I wrote yesterday about the MSM and how I'd seen creeping examples of talking about Karl Rove and Traitorgate in terms that downplay the importance of the issue or portray it just as "gotcha" politics with the Dems taking advantage of an opening to pound Bush. My last example was The Wall Street Journal. Today it's The New Yorker.
In the lead Talk of the Town item -- "Roe v Rove" -- writer Hendrik Hertzberg mostly discusses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, what he's like and how Bush moved up the announcement to try and get Rove's possibly traitorous actions off the front page.
But in listing the cast of characters that have made Rove and Traitorgate such a compelling story, this is what The New Yorker wrote:
It had a colorful supporting cast, including the spy herself (an attractive blonde whose neighbors thought she was just another working mom), her husband [Joe Wilson] (a flamboyant ex-diplomat whose secret mission and subsequent apostasy set the stage for skullduggery), and a Times reporter jailed for her refusal to talk.My Random House dictionary defines apostasy as "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc." It's a very negative term -- early Christians were apostates when they denied their faith to save their necks during Roman persecution. Understandable, but not admirable. Apostates are weak, unprincipled, feckless and -- at best -- to be pitied and more likely hated and condemned for tossing their principles overboard when the going gets rough. (I won't even get into the more subtly derogatory description of Wilson as "flamboyant," ie., someone not to be taken seriously.)
Does The New Yorker really believe Joe Wilson committed apostasy? By what possible standard could he be accused of this? Joe Wilson is a brave American, described as "a hero" by Bush Sr. He came forward because he knew President Bush had lied to the American people in the State of the Union address during the buildup to war. Bush made a claim that had been investigated and proven to be false -- not only didn't Bush know it to be true he had every reason to believe it was false to pretend Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Niger.
Wilson came forward even though he knew he would be attacked and smeared just like everyone else from the Administration who came forward and spoke the truth. And Wilson was smeared and attacked and belittled. His wife was smeared and attacked and belittled. His children were put in harm's way. National security was weakened and people around the world who risked their lives by working with the US to spread democracy and freedom might very well be dead.
How did this all happen? It happened because Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and perhaps at least one other White House figure outed a covert CIA agent -- the first time in history that an agent has been outed by political operatives -- just to provide payback against Wilson. If anyone should be accused of being an apostate, it's Rove and Scooter and Bush.
Keep in mind: Wilson was immediately vindicated. He came forward because he knew Bush had misled the American people in the State of the Union and made fear-inducing claims that he couldn't back up. Wilson published an op-ed and went on TV with his statement. The very next day, Bush admitted Wilson was right -- the White House called major media outlets and made clear it wasn't standing by those 16 words in the SOTU that Wilson knew were wrong. Bush caved immediately.
I don't know what party Joe Wilson "belongs" to; I don't know whether he's a Democrat or a Republican. But let's assume he's a Republican. A good Republican knows you don't lie to the American people. A good Republican expects honesty and forthrightness from their President -- whatever party they may be affiliated with. A good Republican knows -- the way Ronald Reagan knew -- that ideological wars against communism or terror are won by staking the moral high ground, not by spreading misinformation or lies. More importantly, a good American places the interests of their country above partisan politics. If the head of your party is hurting the nation, you speak up.
By no possible logic could Joe Wilson be tarred as an apostate. He did not betray the Republican Party or his beliefs or his country. He upheld them.
The real apostate is Karl Rove. Rove is the apostate who betrayed his principles to score cheap political points. Rove is the apostate who weakened national security by becoming the first political hack in history to out a covert CIA agent just to play hardball with someone speaking the truth. Rove is the apostate who either lied to the President and the White House spokesperson or got them both to lie for him to the American people. Rove is the apostate who betrayed the pledge he made when joining the White House to not reveal classified information.
This is not about "framing" the debate or trying to put one group's spin on an issue. This is about ACCURACY. There is no way Wilson should be slurred with the tag of "apostate." Every time the media portrays the Dems as taking political advantage instead of them merely being concerned about national security, the MSM is downplaying this scandal. Don't let them get away with it. Write to the New Yorker at themail@newyorker.com and ask them to justify this slur or run a clarification or correction. Urge them to describe this scandal more accurately in the future.
Don't let any MSM get away with belittling a concern for national security in a time of war as playing politics. Playing politics instead of working to strengthen our country? That's the method of the apostate Karl Rove.
NOTE: Most threaders think I'm off-base, arguing that it's supposed to represent the point of view of Bush. Certainly the New Yorker is a progressive outlet. Certainly we know where their hearts and minds truly lie. Certainly Hertzberg has done good work and this is only one word. Still, the item isn't really about Rovegate, just uses it as a lead-in to the Supreme Court nominee. That to me makes the choice of words used as shorthand still unfortunate, though I'm happy to concede that most people don't see it that way. I'll look for better examples of what I'm talking about.
