Hate To Crow …
But I’d like to point out that not only was I right and the AP and NYT wrong about Bush caving to Congress on Iraq, but AP sucks. Haven’t checked NYT yet, will get around to that. I can only assume NYT sucks, too, as that is what it has tended to do on this matter. Re AP suckage:
(Readers will kindly count how many paragraphs in the following article about Bush’s veto threat one must plow through before the president of the United States, who made a major speech about his war policy yesterday, actually gets to say anything)
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush threatened to veto legislation setting a date for a troop withdrawal from Iraq despite growing bipartisan calls in Congress for an end to U.S. participation in the war and sharp criticism of the Iraqi government.
As the Senate on Tuesday opened a new debate on the conflict, one of the president’s staunchest supporters bluntly said the administration had pursued the wrong policy for years after toppling Saddam Hussein. “The strategy we had before was not the right strategy,” said Republican Sen. Christopher Bond. “We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy.”
Asked later who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, “Ultimately, obviously, the president.”
Democrats said Bush’s newest strategy was hardly a success, either.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that since Bush ordered thousands more troops to Iraq last winter, “we’ve lost more than 600 troops, costing the American taxpayers more than $60 billion (€43.9 billion). The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It’s done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq.”
Two Democrats, Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, back legislation to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by the end of April 2008.
A vote is expected next week, and Reid said nearly all Democrats support the proposal. Republican Sen. Gordon Smith is a supporter, as well, and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe told reporters she may switch her position and vote for it, too.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call for a vote on a similar measure by week’s end.
The Senate proposal appears to be short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Bush’s veto threat applied to any legislation that sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal “without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders.”
I count eight graphs to a Bush quote fragment. First, AP considers it important to have a GOP senator point out past mistakes, without noting that what Bush is doing now is exactly what the senator says he should have been doing. Democrats, after a snide transition, are invited to pile on about what Bush is now doing, without meaningful discussion of what that is or any opportunity for rebuttal provided.
There is then some discussion of the measures Democrats intend to bash Bush with, and how one Republican has come over to their side and another is toying with the idea. Still no pithiness from the president of the United States, though after Pelosi is allowed her whack, we finally learn everyone, not least the AP, is wasting our time because before we ever get to Bush’s veto, the GOP has the votes to filibuster. That, by the way, also means Bush has the votes to uphold his veto.
All of which means, so far, the Democratic-controlled Congress is not only wasting everyone’s time, but again undermining U.S. troops in the field and aiding the enemy with pointless gestures, while the AP distorts the picture through skewed presentation.
OK, what did Bush say? Graph 10 has a complete sentence:
“Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure,” he said in a written statement that employed terms similar to those he used earlier in the year when he vetoed legislation that set a target date for a withdrawal.
Break for more wavering in Graph 11:
In a further sign of eroding Republican support, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, called for troops to come home next year.
We’ll skip to Graph 14 for a hint that maybe the Democrats are not only wasting everyone’s time with withdrawal measures they can’t pass, but are misrepresenting the situation in Iraq:
Despite a steady procession of Republicans calling for a change in course, several lawmakers warned against a precipitous withdrawal.
“I believe that our military in cooperation with our Iraqi security forces are making progress in a number of areas,” said Sen. John McCain …
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who accompanied McCain to Iraq, also cited progress since Gen. David Petraeus took command several months ago and the additional troops began arriving.
The Iraqis are “rejecting al-Qaida at every turn. I don’t want the Congress to be the cavalry for al-Qaida,” he said.
Bush gets to say something in Graph 20:
… troop strength “will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C.”
He added, “I call upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward.”
A major step forward follows. AP puts in exactly one line, no details, about the idea that precipitous withdrawal may have consequences. We don’t see the AP do that very often. Unlike NYT, which has embraced genocide as a preferrable alternative to a counterinsurgency strategy that is showing significant results, the AP is not yet comfortable discussing this issue in any length:
McCain, Graham, Bond and others took turns on the Senate floor to warn of grave consequences if Democrats get their wish for a quick troop withdrawal.
That was graph 27, and that was it for you know what. Where and how do you think the “grave consequences” would play if “grave consequences” were a matter of concern for the AP? As opposed to a political defeat for George Bush, which is a matter greatly anticipated by AP. Three graphs of rearview mirror Bush-bashing follow, but no room for a glance ahead at “grave consequences,” whatever they may be.
For that matter, where and how do you think the AP would play the decision by Congress to ignore Petraeus and turn September into July (Graph 22) if it was George Bush doing it?
The money quote, delivered as an excuse and presented as a snidely triumphant, blame-ascribing closer, in fact holds the ultimate truth that the AP and the Democratic Congress don’t seem to have figured out yet.
Asked, in retrospect, how long the House and Senate should have permitted an inadequate strategy to continue, Bond replied, “Congress was not running the war.”
Nor is it now. But this article is not about that. It is about George Bush’s failure to accede to AP’s view that Congress should be.
To review. Yesterday’s lesson was how a leading national newspaper can ignore and dismiss an issue while pretending to address it in a front-page, above-the-fold article, dispatching four reporters to do half a reporter’s job. Today, we have seen how the world’s leading news agency can suggest momentum toward victory for a measure it acknowledges is headed for failure, while touting failure for a strategy that is showing signs of success, in an article that purports to be about the president but isn’t.
Ace counsels GOP jihad.
UPDATES:
Lazy, Stupid of Willfully Ignorant?
Welcome Punditeers, etal. Come on in! We’re serving up crow today, and a judge who sued me may have to eat some. Unpleasant business. I’d rather think about women in uniform. Totty and Nelson. Huh? We know that the ladies swooned for Nelson and Washington. But where do they rate as leaders of men in battle? Alexander, Caesar, Sulaiman, Richard, William the Bastard, Wellington and Bonaparte. Weigh in here.
Topics: Iraq, media, military, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:43 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2007
16 Responses to “Hate To Crow …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Rock on, Mr. Crittenden, but saying the AP sucks is like saying fish swim.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Nothing would make me happier than to see the Republicans filibuster the FY2008 Defense bill for the rest of the 110th Congress.
Bring it on!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Excellent analysis, Jules. The Dhimmicrats continue their policy of withdrawal and submission under the guise of “Support The Troops!” And the AP supports the Dhimmicrats in that process.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Thanks Jules. You are the source.
The dem cong defeat coalition has launched their “strangle the surge in the crib” campaign because it is showing signs of success. We are the “strong horse now”. The Iraqi people know it, al Qaeda knows it. Iran knows it. That’s why they just brought new charges against the Americans their holding. When you have a bad hand, up the ante.
The members of the media and entire organizations who have staked their reputation on it failing have thrown their weight behind this as well. HIllary has consulted all the consultants to see which way the wind is blowing and has picked her course–cut Bush’s achilles tendon. Bill even says it’s time to go for the kill and revoke the president’s war making powers. Even if she fails she appears like she made an effort to her far left crowd. That’s all that matters to her– appear to support the troops and stymie Bush. Yeah.
From “senate chamber of shame” Tony Blankley.
Imagine the following fanciful discussion in April 1943:
FDR: “Ike, you’re going to have to get the Normandy Invasion completed by June this year.”
Ike: “But I need at least another year to assemble troops and materiel, establish logistics and strategy and train the men for the battle.”
FDR: “Sorry. Several senators are feeling very uncomfortable with the war. Frankly, they have just had it. And several of them are worried about their re-election.”
Ike: “My men are fighting and dying for yards in Italy right now — and even so, they can’t wait to take the war to Hitler next year in France. Tell those pantywaisted senators to unloosen their girdles, take an aspirin and go to bed — and leave the fighting to my men.”
FDR: “But we could lose the Senate.”
Ike:” Better to lose the Senate than the war.”
FDR: “I’m with you, Ike. You beat Hitler, and let me beat the Senate.”
Ike:” My men thank you, Mr. President.”
Of course, it is an absurdity to imagine such a conversation would have been possible during WWII. And it is a tragedy and disgrace that we are, in fact, having precisely such a conversation today.
But the worm will surely turn. And senators who today proudly call for retreat will then be hiding their faces in shame. And deservedly so. And the public will remember.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/the_senate_chamber_of_shame.html
July 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Web Reconnaissance for 07/11/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
‘…the public will remember.’
The sea change will be when the troops now in Iraq enter politics and the political debate in numbers. When the left makes it’s comparisons to Vietnam, there’s more to it than an attempt to equate Vietnam with the WOT. They honestly expect that the troops won’t see through the doublethink about support for the troops but not the mission and line up on their side. Isn’t going to be the case this time. The left promotes the meme that the troops are victims of jaded policy and incompetent management. Right out of the Vietnam era playbook and despite the disdain and disgust the troops have for how the left treats them and their mission. That’s going to be one angry and powerful force in the electorate in a few years.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Jules,
One of the reasons “A Gathering of Eagles” was able to assemble so many in march for a counter-protest was that we veterans remember well the lessons from Vietnam. This time, we older ones have the political backs of the troops, as best as we can these days.
What I have personally seen, these past 18-24 months, is a sea change of opinion regarding the left on the grass-roots level. Nowadays, even here in the People’s Republic of Maine, whenever protesters show up, there is a growing number of folks also showing up to counter them. It’s inrteresting to note how shrill the voices and letters of these leftists have become lately. They haven’t had to face this sort of opposition to their views and demonstrations before,and they are responding out of fear.
The Eagles, the Patriot Guard Riders, Rolling Thunder, etc, have all made it very clear to these folks that wherever they go, we’ll be there too. We have folks on their mailing lists, folks who attend their organizational meetings, folks who read their blogs, etc. This ain’t Vietnam. This time, the soldiers will be taken care of properly.
My words of advice to those on the left who think of this as Vietnam, who so want to punish so many for pure political greed: Beware the fury of the legions.
Respects,
July 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I suppose AP would defend this article by saying it provides “context.” When more than 90 per cent of journalists are politically left, this is tantamount to granting license to push the liberal agenda in the guise of news.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I have sent so many angry letters to the AP about their coverage that I’m sure they have a restraining order. My personal favorite was calling the murder of unarmed poll workers in Iraq “brazen”. Brazen refers to contemptuous boldness. So you see, in AP’s universe dragging unarmed men and women out of a car and shooting them was a bold act. And of course, AP’s stringer was brazenly standing nearby to take the pictures. What was the probability he would just happen to be there at that precise moment? I know that a meme has been set up to preemptively call anyone who dares question the nature of media coverage in Iraq a fascist in disguise. Yet nevertheless the AP’s performance has been repeatedly and depressingly revealing. So to has the knee-jerk behavior of the media’s defenders on this issue. Its one thing to oppose the war in Iraq. It is quite another for a media organization to essentially cheerlead for the enemy, especially one that acts in so barbaric a manner.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Excellent point Oldman Tyme.
The left and GOPutzes are going to have a real hard time getting traction on “after years of White House misjudgment and miscalculation, as our troops fight and die in the midst of an Iraqi civil war”, ‘American kids were sent into a leaderless, strategy-less meatgrinder’, and ‘it was Vietnam all over again’ considering the following:
Petreaus wrote his doctoral thesis on the ‘mistakes of the Vietnam War’.
So did one of his chief advisors Col. H.R. McMaster, Phd. Silver Star Desert Storm.
And then there’s Dr. David KilCullen, our esteemed Australian friend, with a Phd in political anthropology. Hell, I bet most dem cong have never heard of him or if they have have never taken the time to read a single explanation of his revolutionary counterinsurgency strategies and insights on current operations posted at smallwarsjournal. They do not care in the least.
The dem cong and weak kneed GOP who think Petreaus and his advisors are running another Vietnam are sorely mistaken. Every war is Vietnam to the left. I see fifty, sixty and seventy year old pickters near my house with illogical picket signs that imply there is a draft and similar sentiments. “Bush lied. People died” is a favorite. “Out of Iraq Now” as well. How about “Genocide Now!” That’s one I’d carry to start some honest debate.
Yes, a whole generation of highly elect-able veterans will be coming home and have a right to be deservedly angry. Not Jim Webb angry—standing next to the despicable Harry Reid and the like and proposing legislation that protects Iran as it kills our troops and moves aggressively against an entire region. Not pissed off because they were “sent to war”. They chose the military; they knew the risks and the rewards. They will be pissed off because the left and the MSM never bothered to understand this war as it is and gave aid and comfort to the enemy every chance they could.
The “Iraqi Civil War” quote at top is from Hillary and Byrd and shows an intentional disconnect from the current situation in Iraq. Who is causing the violence in Iraq Hillary? Iran and AQI. She is playing politics 24/7. That will not go unnoticed. American soldiers will come home with stories of how Iraqis chose us, the US as the strong horse but people like Hillary tried to paint it as a “civil war” for purely political reasons here at home.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
The state of things
But Iraq is on the table. It’s poisoned politics and the news media too.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden, too, for a candid, unvarnished assessment of MSM news coverage of late: …I’d like to point out that not only was I right and the [...]
July 11th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
ihasch, I came across that Haifa Street murder through the Belmont Club… where Wretchard analyzed the photos taken by the AP “stringer.”
I went ahead and sent letters to every person on the AP board of directors. No reply, of course. But in the process, I found that a very large number of those directors own strings of newspapers in the midwest and south - from which areas a large number of soldiers come from.
And did you know that the AP received a pulitzer for that series of photos of that murder? The ones that show that the photographer just ‘happened’ to be there at the time of the murders; the people (election workers) dragged OUT of their car and to the back bumper so that (!!) the “photographer” could have an unobstructed view of the killers shooting the men in their heads?
I remember that one of the AP board members came from Iowa, and another from Tennessee.
It is a terrible organization.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
4somewheresfuture,
All Petreaus, McMaster and Kilcullen have come up with for a “plan” is to start training and arming Sunni terrorists and call it a win.
We could have gotten the C.I.A. guys who created the Taliban for us to do the same thing in Iraq for $600 billion or so less than we’ve blown in Iraq so far.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Aphlagellum–
I choose my admittedly awkward name from a post where you ALPHIE dismissed an entire country outright for purely domestic political gain. I felt such contempt for your frivolous political ambitions and careless mockery of human life that I had to choose a name that took a stand. I soon realized you were not a serious person and with each day that becomes more apparent. My choice of names was made in haste but I’ve stuck with it.
As you try to make fun of my name I chose you only serve to make yourself look more stupid.
It’s 4 IRAQIS FUTURE. IRAQ is a country, a landmass defined by arbitrary borders. IRAQIS are a people, a mixed group of people who choose to stay together as a nation. Like America. That’s what this has always been about—people. You’ll never grasp that.
So when you say “4somewheresfuture” you repeat that same mocking contempt for human life that made me chose the name in the first place. You couldn’t care less about Iraq or the people there. You never did, not when Saddam was brutalizing the population for 24 years or now. Now it’s just a bludgeon to hit Bush and the GOP over the head with, that’s all.
You are a narcissist of the lowest order. The world doesn’t even exist to you outside of your pathetic spiteful little cocoon of leftist jihad democrat inauguration daydreams. Can you see the confetti and ballons, Alphie? GOP IED
Keep stewing in your own juices jihad boy.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
[...] Lindsey Graham is an ass, but you have to love this sound bite: I don’t want the Congress to be the cavalry for [...]