess again. It seems that only America specializes in stuff like that, either on the campaign trail or when our media allows the administration to stage-manage the daily press briefings with fake reporters."

Columbia Journalism Review chides Newsweek over this online piece on Bush's Euro-tour:

"Of all the things the American press corps could say about President Bush's whirlwind four-day 'charm offensive' in Europe, claiming that the 'tour has succeeded where previous fence-mending exercises failed last year,' seems a stretch.

"But this is exactly what Newsweek's Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey did in a Web-only column. Despite the fact that a wide gap remains between the United States and Europe over hard issues -- how to proceed in Iraq and in Iran, just to name a couple of sticky ones -- the authors turn away from policy disputes in favor of a study of the less objective aspects of human interaction. Indeed, they reassure us, 'it's the body language and the throwaway comments that tell the real story of his fence-mending trip.'

"So forget all those press conferences and private meetings and pesky policy differences; concentrate instead on the forced smiles and uncomfortable handshakes offered to a couple hundred flashbulbs. 'The political theater of group photos is far more revealing than most news conferences,' opine Wolffe and Bailey.

"Wolffe and Bailey are not alone in declaring the European trip a success based on little more than studying the faces and torsos of Bush, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But when it comes down to actual results achieved, they concede that the commitments the Europeans have promised the president 'are relatively minor in terms of cash and manpower.' Although they are 'important signals of a more positive attitude,' they write, '[t]hese are token gestures that won't change the dynamic in Iraq on their own.'"

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan is high on Condi Rice:

"The new secretary of state has been doing something both different in public and, I suspect, not without meaning. When she meets with the leader of another country and poses for the handshake photo-op she never looks at the leader. She always looks at the journalists witnessing the event instead. She gives them her warmest, most connected smiles.

"Then, when the picture taking is over, she turns to the foreign leader with a more neutral look, makes eye contact and chats. I don't think this is an accident. I suspect it is the administration's way of finally fighting back against 50 years of embarrassing and compromising pictures of American leaders meeting with leaders such as this, this and this. The Bush White House doesn't want those pictures. They may be inconvenient down the road. And so administration members on meeting foreign leaders give all their jolly warmth to the moment, as it were, and not the man. Interesting. And Rice is not alone."

Mark Steyn in London's Telegraph is taking some online flak for this column:

"The President's 'charm offensive' consisted of saying the same things he always says -- on Iraq, Iran, Palestine, the illusion of stability, the benefits of freedom, the need for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to get with the programme, etc. But, tone-wise, the Bush charm offensive did its best to keep the offensiveness reasonably charming -- though his references to anti-Semitism and the murder of Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Islamist were a little more pointed than his hosts would have cared for.

"But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six -- make that 10 -- months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser."

Jeff Gannon has returned--not to the temporarily defunct Talon News"we feel compelled to reevaluate operations" in light of some 'malicious' attacks"), which is temporarily out of business, but to his old Web log, where he says the following:

"I'm baaaaaaack! If you thought I was going to slink away - then you don't know much about me. Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before."

Battling the Left is hard work, lemme tell ya.

"Despite all the pleas from the Left to go over to the 'dark side' and expose the 'corrupt Bush administration' simply isn't going to happen. My faith and my ideology are rock solid. . . .

"If I had been a liberal reporter with the salacious past now attributed to me, I would be the Grand Marshall of the next Gay Pride Parade as well as a media darling, able to give softball interviews. But because I am a conservative, they continue to try to smear me with allegations of behavior that they otherwise would vigorously defend."

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog does the point-by-point rebuttal thing:

"Jeff says: What they found is domain names and sexy pictures from which sprung rumors and conspiracy theories. "John says: What we found was an entire Web site on which you were apparently selling yourself as an escort - the site included x-rated photos, including an entire series of you urinating. That site remained live for several months AFTER you had started covering the White House. . . .

"Jeff says: If I had been a liberal reporter with the salacious past now attributed to me, I would be the Grand Marshall of the next Gay Pride Parade as well as a media darling, able to give softball interviews. "John says: If you were a liberal reporter you'd have been run out of town by FOX News, the Washington Times, and every single Republican in Congress, and the president would be up for impeachment."

The Nation's David Corn breaks with his liberal brethren in questioning the Gannon controversy:

"Bloggers have made much of his apparent effort to earn a buck as a prostitute for men. This is not gay-baiting, they say, it's hypocrisy. The question is, hypocrisy on whose part? On Gannon/Guckert's? He's been accused of being a gay-baiter. But how true is that? As part of my investigation, I had my assistant, Alexa Steinberg, search through a collection of Gannon/Guckert's articles for pieces on gay-related themes. She found eight pieces. Most were straightforward accounts of political tussles over gay marriage."

After quoting several such pieces, Corn says: "This is pretty tame stuff. . . . Gannon/Guckert clearly was writing for a conservative audience. But he was hardly a flame-thrower on gay issues. His observation about Kerry was clumsy but not homophobic. Sure, he worked for an organization that supported an administration and party opposed to gay rights, and he was a Bush-backer. But does that automatically qualify him for outing? Should a lesbian reporter who works at the Wall Street Journal or at any metropolitan daily that editorializes against gay marriage be outed? Reporters are not elected officials. They do not legislate the behavior of others. Once Gannon/Guckert became an issue, his past--or present--as a male hooker was newsworthy, at least in a descriptive sense. But as a line of attack against him, it may be too much."

Salon's Eric Boehlert wonders: Where's the outrage?

"On Feb. 17, 'NBC Nightly News' anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on controversial White House correspondent James Guckert by informing viewers that the saga was "the talk of Washington." Nine days later the mysterious tale of an amateur, partisan journalist who slipped into the White House under false pretenses remains the buzz of the Beltway. Yet most mainstream reporters have opted not to cover the story. Two of the television networks, as well as scores of major metropolitan newspapers around the country, have completely ignored it. . . .

"Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces 'Good Morning America,' 'World News Tonight With Peter Jennings,' 'Nightline,' 'This Week,' '20/20' and 'Primetime Live,' has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News ('The Early Show,' 'The CBS Evening News,' '60 Minutes,' '60 Minutes Wednesday' and 'Face the Nation'). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times...

"Perhaps nobody is surprised that Republican-friendly Fox News has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid covering the Guckert story and the embarrassing questions it raises for the Bush White House. Since the story began to take shape earlier this month, Fox News has filled more than 500 hours of programming. During that span the name 'Jeff Gannon' has been uttered just five times on the air, according to a search of the LexisNexis electronic database of television news transcripts. And at no point have the facts surrounding the story been explained to Fox's viewers. (Dependable Republican ally Matt Drudge, who in the past has gleefully trumpeted media scandals, has also been allergic to Gannongate, posting just one link to date on his Web site.)

"But it is surprising that a program like MSBNC's 'Hardball,' which touts itself as the home of authentic Beltway chatter and which has aired 15 episodes since the Guckert story first emerged, has dedicated just one segment from one show to the Guckert controversy. MSNBC's 'Countdown With Keith Olbermann,' however, has been much more aggressive in covering the story. Only CNN has covered the story with any kind of consistency among the 24-hour news channels.

"Meanwhile on the newsstands, through Thursday, there had been no meaningful coverage in USA Today or in the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, Denver Post, Oakland Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer, to name a few that have effectively boycotted the White House press office scandal. Leo Wolinsky, deputy managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, says the Times is running its first Guckert story on Friday, focusing on the guidelines for securing White House press passes. 'It's a bit late,' he concedes. 'We may have been a bit slow to recognize it had become a story of public interest.'"

For the record, I was writing about Gannon before he got fired, when it was still a G-rated story.