Lieberman Attacks Democrats For Criticizing Maliki -- On Same Day That Report From U.S. Intelligence Services Criticizes Maliki
(August 23, 2007 -- 1:33 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, it's admittedly not hard to have fun at Joe Lieberman's expense, but this one's too good to pass up.

This morning Lieberman and his chief flack Marshall Wittmann put out a press release containing Lieberman's usual attacks on Democrats over Iraq. The duo faulted "Congressional critics" of Iraq's Maliki government and slammed Dems who have criticized Maliki as basically helping our "enemies."

But in a case of comically awful timing, Lieberman and Wittmann's latest attack on Dems came just hours before the release of excerpts of a new National Intelligence Estimate from our intelligence services that...criticized the performance of the Maliki government in terms that are awfully similar to the things Democrats have been saying.

Needless to say, Lieberman and Wittmann have yet to put out a subsequent press release attacking the U.S. intelligence services that authored the NIE.

From Lieberman's press release, which Lieberman's office bills as a "response to recent Congressional attacks on the Iraqi government":

"Forced by facts on the ground to acknowledge the progress of the American and Iraqi militaries since the new surge strategy started, some of these opponents of the war are now turning their harshest criticism on our allies in Iraq instead of our enemies. This is a mistake....Political progress in Iraq depends on this kind of steady statecraft and patient diplomacy on the ground in Baghdad, rather than scapegoating and congressionally-ordered coups....

"We have made enormous progress in defending and advancing America's vital national interests in Iraq over the past six months against our two deadliest enemies in the world—-al Qaeda and Iran. Realism requires that we recognize these gains, not dismiss or disparage them--and that we distinguish between our allies in Iraq, and our enemies."

To Lieberman and Wittmann, Congressional Dems criticizing the failures of the Maliki government -- Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin, among many othersas well as many others -- are failing to distinguish our allies from our enemies in Iraq. To criticize the Maliki government is to fail to "recognize our gains" and to indulge in "skapegoating."

Now, a few hours later, excerpts of the new NIE on Iraq have leaked out. And wouldn't you know it, but the NIE -- which represents the collaborative judgment of the U.S.'s intelligence agencies -- offers a harsh assessment of the Maliki government and the situation in Iraq that is strikingly similar to the case being made by Dems.

The NIE says that despite uneven security gains, the dominant story in Iraq right now is the inability of the Maliki government to achieve political reconciliation -- again, precisely what Dem Congressional critics have been saying.

And in a final irony, the NIE assessment is actually closer in key ways to what Dems have been saying than Lieberman's claims are. Lieberman's release says we have made "enormous progress" in Iraq. But the NIE says that we have only had "measurable but uneven improvements" on the security front, and adds that "the level of overall violence remains high" and that Iraqi leaders are "unable to govern effectively" -- an overall view of things echoed by Dems in recent days.

When Lieberman and Wittmann send out their next release attacking our intelligence services for painting this dire picture of the state of play in Iraq, this blog will be the first to post it. Guaranteed.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Big News Orgs: "Petraeus Report...Petraeus Report...Petraeus Report"
(August 22, 2007 -- 3:45 PM EDT // link // )

Nope -- I'm not letting this one go. I just can't help myself -- sort of the way it's impossible to stop picking at a canker sore.

So come on, everyone, let's hop aboard the media's Petraeus Report Propaganda Choo-Choo!

There is simply nothing that can get the big news orgs to stop reporting that the September progress report on Iraq is being written by General Petraeus, even though we all know it's being written by the White House. Just sit back and marvel at all the wrongness -- and at how lazy, predictable, comprehensive and dispiriting it is:

The Washington Post, today:

Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region.

The Associated Press, today:

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, co-author of the highly anticipated report to Congress, also said Tuesday that Washington's blueprint for reconciliation was insufficient to win back control of Iraq. Congressional benchmarks such as laws to share oil revenue and reform security services don't tell the whole story, he said Tuesday. Crocker, who will present the report with military commander Gen. David Petraeus....

WaPo reporter Anne Kornblut, on MSNBC's Hardball, yesterday (via Nexis):

KORNBLUT: I think what`s interesting is it`s not just Senator Clinton. Obama said the same thing today. A number of Democrats actually agree. This is becoming one of their talking points, that there are aspects of the surge that are working. It is important for them to say this before September, when General Petraeus is going to come back with his report, which, by all accounts, will say some aspects of the surge are working.

NPR reporter, yesterday (via Nexis):

GONYEA: But the president rejected claims by war critics that the surge of U.S. troops currently underway isn't working. Saying General David Petraeus will issue his report on that to Congress next month.

The New York Times, August 20:

The heavily promoted Guardian program was presented weeks before General Petraeus is to issue a report on progress in Iraq, which will have to deal with the failure of the Iraqi police to keep peace in Baghdad.

The New York Times, August 19:

The heavily promoted Guardian program was presented weeks before General Petraeus is to issue a report on progress in Iraq, which will have to deal with the failure of the Iraqi police to keep peace in Baghdad.

Daily Telegraph, August 17th (via Nexis):

The report being drawn up by General David Petraeus, the current US commander, on the progress made so far on stabilising the security situation and the government's painful transition to becoming a functioning democracy will now need radical revision.

CNN, August 16th (via Nexis):

President Bush has frequently asked Congress -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his troop buildup, or "surge," in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker issue their progress report in September.

Fox News, August 16 (via Nexis):

WALLACE: Charles, let's talk about the Petraeus report, because we in Washington woke up this morning to a Washington Post front-page story that indicated that when the report from General Petraeus comes out in mid- September, that the people who are going to be testifying about it in public were going to be Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates, but not General Petraeus.

Commentator Pat Buchanan on MSNBC, August 14 (via Nexis):

BUCHANAN: With General David Petraeus due to submit his troop surge progress report in a matter of just a few weeks, confidence in the surge`s impact is growing.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

All the above, of course, come after it was widely reported that the report will not be written by Petraeus and Crocker, but by the White House, with "input" from the two men. And because this blog strives to be as fair-minded as possible, I only included examples that were unequivocally references to the imminent written report, as opposed to the testimony that Petraeus and Crocker will give to Congress. As a result, the above doesn't reflect the scores and scores, if not hundreds, of references to the "Petraeus report," which could conceivably have been references to the testimony but which in most cases almost certainly were references to the written report. So if anything, the above vastly understates the case.

This gives rise to a key point that's getting a bit lost. The media wouldn't be shouting "Petraeus report" in unison if the White House hadn't spent literally weeks hammering the phrase into the minds of reporters and the public at every conceivable opportunity. And now, even though it's widely known that this was a total sham designed to bolster the report's credibility in advance, reporters and editors just can't seem to get it out of their heads, even though such an exercise certainly wouldn't be all that challenging.

This is a really, really big deal. The White House and war supporters are shoving all their chips onto the written report. Indeed, the credibility the public accords this thing when it comes out could have significant influence over the direction and politics of the war debate this fall, and by extension over the direction of the war itself. And every time the media repeats the Gospel According To Petraeus sham, it's helping the White House obscure the fact that this report will actually be written by the same crew who've been lying to us about the war all along.

New York Times Still Falsely Describing September Assessment As "Petraeus-Crocker Report"
(August 21, 2007 -- 1:43 PM EDT // link // )

A couple months ago, the New York Times's public editor, Clark Hoyt, published a laudable piece criticizing the paper's reporters and editors for being overly gullible in reproducing the White House spin that the primary enemy in Iraq was Al Qaeda. The paper dialed back its use of that characterization and subsequently published a follow-up piece directly refuting the White House's line. Good stuff.

But now the paper seems like it's heading down a similar path to "journamalism country" on another front: The question of how to accurately describe the September Iraq assessment that the White House will present to the American people next month.

As you know, the White House has for weeks tried to persuade the American people that the report will represent the Gospel According To Petraeus. This was shown to be a sham when the Los Angeles Times reported last week that the report will in fact be written by the White House, with "input" from Petraeus and Crocker. This was also basically confirmed by The Washington Post, and indeed hasn't been denied by the Bush administration.

Nonetheless, in a very bizarre turn of events, The New York Times has repeatedly -- and falsely -- described the forthcoming report as representing the sole word of Petraeus, or that of Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in the days since we learned that it will represent the last word of the White House.

The New York Times yesterday:

The heavily promoted Guardian program was presented weeks before General Petraeus is to issue a report on progress in Iraq, which will have to deal with the failure of the Iraqi police to keep peace in Baghdad.

The Times, today:

Mr. Levin and Mr. Warner are among their respective parties’ most esteemed legislators on national security issues. Their committee will be among those hearing directly from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker when the two men deliver their report measuring military and political progress in Iraq next month.

The Times, also today:

The new N.I.E. should play a significant role in the upcoming Congressional debate about the course of the Iraq war, as it is likely to be used by both sides as a more independent assessment of the security situation than the Petraeus-Crocker report.

Just to restate Atrios' framing of the situation, "a major test of our media right now is whether this bait and switch enters the basic narrative or not." Sure seems like The Times is failing this test pretty miserably right about now.

In response to this, Times editors would probably point to the fact that two things are happening in September: Petraeus and Crocker are giving input to the White House to help it produce its report; and Petraeus and Crocker are also testifying to Congress about the situation in Iraq. The Times editors might try to argue that when they use the term "report," they are referring to Petraeus' and Crocker's appearances before Congress.

But here's the thing: In this situation, more clarity is required, not less clarity. The scheduled appearances before Congress are known as "testimony." The written report to be produced by the White House is known as a "report." Yet The Times claimed yesterday that Petraeus and Crocker are going to "issue a report." This appears to be, you know, false.

This is no small thing, by the way. The White House and supporters of the war are pushing all their chips onto this written report in particular, since its message can be largely controlled. Hence their carefully orchestrated effort to build credibility for it in advance by describing it endlessly as the "Petraeus report."

And yet, in addition to repeatedly describing the forthcoming report in the administration's false terms, The Times -- unlike the LA Times and WaPo -- hasn't even made a serious effort to inform its readers as to who's writing this thing, as best as I can determine. How about showing some more precision on this? Readers really, really, really need to understand what the hell's going on here. And they're gonna need that even more in September. But if this kind of reporting continues, you can bet that they'll find themselves helplessly swamped by the coming avalanche of White House spin.

Big News Orgs Who Gushed Over O'Hanlon Ignore Skeptical Op-Ed By U.S. Troops
(August 20, 2007 -- 1:13 PM EDT // link // )

Just stunning.

By now you've all almost certainly read yesterday's riveting New York Times Op-ed piece by U.S. troops in Iraq arguing that the belief that the American occupation can win this counterinsurgency is "far fetched."

By any reasonable standard, this should have been big news. A group of soldiers with a first-hand view of the situation stepped forward and publicly proclaimed not just that the prospects for success are "far fetched," but also that the press has been basically misinforming the American people about the situation there. As the soldiers wrote, they are "skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable."

You'd think that the people at the big news orgs who decide whether things are news or not -- the same people who lavished tons of coverage on Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack's Op ed -- would read this and say, "Hey, here is an alternative point of view being voiced by some of the troops themselves, and they say we're giving people the wrong impression about what's really happening there. Our readers and viewers deserve to know about this. Therefore, it is news, and we will cover it."

Right?

Nope -- of course not.

Rather, this Op-ed has been met with near-total silence. TPM intern Benjy Sarlin and I did an exhaustive hunt for coverage of this by the big news orgs. We only found one mention: CBS' Bob Scheiffer brought it up in passing in an interview with John McCain yesterday. The only other news-org mentions came in Editor and Publisher, on MSNBC's First Read blog, and on Time's Swampland blog, where Joe Klein noted that the piece was important and "courageous."

Indeed it is -- so where is everybody, then? According to Nexis and Google news, there was nothing about this on CNN or any of the other networks besides CBS, no AP story, no Reuters piece, nothing in any of the major papers. (If we missed anything, let us know at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com.) This is really staggering, particularly when you consider that this story has intense drama, too -- one of the authors, the piece says, was "shot in the head" during preparation of the article and is being flown to a military hospital in the U.S.

How the heck is this not newsworthy?

At first glance one is tempted to compare this blackout to the extensive coverage O'Hanlon and Pollack got for their Op ed, as I did above. But I've got a better thing to compare it to -- the media coverage that ensued the last time we heard from some of the troops in a similarly high-profile way.

Last December, newly-minted Defense Secretary Robert Gates held a photo-op sit-down with a bunch of soldiers to hear what they had to say about the proposed "surge." Mysteriously, every one of the soldiers picked for the highly-stage-managed event supported it. Here's a partial list of news organizations and shows that covered this at the time:

The New York Times

The Washington Post

Reuters

NBC's Today Show

CNN's The Situation Room (Wolf Blitzer)

Associated Press

ABC News

CNN Newsroom

CBS Morning News

Fox Special Report with Brit Hume

Now we hear from some of the troops again, and this time, what they said was genuinely counterintuitive and was decidedly not stage-managed by the administration. Yet no one at the big news orgs appeared to even blink.

Why is this? Digby accurately predicted yesterday that this would get little to no coverage, because Dems "don't seem to have any kind of apparatus" to "catapult the propaganda," so to speak. Of course, as Digby suggests, Dems themselves might consider doing some catapulting themselves right about now. Has any high-profile Dem issued a statement on this or pushed it in some other way? After all, every Republican from Dick Cheney on down waved the O'Hanlon-Pollack piece at every conceivable opportunity. Dems can do this kind of thing too, one imagines.

Nonetheless, even without the Dems pushing it, you'd think this would be seen by the big news orgs as an important story. Even if the administration didn't tell them that it was.

Update: Readers report that the soldiers' Op-ed got a bit of coverage on cable late Monday night. I'd still be interested to see this reported as actual news by the wire services and by the country's major papers.

Update II: More from Steve Benen, who makes the important point that virtually the only attention the Op-ed has received since this post went up has been negative attention.