I Say Something GOOD About Bill Moyers, Among Other Things

Victor Davis Hanson, writing at Pajamas Media, on the subject of footnotes:

But when you write history, and especially history of a contentious nature about Iraq, in which so much is at stake, it is incumbent to identify primary sources. The last three books about the supposed mess in Iraq—Cobra II, Fiasco, and now State of Denial—violate every canon of intellectual courtesy. Check who said what in Cobra II and you find the following: “Interview, former senior military officer”, “Interview, former senior officer”, “Interview, former Centcom planner,” Interview, Pentagon Officials,” “Interview, U.S. State Department Official,” or “notes of a participant.”

When the readers encounter the most controversial and damning of verbatim quotes in Fiasco, they are presented with “said a Bush administration official” or “recalled one officer.” Woodward is ever more derelict, in imagining not just the conversations, but even the thoughts of characters. And lest one think I am unduly critical in questioning the veracity of these unnamed sources—whose authenticity can never be checked by anyone other than the journalists who now write out popular histories—examine the recent record of journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post, and more recent stories such as the Koran flushing at Guantanamo or the photshopped pictures from Lebanon.

I’ve not read any of the cited works—haven’t even picked them up and examined them at the bookstore—but I’m not all that surprised at the lack of source citations and other supporting documentation. I believe Hanson’s point is that these authors and the reporters producing much of what passes for “journalism” these days are simply saying “trust me.” Whether you trust them or not is largely a function of your political orientation. My orientation is such that, like Hanson, I reject the expressed arguments for the reason(s) that it’s just so much conjecture without proof…and proof is naming names, times, and places.

On the other hand, expecting authors to identify sources in this day, given that much of the negative position on the Iraq war relies primarily on leaked classified information, is expecting a lot. The authors of the cited works, and the sources themselves, understand the nature of the game they’re playing: when it comes to classified information, the leakers are breaking the law, the authors are accessories to the leakers’ crimes. The fact that the government hasn’t yet moved to identify and silence the leakers doesn’t mean they won’t. And I believe the government should pursue the leakers, and I think I understand why they aren’t doing it, or are only doing so halfheartedly. I think both sides, leakers and government, remember what happened to Daniel Ellsberg when he released the Pentagon Papers to the NYT. The leakers, and their enablers (like the NYT) simply don’t have Ellsberg’s courage and the willingness to face trial. And I believe the administration doesn’t have the fortitude to investigate, identify, and prosecute the leakers at this point in time. The administration has enough on its plate, what with fighting the war and trying to win the hearts and minds of Democrats and the rest of the nay-sayers at home and abroad. Devoting time, resources, and energy to an investigation and subsequent trial, while defending themselves against the avalanche of liberal outage that would be sure to follow (Prior Restraint! Censorship!), just might fail a reasonable risk analysis. But that may not remain true for very much longer. One hopes that’s the case.

Good News, indeed: The Dow-Jones Industrial average closed at 11,850.53 yesterday, the second record close in as many days. The NASDAQ, currently at 2,290.95, has a looong way to go, however, to equal its all-time closing high of 5,048.62, achieved on Friday March 10, 2000. Nonetheless, the Dow’s rise is good news. And it gives the lie to all those “concerns” about the economy, as do the unemployment figures.

Red Meat for Lefties: Bill Moyers’ “Capitol Crimes,” on PBS. I watched this show in its entirety last evening, and must admit it was, for the most part, very well-done. I say “for the most part” because I take issue with the overly-dramatic readings (which reminded me of the current GEICO “celebrity” ads) from e-mails sent to and from various participants in the Abramoff scandal. But, that’s some serious nit-picking on my part. I take Moyers with a block—nay, a frickin’ mine—of salt. The man is so over-the-top, so partisan, and such a virulent Lefty of the worst sort, that anything he produces is suspect in my book. But Boy-Howdy, he sure seems to have the goods this time. The show, lasting two hours, was a tour de force. Regarding the Abramoff scandal, specifically, I’ll be amazed if Tom DeLay doesn’t wind up in jail…seriously. I’m also waiting for the GOP rebuttal. That rebuttal cannot come soon enough, if a rebuttal is even possible.

The Abramoff scandal wasn’t the only topic addressed by Moyers, but that particular scandal got the lion’s share of the program. He went deeper than that, exploring the whole K-Street lobbying industry and its impact on the system, and most importantly, on the Congress. And he also went after the earmarking process, which I’ve ranted about in the past. When it comes to earmarking, Moyers and I are pretty much on the same page, and I never thought I’d ever say something like that.

There’s a lot to explore on the web site, if you have the time and inclination. And you can watch video of last night’s program, helpfully broken into several segments, if you have a broadband connection. And, once again, the inclination. I cannot emphasize this enough: I never thought I’d say this, but I think this show is worth the time.

Today’s Pic: A rainbow shot, taken on US 70 north of Portales and south of Clovis, March, 2004.