New McCarthyism? p.

By: Debra Gersh Hernandez

Secretary of defense nominee withdraws, lambasting columnists whom he accuses of publishing scurrilous accusations against him sp.

EXCORIATING WHAT HE called the "new McCarthyism," Admiral Bobby Ray Inman withdrew as a nominee for secretary of defense while lambasting newspaper columnists who, he said, published unanswered, scurrilous accusations against him.
Inman's decision to withdraw as the nominee was based in part on his desire not to put up with the daily "garbage," he said during a news conference in Austin.
While he made a point of not issuing blanket condemnation of the media, calling the overall print and television coverage of his nomination "extraordinarily fair," Inman said certain columnists have been guilty of "vitriolic attacks" that "set the tone for the coverage that then followed."
Inman singled out New York Times columnists William Safire and Anthony Lewis and Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman as examples, but he reserved a special measure of vitriol for Safire.
"The daily working reporting coverage of my nomination has been extraordinarily fair," Inman said. "My problem is with the columnist who is afforded the pages of the newspaper and the syndication and the talk shows to carry on attacks with no one responding . . . .
"If they're going to be permitted to make absolute scurrilous charges, where is at least some balance of giving the individual who is going to be the target the opportunity to write something that can be put parallel to it at the same time frame?" he asked.
Inman said he would "not be distressed . . . if the American Newspaper Publishers Association [now the Newspaper Association of America] decides that a code of ethics, at least for those who are going to write columns, might be in order."
Among his charges, Inman said Safire conspired with Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), whereby if Dole would "turn up the heat" on Inman's nomination, Safire would do the same on Whitewater Development, a real estate investment by President and Mrs. Clinton that is to be investigated by a special counsel.
Safire was quoted in the Times as denying any such arrangement or any conversation about Inman with Dole, and he called the accusation "nothing short of weird."
Dole, for his part, told reporters he's not in the habit of making deals with the Times.
Inman, referring to a Safire column in December, also said, "Mr. Safire's characterization of me as a tax cheat, from a man who has hidden his own plagiarism by an out-of-court settlement with sealed documents, does not, in my judgment, put him in a position to frame moral judgment on any of us, in or out of public service."
In that column, Safire, referring to Inman, said, "As an executive, he's a flop . . . . As a judge of character, he is a naif . . . . As a taxpayer, he is a cheat."
Safire told the Times he believed Inman was reaching back 35 years for the plagiarism charge to when Safire was a public relations man. He inadvertently had given material about one of the firm's clients to a writer who used portions of it, although it had been written by someone else.
Safire said he did not think the second writer would use the material in his article. When the first writer sued, the firm's insurance company settled out of court.
Inman said he began a relationship with Times editors in 1977, after a story that he said disclosed sensitive security information.
To forestall any future breaches, Inman, then head of the National Security Agency, said Times editors would call him to check stories that could be damaging to security, but they could not use him as a source to provide or confirm information.
"I never used that process to manipulate any news story," he said.
According to the Times, however, editors and reporters said there was no formal arrangement with Inman, who was one of many sources, albeit a valuable one, used to check out stories.
Nevertheless, Inman said numerous reporters and columnists, including Safire, tried fruitlessly to extract information from him, and at one point, Safire told him that if he did not become a source, he "would regret it in the subsequent coverage."
Inman said Safire went on to write a story that "caused us to lose critical access [to a source] that gave us a lot of information on terrorists."
When he confronted Safire, Inman said he did not "endear" himself to the columnist.
Safire, however, said he never threatened anyone, and in his Dec. 23, 1993, column, he remembered the story differently.
"My first run-in with Adm. Bobby Ray Inman came after I praised him in a 1980 column," he wrote. "As America's chief eavesdropper, he had overheard a suspicious call by President Carter's brother, Billy, to the Libyan embassy and properly brought the wiretap to the attorney general for criminal investigation.
"But praise from me brought him glares from the White House, and Admiral Inman ? recorders whirring ? called me to denounce 'irreparable harm you have done by revealing our sources and methods.' It was hard to believe that the Libyans did not know that all embassy phone lines were routinely tapped, but I respectfully asked if he would entertain one question.
"Icily, the admiral informed me he never talked to the press, but what was it I wanted to know? I asked him how a grown man could go through life calling himself 'Bobby;' he slammed down the phone," Safire recalled.
Goodman, who wrote only one column about Inman, allowed him the "Nannygate" issue ? although after all the publicity, she said, he should have known better ? but honed in on his business dealings.
(The "Nannygate" issue involved Inman's payment of about $6,000 in back Social Security taxes for a domestic worker after Clinton agreed to nominate him.)
"Since he last said good riddance to Washington, Inman helped arrange a leveraged buyout that sent one company into bankruptcy and served as a director at another firm that landed him in the middle of a currency-speculation scandal," Goodman wrote.
"I was critical," she said, "but he seemed to imply that we were all gratuitously, personally attacking him."
Goodman said Inman's thin skin and hypersensitivity reminded her of Ross Perot.
"I expected him to say that Bill Safire, Tony Lewis and I ruined his daughter's wedding," she said.
"I've written a good deal about hit-and-run journalism, people who go from being barely known to being bashed to falling off the scene. There are times when we have attacked people on the tiniest personal flaws and have made people wary of entering public life, but this is not a case of that."
Lewis' column, like the others, highlighted Inman's comment that he is "an operator."
He further noted, "The great challenge facing the Defense Department, and the country, is to reorder defense priorities after the Cold War. Mr. Inman will almost certainly oppose any reordering ? and make it impossible for President Clinton to act."
Lewis also took note of how "establishment Washington gushed," although he found "questions, important ones, about his judgment," including Inman's "role as a proxy director of International Signal and Control," a company whose head is serving 15 years in a federal prison for illegally exporting military equipment to South Africa.
Lewis, who said he doesn't know Inman, agreed that if Inman thinks no one is allowed to ask questions of a nominee or if he is that thin-skinned, he shouldn't have the job.
Lewis also rejected Inman's charges of McCarthyism, asking, "Is it McCarthyism to ask about a man's association with a convicted felon?"
Inman has not answered that question, Lewis noted.
He pointed out that "the premise of the constitutional system" is "public debate about nominees to high office. That's why we have a system of [congressional] hearings."
Lewis added, however, that there had been no sign that there would be tough questioning of Inman by senators about some of the issues raised by the columnists.
Inman said that following his appointment, he decided not to respond to accusations.
Despite saying he is not a media manipulator, Inman said leaking the "Nannygate" problem was a calculated move, designed to get the issue out and over with.
He had other potential problems that were not leaked, such as membership in the Bohemian Grove, an exclusive all-male group from which he has no desire to resign.
Inman said he did not want his membership to serve as "a litmus test on women's issues."
He cited examples of women in government whom he promoted and in business with whom he invested.
Despite praising the overall coverage, Inman took issue with profile writers who sought negative comments about him to give their articles "balance," with a reporter who reportedly told Inman he was writing "exactly the story that his editors wanted," and with reporters who interpreted his nomination comments as condescending to Clinton.
"That whole thrust took me by surprise," he said.
Inman said he decided to withdraw because if he was "this distressed and distracted by it," it was better to make the decision now.
"[I]f, in fact, going through that daily offensive is the price of public service, I've already given 30 years of service to my country and I don't wish or intend to subject myself to that on a daily basis as a cost of trying to produce change."