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

[Charles TW]

It appears that the only remaining objective for us in Iraq is to find the best exit strategy while saving face, protecting our butts, and taking firm hold of what's left of our pride. Even as pathetic as I find the leadership and people of that part of the world to be, I don't envision the Middle East conceding an oil monopoly to the West. We are not going build a democracies in that region until the people decide that they want democracies to be built. And forming a government out of petty sheikdoms will be even more frustrating than attempting to herd Trent Lott's cats.
At some point it has to occur the West that blowing ill winds into the Middle East can only result in ill tidings.
Just think of what we could have accomplished with steady rays of diplomatic sunshine instead of this ill conceived military blunder. What fascinated me most about the Pretraeus-Crocker vaudeville routine was their flawless soft shoe rendition of "Stay the Course" without either of them once suggesting a viable reason for doing so.
www.charlestwilliams.com

[undercurrent]

The majority of so-called journalists today are lazy and are probably under the gun to print something-­-anything-­-for tomorrow's show, newspaper, etc. Where are the Eric Severieds of the world? For that matter, we are the leaders who have the cujones to stand up and tell the truth? Always worrying about the next election. They must really laugh at us for being so stupid as to fall for their lies time after time.

As for Bush, his M.O. is and always has been that he knows if he screws up, Daddy or one of Daddy's pals will bail him out. This time it will be the next president and, if it's a Democrat, we all know what that's going to be like. No matter what is done, it will be cut and run. Cue the drums, enter the next round of Repugs.

It's way past time for a third party. I'm getting old waiting!

[Greg0658]

3rd Party =

Binding Referendum Style voting by you and I

via the USA Internet

supported by a PayPal style accounting system (spare a dime to vote?) ... 1 vote per entity (must have an account)

a business gets a vote too ... but only one (maybe weighted on some matters)

[Wyndespelle]

I am in almost complete accord with Arianna on this essay but I take issue with this one statement:

"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."

There is absolutely no place in the world today where the Crime Rate is higher than in the White House at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. The politicians therein have committed the most egregious crimes known to civilized mankind in virtually every action they take in every area of our physical existence, the Environment and our Political System etc.

Their abuse of the Constitution, which defines both citizens rights and the parameters of governance, is a daily affair and their assault on it is unconscionable. The murder of over a million Afghani and Iraqi civilians and citizens of once sovereign nations in the specious pursuit of oil is a national disgrace. Their occupation of those countries is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Someone may be mugged or killed very 5 seconds in NE Washington DC, but the war killings, for which we in the USA are directly responsible, exceeds that rate by many hundreds if not thousands.­..

[ClaireVoyance]

Being able to criticize America, especially to protect and improve it, is exactly what America is all about. It's an act of love not hate.

[snakeeater]

As long as the press exists to interview each other and promote their "Books" our democracy is finished.

There is no real journalism,search for truth, anymore. It is all self promotion and the selling of soap!

[deminmo]

My favorite line from "A Few Good Men" is this in essence; "you can't handle the truth". The "Truth" is subject to what the individual decides it is. Or what they decide others are willing or able to understand. The people of the United States have been suspending their need for truth for 6 years. Just listen to the news and call-in talk shows. No one wants the truth. But, it has a way of finding a way to the surface, like magma, and can blow the top off to reveal what lies beneath. Its getting ready to do that.

[CarmanK]

Members of Congress voted to go to war in Iraq because "the President of the United States" said that Iraq possessed WMD posing an immediate threat to the security of the country. One of the most trusted men in America-Colin Powell -agreed with the President. Members of Congress voted the will of their constituents, trusting the President to be truthful in such matters. W is a liar, detached from reality,and dysfunctional. But his performance on 9/11/2001 was brilliant. The media just fell in line with the mood of the country.

[AdamSelene]

OK, I too read Michael Gordon's piece in the Times, and I probably would have bought it if not for your post, and also a discussion I heard about what types of casualties are counted as violence and which are not. Apparently, this changes too. Sort of like the way the public schools in NYC often don't report violence, because this would land them on a list of troubled schools. So the reports of declining violence have to be analyzed in the light of how violence is defined, and how these definitions change.

My larger point: Why do journalists like Gordon spout this BS? My suggestion: simple materialism and desire for gain. The NYT builds bridges and mends fences with those in power in the government -- so do the other major media organizations. The reporters get the message that to criticize too much and too often is to bite the hand that feeds them. This is Ronald Reagan's true legacy -- do whatever you have to do, so long as the money keeps flowing.

[pcplz]

The very first statement that Petraeus made contained a falsehood. He said that he had only shared his letter with his superiors, not the White House. Isn't the prez his Commander in Chief? And, doesn't the prez live in the...uh..­.White House? What should we believe after the first statement's dodging?

[seditious]

I have a friend from overseas that recently wrote this:

"There is no anti war movement. And the US is a one party state, with two wings….a right wing, and an extreme right wing. The US has gotten away with starting two wars, killing over a million innocent people and displacing millions more. It is about to start a third war in Iran. Not a peep from the so-called anti war movement. Here is a country that puts the Third Reich to shame when it comes to propaganda, warmongering and mass murder, and no one has the balles to say anything. You Americans are complicit in your government’s crimes against humanity, by failing to speak out, and throw out your criminals in power.

You are paralyzed by fear. Speak out against your criminal politicians, and get arrested if you have to., to make your point. What happened to the protests of the 60s, that helped stop the American murder campaign against Vietnam?

Your country is the biggest threat to world peace ever, and you remain silent. Maybe a good depression will get you doing something about the crimes of your country around the world. It’s right around the corner, and that will put an end to the bogus “American Dream” . Then maybe you will stand for what is important, instead of becoming obese watching trash on your big screen TV that will never be paid off. If you won’t stop war, the depression will."

Can't say I disagree with him a helluva lot.

[Greg0658]

Your overseas friend, if Iraqie, I would reply to his statement and your endorsement:

As nearly defenseless as you were to oust Sadam we are nearly the same here with GWB who if you understand the big picture is a puppet of a very large engine called 'America'.

I hope we can overcome this situation peacefully and I appologize for our America not giving Iraq the time to do it your way.

Please accept my apology.
:-[

[film381]

Adianna...

FINALLY... Finally someone took the tarp off the other corupt and indisious monster that keeps the Iraq going... THE MEDIA !!!!
I won't revive history of how the media both help build this country nor how it is now ruining it.
Suffice to say, FINALLY someone had taken the media on face to face.
This ONE MAJOR PLAYER that could help solve the problems this war has caused could save a lot of lives if they would only stop sensationalizing what is going on and start a comprehensive campaign to get the people to oust this idiot from OUR White House.
Thank you for the start... I only hope you will continue to address this... nay... rant and rave in a constructive manner against the media to actually spread the word that is being screamed by the "little people"... STOP THIS FIASCO called the "Iraq war".

[Cosmic Logic]

Without a lot of pomp and circumstance, you have put forth the primary reason truth has lost its way. For the clueless and the other I.Q.-chall­enged, the media now more than ever is owned by the 'merchants of enterprise'. These merchants don't care about truth; they care about advertisers, ratings and not pissing off one element or other of their audience. To me, today's definition of a whore is the majority of media persons who sell their journalistic integrity to simply make money. Everyone has a right to make money...ju­st don't pretend to be something you are not and most of today's media persons are not journalists and do not subscribe to one of this country's pillars, which is the freedom of the press to express candor and find truth. I think, Arianna, that someday your blog will be the mainstream source of truth. If not, we will know the clueless and uneducated have indeed prevailed. Thanks for your courage.

[Petesdaddy]

In resposnse to the usual GOP mantra about victory, Lynn Woolsey said "You cannot win an occupation­."
The Bush war machine has successfully hoodwinked the American people into believing that the occupation of Iraq was a response to the events of September 11 and that we are now engaged in a war to defeat our enemies, who are now and always have been in Iraq.
If the media can somehow undo this misinformation by constantly repeating over and over again "There is no connection between the events of 9/11 and the occupation of Iraq" then we will be on the way to convincing people that there is no victory to be had.
It's all bogus.

[live by the golden rule]

Why don't we ask the Iraqi people if the surge is working? Isn't the argument that we are staying there to protect them while their government is able to gain some stability.

Oh, look, someone did ask them:

Washpost BAGHDAD, Sept. 10 -- Seven in 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas and nearly half want coalition forces to leave immediately, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

.... Fewer than one-quarter of Iraqis report that things in Iraq are going well, down from 35 percent in a similar poll released in March, while the number of people who expect conditions to improve in the next year has declined precipitously.

.....In Baghdad...­six in 10 believe that security is worse in Iraq than it was six months ago, and just 11 percent believe security has improved.

[ThomH]

For an vven more disturbing poll, see

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

This respected organization revealed a year ago that however else divided, Iraqis are united on one thing: they want the US military out of their country. Clear MAJORITIES of both Shias and Sunnis even support the armed attacks that are killing our troops.

Given that fact, how can we justify staying?

[ThomH]

For an even more disturbing poll, see

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

This respected organization revealed a year ago that Iraqis, however else they are divided, are united on one thing: they want our military out of their country. So much so that majorities of both Shias and Sunnis support the armed attacks against our troops.

How can this fact continue to be ignored in the debate about whether we should leave or stay?

[CSE]

Congress, both parties, have little concern about what the Iraqis want. Various congressmen say they want to see a "new government". US Congressmen want something other than what the Iraqis voted for? Even our incompetent president understands the absurdity of that.

The report mentions the "American bases" and outlines the uncertainty with regard to the future of the Sunni population(s).

The US wants security for their investment in Iraq. Think about what that means. It is the reality.

[hontonoshijin]

You state that the crime rate inside the White House gates is lower than the rate in NE Washington. I know what you mean, but feel it would be accurate to say that the rate of one-on-one violent crime is lower. There's plenty of evidence of other criminal behavior.