A front-page article in today's New York Times runs under the headline, "In Spat over Russia in NATO, Rumsfeld Loses Out to Powell."
To get a flavor for just how the Times news department is, like the newspaper's editorialists, siding with Secretary Powell in the Rumsfeld-Powell debate, check out the way the news article frames the dispute. "The debate over how to do it pits conservatives in the Pentagon -- and among some allies -- against the more pragmatic style of Secretary Powell. The conservatives advocate an unconstrained role for the United States, while Mr. Powell favors a collective approach of working with allies. He sees great virtue in Russia's inclusion in the alliance to help combat extremism, terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Rumsfeld's reported concerns reflected a view that any effusive descriptions of 'NATO at 20' create an image that Russia is gaining the privileges of full NATO membership, perhaps even veto authority over alliance decisions."
This summary is totally distorted. Instead of describing the Pentagon as "conservatives" and the State Department as "pragmatic," the newspaper could just as easily have described the Pentagon as "pragmatic" or "realistic" or even "idealist" and the State Department as "accommodationist" or "dovish." The Defense Department has nothing against working with allies when the allies are countries such as Israel, Turkey, Great Britain or India, which share American values of freedom and democracy. What the State Department favors is treating as "allies" countries that aren't really our allies -- countries like Russia, which is headed by a former KGB colonel who has made it a priority to assert state control over Russia's independent television news broadcasters. This debate isn't about collectivism versus unilateralism. It's about who gets to be members of the collective, and about how much Russia gets appeased. As proof, consider that the Defense Department types mostly favored enlarging NATO to include Eastern European countries such as Poland and also the Baltics, while some of the State Department types resisted it for fear of offending Russia. No one was complaining back then that the State Department opposed a collective approach.
The Times article quotes Mr. Powell asserting, "I own the communique." This is reminiscent of Al Haig's "I am in control here," and, if anything, it is a sign of Mr. Powell's diminished influence in the administration. If Mr. Powell were really as in charge and as victorious over Mr. Rumsfeld as this Times article makes him out to be, Mr. Powell would not have to say so.
Poor Choice: An article in the Arts and Ideas section of today's New York Times reports, "Perhaps not since Steinberg's drawing had New Yorkers poured over a magazine cover so long." The word the Times wanted there is "pored." That is the verb that means, as one online dictionary put it, "to gaze intently; to read studiously or attentively -- usually used with over; to reflect or meditate steadily." The image of New Yorkers pouring over a magazine cover, like raindrops from the sky, is actually funny.
Note: Smartertimes.com is in Florida this morning and is operating off the Times National Edition.