Danforth resigns; breaks with Bush over Sudan. No, that's not the headline you'll read over Warren Hoge's inner-page piece today on John Danforth's resignation after less than six months as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. ("Diplomats at U.N. Surprised by Danforth's Resignation"). But let's see if we can get to it by applying an appropriate hermeneutic of suspicion to the article. As in much of what the Times publishes about diplomacy, the key here is the principle that the truth of the matter cannot be spoken (to the extent that it would discomfit those in power), but must nevertheless be unspoken in such a way as to leave a clear imprint of its shape.

So, first we have the official fiction: Johnny D.'s in love. Stricken with a mysterious onset of uxoriousness, he's going back home to be with "the girl of his dreams" (Danforth's words, in his resignation letter): "there are many people who can be United States ambassador to the U.N.," his spokesman claims Danforth told him, "but there is only one person who can be Sally Danforth's husband." Notice the straight face with which Hoge demonstrates just how thinly motivated the official fiction really is:

The Danforths, who were childhood neighbors, married during Mr. Danforth's junior year at Princeton. Mrs. Danforth suffered a fall last year [i.e., well before Danforth was made ambassador], and on some of the social outings she was obliged to attend in New York, she sometimes wore a tennis shoe to cushion a slight limp.

And indeed, Danforth's explanation for resigning is obviously intended not to be believed. Then there's the official unofficial fiction, which occupies most of Hoge's piece. Hoge introduces it, a telltale sign of this sort of fiction, by sourcing the ether:

There was speculation that Mr. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri and an Episcopal minister known for blunt statements, had become frustrated with the bureaucratic inaction of the United Nations and the need to clear statements with Washington. An acquaintance said Mr. Danforth's wife had often told friends, "Jack's not a yes man."

(It's a neat touch, that last sentence, quoting the wife of the official fiction to back up the unofficial fiction.) The fact that Hoge then brings on Danforth's spokesman to deny the "speculation" confirms, in the up-is-down style of these things, that this is the story that official Washington expects to be operative. Most of the article expands on the notion that the resignation is, at bottom, a protest about rhetorical style: blunt-spoken Jack Danforth just couldn't be comfortable in his U.N. role.

Mr. Danforth brought a refreshing directness to the convoluted conversational style of the United Nations. On Nov. 23 - the day after he had sent his resignation letter - he let his impatience with the United Nations show in an unusually brash denunciation of a move in the General Assembly to cut off a motion that would have criticized human rights violations in Sudan, which the United States has called genocide. ... In a speech last month in St. Louis, according to Reuters, Mr. Danforth said that as a former senator, he was not accustomed to having a policy statement vetted by State Department bureaucrats and transformed into "mush" before he could issue it. "It creates some practical problems," he said.

Other than on hermeneutic principle—and noting the convenience of both the U.N. and State serving as fall guys—why should we think this tale is false? Because it takes such pains to rewrite the Sudan portion of the story introduced in Hoge's lead paragraphs, which in fact tell you (by implication) all you really need to know:

The resignation of John C. Danforth as the United States ambassador to the United Nations came as a surprise to people at the world body who had witnessed Mr. Danforth in robust exchanges in the Security Council chamber and had noted his commitment to drawing attention to Sudan.

In a letter to President Bush dated Nov. 22, Mr. Danforth, 68, said he had decided to return to private life in St. Louis before the beginning of the president's second term on Jan. 20.

A few questions here: Why is surprise at Danforth's resignation situated with U.N. diplomats, people familiar with his presence in the assembly, if frustration with the U.N. is in fact to blame? Why has Hoge failed to elicit any Administration reaction at all in his article, even of pro forma praise for the ambassador? Why should the resignation—which, as Hoge fails to point out, is dated the day before the "no action" motion on the Sudan that so upset Danforth—be specifically timed with respect to the start of Bush's second term?

Here, as I've said, is the outline of the truth Hoge is responsible for writing around and over. The only story that fits this outline is that Danforth's resignation is a protest—not against the U.N. or State Department bureaucrats (the notion is falsified simply by Hoge's having supported it), but against the Bush Administration, against its unwillingness to expend any but rhetorical resources on the Sudan genocide and on what I expect (taking into account the date on that resignation letter) must have been its acquiescence or complicity in killing the Sudan resolution Danforth had worked so hard to pass. A good Republican soldier, Danforth—to his discredit, it has to be said—won't publicize his break with the Administration; but it's there to see, underneath the black and white, for anybody who cares to look.

posted by michael  3:50:42 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

And I, for one, want to welcome our new insect overlords. Two days running, A1 has published big below-the-fold air kisses to Dear Leader. Today (the front-page scan is here) it's "A White House Postcard" (a caption that applies to the series), with Waura in Santa Claus red displaying her best come-hither rictus before some seasonal decorations. Yesterday, it was God's Own President himself, striding manfully at the front of a group (or pack) of advisers and his dog, Buddy (scan here, larger image here; see if you can tell which one's the lapdog), bearing the genuinely nauseating caption, "After a Visit to Good Friends in Canada, a Welcome Home from a Best Friend." I myself think that "Damnit, Condi, I Said Heel!" might have worked better.

More evidence of just how low the Times will go to suck around for Presidential favor when it's on the outs.

posted by michael  2:19:15 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

The right man for the job. Still sort of in Devil's Dictionary mode, I'd describe the chief requirement for the job of secretary of homeland security as, hyper-vigilance toward any and all terrorism threats that could be promoted to advance Republican interests. Given his ability, as I noted in this post from April, to see the terror implications of low-cost drug reimporting from Canada, I really think that Bernie Kerik—the "street-savvy former New York City police commissioner," to borrow Richard Stevenson's hardboiled lead on today's A1—makes an inspired replacement for Tom Ridge. (By the way, Richard, how exactly does Kerik's "street savvy" play into this new post? Is he planning on splitting his time between his desk in D.C. and walking the beat in Peshawar?)

Also from the Times article, it's nice to see that Chuck Schumer, rapidly earning the title of the Great Oppositionist, gets it:

"If there were ever a state that deserved to have one of its citizens appointed head of homeland security it's New York," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, who spoke with Mr. Kerik on Thursday night to congratulate him. "New York should always be the focal point of homeland security activities, and Bernie Kerik is a tried and true New Yorker who understands our city, our state, our problems and our needs. We look forward to working with him to bring greater help in terms of dollars and security for New York."

Eyes on the prize, Chuck: the really crucial thing about Bush's homeland security pick is the opportunity it presents you to grab some pork.

posted by michael  11:29:55 AM  
tell me about it []