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
Defense Secretary Gates has been "disappeared".
Two or three times since Sec Gates took office he has been caught out for simply telling the truth. In each instance he clearly made truthful statements that were at odds with the White Houses propaganda delivery for such facts in question. In each instance he took my breath away for such rogue behavior. I laughed but I also felt concern for the hostility which was certain to befall him.
I don't remember the exact details, but one instance concerned when he solo voce put the kibosh on huge extended terms for our troops.
Now as Petraeus and Crocker spin the facts in Iraq as good political aparatchiks in the service of whatever Bush/Cheney are trying to achieve, America's Secretary of Defense is cut out of the loop.
Telling the unvarnished truth in this White House has morphed into treason, an act of deceit for which one becomes 'disappeared.'
Labels: disappeared, disparecido, cognitorex blogspot, Robert Gates, Secretary Defense, truth as treason
MSM= whoever owns the most toys(media outlets)in the end wins. They can win because it seems the greater percentage of Americans believe the boob tube bias,correction,B.S.. They will spin and win as long as the masses sleep with their head in the hole. The "hole" is sensationalism,one sided sin spins. The frustrating thing is, just when I think the sleeping giant is waking up, he just rolls over and slips back to sleep. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Bring your fighters home. If we spend the money "here" on home security, instead of "there", on a lost cause, they won't,"follow us home". Let the "fat cat throne sitters" that want us to do their fighting and protecting, work their own soil(Saudi's) Then spent the other "not needed for war" money on beating our "Oil Habit". I wonder what technology would come if we spent the war money on research instead of the war? Oh,thats right,no money in that,is there?
By the way, the president who initiated the most comprehensive media conglomeration ever was Clinton, when he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Both parties are responsible for media consolidation- and yes that is perhaps our biggest problem. A free press is the hallmark of a democracy.
Clinton's legacy is looking more reactionary every day; I knew he was a disappointment then, but jeez! The DLCers and Wall St. Repubs are too close - arms of the corpo(to)cracy? / chamber of filthy lucre?
How right you are," VPjimlong"!
The honest, forthright generals have long since been purged by the Bush Administration. Anyone and everyone (and not just in the military-all through the exec.branch)who attempted to give fair and truthful assessments were forced to resign . So how can anyone believe that this guy who survived such blatant political bloodletting is anything but a self-interested political-general ?
General Shinseki: a general of integrity.
General Petraeus: not so much.
Arianna, I beg your permission to disagree with one thing you said.
In your hypothetical example of crime rates, you stated "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."
You gotta be kiddin' babe. That's where the biggest crime of the century took/takes place!
What a fine thread...
Some real oustanding comments.
And Arianna's essay/post was excellent.
This is for George Bush to ponder. If God intended for us to control Iraq's oil, we would have won this war a long time ago. President Bush have the humility to stop fighting God's will and leave Iraq now.
According to the president God himself told him that he wanted George to command the invasion of Iraq. Boy, we really must've pissed-off God somehow.
Would everyone please stop calling this thing a "surge" and refer to it by its real name - ESCALATION - its a word, look it up. Just like we escalated in Vietnam and what did it get us? Over 58 thousand American dead and millions of Asians killed so American business can move manufacturing out of China and get even cheaper Vietnam labor. Regarding General Petraeus - so he's a general - look around Washington, generals are a dime a dozen. He may be a terrific guy but being a general means that he is just a politician in uniform - see Westmoreland and Colin Powell. If you really want to understand Gen. Petraeus, read the quote from his doctoral thesis in the Washington Post - in summary, we would have won the war in Vietnam IF the politians had let the military do what it wanted to do. Which is not only revisionist but flat wrong. We were a conventional army fighting irregulars who had the support of the mass of the people while the so-called government we allied ourselves with had the support of nobody.
This war is a disaster and the sooner we leave the better we will all be. Who among the neocons will cry over the last American killed in this war?
General Petraeus' job is to help America 'win' in Iraq. Therein lies the problem. Winning means we establish one more foothold in a foreign country, surrounded by enemies, one more target for hatred, and one more grab for another country's resources. And another huge financial commitment for Americans to pay for years and years to come, with the corporate interests being the only true beneficiaries. From my point of view, 'losing' is the only honorable and practical option for America. And the sooner the better.
I admire Ms. Huffington and the contribution she has made to journalism, both in her comments here in this essay and in creating this Web site. However, I do wish she would not behave like "those other journalists" by taking the so-easy path in quoting only candidates Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. What about Richardson? What about Gravel? What about Kucinich and Paul? Every time NPR or Huffingtonpost takes this lazy journalism path, it adds to the inexorable and unnececessary anointing of front runners who do not, on their own merits, deserve it. It merely feeds the "money matters more than ideas" kind of democracy we have inherited.
"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."
There are those who think it is.
After all, it did come from a burning Bush.
Senator Lautenberg has a petition to stop the bush propaganda and bring the troups home.  Click here to read what Senator Lautenberg has to say about the War and sign the petition he's sending to the White House:
http://www.democratsenators.org/o/19/t/70/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=71
Would someone please clarify on the report given today of all days in our nation.Maybe I am a bit confused but if I remember correctly Bush said we needed to give the Iraqi leaders some time to form the political organization to unify Iraq's different sectors and rthnic differences.This begs the question I am about to pose.
Why is it the Petraeus report?I thought the purpose of the surge was so we would get the
NOURI MALIKI REPORT on political progress in Iraq?
To send this man to run defense against the lies of Bush is a shame but he is a good soldier just like Oliver North was for Reagan's lies about Iran /Contra.
This is theater of the lowest form using this emotional day in our nation sending an honorable messenger to deliver a dishonorable message for a failed leader of his nation that completely disregards the faliures of another dismal failure of a leader in Iraq.
OK, the Democrats seem to be getting the message we are sick of the occupation. Now, what are the chances that will translate into any kind of political courage on their part and cut funding for the occupation? I'd give that even odds with Larry Craig becoming President.
General Betrayus and any politician who still believes things are improving in Iraq should be compelled to move to Baghdad, rent a little apartment and live there without any security guards or military protection.
Let them stroll to the market, sweep their sidewalks and hang out with their neighbors.
With only a few hours a day of electricity, the air conditioning might be sparse, but at least they'll be safe enough not to need sweaty flak jackets or body armor in all that heat.
If it gets too hot, let them drive around in an air conditioned American car. I'm sure that would be safe because they said things are not so bad there.
Why is it so difficult for members of the media, including dear Arianna, to use the L word: liar. Bush is a liar, Petaeus is a liar, just about everyone in the media is a liar.
Why is it so hard to say the unvarnished truth? Bush lies, Petraeus lies, Washington journalists lie.
Why must we always dance around the issue? Instead of saying that they "deny the truth," why not a headline that is more to the point: George W. Bush is a liar and so is his military buddy, Petraeus.
Mikeeattle
You haven't read much of Ms Huffington if you think she would not use the L word. This lady don't fear none of those scum-bags
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
