The New York Times has some sort of “feature” called “The Interpreter”, described as “a column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events.” Today’s edition is dubbed “As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America”:
“A wave of leaks from government officials has hobbled the Trump administration, leading some to draw comparisons to countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where shadowy networks within government bureaucracies, often referred to as “deep states,” undermine and coerce elected governments.”
Has there been any “deep state” activity in the U.S. before? Well, sure, say Max and Amanda: “In 2009, for instance, military officials used leaks to pressure the White House over what it saw as the minimal number of troops necessary to send to Afghanistan.”
If you click on “leaks” you won’t get a story about the military using leaks to pressure Obama; you’ll get a “leak”, a story by, yes, Bob Woodward in the Washington Post, dated Sept. 21, 2009 detailing the contents of a confidential 66-page report on Afghanistan sent by everyone’s favorite civilian hatin’ general, Stanley McChrystal, to SecDef Robert Gates on Aug. 30. The Post also ran an edited version of the report, with deletions made at the request of the Defense Department. Unsurprisingly, Woodward’s story makes no suggestion that the report was leaked to push the president to make the “right” decision.
What was the Times saying on Sept. 21? Well, Eric Schmitt wrote a piece, “In Afghanistan Assessment, a Catalyst for Obama”, referring to McChrystal’s “grim assessment,” but not discussing it in any detail, not referencing Woodward’s story, and not suggesting that the report had been leaked by the Pentagon to lean on the president. Eight years later, I guess, the Times is a little braver. Or maybe they just figure that Bob is so fucking old these days they just don’t give a damn.
