It was probably just modesty, but in his 2,700-word, four-byline, full-page farewell to himself in the January 24 New York Times, retiring columnist William Safire forgot to mention many of his achievements during his illustrious career as the Times' designated right-winger.
For instance, he forgot to remind viewers how he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1978 for hounding Bert Lance out of Jimmy Carter's Office of Management and Budget, beating the drum on charges of conflict of interest and corruption until Lance, a Georgia banker (or “bankitician,” as Safire referred to him in 1977) and longtime friend of Carter's, was forced to resign. Nor did he mention that subsequent investigations of Lance by federal law-enforcement agencies, financial regulators, and Congress all failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing.
Lance, who says that he and Safire later became good friends, wrote about an exchange he had with the columnist years later in which he asked, “Bill, why did this happen? Why was I picked out as the one to be put through this business?” Safire's answer? “We didn't want you to become chairman of the Fed[eral Reserve].”
Of course, this raises the question of who the “we” in that sentence is, and suggests that long after he supposedly put down his Nixon speechwriter's pen and moved into the world of journalism, Safire still saw himself as part of a conservative political movement whose agenda he would advance through his column, regardless of truth or fairness.
There's a word among reporters for people like that: hack.
Inexplicably, Safire also forgot to take credit for the yeoman's work he did in helping convince many Americans that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the plot that led to the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington -- a conviction that shored up public support for the disastrous war we're now engaged in.
In at least 10 columns between October of 2001 and June of 2004, Safire pushed the claim that there was conclusive evidence of Mohammed Atta, suspected leader of the 9-11 hijackers, having met with a high-level Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001.
When word came out over the summer that the 9-11 commission's preliminary staff report had debunked the connection between Atta and Iraq, Safire blasted the “runaway” staff and its director, Philip Zelikow, a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, for manipulating the (apparently highly suggestible) collection of former senators, representatives, a former governor, and other high-level officials that made up the commission.
When the final report was released, with the unanimous support of the bipartisan commission, it agreed with the staff finding that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship of any sort between Iraq and al-Qaeda, much less a specific connection between Iraq the 9-11 hijackings. The words “Prague” and “Atta” never appeared in a Safire column again. No explanation. No apology. Just straight down the memory hole.
Safire's disregard for the truth was never more in evidence than in his treatment of Bill and Hillary Clinton. No charge was too wild to find its way into the pages of the Times via Safire's column.
Did Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, accept $7,000 in stolen cash from two bankers seeking political favors? Safire was happy to throw the question out there.
Did Chinese spies penetrate the Clinton White House? Safire said so.
If a fellow with so little respect for the truth is going to work at a newspaper, the op-ed page is probably the best spot for him, as it provides a bit of insulation from the news pages, where real journalism is supposed to appear. And one would think that a paper with the journalistic tradition of the Times -- and the still-open wounds of the Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg scandals -- would be unwilling to let a writer like Safire cross the line separating fact and opinion.
Yet the Hill newspaper reported Tuesday January 25 that as he retired, Safire was given the chance to become the paper's public editor -- the guardian of truth and fairness at the paper of record. Luckily, he turned them down.
Rob Garver is a freelance writer living in Springfield, Virginia, and is currently studying at Georgetown Public Policy Institute.
