To illustrate a point, let me tell a quick story:
On June 23 , The New York Times ran a story on SWIFT, the Bush Treasury Department's terror finance tracking program. Most of the information had been revealed in other publications, and insiders knew that the program was no longer producing much. The Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times also ran stories on SWIFT.
Nonetheless, needing to change the headlines, Bush and his agents attacked the NYT. The official rhetoric was merely stern, citing unspecified damage to our national security. But Bush's most popular and enthusiastic defenders were not so circumspect. Charges of "treason" bounced around the conservative cable tv and blog circuit (again). You mean treason, like the high crime punishable by death? Says radio talk show host Melanie Morgan: "I would have no problem with [NYT editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber."
So, the NYT was accused of deliberately helping terrorists. Freaky enough. Then things took a turn for the Super Freaky.
On June 30, the NYT published a puff piece in its travel section about St. Michaels, Maryland, where both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have vacation homes. The piece included a picture of Rumsfeld's vacation driveway. Conservative pundits charged -- really -- that the NYT was deliberately trying to draw al Qaeda's attention to an opportunity to assassinate the Vice President and Defense Secretary. One blogger went so far as to post the home address of the NYT photographer on the piece. Another said this of NYT staff:
Do you have an idea where they live? Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where they shop, anything you can dig up, and send it to the Autonomist. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the brass ring.
[Note: The proprietor seems to have taken the above post down. Guess he didn't like the publicity.]
OK, we are clearly to Super Freaky here. But the train doesn't stop at Super Freaky. We're headed all the way to North Freakytown. Hang on.
It turns out now that Rumsfeld explicitly gave permission to the NYT to take the photographs. The Secret Service itself officially stated that the story posed no threat. Case closed, right? Bush flacks apologized profusely for the ignorant outburst, no? And then STFU?
Oh no. They insisted that despite Rumsfeld's permission and the professional opinion of the people guarding Cheney, the NYT was still motivated by blood lust. Indeed, they went on to organize a protest in front of the NYT's D.C. building. Sixteen people showed up -- not counting media, which more than doubled the number.
What point is illustrated by this tragi-comic tale? I'll save that for the next post.
Comments
View as Flat
bburtis Posted 5:59 am
05 Jul 2006
In the meantime, I'm going to write to the members of my all-Republican congressional delegation and suggest that, if they are really on the side of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, they could issue some public statements condemning acts of deliberate, rage-inspiring, murderous wing-nuttedness. I can't wait to get their reply!
Bill B.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:55 am
05 Jul 2006
I recall many years ago that when rats in a maze like environment were under extreme stress, they began to display signs of psychosis.
What are the particular stressors in the American environment that are causing these folks to act this way?
Perhaps instead of attacking conservatives, we should be asking why they are going crazy? Maybe they are "canaries in a coal mine", and are warning us that something is wrong.
(Their particular breakdown manifests itself in extreme anger and irrationality).
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:05 pm
05 Jul 2006
Bill Keller has comported himself excellently through all this. But it does not matter. Nor do the circumstances to which David refers. The NYT has already for a long time now been vilified by the Right-wing voices; and the Decider himself, as the Sun approached the zenith at the end of his 60th year, obviously felt empowered to encourage the accusations of treason.
Patrick, please elaborate on your canaries-imagery. I like it, but am not sure I follow: what is the danger that the frenzied conservatives are sensitive to, and which will before long kill us all, which we sensible folk cannot perceive?
David, if you think there exist a number of independents and undecideds, who can be swayed by your evidence, good for you, that is mighty admirable. I am afraid I am rather more cynical: everybody has made up his/her mind on everything, and do not dare try to change it, and that is that.
Permalink