Spin Cycle Day Six: The media quotes the WH quoting media quoting WH...

[Sparkly]

Enter Howard Kurtz, dutifully re-reporting the media's reporting of the White House spin.

He reminds us that the generals criticizing Rumsfeld spoke out "from the safety of climate-controlled television studios." (Gee, what's the point of that remark, I wonder?)

He cites the WSJ Editorial Page ("Mistakes are made in every war!").

He cites National Review: "...it is disappointing that generals are apparently so easily cowed that their only recourse when dealing with a muscular Defense secretary is to whine about it after the fact."

He cites -- surprise! -- Michael DeLong: "But the former No. 2 general at CENTCOM is backing Rumsfeld."

And of course, he cites the WP Editorial Page, hysterical over "finger-pointing by retired officers."

These generals are "touching off another damaging and distracting controversy at a critical moment in the war!"
Their speaking out "threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control!"
And if Rumsfeld does resign, it will be an "ugly precedent!"

Not yet mentioned: two columns, in the same paper, supporting the generals. EJ Dionne's rebuttal of some of the very points made in the editorial -- or rather, by "the administration's supporters," as he says; and David Broder's "Listen to the Brass." I'm sure Howie will get to those soon.

Let's do a quick side-by-side:

Editorial:
Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty.

Dionne:
It's amusing to hear the administration's supporters worry that these courageous former generals are a threat to civilian control of the military. The claim reflects this administration's willingness to muster any argument it can put its hands on to silence opposition.


Editorial:
Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime.

Dionne:
It's also hypocritical. Recall the opposition to President Bill Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve in the armed forces. A certain head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff named Colin Powell publicly broke with his commander in chief in 1993 in arguing that allowing gay men and lesbians to join would undermine "good order and discipline."...Far from speaking up on behalf of Clinton's rights as the military's civilian leader, Republicans in Congress lined up with Powell and the brass.


Editorial:
Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

Dionne:
For decades, the top leaders of the American military have been overwhelmingly conservative and Republican in their political sympathies...We may be witnessing the weakening of partisanship in the top echelons of the military. That would be very good for our republic."

Had Dionne seen the editorial in advance, or was he just familiar with the WH script and unaware that Hiatt would be playing stenographer once again? The WaPo gets weirder every day.

[Supersedeas]

1. a shilling Kurtz just being a shill