As Pentagon Plays Defense, Flag-Waving Is Questioned


By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 12, 2002; 8:36 AM


The following could be dangerous.

Is there such a thing as an excess of patriotism?

Or, more precisely, does there come a point when all the flag-waving and 9-11 ceremonies lose their meaning?

Time's Michael Elliott thinks so.

The temptation is to dismiss him as an America-bashing crank.

He insists he's not (although he admits to being an immigrant). Says admiringly that folks in Britain and France don't hang flags from their homes. He likes what the red-white-and-blue symbolizes: freedom and tolerance.

But, says Elliott, enough is enough.

(And he doesn't even mention Elton John's endless Philadelphia Freedom at the NBA All-Star Game!)

We suspect at least a few people, although probably a minority, might agree with him.

"Here's a confession: I winced during much of the Super Bowl show, larded with homages to the armed forces and heroes of September. Everyone sentient understands that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks last year, an outpouring of patriotic zeal was natural, healthy and necessary.

"But nearly six months later, the flag seems to be even more visible. It wraps the administration's budget; it waves at us from the crawls of the 24-hour news networks; it's being hawked by street vendors in a hundred different pin designs. And if the initial TV coverage of the Olympics is a guide, Old Glory will be stenciled on every second snowdrift in Utah.

"Meanwhile, corporate America and Madison Avenue have found a new theme: Sept. 11 sells! Hence the ads that drip mawkishness like a melting candle (those Budweiser Clydesdales bowing before lower Manhattan) or, like the astonishingly crass Kenneth Cole glossy, somehow link the tragedy to soulful sex ('On September 12, fewer men spent the night on the couch. . . . ')

"The exploitation of patriotic sentiment for private gain is hardly new. But the attacks were a national tragedy, one that demands a quiet determination to remember those who died. Commercializing their sacrifices is a sure way of turning the ineffable into the merely ordinary – and making something ordinary is the first step to forgetting it."

Agree or not, Elliott's got an interesting point.

Pentagon Gets Defensive
Now, onto the war, with the Los Angeles Times reflecting the degree to which the Pentagon is on the defensive:

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has asked for an investigation into allegations that a group of Afghans mistakenly taken prisoner by U.S. Special Forces troops last month was beaten and mistreated, but senior Pentagon officials said Monday that so far there was no evidence that such abuse took place.

"At a news conference at the Pentagon, officials also defended a CIA missile strike last week near Zhawar Kili in eastern Afghanistan amid reports that civilians there had been killed.

"The strike by a Hellfire missile from an unmanned Predator drone hit its intended target, the officials said. Those killed were 'not innocents,' said Rear Adm. John D. Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The reports are part of an increasing drumbeat of alleged misfires and mistakes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials say the situation in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly murky, with former Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters switching sides or seeking to blend into the general population."

The Washington Post examines the damage control: "At the top of the agenda when the White House public relations 'war room' convened for its morning meeting on Afghanistan yesterday were media reports that apparently innocent Afghan prisoners had been beaten by their U.S. military captors.

"Two responses were discussed: first, making sure that a full internal investigation of the beating report was conducted by the Pentagon; and second, reminding anyone who asked that a captured al Qaeda training manual had instructed those held prisoner to tell journalists that they had been beaten.

"The Afghan war, so easy to understand in its early, black and white days, when President Bush proclaimed that the world could be neatly divided into us and them, has lately taken on shades of gray.

"On top of a string of nagging reports of mistargeted bombs and dead civilians, two of the Pentagon's recent biggest triumphs – the killing of 21 terrorists and capture of 27 more in a commando raid north of Kandahar, and last weekend's firing of a Hellfire missile on a tall man who might have been Osama bin Laden – appear instead to have been tragedies. . . .

GOP Working to Scuttle Campaign Finance?
In the watch-what-they-do-not-what-they-say department, the New York Times has the White House being downright disingenuous:

"The White House is working through the Republican Party to scuttle campaign finance legislation before the House this week while protecting President Bush from any political fallout, advisers to Mr. Bush said today.

"With White House consent, the Republican National Committee is lobbying to defeat the Shays-Meehan bill, the campaign finance overhaul measure that would ban the large unlimited political donations known as soft money.

"An internal 'target list' compiled by the Republican Party identifies 33 Republicans who had previously voted for the bill when it was unlikely to become law. These members are seen as undecided about how to vote this time – and potentially available to back amendments that would ultimately weaken the legislation or kill it outright.

"'We need to ask them what they need for cover,' the internal document states, 'and try to support our amendments.' The party's effort came as the House Republican leadership mounted a similar drive to amend the bill."

But the Boston Globe says the reformers have the Big Mo:

"With newspaper ads proclaiming 'this time it counts' and corporate executives deriding what they termed political shakedowns under the current system, supporters of a bill to overhaul the nation's campaign finance laws girded yesterday for the start of a floor debate today, and opponents conceded they face an uphill fight.

"Senator John McCain, recuperating from surgery to remove a cancerous skin lesion, interrupted what was meant to be a week of convalescence to make an impassioned pitch for the House legislation, a version of which he pushed through the Senate last year.

"'Never try to predict, especially when you're talking about the future,' the Arizona Republican quipped, quoting Yogi Berra."

Sage advice – especially for journalists.

Poll Reflects Skepticism on Business Practices
The public is steamed about Enron – and believes its tactics aren't unusual, reports USA Today:

"Most Americans believe the management practices that brought down energy giant Enron are fairly common in business today, a new poll says. According to the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll, half of adults say the practices of top Enron executives are the norm for at least some other large corporations. An additional one-fourth say they're the norm for most big companies.

"While the poll finds Americans don't find it unusual for Enron executives to have presented the public a false view of the firm's profitability, they aren't shrugging off the Enron saga. Fully 70% say they're following Enron developments at least somewhat closely, vs. 55% a month ago. . . .

"65% believe Enron executives did something illegal, unchanged from a poll taken two weeks ago.

"Almost two-thirds of Americans say the most important Enron-related issue is the loss by Enron's employees of jobs and retirement savings while top executives made off with millions. Far less important, the poll says, is Enron's buying of political influence or the near vaporization of a large corporation.

"82% believe Congress should investigate Enron's ties to members of the Bush administration. And 43% believe the administration is attempting to cover something up by its resistance to congressional demands for information."

Sounds like the public is En-gaged.

The Wall Street Journal digs up evidence that not all top Enron executives were as out to lunch as they claim:

"An internal Enron Corp. document indicates for the first time that former Chairman and Chief Executive Kenneth Lay had a direct role approving deals with at least one of the company's controversial executive-run partnerships.

"The document is a deal-approval sheet from June 2000 that appears to be signed by Mr. Lay, who is expected to appear before a Senate hearing Tuesday, for a transaction between Enron and the LJM2 Co-Investment LP. LJM2 was a partnership that was formed in 1999 by then Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, who also ran and partly owned the partnership."

Look for Lay to take the Fifth today.

But the Washington Times says the Enron saga is fizzling as a political scandal:

"The Senate's hearings into the collapse of Enron Corp. are causing such minimal political damage to the Bush administration that Democrats already are considering Plan B.

"'They're not partisan problems,' said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, as he advocated new laws yesterday to protect pensions. 'They're just employees whose hopes have been dashed.'

"Mr. Lieberman promised Senate hearings into the administration's role 'when we're ready,' but some Democrats acknowledge that the political aspect of the scandal has yet to gain traction. 'There's not too much sticking to the White House,' conceded a top Senate Democratic aide. 'When you have a president that's currently enjoying 80 percent approval ratings, you need to pick and choose your spots.'"

A Bouquet for Rubin
Forbes.com unloads on the New York Times's coverage of Robert Rubin's Enron connection. The Times story began: "Plenty of government officials retire to the private sector to make their fortunes. Plenty of business executives venture into politics seeking power and influence. Robert E. Rubin is doing both."

No applause from Forbes: "Just in time for Valentine's Day, The New York Times today delivered a remarkable front-page bouquet to Robert Rubin, in the form of an unusually generous assessment of the former Treasury secretary's attempted string-pulling on Enron's behalf.

"The Times has been a bulldog on the subject of Enron's unsuccessful attempts last fall to stave off collapse by seeking help from its friends in the Bush Administration. But Rubin's role had been oddly de-emphasized by the Paper of Record. Today, the Times finally turned the spotlight on Rubin--but the story amounted to a glowing profile of the former Clinton Administration official, wrapped around a gentle admonishment for his Enron involvement. And the Times seemed less concerned that Rubin had done anything wrong than that he had given aid and comfort to Republicans by making this a bipartisan scandal.

"When the news of Rubin's involvement first hit the morning newspapers on Jan. 12, The Washington Post headlined its story 'Rubin Asked Treasury About Aid to Enron,' and focused on Rubin's Nov. 8 call to senior Treasury Department official Peter Fisher. Rubin is chairman of the executive committee at Citigroup, which is a big Enron creditor. He asked Fisher to consider advising the bond-rating agencies against an immediate downgrade of Enron's debt. Fisher said that for him to intervene would not be a good idea, and Rubin backed down.

"The Times also reported the Rubin news on Jan. 12--but lower down in a story that led with Enron President Greg Whalley's own calls to Fisher. . . . Arguably, the big story on Jan. 12 was the involvement of Rubin, a prominent Democrat and a Wall Street icon. Yet the Times not only downplayed the news, it bent over backward to let Rubin off the hook, by emphasizing that he eventually agreed with Fisher that calls to the bond-rating agencies would be inappropriate."

Clintons Back in the News
For those Enron-weary souls yearning for the scandals of yore – say, the New York Post – there is hope this morning:

"The Clintons' White House gift scandal is set to reignite today as a congressional committee reveals new records showing dozens of presents that probers charge the couple concealed in their official disclosure report.

"A yearlong House investigation concludes the Clintons never revealed goodies like champagne, Ferragamo silk ties, hundreds of cigars, imported suits, Bulova and Citizen watches and Ming Dynasty jewelry given during their White House tenure.

"The report, the first and only formal review of the gift scandal that marked the end of the Clinton presidency and the start of Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate career, includes hundreds of detailed records never before released. The investigation found:

"Bill and Hillary Clinton received scores of gifts that were never reported to the public because they were valued below $260 – the threshold level for listing gifts on federal disclosure forms.

"The Clintons may have deliberately undervalued 'many' gifts to avoid detection, and bagged many gifts in the month before Hillary Clinton became a senator, when such gift-taking is illegal."

Time for another special prosecutor?

Kinsley Resigns at Slate
The big news in cyberspace, meanwhile, is Michael Kinsley's resignation as editor of Slate. When the former New Republic editor and CNN commentator took the job six years ago, skeptics wondered why he'd want to move to Seattle to run a magazine that didn't exist on paper. Now that concern seems as dated as black and white TV. Kinsley's original conception, we recall, was to run long articles (the debut issue featured a 2,200-word essay by Nick Lemann) and post a new issue every week. That didn't last long. While Slate has its detractors, and has never made Bill Gates any money, the Microsoft magazine has certainly embedded itself in the Web culture. (Read about the Web's hostility to Kinsley and his venture back in 1996.)

Finally, the New Republic skewers the White House on abortion:

"When the Bush administration made fetuses eligible for a government health insurance program last week, provoking a predictable firestorm from abortion rights advocates, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson tried to play dumb. 'What we are going to do is provide for low-income women to have prenatal care,' Thompson told the Los Angeles Times. 'How anybody can try and turn this into a pro-choice, pro-abortion argument, I don't understand.'

"But this time, at least, Thompson did not make a very convincing idiot. It's pretty obvious that the whole point of the insurance expansion was to start an argument about abortion--and to score some points with the political right. After all, if President Bush were simply interested in giving more low-income women prenatal care, he could have expanded the program's eligibility to pregnant women without ever mentioning the rights of a fetus.

"Come to think of it, if Bush were really serious about expanding prenatal coverage, he could have thrown a lot more money at the problem, too. Bush did neither. . . .

"The danger of opposing the Bush insurance expansion is that it will make abortion rights advocates seem like obstructionists who are insensitive to the needs of low-income women. This, in turn, could hurt their credibility when more important abortion controversies come along. On the other hand, letting this regulation stand seems unlikely to change the politics of abortion much. It would just make the anti-abortion crowd feel a little smug. And if that's the only cost of enacting decent public policy in this instance, it's one the rest of us can bear."


© 2002 The Washington Post Company