Denying the Truth: Petraeus, Iraq, and Our Pontius Pilate Press

I was in Miami last night for the Univision-hosted Democratic debate. Listening to their responses on Iraq left no doubt that the candidates have gotten the message that, no matter what Gen. Petraeus says during his testimony, the American people -- including the Hispanic community -- are done with this war.

"We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," said Hillary Clinton.

"I believe no political progress [in Iraq] means no funding without a timetable for withdrawal," said John Edwards.

"I'm calling on Republican congressmen and legislators to overturn the president's veto of a timetable," said Barack Obama.

Later, after the debate, Chris Dodd told me he had made it clear to Harry Reid: "As you are trying to get Republican votes for a compromise bill, don't count on my vote on any legislation that doesn't include a clear withdrawal date."

I asked freshman Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey if he felt the same way. "I voted against the war as a Congressman," he told me. "I've been in favor of a definite withdrawal date for a long time. I don't close the door on a bill that, like the Webb amendment, would achieve the same results by making troops unavailable. But it's time for America to stop enabling Iraqis' refusal to come to terms with what they need to do."

So the American people get it, and the Democrats running for president and trying to win their votes get it. Then why do so many in the media still not get it?

In Sunday's New York Times, Michael Gordon, Judy Miller's former partner in the Ahmed Chalabi vaudeville production of "Saddam's Got WMD," served up a fact-challenged piece of administration propaganda in which he asserted, "The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population."

Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Nowhere does Gordon point out that the methodology the Pentagon uses to arrive at the comprehensive stats he cites has been thoroughly discredited, as shown by the Washington Post. Instead he asserts:

"Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005."

Apparently, this means there was some period in 2006 in which attacks, as measured in some particular way, were higher than now. Thanks, Michael Gordon. Your White House thank-you note is no doubt in the mail.

Gordon ends his muddled piece by adopting the pseudo-objective "on the one hand... but on the other" stance favored by so many in his profession: "The figures that have emerged in recent government reports have seemingly provided something for everyone."

I guess we just can't know anything, can we?

Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of "what is truth" to their readers -- refusing to admit that there is even such a thing as truth. It is particularly troubling that so many in a profession dedicated to the idea that there is a truth to be ferreted out -- and that the public has a right to know it -- remain so resolutely committed to presenting two sides to every story -- even when the facts are solidly on one side.

Progress in Iraq is actually something that can be measured. Last week's report from the Government Accountability Office did such measuring. That's why it was immediately attacked by Republicans -- because it pointed out that Iraq was failing to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks.

But the administration has faith that, because of the way too many in the press operate, all it has to do is sow doubt. The GAO puts out one set of facts, the administration puts out an opposing set of "facts" -- and counts on reporters to refuse to see the difference between facts and "facts."

Case in point: Sunday's AP story about how Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wouldn't be meeting with "Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses" in order to protect the "independence and the integrity of their testimony." This is a claim that is beneath contempt. It is hard to fathom how a journalistic operation could write something so blatantly untrue when there have been numerous stories about how the Petraeus report has already been discussed and thoroughly vetted by the White House and how Ed Gillespie has set up a war room between the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House to coordinate the Petraeus PR campaign.

The stated purpose of the surge was to provide the stability and security necessary for political progress to be made by the Iraqi government. Progress that, as the GAO report made clear, is unequivocally not happening.

So the White House focuses on small improvements in cherry-picked data. But it surely isn't surprising that in the immediate vicinity of the 30,000 troops involved in the surge, attacks might temporarily decrease. Just as it's not surprising, for instance, that the crime
rate inside the gates of the White House is lower than the rate in NE Washington. The point of the surge was that it would have a political spillover effect. But since that hasn't happened, the White House is once again attempting to move the goalposts, and the Michael Gordons of the press corps are there to help with the heavy lifting.

The problem for the White House, and General Petraeus, and the go-along members of the press, is that the public isn't buying it anymore. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 40 percent of Americans expect General Petraeus to give an accurate picture of Iraq. Fifty-three percent believe he'll give an overly optimistic presentation. And a whopping two-thirds say it doesn't matter what Petraeus says because Bush will hold to his Iraq policy no matter what.

Today, we've been told by the White House and by the press, is The Big Day. Petraeus has come down from the mountaintop with his 10 Commandments and all of humanity now knows the way forward in Iraq. Except, unlike the original, Petraeus' message is not divinely inspired. Indeed, having watched his opening salvo -- which he delivered while barely looking up from his script -- it's not even grounded in reality.

The driving force of the White House's approach to this war has been the belief that saying something is so makes it so. That truly is the first commandment of the Bush administration. But it wasn't true when the war started and it's not true now.

The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what's happening in Iraq when there is only one.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Hoelder]

I think Harry Reid should put immediate withdrawal on the table for a vote, so we can see where the Reps stand and repeat it until it passes. In the meantime put all Iraq spending under scrutiny and stop authorizing any money until every Dollar is accounted for. American Companies contracted in Iraq have to pay everything back if that project is unsuccessful and tie any new spending for Iraq to taxes levied starting with the super rich down to the middle classes.

[ElkoJohn]

don't hold your breath for Sen. Reid, the best he could do was a 24-hour filibuster, and now he wants to compromise with the Repugs.

[maniarwild]

I agree, however that would require the Dems to show some courage. I am not holding my breath.

[laocoon]

the american military has man for man such superior fire power it has always been a foregone conclusion that a surge would work. the initial surge was called the invasion and it worked. we can put troops in sufficient numbers on any given square footage and achieve headway. this has always been true of this sort of conflict. the other side just hides or goes elsewhere and waits for opportunities or strikes at supply lines. this is classic pattern of these sort of conflicts and the surge working is a meaningless assertion in this context. everytime we surge it will work until we have so exhausted our resources that we can not surge any more. this can go on for decades without any progress being made.

[eztempo]

Hear hear, Arianna.

[patriotscholar]

No, Arianna, Americans don't get it. They know that Iraq is a failure, yes, but what they don't know is what this administration has in store for us next.
Perhaps the administartion wants to keep the troops in place to counter retaliatory attacks when they attack Iran. The naval battle groups are in place, troops there...all they need is a reason, real or not, and given the past history of this administration, well...

[WmC]

What continues to amaze me, patriotscholar, is not a woefully ignorant public's failure to respond to the prospect of an air/missile strike on Iran, but Congress's failure to respond. Congressmen in both parties KNOW what's in store, yet they stand mute and dumb. Especially the latter.

Just watch them all campaign in 2008 on a platform of "leadership and courage."

[Marlyn]

"Congressmen in both parties KNOW what's in store, yet they stand mute and dumb." !!!

I don't understand it. The job of Congress is to balance the Executive, so why don't they do their job?

If they are in fact helpless to stop an attack on Iran then our government will have failed us, and we will know that democracy is dead in the USA.

[Artos]

Maybe it's not all muteness and dumbness but complicity.

[BillZBubb]

Wow, we could only wish the media would stop parrotting the Bush administration baloney. The corporate media, as you say, acts as if there are two sides to the story, but for them only the Bush version is credible. The spin is always pro-Bush, pro-war.

Those of us opposed to this disaster in Iraq from the beginning are never presented as credible, yet the same group who have been wrong every step of the way on Iraq continue to set the agenda.

The US media is a joke.

[ElkoJohn]

correct, AH you must know that the Corporate Media is part of the "My Country Right or Wrong" Propaganda Machine.

[fetchezlavache]

Sometimes "My country, right or wrong" is used to bludgeon down anyone who sees a wrong and tries to change it. Chesterton once said that "My country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober". We keep on loving the old girl, but we try to get her into a 12-step program. Is there such a program for neo-cons?

[certainot]

this MSM complicity is enabled by the talk radio monopoly and it's trickle up effect. GOP reps are insulated and protected from reality by a cuccoon the white house and right wing think tanks create for them with the daily uncontested repetition of synchronized talking points. they have the biggest propaganda microphone in the country and they know limbaugh and hannity have their backs. for the MSM talking heads it really doesn't matter how hypocritical, irrational, and absurd they sound as long as they're sitting on top of that giant media bandwagon driven by the GOP radio blowhards and pulled by the tens of millions of often captive daily listeners who can turn a haircut into a defining political act.

if the GOP didn't have it's talk radio monopoly to fill our airwaves with their bush excuses and lies and attacks against critics i don't think it wouldn't be able to prevent the Dems from getting a veto-proof majority.

[lisakaz]

Indeed, that's what's so incredible. When has Bu$hco been right on ANYTHING regarding Iraq? So, why are they given ANY credibility?

[transendentilist]

I think you forget about Chris Mathews and Kieth Olberman. They are definately not pro bush.

[soundoff]

Let's say you're the President CEO of a public company that makes widgets for materials that are used for military equipment. Your company employees 7,500 people. Someone asks you if you support the Iraq war. You say boldly: "of course I do...uh....it's against the terrorists....you know, those Al qaeda guys who try and kill us....you know they are trying to come to America and kill us....so I say: hey, let's take the war to them and kill thme over there." The question to these type people is not a moral question but an economic question. If we end the war and bring our troops home, sales for the widget company come down and the stock prices fall. Republicans are Wartime Economists. They HAVE to have a MONSTER to blame in order to sucker in the unlearned and unschooled American voters. They need the votes of those people, in order to have war, WHICH FEEDS THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. So they SCARE them with the big bad boogie man: AL QAEDA. Don't look for this war to end until Democrats control: the Presidency, the House and or the Senate.

[youngbodhisattva]

you're absolutely right and this practice is called "war profiteering" also known as TREASON

[V4Vendetta]

It's also known as Imperialism.

[Miamiman]

Al Qaeda is not the enemy?

[fetchezlavache]

Yes, Al Qaeda is the enemy. But what the hell does that have to do with Iraq?

[gonnuts]

If you're waiting on the Democrats to end this war I have a Timeshare to sell you in beautiful downtown Baghdad.

I couldn't agree more with you about the War-Monster we've created, but do you seriously think that the enormous amounts of money the MIC needs to sustain itself through the wars they create is only funneled to the Republicans?

No, no, no, this Monster spreads the money around. This country needs war like an addict needs his fix and like any drug it doesn't care what political party you belong to.

[Artos]

"Don't look for this war to end until Democrats control: the Presidency, the House and or the Senate."

Be careful what you wish for. Don't forget that Absolute power can lead to Absolute Corruption. If you read back aways into American history you will find that at one point the Democrats were doing something very similar to present day Republicans.
Instead of putting one party into absolute control we need to find ways to insure that no one is ever allowed to pull off a palace coup again. I think that the only solution is to strengthen the constitution in such a way as to create better balances of power and checks and balances. Another thing is to have more than two Political parties. And finally to create a fool proof voting system that can't be trifled with.

[IzaakSzerman]

The 'fair and balanced' claims of Main Stream Media (MSM) are leaving a great many Americans with NO information at all.

It's as if they were giving 'fair and balanced' coverage to the question: Is 2 + 2 equal to 4 -- or is it equal to 5?

"SOME claim that 2+2=4, while OTHERS insist that 2+2=5. And now, we'll be right back after another pharmaceutical commercial."

THAT's not fair and balanced. THAT is a regime-hiding smokescreen of NO NEWS AT ALL!

It all really started with those merry beloved 'news' men, Huntley and (Goodnight, Chet) Brinkley who started stinking up real news with infotainment.

[ElkoJohn]

agreed, even Jim Lehrer does the "he says, she says" thing -- why can't a journalist then do some fact checking & tell us who got their facts right?

[Artos]

Not factchecking is what got Dan Rather in trouble. Had he gone to that Secretary who typed up the report on Bush for his squadrons C.O., he would have discovered that the letter was a clevery retooled document. I firmly believe he was entrapped purposely. The details in the letter he reported on were there just not in the same format as the one the Secretary composed. So what brought Rather down was not that he had reported lies but that the document was not the authentic report and therefore opened him up to charges of pandering a false document. What was totally forgotten in all of this was the Secretaries statement that the gist of the document was all there and didn't take away from the truth, that Bush was AWOL and a fraud.

[ParacleteofKavorka]

Izaak, you hit the nail on the head. That's why the MSM news is so 'utterly satisfying'. With the millions of words spoken and written, issues don't get clearer. They get more and more distorted and spun.

My favorite example of how the media misinforms us is that there were two(2) white Ford Broncos in the O.J. Simpson saga. There was one parked in front of his house with blood evidence and was impounded and the other was used in the slow speed chase. But, I bet most of the country thought there was just the one 'white Ford Bronco'. Imagine how misled we are with anything more complex than that, such as a war.

[lisakaz]

Yes. Excellent example in its elegant simplicity. The media is supposed to referee truth. They are surrendering their responsibility because it is too expensive to their corporate overlords to DO THEIR JOB. Better to dissect that Britney "performance."

It disgusts me at this late date that few stand up for the truth anymore. This is a flo' sho' and nothing more. Incredible that the mealey mouth MSM can't report and the Dems can't show some backbone.

[Mark701]

Fact is the days of Walter Cronkite are gone. What we have now is "news-atainment" driven by $$$. The MSM learned years ago that people were more interested in being entertained than learning the hard truths about very ugly issues, especially those where the United States is in the wrong. In response they gave us fluff and lies. When Americans DEMAND that the MSM change they will. Until that time it's Britney 24/7.

[JudgeMoonbox]

IzaakSzerman says, "The 'fair and balanced' claims of Main Stream Media (MSM) are leaving a great many Americans with NO information at all."

I think the media's idea of balance is to bend over backwards as far as they can in hopes the Rush Limbaughs won't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor. If we want the media to do its job, we'll have to expose this "Limbaugh dance" for what it is.

"It's as if they were giving 'fair and balanced' coverage to the question: Is 2 + 2 equal to 4 -- or is it equal to 5?

"SOME claim that 2+2=4, while OTHERS insist that 2+2=5. And now, we'll be right back after another pharmaceutical commercial."

That's funny, because Dan Rather tried to prove that 2+2=4 using dollar bills that turned out to be counterfeit. Look what's happened to him, how the people who want us to believe 2+2=5 used the counterfeit money against him.

[TS]

Just to note a simple point of logic, even if the dollar bills are counterfeit, 2+2 still equals four. The money might be worthless, but the math is the same.

Back to analogy school for you.

[Advocate123]

I love how a 4-star general who has been praised over the last few decades for his integrity, was confirmed by congress, and went to Iraq to help our soldiers win a war, is called a liar by the left before he even speaks. Shame on you all.

Advocate123
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

[LittleGreenGreaseBalls]

What else could you call him? A lot of people were confirmed by congress: Gonzo, Rummy, Ashcroft, Condi, Powell, etc. What's your point?

[ElkoJohn]

Gen. William Westmoreland did the same thing in 1967, so what else is new?

[Boadicea]

Well now, you certainly proved the point there. What a motley crew!

What do we call them, indeed?

[Lloydc]

MoveOn got it right!

[bowserbois]

It's like Annie Wilkes said in Misery.."Do they think we're stupid?"

[DrPaulProteus]

and i like how anything that comes out of Washington is pretty much a load of shit, including the words of a 4-star General carrying the water for this complete and total failure of an administration.

[YellerDawg]

Tell it, brother. Westmoreland was a general, too.

[nebulus]

You've learned a lot from your groundskeeper, Dr. Proteus, since he showed you how he shovels HIS dissertation on a daily basis. I'm glad to see you're still on the side of the Reeks and Recks. Who didn't think Petraeus would betray us?

[flatus]

Just more proof of the old saying, "You kiss the ass of the one that brought you to the party".

The stars are not only on Petreaus' shoulders, there in his eyes as well.

[Opus007]

The MSM media has done a 4 star job of carrying water for this administration- they greased the wheels to sell this war. What happened to old fashioned fact checking and investigative reporting instead of just publishing the White House talking points.

[fantagor]

Went to Iraq to help our soldiers win a war?

So that's why he's in Washington shilling for Bush, because there's no better vantage for suppressing the tides of war than being on the other side of the world from the conflict.

By virtue of that algebra, I and hundreds of millions like me, on this side of the Atlantic, are standing at the REAL front of the Iraq war, which is the sickening truth of it, that to Bush, winning HERE, in the eyes of the public and press, is more important than winning THERE, in Iraq, in reality.

Randy

[towerclimber37]

He went to Washington because it was a concession made to get funds from congress...now he's a shill?
speak it brother!! twoof will set you fwee!

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

So sad, but oh so true! Randy, keep up the good work!

[MikeDu]

"to help our soldiers win a war"

I like how the phrase to 'win' floats free of all context. Its vital to 'win' its necessary to 'win'. Its entirly beside the point that we're engaged in a blood-stained, pointless criminal enterprise. 'Winning' is the important thing, regardless of whatever it may be we're theortically trying to 'win'.

[baylaw73]

Can we call him a liar after he lies? Or does his record make him immune from criticism? And who, exaclty, called him a liar? There was plenty of well-earned skepticism of what he would say, but I would like to see where the left's spokesperson (whoever that is) called HIM a liar.
Shame on YOU for your inexplicable credulity towards what a government that has lied blatantly and repeatedly about this occupation. I thought righties hated the government. Was Tim McVeigh a leftist?

[towerclimber37]

lets see..Lantos said "I will not be swayed no matter what his words are"

Wexler called him a liar and then pretended to care for the fallen troops, that sort of fake grandstanding wouldn't work with Gen. Petraeus, who actually LIVES by words like integrity and honor; Wexler ended up looking sheepish and nodding his head after being corrected when HE got the number of fallen soldiers wrong.

[WaltinDearborn]

General P. is the victim of White House lies and manipulation.
All credibility was lost when we learned the report was to be routed through the White House for White Washing.
Petraeus is cornered. He can either say what he's told to say --or resign -- or discover he's scheduled for immediate "retirement".

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

This almost sounds like what happened to Colin Powell and a long list of other formerly well respected military leaders.

[DoctorDoctor]

that's true. so why worry about what he says? oh. that's the point.