One endless Rathergate

The rightwing blogosphere, with assistance from the usual MSM types like Howard Kurtz has spent the last week or two trying to discredit a soldier, Scott Beauchamp, who wrote a “Baghdad Diary” for The New Republic, which included various examples of casually callous behavior on the part of US soldiers (nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib or other proven cases).

For the wingers, this is a continuous pattern. Before this, there was a flap about a report that failures by contractors were resulting in troops in the field not getting adequate food. Before that, it was the Jamil Hussein case, a months-long brawl with AP arising from a report by a stringer about attacks on mosques. Before that, it was reports from Lebanon of ambulances being hit by Israeli fire. And so on.[1] There’s too much of this to try and give comprehensive coverage, and I’m not interested in debating the details, but a search on Instapundit will usually get you started.

The Beauchamp case fits the general pattern pretty well. First, the wingers claimed that the Diary was a fabrication and that “Scott Thomas” was the creation of a writer who’d never been near Iraq. Then, when it became evident he was a real person, they rolled out the slime machine to discredit him. Then they engaged in amateur forensics to discredit particular items in his account (acres of screen space have been devoted to the question of whether the driver of a Bradley fighting vehicle can run over a dog). Then they got to the central point – true or false, material like this is bad for the cause and shouldn’t be printed.

All of this, of course, is an attempt to replicate the one undoubted triumph of the blogospheric right, Rathergate. For those who somehow missed it, Dan Rather and CBS fooled by a bogus memo purportedly from Bush’s National Guard commander, and Rather eventually lost his job as a result.

As I said, I’m not interested in, and won’t debate, the details of these stories. The main question is: How anyone could imagine that this kind of exercise can have any value?

Suppose that every one of the stories being discussed above was a deliberate fraud. It would not change the fact that the Iraq war has been a catastrophic failure, or the fact that US media coverage, far from being overly pessimistic, failed to alert the US public to these disasters as they unravelled[fn2].

At one time of course, it was claimed that the media was failing to cover the “Good News from Iraq”. In that context, the idea that the bad news was bogus at least made some sort of sense. But the last “Good News” purveyor of any consequence, Winds of Change, quietly gave up this exercise at the beginning of this year. The news is nearly all bad, and what’s not reported (since reporters can’t travel much any more) is almost certainly worse. But still WoC and others persist in picking on individual, usually trivial, stories and giving them the Rathergate treatment.

The sheer volume of bad news makes piling on particular articles look really silly. In the time that’s been devoted to the treatment of Iraqi dogs, for example, Google News reports thousands of stories in which the only good news I can see is a win for the national soccer team (followed, inevitably, by this)

The fundamental problem here is that the argument-by-talking-point mode that characterizes the entire rightwing blogosphere, and in which the left sometimes gets involved also, works fine in the context of US political debate, where perception is all that matters. If you can sell George Bush as a hero and John Kerry as a coward, then that is, for electoral purposes, what they are. But when you start making policy on this basis, dealing with realities like war (or budgets, or climate change) reality tends to bite back.

1. There’s also the endless quibbles about estimates of excess deaths (the ‘Lancet’ controversywhere the issues are a bit larger, but where the rhetorical approach and level of argument from the wingers is much the same.
2. As was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, but the Israeli press did a much better job, and the failure of the invasion was quickly recognised there, with consequences for at least some of those responsible.

32 thoughts on “One endless Rathergate

  1. “Cost/benefit of a military operation = I come out on top or I lose my head & our dependants are enslaved/raped.”

    I think you emphasise my point about the lack of understanding of benefits and costs. On this analysis, military operations are entirely exempt from B/C analysis since the only option is to come out on top. Actually, this is in most cases the third-best option after

    (1) Don’t get into a situation requiring such operations in the first place; and
    (2) Settle for peace on the basis of the status quo ante at the first available opportunity

    It’s little wonder, given your (and Razor’s) lack of understanding of the basics that you both supported (and continue to support, AFAIK) the lunatic venture in Iraq.

  2. JQ – you would have been against the Falklands War, too. Because that cost lots of lives and heaps of money. I reckon you would have been against the US invovlement in WWI and WWII, also. I think South Korea would have been buggered if you had your way, too.

  3. Razor, you score 2.5/4.

    You’ve said it all about the Falklands except “and achieved nothing”. The only good thing about it was the consequences for the junta on the losing side.

    WWI was a pointless bloodbath, which bequeathed us Communism and Nazism.

    As regards Korea, it would have been a huge victory if Macarthur had followed my (2). Once his army reached Pyongyang he could have dictated very favorable terms. As it was, he pushed on the Yalu, got routed by the Chinese and it all ended up a draw after three bloody years, including Communist occupation of Seoul.

    That leaves the one great counterexample the pro-war side of the debate has been living off for 60+ years.

  4. Again, we see the lack of benefit cost analysis that gave us the Iraq War which achieved 100 per cent of the goal of removing Saddam Hussein permanently from the planet (just unfortunate about the 500 000 + lost in collateral damage).

    So, if you prefer “achieved nothing for either side remotely comparable to the cost”.

  5. And while the main-stream media is happy to run the untruthful negative stories…they rarely run with a retraction or, god forbid, a story that might have a positive outlook on things they disagree.

    what exactly is the incentive for the new republic to put in a calculated effort to make the war in iraq look bad? that’s not exactly a challenge at this point, and i can think of a few more direct ways to do it than some random soldier’s anecdotes, but anyway.

    the new republic is not an anti-war publication. robert kagan is a regular contribution, peter beinart and noted neo-con lawrence kaplan are on the editorial staff, crypto-racist marty peretz is still editor-in-chief, and spencer ackerman claims he lost his job there because of his opposition to the war. does this sound like the sort of magazine that would publish something untrue in order to make the war look bad? the accusation is, frankly, bizarre.

  6. Didn’t the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post apologise retrospectively to their readers for their Iraq WMD coverage?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s