|
|
May 7, 2006
Just One of Those Mysteries... For Snow's First DayThe CIA director is forced out after a year and the White House gives no reason at all for it. What will the new press secretary do when asked for an explanation that was glaringly absent on Friday? Monday is Tony Snow's first day on the job. Let's see if reason-giving can make a comeback.
Remarkable, isn’t it? Reason-giving is basic to government by consent of the governed. Very basic. An Administration that doesn’t have to give reasons for what it is doing is unaccountable to the American people and their common sense, to world opinion— even to itself. To pressure the CIA director to leave after 20 months in the job, and to give no reason at all for it—not even “spend more time with the family”—is a big screw you to anyone trying to discern what the President is doing and what the government is up to. This is why we have professional journalists as part of our public life. They are supposed to step in when reason-giving falters, and press for an explanation. And if on Monday, the White House press corps can’t get an explanation for Goss’s departure it will fail some basic test of usefulness. The forecast for Snow Especially after Goss called it “one of those mysteries,” reporters will, I think, be asking lots of CIA director questions on Monday. Most will be about his chosen replacement, Gen. Michael Hayden, but some will be about Goss. The correspondents know how many shocked people there were in Washington on Friday. They know Goss resigned “under pressure,” as the Post said today. Monday is also the day Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is supposed to take over in the briefing room. Thus it’s possible we will know right away whether Snow represents a change in White House strategy, or a corrective to the old strategy of de-certifying the press and rolling it back. What will the new press secretary do when asked to provide an explanation that was glaringly missing on Friday? If you’re Scott McClellan, who held his last briefing Friday, you sift through what’s already on the record about the resignation and choose a phrase or two that can be safely repeated, no matter what you’re asked. Rather than dodge the question, you refuse to recognize it, converting the back-and-forth of Q & A into a series of non-sequiturs. The strategy is to add nothing to the public record, no matter what’s missing in the explanations from the White House. Press nullification, I have called this. It’s not like spin. It’s non-communication from the podium, part of a larger strategy for expanding the “black,” opaque or simply unilluminated portions of the presidency. Walking out with answers Snow’s appointment (see my April 28 post on it) was described at the time as a shift in strategy to a more powerful press secretary who has the ear of the president, “walk-in privileges,” a seat at the table when policy is being decided, and a broker’s role between journalists and the White House. We don’t know if any of that is true. But if it is true, Tony Snow will walk in to the Oval Office Monday morning and walk out with answers. He will argue that a complete default in reason-giving is unacceptable, and won’t fly. When reporters ask about the departure of Porter Goss he will have some sort of explanation for the mystery. It will put new information on the record, and he will make news with it. Rather than pretend there’s nothing to be explained, Snow will by tone and manner accept the basic legitimacy of the question— and of the people asking it. The contrast with the last three years will be immediate, and the exchanges during the televised briefing will show that. If things are really going to be different, that’s what we should expect to see. Bag the briefing… It wasn’t much noticed that last week the new chief of staff at the White House, Josh Bolten, told Fox News Sunday that “it may be worth considering whether to end the daily televised press briefings where reporters and the press secretary frequently air disputes in front of the cameras.” He also said he will leave the decision up to Snow. End the briefings! I suppose it would never occur to Bolten that such a decision also belongs to the people being briefed. If Snow turns out to be McClellan with better hair, the press ought to quit the briefing room and give up on getting explanations from the White House. Beat Bolten to the punch, in other words. By “quit” I mean pull your top talent. Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips where other heads of state might speak.) Let the White House publicize itself. Meanwhile, re-deploy your key people, so that they still report on the Bush Administration and what it’s doing, but only from the outside-in. (Which is what the top reporters say they do, anyway. See this portrait of Elisabeth Bumiller.) Outside-in reporting, a practical step, recognizes the futility of trying to get information out of the Bush White House. Quitting the briefing—before Bolten gets to close it down—would be a symbolic step, recognition of how far the contempt for reason-giving has gone under Bush. Will it ever happen? Could it? It could (…there’s nothing to stop NBC from sending a highly-regarded intern instead of David Gregory) but it won’t. As I have said before—most recently on The Young Turks show—Bush changed the game on the press and he knew the press wouldn’t react, or change the game on him. Now we get to see whether Tony Snow will intensify this pattern, or reverse it. Does reason-giving return? Check back. Another possibility: Snow has been called a “movement conservative.” Maybe he listens to his base, and goes on the attack. He charges the press with trying to bring down Bush, and puts reporters on notice that he will call them on it. McClellan wasn’t agile enough to wage culture war from the podium. Snow may think he is. Of course this would do nothing to explain Bush to the country. It would do nothing to re-claim majority support. It would, however, make a national star of the press secretary. Possibly Bolton doesn’t want that. So he tells Fox News: the televised briefing may be going down. (But the decision will be Tony’s.) When reason-giving falters a little, the Republic can handle it. We call it oversight, check and balance. When reason-giving falters a lot, we have instruments for that: public commissions, Senate hearings, special prosecutors, investigative journalism. But when reason-giving disappears from the governing style of an Administration, it’s not clear what we’re supposed to do. Check back Monday after the briefing, and we’ll see what we can see about reason-giving’s return. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links May 8, 5 pm… Well, it’s Monday after the briefing. On Snow’s first day, John Negroponte did the daily briefing on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden for Director of the CIA. Tony Snow introduced him, but did not handle questions. (Transcript.) The AP reports: “Snow is expected to give an informal briefing—known as a gaggle—on Friday and hold his first televised briefing next Monday.” Snow taking a pass on this week’s news qualifies for a hmmmm and a half. At Monday’s briefing, Helen Thomas was the only one who asked why Porter Goss was dumped. The exchange: Q Why did you want Mr. Goss fired? And also, does the CIA send detainees to secret prisons, prisons abroad? That will probably stand as the “explanation” for why Goss left. It’s pitiful, but no worse than what we have seen the last few years. At the washingtonpost.com, Dan Froomkin asked his readers for good questions to ask Snow. “I’m not so much interested in smart-aleck, gotcha questions,” he wrote. “What I’m looking for is questions to which the average American would say: ‘Yeah, I’d like to know the answer to that.’” Froomkin will run the answers—I mean the questions—on Friday, May 12. This also ran at The Nation site as Forecast for Snow (May 8). News Corpse comments on this post: Just imagine it. Tony Snow steps behind the podium and gazes out to a room of youthful and unfamiliar faces. He stumbles uncomfortably with his opening statement and then opens the floor to questions….. The Daily News says Goss was ousted after the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board grew alarmed at Goss’s ties to Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, the No.3 official at the CIA, who is under investigation by the FBI in a corruption scandal. (see Tom Regan’s round-up.) The result was the awkward Oval Office announcement Friday at which neither Goss nor Bush gave a specific reason for Goss’ return to Florida. Goss told CNN yesterday his resignation was “just one of those mysteries.” A collective agreement on Goss’s departure that Goss himself calls a mystery? Bush had confidence in Goss but let him go? That’s an explanation that doesn’t add up. A lot of blogosphere attention is focusing—rightly—on how simmering tensions between CIA head Porter Goss and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte were suddenly discovered by journalists and the “senior adminisration officials” who were sources in Friday’s news accounts. Laura Rozen is skeptical here and here. (Among bloggers, she’s my go-to person on this story.) Says Kevin Drum: For the past several months, the consensus word on Goss has been that he’s loyally protecting George Bush by firing all the CIA’s closet Democrats and aggressively tracking down the leakers who are undermining his ability to torture prisoners in Eastern European prisons. That seems like sterling service. But now, out of the blue, we’re supposed to believe that Bush woke up Friday morning and suddenly decided that some previously unreported bureaucratic turf war finally needed to be stopped? Who exactly is the source for this theory? Whoever it is, he seems to have been a busy boy on Friday. Who indeed? It’s the old problem of confidential sources. Maybe the name of the source is worth more, news-wise, than the information the source is adding. Andrew Sullivan thinks there’s truth in the Negroponte tensions story, but it’s still a diversion: This is how metastasizing scandals are successfully headed off. Cut your major losses early; create a persuasive cover-story to hide that fact; then hunker down and hope you can weather the tawdry details that will doubtless emerge. That’s still not good news for the White House. But it’s surely better than having your CIA director forced to resign in September in “Hookergate”. Karl is refocused. And, of course, the MSM ate it up. At least, that’s my take. Editorial in National Review, William Buckley’s magazine. Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman who once served as an official in the CIA’s clandestine service, was named by President Bush to head up the agency 19 months ago. His primary task was to end its bare-knuckles insurrection and policy interference, and return it to the business of intelligence collection and analysis. His tenure was marked by non-stop turmoil and bickering, as he moved to root out the insurgents and they fought back with a vengeance. And this is Stephen Spruiell, National Review’s media blogger, commenting on this post: Given the amount of speculation about Goss’s resignation and early opposition to Bush’s chosen successor, Snow’s remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. See Spruiell’s reaction to Monday’s events: “Tony Snow is a great resource for an administration whose troubles seem to deepen every day. Why are they delaying his debut?” “I’m shocked, I know this has been a lifelong dream of Porter to run the agency.” That is what the former Republican Congressman from Ohio, John Kasich, said Friday. He knew Goss when they were both in Congress. “There’s something behind this story I’m anxious to find out because, frankly, I’m very, very surprised.” Bill Kristol said something similar on Fox: “Certainly people close to Goss did not expect this to happen. Senior congressmen and senators didn’t expect this to happen. I’m not sure the White House expected this to happen…” Lots to explain then. Last week, Jack Shafer published in Slate a pair of columns on the unintended consequences of de-certifying the press and starving the beast. He wrote: “Rather than crying ‘war’ over the Bush-press disputes, I subscribe to Jay Rosen’s more modest idea that the Bushies ambition was to ‘decertify’ the press from its modern role as purveyor of news and portray it as just another special interest.” A starved press corps doesn’t necessarily wither away. In fact, a Machiavellian case for feeding the press corps with stories—even stories that reflect negatively on the administration—can be made. If properly fed such “scoops,” they will remain under the control of their feeders, which is what happened to the press corps orbiting Henry Kissinger during the Nixon-Ford administrations. Starve them and they may well go prospecting for news in the vast bureaucracy where White House feeders aren’t in control. “The best journalists practice judo, using their foes’ brute force against them,” Shafer said in a second colum about how the press can fight back. “Every time the Bush administration cracks down on openness, it creates new sources for journalists inside the bureaucracies.” At one of his last briefings, Scott McClellan gave this clinic in press nullification. He associates a reporter’s question with the opposition party’s agenda, never allowing the question to come on the table. MR. McCLELLAN: As what? Q Havoc, [Bush] used the word havoc today, could he, would he possibly stand under a sign that says “Mission Accomplished” today as he did three years ago?
Posted by Jay Rosen at May 7, 2006 4:08 PM
Comments
I hate to say it, but I don't think anything will change in regard to the nehavior of the press. They will still preen for the cameras and tip-toe around the hard questions. It will be all so carefully managed on both sides and we will know little more than we know now about the real reason Goss left the CIA. The press conference will be about the nominee for his replacement. Posted by: margaret at May 7, 2006 4:53 PM | Permalink Oh goody! Another thread filled with rancor and bitterness. Is this really PressThink, or is this BushThink? Will anyone give Snow the benefit of the doubt, or will everyone retreat into their own private PartisanThink and begin firing salvos before the war is even begun? Posted by: sledgehammer at May 7, 2006 5:41 PM | Permalink I suspect Margaret is correct. The White House press corps (which has the attention span of a 4-year-old) will take a pass on the Goss mystery (yesterday's news) and focus on the Hayden controversy (today's news.) In fact, it's already happened. Here's the lead of the International Herald Tribune's Sunday afternoon story: WASHINGTON, May 7 — The man widely expected to be President George W. Bush's choice to lead the C.I.A. encountered surprisingly strong bipartisan opposition today, with the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee bluntly calling him "the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time." That's one more weapon in the arsenal of Rollback, one more way to flummox the beast. Interesting day coming up for Tony Snow for sure. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 7, 2006 6:24 PM | Permalink At one point, Steve, State was under control of the Pentagon--Colin Powell, remember--which didn't seem to get a lot of notice. Keep in mind, journos may have the attention span of a four-year-old, but the rest of us don't. That's why journalists should be having journalists covering them; to ask questions like, You didn't seem concerned when an even higher-ranking officer (with combat experience and large-unit command time) ran an even more important organ of the executive branch. Can you tell us the difference? I expect we will, after a year or so of feverish speculation, find out the real reason Goss is gone. But the problem may be distinguishing it from all the partisan conspiracy theorizing. We may even know it now, but there's no way of telling it from the noise. Time for some reporting. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 7, 2006 8:18 PM | Permalink Don't forget Cheney vs. Russia. wow...that's gonna be a tough first day at the office. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 7, 2006 8:22 PM | Permalink Word tween dots and dashes is that he has been practicing tapping a pencil to the podium. "-... .-.. --- .-- , -- . !" Actually I trust that this is a more appropriate message. "... --- ..., -- --- -- -- -.--, ... --- ... !!!" Posted by: gb at May 7, 2006 9:11 PM | Permalink As Jay mentioned above and provided a link, he was on The Young Turks Friday. Listen to the Turks' entire first hour, or Jay starts at the 21:30 mark. When the Goss departure was announced, I thought why would the WH want to have a Senate confirmation hearing (for the next director, Hayden) where NSA warrantless spying might come up. Seems that the WH wants to talk about the NSA program. They also said they would not shy away from a fight with Democrats over what Bush has termed a "terrorist" surveillance program, if that becomes the focus of Hayden's hearings. With the country essentially divided on the effort, which has allowed the NSA to scan the calls and e-mails of more than 5,000 Americans, the president has more support on that issue than most others. Interesting. We'll see, along with Snow. Posted by: bush's jaw at May 7, 2006 9:46 PM | Permalink Tony Snow is probably the "administration official" who started the spin about the "conflict" between Goss and Negroponte. The media is already in his lap. Posted by: jojo at May 7, 2006 10:13 PM | Permalink The Goss firing reveals a fundamental flaw in the rollback theory: It assumes the press is being rolled by the administration against its will when all too often, as the press on Goss' departure illustrates, the press seems to roll over on its own, or on command. This behavior suggests that if there is rollback, the press is complicit in it. In fact, that is why Colbert was so funny; his act was a parody of the press's complicity as much as it was a parody of Bush. All of the mainstream outlets except for the NY Post just typed up the administration's (Snow's) explanation for Goss' departure, ran it through the spell check and then went home and made love to their wives, just as Colbert described. The blogs, meanwhile, were aflame with curiosity and credible speculation (how could a rational, aware person not be). Watch the press play catch up on this one (once again). It suggests, though, that Snow knows how to say "roll over" with authority. They all fell in line behind the admin spin on command and ignored the real story. The press rolled itself back. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 7, 2006 10:46 PM | Permalink If the departure of Goss was related to his #3, Foggo, then why fire Goss? Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink All of the mainstream outlets except for the NY Post just typed up the administration's (Snow's) explanation for Goss' departure, ran it through the spell check and then went home. Snow's explanation? What was that? And who said the press wasn't complicit in rollback? Not me, Steve. I said Bush changed the game, and he knew the press wouldn't react or change the game on him. Isn't that being complicit? Mark Anderson's off topic post.... Off Topic Ron Suskind reopens the "US Military is deliberately killing journalists" debate. He "emphatically" insists the orders to obliterate the al-Jazeera office in Kabul by cruise missile went through proper channels, though he isn't specific about how high up the decision went. He insists it was premeditated and deliberate. It would sure be nice to have an investigative journalist nail this down with verifiable documents or sources. If proven true, does the term "rollback" do justice to this aspect of Bush administration media strategy? What kind of a wacko is Eason Jordan, exactly? BLITZER: One of the other explosive charges you have in the book is that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul to make a point. You write this: "On November 13, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera. So now its Cheney vs. Russia, Bush vs. Iraq and Iran. We are moving from one extreme to the other - communism to terrorism to communism. Just one more vicious cycle starting all over. The terrorism thing hasn't worked out so well for the PNAC group now has it. Pick your poison, pick your poison. Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink Jay - I like your thoughts on filling the press room with interns that won't ask questions, you could be on to something there. Get the interns to ask dumb questions about WH Christmas Trees, the Presidents favorite vegetables, what time he comes to work, what his favorite colors are and crap like that. Now that would be funny. It would never happen, but a girl can dream, can't she? Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 11:18 PM | Permalink If the departure of Goss was related to his #3, Foggo, then why fire Goss? It would be safe to say we don't know why Goss was let go, yet. Maybe there will be more about poker games at the Watergate. But according to Schwenk, the blogs have credible speculation. The NYTimes should change that box next to the masthead to, All the Credible Speculation That's Fit to Print. Ahh, Tony's first 'Snow Job'. Posted by: Gary at May 7, 2006 11:57 PM | Permalink Excuse me? Credible speculation. As Bush's Jaw ably notes, that may be fine for blogs and op/ed pages. But it's not reporting. And, not meaning to skip over the significance of the White House firing Goss without an explanation, but the fact that Bush wants to replace him with the general responsible for the NSA wiretaps mess - and GOP Senators aren't too happy about it strikes me as more than a little newsworthy. Whether the WH press corps will follow through is another issue. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 8, 2006 12:02 AM | Permalink Frankly, it would be so much easier if the Bush communication team remembered some of their greatest hits - - the mission that was accomplished in Iraq was regime change, to ensure Saddam Hussein's disarmament. "THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change." Mission accomplished; enough said. Now if we can only go about accomplishing the follow-on missions without our dominant news media painting an unrepresentative picture, we might do some good - - Bulletin to Tony Snow: Less defense, more offense. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 8, 2006 12:03 AM | Permalink I think what we have here is another "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie," moment. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 12:44 AM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: Does that mean Stephen Colbert is Tony Snow? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 1:28 AM | Permalink Jay, I think you guys have gotten spoiled. Frankly, I feel compelled to figuratively get out my world's tiniest violin and play a sad song for the poor journos. So the Bush White House doesn't leak much. And even worse, they don't say the usual nonsense when they do something for which they don’t offer the usual nonsense "explanation." This is wrong?? How many times has a spokesman come out and said "We fired the guy because he was a turkey;" or "He was hurting us politically;" or "We were tired of listening to him bitch at our cabinet meetings," or "He has a mistress, and if that becomes public, we will be embarrassed,": or… whatever? As I have said a few times, anonymous leaks, against the chain of command, are fundamentally anti-democratic. There is nothing in our system of government that demands leaks or, for that matter, explanations. The Constitution doesn't set up the press as a fourth co-equal branch in the checks and balances, and nowhere does it anticipate that the press should have access to internal controversies, disagreements, and reasoning. It certainly doesn’t empower unelected bureaucrats to undermine their elected bosses. Or is this latest posting more of your recent practice of bashing Bush instead of dealing with the real issues of journalism? If in theory it is related to journalism, I think you are really stretching it. I was, of course, pleased to see the action. If Goss couldn't clean out the den of bureaucrats in the CIA, maybe a general can do the job. When vital secrets are being leaked anonymously to discredit the properly elected boss, somebody needs to go in and _._ .. _._. _._ ._ ... …! bj's speculation about Bush wanting to pick a fight about the surveillance program (the scare quotes around the word terrorist are rather offensive, btw) is at least interesting. However, the idea that they would trash a CIA to do so seems a bit far out. Gustnado, Who better to expose Bush's illegitimacy than those in possession of the classified truth of his unconstitutional actions? "Don't ask, don't tell" is now the official GOP concept of "democracy." Contra your lack of interest in what he actually wrote, Jay (and members of the administration he quotes) was/were very clear that the Bush administration chose to move from a "we'd like you to view our policies in this way" model to a "take an f----ing hike, you traitorous special interest press" model of public relations. Being opposed to democracy yourself, you stand up in defense of the concept of the last election as a mandate for "whatever the hell it was we voted for last election that they won't tell us about for another fifty years." What could more perfectly express the will of the people than a government that refuses to tell the people what they've actually done before or after the election in which the people supposedly chose their "properly elected" leaders? What could more perfectly express the will of the people than a government that nominates as head of the CIA a general who refuses to rule out spying on domestic political opponents for the purposes of throwing elections? You've convinced me, this administration is clearly all about doing the will of the people and uppity bureaucrats who say otherwise are clearly enemies of the people. Real democracy would involve the type of persuasion Jay is talking about, persuasion of journalists and the American people rather than explicit contempt. Argument rather than dictat. Since you seem to have the idea democracy means standing, saluting, and unquestioningly obeying authority you are very impressed with the current regime. Those of us with somewhat higher standards are less impressed. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 1:59 AM | Permalink gustnado, i.e. John Moore, (why do people suddenly post under different names?) I shortened my pseud. To clarify, I wasn't speculating that Bush fired Goss to pick a fight about the NSA program. The NSA issue would likely be raised in the Senate confirmation for any new director, not just Hayden. Seems like Goss was fired for reasons that the WH can't said in public, yet or ever. And WH wasn't worried about the NSA issue at the Senate hearing. Over the decades, I seem to remember lots of people, cabinet level and below, who "greatly served their country" and then "resigned," suddenly, with no real explanation offered (health, spend more time with family, yada, yada) This isn't any cabinet level person who greatly served the country. This is the CIA director he CIA who just served for less than two years after the last one fell on his sword. And the CIA is one of the central political figures in this Iraq mess. Do you really expect anyone to accept the no explanation? The WH is inviting credible speculation with the no explanation. Sorry if i got that part of rollback wrong, Jay, but the Goss story brought back to me just how well-trained and reflexive the press can be sometimes. It caused me to wonder whether maybe the theory should be called "roll over" instead of "rollback". I'm glad that 'credible speculation' was so well received, too. But skepticism and speculation were begged by the WH's failure to provide any reason for the departure, and by the rushed, clearly unusual and very secretive handling of the while matter. Those are FACTS the press flatly IGNORED, and they were very newsworthy facts. They provided a legitimate basis to wonder WTF really happened. The WH non-explanation makes no sense. Indeed, the failure to point them out and to instead just run with the WH explanation was a far greater sin than engaging in fact-based speculation (exploring possibilities) would have been. Intentionally looking the other way (ignoring relevant facts) is not what 'printing all the news that's fit to print' is supposed to mean. When the press goes out of its way to kill legitimate speculation or skepticism, as with the 'move on, folks, nothing to see here' bit they did with Goss, they are acting at their very worst, like trained dogs instead of journalists. And while I do not know for a fact that Snow was the one who fed the press the line that this was just part of the president's staff shake-up, many have speculated that it was, and that the press ran with it out of deference to Snow being the new guy, and one of them. That's not unreasonable or unwarranted speculation. Friday was Scottie's last day, wasn't it? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 2:10 AM | Permalink (why do people suddenly post under different names?) Historically, ‘morphers’ morphed to escape killfiles... but anymore, on a blog that lacks a killfile facility, morphing just does not really manage to rudely convey the utter contempt for others that it used to. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 2:22 AM | Permalink As I have said a few times, anonymous leaks, against the chain of command, are fundamentally anti-democratic. That's funny! Did Colbert come up with that? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 2:23 AM | Permalink You won't see me complaining that the White House doesn't leak much. I don't know where you got that, gustnado. But it isn't anything I have said. The White House leaks plenty. What makes the no explanation extraordinary in this case is that the nothingness comes fom two sides. Uusually the White House gives no explanation and the dumpee says "it was time for me to move on to other things." Private sector. Time with family. I had always planned to... Here the dumpee says, "you know, it's a mystery, why I left," and neither the White House nor the man forced out even tries to explain it. If you tell me that's a normal pattern, I'm sorry to hear it, because it's not. You're snowing yourself or trying to snow me. [T]he nothingness comes fom two sides. The “nothingness” has a “somethingness” to it. Consider— • In the fifth paragraph of the Linzer and Pincus story (Washington Post): But senior administration officials said [...] • Then in the sixth paragraph: [...] said a senior White House official [...] Another senior White House official said [...] • In the second paragraph of the CNN story: [...] intelligence sources have told [...] • Then in the ninth paragraph (under the subhead): An intelligence source with detailed knowledge of the discussions surrounding Goss' departure told [...] •And in the eleventh paragraph: A senior administration official said [...] I could go on with examples, but I think there's enough there to support a contention that “nothingness” is not coming from both sides. Instead, as others have noted elsewhere, it appears to be at least a reasonable hypothesis that the White House is intentionally communicating its explanation via programmed leaks. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 4:18 AM | Permalink Nedu, Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 5:11 AM | Permalink [T]he "both sides" Jay was referring to were the administration and [...] Mark, And I am suggesting that there is reason to believe that one side—the administration—has settled on a strategy of treating the American press as a hostile intelligence service. A hostile intelligence service run by idiots. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 5:25 AM | Permalink Besides asking Snow about Goss, I'd love to hear someone ask Snow how much Bush was actually depositing into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a program Bush stated two weeks ago that he was temporarily suspending until after the November elections. Several points: 1) Bush never mentioned how many barrels of crude oil he was actually depositing. My guess: Bush was "depositing" over 1 million barrels of crude oil a day into the SPR, which would be required if he planned on topping it off by the end of the year. 250 million barrels is a whole lot of crude oil. And if Bush was diverting over 1 million barrels of crude oil a day from our nation's crude imports, then this would have definitely had an impact at the gas pump. Right? Hopefully, someone will grill Snow on exactly how much Bush was depositing into the SPR each day. With gas prices as high as they are, we all deserve to know. Posted by: The Oracle at May 8, 2006 6:07 AM | Permalink 250 million barrels is a whole lot of crude oil. According to Wiki, Bush announced in 2001 that the SPR would be filled to its 700 million barrel capacity. The highest prior level was reached in 1994 with 592 million barrels. At the time of Bush's directive, the SPR contained about 545 million barrels. Since the 2001 directive, the capacity of the SPR increased by 27 million barrels due to natural enlargement of the salt caverns in which the reserves are stored. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has since directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to the full 1 billion barrel authorized capacity, a process which will require a physical expansion of the Reserve's facilities. Don't think the physical expansion has occured. It took 5 years to add 100 million+ barrels to the current 688 million. Plus, Bush isn't saying he will halt deposits until November, and increase the capacity by 250 million barrels. It is important to note that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is almost exclusively a crude oil reserve, not a stockpile for refined petrochemical products, such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Although there are small-scale (2 million barrels) heating oil reserves in Connecticut and New Jersey under the aegis of the Department of Energy, the Federal government maintains no gasoline et al reserves on anything like the scale of the SPR. Consequently, while the US enjoys some protection from disruptions in oil supplies, it has little to no protection from any major disruption to refinery operations. Since no new refineries have been constructed in the US for thirty years, there is little reserve capacity. This was illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when many of the Gulf coast oil refining complexes were disrupted for some time. 7000 to 70,000 barrels are reasonable estimates. It would take 680,000 barrels a day to reach 250,000 million barrels in a year. To all I had no intention of posting as gustnado. Somehow when I went through the TypeKey process I ended up invoking that persona, which I didn't even know would ever appear as a posting name. I am at work and will try to avoid the temptation to respond otherwise. I just wanted to make sure Jay and others knew that in fact I am the "gustnado" poster and did not intend to mislead. John Moore Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink I am the "gustnado" poster Ok, it's you, John. You sounded like Colbert there for a second. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 11:46 AM | Permalink Hey Jay - I liked it better when your comments were in a separate window. Oh well, onto the Snow Job. It would be too much to ask to expect anything to get better in this lame duck administration. They have no choice but to continue stonewalling and hope to make it another two and a half years without being impeached, removed from office, put in jail or killed by "terrorists." The legacy press has no choice but to continue doing what they are doing, kissing up to power, to keep that 20 percent profit rolling in. Nothing will change until the Democrats take back Congress newspaper circulation drops to a point where publishers take the drastic step of actually hiring the best reporters, paying them real money, and realizing that their future depends on regaining the trust of readers. Newspaper blogging will not save them because they are no good at it and people trun to blogs for something alternative to the same old cheap syndicated BS. Posted by: Glynn Wilson at May 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Permalink What question could be dumber than "Do you think the President could stand under a "mission accomplished sign today?" At least when directed to someone you KNOW can't answer that - it's not even his job to answer questions like that. You might reasonably pose that question to an independent analyst or historian. But to the White House press secretary? It's idiotic. A waisted opportunity. That reporter is not asking questions for the benefit of enlightening his readers/viewers. He's transparently posturing for the rest of the pack of jackals in the WH press corps. We'd be better off with interns than with people who ask questions like that. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 8, 2006 1:19 PM | Permalink He's transparently posturing for the rest of the pack of jackals in the WH press corps. Yes, calling the president on his photo ops, no matter how opportunistic and dishonest and disasterous they may be is the height of rudeness, and reporters should be polite above all else, just like satirists. Asking the president in the fourth year of an invasion and ocupation that three years ago he proclaimed a success and a mission accomplished, asking him whether the mission is accomplished yet is just flat out uncivil and silly posturing for the cameras. It smacks of accountability, and we all know that those who seek to hold this president accountable hate him. Accountability isn't written anywhere in the constitution. Indeed, those who seek to hold the president accountable are fundamentally undemocratic. Could there be a dumber question? How about, "Sir, now that we are nearing 2,500 US soldiers killed in Iraq, do you still wish the insurgents to "Bring it on?" Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink Is there really anything more to be said about rollback? That is, anything that's useful? Posted by: whyaskwhy at May 8, 2006 2:51 PM | Permalink Whether Rollback will be continued or not is, I think, an important matter. To those who find PressThink's coverage redundant, there's not much I can say. Hopefully your suffering will be over soon. It takes a long time to get an idea into public debate, a very long time, and many more repetitions than you would believe. I was unable to find the briefing on TV today, and haven't seen any reference to it at all on the Web. Normally it happens around 12:30-12:40. Not sure there was a Snow briefing today. This piece is also up at The Nation site, sans After Matter. And it was discussed at National Review's Media Blog, where conservatives go for their press critique. Stephen Spruiell agreed that Snow ought to explain the resignation, or it could hurt the White House: Given the amount of speculation about Goss's resignation and early opposition to Bush's chosen successor, Snow's remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. Whether elements in the Bush coalition begin to argue for a reversal of rollback and strategic non-communication is, to my mind, an important political question. Well, on Snow's first day, John Negroponte did the briefing. It was on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden for Director of the CIA. Tony Snow introduced him, but did not handle questions. (Transcript.) Maybe Snow's turn will come Tuesday. Helen Thomas was the only one who asked why Goss was dumped. Their exchange: Q Why did you want Mr. Goss fired? And also, does the CIA send detainees to secret prisons, prisons abroad? That will probably stand as the "explanation" for why Goss left. (Surely replacing Goss with a uniformed general has nothing to do with a CIA analyst having stepped to the mic four days ago and excoriated Donald Rumsfeld quite publicly -- catching him in several lies, including the one he told in his own defense: "I'm not in the intelligence business.") Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 8, 2006 5:25 PM | Permalink You meant to say retired CIA analyst, I'm sure. Maybe Poker, Hooker & Spooks rolled Tony back. AP: Snow is expected to give an informal briefing _ known as a gaggle _ on Friday and hold his first televised briefing next Monday. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 8, 2006 6:01 PM | Permalink When I was in journalism, the AJC was not considered a good paper, not a stepping stone to the major dailies. Now I live in Atlanta, and was surprised by its blogging ranking. Simon. You mean McGovern? If so, you should try to keep up. McGovern had written at least one memo asserting the existence of WMD. Not to mention having been out of the agency since 1990. Again, presuming the people you talk to don't know jack makes you look bad. Since they do. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 8, 2006 9:57 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: Good catch. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 10:52 PM | Permalink From UPI, but no Snow in sight.
CIA Director Porter Goss' No. 3 man at the agency, facing investigation as part of a congressional bribe probe, quit Monday, an official said. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the CIA's executive director, announced his resignation in an e-mail message to agency staff, a U.S. official told United Press International on condition of anonymity. It seems that damage control has overtaken the need to fill Scottie's big shoes. Snow has been put on ice until next Monday. Karl seems to be running things press wise, and that means the press is given only what is needed to shape the news/message to karl's liking. Bush could soon find himself with approval ratings as low as Nixon's lowest. Bush's disapproval rating of 65% is already only 1% shy of Nixon's highest disapproval rating (66%) right before he resigned. No way is Tony Snow going to reach out to the press, except perhaps in the most superficial manner. These people are fighting for their political survival and view the press primarily as a tool to be exploited in that battle. Selective leaking and tight tight controls on info are what they have been doing and will likely continue to do. Tony will just be a sideshow. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink Jay writes: Here the dumpee says, "you know, it's a mystery, why I left," and neither the White House nor the man forced out even tries to explain it. If you tell me that's a normal pattern, I'm sorry to hear it, because it's not. You're snowing yourself or trying to snow me. I never said it was a normal pattern - you misread my comment. I simply said that there was nothing wrong with it, and furthermore it was more honest than the usual approach (which has now been taken, so I hope all you guys are happy) of saying a few sappy words, giving an explanation that people rarely believe, all for the sake of form. So please explain again, why is it important for the White House to stand up and emit some meaningless pap about a change in personnel? Or is there some actual information that such actions convey that I am missing? As I see it, on the surface you are looking for the White House to use the canonical approach, regardless of whether any actual facts are transformed. In its lack of doing so you read a nefarious motive of some deep and dark sort. Below the surface, this thread (and increasingly this blog) seems less about journalism that to winnowing out more and more proff of the already made conclusion that Bush is a toad, a nasty liar and fascist who disses the press, and therefore should be summarily drawn and quartered, figuratively if the literal action is not possible. Or something like that. Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink I wouldn't under-estimate what can be done from that podium. It's an extremely powerful position, depending on how it's used. Bruce Reed, who used to work in the White House, wrote about Snow for Slate: Obviously, the press secretary shouldn't step to the podium and pronounce views that are directly at odds with the president's. But press secretaries make policy all the time, simply because, unlike other policymakers in the White House, they have to answer questions all day long. Every sentence in the briefing room becomes official administration policy, which gives a press secretary ample leeway to influence its direction. If he throws a few extra qualifiers into the official talking points, he can turn a veto threat into a mild statement of disapproval. If he rolls his eyes or barely suppresses a giggle, he can wink at the press corps that today's official position will be gone by tomorrow. Let's edit that last paragraph and try again... As I see it, on the surface you are looking for the White House to use the canonical approach, regardless of whether any actual facts are transmitted. In its lack of doing so you read a nefarious motive of some deep and dark sort. Below the surface, this thread (and increasingly this blog) seems less about journalism that to winnowing out more and more proof of the already made conclusion that Bush is a toad, a nasty liar and fascist who disses the press, and therefore should be summarily drawn and quartered, figuratively if the literal action is not possible. Or something like that. Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 11:26 PM | Permalink John: I was trying to think of a reply to your post, but I couldn't. Then I realized why: I already wrote it in After Matter. It will have to do for now. The quotes and the links. Jay, In all seriousness, I just don't see any significant issue about how the eplanatrion was or was not handled. Certainly it wasn't normal, but "normal" is hardly anything interesting. And perhaps it was clumsy, but that isn't all that interesting either. Was the change in DCI's interesting - yeah, of course it was. But that doesn't seem to be the heart of the grinching, and furthermore has nothing at all to do with issues of journalism (as opposed to being a valid subject for journalism to be applied to). So I will quit speculating until someone actually writes why anyone should give a damn about how information flow about Goss was handled. So what the heck is the problem? Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 12:28 AM | Permalink Sorry, John. Best I can do. Maybe people who haven't already made up their minds that Bush should be shot can speak to you. These are the editors of National Review, William Buckley's magazine. Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman who once served as an official in the CIA’s clandestine service, was named by President Bush to head up the agency 19 months ago. His primary task was to end its bare-knuckles insurrection and policy interference, and return it to the business of intelligence collection and analysis. His tenure was marked by non-stop turmoil and bickering, as he moved to root out the insurgents and they fought back with a vengeance. And this is Stephen Spruiell, National Review's media blogger, and a conservative: Given the amount of speculation about Goss's resignation and early opposition to Bush's chosen successor, Snow's remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. Did you hear that, John? For the sake of the White House. What's that phrase doing there? Why would a conservative magazine come to the same conclusion as your deranged Bush defiling one-step-from-Michael-Moore press blogger-- that Snow better speak to this. Why? Oh, never mind... In John W. Dean's April 21st column, the former presidential counsel wrote: Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done. Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider. Posted by: nedu at May 9, 2006 1:33 AM | Permalink Jay, there are things I don't like about Bush, and things I do like about National Review. And vice versa. Citing a couple of conservatives is hardly dispositive. Why, Jay? Because conservatives urge all sorts of contradictory ways for the White House to deal with the raving pack of deranged mad dogs... Many realize that it's a waste of effort, just like we did in our reality based anti-Kerry effort. Perhaps the tactics don't matter. If the foaming beasts are hydrophobic, it makes no difference what flavor of beverage they are offered. For that matter, John O'Neil found a way to "rollback" the press. First, his efforts were completely stonewalled. So he went around you and it worked (sound familiar?). From all appearances, the MSM including its representatives here hated his guts, and did its very best to disprove every jot and tiddle of his assertions. Too bad it didn't work - enough Americans, including many Vietnam veterans like myself, discovered just what kind of pig you guys were painting lipstick on. Sometimes, a bit of asymmetric tactics is the most effective way of speaking truth to MSM power and arrogance. So... I don't see the slightest reason why the Bush administration should consider the MSM as anything other than a partisan enemy - one to be dealt with by whatever (legal) means work - whether the enemy likes it or hates it. My only objection is they maybe they should have tried harder to win that battle, whether it involved ass kissing or ass kicking. In any case, rather than argue by even conservative authority, Jay, why don't you just tell me why the White House owes you or me an explanation, or even why it is in their best interest? A couple of column inches should suffice. Of course, I'm just a mere citizen. I should worship at the feet of the media from now on. As an engineer, I couldn't possibly survive in a "reality based" world. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 2:10 AM | Permalink John, Your comments here remind me of my paternal grandmother who just kept telling the same three stories about her childhood once she got past seventy-five years old. I was her favorite because I was the only one who had the patience to sit and listen to her story loop. I'm running out of patience with your obsessive, undermotivated, looping comments. I feel like we should send you a bill. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 9, 2006 5:09 AM | Permalink "Mission Accomplished." "We're on the way to accomplishing the mission and achieving victory." Isn't there a complication here involving temporality? Or does the Gregorian calendar have a well-known liberal bias? What would Tony do? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 9, 2006 5:23 AM | Permalink Steve writes: "No way is Tony Snow going to reach out to the press, except perhaps in the most superficial manner. These people are fighting for their political survival and view the press primarily as a tool to be exploited in that battle. Selective leaking and tight tight controls on info are what they have been doing and will likely continue to do. Tony will just be a sideshow." You don't seem to recognize the possibility that there is an argument within the Bush coalition itself about "fighting for political survival," how best to do that, and what's the proper use of the press "tool," as well as the White House podium. No careful observer--left, right or middle--has any illusion that the Bush White House has some newfound respect for the press, and decided to "reach out" and mend fences, or give the press a break after being so mean for so long. No way. Not on the table. Never gonna be. You can argue against that kind of sentimentalism if you want, but you're boxing with a phantom. The argument is entirely about how to pull up from the 31-35 percent approval ratings, and what sort of "communications" strategy might do that when the wheels are starting to come off the second term. Lots of people who support the White House and hope for a Bush comeback have noticed that the Administration is paying a price for "never apologize, never explain, always attack, and discredit who said it." And they think Bush is not being given a vigorous enough defense by the practice of non-communication. There was a nod to those people in the reactions to Snow's hiring. These are the quotes I used to show that in my April 28 post. Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times: "Mr. Snow's appointment has been described by Democrats and Republicans as an acknowledgment by the White House that it needs, among other things, a whole new approach to dealing with the national press corps after years of trying to keep it at a distance." Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher in the Washington Post: "White House aides said there is now broad agreement that the first-term strategy of largely ignoring the mainstream Washington media was a mistake." Mike Allen, Time: "A Republican official familiar with the selection process said Snow, 50, was chosen because Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Counselor Dan Bartlett want 'an informed and successful advocate' who can spar with reporters and make the White House case more aggressively — both off-camera and on." The phrase "make the White House case more aggressively" is the key to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying there will be a shift to a new strategy (I'm skeptical) but I am saying there's disagreement about what to do, and it has nothing to do with "maybe we should be nicer to the press." In fact there may be some sort of struggle within the White House over the briefing itself. Bolton's suggestion that it may be time to do away with the televised briefing looks to me like an internal tension. Snow's decision to sit the week out might be part of it too, though that's just my speculation and I could be wrong. What gets me is this: If you're Tony Snow and you deliberated long and hard about stepping in for McClellan; and before you're even on the job your boss--or the man between you and the boss--wants to take away your main source of power, your performance space, and your chance for a star turn... what would you conclude? Snow taking a pass on this week’s news qualifies for a hmmmm and a half. I wonder if Snow took a pass or the WH on Snow's non-involvement with Goss. If Snow were in the media, his boss would have thrown him out there yesterday, making him prove his mettle on a big story. Mark A That's the second time in a row you have egregiously mischaracterized my comments. The troll bait (Swift Boats, Mission Completed, etc) deserve the same treatment. I'm just commenting so you know why I am not bothering to debate you, or even tease you as I did Jay last night. Yes, Jay, the language of a few of those posts was meant to tease, and because it was fun to write - the intended meaning could have been stated more sedately. Jay writes:"
|
Print