THE UNBEARABLE VAGUENESS OF DRAPER! Robert Drapers a bit Ceci-esque in his report about Rummy: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009
The latest from Dylans poor immigrant: In our view, Josh Marshall shows good sense in staying out of the latest Dowd flap. In this post, he comments very briefly. Theres no reason for him to say more.
In a way, its sad to see the large group hubbub surrounding Dowds latest blunder. Dowd has done a vast amount of harm in the past twenty years. Her most consequential act occurred in December 1997, when she and Frank Rich joined clownish forces to invent a deeply consequential claim: Al Gore said he inspired Love Story! (Melinda Henneberger and/or her editor helped a great deal too. Then Cokie started purring.) Gore had said no such thingbut the pair of Gotham hyenas thus ginned up a deeply consequential pseudo-journalistic template. Fifteen months later, Gore began his White House campaignand this famously stupid claim was added to two more press corps inventions, thus creating the punishing framework used to send Bush where he went.
Al Gore said he inspired Love Story! It started your nations downward spiral. And it came to you straight from Dowd.
Of course, that was just Dowds most consequential invention. She has invented many other bogus stories, and she has degraded the discourse in endless ways. For example, shes a flat-out gender nut, a point shes made quite clear through the years. In Dowds oeuvre, Democratic men are all girlsand Democratic women are men. Most gruesomely, she had Gore singing I feel pretty the Sunday before the 2000 vote. But she endlessly made Edwards the Breck girland she started in on girlie-man Obama, until she saw history turning against her. Sorryshe started in on Obamabi, on the Hollywood starleton the diffident debutante. Or, if race-clowning is your metier, on Scarlett OHarathe man she described as being legally blonde.
Maureen Dowd is Dylans poor immigrant (click here). Its sad that she is, of course. We dont really believe in good or bad people here; in the end, its a shame that Dowd is so deeply confused. But the lady has been a long national nightmare. It says something bad about our culture that we only created a unified uproar when she did something relatively trivialthoroughly inconsequential. When she copied 42 words, then invented a string of tales about how she had managed to do that.
Some people have gone fairly easy on Dowd. Inside the circle, climbers cling to power. And Maureen Dowd, Bob Dylans lost soul, remains a large force in the broken-souled world we still describe as a press corps. People who long to attend her parties arent likely to speak up nowor ever. Theyve kept their big traps shut all along. Their traps remain shut this week.
Again, three cheers to the New York Times last public editor. Last June, Clark Hoyt trashed Dowd but good in the Times, for her gender-trashing of Hillary Clinton. Finally, someone visible did the right thing (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/23/08). And when he did, Clark Hoyt got results! You know what to dojust click here.
Annals of the feminized and the uncoiffed: Dowd has endlessly been a poor immigrant. But we still marvel at the way she went after Judith Steinberg Dean, Howard Deans thoroughly admirable wife. Truly, this was a startling performance, even by Dowds standards:
Imagine! Deans wife had never gone to Iowa! She preferred to keep serving her patients! And darlings, what a fright she was, blithely uncoiffed in that startling photo! And omigod! It was on the front page! Darlings, please! Make it stop!
Well admit it. Back in 2004, we were still completely clueless. We had no idea about the degree of mockery the progressive world was willing to see extended toward women. Weve been schooled since then, of courseschooled by Keith and his legion of enablers. Lets face it. If Keith began executing beauty queens and unintelligent actresses, we progressives would stand in line to say it was just good TV.
As a group, were yelling about those 42 words. Why didnt we yell as a group about Dowds gender-trashing? The one offense is minorthe other has been thoroughly gruesome. But we progressives seem to enjoy a good witch-dunking too! Maybe we bought Dowds gender-nut package! Was Gore so feminized...hes practically lactating, as Dowd announced on the day he launched his campaign? Admit it! Were such a gang of kooks ourselves, some of us may have believed it.
THE UNBEARABLE VAGUENESS OF DRAPER: Rhodes Scholars arent what they used to beand perhaps they never were. At any rate, the analysts screamed and covered their ears at several points in last nights Maddow Show. The lady has an astounding tolerance for error, over-statement and arrant nonsense. Often, though, her trademark clowning helps the demo overlook such work.
The answer to this puzzling conduct may well lie in the world of Bill Wolff. But the analysts screamed the loudest last night when Maddow offered a groaning analysis about the new Rumsfeld story. She was discussing the new article by Robert Draper (click here). More specifically, she was discussing the use of religiously-themed cover sheets on intelligence briefings which were sent to President Bush.
Clearly, this practice was very unwise. But was Rumsfeld really behind it? In yesterdays New York Times, a former Rumsfeld aide scoffed a bit at the notion. Maddow offered this critiqueand the analysts came out of their chairs:
Youre right. That analysis is pathetically dumbthough Maddow engaged in a bit of her trademark clowning as she offered the arrant nonsense. But so it tends to go on this program.
In one of the major profiles of Maddow, two of her professors from Stanford discuss how brilliant she was a student (click here). We sometimes wonder if these professors watch their star student now.
Five basic questions: We were struck by Maddows absurd analysis because wed spent a bit of time reading Drapers reportand marveling at the vagueness of its central claims. For ourselves, weve studied under Professor Ceci Connollyand weve learned some valuable lessons from the good doctor. One lesson: If a professional writer fails to state his basic factsif instead he only implies themthis may perhaps be taken to mean that the facts in question aint so. In such ways, Connolly ginned up endless tales during 1999 and 2000. We thought we might be smelling similar practices as we read Drapers report. (Though of course we simply dont know.)
As we read the oddly vague report, we found ourselves forming some basic questions. Did Rumsfeld initiate this unwise practice? Did he even know about it? If he knew about it, when did he find out? And then too: For how long did this practice continue? Who ordered the practice to stop?
Those are fairly basic questions about a plainly unwise practice. But Draper fails to answer them clearly. Did Rumsfeld know about this (apparently short-lived) practice? Here at THE HOWLER, we really arent sure. You see, weve read Drapers report.
Drapers text: Did Rumsfeld know about this practice? Well guess that he found out at some pointbut reading Draper, its fairly clear that Rumsfeld didnt initiate it. (This may be the only thing that really is clear in Drapers report on this topic.) Early on, Draper describes the way this practice began. Its fairly clear that the practice was initiated by Major General Glenn Shaffer, not by Rumsfeld himself:
Certain aspects of the time frame are slightly murky thereless so if you read the whole piece. But from this passage, its fairly clear that, according to Draper, it was Shaffer who initiated this practice. Shaffers staff had been sending humorous cover sheets; as the war (and the deaths) in Iraq began, Shaffer (not Rumsfeld) deemed the biblical passages more suitable, according to Draper. The cover sheets were the brainchild of Shaffer, Draper writes. At no time does Draper even suggest that Rumsfeld was present at the creation. (The sheets were not Rumsfelds direct invention, Drasper writes a bit later. For full text, see below.)
But surely Rumsfeld must have known, we might think. In our view, Draper never quite nails that down either; indeed, in one way, he seems to avoid doing so. But first, lets consider another basic question: How long did this unwise practice continue? Surely, Draper must have spelled that out, you might think. But noat no point in the magazine piece does Draper report this basic fact. We can only take a guess, based on the cover sheets he displays. Draper displays eleven such sheets; the first one is dated March 17, 2003, the last one is dated April 11. In short, this practice would seem to have lasted less than a month; there may have been as few as eleven such sheets in all. At no point does Draper attempt to say why the practice ended.
Who stopped this unwise practice? Oddly, we dont get told.
But didnt Draper make it fairly clear that Rumsfeld approved the practice? This notion is plainly implied by Draperbut in our view, he never quite says it. We know, we knowyoull read his prose and feel sure that he said it there, or there, or maybe right there! But this is where our thoughts returned to our doctoral studies under Connolly. From her, we learned how cagy some journalists can be when it comes to such slippery matters. Note Drapers opening graf, for instance. Does he actually say in this passage that Rumsfeld saw these now-famous sheets?
Wow! Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House! But often is a slippery term. Does Draper actually say in this passage that Rumsfeld ever delivered a Biblically-themed cover sheet? Actually nohe doesnt. From studying the slippery Professor Connolly, we have learned to be suspicious when journalists dont state such facts.
Professional writers know how to state clear facts. When they dont do so, weve learned to be suspicious.
But wait a minute! Doesnt Draper actually quote Shafer about getting Rummys approval? Well actually nohe doesnt quite do that. To us, this is one of the most striking parts of this whole report. You see, Draper actually interviewed Shafferhe quotes him directly on several points (see below). But how strange! Draper doesnt seem to have asked him about Rumsfelds rolea seminal fact he could have nailed down by asking Shaffer about it. Instead, Draper gives us thisa second-hand, unsourced quotation, recalled from 2003:
Some unnamed person seems to have told Draper what Shaffer supposedly said in real time. Did Shaffer really cite the approval of my seniors? That certainly could be trueand Draper then inserts his own idea of who that phrase would have meant. This substitutes for a bone-simple procedureit substitutes for simply asking Shaffer if Rumsfeld approved (or knew about) this practice. Or who knows? Maybe Draper did ask Shafferand got un unwelcome reply:
In this passage, Draper quotes Shaffer saying something which almost suggests that Rumsfeld may not have been involved. Please note Drapers helpful use of the word likely when he goes on to make his statement about the Scripturesand note that he refers to Rumsfeld using the Scriptures, not the cover sheets. (We learned to read this way under Connolly.) Further note: In the passage above, Draper reports hearing one specific complaint again and again about Rumsfelds conduct. Rubes! Specific complaints arent always accuratethough even then, they can be helpful to a journalist who wants to put a notion in play, accurate or not. (We learned this in July 1999, under Professor Bill Sammon.)
There is one point in this report where Draper comes close to saying, in direct language, that this practice was somehow directed by Rumsfeld. From anyone who wasnt a journalist, this would likely count as a direct claim of Rumsfelds involvement:
From a normal person, thats a direct claim. Based on our studies under many professors, well warn that, in Pseudojournalist Think, that highlighted statement still may not mean what it seems to say. Especially in a larger package where Draper fails to ask Shaffer obvious questionsquestions which would have nailed down the basic facts about Rumsfelds actual conduct.
Did Rumsfeld approve of this unwise practice? Wed have to say we arent quite sure. But theres a basic reason for thatyou see, we read Drapers report! We dont even know how long this unwise practice lasted, thanks to Drapers strangely vague work. Our guess? It probably didnt last long. Such unhelpful facts tend to disappear when journalists seek a big splash.
Please note: Did Draper embellish a bit in this piece? We have no idea. We dont know what Rumsfeld did at what time. Draper didnt say.
But please note: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld destroyed the known world, with plenty of help from Powell/Rice/Wilkerson. If you have to embellish to make a case against these guys, you should exit the case-making business.
Of course, embellishment can sell magazinesand it mightily pleases the demo. Maddow interviewed Draper on Monday nights show (click here). She failed to ask the basic questions: How long did this practice continue? What was Rumsfelds involvement?