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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What is it about deMocrats that people think we hate America? We live and die for this country. I know a unit that is getting ready to go to California and train for 3 months then go to Iraq. Most of them are democrats and they say it is their duty. 3 months training is not, in my opinion, long enough training to kill or be killed. Washington as in Bush, Cheney and the rest of those people are leaving getting out of the war to the next president. What cowards!!!!
Democrat Harry Reid said the surge is a failure before it was fully implemented. Democrat Chuck Schumer said the surge was showing some signs of sucess despite the efforts of our troops. Which is it? They will say anything to win an election and have no integrity whatsoever. This is supporting the troops??????????
Yes, and look at the prominent Dem politicians. Almost of them served, many in combat. Then look at Bush, Cheney, Newt, Rove, and almost all the current candidates. And then quit saying that "All Dems hate America." Apparently we love it more than a lot of Repubs.
In Iraq America is faced with its most painful strategic defeat and humiliation since Vietnam. Question is who among Democratic presidential hopefuls can formulate a compelling strategic vision that the coming setback in Iraq is a mirage masking a hidden victory for America in the war on terrorism? That is the big question! And that is the challenge facing Hillary, Obama and the other contenders. Whoever rises to that challenge will win the democratic nomination and go on to become president.
"Pontius Pilate Press" indeed. A respected poll last year revealed that most Iraqis not only want our military out of their country, but a clear majority actually supports the ongoing armed attacks against our troops.
Why isn't this fact central to the debate on our continuing occupation of Iraq ? Why doesn't the press ask why the Iraqi parliament hasn't asked us to leave? If Iraq were truly a democracy, wouldn't their parliament do just that, in accordance with the wishes of their constituents? What does the absence of such a resolution from Iraq's parliament say about the state of representative government in Iraq?
Apparently, one of the unacknowledged victims of 9/11 has been what was once our nation's free press.
In the overwhelming stampede to not appear "soft on terror", the mainstream news media in America failed to adequately question BushCo's rush to war in Iraq. Ever since, they've continued in their downward slide, by attempting to emulate Fox News' fallacious motto, "We report, you decide." Instead of investigating, researching and reporting the facts, there seems to be an overwhelming need to "present both sides of an issue", in a misguided attempt to avoid charges of 'media bias'.
Sadly, in many cases, but especially in regard to the supposed 'progress' of the American 'Surge' in Iraq, this fence-sitting entails presenting both facts and administration/pentagon 'spin'.
Excellent post on how so called journalist integrity should operate. Presenting propaganda as alternative facts is not reporting it's propaganda and quoting the governments lies.Thanks for such an eloquent and concise report about the state of the Republican party's propaganda operations and how the "journalists" repeat their government lies.
Americans have given up on this president and on seeing this war end any time soon. All we can do now is pray that we can make it through 16 more months with this administration.
Cooking the books, lapse of memory, outright lies, and ridiculous talking points have been part of the neo-con's agenda for 6 years. Surprise, surprise! Patraeus is cooking the facts about the supposed worthiness of the "surge". When being shot in the back of the head doesn't count as a death and other specified ways of dying don't count as a death, things seem to be improving. Actually, there have been more troops killed this summer than last. But of course, no one in the Democratic party stands up and publicly contradicts Patraeus's statements. They are trembling and shuddering that truth might hurt their chances in the next election. I honestly wonder if Democracy is a system that works for the people and by the people. When Pelosi took impeachment "off the table", right after the last election, it was easy to foresee that nothing would change. Death in Iraq, lies, greed, graft, loss of liberty, treasure, jobs, benefits for the poor, and the systematic dissembling of the Constitution would continue. We thought we were electing tough leaders, instead they turned out to be self serving wimps. They have betrayed their constituents.
It all sickens me. I try to look at the "cosmic" big picture and hope that this is just a necessary part of our ever-evolving purpose in the world as humans. And then I catch the news and get zoomed right back here wondering if Iran is going to nuke us right off the planet - all due to our feeble president's antagonizing them.
How much time are we willing to spend in Iraq to create a government meeting our approval? Five years, ten years,a generation, two generations? How many soldiers are we willing to sacrafice for this purpose? How much more must we be willing increase our financial indebtedness to satisfy a leader bereft of reason who has gotten us stuck in a mess that he has no idea of getting out of?
I am always amazed to see that some representatives are Republicans, others are Democrats. When do these people think AMERICAN?
It is not desirable to tell the truth, however, I is unbelievable that we do want the Iraqis to clean up something which they did not destroy in the first place. Who invited the US into Iraq? War is hell. Those who are for war do have an agenda which is not compatbile with the fundamentals of humanity.
When do people stop being nationalistic and start thinking in human terms. Every human being slaughtered in this war - on both sides - is precious. How can anyone excuse killing for whatever reason? There is a church on almost every street corner, but where is the so called Christianity? Where is honesty and decency?All these religious frauds who favour killing innocent people - both Christians and Muslems - are sick.
W.
General Petraeus's first comment was that he, wrote the report he was to present to the committees, and neither the White House or the Pentagon had anything to do with it.
Later, in the questioning, he was asked if the report to be released by the White House was the same as the one he delivered? Both he and Crocker stated that they had read the report and it was, in essence, the same as his. It will be interesting to compare what he said and what the White House report says.
The bottom line of the hearings is that both Petraeus and Crocker are advocating keeping the war going, based on minimal progress by the military and none by the Maliki Government. The fallacy of the drawdown of troops is that his proposal will only bring the level down to what it was before the surge. Which means there is no drawdown.
It was reported recently that the turnaround by the Sunnis in Anbar Province to take on Al Qaeda insurgents, had to pay those same insurgents to allow their supply trucks to travel the roads there. We have to question whether it is worth being bribed in order to gain some sort of support. The flip side is that those same Sunnis were Saddam supporters and could very well turn the arms we gave them on us.
Yesterday the General started his remarks by stating that his remarks his, yeah right, I say, NOT. You know damn good and well that last week that the Decider vetted those remarks. The General doesn't want to be added to the pile of Generals behind the White house. Those who didn't agree with Bu$h and how to run his war in Iraq. This civil war is not going well and to try and use those little graph charts is just a sad joke. In the end, even if we all want our troop home, and I do, Bubble Boy is the one to make the choice.
Thank you Arianna for continuing to make this very important case. You deserve some of the credit for helping that 60 percent to see the truth.
Get a clue, America! Did you really expect him to do anything else but what his commanding officer tells him to do? Please!
As a mother of a soldier who has been deployed to Iraq twice, and faces another tour, let me tell you something. When you enter the military, you give up your rights. You follow orders. Explicitly. So what about Potreus' report don't you understand?
Did you think Bush & Cheney would suddenly welcome the truth? They are experts on using spin to accomplish their own agenda. And suddenly that would change now? Even look at the date they chose to have Patreus make his report. Yeah, play that tired terrorism card one more time. Make America roll over in submission again.
Trump.
A coulple of the halmarks of modern American Liberalism is moral relativism and diversity. This call for ONE TRUTH is complelely at odds with liberal philosophy in just about every other Liberal tenent.
Once again, horse hockey. Moral relativism is the hallmark of a few liberals way out there in fringe-land. Like conservatives, we come in a variety of stripes, and most of us do believe that truth exists and can be identified and acted on by men and women of open mind and good will. You are again quoting the Ann Coulter line. And the word is "tenet".
"We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," said Hillary Clinton.
Now it's their fault. Now it's "their" war. Now it's about "refereeing". Like we were hired to referee some deadly game they started. That sure is diminishing the real crime here. We went there, destroyed their country, told them to kill their neighbors (people they got along with before we showed up), and when the Iraqi people didn't have the heart needed to accomplish that, just like the bully America has become, we blame them and say we're now "taking our bat and going home". Hillary, always the lawyer, twisting the facts to win, assuming the dummies won't get it. That ought to tell you what kind of person she really is and how she will govern. Hillary is a Repub posing as a Democrat. Edward's comment wasn't much better, just not as blatantly dishonest. Obama, tried to stay away from blaming the Iraqi's at least. The civil war in Iraq is our fault (not mine, but GWB and gang, I was against it from minute one). That the Iraqi's didn't cooperate with us in our endeavor to destroy their nation, steal their oil, and occupy their country does not give us the right to now say, you won't fight and kill one another to help us and we're sick and tired of that attitude, it's your fault, so we're going home, ya losers! Blah, Blah, Blah, why not some truth for a change? I think if Hillary ever told the truth, she'd melt. If Edwards told the truth, only his hair would melt. Obama, I think he works at it a little. At least he stays away from the blatant lies.
well said ...
If we start calling it an occupation instead of a war we might start getting somewhere... it is not a war. Viet-Nam was not a "war" either, that was another occupation.
We started the civil war because we removed the strongman holding it down, like a lid on a pressure cooker; yes, we started it in that sense. It has been a bloody rivalry for centuries, though. Once Saddam was gone, it was on again.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
