Channels

This article, by the NYT reporters Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti, is a classic in its own right.

Its task is not to inform the reader, but to send a message from one faction of the ruling gang to the other. The opening paragraph:

Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.

says everything of import in the article, Khalilzad has contacts with Zardari that are outside normal channels. Someone is pissed.

The Cheney administration does almost everything out of channels, but usually doesn't like to talk about it. Khalilzad's actions, as described, are normal. 'Channels', for the empire of supermen, is a myth you have to overcome. Action is what counts, not foolish concerns about protocols and chains of command.

The source is, naturally, anonymous, but one State Department official is put on the front lines:

“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

Then we learn who is behind Mr. Boucher's expression of displeasure:

Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.

So this is a struggle between Khalilzad and Negroponte over running the Pakistan shipwreck. Negroponte just fired a shot, by means of the NYT, at Khalilzad. Once again, out of channels. Why, an innocent might ask, do we have a Secretary of State, if not to determine with the President the nation's policy towards Pakistan, and to manifest it through the diplomats under her direction?

Well, the Secretary of State is not mentioned in the article. If Cooper and Mazzetti asked any questions about this affair to Condi, they are not reported. If they didn't, well why not? Well, as I said above, the purpose of the article is "to send a message from one faction of the ruling gang to the other". Stenography, as practiced by C&M and the other jokers at the Gray Lady, doesn't permit question outside the defined area at issue. Condi is not part of this discussion, capisch'?

Just as an added fillip, the article mentions that Khalilzad irks others:

because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan

Better watch out Zalmay, your wish just might come true. Visions of Alexander Burnes!