Honest to God, I was about to compliment the New York Times for playing it straight and calling out the Democrats and Senator Obama for their shameful politicization of the anti-Ahmadinejad rally. (See my September 18 post, "Partisan?") But then I noticed that the text I was reading, via Power Line blog, came from the New York Post, not the Times!
Yesterday's post made a passing reference to "Amir Taheri's underreported claim that Obama has conducted inappropriate — and illegal — negotiations with Iraqi leaders." One of my countless loyal readers asked me to provide documentation for the story, and I responded in a comment. But the subject is important enough, and my comment was certainly long enough, to merit its own separate post. Here is that comment, with some modifications:
Taheri's original op-ed appeared in the New York Post — there's that newspaper again — on September 15. (The link is to an updated version from the following day.) You'll notice that Taheri names his source and that the source is a prominent Iraqi, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. On September 19, Taheri had more to say.
Senator Obama's own words from his June 16, 2008 NBC interview are consistent with Taheri's, and Zebari's, claims: "Obama said that he had told Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari that 'the Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq' and 'suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.'"
Even the Obama campaign's response to the initial op-ed supports Taheri's contentions, if inadvertently: "Senator Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress — especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it." (emphasis added)
Taheri's piece for National Review Online demonstrates how well-accepted the "golden rule of American politics" of not "trying to second-guess the present administration in its negotiations with [foreign countries]" is. Taheri recounts learning about this unwritten rule decades ago from such disparate politicians as Senator Edward Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan (before he was president). He includes a recent example, too, from a meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton.
Taheri calls it a golden rule and I referred to as an unwritten rule, but it's actually federal law. The Logan Act "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments." Apparently, there has only been one indictment under the Logan Act, but that's in large part because such indictments have not been sought. I think that's wise: in all but the most egregious cases, it is better to "prosecute" potential violations of the Logan Act in the political arena rather than in the criminal. I certainly don't know enough to "pronounce Obama guilty," but the accusations are serious and have yet to be rebutted.
Is Taheri's source reliable? Is the purported NBC quotation legitimate? Is the campaign's statement accurate and placed in proper context? It's hard for the average citizen to know, since Taheri's reportage has essentially been ignored. Why has this important story received such scant attention from the media?
Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan was accused of conspiring with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages until after the 1980 elections. "After twelve years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found that the charges were groundless." There was a Playboy Magazine article in October 1988 about the subject entitled "An election held hostage." There was a multi-page New York Times op-ed still alleging Reagan's guilt in April 1991 called "The Election Story of the Decade."
President Reagan was exonerated, but the accusations were considered serious enough for journalists and Congressional committees to examine them for over a decade! Don't Amir Taheri's charges, which quote the Iraqi Foreign Minister and are consistent with statements from Senator Obama and his campaign, deserve some consideration?
One can offer up plenty of anecdotal evidence for media bias against Republicans and conservatives, yet it's probably impossible to prove because of its subjective quality. But is it really so hard for fair-minded people of all political stripes to see a double standard at play here?
I'm all ears.
UPDATE (9/21/08, 6:18 am): I said above that "I certainly don't know enough to 'pronounce Obama guilty,' but the accusations are serious and have yet to be rebutted." The first clause still stands, but I erred in not noticing that an attempt to rebut the accusations had already been made. However, I find Jake Tapper's piece overwrought and not entirely convincing. The tone is more that of a political operative than a detached fact-checker.
The Obama campaign says that Taheri's report was marked by "outright distortions." Tapper adds that the other "[a]ttendees of the meeting back Obama's account" and seems to think it's significant that Republican senator Chuck Hagel is part of that group. But Hagel is known in Republican circles as a RINO (Republican in Name Only — not to worry, there's an epithet for the other side: a DINO is a Democrat in Name Only). In addition, Hagel was right by Obama's side for his tour of foreign countries, he clearly seems to be supporting him in the election — "Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman" is the way political reporter Sam Stein put it — and he may even be angling for a cabinet position.
That doesn't mean Hagel isn't telling the truth, but if Tapper actually believes the "R" that comes after Hagel's name adds credibility to his vouching for Obama's account, then one has to question Tapper's credibility as a political observer. The only sources Tapper actually quotes are spokesmen for Hagel and Obama. (Aside: I know the genders of nouns can be controversial, but if you're going to refer to Mike Buttry as a Hagel spokesman, then don't refer to Wendy Morigi as an Obama spokesperson.)
The assertion by Obama advisers that it's possible "that either Zebari or Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement — which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress — with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible" is interesting. I am not familiar enough with the terminology to know if the advisers are using fancy jargon to obfuscate, but the usually dependable Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) said that he did not see "a lot of daylight between what Taheri said and the Obama campaign's response."
Moreover, if the quote from the NBC interview is accurate, then Obama himself referred to the Status of Forces Agreement, not the Strategic Framework Agreement. A tape or transcript of that interview would be very helpful.
On the other hand, the Instapundit — and the following speaks to the fairness with which Professor Reynolds approaches stories — updated his post to include a link to the Jake Tapper piece that is the basis for this update and adds that "[d]espite the weakness of Obama's denial, Republicans and Bush Administration officials are casting serious doubt on the story." I'm unimpressed by unnamed sources — and there are plenty of career diplomats whose agendas differ from those of the administrations they serve — but perhaps Taheri did get the story wrong.
What I find troubling is that Tapper goes into high dudgeon with "[w]hat actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications" when the very McCain adviser he quotes as "expressing outrage" (Randy Scheuneman) uses qualifiers such as "reportedly" and "If news reports are accurate." And I don't find anything untoward about the Scheuneman statement that touched off Tapper's diatribe: "The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Sen. Obama's judgment, and it demands an explanation." Read the words of the "detached reporter" and compare them to the McCain adviser's, and decide for yourself who is more inflammatory and unwilling to consider the other point of view. I'm not saying that Tapper is an Obama partisan, but he's acting like one here.
Perhaps the Obama campaign has provided the explanation that McCain's adviser says the situation demanded. I'm unsure, especially since the relevant sources are unnamed and the terminology is confusing. If the quote from the NBC interview is accurate, then the explanation given by Obama's advisers is clearly false. In any case, this remains a legitimate avenue for investigation, and the tone taken by Tapper's piece serves only to stifle such investigation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Whiner: I think that on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, there is such diversity of opinion and behavior, so many actors in our national political drama, that it's possible for a leftist to find ample data that "the republicans" are playing dirty political pool, AND for a righty to find ample data that "the liberals" are doing the same. What do you think?
joseph: To me, there are two implicit parts to your question:
(1) Is it possible for a left-of-center person to persuade a right-of-center person that the righties play dirty political pool more often than the lefties? (The same question applies, with the left and the right reversed.)
(2) Is it possible to determine if the left or the right engages in dirty pool more often than the other?
Incidentally, my original post focused on media bias while your comment focused on political dirty tricks, so my response may jump between the two.
To the first: I don't know. I certainly find it hard to persuade even friends whom I consider pretty open-minded. As I say in the original post, "One can offer up plenty of anecdotal evidence for media bias against Republicans and conservatives, yet it's probably impossible to prove because of its subjective quality." And as I said in my post of September 16, "I don't feel like making the case for media bias against Republicans and conservatives -- it's obvious to me and obviously non-existent to others."
To the second: It's difficult to tackle the issue in its totality, since there's no way to offer a mathematical proof. That's why I try to stick to specifics, while doing my best to place them in a greater context. I posted September 18 on the anti-Ahmadinejad rally that was held the following Monday. The facts are straightforward. A prominent Democrat (Senator Clinton) and a prominent Republican (Governor Palin) were invited to speak at what should have been a bipartisan event. We know that Clinton didn't disagree with the goals of the rally, since she had originally accepted the invitation.
After Palin was invited, Clinton opted to pull out. Whether this was at Obama's behest or Clinton's own decision is irrelevant. Senator Obama had every opportunity to attend himself or send someone else in his stead. (If Senator Biden was booked, there were plenty of other able surrogates from which to choose.)
Not only did Obama not send a Democrat, so much pressure was exerted on the organizers of the event that they actually disinvited Palin. What should have been a bipartisan, united front against Ahmadinejad became a denuded protest that the Iranian dictator could use as a major public relations victory against the U.S. There's a time for political partisanship and a time for putting all that aside. This one was a no-brainer.
Are you suggesting that people are such slaves to their preconceived notions and so incapable of breaking out of their paradigms that they can't see the truth when it's right in front of them? That people are such political partisans that they'll ignore the wrongs of "their guys" or not even notice them at all? And don't forget that media bias is also a major part of the discussion. If the politicians can't put politics aside, surely the responsible members of the media can.
I have higher expectations for all of us. If the roles had been reversed, I would have lambasted the Republicans. I don't need a hypothetical to tell you that I did not cheer the political opening that the Democrats created with their actions. (Silly me, there was no such political opening, since the media gave the Democrats a free pass.)
When I realized how Ahmadinejad had been strengthened by the fiasco, I was upset, angry, and discouraged -- and there was nothing partisan about that response. I'm very concerned about the threat that Iran, under Ahmadinejad, poses to the entire world. I'll remain concerned no matter who wins the election on November 4.
I haven't seen you take a position, but I'd be surprised to learn you don't find the actions of the Democrats shameful, not to mention harmful to the country. I'd also be disappointed, unless you can explain to me what I'm missing. It was in that same spirit that I ended this original post with "I'm all ears." And when I learned of information that could be seen as exonerating Obama, I immediately shared it in an update. I'm on one side of the political spectrum on this election -- I want McCain to win -- but I'm not going to play fast and loose with the facts.
George Will is one of the most prominent conservative opinion journalists in the country, but he was so critical of McCain over another recent matter that his column could be read as an implicit endorsement of Obama as the lesser of two evils: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html.
Will doesn't see an "R" after a candidate's name and automatically write a positive story or see a "D" and plug in a negative story. We should expect the same from opinion journalists who lean to the left. (As the late Senator Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat, put it, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.") All the more so for reporters, who are not doing their jobs if they inject their opinions into their stories.
I haven't really answered your question -- or the two parts that I broke it into -- in the sense that I've focused on only one piece of anecdotal evidence. To that, I have two remarks:
(1) Do you really want this response to be any longer?
(2) It's true that reasonable people can disagree on "who's worse, "who started it," etc.
I asked a mutual friend if he could come up with a counterpart to George Will, a prominent, liberal opinion journalist who is willing to criticize Democrats. I'll ask you the same question. And I'll ask you to provide an example of Senator McCain and the Republicans doing something comparable to what Senator Obama and the Democrats did with the anti-Ahmadinejad rally.
It's certainly true that it's tough to tackle the totality of what all Democrats and all Republicans do, as well as what all media outlets do. I try to keep it as simple as possible by dealing with specifics and making a good-faith effort at placing them in an appropriate context.
As the clever man said, "I'm sorry I didn't have enough time to write you a shorter letter."
Referring to the following: "Are you suggesting that people are such slaves to their preconceived notions and so incapable of breaking out of their paradigms that they can't see the truth when it's right in front of them?"
No. I'm suggesting that there is no such thing as a truth that can be right in front of everyone. The world is WAY to complex for that. No?
"No. I'm suggesting that there is no such thing as a truth that can be right in front of everyone."
I agree. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince Charles Manson that the truth is that what he and his cohorts did was wrong.
Are you saying that unless 100% of the world's population agrees with a proposition, it isn't true? Do you think there are any truths?
I DO feel that we should regard as a crackpot anyone who says Charles Manson is a great guy, or that murder is right (except in cases of self defense, national defense, and, some say, capital punishment) but I don't feel the same is true about people who disagree with us about media bias. It's too complex, and partisans on both sides are too emotionally invested in their interpretations of what the truth is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have opinions or that they shouldn't be passionate about them; they should. And you are. But at the same time, I find the tone of the current presidential election--and the degree of hatred on both sides--to be somewhat scary, and maybe if we articulated our opinions AS such, rather than saying that they are "Truths," it might calm things down a bit.
Post a Comment