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
Morning Joe had a phone interview with Andy Card the other morning and threw him a "softball question;" knowing what we know today, do you think Iraq was the right decision? Joe knows, that the press is being most disingenuous when continuing to pose that question. The question should be, " Andy, had bush sent-in 1000 more WMD inspectors into Iraq in early 2003 before the invasion, they would have found-out what we found out afterward, that there were no WMD's and that Saddam was indeed, in a very weak state. Once that information was revealed, we no doubt could have assembled a real honest to goodness global coalition charged with bringing Saddam to justice. It's not at all inconceivable that regime change in Iraq could have followed without dropping a single bomb or anyone dying to include several thousand US soldiers; with that Andy, do you still think bush and Cheney made the right decision to invade Iraq? Joe should try to be more upfront with his guests and your viewers towards creating a more meaningful dialogue on the issues of the day; or his show title should be renamed "Softball with Joe Scarborough?"
"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."
Unfortunately, the problem for us is that the White House, General Petraeus and the 'go-along members' of the press don't care about what the majority of Americans think.
Add to that, there is no sense of urgency to get this fixed and the current administration - the whole lot of them - impeached before GWB gets us entangled with Iran, too.
Unless and Until someone with some credibility with the remaining "Bush Support System" - perhaps the likes of Colin Powell? - comes out with damning evidence of lies & deceit, we're stuck. Because, we can't rely on the Dems to find a "slogan" to make their impact.
This is no different than when Bush sent Collin Powell to the UN when they both knew that Powell's presentation on WMDs in Iraq was full of unfounded conclusions and outright lies.
Bush has been using other men's reputations to try to fool the public on Iraq for 5 years now. The only question is, why do they do it for him?
Truth means what the public (if not certain reporters) know it means, which is reality
"We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," said Hillary Clinton.
yes, but who started the war that started their civil war?
it is so telling that the woman who voted for the war in the first place now she wants to wash her hands and move on
but there is blood on these hands
iraqi and american blood that is
The MSM has forgotten what the "truth" is. They have allowed themselves to be swallowed up by Rovian logic, where nothing is black and white, only varying shades of gray, and no one can claim to be the moral arbiter for mankind.
It only emphasises how genuinely shallow the glamor hounds of the MSM have become. We used to be able to count on someone, anyone, to have the courage to come forth and tell it like it is. Not anymore. We wouldn't want to offend anyone. That might turn them off to buying the sponsors' products.
Makes me want to puke.
After reading the post by Ms. Huffington and truly knowing what I believe doesn't amount to a row of beans this is what I believe. I think if the press had the nerve we would not be in the awful situation we are in today. The only way in my oponion things can get better is how the results of the 08 elections turn out.If we can get a Democratic President and both houses of Congress the world will be a lot better off. More soldiers will pay the ultimate price and many more disabled for life and that is sad.If bush and cheney don't care there is not much we can do about it.I have said it before but if our military and their families got paid what they deserve and their families were taken care of like they deserve to there would not be such bull-shit as invading Iraq
"I guess we just can't know anything, can we?"
I do so love your one liners, Arianna.
The laughs are so few and far between in the multitude of catastrophes on the rampage. My children are going to inherit the burning empire, unfortunately. That's not funny.
The nut cases are running the show with ham handed fists and the MSM lets us know that the Republicans say phalanges should be served on white, but the Democrats say wheat is best.
Even my relatives in Nebraska are sick of it and they want to skip the "bad" news as a rule.
If Katie Couric's pap is bothering them, things are unwinding in a big way.
The press in some quarters has collapsed into a heap of radical relativistic pluralism, which it might consider postmodern-ly fair and truer to all p.o.v.s, but it has really just collapsed back into darkness. The news might just as well be being delivered by the advertising and spot sales departments (at tv stations).
Betrayus is on Faux news with his graphs, nothing more needs to be said about his integrity.
When did the conglomerates of all three multi media owners VOTE TO ACCEPT the bombing of the Golden Mosque as the only cause for Sunnis siding with Al Qaeda in their midst, and caused IED attacks against American forces as exceptable?
I'm certain no recruitment of out of work young Iraqi men to become suicide bombers was caused by abu ghraib.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/16/wtort16.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/15/abughraib1_wideweb__470x306,0.jpg
What if...., there's no al-queda, and no terrorist threat. What if it's all a hoax. What if 9-11 was an inside job. After all Marvin Bush (the president's brother) was in charge of security at the wtc and united airlines.The WTC kept having these outages and evacuated the buildings several times prior to 9-11. That could have given them the opportunity to send in a team of experts to prepare the buildings for demolition. What if...., That B-52 bomber loaded with nuclear missles that recently landed at Barksdale afb in Louisiana dropped one in the Nevada Desert to be recovered later with no one knowing for another 9-11 surprise? Isn't it interesting that the timing of that lost pilot just happened to be in the same flight path that the B-52 flew to get to Barksdale afb. I wonder of he is really missing? It's also interesting to have the military looking for a civilian pilot in a small aircraft? The timing is very suspect. Coincidence? At the same time the federal reserve is hemmoraging $$ like crazy? If the economy is going south and creating a lot of losers.., who are the winners? If we're not planning to stay in Iraq, then why are we building so many Air Force Bases in Iraq? If wtc7 was not hit by an airplane and only had small fires why did it fall in it's own footprint at the speed of freefall gravity? And Why did Silvertein ( the owner of the building) say that they decided to "pull it" (the building) and collected mucho,mucho mullah? Why didn't the 9-11 commission even mention the 42 story building? Finally why haven't any of the members of Congress asked any of these questions? Just curious. Aren't you?
The truth often gets strangled by the MSM - Main Stream Muggers.
Additional clarification -- Sorry, forgot to include the source of a quote in a previous posting:
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and these are the ones you want to concentrate on" -- George W. Bush -- (spoken at a Washington Dinner, March 2001)
Continued from previous posting...
There will likely be much anger in this country on behalf of those who are allowing themselves to be duped today. The leadership of this country, in order to survive, will need to redirect that anger toward selected scapegoats.
Under such a scenario, there will be very few options remaining for this country, two of which are: 1) print enormous quantities of money to pay off debts (ala Germany in 1924) and 2) use our remaining military might (including nuclear) to steal the resources of those countries to delay the inevitable Fall of the American Empire (see Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s).
Want a sneak preview with regard to Option #2? Take another look at the dress rehearsal in Iraq.
Those who choose to believe the MSM and don't bother to do any of their own research would do well to consider the following quotes:
“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” — Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and these are the ones you want to concentrate on" -- (spoken at a Washington Dinner, March 2001)
"Those who do not take an interest in public affairs are doomed to be ruled by evil men" - Plato - 300 B.C.
Roosevelt is DEAD! His policies may live on, but we’re in the process of doing something about that as well! – Rush Limbaugh
When will the lapdog MSM press finally tell us the truth?
The strategy of Chimpy, Deadeye Dick and Co. is obvious -- to drag the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as long as possible, adding Iran for good measure. If they choose to leave office in January, 2009 (of course, this is purely optional, since the powers that the Executive Branch have grabbed have completely neutralized a supine Congress and a subservient Judiciary), they can claim that "we were winning" when they left office and can dump nearly insurmountable problems into the laps of their unwitting successors.
Their goal of overturning the last of the reforms ushered in by the New Deal should also be within reach by then, returning us to the Herbert Hoover era. Isn't that what we want --to return to a time when two of the most common causes of death for the elderly in this country were hypothermia and starvation?
In a few short years, the gargantuan Baby Boomer class will reach their long-awaited retirement years, only to discover that the funds for their social security and medicare benefits have been spent to pay for the so-called "War on Terror", with the remainder needed to finance further tax cuts for the wealthy, cover the interest on the national debt, and begin to repair the nation's infrastructure at a cost which would dwarf the price we would need to pay today.
Think the next generation will be able to help? Nearly every middle class job that pays a decent wage will have been sent overseas, given to immigrants who are willing to work for far less (living ten to a two bedroom apartment, sending most of their meager earnings to loved ones in their home country) and the ability to organize to negotiate pay and benefits will be but a distant memory, conveniently erased from the history books.
To be continued...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
