Belated Dissenters

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:51 AM

You know the administration's argument: We are slowly making progress in Iraq, but the media are so fixated on car bombs and suicide attacks they never get around to reporting that.

I would suggest this line is growing dated. The war has aroused a growing number of critics who have nothing to do with the MSM and can't by any stretch be called liberal.

When Republicans and former military men are ripping the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld handling of the war, I'd say that Houston, we have a problem.

My only question in these matters: What took them so long?

I'm not saying they're necessarily right. I am saying that I'm suspicious when people leave jobs where they can actually do something about a policy, and only then -- in articles, books and TV appearances, unburden themselves of the grave doubts they dared not voice when it mattered.

That's probably a little harsh, but so be it.

Paul Bremer, for instance, writes a book and suddenly tells us the that Unites States did not anticipate the Iraqi insurgency and that he raised his concerns about the size and quality of our military forces with Bush, Rummy and senior military officials. At the time, he toes the line. The rest of us find out when he hits the book circuit. Thanks a lot.

In this week's Time , retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold also goes the belated candor route:

"I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon. . . .

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that 'we' made the 'right strategic decisions' but made thousands of 'tactical errors' is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results."

And look who else is off the reservation, according to South Dakota's And look who else is off the reservation, according to South Dakota'sArgus Leader :

"Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

" 'It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,' Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. 'We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.' "

Now he tells us. If Newt has called this an enormous mistake in his many Fox News appearances, or called for a major military pullback, I, for one, have missed it.

Eric Boehlert revisits 2004 and John Kerry's complaint that he had to stretch his money over a longer period because the Democratic convention was first:

"In retrospect, the notion of delaying nomination in order to have more money on hand to respond to GOP attacks looks like a pretty smart one. But at the time, the pundits teed off on Kerry and his plan. It was 'silly' 'bordering almost on fraud' (Brit Hume), 'ridiculous' (David Broder), a 'dangerous move' (John Harwood), 'the stupidst move that John Kerry could possibly make' (William Safire). The strategy, the pundits cried, 'reeks of indecisiveness' (Houston Chronicle) and was a 'farce' (Los Angeles Daily News). Here's how CBS's Bob Schieffer played the story: 'When I heard that John Kerry may delay accepting his party's presidential nomination until a month or so after its convention in order to get around campaign laws and spend more on his campaign, my question was: Are these people nuts?'

"Incredulous talking heads were certain the idea was a loser because it placed too much emphasis on campaign funds and because it looked like Kerry was trying to bend the campaign rules. That's all well and good. But where, during the month of August when the Swifties lobbed their fantastic tales (the confused vets could barely keep their shifting, 35-year-old stories straight), were Broder, Harwood, Hume, Safire, Schieffer and the Houston Chronicle and the Los Angeles Daily News? They all lectured Kerry about accepting the nomination in July and about playing by the existing campaign rules. But when the Swifties tore up the campaign rules, most journalists stood quietly by."

Fair enough, but as I recall, Kerry at first decided it would just give the Swift Boaters more attention if he responded, and it wasn't a question of campaign cash.

A number of bloggers have responded to my column the other day about the press ending its honeymoon with John McCain. First up, Betsy Newmark , who says this is a good thing from a Republican point of view:

"Well, we always knew that it would happen; it's just happening a little ahead of schedule. Now that the media is waking up to the idea that John McCain could actually win both the Republican nomination and even the election in 2008. And they're realizing, that there is more to McCain than the guy who so helpfully bashes the administration on some issues. Why, the guy is actually pro-life and supports the war in Iraq. Gasp! We can't have that, so liberals and the media are already gearing up to cut McCain down to size and soften him up for 2008. . . .

"What they don't realize is that such attacks help McCain in his race for the Republican nomination because there is nothing Republican primary voters agree so much on as their dislike for the media. In fact, in addition to my differences with McCain on issues such as tax cuts and campaign finance reform, one of my main suspicions of McCain has been the sense that he would take positions solely to maintain his popularity with the press. So, McCain will benefit, at least in terms of the GOP nomination, by losing his 'base,' the press."

Lifelike Pundits is on the same wavelength:

"I am sure that somebody in McCain's office is clipping all these anti-John McCain articles by the likes of Krugman, Huffington and Dionne for use in his 2008 primary run. They're the equivalent of endorsements as far as the base of the Republican party is concerned."

Oxblog sympathizes with the senator:

"Fact is, critics are going to jump on every little compromise McCain makes, insisting that it is definitive proof that he is not an independent, principled, straight-talking maverick, but instead, just another hack. Yet as long as McCain sticks to his principles and is upfront about his positions, this kind of criticism will just roll off his back.

"Fact is that McCain will also pay a price with the media for every one of his compromises. When you run for president, the media can no longer approach you as a foil for George Bush or the Republican Right. More and more, John McCain himself will be the issue."

Here we go again: Here we go again:Poll Finds Bush Job Rating at a New Low . Except it's not a new low, it's a new low compared to the last Washington Post survey. Despite two months of "new low" headlines, Bush has actually been stuck in the 36-40 range. An old low, you might say.

Andrew Sullivan digs into the numbers:

"What's stunning is not the approve/disapprove numbers, which are consistent with other polls, i.e. mid-to-upper 30s approve, mid-to-upper 50s disapprove. What's stunning is that almost half the sample -- 47 percent -- strongly disapproves. I came to the conclusion that Bush was an incompetent abetting something much more dangerous before the last election, hence my reluctant endorsement of the pathetic Kerry. But the broad middle of American opinion has taken longer to see what this administration is and what Republicanism has become. These are pretty stunning numbers given the relatively strong economy -- strong in part because it's been propped up by an unsustainable Keynesian stimulus.

"Historians will figure this out, but my own view is that Katrina did it. Katrina was the equivalent of Toto pulling back the curtain. Once Bush's passivity, indolence and arrogance were put on full display, once it was apparent that the government was not working, and that Bush was the reason, people figured out why the war in Iraq was such a shambles. And so the mystique required to sustain patriarchal authority was shattered. I think this is largely irreparable because it's about a basic assessment of a single man. What worries me is that we have almost three more years. If we face a confrontation or a crisis, this president will not be able to carry Americans with him. Our enemies will take comfort from this. Which is why re-electing him was such a terrible risk."

Is Hillary Clinton just bringing home the bacon, or playing the influence game?

"Since Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000," says the New York Times , "Corning and its mainly Republican executives have become one of her largest sources of campaign contributions. And in that time, Mrs. Clinton has become one of the company's leading champions, delivering for it like no other Democratic lawmaker.

"In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

"And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign."

If this screed by HuffPoster and Dem loyalist Hayes Jackson is any indication, Hillary Clinton faces problems in her own party:

"It breaks my heart to think the Democrats might be stupid enough to nominate Hillary. But then again, it doesn't really surprise me. . . .

"Those Democratic true believers who consider Hillary a viable national candidate should ask themselves a simple question: Do you really think America is ready to elect a woman president?

"Perhaps I should re-phrase that. Do you really think a country of gun- and Jesus-loving red staters will, in a time of war, elect the skirt-wearing lesser half of the most despised political couple in American history? A McGovern-Dukakis ticket would have a better shot, and given how much the DNC loves a tired old re-tread candidate -- witness the name John Kerry still being bandied about -- don't think for a second those guys have been ruled out.

"Hillary is the most polarizing political figure of our time -- and that's just among Democrats. I live on the west side of Los Angeles, and we're about as blue state as you can get. My friends are all tree-hugging Prius drivers whose idea of a sexy candidate is Dennis Kucinich. To us, the Upper West Side of Manhattan has gotten just a little too reactionary.

"Even so, only about half my friends say they'd vote for Hillary. Sure, those who love her, love her. But most of us just see a disingenuous, win-at-all costs, me-first, power-hungry flip-flopper. She's Bill without the warmth, charm, charisma or common touch. He even got the good hair. And if Hillary is this divisive among loyal Democrats, just think how she'll play in all those Midwest states where the only guy they hate more than Charles Darwin is Bill Clinton."

Nothing like surveying your friends to get a handle on the political situation.

Is blogging going mega-mainstream? Wired reports (via Public Eye) that "a syndication service that delivers commentary from 600 bloggers for use by newspaper publishers is set to launch on Tuesday, further blurring the lines that divide blogs and mainstream media."

" "BlogBurst , as the service from blog technology company Pluck Corp. is known, includes headlines and articles for use by newspaper publishers in the news or feature sections of their online services, as well as print editions. Pluck initially has signed up Gannett Co., Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman and San Antonio Express."

Is the NYT gaga over Gossip-gate? The New York Sun thinks so:

"It's easy to see why the Daily News is throwing everything it's got into the story of the scandal at Page Six of the New York Post. But what are New Yorkers to make of the New York Times? The Gray Lady fronted the topic for two days running and twice devoted a full broadsheet page of coverage inside the paper to the drama between billionaire Ronald Burkle and reporter Jared Paul Stern. By our count, at least 13 individual reporters have been named as contributing to the Times's coverage. By Monday the Times had run more than 10,000 words about Page Six.

"Over the same period, so far as we can tell, the Times ran just two sentences about the genocide in Darfur, a passing reference in the Times's own gossip column. The Times ran but 4,000 words on the Israel election in a four-day period during which the vote took place. The German election last fall rated similar coverage, about 4,000 words over four days. While the Times had 13 reporters chasing a two-day-a-week freelancer for the Post it missed the news reported in Monday's New York Sun by our Josh Gerstein that a California judge had dismissed Senator Clinton from a lawsuit that had been brought against President Clinton relating to campaign fundraising improprieties. The Times has yet to acknowledge the scandal over the anti-Israel paper coauthored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"So how to explain the Times's obsession with the Post? Are the machinations of the New York Post's gossip column twice as important as the Israeli or German election? Is it schadenfreude, or payback for the Post's coverage of the Times's own recent troubles?"

Three words: Nothing but readers.