This Day Has Been Bloody From The Beginning

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is one of the best mainstream Washington reporters. But... he just wrote a piece for the Post's Outlook section that makes some people (ie, me) want to rip off our own heads.

It's called "My Bias for Mainstream News," and is a defense of Washington Post-style reporting. Milbank says he's concerned Americans are being steered "toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts... the consequences are ominous for the country." As evidence for this ominosity, Milbank points out that in an October, 2004 survey, 72 percent of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had either stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or major illegal weapons programs.

Now, that IS ominous. I said exactly that, back in October, 2004. But then Milbank engages in the type of bogus balance that makes some people engage in own-head-ripping-off:

This is not to pick on Bush followers. Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact—about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.

There are at least two things wrong with this. Can you spot what they are?

1. How many is "many on the left"?

Who the hell knows? It sure would be interesting if comparable numbers of Kerry voters thought such things. But Milbank gives us no evidence for his claim. My guess is that's because he has no evidence for it, beyond angry email he's received. There is therefore no equivalence here.

2. Have these two beliefs been as definitively proven to be fantasies?

I think it's essentially impossible Bush knew of 9/11 in advance. And I believe it's unlikely Bush was coached during the debates via a transmitter (though this is peculiar).

But:

A. Although I'd question their judgment, I wouldn't slag anyone for believing either of these things. Governments lie. They lie all the time. They lie about everything. And the Bush administration, you may have noticed, is quite a government indeed.

Now, I don't think governments lie in quite this way. But given the Bush administration's extraordinary mendacity (including about what they knew pre-9/11) it's not surprising some people don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

So I feel the same way about Milbank's tut-tutting as I do when white Americans tut-tut black Americans for being "conspiracy theorists." Sure, sometimes some black Americans believe crazy things. But perhaps that has something to do with white Americans lying to black Americans every day for the past 500 years. When people with power lie so consistently, sometimes it's hard to tell when they slip up and tell the truth.

B. The investigations into the Bush-knew and Bush-transmitter issues are absolutely not comparable to the Iraq/WMD issue. Perhaps Milbank has forgotten, but we invaded Iraq. We have all the top government officials in custody, and spent $1 billion investigating whether Iraq had WMD.

Now, if France invaded us, using the rationale that Bush knew about 9/11 and was coached via transmitter during the debates, and if France captured all the top Bush administration officials, and spent $1 billion investigating this, only to find there was nothing to their rationale for war, AND some huge numbers of French people still believed—THEN the situations would be comparable.

We are not in that situation. The WMD issue is about as settled as anything on earth can be. The beliefs of 72 percent of Bush voters are almost as crazy as those of Holocaust-deniers. Whatever "many on the left" think, these things cannot be compared.

AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go reattach my head.

ALSO: Bob Somerby has similar head-ripping problems. And Kevin Drum says some stuff.