By John O'Sullivan
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Listening from Budapest to the Washington debate on
whether President Trump leaked intelligence secrets to the Russians in a White
House meeting attended by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, as alleged in a Washington Post report, I’m struck by
the extraordinary number of people who have been jumping to conclusions as from
an ideological circus’s trampoline while also performing somersaults in the
discussions.
Jonah Goldberg is an experienced performer on the
trampoline when he’s in the mood, but I’m starting with his most recent
commentary — because he’s not in that mood on this occasion. In fact, his is
the most sober and persuasive analysis so far of what happened and why from a
Trump-skeptic standpoint, though that’s not as flattering a compliment as I
would like it to be.
The “why” is important — and Jonah raises it by asking if
the Post story is “plausible.” He
concludes rightly that it is because Trump has shown on a number of occasions
that he is boastful, impulsive, and anxious to display his mastery of affairs.
What better occasion than when he is seeking to impress the Russians — an
adversary he apparently wishes to win round — by claiming that he has lots of good
intelligence that would help them if they were willing to join the U.S. in a
fight against their common enemies, ISIS and terrorism?
Might Trump have gone too far in describing just how much
he knew and how U.S. intelligence services had acquired the information? Of
course, from what we know of the president, he very well might have done.
That’s why the report is plausible. And the credibility of Jonah’s argument is
enhanced by the fact that he stops there, dismissing as “resistance paranoia”
the idea that Trump was engaged in some sort of treasonous covert operation for
the Kremlin. Again, rightly so.
Now, we come to the question. Okay, so the Post report is plausible. Is it true?
And here Jonah and others have to confront the firm and outright denials the
report has received from the three leading U.S. national-security officials.
These denials — they appear below — both flatly deny the overall story and
dismiss particular points in it. It’s therefore elicited from skeptics two
responses: that they don’t clear up the many unanswered questions that the
story raises and that therefore the denials, though sweeping, may well be (or
for some people, probably are) carefully worded lawyerly evasions.
Jonah raises a reasonable version of the first response
and asks four questions about, in particular, the most comprehensive denial
from National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster: “Why not take any questions? Why
not address the details of the story? Why deny things not alleged? Why did
intelligence officials urge the Post
to withhold key details if this is ‘fake news’?”
My off-the-cuff replies are: (a) to avoid complicating
the clear denial with endless extraneous points; (b) see previous reply; (c) to
forestall criticisms that he hadn’t addressed obvious points; and (d) because
the Post sources were wrong in saying
that Trump had revealed these things but these things were nonetheless
intelligence secrets they wanted kept secret. Admittedly, my replies to Jonah’s
questions are highly speculative, but that’s because neither of us know for
certain what the accurate answers are. I’m merely suggesting that there may be
innocent answers to them.
I think we can be more confident, however, in rejecting
the criticism that the final words of McMaster’s denial — “I was in the room.
It didn’t happen.” — were a lawyerly evasion. Admittedly, in the post-Watergate
era, journalists have got used to playing linguistic philosophers when parsing
political statements. The simplest technique on these lines is to ask: “Well,
that’s what he said; but what didn’t he say?” It’s a useful technique for
keeping a story alive, moreover, because it sometimes seems as if there is an
infinite number of things he didn’t say.
But we shouldn’t confuse logical possibilities with
political realities. As a practical political matter, McMaster has said that
the story is false, there’s nothing in it, and Trump didn’t reveal intelligence
secrets to the Russians. You can’t spin “I was in the room. It didn’t happen.”
into a denial of something far less than that. If it turns out Trump did reveal
intelligence secrets to the Russians, then McMaster will have lied to the
country and his resignation will be just a matter of time — as also that of his
two fellow-deniers, Dina Powell and Rex Tillerson.
Late-breaking news, however! According to half the
reporters and commentators in Washington, Trump has admitted exactly that and
revealed his subordinates to be lying gamely on his behalf. Trump today tweeted
in two linked tweets as follows:
“As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly
scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts
pertaining…. …to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons,
plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.”
Mr. Ryan, prepare the Articles of Impeachment. Or perhaps
not. Let’s read those denials one more time:
Rex Tillerson: “During President Trump’s meeting with
Foreign Minister Lavrov, a broad range of subjects were discussed, among which
were common efforts and threats regarding counterterrorism. During that
exchange, the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not
discuss sources, methods, or military operations.”
Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell: “This story
is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries
faced.”
H. R. McMaster (in full): “I have a brief statement for
the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the
security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is
false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common
threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time,
at no time, were intelligent sources or methods discussed. And the president
did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.
Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of the
state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record
accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t
happen.”
But when the presidential tweets appeared, a thousand
swords leapt from their scabbards to write that Trump had just openly
contradicted his top three national-security officials. One or two commentators
wondered when their resignations would be submitted.
There will be no need for resignations, however. Nor
impeachment. Read all four statement above carefully. What Trump quite clearly
does in his tweets is to confirm the
statements of his officials.
All four statements say that in the meeting with Foreign
Minister Lavrov Trump discussed common threats facing both countries; McMaster
refers specifically to “threats to civil aviation” as being one of them;
Tillerson says the same of terrorism; Trump mentions both of these specific
threats; all three officials deny the Washington
Post story; two of them flatly call it “false;” and the import of Trump’s
tweeting is that he discussed these things with the Russians as he had a right
to do but not beyond that right.
So, what happened? My guess is that when the Post story appeared, the first reaction
of McMaster et al was to think, “That didn’t happen.” But it would be followed
by a slightly nervous feeling: “OMG, could I have missed something the Old Man
said. Better check the transcript.” And McMaster’s summing up reads to me as if
it was written after that check had been made and it confirmed their initial
reaction. As things still stand, despite all the foaming and muttering about
Trump’s tweets, the firm denial of the three national-security officials stands
in the way of the Post story and the
fiesta of anti-Trump passion it has kept going.
If that didn’t happen, however, what did? We can only
speculate, naturally, but the Post’s
sources and “former national-security officials” are as aware as the rest of us
of Trump’s impulsiveness, boastfulness, and anxiety to impress. Listening in or
hearing later about what transpired at the meeting, they might well wonder at
some point, “Was he supposed to reveal that? Did he go off message? Is he
referring to this de-classified story or the one still under wraps?” And if
either the officials or the reporters were disposed to consider Trump reckless
and irresponsible — which is the default position in Washington — they might
well conclude that Trump had said more, even much more, than he should have
done.
Or — a third possibility — did he say more than he should
have done, but less than the Post
originally charged, and just little enough to justify the firm official
denials?
Is that what happened? Neither Jonah nor I know. But it’s
plausible.
No comments:
Post a Comment