Vanity Fair's Inventions
then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.
When I talk in the third quotation above about failures "at the center," for example, I did not mean the president. If I had, I would have said so. At that point in the conversation, I was discussing the National Security Council, whose counter-productive interactions produced bad results.
And when I talked in the second quotation about "persuading the president," I was repeating this
point, advanced here last month. In past administrations, the battle for the president's words was a battle for administration policy. But because Bush's National Security Council malfunctioned so badly, the president could say
things without action following - because the mechanism for enforcing his words upon the bureaucracy had broken.
In short, Vanity Fair
transformed a Washington debate over "how to correct course and win the war" to advance obsessions all their own.
How was this done?
The author of the piece touted by the press release is David Rose, a British journalist well known as a critic of the Saddam Hussein regime and supporter of the Iraq war. (See here
for just two instances out of a lengthy bibliography.)
Rose has earned a reputation as a truth teller. The same unfortunately cannot be said for the editors and publicists at Vanity Fair
. They have repackaged truths that a war-fighting country needs to hear into lies intended to achieve a shabby partisan purpose.