The new issue of the American Prospect takes a look at the fate of contemporary liberalism — and asks if it’s got a chance. The conclusion — yes — shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, but in true liberal fashion, the writers tend to beat themselves up a little bit before reaching the promised land. In the leadoff spot is Robert Kuttner, who claims that despite the “overpowering structural tilt” favoring conservatives in the media, there is “surprisingly good news” for Democrats in the immediate future. “There is a latent liberal majority,” he writes, “if liberals can once again learn to do politics.”
That’s much the same argument that John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira made in their 2002 book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” but Kuttner has a little more to work with here, as liberals have finally started, however haltingly, to build the infrastructure (think tanks, magazines, funding resources) that have made movement conservatism so successful over the past quarter century.
The new issue of the New York Review of Books features a piece by Mark Danner, who takes an exhaustive look at what has become known as the “Downing Street Memo” – minutes of a meeting of Tony Blair’s advisors in July 2002 that show how both the Bush and Blair administrations were pushing for war in Iraq early in 2002, despite the lack of evidence that the Iraqi regime had WMD.
The NYROB is the first American publication to print the memo in full, and Danner does a wonderful job of putting the memo’s content in the context of the time, using news reports and direct quotes from the parties involved to paint a picture of official deception, planning failures on a massive scale and the lead-up to a war that, given what the decision makers in the memo say, didn’t have to happen.
If you thought you could escape this week’s magazine report without at least some mention of the Newsweek “Toiletgate” scandal, think again. Time magazine rubs a little salt in the wound in its rehash of the whole sorry mess. In the first few graphs, Time almost sounds as if it believes the Scott McClennan line that Newsweek‘s ill-fated blurb caused rioters and others to die in Afghanistan. (It seems rather elementary to us, but apparently we live in a time when it needs to be repeated: it is Afghan troops who are killing rioters, not newsmagazines.) Time quickly regains it footing, however, and puts the matter in perspective, writing:
Opponents of the U.S.-supported government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan may have seized on the report to stir up trouble. On May 12, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers said the U.S. military believed that the riots were not triggered by the Newsweek report. Six days later, he elaborated, stating that in the view of Lieut. General Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, “the unrest had been previously planned” but that the Newsweek story “certainly wasn’t helpful.”
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. Actually, we did, last week.
Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker also tackles the story, looking at the intricacies of Newsweek‘s non-retraction followed by retraction.
What Newsweek apologized for was the statement that a claim of Koran abuse would be asserted in a forthcoming report from a particular military organization, the U.S. Southern Command. What it retracted was the statement that such abuse had been uncovered by “an internal military investigation.” Left standing was the source’s testimony that he had seen the abuse documented; he was simply no longer sure whether it was in the SouthCom draft or “other investigative documents or drafts.”
Hertzberg also rightly notes Tim Golden’s two-part New York Times series based upon a 2,000-page report leaked to the paper outlining the American government’s belated investigation into charges of detainee deaths at the Bagram military installation in Afghanistan.
If you care about such things, go back and read Golden’s harrowing report. Or, if you’re pressed for time, read Hertzberg’s brief summation of some of the more outrageous acts allegedly committed at Bagram, accompanied by what appears to be a total breakdown in the accountability structure in the US military and civilian military command. It dwarfs any lesson to be learned from Newsweek‘s rush to print with an unverifield item.
Finally, we refer to a guy who doesn’t make too many appearances at CJR Daily: Mr. Patrick Buchanan. In the new issue of his American Conservative magazine, he channels the spirit of Paul Krugman in an attack on the Bush administration:
The president’s problem is this: a conviction politician, he believes deeply in his ideology and policies. But the country is coming to believe neither is working for America. Either he makes a mid-course correction, or the country will make it for him in 2006.
Buchanan and Krugman, together at last? Thus is the circle closed.
–Paul McLeary
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.