Aarrgghh! False New Media Meme Claims That War Critics Across The Board See Progress In Iraq
(August 9, 2007 -- 5:46 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, this is getting serious. The media carnival about alleged war critics Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack "suddenly" expressing optimism about the surge is now threatening to balloon into something much larger than those two, a meme much more grotesque and Frankenstein-like. Call it a Franken-meme.

The new Franken-meme goes like this: War critics in general -- not just the Dynamic Duo from Brookings -- are now "conceding" that real, honest-to-God military progress is being made in Iraq.

I'm not kidding. Take a look at this piece by the Associated Press, which claims in its headline:

Iraq critics concede military progress

"Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint," the piece tells us. But here's the funny thing, though: All the evidence offered in the article in support of this thesis -- with the possible exception of one very dubious piece of info -- is thoroughly bogus.

Let's get the easy one out of the way. With tedious and depressing predictability, the chief piece of evidence cited for the piece is -- yup -- the O'Hanlon and Pollack Op ed. You already know the drill on this one.

The second piece of evidence: "Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation."

But this prediction by Murtha simply isn't a concession of progress in any way. What Murtha has been saying is that commanders will be forced to draw down troops because the military's overstretched -- and as a result, there's less of a need for a fixed withdrawal timeline. Whether you agree with Murtha or not, this simply doesn't support the AP's thesis. Indeed, GOP House leader John Boehner recently attacked Murtha for not acknowledging progress in Iraq.

The only piece of evidence here that comes remotely close to supporting the AP's thesis is that Dem Senator Dick Durbin recently said that the troops were "making some measurable progress, but it's slow going" and that the troops were showing "some progress towards security."

But as Steve Benen argued the other day, even this isn't really an expression of confidence in any meaningful broader sense. As Benen says, Durbin is pointing to isolated pockets of progress that don't add up to progress on the broader mission in any way. But even if you count Durbin's tepid confidence in isolated bits of progress, that's only one person -- the other scattered voices in the piece aren't even described as war critics.

The AP isn't the only big news org that's playing this phony game, by the way. Today's Washington Post ran a piece on Anthony Cordesman's report demonstrating real pessimism about our prospects for success in Iraq. The piece strongly stressed Cordesman's view that we could conceivably succeed in Iraq if this, that or the other fluke took place -- without noting that Cordesman himself said he differed with O'Hanlon and Pollack's assessments of the situation in Iraq. Just a stunning omission. Even better, WaPo described Cordesman's "optimism about the war" -- even though he wrote: "From my perspective, the U.S. now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq." That strike you as optimistic?

Anyway, ladies and gents, you're watching a new and very ugly media Franken-meme grow before your very eyes. You've been warned...

Update: Think Progress advances the story, publishing this video of Cordesman saying that the surge is failing. Does this man sound optimistic to you, as WaPo described him today?

And Atrios says: "Sometimes it's enough to make one a conspiracy theorist." This really gets at exactly what's so damn dispiriting about this.

Fox News' Neil Cavuto: Please Come Back, Dems! Please! We Need You!
(August 9, 2007 -- 11:58 AM EDT // link // )

This video, in which Fox News' Neil Cavuto practically pleads with top Democrats to stop shunning the network, tells you all you need to know about why the Dems' boycott of the network is paying off:

Best Cavuto quote: "Our offer still stands for any of them to come on this show at any time." This is very good -- a simple and elegant way for Dems to keep grinding the network's nearly nonexistent credibility deeper and deeper into the dirt. Just keep saying, "Nope, sorry, not coming on. You're a propaganda organ. End of story." Is there any doubt from Cavuto's plea that Fox realizes just how damaging this Dem boycott could prove in the long term?

Also priceless: The only Dem Fox could get to come on was...Gary Hart.

That the leading Dem candidates declined Fox's invite gives me an excuse to make one of my pet points yet again: It really is remarkable how it's now de rigeur for the Dem candidates to push back very aggressively against right-wing and even mainstream media figures, on behalf of themselves and others, in order to appeal to the Netroots and Dem primary voters in general.

From Elizabeth Edwards' attacks on Ann Coulter to Chris Dodd flaying Bill O'Reilly in his own studio, this sort of pushback has now become an indispensable tool in the political arsenal of Democratic Presidential candidates. In essence, certain aspects of the media critique pushed for so many years in the lib blogosphere have very clearly now gone mainstream in Democratic politics. Without getting too Pollyannaish, this is a very good development -- it amplifies the critique considerably, conceivably helping to force the mainstream dudes to tune into it a bit more.

Best of all, it's making the Neil Cavutos of the world whimper and grovel. Let's hope Dems don't let up any time soon.

Media Outlets That Went Nuts Over O'Hanlon Ignoring Cordesman's Pessimism About Iraq
(August 8, 2007 -- 1:53 PM EDT // link // )

Here is a list of the big news orgs and network shows -- compiled from here, here, and here -- that lavished coverage on Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack over their now-infamous Op-ed saying that we just might win the war in Iraq:

Pollack:

CBS Evening News

CNN Newsroom

CNN Evening News

CNN Situation Room

MSNBC Tucker

NPR Talk of the Nation

O’Hanlon:

CBS Early Show

CBS Evening News

Fox News Special Report

MSNBC Hardball

O'Hanlon and Pollack:

Fox News Sunday

As noted here yesterday, national security analyst Anthony Cordesman went to Iraq with O'Hanlon and Pollack, and reached a strikingly different conclusion. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, where Cordesman works, just told me that they sent out a release about this yesterday morning.

Over 24 hours later, here's a list of the media outlets that have covered it, according to a Google news and Nexis search:

CNN

Agence France Press

UPI

Yep -- one major network.

Really, it's worth stepping back and pondering just how unprofessional and dysfunctional the media's performance has been on this story to date. It starts with The Times's editors, who actually allowed these two to con the paper's readers into forgetting their unflagging support for the invasion and the surge, letting them get away with describing themselves only as war critics. That embarrassing flub then colored virtually all the coverage that followed. Because of it, the big news orgs persuaded themselves that there was something counterintuitive about their conclusion -- and proceeded to report, in one outlet after another, that these war "critics" had suddenly found reason to be hopeful.

Now we have a story that's genuinely counterintuitive -- that is, that a companion of the two went along and reached very different, and far more pessimistic, conclusions about the prospects for success in Iraq. Not only is this counterintuitive, but there's also conflict here, too -- Cordesman flags his disagreement with his esteemed colleagues in the first paragraph of his synopsis. This also puts Cordesman at odds with the White House, which relentlessly flacked O'Hanlon and Pollack's findings. And the media response to Cordesman thus far? Virtual silence.

I'm told that some reporters have inquired about the report, so things may change; I really hope they do. As of now, however, the silence that has greeted Cordesman's far more detailed report -- from the same news orgs that gave exceptionally generous, and outright misleading, coverage to O'Hanlon and Pollack's optimism about Iraq -- stands as a sad, though perhaps fittingly pathetic, postscript to this whole affair.

Update: Check out this comprehensive comparison of the assessment of Cordesman versus that of O'Hanlon and Pollack.

Iraq Travel Companion Of O'Hanlon, Pollack Reveals: I'm Much More Pessimistic About Iraq
(August 7, 2007 -- 5:48 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, this is interesting. It turns out Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, went to Iraq with Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. That is, Cordesman -- according to CNN, which just reported this moments ago -- went on the same trip that led those two to write their now-infamous Op-ed saying we just might win the Iraq War.

Cordesman, however, has now revealed that he differs with his esteemed colleagues. And he's now released a report on his views of the trip and what's going on in Iraq. Here is his synopsis in full:

The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq: A Trip Report

Everyone sees Iraq differently. As one leading US official in Iraq put it, “the current situation is like playing three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you.” It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country.

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence. It is Iraqis that will shape Iraq's ability or inability to rise above its current sectarian and ethnic conflicts, to redefine Iraq's politics and methods of governance, establish some level of stability and security, and move towards a path of economic recovery and development. So far, Iraq’s national government has failed to act at the rate necessary to move the country forward or give American military action political meaning.

The attached trip report does, however, show there is still a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq, and for timing reductions in US forces and aid to Iraqi progress rather than arbitrary dates and uncertain benchmarks. It recognizes that strategic patience is a high risk strategy, but it also describes positive trends in the fighting, and hints of future political progress.

These trends are uncertain, and must be considered in the context of a long list of serious political, military, and economic risks that are described in detail. The report also discusses major delays and problems in the original surge strategy. The new US approach to counterinsurgency warfare is making a difference, but it still seems likely from a visit to the scene that the original strategy President Bush announced in January would have failed if it had not been for the Sunni tribal awakening.

Luck, however, is not something that can be ignored, and there is a window of opportunity that could significantly improve the chances of US success in Iraq if the Iraqi government acts upon it. The US also now has a country team in Iraq that is far more capable than in the past, and which may be able to develop and implement the kind of cohesive plans for US action in Iraq that have been weak or lacking to date. If that team can come forward with solid plans for an integrated approach to a sustained US effort to deal with Iraq’s plans and risks, there would be a far stronger and more bipartisan case for strategic patience.

Yes, Cordesman does hold out the faint possibility of success, and says there's been some progress, so the readings aren't directly contradictory. But Cordesman himself says he's reached a different conclusion and describes his own case for "strategic patience" as "tenuous."

And while Pollack and O'Hanlon wrote that the current strategy has the "potential" to produce "a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with," Cordesman says that the current strategy is failing and that our only hope is if the current team in Iraq can come up with "the kind of cohesive plans" that "have been weak or lacking to date." In other words, he says, his trip to Iraq convinced him that the current strategy basically can't get us there -- which is strikingly at odds with what O'Hanlon and Pollack concluded.

So here's the question, then. Will Cordesman's conclusions get anywhere near the same level of media attention that the big news orgs lavished on O'Hanlon and Pollack?

Late Update: Yes, the site's back -- more on that tomorrow...