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

[gilbaker]

When aksed by Republican Senator John Warner if the "war" in Iraq "is making America safer," General Petraeus answered: "Sir, I don't know actually." This stunning admission not only nullfies Bush's "fight'em there so we won't have to fight'em here" claim: It negates any justifaction for continuing the "war" in Iraq.

[moglewer]

The failure of the corporate media on the Iraq imbroglio is just as despicable as the failure of the government. The journalists and pundits have been busy with parroting the Administration line or alternatively damning with faint praise the recent dog and pony show of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker before the Congress. What no-one has yet pointed out is that the "peace" in Anbar Province, rather than a sign of progress, represents a military defeat for the US. The heart of the insurgency, led by Sunni's and ex-Baathists, was in Anbar. Careful observers have pointed out that Al Qaeda was a minor player. To achieve "peace", we are giving the insurgents money and possibly arms. The insurgents are now freedom fighters. Al Qaeda is giving the political cover to justify these moves. What we are doing with this policy is guaranteeing civil war in Iraq. This is the progress being sold to the public by the pundits and the media.

[SFSierra]

What galls me is that while we're debating did Patraeus spin the facts, more blood and treasury are being spilled. Just how long can the US afford to play referee? 5 years, 10 years, 20? As soon as we stop playing referee, there is going to be a free for all. Just like the British and Romans and other empire builders have learned eventually, the price for occupying other countries is eventually the end of your empire.

[olivine]

The media has become The Propaganda Arm for "specil interests"in an increasingly totalitarian society...­is there something other than flouride in the water?Thank God for The Huffington Post! We should all just refer to the press as "Minitrue".

[RogueTexan]

Come on everyone..­. it's clear he wants to keep the troops in Iraq because to bring them home means they won't be over there when they start bombing Iran.

It's about Iran, guys and gals. The bombing raids begin by Spring and they need the troops there to protect everything west of Iran in case of a drive by Iran across Iraq to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

While one fully expects Israel to be able to head off any issues, having US forces there will keep Syria out of the picture (or a side objective for a bombing raid or two). US forces there will also be able to move in and stake out positions.

It's about Iran now, not so much Iraq.

[jcheadsup]

Hi Arianna,
I’ve got a message for congress…
IMOEACHMENT IS… VETO PROOF.
And you can quote me if you like.

JC

[plooger]

> "... are done with this war."

For the love of frickin' god, Arianna...­!! This is an occupation! Using the term "war" frames the issue as primarily military in nature, which the purpose of the Iraq occupation is not. We don't have military goals; the Iraqi government has political goals.

[rjcrane]

There is probably little to no credible evidence that the surge has done anything to "permanently" reduce violence in Iraq. The best that can be claimed is that some violence may have subsided for a very short time in some places, but the reasons for this are varied and may have little to do with the surge itself. For example violence may be down because of the hot summer or because the Mahdi army is watching developments unfold. I recall a comment by Lawrence O'Donnell who said that at any one point in time the surge of 30,000 more troops would only produce a very small number actually out on patrol at any one point in time. There was no possible way anyone could have thought the surge would work. The surge was ONLY a strategy to buy BUSH more time to hand over his mess to the next president. We need to focus our attention on the political gamesmanship being played by Bush using our troops as pawns.

RJ Crane, editor
topplebush.com

[2FedUp]

The sad and ugly truth of the Iraq war, and what most fear to say, is that despite the corporate-­controlled media spin, the obfuscation by the administration and the military, is that our troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died for nothing. No good cause. There is no such thing as honor in an illegal war that was based on lies to Congress and the American people. The Bush administration should be held accountable and prosecuted where applicable for this horrific travesty of what America should represent. Bush is saying that if we don't fight the terrorists there, we'll be fighting them here. He chose to invade Iraq when we had a chance after 9/11 to go after Al Queda where they really were. That is, if after viewing the collapse of the towers you believe that it wasn't a planned demolition, and was an attack by terrorists armed with boxknifes. History has shown that Southeast Asia didn't fall prey to the communist domino theory our government threatened us with after Vietnam, just as our government is doing now with the mideast. America shouldn't be in the business of creating more terror, and we need to quit blaming the Iraqi government for the problems we created by our unconsionable invasion.

Congress's shameful capitulation to this administration's calculated, war-mongering scare tactics through continued funding is a disgrace. It highlights the powerful control vested interests have over our supposed representatives. They have failed to live up to voter's overwhelming mandate for change. These are crucial times in our country's history where we need courageous political leaders to preserve our system of checks and balances from an imperial presidency--present or future. Whatever happened to freedom of the press? Thank goodness for forums such as this that allow citizens to voice their opinions. You certainly aren't going to hear it from the mainstream media.

[WoodyW]

If we hope to live peacefully, we need to communicate in a way where each allows the "other" to say, "This I believe and why I believe it," and look for commonalities, rather than calling names and assigning stupidity and dishonesty to those we disagree with. Until we can, how can we get along with anyone? We can ask each other, "Who would Jesus bomb?", but until we agree that we want the same basics for ourselves, our children, and those we love, we won't achieve anything but resentment, fear and violence. We feed the fire burning our nation with our disagreements, and waste energy we COULD be using to improve lives of the young and the old, the weak and the ill, neighbors and strangers who have been set upon by robbers. We could be trying to save our nation and the world from the gluttons who think only of the moment's profit. We could find ways to respect each other, not tear each other down. I am afraid for the future of my 3 children, my 13 grandchildren and my 4 greatgrandchildren because of the inability of even intelligent beings to respect opinions. I'm not suggesting we not argue - just that we stop calling each other names threatening violence. I'm not suggesting we stop questioning sources - just that we cite our own more dispassionately - I'm not suggesting we respect what we know are lies. Just that we need to understand why people need to believe them. If we don't begin from shared values and goals, the WAR - a war of ideas about ownership which should be faced with words, not waged with bombs and bodies of innocent soldiers and civilians - will be fought here, between neighbors and friends. The lines are being drawn by those who profit from our dissonance and we are lining up against each other on sides determined by those profiteers who are served by our distraction from their thievery. STOP IT! Please.

[ikkytito]

BTW Arianna I always thought you were sexier than Hillary-and as smart too. hugs for you babe

[ikkytito]

I want the Clinton economy back. PLZ. Rubin an that lil short guy. an deficit reduction an trying to make peace in Ireland and Israel an a successful end to the crisis in bosnia. and an acknowledgement of reason. How far we have strayed from the path of responsible government. How much time have we left? We may be hanging by a thread. The big boys better get their shit together soon.

[dr4Will]

excellent article,Ar­ianna--bra­vo!!

[chrisfletcher]

I'm disgusted with the Democrats in congress. They have impeached Bush and Chaney a long time ago.

[BritPatJax]

All the surge has done is quieten a particular area of unrest. That is the equivilant of putting someone in OJ's house to stop the troubles. They stop for a while. You have to leave them alone eventually. You can ONLY judge the situation once you have left them alone to relate. They would most likely continue where they left off. There is no way to win? Don't even go there as to winning. Leave anf let them sort thenselves out just as India and Pakistan had to.